B&WLogo_circle&text

 

 

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR ELECTED MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo

on 25 February, 2014 commencing at 6:00pm


PROCEDURE FOR FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING

PRINCIPLES

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

 

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

 

PROCESS

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

 

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

Ø  Attendance and Apologies

Ø  Declarations of Interest

Ø  Reports for discussion

Ø  Tabled Items

Ø  Public Question Time

Ø  Closure

 

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

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

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

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

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

 

DEPUTATIONS

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

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

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

 

LOCATION

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


 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 25 February, 2014

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Reports_ 1

Planning and Sustainability  1

Policies and Studies  1

3.1                         Adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres  1

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  246

3.2                         Adoption of Amendment No. 37 to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8  246

3.3                         Adoption of the draft North Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 91  261

City Businesses  347

Property  347

3.4                         Proposed development of a portion of Lot 500, Leach Road, Wanneroo by the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.). 347

3.5                         Implementation of the Proposed Environmental Offset Package for the City's Landholdings in the Neerabup Industrial Area  362

Infrastructure  369

Infrastructure Projects  369

3.6                         Ocean Reef Road Noise Attenuation Investigation  369

Traffic Management  374

3.7                         Parking Prohibition Removal - Scenic Drive, Wanneroo  374

3.8                         Golf Links Drive, Carramar - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation  382

3.9                         St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo - Proposed Footpath Community Consultation Results  418


 

Other Matters  427

3.10                      Yanchep Boardwalk - Development Approval and Construction Program Update  427

3.11                      Berkley Road Local Structure Plan – Drainage Strategy Implementation and Release of Temporary Drainage Sumps  445

3.12                      Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection - Establishment of a Community Reference Group and Terms of Reference  456

3.13                      Quinns Beach Coastal Protection - Need for a Limestone Retaining Wall along Fred Stubbs Park  462

Community Development  479

Capacity Building  479

3.14                      Volunteering Policy  479

Program Services  485

3.15                      Wanneroo Shooting Complex CSRFF Small Grant Application to Department of Sport and Recreation  485

3.16                      Pearsall Hocking Community Centre - Needs and Feasibility Review   489

3.17                      Renewal of Edmund Rice Partnership Agreement 2014  500

3.18                      Write Off Outstanding Debt - Community Facilities  508

Corporate Strategy & Performance  510

Finance  510

3.19                      Disclosure of Financial Ratios in 2012/2013 Annual Financial Report  510

3.20                      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 January 2014  541

3.21                      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 January 2014  610

3.22                      Mid Year Review of 2013/2014 Annual Budget  622

Governance  634

3.23                      2013 Compliance Audit Return  634

3.24                      Donations to be Considered by Council - March 2014  659

Other Matters  663

3.25                      Locality Boundary - Minor Amendment Between City of Wanneroo and City of Swan Along Sydney Street, Gnangara. 663

Chief Executive Office  668

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 668

4.1                         Cr Domenic Zappa – Web Streaming at Council Meetings  668

4.2                         Mayor Tracey Roberts – Consideration of Installation of Dog Poo Bags in City Parks  670

Item  5_____ Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover) 673

5.1                         Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension  673

5.2                         Motion on Notice – Mayor Roberts – Refund of Fees to Quinns Rocks Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade  673

5.3                         Motion on Notice – Cr Driver - Request for Removal of Artificial Cricket Pitch & to add an Extra Football Pitch and Goals at Gumblossom Park  673

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 673

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 673

7.1                         Variation to Contract of Employment for Chief Executive Officer  673

7.2                         Lease - Default Notice  673

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 673

Item  9_____ Closure_ 673

 


Agenda

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Policies and Studies

3.1    Adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres

File Ref:                                              2037 – 12/91050

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8  

Previous Items:                                   PS05-05/12 - Draft Local Planning Policy 3.2:  Activity Centres - Ordinary Council - 29 May 2012      

 

Issue

To consider the revised draft Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres (LPP 3.2) for final adoption, following public advertising.

 

Background

Draft LPP 3.2 was presented to Council at its meeting on 29 May 2012 (Item PS05-05/12), where Council resolved to adopt it for the purpose of advertising. A copy of the advertised draft LPP 3.2 is included as Attachment 1. The Policy was advertised for public comment between 26 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 in accordance with Council's resolution of 29 May 2012.

 

22 submissions were received on draft LPP 3.2 during advertising raising six key issues. A summary of the submissions received and Administration's responses and recommended modifications is included as Attachment 2. Administration has prepared a revised draft LPP 3.2 in light of the submissions made.

Detail

The six key issues raised and Administration's position on each, are summarised below.

 

Flexibility of Draft LPP 3.2

 

Some submitters commented that Table 3 of the Policy is inflexible and would not allow alternative designs or outcomes to be considered. This is because a proposal would be deemed 'unacceptable' (under Column C) and would be refused if it did not meet the Acceptable Standards of Column B.

 

Administration accepts this would create a very 'black and white' decision-making framework, because no discretion would exist to consider proposals that fall outside the Acceptable Standards of Column B. To address this, Administration is proposing to restructure the Policy to remove Column C.


Duplication with Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2)

 

Several submitters were concerned that the provisions in Column A of Table 3 duplicated provisions from LPP 4.2 and resulted in unnecessary repetition.

