Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 06 March, 2012

Civic Chambers

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo


 

Public Question & Statement Time

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Deputations

 

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

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

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

 

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


Recording of Council Meetings Policy

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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


 

 

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

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 6 March, 2012 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

1 March, 2012

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-03/12     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 7 February 2012  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

PT01-02/12      Requesting Installation of Speed Calming Devices and Better Signage on Langford Boulevard, Madeley  1

PT02-02/12      Supporting the Construction of a 1.5m Wide Concrete Footpath on Palm Corner, from Christian Park to Sirius Ramble, Quinns Rocks  2

PT03-02/12      Objecting to the Construction of a Footpath Close to Property Boundaries on the South Side of Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks  2

PT04-02/12      Requesting the Construction of a Tidal Pool at the Southern End of Quinns Beach  2

PT05-02/12      Requesting the Supply and Installation of Rubber Speed Humps at the East End of Jenolan Way, Merriwa  2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 3

Planning and Sustainability  3

Policies and Studies  3

PS01-03/12      Policy Review - City of Wanneroo Retaining Walls (Proposed LPP4.5) 3

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  14

PS02-03/12      Adoption of East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81 - Lots 478 Prestige Parade and 479 Vision Street, Wangara  14

PS03-03/12      Adoption of Amendment No. 2 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 - East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57  50

PS04-03/12      Proposed Amendment 1 to Draft Structure Plan No. 80 - Drovers Place Precinct Local Structure Plan - Report on Submissions and Consideration for Final Approval  65

Development Applications  133

PS05-03/12      Development Application - Proposed Mobile Telecommunication Facility - Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara (DA2011/999) 133

PS06-03/12      Proposed Liquor Store - DA2011/845 - 104 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler  144

Other Matters  153

PS07-03/12      Appointment of Community Representatives to the Environmental Advisory Committee  153

PS08-03/12      Yanchep Boardwalk Update  155

City Businesses  158

Customer Relations  158

CB01-03/12     Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy  158

Regulatory Services  169

CB02-03/12     PT04-08/11: Anti-Social Behaviour - Rayner Drive, Landsdale  169

CB03-03/12     PT01-10/10: Anti-Social Behaviour - Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights  171

CB04-03/12     Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  173

Infrastructure  177

Tenders  177

IN01-03/12       Tender No. 01201 - The Provision of Planting and Maintenance of Tubestock for Various Conservation Reserves, Foreshore Reserves and Landscaping Works  177

IN02-03/12       Tender No. 01141 - Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years  186

Traffic Management  192

IN03-03/12       Anti Hoon Speed Hump Grant - Budget Variation  192

IN04-03/12       Parking Prohibitions - Roseworth Primary School  199

IN05-03/12       Backshall Place, Wanneroo - Partial Road Closure at Intersection with Ocean Reef Road  204

IN06-03/12       Benenden Avenue, Butler - Temporary Road Closure  207

IN07-03/12       PT01-12/11 - Request Traffic Calming Anchorage Drive, Mindarie  210

IN08-03/12       PT01-02/12 - Request Traffic Calming Langford Boulevard, Madeley  215

IN09-03/12       PT05-02/12 - Request Traffic Calming Jenolan Way, Merriwa  221

IN10-03/12       PT02-02/12 and  PT03-02/12 - Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks - Footpath  225

Other Matters  231

IN11-03/12       Broadview Park, Landsdale - Limestone Wall Supporting the Pathway, Lookout and Gazebo  231

Community Development  237

Program Services  237

CD01-03/12     Budget Variation for WA Police Community Crime Prevention Fund Contribution for Boxercise Program   237

Corporate Strategy & Performance  240

Finance  240

CS01-03/12     Budget Principles and Parameters 2012/2013  240

CS02-03/12     Sale of Land for Non Payment of Rates - 38 Lakeview Street, Mariginiup  253

CS03-03/12     Change Valuation of Land Method  259

CS04-03/12     Waiver of Rates - Caravan Parks  299

CS05-03/12     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 January 2012  304

CS06-03/12     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 29 February 2012  357

CS07-03/12     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 December 2011  417

CS08-03/12     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 January 2012 and 2011/2012 Mid Year Budget Review   430

Governance and Executive Services  447

CS09-03/12     2011 Compliance Audit Return  447

CS10-03/12     Appointment of Replacement Delegates/Deputy Delegates to Council Committees and Working Groups Resulting from the Resignation of Cr Alan Blencowe  459

CS11-03/12     Donations to be Considered by Council - March 2012  462

Chief Executive Office  466

Office of the CEO Reports  466

CE01-03/12     Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer in Consultation with the Mayor over the Christmas/New Year Recess  466

CE02-03/12     Review of Strategic Internal Audit Plan  469

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 482

MN01-03/12    Mayor Tracey Roberts – Request for Out of Session Community Funding - City of Wanneroo Volunteer Bushfire Brigade 50th Anniversary Celebration  482

MN02-03/12    Cr Brett Treby – Parking Controls - Wanneroo Community Centre  484

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 487

Item  11____ Confidential_ 487

CR01-03/12     Consideration of the Sale of Lot 12 Fowey Loop, Mindarie  487

CR02-03/12     Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex - Stage 2 Contractual Dispute Update  487

CR03-03/12     Review of Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs - 9 Howe Elbow, Quinns Rocks  487

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 488

Item  13____ Closure_ 488

 


Agenda

 

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

 

Lord

 

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

 

Amen

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-03/12       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 7 February 2012

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 7 February 2012 be confirmed.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

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.

 

UPDATE

Report going to Council meeting on 6 March.

 

 


 

 

PT02-02/12       Supporting the Construction of a 1.5m Wide Concrete Footpath on Palm Corner, from Christian Park to Sirius Ramble, Quinns Rocks

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.

 

UPDATE

Report going to Council meeting on 6 March.

 

 

PT03-02/12       Objecting to the Construction of a Footpath Close to Property Boundaries on the South Side of Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks

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.

 

UPDATE

Report going to Council meeting on 6 March.

 

 

PT04-02/12       Requesting the Construction of a Tidal Pool at the Southern End of Quinns Beach

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.

 

UPDATE

Considered as submission as part of the Draft Coastal Management Plan Community Consultation.

 

 

PT05-02/12       Requesting the Supply and Installation of Rubber Speed Humps at the East End of Jenolan Way, Merriwa

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.

 

UPDATE

Report going to Council meeting on 6 March.

 

 

 


 

Item  8      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Policies and Studies

PS01-03/12       Policy Review - City of Wanneroo Retaining Walls (Proposed LPP4.5)

File Ref:                                              3072 – 11/118758

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider proposed Local Planning Policy 4.5 – Subdivisional Retaining Walls (LPP 4.5) for consent to advertise for public comment, in accordance with Part 8.11 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).  A copy of LPP 4.5 is included as Attachment 1.

 

Background

Nearly all ‘greenfields’ subdivisions in the City of Wanneroo incorporate some element of retaining for new lots, due to factors such as existing topography, multiplicity of surrounding landownership, and the need to coordinate finished road levels with existing surrounding roads.  In those instances, Administration strives to achieve negotiated outcomes with the relevant subdividers, to reduce the extent and height of retaining walls as far as practicable.  Typically, these negotiations occur after the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has granted its subdivision approval, but before the City issues its ‘clearance’ of the applicable engineering subdivision condition(s).  The reason for this is that development works undertaken as part of a subdivision approval (such as earthworks, retaining walls and construction of roads etc) can occur without the need for separate planning approval.

 

The abovementioned approach was challenged in 2010 in State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) case DR207 of 2010 (Alessi vs City of Wanneroo).  This case involved retaining walls over 4.0 metres in height, which were approved by Council and later contested by an adjoining landowner (Alessi).

 

The City’s existing ‘Retaining Walls’ policy (refer Attachment 2), requires retaining walls (that abut land in different ownership) to be assessed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes).  The R-Codes primarily relate to dwelling construction and associated built form provisions, but do not apply to broad acre subdivisional retaining wall heights.  In the ‘Alessi’ case, the Minister determined on advice from SAT that a separate planning approval under the City’s DPS 2 was not required for subdivisional retaining walls.  Whilst this finding supported the City’s approach and decision, the case highlighted the need for the City to provide improved guidance for the assessment of subdivision retaining wall heights, rather than relying on the design provisions of the R-Codes when planning approval under DPS 2 is not even required.

Detail

LPP 4.5 is intended to replace the City’s existing ‘Retaining Walls’ policy, which was first implemented in 1999 and was last reviewed in 2004.  Unfortunately this existing policy fails to provide any meaningful guidance in determining appropriate retaining wall heights when proposed as subdivisional works.

 

The following objectives have been developed to ensure an acceptable, yet flexible standard applies to subdivisional retaining walls:

 

1.       Encourage the provision of level residential building sites that can be effectively serviced.

 

2.       Retain the natural topographic features of the locality by minimising the need to import or export large quantities of fill.

 

3.       Minimise the need for large retaining walls as part of dwelling construction.

 

4.       Coordinate subdivisional levels with adjoining landholdings, road reserves, natural features and public open space.

 

5.       Minimise the height and impact of subdivisional retaining walls located on the boundary of land under separate ownership.

 

6.       Minimise the height of subdivisional retaining walls visible from a public space (road reserve, recreation reserve) and/or abutting land in separate ownership.

 

Proposed LPP 4.5 provides clear guidance on the appropriateness of different retaining wall heights under various circumstances and subject to certain conditions.  This guidance aims to minimise the extent of retaining walls that are visible from public spaces such as road reserves and public open space and promotes the retention of soil within the proposed lots and along rear and side boundaries, where the retaining walls will ultimately be screened from public view by the future construction of a dwelling.

 

The policy includes Table 1, which includes a summary of the acceptable heights, performance criteria for variations to the acceptable heights and unacceptable criteria.

 

A maximum retaining wall height of 1.5 metre is proposed as being acceptable in the following circumstances:

 

·        Walls abutting land in different ownership.

·        Walls abutting road reserves.

·        Walls abutting public open space.

·        Walls abutting other public areas (drainage reserves, community purpose sites, pedestrian walkways etc).

 

A maximum retaining wall height of 3.0 metres is proposed as being acceptable for internal subdivision retaining walls, as this provides the greatest opportunity to accommodate level differences, whilst minimising the visible extent of larger retaining walls on adjacent roads. Such walls would be acceptable along the rear boundary and behind the front setback line of side boundaries (note that this height would apply where the wall abuts Crown land or land in a different ownership).

 


 

Walls exceeding the ‘acceptable’ height will still be required from time to time to facilitate the subdivision of undulating land, the servicing of proposed lots or to achieve desirable built form outcomes reflective of the local character. The draft LPP 4.5 incorporates provisions for dealing with such walls and sets out performance criteria, which will need to be considered.

 

LPP 4.5 also incorporates a number of retaining wall criteria that are unacceptable unless exceptional circumstances exist.  These include:

 

·        Walls greater than 4.0 metres in height.

·        Walls greater than the ‘acceptable height’ that in the City’s opinion do not satisfy the applicable criteria for variations in Table 1 ‘Variations of Acceptable standards’.

·        Walls greater than 2.5 metres in height that abut land under separate ownership, where an objection has been received from that land owner.

Consultation

In accordance with Part 8.11 of DPS 2, it is necessary to advertise a draft policy for public comment for a period of not less than 21 days. In this instance, the policy mainly impacts on the development industry and it is suggested that an extended advertising period of 35 days should be prescribed to enable the industry to fully consider the draft LPP 4.5 and provide submissions.

 

Advertising would be undertaken in the following manner:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to the Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA), major land developers and consulting engineers (subdivision) operating in the City.

Comment

The current ‘Retaining Walls’ policy does not provide Administration, the development industry or members of the public with adequate guidance in determining the suitability of retaining wall heights proposed as part of subdivision. The current policy focuses on ‘authorising’ the City’s Engineer to approve retaining walls up to three (3.0) metres in height and the City’s Building Surveyor to issue a Building Licence where the application complies with:

 

1.       An approval to Commence Development.

 

2.       The Residential Design Codes of WA where applicable, or

 

3.       A subdivisional Retaining Wall approved by the City’s Engineer.

 

The current policy also requires subdivision retaining walls on a common property boundary and within 10 metres of a dwelling to be determined in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes).

 

The review of the policy has removed the above delegation criteria and only includes appropriate planning criteria for determining retaining wall heights proposed as subdivisional works in accordance with the provisions of draft LPP 4.5. 


 

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of DPS 2, Council may resolve to prepare and adopt a local planning policy to apply to any matter related to planning and development of the district. A draft policy must be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 21 days after which time it is to be reviewed in the context of any submissions received. Council shall then resolve to either adopt the draft policy (with or without modifications) or not proceed with the draft policy.

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment

Policy Implications

Draft LPP 4.5 – ‘Subdivisional Retaining Walls’, will supersede the current ‘Retaining Walls’ policy and establish standards for the assessment and determination of applications for subdivisional retaining walls.

 

The draft LPP 4.5 will guide the City in assessing detailed subdivision drawings submitted in accordance with Section 170 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Financial Implications

The cost of advertising the draft policy is estimated to be $500, which can be met from the

Planning and Sustainability Directorate operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council PURSUANT to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADVERTISES draft Local Planning Policy 4.5 Subdivisional Retaining Walls, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of not less than 35 days, by way of the following, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation:

 

1.       An advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

2.       Display on the City’s website; and

3.       Referral in writing to the Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA), major subdividers and consulting engineers (subdivision) operating in the City of Wanneroo.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Revised Subdivision Retaining Walls Policy (LPP 4.5)

12/20292

Minuted

2.

Current Retaining Walls Policy

12/20312

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                    7


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                  11


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  12


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  14

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

PS02-03/12       Adoption of East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81 - Lots 478 Prestige Parade and 479 Vision Street, Wangara

File Ref:                                              2958 – 11/113964

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81 (CSP 81) at the close of advertising, to determine the modifications required and its acceptability for final approval and forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

Taylor Burrell Barnett

Owner

Landcorp

Location

Lots 478 Prestige Parade and 479 Vision Street, Wangara

Site Area

1.1052 hectares

MRS Zoning

Industrial

DPS 2 Zoning

Centre

 

 

Background

The draft CSP 81 was lodged with the City by Taylor Burrell Barnett (TBB), on behalf of Landcorp, on 2 May 2011. The Structure Plan area comprises 1.1052 hectares of land encompassing Lots 478 Prestige Parade and 479 Vision Street, Wangara. The subject lots are located on the corner of Gnangara Road and Prestige Parade, bound by Gnangara Road to the south, industrial zoned land to the west, north and south; and rural zoned land to the north east (refer Attachment 1).

 

The land is zoned Industrial under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Centre under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

On 5 August 2011, following the lodgement of draft CSP 81 by TBB, the Director Planning and Sustainability forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and advertising of draft CSP 81 subsequently commenced in accordance with Clause 9.5 of DPS 2 on 12 August 2011 for a period of 42 days, closing on 4 October 2011.

 

Following advertising of draft CSP 81, submissions were collated and a report on the matter was presented for discussion at the 6 December 2011 Council Briefing Session and included on the agenda for the 13 December 2011 Council Meeting for determination. However, the item was withdrawn from the scheduled Council Meeting at the request of the applicant in order to further address concerns relating to land use permissibility within the CSP 81 area. Administration has since undertaken further consultation with the applicant and the landowner to arrive at a revised CSP 81.

Detail

Draft CSP 81 has been prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of the ‘Centre’ zone under DPS 2 and to facilitate a commercial centre to service employees in the Wangara and Landsdale Industrial Estates.

 

The key elements of the draft CSP 81 are as follows:

 

·        Lot 478 is zoned ‘Business’ and Lot 479 is zoned ‘Commercial’;

 

·        No retail uses are to be permitted on Lot 478, while a maximum of 1,750m2 NLA retail floorspace would be permitted on Lot 479; and

 

·        Land use permissibility for Lots 478 and 479 has been varied from the Zoning Table in DPS 2.

 

Attachment 2 contains the advertised version of the Part 1 Statutory Section of draft CSP 81, including the draft Structure Plan Map.

Consultation

Seven submissions were received during advertising of draft CSP 81;  five of which raised no objection to the proposal and two which expressed specific concerns with the proposal. A summary of all submissions received, together with Administration’s response to each is included as Attachment 3.

 

In accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2 – Structure Planning (LPP 4.2), Administration also conducted its assessment of draft CSP 81 during the advertising period. Administration’s recommended modifications arising from its assessment are included as Attachment 4.

 

The main issues identified in Administration’s assessment and the submissions received relate to:

 

·        Permissibility of uses and possible land use conflicts with the surrounding industrial area; and

 

·        Traffic impacts on the surrounding road networks.

 

A more detailed discussion of the abovementioned issues is provided in the Comment section of this report.

Comment

Permissibility of Uses and Land Use Conflicts

 

Draft CSP 81 proposes to zone the subject lots ‘Commercial’ and ‘Business’, and to apply the land use permissibility of these zones. The advertised version of CSP 81 proposed a number of land use controls (refer Attachment 2). However a number of the land uses initially proposed were considered by Administration to be sensitive to and potentially incompatible with the surrounding ‘General Industrial’ zoned area.

 

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has prepared a Guidance Statement that recommends separation distances between industrial and sensitive land uses, to avoid conflicts between incompatible land uses.


 

Considering the Wangara area has historically been a general industrial area, it is of primary importance that the land use permissibility proposed by CSP 81 does not prejudice the existing and future development of the adjoining General Industrial Zone.

 

Lots 78 & 80 Gnangara Road, Landsdale, which are adjacent to the CSP 81 area, have approval for and are currently operating as ‘concrete batching plants’, while Lot 79 Attwell Street, Landsdale, has an approval to be used for and is currently operating as a ‘waste processing and transfer facility’. Both of these uses could potentially impact upon sensitive land uses located in CSP 81.

 

Under the EPA’s Guidance Statement, the separation distance for a ‘concrete batching plant’ is between 300-500m and is the shortest distance measured from the boundary of an area used for an industrial land use and the boundary of an area used by a sensitive land use. The CSP 81 area is located completely within this recommended separation distance from the ‘concrete batching plants’ operating on Lots 78 & 80 Gnangara Road, Landsdale. Attachment 5 shows the ‘Centre’ zoned land subject of CSP 81 and the surrounding ‘General Industrial’ zoned land. A ‘concrete batching plant’ use class is a discretionary ‘D’ use in the ‘General Industrial’ zone, together with other potentially hazardous industrial uses. This reinforces the industrial nature of the surrounding area, the potential for hazardous industrial land uses to impact upon the CSP 81 area and the need to ensure CSP 81 does not allow sensitive land uses or development that would be impacted upon by existing adjacent industrial operations or preclude ‘General Industrial’ development from occurring in the surrounding area in the future.

 

Under the EPA’s Guidance Statement, sensitive land use is defined as:

 

‘Sensitive land use – land use sensitive to emissions from industry and infrastructure. Sensitive land uses include residential development, hospitals, hotels, motels, hostels, caravan parks, schools, nursing homes, child care facilities, shopping centres, playgrounds and some public buildings. Some commercial, institutional and industrial land uses which require high levels of amenity or are sensitive to particular emissions may also be considered “sensitive land uses”. Examples include some retail outlets, offices and training centres, and some types of storage and manufacturing.’

 

Similarly, under DPS 2, a sensitive use is defined as:

 

Sensitive Use: means any use in which the people involved in that use may have reason to object to noise, dust, odour and other impacts which may arise from rural resource operations and includes, but is not limited to, residential, hospitals, schools, shops and all public establishments where food and drink is consumed.’

 

Though it is recognised that the definition of sensitive use under DPS 2 makes reference to ‘rural resource operations’ only, it (together with the EPA’s definition for sensitive land use) does serve to provide guidance on land use types that are considered sensitive.

 

Modifications to Land Use Permissibility

 

In the CSP 81 report that was presented at the 6 December 2011 Council Briefing Session, Administration recommended that the permissibility of a number of sensitive land uses (as defined under the EPA’s Guidance Statement and DPS 2) be amended in CSP 81 in order to reduce the potential impact and conflict with the surrounding ‘General Industrial’ area. In this way, sensitive land uses under CSP 81 were designated as either ‘A’ uses (meaning a use that is prohibited until advertising has been undertaken and Council has exercised its discretion to otherwise approve the use) or ‘X’ uses (meaning a prohibited land use). Sensitive land uses designated as ‘A’ uses included:

 

·        Civic Building

·        Consulting Room

·        Drive-Through Food Outlet

·        Education Establishment

·        Lunch Bar

·        Medical Centre

·        Office

·        Restaurant

·        Shop

·        Supermarket

·        Take-Away Food Outlet

·        Tavern

·        Veterinary Consulting Room

 

Sensitive land uses designated as ‘X’ uses included:

 

·        Child Care Centre

·        Hospital

 

It is the land uses that were designated ‘A’ uses by Administration that were the subject of subsequent discussions and a meeting between Administration and the landowner and applicant. As a result of these discussions it was concluded that sensitive land uses would be better controlled through a ‘D’ use designation rather than an ‘A’ use designation requiring advertising. A ‘D’ use means a land use that is prohibited unless the Council has exercised its discretion to otherwise approve the use. In considering a ‘D’ use, Council may also choose to advertise that use for public comment before making its determination. As a result, land uses considered to be sensitive uses under CSP 81 (and previously recommended to Council in December 2011 as ‘A’ uses) are now proposed to be designated as either ‘D’ or ‘X’ uses, with the exception of ‘Office’, which is designated as a ‘P’ use.

 

With respect to premises where food and drink is sold or consumed, a ‘lunch bar’ is designated a ‘D’ use in the ‘General Industrial’ zone under DPS 2. On this basis, sensitive land uses where food and drink is sold or consumed likewise have been designated a ‘D’ use under CSP 81. Land uses where food and drink is sold or consumed include ‘drive-through food outlet’, ‘lunch bar’, ‘restaurant’, ‘shop’, ‘supermarket’, ‘take-away food outlet’ and ‘tavern’.  ‘Consulting room’, ‘medical centre’, ‘veterinary consulting room’ and ‘educational establishment’ have been designated ‘D’ use permissibility in CSP 81 also, as they are land uses that Administration considers to be potentially sensitive to particular emissions from industry and discretion is required to be exercised in Council granting its approval.