 

Administration agrees there is some duplication between the two Policies and is proposing to remove the references to LPP 4.2 in Column A, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Table 3 and replace these with the draft LPP 3.2 Policy Objectives. Other policies (such as LPP 4.2) will still apply to activity centres.

 

Residential Density

 

Submitters identified that the required residential densities and walkable catchments within draft LPP 3.2 were inconsistent with the standards set out in agreed district structure plans and State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP 4.2).

 

Administration agrees the requirements of draft LPP 3.2 should be consistent with the requirements in agreed structure plans and SPP 4.2 and is proposing changes to Table 3 to require residential densities and walkable catchments to accord with agreed structure plans or SPP 4.2, whichever is applicable.

 

Employment Self Sufficiency (ESS)

 

Submitters commented that the ESS and floor space requirements of the draft Policy were too strict and should be more flexible to allow these elements of an activity centre to evolve over time.

 

Administration accepts that activity centres take many years to mature and acknowledges the need for flexibility in achieving ESS and floor space targets. However, a level of certainty is still required to ensure the planning that occurs today does not prejudice the future achievement of the 60% ESS target set out in Directions 2031 and Beyond. To address this, Administration is proposing to change the draft Policy so that activity centre structure plans need to demonstrate that enough land is being set aside for 'employment-generating' land uses, to achieve the ultimate ESS and floor space objectives of district, local and centre structure plans.

 

Mix of Land Uses

 

Submitters commented that draft LPP 3.2 would artificially interfere with market forces by mandating or restricting the mix of land uses within activity centres. Further discussions with those submitters revealed their concerns were based on a misinterpretation of the draft Policy. The submitters incorrectly believed the draft Policy would dictate the combination of uses required in activity centres, and would not allow other uses (or combinations of uses) to be considered.

 

To provide greater clarity, Administration is proposing changes to the draft Policy to specify which uses within District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) could be included in the land use mix for activity centres. These changes clarify that any combination of those land uses would be appropriate.

 

 

 

Staging

 

Two submissions expressed concern that it might not be feasible to deliver certain elements or land uses of an activity centre within the first stage of the centre's development, as required by the draft Policy.

 

Administration accepts that some land uses or design outcomes may not be viable to deliver within the first phase of a centre's development. Regardless, a level of certainty is still needed so that earlier stages of development contribute to (rather than prevent) the delivery of the ultimate land use and design objectives for the centre. To achieve this, Administration is proposing to change the draft Policy, so that centre structure plans include a concept plan showing the ultimate design and development of the activity centre.

 

Other

 

In addition to the above changes, Administration is also proposing a number of other changes to the draft Policy to further clarify its intent and operation, and to address some minor editorial items that have been identified. Administration is also proposing to introduce added guidance on how the City will deal with proposals to alter the size or location of activity centres in light of the recent preparation of the City's draft Retail Needs Assessment (RNA). A summary of these recommended modifications is included as Attachment 3.

 

The changes now proposed to the draft Policy are consistent with Administration's position on the key issues summarised above. A copy of the tracked change draft LPP 3.2 is included as Attachment 4 and the final draft LPP 3.2, with all modifications accepted, is included as Attachment 5.

Consultation

Draft LPP 3.2 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days between 26 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 in accordance with Council's resolution of 29 May 2012, by way of:

 

·        advertisement in local newspapers;

·        display on the City's website and Facebook page;

·        display at the Civic Centre and the City's libraries; and

·        letters to landowners and relevant stakeholders.

 

Throughout January and February 2013 Administration met with several submitters to discuss their comments further and assist with the preparation of the revised draft LPP 3.2. These submitters attended an information session on the revised draft Policy in November 2013 and have been provided with a copy of the revised draft Policy.

 

Notwithstanding the changes now proposed to the draft Policy since advertising, the purpose and intent of the Policy has not changed. Due to the additional consultation with submitters following the close of advertising, Administration does not consider it necessary to readvertise the revised draft Policy for further public comment.     

Comment

LPP 3.2

 

Draft LPP 3.2 will provide much needed guidance for the City's assessment and decision-making on all types of planning proposals for activity centres – ranging from structure plans and Scheme Amendments, through to development applications.

 

The City currently has a Local Planning Policy on Corner Stores that was adopted in 1999. A review of this Policy commenced in 2011 as part of Administration's ongoing review of local planning policies. This resulted in draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: Corner Stores (LPP 5.3) being presented to Council at its meeting on 8 March 2011 and advertised between 5 April 2011 and 26 April 2011. No submissions were received.

 

When drafting of LPP 3.2 commenced in April 2011 it became apparent that a standalone Corner Stores Policy was unnecessary and the key provisions of draft LPP 5.3 were incorporated into the draft LPP 3.2. Administration recommends that the current Local Planning Policy 'Corner Stores' be rescinded upon adoption of the revised draft LPP 3.2, in accordance with Clause 8.14.4 of DPS 2.

 

Residential Development on Employment Land

 

Alongside the preparation of LPP 3.2, Administration is in the early stages of investigating an emerging trend affecting the development of activity centres where land zoned for Business, Commercial and Mixed Use purposes is being subdivided and developed as residential housing. Residential housing is currently allowed in the Business, Commercial and Mixed Use zones under DPS 2. This means that land originally set aside for employment generating land uses is becoming developed for housing and is therefore unavailable for its originally intended employment use. If this trend continues, there is a risk that the 60% Employment Self-Sufficiency (ESS) target set out in Directions 2031 and Beyond will not be achieved and that there will be insufficient jobs and services available to the growing community in the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor.