 

Sensitive land uses that are prohibited in CSP 81 include ‘hospital’ and ‘child care centre’, as they are particularly sensitive to potential industry emissions and thus considered inappropriate and incompatible with the surrounding ‘General Industrial’ zoned land. ‘Office’ is identified in the EPA’s Guidance Statement as a potentially sensitive land use. However, Administration does not consider ‘Office’ to be a sensitive land use, given that many, if not all, nearby businesses operating in the ‘General Industrial’ zone will typically include an office component.  Further, an ‘Office’ is not considered particularly sensitive to industrial emissions, such as noise and dust. As such, ‘Office’ and similarly ‘Bank’ have been designated ‘P’ (permitted) uses in the CSP 81 area; consistent with DPS 2 land use permissibility for ‘office’ and ‘bank’ in the ‘Commercial’ and ‘Business’ zones. A comparison between the permissibility of land uses in the ‘Business’ and ‘Commercial’ zones under DPS 2 and the land use permissibility now proposed by Administration (and agreed by the proponent) for revised CSP 81 is included in Attachment 6.  Included as Attachment 7 is Administration’s revised CSP 81 (Part 1 – Statutory Section) showing tracked changes over the previously advertised version of the structure plan.

Traffic Impacts on the Surrounding Road Networks

 

A submission by the Department of Transport (DoT) raised the issue that the rezoning of Lot 478 Prestige Parade to ‘Business’ and Lot 479 Vision Street to ‘Commercial’ would result in a significant increase in traffic movements and impact the surrounding road network. Administration considers that development of the two subject lots within the CSP area is unlikely to have any significant traffic impacts on the surrounding road network, given that vehicle access to and from the subject lots, and consideration of any potential effects that the development of the CSP area may have on the traffic movements of the surrounding road network, can be addressed by a detailed area plan (DAP) and through the development assessment process. At that more detailed stage of the planning process, when the specific land uses are proposed, a traffic impact assessment can be required if necessary.

 

Technical Appendices

 

The City’s LPP 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2) requires the lodgement of Part 3 – Technical Supporting Documentation for a centre structure plan. This part of the structure plan is required to contain a number of technical reports, including the following:

 

·        Local Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Strategy;

 

·        Local Water Management Strategy;

 

·        Local Engineering Infrastructure Report;

 

·        Local Transport Strategy;

 

·        Local Community Development Strategy; and

 

·        Local Heritage Strategy.

 

These technical reports have not been included as part of the Part 3 lodged, as required under LPP 4.2. The CSP 81 area forms part of the broader Agreed Structure Plan No. 10 – East Wanneroo Cell 8 and adjoining lots to its south have already been subdivided and developed.  As such, matters ordinarily dealt with by these strategies and reports have previously been addressed through earlier structure planning, scheme amendment and subdivision processes. In light of this and together with the limited extent of the structure plan, Administration considers that these reports are not required to be provided as part of this structure plan proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

Lots 478 Prestige Parade and 479 Vision Street, Wangara are zoned ‘Centre’ under DPS 2.  In accordance with the provisions of DPS 2, Council may require a structure plan as a prerequisite to subdivision and development in the Centre zone. Draft CSP 81 has thus been prepared for the subject lots and submitted for the City’s consideration and approval.

 

Draft CSP 81 is considered to be satisfactory for final approval by the City, subject to modifications as discussed above and depicted in Administration’s tracked changes version of the Part 1 – Statutory Section of the draft CSP, included as Attachment 7. These modifications incorporate all of Administration’s recommended changes to the land use permissibilities for CSP 81.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2.  Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan, Council may refuse to adopt the Structure Plan or resolve that the Structure Plan is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that draft CSP 81 be approved subject to the modifications recommended in Attachments 3 and 4, as included in Attachment 7 of this report.

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Economic

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

Policy Implications

The proposal has been processed in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2 – Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that the draft East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81 submitted by Taylor Burrell Barnett, on behalf of Landcorp, is satisfactory subject to the Recommended Modifications contained within Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, as included in Attachment 7, being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability; 

 

2.       REFERS the East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81  to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval in accordance with Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2;

 

3.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions provided in Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration’s recommended responses to those submissions and FORWARDS that Schedule to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES submitters of its decision; and

 

4.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the duly modified East Wangara Neighbourhood Centre Structure Plan No. 81 documents and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Site Plan

11/117410

 

2.

Part 1 Statutory Section

11/117412

 

3.

Revised summary of submissions, responses and recommended modifications

12/15404

Minuted

4.

Summary of CoW Administration Comments

11/128921

Minuted

5.

Revised Zoning Plan

12/15053

 

6.

Revised Comparison of Use Class Permissibility between DPS 2 and CSP 81

12/16413

 

7.

Revised Recommended Modifications for Part 1 Statutory Section

12/21169

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  20


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  21


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                  26


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                  36


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  38


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  39


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  42


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  49

PS03-03/12       Adoption of Amendment No. 2 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 - East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57

File Ref:                                              3290-02 – 12/11303

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 2 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 (LSP 57) relating to Lot 165, Kingsway, Landsdale.

 

Applicant

Greg Rowe & Associates

Owner

Mr & Mrs Bennett

Location

Lot 165 Kingsway, Landsdale

Site Area

2.0362 Hectares (ha)

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

Draft LSP 57 Zoning

Residential R20/30

 

 

Background

Council, at its meeting on 30 June 2009, resolved to adopt draft LSP 57 (Item PS09-06/09). Draft LSP 57, among other matters, depicts a portion of “Public Open Space (POS) 12” and a portion of the proposed 18-metre (m) wide Higher Order Access Street (road) entirely on Lot 165, Kingsway, Landsdale. The extent of POS proposed on Lot 165 is 14,495m2.

 

On 24 August 2010, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) adopted draft LSP 57 subject to a number of modifications.  Council, at its meeting of 16 November 2010, resolved to not agree to the draft LSP 57 as adopted by the WAPC mainly due to the modification requiring the pedestrian access ways between Cell 9 and East Wanneroo Cell 5  (Landsdale Gardens Estate), to be replaced with vehicular access (Item PS02-11.10).

 

Following Council’s decision of 16 November 2010, the owners of Lot 165 Kingsway, under sub-clause 9.12.3 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), appealed to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) requesting a review of the Council’s decision to locate the POS area and a portion of the 18m wide road entirely on their property.  Attachment 1 contains an extract of draft LSP 57 depicting the POS on Lot 165 and the 18m wide road on its western and southern boundary.  Lot 165 contains a residence and its appurtenant uses. At the SAT’s invitation, Council reconsidered the matter at its meeting of 5 April 2011 and resolved to defer its decision to enable a review of the options on the location of the POS area (Item CR01-04/11).

 

On 2 May 2011, Greg Rowe and Associates, representing the owners of Lot 165 Kingsway, Landsdale, submitted an application to the City requesting an amendment to draft LSP 57.  The proposed amendment not only related to Lot 165, but also to the adjoining Lots 163 and 164 Kingsway, Landsdale. The details of the proposal are as follows:

 

1.       To modify the road layout by moving a portion of the 18m wide road entirely on Lot 164 along its eastern boundary;

 

2.       To reduce the extent of POS on Lot 165 from 14,498m2 to 10,687m2 by excluding the area occupied by the existing residence and its immediate surrounds;

 

 

3.       The draft LSP 57 makes provision for a POS area of 3,793m2 on Lot 163, which forms part of “POS 11”. The total extent of ‘POS 11’ is 5,814m2 and includes a part of Lot 128 Kingsway. No POS is proposed on Lot 164. It is proposed to provide an additional POS of 1,049m2 on Lot 163 and a new POS area of 2,762m2 on Lot 164 in order to compensate for the POS area deleted from Lot 165. The additional POS equates to 3,811m2 (14,498m2 - 10,687m2); and

 

4.       To zone the northern portion of Lot 165 measuring 7,781m2 in area (accommodating the existing residence and its immediate surrounds) as ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R20/30.

 

Attachment 2 contains a map depicting the proposed amendment and a concept plan of the proposed residential area by proposing ten (10) R20 lots.

 

On 2 June 2011, the Director, Planning and Sustainability (DPS) forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise. No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of the amendment proposal commenced on 24 June 2011 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of DPS 2.

 

The Amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, a notice on the City’s website and letters to the affected and adjoining landowners. The submission period commenced on 24 June and closed on 5 August 2011. The City received 19 submissions of which 18 supported the proposal and one from the owners of Lot 164 Kingsway, Landsdale, raising objections to the proposal. The City also received a 97-signature petition supporting the amendment proposal tabled by Cr Treby at the 23 August 2011 Council meeting with a further 15-signature petition supporting the proposal presented by Cr Blencowe at the same meeting.

 

The main issues raised by the objectors are as follows:

 

·        How would the proposed relocation of the 18m wide road entirely on Lot 164 Kingsway benefit the owners of Lot 164?

 

·        Strong reservation about the POS, which has now been allocated to the northern portion of their land. What are the cost sharing arrangements between all participating landowners?

 

·        In the event the road is planned and constructed on their property, how would they be compensated for the loss of lots?

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses are contained in Attachment 3.

 

As the owners of Lots 164 and 165 were not in favour of locating a portion of the 18m wide road within their land, Administration proposed an alternative proposal as shown in Attachment 4. On 4 October 2011, the DPS, under delegated authority considered Administration’s alternative proposal and resolved to readvertise it inviting comments only from the owners of Lots 164 and 165 Kingsway, Landsdale and from the Public Transport Authority (PTA) and the Department of Education (DoE). As the 18m wide road was identified as a Bus route, it was necessary to seek the PTA’s comments.

On 11 October 2011, the DPS advised Elected Members of his decision to readvertise the proposal.


 

 

Detail

The details of the alternative proposals are as follows:

 

·        Modify the road layout, by deleting the portion of the 18m wide road affecting either Lot 164 or 165 and reduce the width of the road between Kingsway and the northern east-west road shown on Lot 164 to 15 metres. Retain the width of the road along the southern boundary of ‘POS 12’ and PS site and up to Alexander Drive at 18m to accommodate on-street parking bays required for ‘POS 12’, the PS and the Local Centre;

 

·        Reduce the extent of a portion of ‘POS 12’ on Lot 165 from 14,498m2 to 11,413m2 by excluding the existing residence and the immediate surrounds;

 

·        Provide additional POS of 1,049m2 on Lot 163 and create a new POS of 2,036m2 on 164 in order to compensate for the POS area deleted from Lot 165, which equates to 3,085m2 (14,498m2 - 11,413m2); and

 

·        Zone the northern portion of Lot 165 measuring 7055m2 in area and accommodating the existing residence and the immediate surrounds as ‘Residential’ with a density code of R20/30.

 

As a result of the proposed amendment, the Structure Plan, the Residential Coding Plan, the Zoning Plan, the Road Hierarchy Plan, the Public Open Space Plan and the POS schedule and the Bus Route Map of the draft LSP 57 will required to be amended accordingly.

Consultation

The alternative proposal prepared by Administration was advertised for a period of 21 days by means of writing only to the owners of Lots 164 and 165 Kingsway, Landsdale and to the PTA and DoE. The submission period closed on 7 November 2011. While the owners of Lots 164 and 165 supported the proposal, DoE did not support the proposal and requested the 18 metre road be reinstated, as shown on the original LSP 57. DoE also provided an alternative proposal, which is discussed in the Comment section of this report. PTA did not make any comments.

Comment

Attachment 5 contains an alternative proposal submitted by DoE. The salient features of this proposal are as follows:

 

1.       Reinstating the 18-metre wide road within Lot 164, Kingsway, Landsdale along its eastern boundary. Entry to this road will be via Lot 165, Kingsway as per the provisions of the draft LSP 57;

 

2.       Locating a portion of another 18-metre wide road within the PS site. In the draft LSP 57, this road was located on Lot 169, Kingsway (refer Attachment 1).

 

3.       Reduction in the possible Residential Zone within Lot 165;

 

4.       Proposing club and change rooms within Lot 165 abutting the 18m wide road; and

 

5.       An indicative layout of the school footprint.

 

DoE has provided the following advice supporting its alternative proposal:

 

 

·        To re-instate 18m wide road to the west of the ‘POS 12’ as shown on the original LSP 57 to facilitate direct access to the proposed club and change rooms and open space as well as allowing continuous circulation around the school site in an anti-clockwise direction for the provision of safe student drop-off;

·        To reconfigure the proposed Residential Zone at the northwest portion of the Lot 165 to reduce its impact on ‘POS 12’ and therefore to reduce its impact on the school site and the oval; and

·        The DoE’s ability to fully develop the school site is also compromised by the road to the east of the site, which has been reconfigured to permit the retention of an existing building, further reducing the width of the site.

Based on the alternative proposal submitted by DoE, the City has prepared a plan to determine the extent of the proposed residential zone on Lot 165 and the extent of ‘POS 11’ and ‘POS 12’ as shown on Attachment 6. The total extent of the proposed Residential Zone on Lot 165 is 5,017m2. The following POS analysis demonstrates no loss of POS area as a result of the amendment proposal.

a.       As per the current POS Schedule:

POS

Lot

Area

(m2)

POS Area

(m2)

Credited Area (m2)

Total Credited Area (m2)

11

128

163

 

2,021

3,793

 

 

5,814

 

2,021

3,793

 

 

5,814

12

165

166

14,498

19,690

 

34,188

14,498

19,690

 

34,188

 

 

 

 

Total

40,002

 

b.       As per the proposed amendment, the proposed POS distribution is as follows:

 

POS

Lot

Area

(m2)

POS Area

(m2)

Credited Area

(m2)

Total Credited Area (m2)

11

128

163

2,021

4,842

 

6,863

2,021

4,842

 

6,863

12

165

166

13,449

19,690

 

33,139

11,413

19,690

 

33,139

 

 

 

 

Total

40,002

 

As the alternative proposal submitted by DoE affects Lot 164, Administration discussed the alternative proposal with the owners of Lot 164 who have advised that as this option does not propose a POS area within Lot 164, they would be supportive of locating the 18m wide road on their property.

 

It is recommended that Amendment No. 2 to the draft LSP 57 as shown on Attachment 6 be considered satisfactory and the Structure Plan, the Residential Coding Plan, the Zoning Plan, the Road Hierarchy Plan, the Public Open Space Plan and the POS schedule and the Bus Route Map of draft LSP 57 be amended accordingly.

 

Adoption of Amendment

 

The final adoption of amendment No. 2 to LSP 57 is subject to the provisions of clause 9.7.1 of DPS 2.  Clause 9.7.1 provides that:

 

 

 

“…An amendment to a draft Structure Plan may be advertised by the Council at its discretion, however, the Council should not sign and seal the amendment, prior to the substantive Structure Plan being signed, sealed and certified by the Council and the Commission…”

 

Council considered LSP 57 at its meeting on 16 November 2010 where it was decided not to support the plan on the basis that Council did not agree with certain modifications requested by the WAPC, particularly in relation to through-roads between LSP 57 and the existing Landsdale Gardens Estate immediately to the west.

 

Therefore, as LSP 57 has not been finalised, Amendment No. 2 cannot itself be finalised.  The amendment can, however, be supported by Council subject to the modifications recommended being made.  Council may also decide that it is prepared to sign and seal the amendment subject to the substantive LSP 57 being signed, sealed and certified by the Council and the WAPC.

 

Conclusion

 

The City has received a request to amend the draft LSP 57 by rezoning and recoding a portion of Lot 165 Kingsway to Residential R20/30; relocating a portion of the 18m wide Higher Order Access Road onto Lot 164 and proposing additional POS areas on Lots 163 and 164.

 

During the public comment period the owners of Lot 164 objected to the proposal. Administration suggested an alternative proposal, which was advertised by way of inviting comments from the owners of Lots 164 and 165 Kingsway, Landsdale and from the PTA and DoE. The alternative proposal deleted a portion of the 18-metre wide road. The DoE requested the reinstatement of this road by locating it on Lot 164. The owners of Lot 164 are supportive of locating the road within Lot 164 as shown on Attachment 6. It is recommended that the revised proposal, as depicted in that attachment, be considered satisfactory and that Council amend the Structure Plan, the Residential Coding Plan, the Zoning Plan, the Road Hierarchy Plan, the Public Open Space Plan and the POS schedule and the Proposed Bus Route plan of the draft LSP 57 and forward the amendment proposal to the WAPC for its consideration.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2.  If the proponent of Amendment No. 2 (being the owner of Lot 165) is aggrieved by Council’s decision then they have the right to use the current SAT proceedings in an attempt to further advance their proposal.

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.1    Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 2 to the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Draft Local Structure Plan No 57 as shown on Attachment 6 to this report is SATISFACTORY subject to the following amendments:

Part 1 – Statutory Planning Section

a)      The Structure Plan, the Residential Coding Plan, the Zoning Plan, the Public Open Space Plan and the Road Hierarchy Plan by depicting the road pattern as shown on Attachment 6 to this report;

b)      The Local Structure Plan, the Residential Coding Plan and the Public Open Space Plan by depicting the Public Open Space disposition as shown on Attachment 6 to this report;

c)      The Zoning Plan by zoning 5,017m2 area of Lot 165, Kingsway, Landsdale ‘Residential’ as shown on Attachment 6 to this report;

d)      The Residential Coding Plan by recoding the proposed Residential Zone on Lot 165, Kingsway, Landsdale ‘Residential 20/30’; and

e)      The POS schedule as follows:

POS

Lot

Area (m2)

POS Area (m2)

Credited Area (m2)

Total Credited Area (m2)

11

128

163

2,021

4,842

 

6,863

2,021

4,842

 

6,863

12

165

166

13,449

19,690

 

33,139

13,449

19,690

 

33,139

 

Part 2 – Explanatory Report

‘Figure 21 – Proposed Bus Route’ by modifying the bus route to accord with the road network shown on Attachment 6;

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

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 2 to the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No 57 following adoption of the structure plan amendment by the Western Australian Planning Commission;


 

 

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.7.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the amended documents after the substantive East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 being signed, sealed and certified by Council and the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

4.       ENDORSES Administration’s responses and recommendations contained in Attachment 3 in respect of those submissions and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Lot 165 (474) Kingsway - A-1

12/14236

 

2.

LOt 165- A-2

12/14240

 

3.

Lot 165 - A-3

11/109101

Minuted

4.

Lot 165 - A-4

12/14237

 

5.

LOt 165 - A-5

12/14241

 

6.

LOt 165 - A-6

12/14247

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                  56


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  57


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                  58


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  61


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  62


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  63


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  64

PS04-03/12       Proposed Amendment 1 to Draft Structure Plan No. 80 - Drovers Place Precinct Local Structure Plan - Report on Submissions and Consideration for Final Approval

File Ref:                                              2957-01 – 12/10719

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public consultation on proposed Amendment No. 1 to the draft Drovers Place Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 80 (SP 80) and consideration for final approval.

 

Applicant

Turner Master Planners Australia

Owner

Goldrange Pty Ltd & Greenpark Assets Pty Ltd

Location

Lots 810 (1397) & 811 (1387) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo

Site Area

5.75 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban Deferred

DPS 2 Zoning

General Rural

 

 

Background

The land is currently subject to agreed Structure Plan No. 47 (SP 47), which was endorsed by Council on 26 April 2006 (Report PD11-04/06) and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in August 2007. 

 

SP 47 has been reviewed, resulting in the preparation of draft SP80. Administration presented draft SP 80 to the Council Forum held on 24 November 2009 and subsequently carried out public consultation under delegated authority, which concluded on 12 February 2010. Administration’s report on submissions was delayed to obtain independent assessment and advice on traffic movements, the nature and extent of land uses within the ‘Central Precinct’ of the structure plan and the determination of Amendment No. 1 to SP 47 by the SAT.

 

SP 80 was listed on the 14 September 2010 Council Briefing meeting agenda, however, the report was subsequently withdrawn by Administration (at the request of a landowner) to provide an opportunity for that landowner to meet with Administration to discuss their submission before being reported to Council.  Administration extended the same invitation to all landowners within the structure plan area and a series of landowner meetings were subsequently held.

 

A report on submissions was subsequently presented to Council on 8 February 2011 (Report PS03-02/11), which included (for the purpose of further public advertising) a revised version of SP 80 proposing a range of new land uses requested by various landowners in the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80.  Council considered the range of new uses proposed under the revised version of SP 80 and resolved to delete (and not allow) the following land uses from the ‘Central Precinct’, and to readvertise the modified SP 80 for a further period of 60 days.

Bank, Caretaker’s Dwelling, Child Care Centre, Consulting Room, Dry Cleaning Premises, Hairdresser, Hall, Laundry, Liquor Store, Medical Centre, Place of Assembly, Public Exhibition Facility, Recreation Centre, Take-Away Food Outlet, Video Hire, Mast or Antenna, Telecommunications Infrastructure;

During the consultation period, the owner of Lots 810 and 811 Wanneroo Road (the subject lots) made submissions generally requesting the re-introduction of land uses deleted by Council in February 2011 and also lodged a separate application to Amend SP 47 (Amendment 4) to introduce Car Wash, Hairdresser, Liquor Store, Recreation Centre,  Dry Cleaning Premises,  Laundromat,  Veterinary Consulting Rooms and  Veterinary Hospital) as additional uses capable of being approved on the subject lots under SP 47.

 

At its meeting on 23 August 2011 (PS02-08/11), Council resolved that the advertised version of SP 80 was satisfactory (subject to minor changes) and forwarded it to the WAPC for final approval (SP 80 is still pending consideration by the WAPC). At that meeting, Council also resolved not to initiate Amendment 4 to SP 47 because it was considered unreasonable and inappropriate to entertain any amendments to Structure Plan No. 47, given that it was (and still is) subject to review and replacement with draft SP 80.

 

The landowner of Lots 810 and 811 Wanneroo Road subsequently lodged two appeals (DR331 and DR332 of 2011) with the SAT against Council’s decisions, as per the following;

 

1.        DR331 of 2011 – Appeal against Council’s decision of 8 February 2011 (Report PS03-02/11) to exclude various proposed land uses from the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80; and

 

2.        DR332 of 2011 – Appeal against Council’s decision of 23 August 2011, (Report PS02-08/11) not to initiate Amendment 4 to SP 47 because it would be unreasonable and inappropriate to entertain any amendments to Structure Plan No. 47 given that it is subject to review through draft Structure Plan No. 80.

 

A SAT mediation hearing was subsequently held on 25 October 2011 and as an outcome, the landowner submitted an amendment (Amendment 1) to draft SP 80, which proposes to allow an additional range of land uses on Lots 810 and 811 than what was agreed by Council in its final approval of SP 80.  It should, however, be noted that Amendment 1 proposes a reduced range of land uses on Lots 810 and 811 than was previously proposed by the landowner in their submissions during advertising of SP 80 (refer ‘Detail’ section of this report). Amendment 1 also proposes to modify the definitions for ‘growers mart’ and ‘showrooms’ and to modify the land use definition for ‘Retail Nursery’ to reflect the definition of the City’s development approval (DA08/0232), granted by Council on 29 July 2008 (PD19-07/08).

 

In accordance with the provisions of the City’s delegation register, a memorandum was sent to Elected Members on 11 November 2011, providing the opportunity for Elected Members to request that Amendment 1 to draft SP 80 be presented to Council for consideration of consent to advertise. As no request was forthcoming the proposal was advertised for public comment under delegated authority, closing on 17 January 2012.

 

Administration has prepared a table titled ‘Central Precinct – Comparison of Land Uses Considered’, to enable easy comparison of the land uses that have been previously recommended, considered and agreed in the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80 (refer Attachment 1).

Detail

The key elements of the proposed Amendment are as per the following (also refer full application details - Attachment 2):

 

1.       Include the following additional uses as ‘D’ (discretionary) uses for Lots 810 and 811 Wanneroo Road:

 

·        Car wash and incidental coffee shop

·        Hairdresser

·        Liquor Store

·        Recreation Centre

·        Dry Cleaning Premises

·        Retail Nursery

 

2.       Amend the draft SP 80 definition for ‘Growers Mart’ from:-

 

          Growers Mart – means land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution or sale by retail of:

 

(a)     Fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, beans and herbs which are in a raw, unprocessed and unrefined state (“raw products”), save for any minimal processing and packaging undertaken off the premises necessary to bring the raw products to market; and

 

(b)     Milk, cheese and yoghurt

 

and may include the washing and further limited preparation or packaging of the raw products on the premises in order to make them suitable for sale, provided that any such preparation or packaging on the premises may not result in a new or different product. The use does not extend to the sale of cooked, refined, canned or processed goods (such as potato chips or other processed foods normally associated with a shop or take way food outlet) and excludes any use or activity that falls within the DPS 2 definitions of take away food outlet or restaurant, and the sale of any goods or products other than those expressly listed in this definition.

 

To the following definition:-

 

Growers Mart - means any land or buildings used for the wholesale, distribution and retail sale of primary products limited to food and beverages for human consumption including fruit and vegetables, meat, fish, bread, milk, cheese and yoghurt and may include a gourmet deli.”

 

3.       Delete the following uses from the approved list of discretionary uses adopted by Council at its meeting of 23 August 2011, on the basis that the sale of products associated with these activities would be covered by the revised Growers Mart definition also proposed by Amendment a (as stated above):

 

·        Butcher

·        Bakery

·        Fish Monger

4.       Amend the draft SP 80 definition for ‘Showroom’ from:-

Showroom – Means the land or premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire, automotive parts and accessories, camping and sporting equipment, electrical light fitting, pet supplies, floor coverings, furnishings, furniture, household appliances (where such household appliances are not of a bulky nature, or otherwise permitted by this definition, the display of such household appliances is not to exceed 10% of the NLA of an individual showroom premises area), party supplies, hardware, or goods of a bulky nature but excludes open air displays.


 

To the following definition:-

Bulky goods retail or showroom - means large premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire automotive parts and accessories, home entertainment goods, camping and recreation equipment, household appliances, electrical light fittings, office equipment supplies, animal and pet supplies, party supplies, floor coverings, swimming pools and supplies, furnishings, bedding and Manchester,  hardware, furniture, garden supplies and goods of a bulky nature that require a large area for handling, display or storage; or direct vehicle access to the site of the premises by the public for the purpose of loading goods into a vehicle after purchase or hire.

 

5.       Include the following definition for ‘Retail Nursery’:-

          Retail Nursery - means land and/or buildings used for the storage, display and retail sale of nursery and horticultural products including plants, seeds, bulbs, seedlings, trees, and other nursery stock and products associated with horticulture, domestic gardens, outdoor living, garden decor and clothing for gardening and may include associated outdoor leisure products and an incidental cafe.

Consultation

Formal consultation associated with Amendment 1 to draft SP 80 was undertaken in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and Local Planning Policy 4.2 (LPP4.2) – ‘Structure Planning’ and included writing letters to affected landowners and government agencies, placement of  a sign on site, notice in the Wanneroo Times and display on the City’s website.

 

The Amendment was advertised between 28 November 2011 and 17 January 2012.

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period, the City received five (5) submissions. Four submissions were received from government agencies, namely Water Corporation, Department of Environment and Conservation, Main Roads Western Australia and Department of Water. One (1) submission was received from Greg Rowe and Associates (refer Attachment 3) representing the owner of Lot 19 (20) Clarkson Avenue, Tapping, which is located on the opposite (eastern) side of Wanneroo Road from the ‘Central Precinct’ of draft SP 80. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s response to each is included as Attachment 4.

Comment

The following Administration comments are divided into different headings to address the salient issues and components of the amendment; these include the centres strategy, traffic implications, additional land uses and revised land use definitions.

 

Centres Strategy

 

The City’s Centres Strategy and associated Centre Planning Policy were first adopted by Council in December 2004. Administration subsequently commenced a review of these documents, which resulted in the preparation of a ‘Discussion Paper’. The discussion paper was later approved for advertising in April 2008 (item PD01–04/08). Advancement of a new Centres Strategy and Policy for the City was subsequently impacted by the WAPC’s preparation, advertising and eventual adoption of State Planning Policy 4.2 (SPP 4.2), and the release of Directions 2031 and Beyond, in August 2010.

 


 

As these higher-order State planning positions are now in effect, Administration has recommenced work on the preparation of a new Local Planning Policy to provide clear guidance on the way centres are planned and developed within the City of Wanneroo, to manage ‘out of centre’ development and to further elaborate and expand on the principles and objectives of SPP 4.2.

 

Draft SP 80 is not currently afforded the status or classification of an ‘activity centre’ under any existing retail planning strategy or policy and, given its relatively isolated nature and lack of walkable residential catchment, it is unlikely that the site would meet the criteria of an ‘activity centre’ as prescribed by SPP 4.2.  However, the provisions of SPP 4.2 would suggest that the site (given its current approvals, operating land uses and geographic location) is best suited to bulky goods retailing. This is re-affirmed by previous determinations by SAT (Amendment No. 1 to SP 47), which introduced a limited amount of showroom (bulky goods retailing) into the allowable land uses on Lots 810 and 811. This was further supported by Council’s endorsement of SP 80 to support the expansion of the ‘Central Precinct’ and increase in the maximum showroom floor space component from 5,500m2 to 17,000m2.

 

Part 5.6.1 of SPP 4.2 provides a range of criteria for determining the suitability of proposed locations for ‘Bulky Goods Retailing and Mixed Business’ and suggests that shop-retail uses should be located in a pedestrian friendly urban environment, whilst bulky goods retailing is unsuited to the walkable catchment given its size, car-parking requirements, low employment densities and need for freight vehicle access.

 

In this regard, Appendix 1 of SPP 4.2 prescribes the following interpretation of Bulky Goods or Showroom:

 

Bulky goods retail or showroom - Large premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire:

 

·        automotive parts and accessories

·        home entertainment goods

·        camping and recreation equipment

·        household appliances

·        electrical light fittings

·        office equipment supplies

·        animal and pet supplies

·        party supplies

·        floor coverings

·        swimming pools and supplies

·        furnishings, bedding and manchester

·        hardware

·        furniture

·        garden supplies, and

·        goods of a bulky nature that require a large area for handling, display or storage; or

·        direct vehicle access to the site of the premises by the public for the purpose of loading goods into a vehicle after purchase or hire.

 

In determining the suitability of land uses within SP 80 it is recognised that the ‘Growers Mart’ land use has some ‘shop-retail’ characteristics (i.e. sale of fruit and vegetables, meat and fish), however, it does not appear to meet the geographical location for an activity centre, as prescribed by SPP 4.2.  Regardless, this does not alter the fact that ‘Growers Mart’ is both an existing and approved use within SP 47 and is proposed to remain so under SP 80.

 


 

Several of the land uses proposed by Amendment 1 to SP 80 also have ‘shop-retail’ characteristics (i.e. hairdresser and liquor store). At this time, the development of the ‘Central Precinct’ can only be considered as ‘out of centre development’ because it is not afforded the status of an ‘activity centre’.

 

Part 5.6 of SPP 4.2 - Out of Centre Development (Points 1 and 2) specifies that uses such as health, welfare, community services, entertainment, recreation, commercial and cultural facilities, which are likely to attract a significant number of employees or users and/or generate significant vehicle trips, should generally be located in, or adjacent to, activity centres. Where these uses cannot be accommodated within, or adjacent to activity centres, development should be restricted to established ‘Mixed Business’ or equivalent zones with good access to public transport, rather than being dispersed.

 

In this instance there is a designated activity centre (Lot 19 Clarkson Avenue, Tapping) located on the opposite side of Wanneroo Road from SP 80 and the City has received a submission on behalf of that owner indicating a desire to accommodate all of the land uses proposed by Amendment 1 to SP 80, on their property (excluding Retail Nursery). The inclusion of those land uses in SP 80 could therefore be inconsistent with the provisions of SPP 4 .2. However, if these types of uses cannot be located in an activity centre, then the City could consider allowing a broader range of health, welfare, community services, entertainment, recreation, commercial and cultural facilities within the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80 due to its general equivalency with a ‘Mixed Business’ as per SPP 4.2.

 

The applicant has provided a letter from Macroplan in support of the additional land uses (included with Attachment 2.  The Macroplan letter suggests that the proposed land uses will provide a greater level of service to the catchment, increase competition and would not delay or preclude the provision of the same land uses within the designated activity centres.

 

Administration has considered the individual nature and merit of the proposed land uses in accordance with the draft SP 80 statement of ‘Intent’, having regard to the uses already supported by Council. In this regard, it should be noted that Administration supports the inclusion in SP 80 (through Amendment 1) of the uses - carwash, recreation centre, dry cleaning premises and retail nursery, as those uses would not attract a significant number of employees or generate a significant number of vehicle trips. Further, these uses have a high dependence on vehicle related trips (rather than serving a walkable catchment) and would benefit from the high exposure to Wanneroo Road. Support for these uses will also supplement the existing land uses on Lots 810 and 811 without detracting from the ability of the nearby designated activity centre at Lot 19 Clarkson Avenue, to provide the same suite of land uses. Conversely, Administration considers that hairdresser and liquor store are uses that are primarily shop/retail and should be limited to designated activity centres, unless otherwise already permitted under the existing zoning of a property.

 

Traffic Implications

 

As part of the City’s preparation of draft SP 80, the City engaged GHD consultants to assess the traffic circulation and movements within the structure plan area and its implications on the abutting regional road system. The conclusions of the assessment were considered acceptable, however, it was noted that traffic congestion associated with Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive will increase over time and therefore impact on the level of service provided by future traffic signals proposed on both Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive. In this regard, the report indicated that significant upgrading of both these roads will be required by 2021 (including additional lanes).

 

The City requested the applicant to provide a traffic assessment in relation to the additional land uses proposed by Amendment 1 to SP 80 and, in response, the applicant engaged Transcore to provide a report on this matter (copy included with Attachment 2).

The City engaged GHD consultants to review the traffic report prepared by Transcore, which involved the following tasks:

·        Review of the traffic volumes used in the SIDRA models;

·        Spot checks on the other input data in the SIDRA models;

·        Re-running the SIDRA models with recommended amendments to the input data;

·        Comparison of the average delays and 95% back of queue distances between the scenario with the already approved land uses and the scenario with the proposed land uses.

GHD’s review of the Transcore SIDRA modelling has shown that the impact specifically attributable to the proposed (additional) land uses would not have a significant impact on the operation of the access intersections onto Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive and it was concluded that the findings of the Transcore report are acceptable (refer Attachment 5 – GHD review).

 

Additional Land Uses Within the Central Precinct:

 

The intent of the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80, as prescribed by Point 1.1 of Table C of SP 80 is to provide for niche business and cultural uses that benefit from high exposure to Wanneroo Road but do not significantly compromise the viability of nearby activity centres and encourage a built form that respects and recognises the environment of Yellagonga Regional Park. 

 

Under SP 80, the range of land uses in the ‘Central Precinct’ should recognise the car-based accessibility and high exposure of the site to passing trade. It is noted that the ‘Central Precinct’ has not been identified as an ‘Activity Centre’ and Council was previously concerned that some of the uses previously proposed, if allowed in the ‘Central Precinct’ in combination with other permissible uses, could constitute a de facto shopping centre and directly conflict and compete with existing or proposed activity centres in the locality.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is open to Council to determine the exact nature of the uses that could be permitted in the ‘Central Precinct’ while protecting the intent of that precinct under SP 80.

 

The following represents Administration’s position on the additional land uses proposed by Amendment 1 to SP 80.

 

Car wash and incidental coffee shop – Car Wash is an identified land use within DPS 2, whilst a coffee shop is not. The land use definition of DPS 2 defines car wash as being ‘any land or buildings used for mechanical vehicle washing. Such uses may or may not be associated with a service station and may include other such uses considered by Council to be ancillary to the predominant use of the land’. In this regard, it should be noted that a service station presently is not permitted within the ‘Central Precinct’ of SP 80. The introduction of a new land use of ‘coffee shop’ is not considered desirable, however, that use may be considered in the context of ‘restaurant’ or ‘lunch bar’, which are defined land uses within DPS 2 and already allowable under SP 80. Therefore, the introduction of a new land use ‘incidental coffee shop’ is not required. The ‘car wash’ land use is a car-based use and is therefore supported.

 

Hairdresser – Hairdressers typically occur within the mixed use, business and commercial zones of DPS 2. Low key, single operator hairdressers can also occur within the residential zone as a ‘home business’. Hairdressers contribute towards activating local centres and provide a ‘typical’ activity centre land use. This use is not ‘car-based’ and may compete with land uses within the designated activity centres.

 

Although Administration’s report to the February 2011 Council meeting supported this use for the purposes of advertising only (and was advertised again as part of this amendment proposal), that use was previously deleted by Council and is not supported by Administration for the reasons described above.

 

Liquor Store – The landowner has requested this land use to accommodate a ‘large format’ liquor store. The applicant contends that this use is suited to car-based development and that there is limited opportunity to locate such uses adjacent to existing activity centres and that in the future there will be sufficient demand from the large population growth in the catchment area to accommodate multiple liquor stores.

 

Although Administration’s report to the February 2011 Council meeting supported this use for the purposes of advertising only (and was advertised as part of this amendment proposal), that use was previously deleted by Council and is not supported by Administration.

 

Liquor Store clearly has a shop/retail focus and therefore would contribute towards activating local centres and provide a typical ‘activity centre’ land use.

 

Recreation Centre – Recreation Centres typically occur within the mixed use, business, civic and cultural, commercial, private clubs and recreation and service industrial zones of the scheme. The land use definition of DPS 2 defines recreation centre as ‘any premises used for physical exercise or sports including swimming, ice skating, ten pin bowling, cricket, tennis, squash, soccer, billiards and simular activities’. The landowner has indicated that he has a client seeking to establish a gymnasium, which would be classified as a recreation centre under DPS 2. These types of land uses generally require large floor areas, cater for a ‘niche’ market and generally serve a broad catchment area. There may be synergies between this use and ‘activity centres’, particularly in regard to activating a centre during evening periods.

 

Administration’s report to the February 2011 Council meeting supported this use for the purposes of advertising only, but that use was subsequently deleted by Council. Administration is still prepared to support the inclusion of this use as it is not considered to be a core shop/retail use and whilst the ‘Central Precinct’ is not a designated activity centre, uses of this type already exist outside of designated activity centres (such as at ‘Calabrese Triangle’ and ‘Clarkson’) and function appropriately, without impacting on nearby activity centres.

 

Dry Cleaning Premises – Dry Cleaning premises can occur across a broad range of locations and zones and typically occur within the business, commercial, service industrial and general industrial zones of DPS 2. Whilst this land use can support the activation of identified centres, it can also exist independently of such centres, within ‘industrial’ zoned land and may be acceptable as a ‘niche business’. The land use definition of dry cleaning premises under DPS 2 is as follows:  ‘any land or buildings used for the cleaning of garments and other fabrics by chemical processes’. Administration’s report to the February 2011 Council meeting supported this use for the purposes of advertising, but it was subsequently deleted by Council. Administration still supports the inclusion of ‘Dry Cleaning Premises’ for the abovementioned reasons.

 

Retail Nursery – Administration was initially opposed to the introduction of a ‘retail nursery’ definition in SP 80 because it is not a prescribed land use in DPS 2 and Administration was reluctant to create new categories of land uses in SP 80 that are not aligned to those in DPS 2.

 


 

However, given ‘Retail Nursery’ is a specific use that was defined in the City’s development approval for the subject land (DA08/0232), which was approved by Council on 29 July 2008 (PD19-07/08) and is currently operating on the site, it is Administration’s view that the introduction of this land use will only serve to align the permitted use(s) under SP 80 with the corresponding retail nursery definition already applied by Council’s previous development approval therefore supports the ‘Retail Nursery’ land use and associated definition.

 

Revised Land Use Definitions:

 

Growers Mart – SP 80 incorporates a different definition for growers mart than the existing SP 47 that it will replace.  Through Amendment 1 to SP 80, the applicant is seeking to re-introduce a modified version of the original land use definition to include products being sold from and uses approved for the site (i.e. milk, cheese, yoghurt and gourmet deli).

 

The following definition for growers mart is currently included in draft SP 80:

 

Growers Mart – means land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution or sale by retail of:

 

(a)     Fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, beans and herbs which are in a raw, unprocessed and unrefined state (“raw products”), save for any minimal processing and packaging undertaken off the premises necessary to bring the raw products to market; and

 

(b)     Milk, cheese and yoghurt,

 

and may include the washing and further limited preparation or packaging of the raw products on the premises in order to make them suitable for sale, provided that any such preparation or packaging on the premises may not result in a new or different product. The use does not extend to the sale of cooked, refined, canned or processed goods (such as potato chips or other processed foods normally associated with a shop or take way food outlet) and excludes any use or activity that falls within the DPS 2 definitions of take away food outlet or restaurant, and the sale of any goods or products other than those expressly listed in this definition.

 

The definition included in SP 47 is as follows:

 

Growers Mart - means any land or buildings used for the wholesale, distribution and retail sale of primary products including fruit and vegetables, meat, fish, bread.

 

Administration developed the revised definition of growers mart to remove the ambiguity and generality of the SP 47 definition and to provide greater clarity for the City and the landowner in respect of the range of goods that could be sold under the growers mart definition. Those uses previously approved under the SP 47 ‘growers mart’ definition that could be better described as individual land uses have now been defined in SP 80, including the following:

 

·        Butcher

·        Bakery

·        Fish Monger

The applicant has requested that the above land uses not be identified as separate land uses and simply treated as ‘growers mart’ or primary products and that the original definition be re-introduced in a modified form as per the following:

Growers Mart means any land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution and retail sale of primary products limited to food and beverages for human consumption including fruit and vegetables, meat, fish, bread, milk, cheese and yoghurt and may include a gourmet deli”.

Administration has included and defined specific land uses in SP 80 to encompass the uses operating on the site and to provide clarity to the meaning of ‘growers mart’. The original definition has historically been problematic for both the landowner and the City in determining the suitability of land uses. The existing definition under SP 47 has given rise to the following applications, which were refused by the City:

·        The sale of cooked fish and potato chips

·        Gourmet deli

·        Wine Sales

·        Fish and Chips Shop

The City’s refusal of applications for the above uses have been the subject of appeals to SAT, where it has been successfully argued by the City that the uses do not involve the sale of ‘primary products’ and thus cannot be approved under the growers mart definition. The applicant was aggrieved by SAT’s determination and subsequently sought to challenge that decision in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court proceedings have now been adjourned to a date in or after March 2012, pending Council’s consideration of this amendment.

 

The City has expended significant time and resources in assessing and defending decisions regarding the nature of ‘growers mart’ and it is not considered appropriate to re-introduce the applicant’s modified version of the original definition as this would again create difficulties in interpreting the definition and could re-introduce the ‘primary product’ component of the definition. Administration does not support the modification of the ‘growers mart’ definition.

Showroom – The applicant has requested that the SP 80 definition for ‘showroom’ be modified from ‘Showroom’ to ‘Bulky goods retail or showroom’.  The applicant has requested that the definition from State Planning Policy 4.2 “Activity Centres for Perth and Peel” be included as it is referenced in the policy as ‘out of centre’ development. Whilst there are only subtle differences between the current and suggested wording, the definition included in SP 80 reflects the current ‘showroom’ definition included into SP 47, which was determined by the SAT in August 2010 (SAT Matter DR318 of 2009) as part of its consideration of a previous amendment to SP 47 (Amendment Number 1). Administration does not support the modification of the showroom definition.

The current and proposed definitions (respectively) are re-iterated below:-

Showroom Definition – Means the land or premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire, automotive parts and accessories, camping and sporting equipment, electrical light fitting, pet supplies, floor coverings, furnishings, furniture, household appliances (where such household appliances are not of a bulky nature, or otherwise permitted by this definition, the display of such household appliances is not to exceed 10% of the NLA of an individual showroom premises area), party supplies, hardware, or goods of a bulky nature but excludes open air displays.

 

Bulky goods retail or showroom - means large premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire automotive parts and accessories, home entertainment goods, camping and recreation equipment, household appliances, electrical light fittings, office equipment supplies, animal and pet supplies, party supplies, floor coverings, swimming pools and supplies, furnishings, bedding and Manchester,  hardware, furniture, garden supplies and goods of a bulky nature that require a large area for handling, display or storage; or direct vehicle access to the site of the premises by the public for the purpose of loading goods into a vehicle after purchase or hire.

 

The main difference relates to the SP 80 wording that restricts ‘non-bulky’ goods to 10% of the floor space (i.e. toasters, TV’s etc) and does not specifically refer to swimming pools, office supplies, recreation equipment, manchester or garden supplies.

Administration does not support the modification of the showroom definition.

 

Retail Nursery – Administration supports the inclusion of the ‘Retail Nursery’ land use, subject to the deletion of the ‘plant nursery’ land use from the land use provisions of Table C in SP 80. The proposed ‘Retail Nursery’ land use is in accordance with the definition included in the City of Wanneroo development approval (DA08/0232), which was approved by Council on 29 July 2008 (PD19-07/08) and is currently operating on the site. In addition to the inclusion of ‘Retail Nursery’ the following definition should be included (as per the development approval definition).

 

Retail Nursery - means land and/or buildings used for the storage, display and retail sale of nursery and horticultural products including plants, seeds, bulbs, seedlings, trees, and other nursery stock and products associated with horticulture, domestic gardens, outdoor living, garden decor and clothing for gardening and may include associated outdoor leisure products and an incidental cafe.

 

OPTIONS

 

Considering the history of the site, Council’s previous resolutions and the arguments presented, the following options are available to Council:

 

Option 1   -    Support Amendment 1, as proposed by the applicant;

 

Option 2   -    Resolve to support Amendment 1, as proposed by the applicant, but subject to modifications deemed necessary by Council;

 

Option 3   -    Resolve not to support Amendment 1, as proposed by the applicant.

 

On balance, Administration considers that Option 2 above represents the most reasonable and pragmatic response in determining appropriate land uses for the site and excluding those land uses that are considered to have ‘shop-retail’ characteristics and best located within ‘activity centres’.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment 1 to draft SP 80 has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that Council may refuse to adopt the amendment or resolve that the amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications.