 

The City has recently received a letter from the Chairman of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) (included as Attachment 8) requesting the City's assistance in addressing this issue. As a result of discussions between Administration, the Department of Planning and the WAPC Administration intends to draft an amendment to DPS 2 to address this issue. A separate report will be presented at a future Council meeting for consideration.

Statutory Compliance

Draft LPP 3.2 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part 8 of DPS 2. In accordance with Clause 8.1.3.1(c) of DPS 2 Council must formally consider the submissions received and decide whether to adopt the draft Policy, with or without changes, or not to proceed with the draft Policy.

 

In accordance with Clauses 8.11.3.1(d) and 8.11.3.1(e), should Council resolve to finally adopt LPP 3.2, notification of the final adoption must be published once in a newspaper circulating in the City, a copy of LPP 3.2 must be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and submitters must be notified of Council's decision.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.


 

Policy Implications

Once finalised, and if adopted by Council, LPP 3.2 will form part of the City's Local Planning Policy Framework and will supersede the current Local Planning Policy 'Centres', included as Attachment 6, and the current Local Planning Policy 'Corner Stores', included as Attachment 7. Upon adopting LPP 3.2 it will be recommended that Council rescind both of these Policies.

Financial Implications

The cost of advertising the notice of final adoption is to be met from the Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 8.11.3.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres included as Attachment 5;

2.       Subject to 1. and pursuant to subclauses 8.11.3.1(d) and 8.11.3.1(e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its final adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres once in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City newspapers and FORWARDS a copy of the Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information;

3.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 2 in respect to draft Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres, ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions and ADVISES submitters of its decision;

4.       NOTES and ENDORSES Administration's proposed modifications in respect to draft Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres included in Attachment 3; and

5.       Subject to 1. and pursuant to subclause 8.11.4(b) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESCINDS Local Planning Policy 'Centres' included as Attachment 6 and Local Planning Policy 'Corner Stores' included as Attachment 7, and PUBLISHES notice of the rescission of these Policies in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City newspapers for two consecutive editions.

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Advertised Draft LPP 3.2

12/48888

 

2View.

Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions LPP 3.2

13/207741

Minuted

3View.

Attachment 3 - Administration's Proposed Modifications to LPP 3.2

13/194911

Minuted

4View.

Attachment 4 - Tracked Changes Revised Draft LPP 3.2

13/207752

 

5View.

Attachment 5 - Final Revised Draft LPP 3.2

13/207753

Minuted

6View.

Attachment 6 - Local Planning Policy 'Centres'

13/207764

Minuted

7View.

Attachment 7 - Local Planning Policy 'Corner Stores'

13/207765

Minuted

8View.

Attachment 8 - Letter Regarding Employment Generation

14/64092

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                        6


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                         13


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                      40


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                         42


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       123


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    131


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       140


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    179


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    187


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       194


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    224


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    230


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    243


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    245

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        246

Draft

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

3.2    Adoption of Amendment No. 37 to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8

File Ref:                                              3381-37 – 13/216936

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil.

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 37 to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8 (ASP 8) and adoption of the amendment.

 

Applicant

Drescher & Associates

Owner

Justin Sonia Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 170 (69) Kingsway, MADELEY

Site Area

598m2

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

ASP 8 Zoning

Residential R25

 

 

Background

On 21 February 2013, Drescher & Associates, on behalf of Justin Sonia Pty Ltd (the landowner), lodged a request with the City to recode Lot 69 (170) Kingsway, Madeley from R25 to R40.  A location plan is provided as Attachment 1.

 

On 24 May 2013, the Manager, Planning Implementation 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 Amendment No. 37 to the ASP 8 commenced on 18 June 2013 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

On 17 September 2013, the Manager, Planning Implementation forwarded another memorandum to all Elected Members, to advise the proposal was being readvertised, due to a sign not being placed on the subject lot during the previous public comment period.  The proposal was subsequently readvertised for public comment, including a sign on the subject lot, commencing on 24 September 2013.

Detail

Amendment No. 37 to ASP 8 proposes to recode Lot 69 (170) Kingsway, Madeley from R25 to R40.  The subject lot is 598m2, which, under the present R25 coding can accommodate only a single dwelling. The average site area per dwelling in an R25 coded area is 350m2 as per the provisions of the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) Residential Design Codes (R Codes). Therefore the subject lot does not have subdivision potential.  If the lot is recoded to R40, it would be capable of accommodating two grouped dwellings, with potential to subdivide the land into two lots.

 

Maps of the amendment area showing the existing ASP 6 residential coding and proposed residential coding are provided as Attachment 2.


 

Consultation

During the first period of public comment that closed on 30 July 2013, the City received three submissions, all objecting to the proposed amendment.  One submission stated that a petition would be later submitted to Council.  Accordingly, a 34-signature Petition (PT02-08/13) was received by Council at its meeting on 20 August 2013.