 

Part 9.7.1 provides that an Amendment to a draft Structure Plan may be advertised by the Council at its discretion, however the Council should not sign and seal the amendment, prior to the substantive Structure plan being signed, sealed and certified by the Council and the Commissions under Clause 9.6.3 and 9.6.5.

 

If the applicant/landowner is aggrieved by Council’s decision then they have the right to continue with their SAT proceedings in respect of the amendment proposal.

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment

 

Policy Implications

The proposal is assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2, Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

The City has engaged GHD consultants to assess and review the traffic generation modelling prepared by the applicant and has incurred a cost of approximately $2,000, which has been allocated to the Planning Implementation operational budget. The City will attempt to recoup this cost from the applicant as an ‘additional cost’ incurred during the processing of Amendment 1 to draft SP 80, in accordance with the provisions of the ‘Planning and Development Regulations 2009’.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received in response to the public advertising of Amendment No. 1 to the Draft Drovers Place Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 80 and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions; and

 

2.       PURSUANT to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Draft Drovers Place Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 80 is SATISFACTORY, SUBJECT to the amendment being modified to only incorporate the following:

 

a)      Introduce the following as discretionary (‘D’) land uses on Lots 810 and 811 Wanneroo Road, in Table C of Draft Structure Plan No. 80:

 

·        Car Wash

·        Dry Cleaning Premises

·        Recreation Centre

·        Retail Nursery

 

b)      Add the following definition for “Retail Nursery” in Table C of Draft Structure Plan No. 80:

 

         “Retail Nursery – means land and/or buildings used for the storage, display and retail sale of nursery and horticultural products including plants, seeds, bulbs, seedlings, trees, and other nursery stock and products associated with horticulture, domestic gardens, outdoor living, garden décor and clothing for gardening and may include associated outdoor leisure products and an incidental café.”

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Central Precinct - Comparisn of Land Uses Considered and Proposed

12/17860

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Proposed Amendment 1 to draft SP80

11/122909

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Submission by Greg Rowe and Associates

11/144879

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions

12/13136

 

5.

Attachment 5 - GHD Traffic Assessment

12/13615

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                        76

CENTRAL PRECINCT LANDUSESCOMPARISON of LAND uses considered AND PROPOSED

ADVERTISED VERSION OF DRAFT SP80: DATED DECEMBER 2009

USES RECOMMNEDED BY ADMINISTRATION FOR COUNCIL REPORT 8 FEBRUARY  2011

LAND USES APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND INCLUDED IN RE-ADVERTISED VERSION OF SP 80

ADOPTED BY COUNCIL 23 AUGUST 2011 AND REFERRED TO WAPC PENDING FINAL APPROVAL

LAND USES REQUESTED IN AMEDMENT 1 TO SP80

Art Gallery

Art Gallery

Art Gallery

Art Gallery

 

Auction Room

Auction Room

Auction Room

Auction Room

 

 

Bakery

Bakery

Bakery

 

 

Bank

 

 

 

 

Butcher

Butcher

Butcher

 

 

Car park

Car park

Car park

 

 

Caretakers Dwelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Car Wash

Child Care Centre

Child Care Centre

 

 

 

 

Civic Building

Civic Building

Civic Building

 

 

Consulting Room

 

 

 

Costume Hire

Costume Hire

Costume Hire

Costume Hire

 

 

Drive –Through Food Outlet

Drive –Through Food Outlet

Drive –Through Food Outlet

 

 

Dry Cleaning Premises

 

 

Dry Cleaning Premises

 

Education Establishment

Education Establishment

Education Establishment

 

 

Fish Monger

Fish Monger

Fish Monger

 

 

Funeral Parlour

Funeral Parlour

Funeral Parlour

 

 

 

 

 

 

Growers Mart (as a non-conforming land use)

Growers Mart

Growers Mart

Growers Mart

 

 

Hairdresser

 

 

Hairdresser

 

Hall

 

 

 

 

Hardware Store

Hardware Store

Hardware Store

 

 

Laundromat

Laundromat

Laundromat

 

 

Laundry

 

 

 

 

Liquor Store

 

 

Liquor Store

 

Lunch Bar

Lunch Bar

Lunch Bar

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mast or Antenna

Mast or Antenna

 

 

 

 

Medical Centre

 

 

 

Office

Office

Office

Office

 

 

Park

Park

Park

 

 

Place of Assembly

 

 

 

 

Place of Worship

Place of Worship

Place of Worship

 

 

Plant Nursery

Plant Nursery

Plant Nursery

 

 

Private Recreation

Private Recreation

Private Recreation

 

Public Exhibition Facility

Public Exhibition Facility

 

 

 

 

Reception Centre

Reception Centre

Reception Centre

 

 

Recreation Centre

 

 

Recreation Centre

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

Restaurant

 

Retail Nursery (as a non-conforming land use)

 

 

 

Retail Nursery

Showroom

Showroom  (Lots 810 & 811 – 5,500 m2)

D (Lots 1 and 132 – 11,500 m2)

Showroom  (Lots 810 & 811 – 5,500 m2)

D (Lots 1 and 132 – 11,500 m2)

Showroom  (Lots 810 & 811 – 5,500 m2)

D (Lots 1 and 132 – 11,500 m2)

 

Self Storage Units

 Self Storage Units

 Self Storage Units

 Self Storage Units

 

 

Take-Away Food Outlet

 

 

 

Telecommunications Infrastructure

Telecommunications Infrastructure

 

 

 

Veterinary Consulting Rooms

Veterinary Consulting Rooms

Veterinary Consulting Rooms

Veterinary Consulting Rooms

 

 

Veterinary Hospital

Veterinary Hospital

Veterinary Hospital

 

 

Video Hire

 

 

 

 

Warehouse

Warehouse

Warehouse

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                  79


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                108


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                112


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                113

 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT 1 TO DRAFT STRUCTURE PLAN 80 – DROVERS PLACE PRECINCT LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN

 SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Closed 17 January 2012)

 

 

No.

Name

Summary of Submission

Administration Response/Comment

Recommended Modification

1

 

Department of Water (DoW)

 

 

The DoW has previously raised concerns that a Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) has not been prepared as suggested by the WAPC’s ‘Better Urban Water Management (BUWM)’ guidelines and that the Water Management Framework prepared and submitted by the City contains insufficient information on water management and cannot be considered a draft LWMS.

 

Council has previously considered the DoW’s comments in regard to this issue. At the meeting of Council on 28 August 2011 (PS02/08/11), it was determined that;

 

“The City has prepared an „Urban Water Management Framework to provide some guiding principles for landowners in the preparation of the more detailed ‘Water Management Plans’, which are required prior to the subdivision or development of the land.

 

The City accepts that the Commissions policy on ‘Better Urban Water Management’ (BUWM) suggest that all new structure plans require a Water Management Strategy, however, in this instance the City is reviewing an existing structure plan. The BUWM document has primarily been developed for new green field structure plans and the City considers that the incorporation of the Water Management Framework into the Part 2 section of the structure plan is adequate to ensure that the future Urban Water Management Plans can address the issues associated with urban water management.

 

 

Nil – As per Council resolution 28 August 2011 (PS02-08/11).

 

2

 

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

 

 

No objection to the proposal.

 

Noted.

 

Nil

 

3

 

Greg Rowe and Associates

 

 

 

 

 

3.1

 

 

Lot 19 is zoned Commercial and located directly opposite the subject site. Amendment 1 is proposing to introduce land uses that could and should occur only within the designated ‘activity centre’ on Lot 19.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.2

 

 

The owner has recently lodged a development application on Lot 19, which includes a carwash and other buildings that are intended to accommodate uses such as hairdresser, dry cleaning business, and private recreation (gymnasium).

Objection to all proposed land uses with the exception of ‘retail nursery’.

Amendment 1 to SP80 proposes uses that will be ‘permitted’ uses within the Central Precinct, whilst these uses are discretionary within the ‘commercial’ zone, where there location ought to be favoured.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.3

 

 

The applicant has suggested that the proposed uses are under-provided in this locality, however the owner of Lot 19 has proposed the same uses and therefore this argument should be disregarded.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.4

 

 

It is likely that any application incorporating the proposed uses would undermine the planned activity centre hierarchy.

The City’s draft Activity Centres Strategy provides a centres framework to identify those locations most suitable as ‘activity centres’ and encourages commercial, retail and office development in the most suitable locations. Draft SP80 is not identified as an activity centre in this strategy and the inclusion of the proposed uses will undermine the integrity of the City’s planning framework.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.5

 

 

There is no maximum retail floorspace limit for SP80 as exists for other identified activity centres, including Lot 19. The inclusion of the proposed land uses will enable not only development of these uses on a site not designated as an activity centre but permit it to occur without any floorspace restriction.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.6

 

 

 

The proposed land uses will directly undermine the viability of the commercial centre on Lot 19 and therefore affect the ability of the centre to provide a range of services. For example if a liquor store was approved a licence may only be issued to one in the locality and therefore preclude a further liquor store occurring.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

3.7

 

The Central Precinct is relatively remote and there is no immediate residential catchment and certainly no walkable catchment leaving the site better suited to showroom and storage businesses that could not be accommodated elsewhere. The proposed uses are not showroom or storage and are predominately retail uses, which will directly affect our clients land centre.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

3.8

 

 

The intent of the ‘Central Precinct’ as defined in the draft SP80 is to provide for niche business and cultural uses that benefit from high exposure to Wanneroo Road and don’t significantly compromise the viability of nearby activity centres and encourage a built form that respects and recognises the environment of the ‘Yellagonga Regional Park’.  The uses proposed under Amendment 1 are not considered to be ‘niche uses’, particularly when they are specifically contemplated for development on adjoining land under the provisions of DPS 2. The proposed uses would compromise the viability of the local centre on Lot 19, which would be contrary to the ‘intent’ of the ‘Central Precinct’.

 

Noted

Refer Comments Section of this report.

 

Nil

 

4

 

Department of Environment and Conservation

 

DEC provided detailed advice in relation to the advertising of SP80 in letters to the City dated 15 February 2010 and 10 May 2011. It is noted that some of this advice has been included into the structure plan, particularly regarding the treatment of the wetland buffer. All advice in these previous letters is considered relevant, except where it has already been adopted into the structure plan. The DEC notes that several new land uses and definitions are being proposed and that this amendment is unlikely to cause any environmental impact to the adjacent Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

Council considered the previous submissions by the DEC at the meeting on 8 February 2011 (PS03-02/11) and 28 August 2011 (PS02/08/11), and resolved to make a number of modifications to draft SP80. The DEC has no further comment to make in regard to the land uses being proposed in Amendment 1.

 

Nil

 

5

 

Water Corporation

 

 

Water Corporation has no objections in principle to this proposed amendment

 

Noted.

 

Nil

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                118


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                130


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                132

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                133

 

Development Applications

PS05-03/12       Development Application - Proposed Mobile Telecommunication Facility - Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara (DA2011/999)

File Ref:                                              DEV11/1329 – 11/141371

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for planning approval of a 25 metre high telecommunication monopole and ground level equipment shelter at Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara.

 

Applicant

Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd

Owner

Roka Zora Vlahov

Location

Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara

Site Area

1.1349 Hectares

DPS 2 Zoning

Service Industrial

 

 

Background

The application has been made to introduce wireless network coverage to the rapidly developing Pearsall neighbourhood and the Wangara area. The subject lot is situated in Wangara, abutting Ocean Reef Road to the north, in proximity to its intersection of Wanneroo Road. The location is illustrated on Attachment 1 and is on a cleared, vacant part of this Industrial property.

 

This property is currently used for both a residential and an industrial purpose. The subject lot currently contains a dwelling (constructed in 1962, prior to the development of industry in its immediate surrounds), an outbuilding and a warehouse.

Detail

Plans for the proposed 25 metre monopole and equipment shelter are included as Attachment 2. Three panel antennae and one dish will be attached to the monopole, the antennae proposed at a height of 24.35 metres and the dish proposed at a height of 20 metres. The applicant has advised that the installation will comply with the Australian Communications and Media Authority’s requirements for electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure levels.

Consultation

The development application was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days by means of an onsite sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, the City’s website and letters to landowners within 500 metres of the proposed development.

 

The submission period closed on 19 December 2011, with nine submissions received at the closing date. A summary of submissions, all of which object to the proposal, and Administration responses are provided in Attachment 3.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period and following detailed assessment by Administration relate to the following:

 

·        Loss of amenity resulting from the visual appearance of the proposed telecommunications infrastructure;

·        Loss of property or rental value that could potentially result from the installation of the proposed telecommunications infrastructure; and

·        Concerns of health implications resulting from EMR, emanating from the proposed telecommunications infrastructure.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of the application is provided in the Comment section.

Comment

Most landowners that objected to the proposal are located in Pearsall, on the opposite (northern) side of Ocean Reef Road, with the remainder being owners of an adjoining business in Wangara, and residents in Woodvale and Wanneroo.

 

The monopole structure is designed to reduce its visual impact by its relatively slim appearance. Many of the comments received during the consultation process expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the proposed monopole, particularly affecting views enjoyed by properties on Zingarello Street and Archer Street. Administration’s response is that the proposed monopole is not proposed at a natural high point in the local landscape and its height is therefore required to provide the coverage sought by the telecommunication carrier.  In this context, the slimline design of the monopole is intended to, and in consideration of its design, limit its prominence and visibility as far as practicable.  The monopole is proposed at a level considerably lower than the objector’s residing on Zingarello Street and Archer Street, with those streets being approximately 15 metres to 21 metres higher than the subject site.

 

The City is not responsible for regulating, testing or otherwise managing electromagnetic radiation (that is the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility), and the applicant’s advice that emissions meet Australian standards should be noted.

 

The City’s Mobile Telephone Base Station Policy (refer to policy implications below) stipulates a 500 metre buffer to sensitive land uses, including dwellings. Achieving the 500 metre buffer prescribed by Council’s policy is always difficult in residential neighbourhoods.

 

In terms of compliance with the City’s abovementioned Policy, the proposed telecommunication facility would be situated approximately 137m from the nearest Residential zoned land (on the north side of Ocean Reef Road). Approximately 300 dwellings exist within a 500 metre radius of the site of the proposed facility.

 

Administration sought further information from the applicant in terms of mobile telecommunication coverage in the area, to ascertain whether the proposed facility could be relocated to another property elsewhere in Wangara (in order to achieve a 500m separation distance from dwellings). Whilst these investigations revealed that many properties do exist in the Wangara industrial area that would achieve a 500m separation distance from dwellings (generally located south of Prindiville Drive and east of Pappas Street), the applicant has advised that properties in those areas are either outside the proposed coverage catchment and, in the case of existing telecommunication facilities located in those areas, the existing monopoles are already at capacity and cannot accommodate additional carriers.


 

In view of this, if the proposed monopole were to be relocated elsewhere in Wangara to achieve a 500m separation distance from dwellings, it would need to be of a different design and construction (most likely significantly taller than the current proposal and therefore more visible) to provide the coverage sought in this instance. Administration does not consider that would be a desirable outcome in terms of reducing impacts of such facilities on the visual amenity of the locality.

 

State Planning Policy 5.2 – Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2) does not prescribe a separation distance from the dwellings, on the basis that the greatest demand for mobile telephone services is generated in residential areas.

 

So long as issues such as EMR and visual amenity can be addressed, there is scope to support mobile base stations which do not comply with the City’s policy. In this case, it is considered that the visual impact of the proposal will not be detrimental to the amenity of the locality. Further, the proposal will need to comply with applicable Australian standards in terms of EMR.

Statutory Compliance

Telecommunications Infrastructure is a ‘D’ (discretionary) use class in the Service Industrial Zone under District Planning Scheme No. 2.

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Economic

3.3    Provision of timely and coordinated regional infrastructure

Policy Implications

An assessment of the proposal against the City’s Mobile Telephone Base Station Policy is provided in the Comment section of this report.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Under the provisions of clause 6.9.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2, GRANTS planning approval to the application submitted by Planning Solutions Pty Ltd on behalf of Vodafone, to erect a 25 metre monopole and equipment shelter for a mobile telephone base station on Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara, in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 2, and subject to the following conditions:

 


 

a)      A schedule of colours and materials being submitted to the City to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation, prior to the issue of a building licence, demonstrating that the pole and equipment shelter will complement the surrounding locality as far as practicable;

 

b)      No development or fencing (other than landscaping) shall be permitted on land required for future road or associated purposes;

 

c)      No earthworks shall encroach onto the Ocean Reef Road reservation; and

 

d)      No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Ocean Reef Road reserve;

 

2.       ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara

12/9908

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans of the Proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure - Lot 51 Uppill Place, Wangara

12/17605

Minuted

3.

Summary of Submissions - DA for Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot 51 (20) Uppill Place, Wangara (V2)

12/14370

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                137


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                138


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                141


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                144

PS06-03/12       Proposed Liquor Store - DA2011/845 - 104 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler 

File Ref:                                              DEV11/1141 – 12/3928

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for a proposed Liquor Store at Lot 9031 (No.104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler.

 

Applicant

Connolly Boulevard Pty Ltd

Owner

Connolly Boulevard Pty Ltd

Location

(Lot 9031) No.104 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler

Site Area

3553m2

DPS 2 Zoning

ASP 27 Zoning

Urban

Centre 

 

 

 

Background

The subject property is located on Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler and is situated approximately 960 metres from Marmion Avenue to the West, and adjoins Connelly Drive to the East and Kingsbridge Park to the North (Attachment 1). Lot 9031 is zoned ‘Urban’ under the City’s District Planning Scheme Number 2 (DPS 2) and ‘Centre’ under Agreed Structure Plan No.27 (ASP 27). A subsequent Butler-Jindalee District Structure Plan No. 39 (DSP) identified a ‘Local Centre’ comprising retail NLA of 950m2 on the subject property.

 

An application for development approval for a shopping centre was submitted to the City on 4 January 2010. The application was conditionally approved at a Council Meeting held 27 July 2010 (Item PS05 -07/10). This approval nominated a total retail net lettable area (NLA) of 900m2, comprising two retail tenancies of 791m2 and 109m2 (As shown in Attachment 2) with adjoining common stock room, cool room, and a delivery area on the ground floor. A mezzanine level includes a plant room, staff room and toilet facilities. The total floorspace of the centre is 1255m2.

 

An application was submitted to the City on 30 August 2011 for development approval for a Liquor Store utilising the shopping centre floorspace. This application is the subject of this report. 

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Centre’ Zone’. In accordance with the provisions of DPS2, no development shall be commenced or carried on land zoned ‘Centre’ until a further Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted. Subclause 9.11.2 states that if Council is required to consider an application in respect to a development before a further Structure Plan has been prepared and adopted, then Council shall do so considering the interests of orderly and proper planning and concern for the amenity of the locality in the short, medium and long term. The current proposal has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of Clause 9.11.2.

 

Detail

 

The proposal incorporates the reconfiguration of the shopping centre, and inclusion of a liquor store which comprises 114m2, with additional coolroom and storage area of 35m2.

The revised ground floor layout is contained in Attachment 3. The reconfiguration will result in no increase in Net Lettable Area, and no additional car parking bay requirement.  

The operating hours as nominated in the application are 8.00am to 10.00pm Monday to Saturday, and 10.00am to 10.00pm on Sundays.

Consultation

Public consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days by way of an advertisement placed in the Wanneroo Times, a sign erected on site, and letters to immediately adjoining landowners. At the conclusion of the comment period, nine written submissions were received, all objections to the proposal. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are contained in Attachment 4.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period and following detailed assessment by Administration relate to:

 

1.       Anti-social behaviour

2.       Land use conflict

3.       Duplication of services – the proximity of other liquor outlets

4.       Traffic generation and access

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of the application is provided in the comment section.

 

Comment

 

Issue 1 – Anti-social behaviour

 

Concerns have been raised, in all submissions received, that the use of the site as a liquor store will attract anti-social behaviour to the locality, and that the use is not suitable in such proximity to a school, parks, and residences.

 

Response

 

The proposed liquor store will provide for the sale of alcoholic products, and in itself is unlikely to lead to anti-social behaviour. Whilst the proposed operating hours for the liquor store would provide a longer period of casual surveillance of the area, it is considered in this instance and given the proximity of residences that reduced hours of business may be appropriate to reduce the potential impact of noise and traffic. It is recommended therefore that the operating hours should conclude at 8:30pm in the evenings.

 

Issue 2 – Land Use Conflict 

 

The proposed site is located in close proximity to two parks and two schools. Submissions received raised issues that the location of the liquor store near these community facilities would have an adverse impact on the users.

 

Response

 

It is not uncommon for commercial uses (including liquor stores) to be located within close proximity of community facilities and educational establishments. No evidence has been provided that supports the view that adverse impacts will arise where commercial and community uses are in close proximity to one another.

 


 

Issue 3 – Duplication of Services: the proximity of other liquor stores 

 

Concerns were raised regarding the number of liquor stores within the locality and that there is no need for an additional outlet.

 

Response

 

The City does not have the ability to regulate the number of commercial premises within an area, as this is largely regulated by market forces. In addition, premises dealing with the sale of alcohol are further regulated by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor who undertake further assessment of such proposals to determine the need prior to granting liquor licences.

 

Issue 4 – Traffic Generation and Access

 

Concern was raised by two submissions about traffic generation from the site, and proximity of entrances to the roundabout on Connelly Drive and Kingsbridge Boulevard.

 

Response

 

Traffic impacts were addressed in a report (Item PS 05 – 07/10) for the application for a Shopping Centre presented to council meeting held 27 February 2010. The proposal for a change of use only for a Liquor Store within the shopping centre, has no additional impact on volume of cars and access/egress, or for additional carbays as the floorspace is simply being reconfigured.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is capable of being approved, and despite objections it is a suitable use which is supported.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with Clause 9.11.2 the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 in relation to Structure Plans 27 and 39, which refer to a Centre Zone.

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the development application submitted by Connolly Boulevard Pty Ltd in accordance with the provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, for a Liquor Store to be part of a proposed Shopping Centre at Lot 9031 (No.104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler as shown on plans received 30 August 2011 subject to:

1.       The Liquor Store approval shall be aligned with the previous Shopping Centre approval period which lapses 28 July 2012, and conditions 1-25  inclusive applied to the shopping centre;

2.       Operating hours shall be limited to 8.00am to 8.30pm Monday to Saturday, and 10.00am to 8.30pm on Sundays; and

3.       The total retail lettable area shall not exceed 900m2 for the proposed Shopping Centre, and Liquor Store. For the purposes of this condition, retail uses are those listed in the ‘Planning Land Use Category 5 shop/retail by WA Standard Land Use Classification’ as outlined in Appendix 4 of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy No.9 – Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement  for the Perth Metropolitan Region, dated 17 October 2000.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan

12/14359

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Site Layout : Shopping Centre

12/14366

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Proposed Floor Plan : Liquor Store

12/14371

 

4.