 

The second round of public comment included the same means of advertising undertaken during the first public comment period and also included placement of a sign on the subject lot.  Administration wrote to the three submitters from the first public comment period that their previous submissions would still be taken into consideration, in addition to any new comments they wished to make. At the close of the second public comment period, which ended on 5 November 2013, one submission was received.  In addition, a 142-signature Petition (PT05-10/13) was also received by Council at its meeting on 15 October 2013.

 

The main issues raised in the submissions and the Petitions are:-

 

·        Previous refusal to recode the subject lot;

·        The development potential of subject lot and impact on amenity of adjoining properties;

·        Traffic;

·        Inconsistency with the WAPC's Directions 2031 and beyond;

·        Inconsistency with the City's Local Planning Policy 3.1;

 

A Schedule of Submissions/Petitions together with Administration's comments is provided as Attachment 3.

 

A more detailed discussion on the major issues raised in the submissions is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

1.         Previous refusal to recode the subject lot

 

Council, at its meeting of 21 October 2008, considered adoption of Amendment No. 31 to ASP 6 to recode Lots 156 & 157 King David Boulevard and Lot 170 Kingsway, Madeley from R25 to R40 (Item PD07-10/08).  Although Administration recommended adoption of this amendment proposal, Council resolved as follows:

 

1.       REFUSE the application as submitted by Drescher & Associates on behalf of Justin Sonia Pty Ltd;

 

2.       NOTE the application does not satisfactorily address impacts of parking and traffic within the additional proposed residential developments in particular with regard to the proximity of adjacent roundabouts; and

 

3.       NOTE that several of the lots are not adjacent to useable Public Open Space and therefore inconsistent with the planning principles of Council.

 

An extract of the ASP 8 area showing the location of the lots the subject of Amendment No. 31 and the density codings of the surrounding lots is provided as Attachment 4.

 

The subject lot can be differentiated from the other lots which formed part of Amendment No. 31 for the following reasons.  Lots 156 and 157 are located at the intersection of King David Boulevard and Sovrano Avenue adjoining a roundabout.

 

This roundabout is located in close proximity to another roundabout at the intersection of Sovrano Avenue and Kingsway and submittors to Amendment No. 31 raised concern regarding on-street parking near the roundabouts, which led to Council not supporting the amendment. 

 

In the context of the current amendment proposal, Lot 170 is not located at the roundabout but on a controlled access place system (CAPS) road. Therefore any incidental parking on the CAPS road would not impact on the normal flow of traffic on the surrounding road network. In regard to the third resolution above it is noted that the subject lot is situated directly opposite Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.

 

2.         Development potential/impact on amenity

 

The R Codes development standards for a R40 development in regard to frontage and primary street setback differ from those of a R25 development. These are discussed below:

 

a)         Frontage

 

The subject lot has a frontage of approximately 18 metres, consistent with the other R25 lots to the east which have frontages ranging between 18 and 23 metres.  The R-Codes prescribe a minimum frontage of 8 metres for R25 lots, and do not prescribe a frontage for R40 lots.  Therefore, if the subject lot were to be recoded to R40, two 9-metre-wide lots could be created.  Alternatively, a green-title battleaxe development could also be considered resulting in a 14 metre frontage lot and a battleaxe lot serviced by a 4 metre wide driveway.

 

b)         Primary street setback

 

The R-Codes prescribe a 6 metre primary street setback for R25 land, which can be reduced to 3 metres with an average of 6 metres as of right.  The average front setback for the 10 R25 residential lots to the east of the subject lot is approximately 5.95 metres to garages and 6.75 metres to dwellings.  If the subject lot were to be developed at its current R25 coding, a primary street setback of a minimum 3 metres for the dwelling with an average of 6 metres would comply with the development standards of the R-Codes, resulting in a development which may not be consistent with the established streetscape.  If the subject lot were to be recoded to R40, a primary street setback of 2 metres with a 4 metre average would satisfy the development standards of the R-Codes. 

 

Therefore, considering the above matters, regardless of whether the subject lot remains at R25 or is recoded to R40, a proposed development on the subject land may not be consistent with the established streetscape.

 

3.         Traffic

 

Based on Main Roads Western Australia transport data, a single dwelling is assumed to generate ten vehicle trips per day (vtpd).  Under the current density coding of Residential R25, the subject lot can accommodate only one dwelling generating 10 vtpd. If the subject lot were to be recoded to R40 and developed with two dwellings, it would generate 20 vtpd, that is an additional 10 vtpd. This additional traffic is not likely to impact on the normal flow of traffic in the locality.

 

4.         Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy

 

The City's Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) provides the framework for implementation of recommended density increases within the six identified Housing Precincts.  LPP 3.1 also contains provisions for consideration of proposals to increase density on land outside of the six Housing Precincts. 

The subject lot is not within the identified Housing Precincts and therefore is subject to the requirements of Clause 9.1 (b) of LPP 3.1 which requires an assessment of how the proposal:

 

i.      is appropriate within the broader planning framework provided by the Structure Plan;

ii.     satisfies the criteria of this Policy relating to Housing Precinct designation and densities;

iii.    more generally supports the objectives and recommendations of the Local Housing Strategy and Smart Growth Strategy.

 

The subject lot is,

 

·        located within a 750 metre radius of Kingsway Shopping Centre;

·        situated within close proximity (less than 200 metres) to high frequency bus routes which connect with train stations;

·        located adjacent to the Kingsway Sporting Complex; and 

·        in close proximity to major arterial routes, educational institutions and community facilities.

 

Therefore, the proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and recommendations of the Local Housing Strategy and Smart Growth Strategy.

 

In addition, the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy (LN) encourages a variety of residential density and housing types to facilitate diversity and choice to meet the projected requirements of people with different housing needs.  LN encourages smaller lots and for lots of higher density to be located close to neighbourhood centres, public transport and adjacent to high amenity areas such as parks.  The proposed amendment is considered to be consistent with the objectives of LN.

 

Conclusion

 

Drescher & Associates on behalf of Justin Sonia Pty Ltd has submitted a proposal to recode Lot 170 Kingsway, Madeley from Residential R25 to Residential R40. The subject lot is adjacent to Kingsway Sporting Complex, within 750 metres of Kingsway Shopping Centre and within 200 metres of a bus stop which provides high frequency connections to nearby train stations.  The proposal satisfies the City's Housing Strategy and Local Planning Policy 3.1 and the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy.  It is recommended that the amendment proposal be adopted and forwarded to the WAPC for its adoption and certification.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan Amendment 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 amendment, Council may refuse to adopt the amendment or resolve that the amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that Amendment No. 37 to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8 be adopted without modifications and forwarded to the WAPC for its adoption and certification.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning and Local Planning Policy 3.1 Local Housing Strategy Implementation.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 37 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8, as submitted by Drescher & Associates on behalf of Justin Sonia Pty Ltd and as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report is SATISFACTORY and SUBMITS three copies to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 37 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6, and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL the Amendment documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

3.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 37 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8 included as Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

14/64935

 

2View.

Attachment 2 - Current and proposed ASP 8 density coding

14/6354

Minuted

3View.

Amdt 37 - ASP 8 - Att - 3

14/12350

Minuted

4View.

Attachment 4 - ASP 8 map

14/6212

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       251


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    252


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    253


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       260


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        261

3.3    Adoption of the draft North Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 91

File Ref:                                              7436 – 13/154563

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed North Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 91 (LSP 91) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability for final approval in order to forward LSP 91 to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

CLE Town Planning & Design

Owner

Atlantis @ Two Rocks Pty Ltd & New Orion (Aust) Pty Ltd

Two Rocks Investments Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 14 (230) Lisford Avenue, Two Rocks and

Lot 206 (710) Shearwater Avenue, Two Rocks

Site Area

833.92 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban, Parks and Recreation, Railways Reserve

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development, Regional Parks and Recreation

 

 

Background

On 1 February 2013, CLE Town Planning & Design, on behalf of Atlantis @ Two Rocks Pty Ltd and New Orion (Aust) Pty Ltd, landowners of Lot 14 (230) Lisford Avenue, Two Rocks and Two Rocks Investments Pty Ltd, landowners of Lot 206 (710) Shearwater Avenue, Two Rocks, submitted LSP 91 to the City for assessment and consideration.  The proposed structure plan area falls within the Yanchep – Two Rocks District Structure Plan No. 43 (DSP 43) area and is generally bounded by Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 83 – East Two Rocks to the east, Regional Parks and Recreation foreshore reserve to the west, Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 69 to the south and the Wilbinga Nature Reserve in the Shire of Gingin to the north.  A plan showing the location of the LSP 91 area is included as Attachment 1.

 

On 12 April 2013, the Director, Planning and Sustainability forwarded a Memorandum to all Elected Members advising of his intention to advertise LSP 91 under delegated authority and provided the opportunity for Elected Members to request the matter be referred to Council for consideration of consent to advertise prior to 19 April 2013.  No responses were received, therefore, advertising of LSP 91 commenced on 7 May 2013.  The advertised LSP 91 documentation (Part 1 statutory provisions) is included as Attachment 2.

Detail

Site

The LSP 91 area applies to Lot 14 (230) Lisford Avenue and Lot 206 (710) Shearwater Avenue, Two Rocks.  The LSP area is approximately 834 hectares and is predominantly zoned 'Urban Development' under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).  A MRS Railway Reserve runs along the eastern boundary of the LSP area.  Approximately 7 hectares of land on the western boundary of the LSP area is affected by a Physical Processes Setback, pursuant to State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy (SPP 2.6).  The LSP area also includes a 30 hectare site on the northern boundary which is identified by DSP 43 as Regional Open Space.

 

The majority of the site is currently vacant, unutilised land and, with the exception of four Water Corporation production bores and boundary fences, there are no existing structures on the site.

Proposal

LSP 91, as shown in Attachment 2, has been prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DPS 2.   The majority of the site is proposed to be zoned 'Residential', with three areas proposed to be zoned 'Centre' (including a portion of the Two Rocks Secondary Centre B, a District Centre and a Coastal Activity Centre), three 'Mixed-Use' zones, six 'Commercial' zones (four Local Centres and two Neighbourhood Centres) and one 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone.