Table of Submissions

12/4933

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                148


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                149


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                150


Summary of Submissions – Proposed Liquor Store: 104 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler

 

No

Name of Submittor

Summary of Submission

Administration Comment

1.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

A and L Atkins

10 Aldreth Kane, Butler

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks, and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

2.0

B and A Batten

6 Aldreth Lane, Butler

Objection:

·           There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

3.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adrian Price and Linda Koen

26 Woodstock Way, Butler

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report.

4.0

D.Pitt

1 Chorley Avenue, Butler

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

·         The proposal will result in increased traffic generated from the premises and increased burden on the road network.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

5.0

B and A Gudgeon

12 Moorlinch Street, Butler

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

6.0

J. Yap

1 Chorley Avenue, Butler

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         The proposal will result in the devaluation of surrounding properties.

Noted

The first two issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

 

The property values due to the proposed land use are speculative and are not a valid planning consideration.

 

7.0

C. Coyte

(Address not given)

 

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report.

 

8.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.Wood

(address not given)

 

 

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

·         There are other liquor stores located within the vicinity of the subject site

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report. 

9.0

Silka

(Address not given)

 

 

 

Objection:

·         The proposal will result in increased anti-social behaviour in the area.  

·         The proposal will result in a land use conflict with proximity to schools, parks and children.

Noted

The issues raised are discussed in the body of the report.  

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                153

 

Other Matters

PS07-03/12       Appointment of Community Representatives to the Environmental Advisory Committee

File Ref:                                              1441 – 11/140234

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the appointment of community representatives to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC).

 

Background

In accordance with Section 5.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), following the 2011 Local Government Elections, Council sought nominations for community representatives on its various advisory committees, including the EAC.

 

The main role of the EAC is to provide a forum for community participation in the preparation of the City’s environmental policies, strategies and other such matters referred to it by the City.

 

The EAC’s Terms of Reference provide for a maximum of 15 members, comprised of 3 elected members and a maximum of 12 community representatives. Council’s appointed elected member delegates to the EAC are Cr Guise and Cr Smithson. Cr Gray is the appointed deputy delegate. Currently none of the community representative positions are filled.

Detail

Only two community representative nominations were received for appointment to the EAC, from John Kelly, a resident of Woodvale and Kevin McLeod, a resident of Madeley.

Comment

Mr Kelly has been a community representative of the EAC since September 2005 and has provided advice and input into the preparation of the City of Wanneroo Local Biodiversity Strategy and Local Water Management Strategy as well as the Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan, Gnangara Sustainability Strategy and the Koondoola Regional Bushland Management Plan. He has extensive knowledge in various environmental issues and has attended local and state environmental seminars.

 

Mr McLeod has been a community representative of the EAC since April 2009 and has links to both the Yellagonga Advisory Committee as well as Friends of Yellagonga. He has attained environmental experience through his involvement with these groups, including working within the Friends of Yellagonga nursery to propagate plants used in rehabilitation projects within the Yellagonga Regional Park. He has also provided input into research projects for the University of Western Australia and Curtin University regarding the Oblong Turtle (Chelodiona oblonga).

 


 

Based on the experience and knowledge of the two community representative nominations, combined with the Councillor delegates, Administration feels that there is sufficient representation for the EAC to act effectively. This situation will be reassessed in the future should additional community members express an interest in joining the EAC.

Statutory Compliance

Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995, Section 5.10(1)(a) requires, by absolute majority, a committee to have its members appointed by the local government.

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Governance

4.2    Improve community engagement

 

4.2.1      Encourage community participation in the decision making process

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council by ABSOLUTE MAJORITY APPOINTS to the City of Wanneroo Environmental Advisory Committee Mr John Kelly and Mr Kevin McLeod as community representatives.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                155

 

PS08-03/12       Yanchep Boardwalk Update

File Ref:                                              DEV10/237 – 12/20771

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC’s) decision to refuse the City’s application for retrospective planning approval for the Yanchep Boardwalk, and the action taken by Administration in response to that decision.

 

Background

The Yanchep Boardwalk has been subject to extensive Council consideration since its construction in June 2009, and has been the subject of Administration reports to Council meetings on 17 November 2009, 15 December 2009, 6 April 2010, 4 May 2010, 24 August 2010, 14 December 2010 and (most recently) 5 April 2011.

 

At its 5 April 2011 meeting (Item IN02-04/11), Council considered feedback received from the Yanchep community on the proposed construction of a pedestrian path to replace the Yanchep Boardwalk and, in response, resolved (among other things) to:

 

1.       AGREE to lodge a new development application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme for the Western Australian Planning Commission’s retrospective approval of the existing boardwalk at Yanchep;

 

And…

 

3.       REQUIRE Administration to submit a report back to Council once a response is received from the Western Australia Planning Commission.

 

In accordance with Council’s decision, Administration prepared an application for retrospective planning approval of the boardwalk, which was lodged with WAPC on 31 May 2011. The applicable statutory timeframe required the WAPC to make a decision on the City’s application by 29 July 2011. However, the Department of Planning (DoP) requested several extensions of time (from the City) to determine the application and, in good faith, Administration agreed to those requests. The application was eventually considered by the Statutory Planning Committee (SPC) of the WAPC at its meeting on 24 January 2012 with formal notification of the WAPC’s refusal decision issued on 31 January 2012. The WAPC’s decision is reproduced below:

 

“The Western Australian Planning Commission resolved to refuse the retrospective development application for the Yanchep Boardwalk for the following reasons:

 

1.       The development of the boardwalk is considered to be visually intrusive on the coastal landscape and therefore contrary to the intent of State Planning Policy 2.6. State Coastal Planning Policy.

 

2.       The development is considered to be inconsistent with the preservation of the amenity of the locality as outlined in Clause 30 of the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

 

3.       The development, if approved, would establish an undesirable precedent for proposals of a similar form and structure within foreshore reserves.

Advice

 

Consideration would be given to an Option 2 proposal provided in a fresh application.”

Detail

In summary, the WAPC’s reasons for refusal of the City’s application suggest that the visibility of the boardwalk impacts on the amenity of the locality and, if approved, would set an undesirable precedent.

 

In light of the WAPC’s decision, and given that Council’s directive to seek retrospective approval of the boardwalk had not been exhausted, Administration lodged an application for review (appeal) of the WAPC’s decision with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 24 February 2012 (SAT Matter: DR44/2012). The City’s grounds for review of the WAPC’s decision are as follows:

 

1.       That the WAPC failed to consider matters relevant to the City’s application for retrospective approval; and/or

2.       That in coming to its decision, the WAPC took into account irrelevant matters.

 

A statutory timeframe of 28 days from the date of the WAPC’s decision letter was available to the City to submit an application for review with SAT against that decision.

Consultation

At the Council Forum on 21 February 2012, Administration notified Elected Members of the WAPC’s decision and of Administration’s intent to lodge an application for review of that decision with SAT, and to submit a report on the matter to the 6 March 2012 Council meeting.

Comment

The SPC’s decision (on behalf of the WAPC) to refuse the City’s application for retrospective approval of the boardwalk is identical to the Recommendation provided in the Department of Planning’s report to the SPC, with the exception of the Advice Note, which was added by the Committee.

 

However, the Department of Planning report to the SPC provided little or no justification to explain how and why the Department had arrived at its Recommendation and merely reiterated the recommendation itself as to the boardwalk being “visually intrusive”, “inconsistent with the amenity of the locality” and “establish[ing] an undesirable precedent”. In those circumstances it is incumbent on Administration to assert that the WAPC failed to consider relevant matters and/or considered irrelevant matters in making its decision.

 

In light of the above, and in accordance with Council’s decision to obtain retrospective approval of the boardwalk, Administration submitted an application for review of the WAPC’s decision with SAT.

 

A SAT directions hearing is scheduled for this matter on 16 March 2012, at which time it is expected that SAT will issue orders relating to the manner and timeframe in which the City’s application for review will be progressed.

 

Administration will submit a further report(s) to Council, as appropriate, to inform Council of the progress of the application for review with SAT and, if necessary, for Council to provide direction to Administration on this matter.

Statutory Compliance

The WAPC’s decision has been made under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The City has exercised its right of review against that decision with the SAT, in accordance with Section 252 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A SAT fee of $680 was paid at the time of lodging the application for review against the WAPC’s decision, which has been met from the City’s operational budget.

 

Administration will itself conduct the application for review in the SAT and, therefore, does not presently anticipate any direct expenditure that cannot otherwise be met from existing resources.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSES Administration’s actions in submitting an application for review with the State Administration Tribunal against the Western Australian Planning Commission’s decision (dated 31 January 2012) to refuse the City’s application for retrospective planning approval of the Yanchep boardwalk; and

 

2.       NOTES that Administration will submit a further report(s) to Council in future, as appropriate, to inform Council of the progress of the City’s application for review with the State Administration Tribunal (Matter DR44/2012) and, if necessary, for Council to provide direction on that matter.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                158

 

City Businesses

Customer Relations

CB01-03/12       Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy

File Ref:                                              2409 – 12/15065

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the attached Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy at the Ordinary Council Meeting scheduled for 6 March 2012.

 

Background

The City’s current Complaint Handling Procedure was endorsed in 2003 at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 12 August 2003 (Resolution CEO2-08/03). The City has been using this procedure as a basis for operational complaint handling since this time.

 

Since the endorsement of the current procedure an updated version of the Australian Standard AS ISO 10002 – 2006, customer satisfaction – Guidelines for complaints handling in organisations (ISO 10002:2004), MOD (modified) was approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia.

 

The City has now revised and created a new Policy for Compliments, Feedback and Complaints (See attachment 1.) and it will be supported by a Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Procedure. The new position of Customer Liaison Officer has been tasked with the development, review and maintenance of the associated Procedure and Policy.

Detail

The current Council adopted Complaint Handling Procedure had a strong focus on the operational handling of complaints at an officer level and refers to outdated Acts, Regulations and Council Procedures and guides officers on procedures based on the type of complaint.

 

This new policy defines Council’s position on Compliments, Feedback and Complaint handling and has been developed from the new Australian Standards and revised Ombudsman Guidelines.

 

The Australian Standard is an adoption with national modifications and has been varied as indicated in the guidelines to take account of Australian conditions. The current Complaint Handling Procedure incorporates elements of Australian Standard 4269-1995 which has now been revised and redesignated as AS ISO 10002-2006. The revised guidelines issued by Ombudsman Western Australia incorporate fundamental principles of effective complaint handling, for example, objectivity and fairness.

 

Following Council’s consideration and final adoption of the Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy, a management procedure will be developed, to be available in 2012.

 

To enable the work of Customer Liaison Officer to progress effectively, this Policy is required to provide the framework to guide the City of Wanneroo in its management and handling of complaints.

 

Consultation

Stakeholders consulted are Director City Businesses, Managers, Coordinator Customer Relations, Coordinator Governance, Chief Executive Officer and the City Lawyer. External stakeholder consultation was with the Ombudsman of Western Australia.

Comment

The City receives numerous compliments, feedback and complaints across all Directorates and the absence of an endorsed holistic Policy creates vulnerability in managing compliments, feedback and complaints in a consistent, fair and transparent manner. Reducing the risk of inefficient and untimely handling of these communications creating dissatisfaction to our customers, is paramount to the ongoing success of strategies in place for our organisation.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Governance

4.6    Provide and maintain a high standard of governance and accountability

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy as in Attachment 1; and

2.       REPEALS the current Complaints Handling Procedure (file reference: S02/0027V01)

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Compliments, Feedback and Complaints Policy

12/18278

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                160


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                169

 

Regulatory Services

CB02-03/12       PT04-08/11: Anti-Social Behaviour - Rayner Drive, Landsdale

File Ref:                                              5747 – 12/14303

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the resolution of a petition from residents in and around Rayner Drive, Landsdale with regard to anti-social behaviour from the tenants of 25 Rayner Drive, Landsdale.

 

Background

In August 2011 Council was presented with a petition from 15 residents in and around Rayner Drive, Landsdale, detailing ongoing concerns with anti-social behaviour from the tenants of 25 Rayner Drive, Landsdale.

Detail

The petition read as follows:

 

“We the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration of unsocial behaviour, loudness through the night, constant parties being held in the garage, illegal parking, foul language and racial abuse at 25 Rayner Drive, Landsdale”.

Consultation

Administration liaised with the WA Police (Warwick Police) with regard to the reported anti-social behaviour and as a result the Police have allocated additional patrols in the area.

Comment

Administration had responded to complaints of anti-social behaviour at 25 Rayner Drive prior to submission of the petition. As a result of the ongoing complaints and the petition, additional safety patrols were conducted by the City of Wanneroo and Police, and Rangers attended on several occasions to enforce illegal parking activity.

 

Since submission of the petition and the subsequent media attention that it attracted, the anti-social behaviour problems appear to have subsided. There has only been one complaint relating to noise and another four relating to illegal parking.

 

In response to the noise complaint one of the City’s Environmental Health Officers has been liaising with the complainant, who was also listed as the contact person for the petition, and  advised that the tenants of 25 Rayner Drive had moved out. On 8 February 2012 the City’s Coordinator Community Safety contacted the complainant who confirmed the tenants of 25 Rayner Drive have indeed moved out. He advised that the situation has now been resolved and that he was very appreciative of the City’s involvement and assistance in the matter.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the tenants of 25 Rayner Drive, Landsdale have moved out and as a result the anti-social behaviour previously associated with this address has now been resolved; and

2.       NOTES that the contact person listed against the petition (PT04-08/11) has verbally expressed his appreciation for the City’s involvement and assistance in dealing with the matter of anti-social behaviour by the previous tenants of 25 Rayner Drive, Landsdale.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                171

 

CB03-03/12       PT01-10/10: Anti-Social Behaviour - Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights

File Ref:                                              4406 – 12/14406

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider resolution of a petition from residents around Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights with regard to ongoing problems associated with anti-social and criminal behaviour by users of the park and adjacent car park.

 

Background

In October 2010 Council was presented with a petition containing 261 signatures with regard to anti-social and criminal behaviour by users of Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights.

Detail

The petition read as follows:

 

“We, the residents of Alexander Heights, wish to voice our increasing concern regarding the state of our neighbourhood. We request that the following areas of concern be immediately investigated and addressed:

 

·    Gangs taking over the park

·    General street safety

·    Alcohol and drug use in public areas

·    Use of weapons

·    Car hooning

·    Vandalism

·    Litter & Graffiti

·    Police Station”

Consultation

Many of the issues raised in the petition were police matters and as a result Administration liaised with the WA Police (Warwick Police) who has increased its patrols of the area.

Comment

One of the main areas of concern around Ian Robbins Park is the congregation of people around the public toilet located within the Park. This facility is now permanently locked unless required for public events in the Park.

 

Funding has been allocated in the 2011/12 Capital Budget to install lighting in the car park and around the toilet block at the park. These works are programmed for April/May this year.

 

In addition to these measures, the City’s Rangers and Safety Patrols along with the police are aware of the ongoing problems associated with this park and regularly patrol the area.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A sum of $50,000 has been allocated in the 2011/12 Capital Budget for the provision of lighting to the car park and toilet block at Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights (PR-2204).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that as a means of reducing anti-social and criminal activity the public toilet block in Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights is locked unless required for public events;

2.       NOTES that funding has been allocated in the 2011/12 Capital Budget for the installation of lighting to the car park and public toilet at Ian Robbins Park, Alexander Heights and works will be completed in April/May 2012; and

3.       NOTES that City of Wanneroo Rangers and Community Safety Officers, along with WA Police are aware of the anti-social and criminal behaviour occurring at Ian Robbins Park Alexander Heights and regularly patrol the area.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                173

 

CB04-03/12       Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs

File Ref:                                              2323V02 – 12/15842

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider three applications for an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs.

 

Background

Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 (Amendment 2008 GG 508) stipulates:

 

“A person shall not keep or permit to be kept on any premises more than:

 

a)      2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age; or

 

b)      6 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age if the premises are situated on a lot having an area of 4 hectares or more,

 

unless the premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or have been granted exemption pursuant to section 26(3) of the Dog Act and have planning approval under the town planning scheme.”

Detail

The following applications have been made under the Dog Act 1976 and are submitted for consideration:

 

Address of Applicants

Description of Dogs

31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock

1.   Female Sterilised tri colour Jack Russell X

2.   Female Sterilised white Maltese/Shi Tzu X

3.   Male Sterilised black/tan Dachshund/Kelpie X

5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson

 

 

 

1.   Female Sterilised tan Dachshund

2.   Male Sterilised chocolate Dachshund

3.   Female Sterilised black & white American Staffy

40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo

1.   Male Sterilised brown & white American Staffy X Shar Pei

2.   Male Unsterilised tan & black Bull Mastiff X Great Dane

3.   Female Unsterilised white Maltese Shi Tzu

4.   Male Unsterilised cream Maltese Shi Tzu

 

Rangers have inspected the aforementioned properties to ensure means exist on the premises at which the dogs will ordinarily be kept for effectively confining the dogs within the premises.

 


 

Address of Applicants

Property Zonings

Size of Properties

31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock

Residential

531m2

5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson

Residential

616m2

40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo

Residential

696m2

Consultation

Where applications have been received by the City to keep more than two dogs, residents immediately adjoining the applicant’s property in question are consulted by letter to ascertain if they have any objections.

 

On this occasion the following objection have been received:

 

Address of Applicant

Number of Objection Forms Received

31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock

Nil

5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson

Nil

40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo

Nil

Comment

In considering these applications for exemption, the following two options are available:

 

a)      Council may grant an exemption pursuant to Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 subject to conditions; or

 

b)      Council may refuse permission to keep more than two dogs.

 

Application One: 31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock.  The applicants would like to keep three dogs as they have been foster carers for SAFE Avon Valley for a number of months and would like to adopt the dog that they currently foster.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.8 metres in height with a roller door as a gate in compliance with the residential requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Two: 5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson.  The applicants would like to keep three dogs as they recently acquired their third dog from a friend who was having difficulty getting her two dogs to like each other.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.8 metres in height with a 1.8 metre gate in compliance with the residential requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house or under the patio in a kennel at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Three: 40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep four dogs at 40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo. Two of the dogs are registered to the applicant and the other two to her granddaughter who lives with her.  A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made, multiple previous complaints had been lodged with Regulatory Services when the occupants lived at their previous address (12 Sheffield Avenue, Wanneroo) in regard to the dogs regularly wandering at large and excessive barking and yapping. There is also a complaint lodged against the granddaughter’s dogs when she resided in Yanchep.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and has expressed concerns regarding a crack in the back fence and has deemed it inadequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  The rear fences are 1.8 metres in height and are as such in compliance with the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house or in a kennel under the patio at night.

 

Given the number of dogs, the size of the area in which they are contained and the complaints lodged at previous residences it is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be not granted.

Statutory Compliance

The exemptions sought to Council’s Animals Local Law 1999 are permissible under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976.

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

 

2.4.3  Develop and implement a range of activities that promote community    inclusiveness, safety and well being.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       GRANTS an exemption under the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep three dogs at 31 Buffett Ramble, Quinns Rock and 5 Lithgow Drive, Clarkson;

2.       ADVISES that the exemption relating to the two properties in Recommendation 1 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.       REFUSES an exemption to the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Law 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 for the applicants at 40 Karimba Street, Wanneroo;

4.       ADVISES the applicants exemptions listed in Recommendation 3 that they may appeal Council’s decision by writing to the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of receiving notice of Council’s decision; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                177

 

Infrastructure

Tenders

IN01-03/12         Tender No. 01201 - The Provision of Planting and Maintenance of Tubestock for Various Conservation Reserves, Foreshore Reserves and Landscaping Works

File Ref:                                              6921 – 12/18335

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 01201 for The Provision of Planting and Maintenance of Tubestock for Various Conservation Reserves, Foreshore Reserves and Landscaping works within the City of Wanneroo for a period of one year, with an option to extend for a further 12 months.

 

Background

The 10 Year Capital Works Program lists projects in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 involving the rehabilitation and maintenance of natural areas. In addition, landscaping is required for the extension of Ocean Reef Road and Mirrabooka Avenue, the dualling of Hepburn Avenue and Joondalup Drive and the re-alignment of Pinjar Road. The Ocean Reef Road and Pinjar Road landscaping projects also include a clearing offset requirement from the Department of Environment and Conservation (State) and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Federal - formerly DEHWA) involving extensive rehabilitation and management of existing reserves over several years.

 

Tender No 01201 combines the requirements of planting and maintenance services across the City for these projects in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. The Schedule of Items included in the tender document for pricing is considered too extensive to be incorporated into an attachment in this report. A copy of the Tender Specification incorporating the Price Schedules has been made available in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Detail

Tender 01201 was advertised in the West Australian on 14 January 2012 with the tender closing at 3pm on 31 January 2012.

 

The Contract, subject to Council’s consideration of Tender Award, is scheduled to commence in May/June 2012 to coincide with the planting season for native vegetation, with maintenance of the planting sites occurring for a period of three months in landscaped areas and 12 months for offset site areas. The Pinjar Road Landscaping Project works will be undertaken in April 2012 to comply with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Federal - formerly DEHWA) approval conditions.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Schedule of Rates

Contract Duration

One year

Commencement Date

1 April 2012 (Pinjar Road)

Expiry Date

1 August 2014

Extension Permitted

1 x 12 month extension available for both planting and maintenance services and CPI for Perth applies

Rise And Fall Included

No

Six tender submissions were received as follows:

·    Activ Property Care

·    DME Contractors

·    Environmental Industries

·    Frogmat

·    Natural Areas Management Services

·    360 Environmental Pty Ltd

 

The tender allowed for partial submission to be made as long as all line items within a table were completed. Due to the tender specifying both planting and maintenance services, two tenderers completed all parts of the Price Schedules, whilst the other four tenderers only completed a Price Schedule for parts of the works.

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP), comprising Environmental Asset Officer, Contracts Officer and Project Officer- Parks and Conservation evaluated the tenders in accordance with the following step process and selection criteria.

 

STEP 1

1

Demonstrated experience in similar projects

Based on previous completed projects of a similar nature and track record

2

Availability of resources, methodology and capacity

Based on tenderer’s resources, methodology and capacity to perform the works

3

Safety Management

Based on tenderer’s safety record and safety management plan.

STEP 2

1

Price of Works

Assessment of Tenderer’s price and clarifications

2

Risk Assessment

Risk assessment based on ranking of Step 1 process and price of works

 

The weighting applied to Step 1 of the criteria was as follows:

 

Item No.

Description

Score

1

Demonstrated experience in similar projects

30%

2

Availability of resources, methodology and capacity

40%

3

Safety Management

10%

 

For Step 1 of the evaluation process, the TEP undertook a detailed technical assessment of the submissions and arrived at a consensus evaluation on the tenders received.