 

The LSP 91 provides the framework for the creation of the following:

 

·        690 hectares of residential development for approximately 12,000 dwellings with a range of densities from R30 to R160, to accommodate an estimated population of 27,000 people;

·        A portion of the Two Rocks Secondary Centre with an indicative maximum retail floor space of 43,700m2;

·        A District Centre with retail floor space of 9,900m2;

·        A Coastal Activity Centre with retail floor space of 2,100m2 and a total commercial floor space of 8,669m2;

·        Two neighbourhood centres with retail floor space of approximately 3,700m2 and 7,500m2 respectively;

·        Four local centres with retail floor space ranging between 300m2 to 1800m2;

·        Generation of approximately 8,400 jobs for an estimated workforce of approximately 13,800 people;

·        The provision of two high school sites;

·        The provision of seven primary school sites;

·        A Central Transit Corridor linking the Two Rocks Secondary Centre, District Centre and Coastal Activity Centre, providing a rapid bus transit service and future opportunities for light rail;

·        Approximately 52.3 hectares of public open space (POS), including approximately five hectares of district open space for active playing fields;

·        The provision of 30 hectares of regional open space to be utilised for active playing fields; and

·        The provision of 22.5 hectares of conservation open space.

Consultation

LSP 91 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers, the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners.  The submission period closed on 18 June 2013, with eight submissions being received at the close of the submission period, including a joint submission from the Department of Transport (DoT) and Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA).  One late submission from the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) was received following close of the submission period.

 

Due to the nature of the concerns raised by the DoT and MRWA, a meeting was held at the Department of Planning (DoP) on 11 July 2013 between the City, DoP, DoT, MRWA, Public Transport Authority, CLE Town Planning & Design (the applicant), Mike Allen (planning consultant on behalf of the landowners) and traffic consultants for the applicant, to allow issues to be openly discussed and clarified where possible. 

 

 

Consequently, an amended joint submission was received on behalf of DoT and MRWA.  In addition, MRWA also lodged its own independent submission, bringing the total number of submissions received to ten.

 

A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses are shown in Attachment 3.  In accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning, Administration also undertook its own assessment of LSP 91 and is recommending a number of modifications as a result of this assessment.  These modifications are provided in Attachment 4 and are in addition to the modifications recommended as a result of submissions in Attachment 3.

 

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

 

·        Arrangement of land uses and infrastructure on Plan A – LSP 91 map;

·        Physical Processes Setback;

·        Regional Open Space (ROS);

·        MRS Railway Reserve;

·        Light Rail Transit (LRT);

·        Co-location of primary schools and Public Open Space (POS); and

·        Ministerial Statement No. 538.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 91 is provided in the Comment section.

Comment

Plan A – Structure Plan Map

Plan A of LSP 91 depicts the proposed arrangement of centres and the regional road network within the LSP 91 area.  The arrangement of land uses and infrastructure depicted on Plan A of LSP 91 is generally consistent with the arrangement depicted on Plan 1 of DSP 43, however the location of some centres and the mixed use corridor have been refined by LSP 91.  In assessing LSP 91 against the requirements of DSP 43, it was determined DSP 43 was sufficiently flexible to support refinement of the graphical representation of DSP 43 through the local structure planning process.

 

Plan A to LSP 91 is provided as the last page of Attachment 2.  Plan 1 of DSP 43 is provided as Attachment 5

 

The statutory provisions of DSP 43 require LSP's to demonstrate compliance with the objectives and strategies of the DSP and to be generally consistent with the intent of the DSP and the general arrangement of land uses and infrastructure as depicted on the DSP map.    LSP 91 delivers a portion of the Two Rocks Secondary Centre, two Neighbourhood Centres and one Coastal Activity Centre, consistent with DSP 43.  In addition, LSP 91 provides 'Mixed Use' precincts and proposes a road network linking the Two Rocks Secondary Centre with the District Centre, Coastal Activity Centre and two Neighbourhood Centres.  Furthermore, the east-west aligned district distributor B (DDB) road is of sufficient width in the future to provide a LRT between Secondary Centre B and the Coastal Activity Centre.  The general arrangement of land uses and infrastructure in the LSP 91 area is considered to be generally consistent with that depicted of Plan 1 of DSP 43, and therefore in accordance with the requirements of DSP 43. 

 

In its submission on LSP 91, the DoP indicated they felt LSP 91 was inconsistent with DSP 43, particularly in respect to the regional road network.  DoP recommended LSP 91 be redesigned to reflect the DSP. 

 

 

Administration does not agree with this and maintains the statutory provisions of DSP 43 provide sufficient flexibility to permit refinement of the general arrangement of land uses and infrastructure through the LSP process.  Administration considers LSP 91 meets the statutory obligations of DSP 43 and should not be required to be redesigned to portray an exact replication of the DSP map.

 

As outlined above, the DDB connecting the Two Rocks Secondary Centre with the District Centre and Coastal Activity Centre is of sufficient width to accommodate a LRT in the future.  Currently, Plan A does not identify this future light rail transit system or depict any indicative public transport routes.  LPP 4.2 requires the general indicative public transport routes and stations to be depicted on the LSP map.  Accordingly Administration has recommended that Plan A be updated to include this information.

 

Physical Processes Setback

Approximately seven hectares of land on the western boundary of Lot 14 has been identified as falling within the 'Physical Processes Setback' (PPS), as defined by the WAPC's SPP 2.6.  SPP 2.6 does not preclude development within the PPS, however, it requires development to be considered within a coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning process.  Development should only proceed once adequate management and adaptation planning measures, which accord with SPP 2.6, have been agreed.  Applications for development within the PPS must demonstrate that the proposal can be considered within one of these circumstances which are: public recreation facilities with a finite lifespace; coastally dependent and easily relocated development; Department of Defence; Industrial and commercial development; Coastal nodes; and Surf lifesaving clubs.

 

LSP 91 proposes to zone the land within the PPS as a 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone and put in place suitable development controls which will allow the land to be used within the 100 year planning timeframe as described by SPP 2.6.  The intention is for the land to remain in private ownership, to allow the landowners to develop the land and realise some value within the 100 year planning timeframe.  The concept of a 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone where land remains in private ownership is new and has not previously been proposed in the City of Wanneroo. 

 

In previous correspondence with the applicant, and in its submission to the City on LSP 91, the WAPC advised that it does not support the tenure, zoning and development of land within the PPS, and considers the land should be ceded to the Crown free of cost consistent with long standing practice.  The WAPC did, however, acknowledge that SPP 2.6 does not preclude development within the PPS, subject to a coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning process being followed. Administration does not agree the land within the PPS should be ceded free of cost simply due to a long standing practice, particularly where there is an opportunity for the landowner to develop the land in accordance with the process outlined in SPP 2.6.  The WAPC's position not to support the tenure, zoning and development of land within the PPS is contrary to the provisions of SPP 2.6, which does entertain the idea of development within the PPS as being acceptable.

 

In written correspondence to the proponent in November 2012, prior to submission of LSP 91, the Director, Planning and Sustainability advised that whilst the City was generally supportive of the proposal to retain the portion of 'Urban' zoned land within the PPS for private development, appropriate zoning and planning controls would be necessary to ensure the land is suitably protected from coastal processes over the next 100 years.  Accordingly, LSP 91 identifies discretionary land uses within the 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone, and contains provisions which require sufficient indemnification to the City against loss or damages arising from coastal processes, including title search, erosion, sea level rise and the like.  Under the proposed LSP provisions, proponents must demonstrate that any buildings proposed are readily capable of removal and relocation, or designed so as to adapt to/withstand temporary rising flood waters caused by sea level rise. 

 

In addition, LSP 91 proposes to limit the term of planning approval within the 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone to thirty years with any extensions to this timeframe subject to application and further consideration by Council. 

 

Currently, LSP 91 does not contain any commitment to following a coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning process for development in the 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone.  In this regard, Administration does not consider LSP 91 adequately responds to the requirements of SPP 2.6. Administration has therefore recommended a modification to require preparation of a Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan in accordance with SPP 2.6, as part of a Foreshore Management Plan, which will be required as a condition of subdivision.

 

Furthermore, Administration does not consider LSP 91 adequately demonstrates the proposed land uses within the 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone can be considered in accordance with SPP 2.6.  Accordingly, Administration has recommended that additional text is inserted into the statutory provisions of LSP 91 to require proponents wishing to develop within the PPS, to demonstrate the proposed land use can be considered within the circumstances identified by SPP 2.6, at the time of application for planning approval under DPS 2.

 

Administration is satisfied that recommended modifications relating to the 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone respond to the requirements of SPP 2.6 and will ensure development within this zone is only considered following an appropriate coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning process.

 

Regional Open Space

There are two areas identified as ROS by LSP 91 including a 12 hectare site abutting the foreshore reserve and a 30 hectare site abutting the northern boundary.  The 12 hectare site is currently reserved as 'Parks and Recreation' under the MRS primarily for the purpose of retention of foreshore dunes.  The 30 hectare site is identified by DSP 43 as ROS to meet future active recreational needs of residents within the Yanchep – Two Rocks community, however, is still zoned 'Urban' under the MRS.   Attachment 5 shows the location of the proposed ROS within the LSP 91 area.

 

As yet, the WAPC has not initiated an MRS amendment to reserve this land for 'Parks and Recreation'.  If the intention of the WAPC is to reserve the 30 hectare site for ROS as identified by DSP 43, the land should be reserved under the MRS.  The applicant has requested Council's formal support to request the WAPC initiate an amendment to the MRS to reserve this land.  This request is considered appropriate and has been included in Administration's recommendations.

 

MRS Railways Reserve

LSP 91 depicts the MRS Railways Reserve along the eastern boundary of Lot 206 Shearwater Avenue.  Amendment 1248/57 to the MRS has been initiated and proposes to realign the Railways Reserve to accord with the indicative alignment depicted on DSP 43.  Council considered a report regarding MRS Amendment 1248/57 at its meeting on 17 September 2013 (PS09-09/13) and supported the realignment of the Railways Reserve to be consistent with DSP 43, where the Railways Reserve is realigned north of the Yanchep City Centre to align with a Primary Regional Road Reservation which will accommodate the future Mitchell Freeway extension. 

 

MRS Amendment 1248/57 is likely to be gazetted shortly and the land currently reserved for Railways within the LSP 91 area will be rezoned to 'Urban'.  It is considered prudent to cater for the unlikely possibility that the amendment is not gazetted and the land remains reserved for Railways.  If the land remains as Railways Reserve, there would be a need to consider and manage the impacts of noise on sensitive land uses within close proximity to the reserved land should a railway be constructed in the future. 