 

Demonstrated experience in similar projects (30%):

All Tenderers have sufficient experience in carrying out the required work, and outlined in varying degrees of detail, similar work with other agencies.  Those organisations that provided a demonstration of similar project experience in their submission, were ranked higher than others as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Areas Management Services

1

Environmental Industries

2

Activ Property Care

3

DME Contractors

4

Frogmat

5

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

6


Availability of Resources, Methodology and Capacity (40%):

The Tenderers all demonstrated in varying degrees, the resources and capacity to service this project.  They all included a methodology and demonstrated their understanding of the work required. The substance and quality of the submission were assessed as below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Areas Management Services

1

Environmental Industries

2

Activ Property Care

3

DME Contractors

4

Frogmat

5

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

6

 

Safety Management (10%):

Evidence of safety management policies and practices were assessed from the Tenderer’s submission of safety plans and procedures.  This was ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Areas Management Services

1

Environmental Industries

1

DME Contractors

1

Activ Property Care

2

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

3

Frogmat

4

 

Overall Ranking Assessment following Step 1 Process:

On the basis of the overall scoring on the tender criteria for Step 1, the ranking is shown below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Areas Management Services

1

Environmental Industries

2

Activ Property Care

3

DME Contractors

4

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

5

Frogmat

6

The TEP noted that the top two ranked tenderers achieved relatively similar scores.

For Step 2, the TEP undertook a detailed cost assessment of all tender submissions received. Arithmetic checks were made and the assessment took into consideration tender clarifications and rates, so that the same requirements for the project were being allowed by all in their tendered prices.

 

The weighting applied to Step 2 of the criteria was as follows:

 

Item No.

Description

Score

1

Price of Works

20%

Price for the services offered (20%)

The Price Schedule required rates to plant local provenance species into landscaping areas and nominated reserves within the City’s jurisdiction.  Numbers of plants were provided for each of the project sites. 


 

The Price Schedules enabled planting, traffic management, weed management and maintenance activities respectively to be apportioned and if necessary, separately awarded on a schedule basis. This combined the requirements of landscape, conservation offset and foreshore works.

 

In consideration of the activities requested in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 the tenders were assessed in three parts for price as follows:

 

Part 1              All Schedule 1A Landscaping Tables (Excludes Schedule 1B and 1C);

Part 2              All Schedule 1B Conservation Offset Tables (Excludes Schedule 1A and 1C);

Part 3              All Schedule 1C Conservation and Foreshore Tables (Excludes Schedule 1A

   and 1B);

 

In consideration of Part 1 Schedule 1A, Landscaping Works for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, the tenderers were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Overall Schedule 1A Price (ex GST)

Ranking

Environmental Industries

$360,319.05

1

DME Contractors

$441,378.53

2

Frogmat

$538,599.70

3

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

$583,922.73

4

Activ Property Care

N/A

Did not submit

Natural Area Management Services

N/A

Did not submit

 

It should be noted that at the end of the Step 1 Assessment process Natural Area Management Services and Environmental Industries were ranked the highest two and after a Price of Works assessment, Environmental Industries are considered to be the most suitable Tenderer to undertake the works listed within Schedule 1A as Natural Area Management Services did not provide a submission for the Schedule 1A works.

 

In consideration of Part 2 Schedule 1B, Conservation Offset Works for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 the tenderers were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Overall Schedule 1B Price (ex GST)

Ranking

Activ Property Care

$242,201.06

1

Frogmat

$359,567.50

2

Natural Area Management Services

$384,073.78

3

DME Contractors

$407,729.15

4

Environmental Industries

N/A

Did not submit a conforming 1B Schedule

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

N/A

Did not submit

 

It should be noted that Natural Area Management Services and Environmental Industries were closely ranked at the end of the Step 1 Assessment, however Environmental Industries did not supply a conforming Schedule 1B submission as line items within the Tables of 1B were not filled in as per the requirements listed in the Price Schedule Notes of the Tender.  With respect to Schedule 1B, and taking into account Step 1 and Step 2 of the evaluation process, Natural Area Management Services was ranked the highest in the overall assessment.

In consideration of Part 3 Schedule 1C Foreshore Works for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013, the tenderers were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Overall Schedule 1C Price (ex GST)

Ranking

Activ Property Care

$27,580.00

1

DME Contractors

$40,404.00

2

Environmental Industries

$42,105.00

3

Natural Area Management Services

$49,925.00

4

Frogmat

$51,850.00

5

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

N/A

Did not submit

 

It should be noted that Natural Area Management Services and Environmental Industries were ranked the highest two in Step 1 of the Assessment Process. With respect to Schedule 1C, and taking into account Step 1 and Step 2 of the evaluation process, Natural Area Management Services were ranked the highest in the overall assessment.

 

It should be noted that there are overall benefits to the City for contract and time management in nominating two tenderers to complete the planting works and maintenance activitites.

 

Given the risk associated to awarding Schedule 1A  of the tender to Environmental Industries and Schedules 1B and 1C of the tender to Natural Area Management Services, City officers have conducted an assessment and investigation of the tenderers noted the following:

 

·    Natural Area Management Services and Environmental Industries both ranked highly in the Step 1 process;

·    No Tender clarifications were required as both submissions thoroughly addressed the Tender criteria;

·    Natural Area Management Services has performed previous projects for the City and for a range of clients including Burns Beach Property Trust, Telstra PITC, Water Corporation, Christian Bothers in W.A Inc and other local governments;

·    Environmental Industries Environmental has performed previous projects for the City and for a range of clients including Landcorp, Kings Park Botanical Gardens Authority, Port Hedland Port Authority and other local governments;

·    Examples of projects undertaken by the tenderers include Redmond Reserve Enbankment Stabilisation, Yellgonga Regional Park Rehabilitation, Burns Beach Coastal Rehabilitation, Hillarys Boat Harbour, Port Coogee, Ellenbrook Township and the Australian Marine Complex Stage 1 and 2;

·    The Tender Schedule 1A, B and C prices are competitively priced and represent value for money; and

 

Based on the above, the risk assessment for Natural Area Management Services and Environmental Industries is considered low and should any risk eventuate, then this is considered to be satisfactorily managed by the City.


 

Overall Ranking Assessment following the Step 2 Process

On the basis of the overall assessment, the overall ranking of the tenderers in Schedule 1A is shown below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Environmental Industries

1

DME Contractors

2

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

3

Frogmat

4

Activ Property Care

N/A

Natural Area Management Services

N/A

 

On the basis of the overall assessment, the overall ranking of the tenderers in Schedule 1B is shown below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Area Management Services

1

Activ Property Care

2

DME Contractors

3

Frogmat

4

Environmental Industries

N/A

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

N/A

 

On the basis of the overall assessment, the overall ranking of the tenderers in Schedule 1C is shown below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Natural Area Management Services

1

Environmental Industries

2

Activ Property Care

3

DME Contractors

4

Frogmat

5

360 Environmental Pty Ltd

N/A

 

Environmental Industries is recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer for Schedule 1A for Tender No 01201 for all items forming the scope of work covered by that Schedule in the Tender. Natural Area Management Services is recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer for Schedule 1B and 1C for Tender No 01201 for all items forming the scope of work covered by those Schedules in the Tender.

Consultation

Consultation occurred with the City’s Conservation Maintenance Team and the Project Officer – Parks and Conservation in regards to the preparation of the tender documentation, inclusive of specification, species lists and location of sites.

Comment

The Tender has been evaluated as per the evaluation criteria and the tender submissions, with the Tender Evaluation Panel recommending that the tender for Schedule 1A be awarded to Environmental Industries and Schedules 1B and 1C be awarded to Natural Area Management Services, for the combined total estimated sum of $794,317.83 as summarised below:

Schedule 1A Landscape Planting and Maintenance

(2011/2012 and 2012/2013 Program)                                                      $360,319.05

Schedule 1B Conservation Reserves Planting and Maintenance

(2011/2012 and 2012/2013 Program)                                                      $384,073.78

Schedule 1C Conservation and Foreshore Reserves Planting

(2011/2012 Program)                                                                                 $49,925.00

                                        $794,317.83

 

Both contractors are considered to be competent and have carried out similar works previously for the City.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. The tendering procedures and evaluation complied with the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Environment

1.1    Improve conservation of local biodiversity in designated areas

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Tender 01201 combines and apportions the requirements for the following projects from the 2011/2012 Capital Works Program as follows:

 

Table 1. 2011/2012 Capital Works Program

PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST

PR-1937 Pinjar Road

$47,133.40

PR-2609 Ocean Reef Road

$124,820.90

PR-2261 Mirrabooka Avenue

$26,052.90

PR-1768 Hepburn Avenue

$91,263.65

PR-2262 Joondalup Drive

$71,048.20

PR-2092 Appleby Park

$15,046.25

PR-2091 Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring & Alvarez Parks

$45,111.25

PR-2088 Lake Badgerup

$57,961.80

PR-2090 Lake Gnangara

$58,261.30

PR-2016 and PR-1461 Compass Park – Yanchep Boardwalk Offset

$6,205.00

PR-2016 Various Foreshore Reserve projects

$24,900.00

PR-1567 Various Conservation Reserve projects

$25,025.00

TOTAL TO BE EXPENDED IN 2011/2012 ANNUAL BUDGET

$592,829.65

 

Tender 01201 combines and apportions the requirements for the following projects from the 2012/2013 Capital Works Program as follows:

 

Table 2. 2012/2013 Capital Works Program (Draft)

PROJECT

ESTIMATED COST

PR-2092 Appleby Park Maintenance

$18,684.85

PR-2091 Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring & Alvarez Parks Maintenance

$56,659.33

PR-2088 Lake Badgerup Maintenance

$60,912.00

PR-2090 Lake Gnangara Maintenance

$65,232.00

TOTAL TO BE EXPENDED IN 2012/2013 ANNUAL BUDGET

$201,488.18

 

The funding outlined in Table 2 is for maintenance services for which specific allocations have been listed in the draft 2012/2013 Offset Capital Works Program.

 

Table 3. 2011/2012 Capital Works Projects with anticipated shortfalls

Project No

Description

Budget

YTD

Tender Amount

Outstanding Works

Total Estimated Cost

Budget Shortfall

PR-2091

Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring and Alvarez Parks (Rehabilitation of Offset Sites)

$128,932

$85,023

$45,111.25

$38,424

$180,000

$50,000

PR-2092

Appleby Park (Environmental Offset Requirement)

$57,583

$36,670

$15,046.25

$10,845

$70,000

$15,000

 

A budget amendment is requested for PR-2091 Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring and Alvarez Parks (Rehabilitation of Offset Sites) within the Capital Works Budget for 2011/2012 due to the anticipated shortfall in this project, as shown in Table 3 above.

 

A budget amendment is also requested for PR-2092 Appleby Park (Environmental Offset Requirement) within the Capital Works Budget for 2011/2012 due to the anticipated shortfall in this project, as shown in Table 3 above.

 

There is a funding surplus in PR-2088 Lake Badgerup (Offset Banking Proposal). It is proposed that the surplus funds in PR-2088 Lake Badgerup be used to fund the anticipated shortfall in: PR-2091 Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring and Alvarez Parks and PR-2092 Appleby Park.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ACCEPTS Tender No. 01201 the Provision of Planting and Maintenance of Tubestock for various Conservation Reserves, Foreshore Reserves and Landscaping Services within the City of Wanneroo as per the submitted tender                                                    schedules in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender documentation, for a period of one year with an option to extend for a further 12 months, or part thereof and subject to CPI, in part as follows:

a)      Tender submitted by “Environmental Industries” for Schedule 1A for its tendered price of $360,319.05 and;

b)      Tender submitted by “Natural Area Management Services” for Schedule 1B and 1C for its tendered price of $433,998.78; and

2.       NOTES the following budget variation to accommodate the shortfall in funding for the planting of tubestock in Appleby, Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring and Alvarez Parks:

Project No

From

To

Description

PR -2088

$65,000

 

Lake Badgerup (Offset Budget Proposal)

PR-2091

 

$15,000

Appleby Park (Environmental Offset Requirement)

PR-2092

 

$50,000

Caporn, San Teodoro, Spring and Alvarez Parks (Rehabilitation of Offset Sites)

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                186

 

IN02-03/12         Tender No. 01141 - Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years

File Ref:                                              6675 – 12/18085

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01141 for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years.

 

Background

To provide another avenue of advertising for local businesses and to diversify the City’s income base, it is proposed to engage a contractor to install illuminated street signs at prominent locations. The proposed signs will include the commercial advertisements, a community message, the City’s logo and street names.  All locations will be pre-approved by the City and the signs will be installed, maintained and owned by the contractor. The contractor will receive advertising income from local businesses and the City will receive income per sign for allowing these signs to be installed and will also receive a certain number of signs free of cost for the purpose of promoting its own facilities or locations of significance.

 

This item was included on the agenda for the Council meeting on 21 February 2012 but was withdrawn to enable a further review of submissions and particular clauses in the specification.

 

Tender No. 09006 - The Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years was advertised on 14 March 2009 and closed on 7 April 2009.  Two conforming tenders were received.

 

Council considered a report regarding Tender No. 09006 (Item No IN01-06/09 refers) at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 June 2009 and resolved:

“That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS Tender No 09006 from Sarah Buehrig T/A Pulse Design for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years as per the schedule of rates and general conditions of tendering from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014 with an option to extend for a further five-year period or part thereof; and

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to consider extending the contract with the successful tenderer for a further period of five years or part thereof subject to a satisfactory performance of the successful contractor during the first two years of the initial contract period.”

Following the commencement of the contract on 1 July 2009, Pulse Design undertook a number of steps to deliver the services under the contract but no substantial progress was made.  During January and February 2011, Pulse Design indicated that due to a number of issues faced, it was considering seeking a variation to the contract.  Formal advice seeking to vary the terms of the contract was then received from Pulse Design, but was not supported by the City.  Pulse Design then requested termination of Contract No 09006.

 

Council considered a report regarding termination of Contract No. 09006 (Item No IN03-05/11 refers) at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 3 May 2011 and resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       AGREES with the request for termination by Pulse Design in accordance with “General Conditions of the Contract; Clause 13 – Termination” of the contract agreement; and

2.       AUTHORISES the calling of a new tender in July 2011 following a thorough review of the scope of works and specification.”

Detail

The scope of works and specification has been reviewed and similarly to the previous tender the specification is based on the following main items:

 

1.       The contractor is to supply, install and maintain the signs;

2.       The signs are to remain in the ownership of the contractor;

3.       The contractor is to derive advertising income from the signs;

4.       The City is to receive income per sign for the duration each sign is installed; and

5.       The City is to receive similar free signs for its use. Two free signs are to be supplied upfront, another two to be supplied when contractor installs 30 signs and then one free sign for every 10 subsequent signs installed by the Contractor.  The initial two free signs are to be located for the City’s use at:

 

a.       Wanneroo Road/Dundebar Road Intersection – indicating the locations of the City Offices, Wanneroo Library and Museum, Wanneroo Aquamotion and Wanneroo Police Station.

b.       Marmion Avenue/Ocean Keys Boulevard Intersection – indicating the locations of the Clarkson Library, Clarkson Youth Centre and Clarkson Police Station.

 

The following items were modified from the previous tender and contract to encourage tenderers to submit achievable offers and to minimise the possibility that the successful contractor will not be able to deliver signs within the tendered timeframe.

 

Previous Condition

New Condition

Reason for Change

Tender Price Evaluation Criteria – 50%

Tender Price Evaluation Criteria – 40%

More emphasis on understanding of the construction process.

Five year contract extension available after 24 months, subject to satisfactory progress.

Five year contract extension available after 12 months, subject to satisfactory progress.

To enable a longer payback period and more certainty to the contractor to recover substantial sign installation and power connection costs.

No liquidated damages

Liquidated damages.

To provide a mechanism for the City to recover lost income if the contractor fails to perform and to discourage tenderers from overstating predicted income to the City.

Tender No. 01141 for Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years was advertised on Saturday 29 October 2011 and closed on Tuesday 15 November 2011.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Fee per sign installed to be paid to the City

Contract Duration

Five years

Commencement Date

1 April 2012

Expiry Date

31 March 2017

Extension Permitted

Five years, available after 31 March 2013 subject to satisfactory performance

Sign Income Rise and Fall Included

Yes, Perth Consumer Price Index annually

 

Tender submissions were received from:

·      Directional Systems Australia Pty Ltd;

·      Rainbow Signs Rental Pty Ltd trading as Rainbow Outdoor Media;

·      Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd;

·      Muscara Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Streetside Advertising; and

·      Kingman Visual.

 

Rainbow Outdoor Media submitted a complying and alternative tender submission. The alternative tender was not considered further as it sought to vary the contract period.

 

Claude Outdoor’s submission was considered non-compliant because it sought to vary several terms of the contract, and was not considered further.

 

Streetside Advertising submitted a complying and two alternative tenders. The compliant tender submission was evaluated. The alternative tenders were not considered further as they sought to vary several terms of the contract.

 

The Tender Evaluation Team, consisting of the Acting Manager Infrastructure Maintenance, Technical Officer – Contracts Administration and Contracts Officer, has evaluated the four compliant tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Item No

Description

Score

1

Total income to the City for the initial five year contract period.

40%

2

Tenderer’s relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations.

20%

3

Tenderer’s demonstrated understanding of the construction process, including maintenance and upgrade programmes, the design and appearance of signs including sustainable design principles.

20%

4

Tenderer’s safety management.

20%

 

Total Income to the City Offered (40%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the Price Schedule and tenderer’s Proposed Sign Installation Program provided with the tender documentation, resulting in the following ranking:


 

Tenderer

Rank

Kingman Visual

1

Directional Systems Australia

2

Rainbow Outdoor Media

3

Streetside Advertising

4

 

Tenderer’s Demonstrated Similar Experience (20%)

Directional Systems Australia and Rainbow Outdoor Media have experience in contracting advertisers and providing illuminated street signage to local government. Streetside Advertising has significant experience in providing seat benches and bus stops with advertising; however, does not have demonstrated experience in illuminated street signs.  Kingman Visual has experience in sign manufacture and installation, but not in contracting advertisers on illuminated street signs on an ongoing basis.

 

The Evaluation Team’s assessment resulted in the following ranking:

 

Tenderer

Rank

Directional Systems Australia

1

Rainbow Outdoor Media

1

Streetside Advertising

2

Kingman Visual

3

 

Tenderer’s Demonstrated Understanding of the Construction Process (20%)

The tenderer’s proposed resources and methodology were examined in order to evaluate their ability to meet the requirements of the contract resulting in equal ranking for Directional Systems Australia and Streetside Advertising:

 

Tenderer

Rank

Directional Systems Australia

1

Streetside Advertising

1

Rainbow Outdoor Media

2

Kingman Visual

3

 

Safety Management (20%)

Evidence of safety management policies and practices was assessed from the tender documents. The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation and resulted in the following ranking:

 

Tenderer

Rank

Rainbow Outdoor Media

1

Streetside Advertising

1

Kingman Visual

2

Directional Systems Australia

3

 

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the weighted score analysis process.


 

The overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer

Rank

Directional Systems Australia

1

Kingman Visual

2

Rainbow Outdoor Media

3

Streetside Advertising

4

 

The City received comments from two of the tenderers regarding the practicality of Clause 14.1(b) of the General Conditions of Contract, which allows for termination of the contract at any time by either party by giving three months written notice. Given the long term nature of this contract, termination by either party without justification may be considered unreasonable by the other party.  In view of this, the City sought clarification from the recommended tenderer, Directional Systems Australia, which has confirmed its agreement to remove Clause 14.1(b) from the final contract should its tender be accepted by Council. Following discussions regarding Clause 14.1(b) and the ramifications of early termination, Directional Systems Australia has also agreed to amend Clause 1.2 of the Scope of Works to clarify that the Contractor should remove its signs within 14 days of any early termination of the contract unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The tender submission from Directional Systems Australia achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.  Reference checks have indicated that this contractor has previously provided a satisfactory service delivery to its customers.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. The tendering procedures and evaluation complied with the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Economic

3.2    Support business and initiatives

 

and

 

 “4     Governance

4.4     Maintain long-term financial stability”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Based on the tenderer’s payment rate per sign and proposed number of signs to be installed, the City can expect to receive an income of $144,650 excluding CPI increases over the initial five year term.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Directional Systems Australia Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01141 for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years commencing 1 April 2012 as per the Price Schedule, Tenderer’s Proposed Sign Installation Programme and General Conditions of Tendering, with annual Perth Consumer Price Index increases and an option to extend the contract for a further five year period.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                192

 

Traffic Management

IN03-03/12         Anti Hoon Speed Hump Grant - Budget Variation 

File Ref:                                              3125 – 12/19987

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

To consider an amendment to the 2011/2012 Capital Works Program – Traffic Treatments Program to recognise funding from the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program.

 

Background

At Council’s meeting on 9 March 2010, Council endorsed the recommendations of Report IN04-03/10 which nominated project submissions for funding through the State Government’s Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program.  The report recommended acceptance of grant funding for Burnett Drive, Clarkson in 2009/2010, and nominated two projects for funding in 2010/2011: Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie and Danbury Crescent Girrawheen. The City was subsequently advised that grant funding was approved for Rosslare Promenade, while Danbury Crescent was placed on a reserve list.

 

In December 2011 the City was advised that the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program was in its final year and had not been fully subscribed. As a consequence, funding for Danbury Crescent has been approved and additional funding available if the City wished to submit additional projects. A condition of funding was that all approved projects be fully complete and funding recouped by the end of this financial year.

 

Council considered the option of applying for Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program funding to assist with traffic calming works on Brazier Road, Yanchep at its meeting of 13 December 2011 (IN05-12/11 refers) and resolved as follows:

“7.  APPROVES the submission of an application for a funding allocation of $8,000 from Main Roads WA’s 2011/2012 Anti Hoon Program towards the cost of installing speed cushions on Brazier Road between Compass Circle and Wilkie Road;”

 

The City took the opportunity to apply for two additional Anti Hoon Speed Hump projects: Brazier Road, Yanchep, and Coldstream Circuit, Merriwa.

Detail

The City has received grant funding approval for the three projects listed below through the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program.  The grant funding is provided on the basis of two thirds State funding to one third Council funding.  As this is the final year of the program all projects must be completed within the 2011/2012 financial year.

 

Project Description

Project Cost

Expected
Grant

Municipal
Funds

Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen – Install rubber speed cushions. (Attachment 1 refers)

$33,000

$22,000

$11,000

Brazier Road, Yanchep – Install rubber speed cushions between Compass Circle and Wilkie Road. (Attachment 2 refers)

$33,000

$22,000

$11,000

Coldstream Circuit, Merriwa – Install rubber speed cushions. (Attachment 3 refers)

$48,000

$32,000

$16,000

 

Consultation

It is a requirement of the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program that local residents be consulted and a majority be in favour before each project can proceed.

 

Due to the tight deadlines community consultation has already been undertaken on the three projects with the results showing strong support for the installation of rubber speed cushions.

Comment

Since nominating the Coldstream Circuit project further design work has shown that it would require a significant upgrade to the street lighting to meet the requirements of the grant application.  It is highly unlikely that Western Power could complete this street lighting upgrade within the time available, as well as adding significantly to the cost of the project.  Given these difficulties, it will not be possible to proceed with this project under the current Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program.  Given the level of antisocial driving behaviour that occurs in the area and the support for action by the local community, Administration considers that the project is warranted and should be listed in the Draft 10 Year Capital Works Program 2012/13 – 2021/22 for future consideration by Council.

 

With regards the Danbury Crescent and Brazier Road proposals, it is advised that funding has not been allocated in the 2011/2012 Traffic Treatments Program. Administration supports the early implementation of these projects to address the hooning issues on these streets, particularly as the local residents are in favour of the installation of speed cushions. A budget variation is required to reflect the grant funding and a reallocation of funds to meet the funding shortfall.

Statutory Compliance

The budget variation is in compliance with Part 6 – Financial Management of Local Government Act and Part 2 – General Financial Management of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Projects approved for funding as part of the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program are funded one third by Council and two thirds by the Program.

 

The estimated cost for the installation of speed cushions and street lighting along Danbury Crescent is $33,000, with $11,000 to be funded by Council, while the cost of installing speed cushions in Brazier Road is also estimated to be $33,000, with $11,000 to be funded by Council. The $22,000 Council commitment will need funding through a budget variation as there are no funds in the 2011/2012 Traffic Treatments for these projects.

 

Project No PR-2233 - Upgrade Franklin Road and Caporn Street Intersection is a State Black Spot Program project, with funding over the 2011/2012 – 2012/2013 financial years. A review of the cost estimate for this project indicates that $22,000 of the municipal funded component  of the project is available for reallocation.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      ACCEPTS the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program funding of $44,000 toward the installation of rubber speed cushions in Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen and Brazier Road, Yanchep;

2.      Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the following expenditure:

a)      $33,000 for the installation of rubber speed cushions along Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen; and

b)      $33,000 for the installation of rubber speed cushions along Brazier Road, Yanchep, between Compass Circle and Wilkie Road.

3.      NOTES the following budget variation to reflect acceptance of the Anti Hoon Speed Hump Grant funding:

INCOME

Cost Code

Present
Budget

Revised
Budget

913510-8946-501 Anti Hoon Speed Hump Grant

$0

$44,000

 

4.      NOTES the following budget variation to fund the installation of rubber speed cushions in Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen and Brazier Road, Yanchep and

EXPENDITURE

Cost Code

From

To

Description

913510-8946-501

$44,000

 

Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program

PR - 2233

$22,000

 

Upgrade Franklin Road and Caporn Street intersection

PR - TBA

 

$33,000

Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen – Install rubber speed cushions.

PR - TBA

 

$33,000

Brazier Road, Yanchep – Install rubber speed cushions between Compass Circle and Wilkie Road.

 

5.      LISTS $50,000 for the installation of rubber speed cushions and upgrading of street lighting along Coldstream Circuit, Merriwa for considerations in the Draft 10 Year Capital Works Program.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Danbury Crescent, Girrawheen - Anti Hoon Speed Humps - Concept

12/20266

 

2.

Brazier Road, Yanchep - Anti Hoon Speed Humps - Concept

12/20269

 

3.

Coldstream Circuit, Merriwa - Anti Hoon Speed Humps - Concept

12/20273

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                196


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                197


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                198


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                199

IN04-03/12         Parking Prohibitions - Roseworth Primary School

File Ref:                                              5597 – 12/4709

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the amendment of existing parking prohibitions at Roseworth Primary School on Bilby Road, Stoke Court and Stebbing Way, Girrawheen.

 

Background

Roseworth Primary School has recently been built on the site of the former Montrose Primary School and also serves the former Hainsworth Primary School catchment. Refer Attachment 1 for location plan.

 

The School has recently made changes to the location at which the school buses pick up/drop off students and has sought to amend the parking prohibitions around the school to increase parking availability for parents. Additionally, the school feels that time restricted parking on Stebbing Way is creating an issue for parents wishing to attend school gatherings held for extended periods of time.

 

Detail

 

Council at its meeting held 8 February 2011 endorsed the following recommendations;

“1.  APPROVES the installation of “No Stopping, Road or Nature Strip, 7.30am-9am, 2.30pm-4pm, School Days” (R5-36) signs along residential property frontages on Stebbing Way, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 3;

2.   APPROVES the installation of “No Stopping, Road or Nature Strip” (R5-35) signs at the bends on Stebbing Way, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 3;

3.   APPROVES the installation of “5 min Parking, 7.30am-9am, 2.30pm-4pm, School Days” (R5-13) signs for the parking embayments on the north side of Stebbing Way, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 3;

4.   APPROVES the installation of “BUS ZONE” (R5-20) signs to create a bus bay on the south side of Bilby Road, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 3;

5.   APPROVES an extension of the ‘No Standing’ zone on the south side of Bilby Way, Girrawheen, from the cul de sac head to the commencement of the parking embayments by the relocation of the “No Standing” (R5-36(R)) sign as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 3;

6.   ADVISE the property owners on Stebbing Way, Stoke Court and Bilby Road, Girrawheen of Council’s decision; and

7.   ADVISE the Principal of Roseworth Primary School of Council’s decision.”

Following the installation of the above parking prohibitions, consultation was held between Administration and Roseworth Primary School representatives to ascertain their effectiveness. The discussion raised the following issues;

 

·    Reduced availability of parking to parents created by the new bus zone area on Bilby Road.

·    Reduced availability of long term parking for parents on Stebbing Way.

 

In an attempt to rectify parking congestion issues, Administration recommended that Roseworth Primary School trial relocating the bus pickup/drop-off on-site within the main school carpark. Additionally, it was recommended that the carpark entry and exit be reversed, changing the direction of flow through the carpark and encouraging left in / left out vehicle movement to reduce congestion. The trial was completed over a 3-week period and was determined by the school to be an effective alternate to the existing arrangement.

 

The City has revised the existing parking prohibitions arrangement to remove the ‘Bus Zone’ on Bilby Road and apply a 5min parking prohibition on Bilby Road between Stoke Court and Ipswich Crescent, adjacent to Roseworth Primary School. Additionally, the existing 5min parking prohibitions on Stebbing Way are proposed to be removed to allow long term parking in the embayments adjacent to Roseworth Primary School.

Consultation

Administration has been in contact with the Principal of Roseworth Primary School and a representative of the P & C Committee with regard to the proposed changes, and both have advised that the changes are satisfactory.

Comment

Roseworth Primary School has now been operating for approximately one year and Administration considers that the proposed changes will rectify the majority of the concerns raised by both the school representative and parents. The relocation of the bus pickup/drop-off zone, and the swapping of the entry / exit points to the school main carpark have improved the workability of the school at the peak periods in the mornings and afternoons.

 

Furthermore, Administration acknowledges that a 5-minute parking restriction may not be sufficient for parents wanting to attend the school’s “Parent reading’ which occurs for a period of 30 – 60 mins on a regular basis. The proposed parking prohibition alterations along Stebbing Way will allow parents to park without any time restrictions.

 

The parking prohibitions proposed for Stebbing Way, Stoke Court and Bilby Road are as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2629-1-4 refer Attachment 2.

Statutory Compliance

The installation of parking prohibition signage will allow the enforcement of Part 4 Clause 38 of the City’s Parking and Facilities Local Law 2003(as amended)

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil


 

 

Financial Implications

The provision of parking prohibitions incurs not only the initial cost of materials and installation of the signs but also the ongoing cost of maintenance due to vandalism and graffiti. The estimate for materials and installation to implement these changes is $300, which can be funded from the Project No PR –1431, Parking Scheme Signage and Line Marking, Various, for which a total of $10,000 has been approved in the 2011/2012 Capital Works Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the removal of “5 min Parking, 7.30am-9am, 2.30pm-4pm, School Days” (R5-13) signs for the parking embayments on the north side of Stebbing Way, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-4 at Attachment 2;

2.       APPROVES the removal of “BUS ZONE” (R5-20) signs on the south side of Bilby Road, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-2 at Attachment 2;

3.       APPROVES the installation of “5 min Parking, 7:30am-9am, 2:30pm-4pm, School Days” (R5-13) signs for the parking embayments on the south side of Bilby Road, Girrawheen as shown on Drawing No 2629-1-4 at Attachment 2; and

4.       ADVISES the Principal of Roseworth Primary School of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Roseworth PS - Parking Prohibitions - Locality Plan

12/4960

 

2.

Roseworth PS - Parking Prohibitions - Proposed 2629-1-4

12/4961

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                202


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                203


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                204

IN05-03/12         Backshall Place, Wanneroo - Partial Road Closure at Intersection with Ocean Reef Road

File Ref:                                              3110 – 12/11679

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the status of Administration’s investigation of the road closure options outlined in public submissions to Council’s decision to partially close the junction of Ocean Reef Road and Backshall Place, Wanneroo, as advertised in the Wanneroo Times of 10 June 2010.

 

Background

At the Council meeting of 15 November 2011 Council considered Report IN09-11/11 into public submissions on Council’s decision to partially close the junction of Ocean Reef Road and Backshall Place, Wanneroo (IN07-07/10 refers), as advertised in the Wanneroo Times of 10 June 2010, and resolved as follows:

“1.     RECEIVES the public submissions concerning the proposed turning restrictions at the junction of Backshall Place and Ocean Reef Road to prevent access into Backshall Place from Ocean Reef Road;

2.       In accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.50, as amended, PARTIALLY CLOSES Backshall Place to vehicular traffic at the junction of Ocean Reef Road to prevent left and right turns from Ocean Reef Road into Backshall Place, as shown in Attachment 1;

3.       REQUESTS the Director Infrastructure to prepare a report on the partial closure options outlined in the submissions for consideration by Council at its meeting in March 2012 to allow a review of the closure as proposed in 2 above;

4.       AUTHORISES the Mayor to write to the Member for Wanneroo and request his support in approaching the Transport Minister to allocate funding for the installation of traffic control signal at the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Scenic Drive in Main Roads WA’s 2012/13 Capital Works budget;

5.       REVIEWS the traffic model and all access arrangements in conjunction with the installation of the traffic signals at the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Scenic Drive

6.       NOTES that Administration will continue to discuss access options with Main Roads WA for Wanneroo Road between the Wanneroo Townsite and Ocean Reef Road; and

7.       ADVISES the owners/occupiers of all properties in the area bounded by Wanneroo Road, San Rosa Road, Yellagonga Regional Park and Ocean Reef Road of Council’s decision.”

This report is intended to provide a review of the current status of the City’s investigation into the road closure options referred to in Item 3 above.

Detail

In accord with Resolution IN09-11/11 Item 3 above the City has engaged Shawmac Pty Ltd to undertake traffic modelling of the following scenarios proposed for Regent Estates:

1.       The existing road configuration, with left and right turns from Ocean Reef Road into Backshall Place prohibited.

2.       The existing road configuration, with left and right turns from Ocean Reef Road into Backshall Place prohibited but with traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road/Scenic Drive intersection.

3.       The Ocean Reef Road/Backshall Place intersection configured for left-in/left-out only, ie close the Ocean Reef Rd median, with traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road/Scenic Drive intersection.

4.       The Ocean Reef Road/Backshall Place intersection reconfigured with left in/left out/right out only and right turns from Scenic Drive into James Spiers Drive and left turns from James Spier Drive into Scenic Drive prohibited.  This option excludes the right turn movement from Ocean Reef Road into Backshall Place.

Consultation

No additional public consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

To date the following actions have been taken:

·    Shawmac has recalibrated the traffic model for Regent Estates, established in 2009, against current traffic volumes; and

·    Shawmac has undertaken modelling of the first two scenarios.

 

The results so far indicate that the provision of traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road / Scenic Drive intersection is unlikely, by itself, to have any effect on the volume of ‘rat-run’ traffic using the Regent Estates road network as drivers will still perceive the Regent Estates route as being quicker than the alternative along Wanneroo Road and Ocean Reef Road.

 

It should be noted that the probability algorithms behind the mathematical modelling of road networks are based on studies that show that the major determinant of driver’s choice of travel route is journey time.

 

Modelling has also shown that to discourage drivers from using the James Spiers Drive -Tyne Crescent route would require that sufficient traffic treatments be installed to restrict the overall travel speed along that route to about 35-40 km/h.  However, this does not result in traffic moving to the Wanneroo Road-Ocean Reef Road route but alternative paths through Regent Estates.

 

It is important to finalise the modelling of the four options before providing a detailed report to Council.  In addition it has been recognised through a number of reports to Council that Backshall Place needs traffic management treatments to reduce the speed in this street.  Options are currently being developed for consideration by Council before proceeding with the community consultation process.  On this basis it is proposed to present a detailed report to Council at its meeting on 29 May 2012.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Governance

4.2    Improve community engagement

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council NOTES that the Director Infrastructure will present a report to the 29 May 2012 meeting of Council on the partial closure options outlined in the submissions referred to in IN09-11/11 and a traffic management concept for Backshall Place.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                207

IN06-03/12         Benenden Avenue, Butler - Temporary Road Closure

File Ref:                                              3126 – 12/18496

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider a request by the Public Transport Authority (PTA) for an extension of time to the temporary closure of Benenden Avenue, Butler until the end of August 2012 to allow the construction of road bridges over the Northern Suburbs railway line.

 

Background

As part of the Northern Suburbs Railway extension, from Clarkson Station to Butler Station, PTA is currently building three road bridges over the railway at Landbeach Boulevard, Benenden Avenue and Butler Boulevard.  To assist with the construction, Council at its meeting of 24 August 2010 approved the temporary closure of Benenden Avenue, as follows (IN03-08/10 refers):

“1.  APPROVES the temporary closure of Benenden Avenue, Butler, from 1 March 2011 until 29 February 2012, to allow the construction of the railway bridges at Benenden Avenue and Landbeach Boulevard;

2.   ENDORSES the responses to the submissions as outlined in the report and ADVISES the submitters accordingly of Council’s decision and the responses;

3.   REQUESTS the Public Transport Authority to LIAISE with Administration and principal of the East Butler Primary School to determine the extent of temporary traffic management required in Landbeach Boulevard;

4.   ADVISES the Public Transport Authority of Council’s decision; and

5.   REQUESTS the Public Transport Authority to provide the owners/occupiers of all properties in Butler, east of the railway line, full details of the proposed road closure, temporary detours and timeframes.”

Detail

The original request from PTA for a temporary closure of Benenden Avenue proposed that the closure was necessary from 1 March 2011 to 29 February 2012, however the actual start of the closure was delayed until 27 June 2011.  PTA has now requested that the temporary closure be extended to the end of August 2012 to provide time for the successful completion of the bridges, relocation of services, and reconstruction of the new roads over the bridge decks.

 

PTA has advised that they will continue to:

·    Provide alternate emergency access for FESA at the Butler Station site.

·    Communicate with the community via their website, project updates, local papers and letter drops to local residents.

·    Work with the East Butler Primary School.  Following the success of using a variable message board to reduce speeds on Landbeach Boulevard during December they repeated the event prior to the new school term.

Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

At the time of the original request the only access to east Butler was via Benenden Avenue or Landbeach Boulevard.  The proposed closure of Benenden Avenue meant that the precinct was solely dependent on Landbeach Boulevard.  Since that time alternative access to east Butler has been established through south Alkimos via Marmion Avenue and Santorini Promenade to the northern extension of Benenden Avenue.

 

While the closure has resulted in increased traffic on Landbeach Boulevard, Randstone Parade and Huntly Avenue, this was as expected.  PTA has endeavoured to work with the East Bulter Primary School to modify driver behaviour past the primary school.  Administration has also conducted traffic surveys on Landbeach Boulevard, Randstone Parade and Huntly Avenue with the following results:

Randstone Parade

Average Weekday Traffic – 1,441 vehicles per day

85% Speed – 53 km/h

Huntly Avenue

Average Weekday Traffic – 1,191 vehicles per day

85% Speed – 59 km/h

 

While there is evidence of inconvenience to the residents directly affected by diverted traffic, Administration considers that the proposed extension to the temporary closure of Benenden Avenue is necessary until construction of the Benenden Avenue railway bridge is complete.

Statutory Compliance

Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 controls the temporary closure of public roads. Part 2 of the (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 denotes the persons to be notified of the closures.

 

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 


 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      APPROVES the extension of time for the temporary closure of Benendon Avenue, Butler to 31 August 2012 to allow for construction of the railway bridges at Benendon Avenue and Landbeach Boulevard;

2.      NOTES that the Director Infrastructure will ensure that the administrative procedures required under Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 – Closing Certain Thoroughfares to Vehicles, will be undertaken

3.      NOTES that the Public Transport Authority will continue to provide residents of Butler, east of the railway line, updates on the temporary road closure, detours and timeframes; and

4.      ADVISES the Public Transport Authority of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                210

IN07-03/12         PT01-12/11 - Request Traffic Calming Anchorage Drive, Mindarie

File Ref:                                              3120 – 12/14605

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting the installation of speed modification devices on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie.

 

Background

Council received Petition PT01-12/11 at its meeting of 13 December 2011.  The petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration to install speed modification devices on Anchorage Drive which is being used as a raceway at all hours of the day and night north of Swansea St south of Rosslare St.”

 

The petition has been signed by 25 residents. A further 11 signatures are listed on the reverse of the petition but cannot be included as the text of the petition is not stated.

 

Refer Attachment 1 for a location plan.

Detail

In accord with Agreed Structure Plan No.13 for Mindarie Keys Harbourside Village (Attachment 2 refers), Anchorage Drive, between Swansea Promenade and Rosslare Promenade has been constructed as a Local Distributor Road with a 9m wide pavement in a 32m wide road reserve.

 

Liveable Neighbourhoods, in listing the function and characteristics of this type of road gives the indicative traffic volume for a Neighbourhood Connector B constructed as a two lane undivided carriageway as 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd), while Main Roads WA (MRWA) lists the capacity of a Local Distributor Road as 6,000 vpd.

 

Currently, the posted speed limit on Anchorage Drive, between Marmion Avenue and Rosslare Promenade is 60km/h.

 

Only nine properties along Anchorage Drive, between Swansea Promenade and Rosslare Promenade, have direct property access to the road.  The majority of abutting properties back onto the road and are accessed from other roads.

 

The following traffic data was collected for Anchorage Drive for the week commencing 3 September 2010 and 16 February 2012:

 

Traffic data:

Definitions

AWT - average Weekday Traffic

vpd -  vehicles per day

85%ile speed –  the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling.

20km/h Pace –  the 20km/h speed range in which the majority of vehicles are travelling

% in Pace –  percentage of total vehicles travelling within the 20km/h Pace range

Anchorage Drive – North of Swansea Pde

                                      September 2010          February 2012

AWT –                 2843 vpd                       3292 vpd

85%ile speed –    59km/h                          55.8km/h

Max speed –        98km/h                          118km/h

20km/h Pace –    44 - 64km/h                   37 – 57km/h

% in Pace –         67.3%                            66%

 

Crash data, provided by the WA Police to MRWA, records that there have been eight reported accidents on Anchorage Drive, between Swansea Promenade and Rosslare Promenade, during the five years 2006 to 2010.  Five of these accidents are recorded as ‘Out of Control’ which indicates poor driver behaviour, typically the consequence of ‘hoon’ activity.

 

Additionally, Council at its meeting of 16 November 2010 considered Item No IN07-11/10 into Anchorage Drive, which recommended improving pedestrian crossing facilities and seeking Council’s support to approach MRWA to reduce the posted speed limit to 50km/h. At that time Council resolved the following:

“1.   REQUESTS Administration to prepare a plan for improved pedestrian crossings along Anchorage Drive between Marmion Avenue and Ocean Falls Boulevard for presentation to Council within the next 12 months; and

2.    UNDERTAKES community consultation in relation to 1 above and to determine whether or not the community is in favour of the proposed speed limit reduction to 50 Km/h on Anchorage Drive (South) between Marmion Avenue and Rosslare Promenade and reports to Council.”

 

Administration is currently in the final stages of preparing a community consultation strategy to achieve Items 1 and 2 above.

Consultation

No public consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

Using the above traffic data, Anchorage Drive has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TM Policy) to determine the justification and the priority of any traffic management works.  In assessing a road the TM Policy considers the following criteria:

·        Speed

·        Traffic volumes

·        Crash history

·        Road design and topography

·        Vulnerable road users - Pedestrians/Cyclists

 

The TM Policy requires a score of > 60 to qualify for traffic management treatments, while scores between 30 and 60 points warrant increased attention to law enforcement and driver education.  The assessment for Anchorage Drive, based on a posted speed limit of 60km/h and the 16 February 2012 traffic counts, achieved a score of 30, primarily as a result of the number of accidents.  This score acknowledges that while there are traffic issues on this street these are best dealt with by Police enforcement and community education.

 


 

Administration considers that once Council has had the opportunity to consider the community’s support for a reduction in the posted speed limit to 50km/h on Anchorage Drive, to which resolution IN07-11/10 refers, it will be better able to determine what works, if any, are needed to implement Council’s decision.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy is applicable to this petition.

Financial Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy was developed to assist Council in managing the allocation of resources to the many requests the City receives for traffic management.  By considering a range of criteria it endeavours to separate those roads where issues are considered systemic and need action by the City from those where opportunistic ‘hoon’ are creating isolated issues better handled by police enforcement.

 

Currently, the City’s 10-Year Capital Works Program (10YCWP) allocates approximately $600,000 of municipal funds to traffic treatments each year.  While speeding does occur on Anchorage Drive, Administration considers the TM Policy and the resulting score indicate that an early construction of traffic management treatments, as requested in the petition, at this location cannot be justified ahead of other projects already listed in the 10YCWP.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES that Administration is currently undertaking community consultation to determine whether or not the community is in favour of the proposed speed limit reduction to 50km/h on Anchorage Drive (South) between Marmion Avenue and Rosslare Promenade;

2.       DEFERS a decision on the need for traffic treatments on Anchorage Drive, between Swansea Promenade and Rosslare Promenade, until the results of Item 1 above are know; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

PT01-12/11 Anchorage Drive (South), Mindarie - Location Map

12/16339

 

2.

PT01-12/11 - ASP13 Mindarie Keys Harbourside Village

12/16347

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                213


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                214


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                215

IN08-03/12         PT01-02/12 - Request Traffic Calming Langford Boulevard, Madeley

File Ref:                                              3120 – 12/15327

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2      

Issue

To consider a multi-signature letter requesting the installation of speed calming devices and better signage on Langford Boulevard, Madeley.

Background

Council received multi-signature letter PT01-02/12 at its meeting of 7 February 2012.  The letter, addressed to the Chief Executive, Main Roads and the Mayor, Wanneroo City Council, reads:

“It has been noted that traffic from Gnangara Road to Kingsway and Wanneroo Road, from Wanneroo Road and the Western end of Kingsway to Gnangara Road are using some or all of the above roads, and mainly via Langford Boulevard.

Many consider this stretch to be a roadway where speed need not be controlled. Many near misses and running over of family pets have also taken place.

This problem has been brought to the notice of Paul Miles MLA, Member of Wanneroo, who in turn had written to Hon Simon O’Brian Minister of Transport as well as the former Mayor of the City of Wanneroo Council, Jon Kelly, on 11th February 2010. However, no action to rectify or control this problem has been forthcoming to date.

We kindly request you to install speed calming devices on Langford Bvd (which is used as a direct link road between Kingsway and Gnangara Road) and better signage as a matter of priority, before there is a serious accident with loss of life.

It must be stressed that many children walk along these streets to school and for leisure, as well as many residents who use the purpose built footpaths, every morning and evening.

You very urgent attention is requested, as a matter of urgency.”

 

The letter has been signed by six residents. A further 23 signatures are listed on a second page without the text of the request being stated.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan of the subject area.

Detail

In accord with Agreed Structure Plan No.8 for East Wanneroo Cell 6 (Madeley/Darch) Langford Boulevard has been constructed as a Local Distributor Road.  The road runs north/south between Russell Road and Kingsway, and is contiguous with Susan Road providing a north/south Local Distributor spine between Gnangara Road and Kingsway.  For most of its length, Langford Boulevard is constructed with a 7m wide single carriageway in an 18m wide road reserve.  However, the road section between Brittain Avenue and Kingsway is constructed as a boulevard, with divided carriageways each 5m wide, and a 3m wide median, in a 22m road reserve.  An aerial view of the road is shown in Attachment 2.

 


 

Liveable Neighbourhoods, in listing the function and characteristics of this type of road gives the indicative traffic volume for a Neighbourhood Connector B constructed as a two lane undivided carriageway as 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd), while Main Roads WA (MRWA) lists the capacity of a Local Distributor Road as 6,000 vpd.  Currently, the road operates under the default ‘built-up area’ speed limit of 50km/h.

 

Council at its meeting of 19 October 2010 considered Report IN05-10/10, which reviewed the traffic volumes using the Madeley Local Distributor network since the opening of the Hartman Drive extension. Further, an additional review was undertaken in April 2011 and reported to report Council at its meeting of 7 February 2012 (IN13-02/12 refers).

 

The following traffic data for Langford Boulevard was obtained during April 2011.

 

Traffic data:

Definitions

AWT - average Weekday Traffic

vpd -  vehicles per day

85%ile speed –  the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling.

20km/h Pace –  the 20km/h speed range in which the majority of vehicles are travelling

% in Pace –  percentage of total vehicles travelling within the 20km/h Pace range

 

Langford Boulevard – South of Russell Rd

AWT –                 953 vpd

85%ile speed –    48 km/h

Max speed –        73 km/h

20km/h Pace –    32 – 52 km/h

% in Pace –         90%

 

Langford Boulevard – North of Kingsway

AWT –                 1,368 vpd

85%ile speed –    39 km/h

Max speed –        61 km/h

20km/h Pace –    24 – 44 km/h

% in Pace –         96.1%

 

Crash data provided by the WA Police through MRWA records that there have been five reported accidents on Langford Boulevard during the five years 2006 to 2010.  Three of these accidents occurred at the Kingsway/Langford Boulevard intersection and two at the Langford Boulevard/Hollins Bend roundabout.

Consultation

No public consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

Langford Boulevard has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TM Policy) to determine the justification and the priority of any traffic management works. The TM Policy includes an assessment of the following criteria:

·        Speed

·        Traffic volumes

·        Crash history

·        Road design and topography

·        Vulnerable road users - Pedestrians/Cyclists

 

The TM Policy requires a score of > 60 to qualify for traffic management treatments, while scores between 30 and 60 points warrant increased attention to law enforcement and driver education.  The assessment for Langford Boulevard achieved a score of 36 south of Russell Road, which acknowledges that while there are traffic issues on this street these are best dealt with by Police enforcement and community education.

 

The contention that large volumes of traffic are using Langford Boulevard as a link between Kingsway and Gnangara Road is not supported by the traffic data which shows that traffic volumes on Langford Boulevard and Susan Road have decreased since the construction of the Hartman Drive extension (IN13-02/12 refers).  The current traffic levels on Langford Boulevard are well within the function and capacity of the road.

 

With regard to the request for “better signage” it is advised that Main Roads WA (MRWA) has sole authority to authorise, install and maintain all traffic signs and pavement markings in the Perth metropolitan area.  In response the City will investigate the current signage to identify any deficiencies against MRWA standards and apply to MRWA for correction where necessary.

 

The issues of speeding and hooning are considered to be police issues.  While the City is concerned for the safety of its residents, its authority and responsibility is limited to the safe construction and maintenance of its roads.  Individual drivers have the responsibility to drive within the State road rules.  If drivers choose to disregard those rules, the only organization with the authority to enforce compliance is the WA Police.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy is applicable to this report.

Financial Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy was developed to assist Council in managing the allocation of resources to the many requests the City receives for traffic management.  By considering a range of criteria it endeavours to separate those roads where issues are considered systemic and need action by the Council from those where opportunistic ‘hoon’ are creating isolated issues better handled by police enforcement.

 

Currently, the City’s 10-Year Capital Works Program (10YCWP) allocates approximately $600,000 of municipal funds to traffic treatments each year.  While speeding does occur on Langford Boulevard, Administration considers the TM Policy and the resulting score indicate that an early construction of traffic management treatments, as requested in the petition, at this location cannot be justified ahead of other projects already listed in the 10YCWP.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       In accord with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy DOES NOT APPROVE the installation of traffic management treatments along Langford Boulevard, at this time;

2.       NOTES that Administration will undertake a review of traffic signage and pavement marking along Langford Boulevard and seek the approval of Main Roads WA for any changes identified;

3.       REQUESTS the WA Police to undertake additional speed enforcement of vehicles using Langford Boulevard; and

4.       ADVISES the multi signature letter organiser of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

PT01-02/12 Langford Boulevard, Madeley - Location Map

12/16756

 

2.

PT01-02/12 Langford Boulevard, Madeley - Aerial View

12/17646

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                219


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                220


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                221

IN09-03/12         PT05-02/12 - Request Traffic Calming Jenolan Way, Merriwa

File Ref:                                              3120 – 12/15447

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting the installation of rubber speed humps in Jenolan Way, Merriwa.

 

Background

Petition PT05-02/12, signed by 25 residents, was received by Council at its meeting of
7 February 2012.  The petition reads:

“We the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration to supply and install rubber speed humps (as installed in Burnett Rd Clarkson) at the east end of Jenolan Wy Merriwa (between Yass Wy and Connelly Dr). We request this due to the increased incidences of speeding and other ‘hoon’ activity in this street.”

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan of the subject area.

Detail

Jenolan Way, Merriwa is a Local Distributor Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and has been constructed with a 9m wide pavement in a 22m wide road reserve.

 

Liveable Neighbourhoods, in listing the function and characteristics of this type of road gives the indicative traffic volume for a Neighbourhood Connector B constructed as a two lane undivided carriageway as 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd), while Main Roads WA (MRWA) lists the capacity of a Local Distributor Road as 6,000vpd. Currently, the road operates under the default ‘built-up area’ speed limit of 50km/h.

 

The following traffic data was collected for Jenolan Way Drive during the week commencing 9 May 2011:

 

Traffic data:

Definitions

AWT - Average Weekday Traffic

vpd -  vehicles per day

85%ile speed –  the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling

20km/h Pace –  the 20km/h speed range in which the majority of vehicles are travelling

% in Pace –  percentage of total vehicles travelling within the 20km/h Pace range

 

Jenolan Way – West of Connolly Drive

AWT –                 2768vpd

85%ile speed –    55km/h

Max speed –        99km/h

20km/h Pace –    40 – 60km/h

% in Pace –         90.9%

 


 

Jenolan Way – East of Baltimore Parade

AWT –                 2585vpd

85%ile speed –    42km/h

Max speed –        72km/h

20km/h Pace –    26 – 46km/h

% in Pace –         90.4%

 

Crash data provided by the WA Police, through MRWA, records that there has been six reported accidents at the Connolly Drive/Jenolan Way intersection, three at the Baltimore Parade/Jenolan Way intersection, one accident resulting in a fatality at the Jenolan Way/Yass Way intersection and five other accidents along the length of Jenolan Way, during the five years 2006 to 2010.

Consultation

No public consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

Jenolan Way has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TM Policy) to determine the justification and the priority of any traffic management works. The TM Policy includes an assessment of the following criteria:

·        Speed

·        Traffic volumes

·        Crash history

·        Road design and topography

·        Vulnerable road users - Pedestrians/Cyclists

 

The TM Policy requires a score of >60 to qualify for traffic management treatments, while scores between 30 and 60 points warrant increased attention to law enforcement and driver education.  The assessment for Jenolan Way achieved a score of 54, between Connolly Drive and Yass Way, which acknowledges that while there are traffic issues on this street these do not yet warrant the installation of traffic treatments at this time and are best dealt with by Police enforcement and community education.

 

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy was developed to assist Council in managing the allocation of resources to the many requests the City receives for traffic management.  By considering a range of criteria it endeavours to separate those roads where issues are considered systemic and need action by the Council from those where opportunistic ‘hoon’ are creating isolated issues better handled by police enforcement.

 

The issues of speeding and hooning are considered to be police issues.  While the City is concerned for the safety of its residents, its authority and responsibility is limited to the safe construction and maintenance of its roads.  Individual drivers have the responsibility to drive within the State road rules.  If drivers choose to disregard those rules, the only organization with the authority to enforce compliance is the WA Police.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy is applicable to this petition.

Financial Implications

The estimated cost of installing five sets of rubberised speed humps in Jenolan Way is $30,000. Currently, the City’s 10-Year Capital Works Program (10YCWP) allocates approximately $600,000 of municipal funds to traffic treatments each year.  While speeding does occur on Jenolan Way, Administration considers the TM Policy and the resulting score indicate that an early construction of traffic management treatments, as requested in the petition, cannot be justified ahead of other projects already listed in the 10YCWP.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       In accord with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy DOES NOT APPROVE the installation of traffic management treatment along Jenolan Way, at this time;

2.       REQUESTS the WA Police to undertake additional speed enforcement of vehicles using Jenolan Way; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

PT05-02/12 Jenolan Way, Merriwa - Location Map

12/18228

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                224


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                225

IN10-03/12         PT02-02/12 and  PT03-02/12 - Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks - Footpath

File Ref:                                              3000 – 12/18582

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider petitions relating to the construction of a footpath in Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks.

 

Background

Council considered a report into a request to provide a footpath on Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks at its meeting of 23 August 2011 and resolved as follows (IN07-08/11 refers):

“1. APPROVES the construction of 155m of 1.5m wide cast insitu concrete footpath in Palm Corner, between Christian Park and Sirius Ramble, Quinns Rocks, at an estimated cost of $20,000 to be funded from PR-1595 Minor Pathway Projects – Unspecified; and

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

 

In response to advice to residents that the City had scheduled construction of the footpath two local residents advised of their objection.

 

Subsequently, Council received petition PT03-02/12 at its meeting of 7 February 2012.  The petition reads:

 “We, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration:

Object strongly 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 would agree to such a pathway being constructed if it abutted against the kerb edge, as is presently the case in nearby streets (such as Santa Barbara Parade, Lorient Pass, Kilborne Street, etc).”

 

The petition is signed by five residents, representing five Palm Corner properties directly affected by the proposed path.

 

Additionally, at the same meeting, Council received multi-signature letter PT02-02/12, which reads:

“We, the undersigned support the construction of the 1.5m wide concrete footpath from Christian Park to Sirius Ramble as notified on the 25 November 2011”

 

The letter is signed by 24 petitioners with the organiser being a resident of Palm Corner directly affected by the proposed path.  A further page of 26 signatures is attached to the letter.  It is assumed that the majority are parents of students of Quinns Beach Primary School as no addresses are provided.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan and Attachment 2 for an aerial view of the street.

Detail

Palm Corner is an “L” shaped access street which intersects with Sirius Ramble opposite the Quinns Beach Primary School.

 

The section of the street between Christian Park and Sirius Ramble is used by parents to drop-off and pick-up children at the nearby Quinns Beach Primary School.  This street is also used as a pedestrian link by students living to the east of the school.

 

The original request was for the footpath be constructed on the south side of Palm Corner between Christian Park and Sirius Ramble to link with the existing path network through the park and separate students from vehicular traffic during periods of high traffic movements.

Consultation

No additional community consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

The function of the road reserve is to provide transport options for all road users: vehicles; pedestrians; and cyclists.  Each of these user groups has equal rights to use the road reserve.  A footpath provides dedicated infrastructure for pedestrians and provides safe separation of pedestrians and vehicles.

 

For information Para 7.1.4 of Planning and Design for Pedestrians: Guidelines published by the Department of Transport provides the following comments on pathway location:

 

Close to kerb

·    In many cases is the only option because of the road reserve width available.

·    Offers the best visibility of path users to drivers reversing out of their properties, particularly where high screen walls exist at the boundaries.

·    Will be used in two directions and allows cyclists to run off the path and ride against the flow of motor traffic on the road pavement. Overseas experience has shown wrong-way movements to be a major problem (Cross and Fisher 1977).

·    May result in parked cars being a hazard to cyclists due to the opening of vehicle doors into the path.

·    May result in persons entering and exiting parked cars being put at risk due to the proximity of bicycle movements to the cars.

·    Follows the longitudinal profile of the kerb and is therefore generally cheaper to construct because of reduced earthworks.

·    May be preferred by abutting landowners in terms of privacy and nature strip disruption.

·    May result in the effective path width being reduced by kerb returns (however, the use of AS1428.1 style side ramps (see Figure 8 in AS 1428.1) would be of some assistance at driveways or the path profile being adversely affected at the cross over.

·    If wide, may be viewed as detracting from the appearance of the streetscape and may imply a higher speed environment.

·    Is less pleasant for cyclists because of traffic noise, fumes and speed, and perhaps the splashing of water from gutters.

·    May be relatively unaffected by the presence of fences varying in height and type, or having sharp or exposed edges or protrusions.

 


 

Near property boundary

·    Provides a more pleasant cycling environment and is perceived to be safer for inexperienced or young cyclists.

·    May limit visibility of path users to drivers reversing out of driveways, or to drivers turning left from the abutting carriageway, where path users are beyond the driver’s peripheral vision.

·    Does not necessarily follow the kerb profile and may result in steeper gradients for cyclists or be more costly to construct.

·    May be viewed as having a lower negative visual impact on the street than a kerbside path.

·    May be unacceptable to abutting land owners.

·    Is more efficient for the mail service, if the nature strip is very wide.

·    Should preferably be deviated to a location at least one car length back from road intersections, adjacent to which the path crosses, to facilitate passage behind a queued car).

·    Allows space for garbage (e.g. wheelie) bins to be accommodated clear of path and for pit lids for utilities to be located outside of the path surface. Pit lids should not be located within paths as they can create an uncomfortable ride and constitute a trip hazard for pedestrians.

 

The original path alignment for Palm Corner was chosen to alleviate the need to relocate three streetlights and the removal of a mature tree and two recently planted verge trees.  Additionally, where a footpath is located on the kerb it is recommended that its width be increased by 0.5m to provide separation from passing vehicles, allows for doors opening from parked cars, and reduce obstructions from bins on refuse pickup days.

 

To improve safety for Quinns Rocks Primary School students Administration considers that a footpath along Palm Corner is warranted.  In order to meet resident concerns Administration recommends the construction of a 2m wide path adjacent to the kerb.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The original estimate for a 1.5m wide footpath was $20,000 and the works were to be funded from PR-1595 – Minor Pathways Projects.  The revised estimated cost to construct 155m of 2m wide footpath, along Palm Corner between Christian Park and Sirius Ramble, and relocate three streetlights, is $35,000. Funding of this $15,000 shortfall can be accommodated from the following sources:

 

          PR-1595     Minor Pathways Projects                                      $3,000

          PR-2078     Installation of Bicycle Facilities – Various           $12,000

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the construction of 155m of 2m wide cast insitu concrete footpath in Palm Corner, between Christian Park and Sirius Ramble, Quinns Rocks, at an estimated cost of $35,000;

2.       NOTES the following budget variation to accommodate the shortfall in funding for the construction of this pathway;

Project No

From

To

Description

PR-2078

$12,000

 

Installation of Bicycle Facilities - Various

PR-1595

 

$12,000

Minor Pathways Projects - Unspecified

3.       ADVISES the directly affected residents of Palm Corner of Council’s decision;

4.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision; and

5.       ADVISES the multi-signature letter organiser of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks - Location Map

11/85396

 

2.

Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks - Proposed Path

11/85399

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                229


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                230

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                231

 

Other Matters

IN11-03/12         Broadview Park, Landsdale - Limestone Wall Supporting the Pathway, Lookout and Gazebo

File Ref:                                              1552 – 11/144704

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a concept for the relocation of the lookout and gazebo overlooking Broadview Lake in Broadview Park, Landsdale.

 

Background

Council considered a report at its meeting on 8 February 2011 (Item IN03-02/11 refers) and adopted the following resolutions:

 

“That Council:-

1.       AGREES to the appointment of a consultant to undertake a detailed feasibility of the suitable renewal options and design/documentation of the preferred option for the upgrading of the lookout, pathway and gazebo structure at Broadview Park, Landsdale;

2.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of $25,000 for the appointment of a consultant to undertake a detailed feasibility and design/ documentation for the lookout/pathway structure at Broadview Park Lake, Landsdale;

3.       NOTES the following budget variation to reflect the transfer of interest:

Cost Code

From

To

Description

PR - 1661

$25,000

 

Irrigation Infrastructure Replacement Program

PR - 2150

 

$25,000

Broadview Park Lake, Landsdale - consultancy

4.       NOTES that a report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of the design/documentation process and the financial impact of the proposed structure.”

Refer Attachment 1, City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2739-1-A, for the location plan. Action was initiated in accordance with these resolutions and Structerre Consulting Engineers (Structerre) was appointed to undertake an investigation of the options available to either repair or replace the structure and prepare a preliminary design of the most suitable option. This report considers the detail and concept of the available option.

Detail

Structerre was appointed to provide the following services:

·           Geological testing to determine the adequacy of the retaining walls

·           Review of following options:

(a)      Partial reconstruction – remove the damaged portions of retaining wall and reconstruct. This option would require assessment to determine the structural adequacy of the major portion of retaining wall which is not damaged/subsided

(b)     Full reconstruction at the existing site – if testing does not allow the retention of the major portion of the retaining wall, reconstruct a similar facility at the existing site

(c)     New construction - construction of a similar new facility within a few metres from the existing facility incorporating a timber boardwalk supported by pile foundations, relocation of the gazebo onto the new structure, demolishing the existing limestone wall/pathway and re-grading the bank to create an extended shoreline.

(d)     Any further option determined from on site testing by the appointed consultant

·           Preliminary designs of options

·           Preliminary cost estimates

·           Report and recommendation of suitable option based on the costs, ease of construction and ongoing maintenance

Geotechnical investigation undertaken by Structerre indicated the following:

·           Excavations encountered a sequence of variably compacted fill sand underlying the asphalt veneer / limestone sub base

·           Voiding and low compaction was found in all trial pits, with a notable increase in voids for the trial pits excavated behind the wings of the structure

·           Down the back of the central portion of the lookout, an irregular concrete pour was noted

·           Concrete was not encountered adjacent to the wings of the structure and this coincides with the majority of the settlement and voiding observed to date

 

Based on the results of this investigation, it has been established that the wall is failing and will require repair or replacement. The suggested method of repair (installing piles to accommodate the retained load) will require the removal of the wooden tiled roof structure. It was noted that a piling contractor would not be able to access the site with the structure in its present location. The variation of the lake water level throughout the year was contributing to the undermining of the limestone walls, thus making the walls unstable.

 

Further discussions with Structerre indicated that it would be difficult to reconstruct the structure at the same location due to the site constraints, with the potential of undermining of any new structure due to variation in the water levels in the lake. It was therefore suggested that the only other viable option is to construct a similar structure (noted as Option 5 in the report IN03-02/11 considered by Council on 8 February 2011) west of the current location. This option is described below:

 

“Construction of a similar new facility incorporating a timber boardwalk supported by pile foundations, relocation of the gazebo onto the new structure, demolishing the existing limestone wall/pathway and regrading the bank to create an extended shoreline”.

 

A concept design of this option was prepared and cost to implement this option was estimated to be in the order of $210,000. This estimated cost was significantly greater than the budget of $164,000 allocated in the approved 2011/12 Capital Works Program and therefore considered to be prohibitive.

 

A further option was developed as described below:

 

‘the relocation of the gazebo onto an adjoining elevated location west of the existing location, construction of a new retaining wall, regrading of the lake shoreline, demolishing the existing limestone wall/pathway and regrading the bank to create an extended shoreline”.

 

This option is estimated to cost $165,000 which is close to the allocated funds for this project. This option allows for the provision of a gazebo structure overlooking the lake, thus providing a setting similar to that of the current location.

 

The existing facility can remain for partial use whilst the new one is constructed and can be demolished upon the commissioning of the new facility.

 

Structerre also suggested that prior to progressing further and preparing a detailed structural design, it would be necessary to prepare a concept plan describing the new structure.

 

Accordingly, a concept plan has now been prepared as per City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2739-2-A (refer Attachment 2) for the purpose of community consultation. The detailed design and construction phases of the project will be subject to the outcomes of the community consultation.

Consultation

Structerre has provided engineering advice. It is also proposed to consult with the Landsdale Residents’ Association and the local community on the concept plan for the proposed works.

Comment

In view of the specialist structural engineering advice and the site constraints, the proposed option to relocate the gazebo and associated works at the adjoining location, as shown on the concept plan and demolition of the existing structure is an appropriate option and is supported. This option will provide a new stable structure for the community use and allow the City to demolish the existing structure after the new one is constructed.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.1    Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A detailed cost estimate will be prepared after completing the detailed structural design. The construction of the new structure and the demolition of the existing structure is estimated to cost $150,000 plus consulting engineers fees of $15,000.

 

A budget allocation of $164,000 for Project No PR-2150 Broadview Park, Landsdale, is available in the approved 2011/2012 Capital Works Program.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the concept plan as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2739-2-A (included as Attachment 2) for the construction of a new lookout structure in Broadview Park, Landsdale and demolition of the existing structure, for the purpose of community consultation; and

2.       NOTES that a further report will be presented on the outcomes of the community consultation process.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Broadview Park - Location Plan

12/18337

 

2.

Broadview Park - Concept Plan

12/18340

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                                                235


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 06 March, 2012                                                                &nbs