 

Accordingly, Administration has recommended a modification to require a detailed noise assessment and noise management plan for sensitive land uses affected by the Railway Reserve in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4: Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning (SPP 5.4).

 

Light Rail Transit

The DDB road which connects the Two Rocks Secondary Centre, District Centre F and the Coastal Activity Centre is of sufficient width to accommodate LRT in the future.  If LRT was developed it would not be until the LSP 91 area is near full build out, which could be between approximately 40 to 50 years. It is also possible that the LRT may never be developed within the LSP 91 area.  Given the possibility that this DDB could accommodate LRT in the future, Administration considers LSP 91 should address potential impacts LRT may have on noise-sensitive land uses abutting the proposed LRT alignment.

 

SPP 5.4 provides guidance for land use planning for new rail infrastructure in the vicinity of existing of future noise-sensitive land uses (such as dwellings).  Further, SPP 5.4 requires noise assessments to be conducted where new rail infrastructure is proposed in the vicinity of future noise-sensitive land uses.  Where necessary, the noise assessment will inform a noise management plan which could propose noise mitigation measures such as quiet house design.  Schedule 2 of SPP 5.4 states a detailed noise assessment should be provided where a future railway is proposed within 100 metres of an existing major transport corridor.

 

Currently, LSP 91 does not consider the potential noise impacts associated with LRT on sensitive land uses in close proximity to the future LRT alignment.  Recognising that development of the LRT is not guaranteed, Administration does not consider the proponent should be required to provide a noise assessment and/or noise management plan as prescribed by SPP 5.4.  If this requirement was included within LSP 91, there is the potential for costly noise mitigation measures being required to be incorporated into the design of dwellings.  This would be fruitless in the event the LRT was never developed and ultimately would just increase the construction costs for future residents for no real benefit.

 

Whilst Administration does not agree that a noise assessment and/or management plan is necessary, it does consider that landowners abutting the LRT alignment should be notified about the potential for LRT development.  Accordingly, Administration has recommended a modification requiring a notification to be placed on the certificates of title of proposed lots within the vicinity of the LRT alignment advising them that a LRT may be developed in the future and it could impact upon amenity.  This notification will ensure landowners are aware of the potential LRT within the DDB alignment.  If the LRT was developed in the future, it would be the responsibility of the developer to ensure appropriate mitigation measures were implemented to minimise noise and vibration impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.

 

Co-Location of Primary Schools and Public Open Space

The City of Wanneroo's Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (NCGCCFP) has identified the need for district open space (DOS) within the LSP 91 area.  LSP 91 proposes a five hectare site for this purpose, co-located with a ten hectare high school on the eastern boundary of the LSP area.  Following an assessment of this DOS, it was determined the proposed five hectare site is too small to accommodate the facilities required, which include two full size multi-purpose playing fields and one full size soccer/rugby oval.  The plan from the NCGCCFP showing the location for the DOS is provided as Attachment 6.

 

LSP 91 proposes seven primary schools within the LSP area, with six of these co-located with POS.  Each co-located primary school site is 3.5 hectares in size and development of sporting fields for school use would be shared between the 3.5 hectare school site and adjoining POS. 

 

 

Administration discussed the need to achieve a larger DOS area, following which it was agreed that five of the proposed co-located primary schools would be modified to stand-alone four hectare sites, with these five primary schools accommodating their own sporting fields.  The balance of land currently shown within the co-located school site area, however, as a result of this modification will fall outside of the stand-alone four hectare site, will be zoned 'Residential'.

 

The balance of POS which results from this modification is proposed to be used to increase the size of the five hectare DOS site co-located with the high school to 8.5 hectares, which would then be of sufficient size to accommodate the infrastructure required.   An additional 1.5 hectares of the surplus POS is proposed to increase the size of remaining co-located POS sites by 0.5 hectare each. The proponent has prepared an indicative plan showing the proposed modifications to POS/DOS, and this is provided as Attachment 7

 

This modification does reduce the amount of strategic open space identified by LSP 91 by one hectare.  Ultimately the proponent will still need to provide a minimum of 10% POS across the LSP 91 area in accordance with Liveable Neighbourhoods.  LSP 91 currently identifies approximately 6.5% of the gross subdivisible area as strategic open space, with the final location and size for the balance of POS being subject to assessment against Local Planning Policy 4.3 at the subdivision application stage.  Therefore, Administration considers the slight reduction in strategic open space identified by LSP 91 to be acceptable.

 

The Department of Education (DoE) has already given its support for the location of schools proposed by LSP 91.  Administration has verbally discussed the proposed modifications to the POS arrangement with the DoE and obtained its 'in-principle' support to the modified proposal. The DoE is supportive of a sufficiently sized DOS being provided to ensure adequate playing fields are available within the district which can be used by schools. 

 

Ministerial Statement No. 538

The DPaW is of the view LSP 91 does not adequately address the conditions of Ministerial Statement 538, in relation to the protection of regionally significant vegetation surrounding the LSP area.  Ministerial Statement No. 538 was prepared in response to Amendment No. 787 to the City's Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to rezone the Yanchep/Two Rocks area from 'Rural' and "Residential Development' to 'Urban Development', Centre' and 'Industrial Development'.  The Ministerial Statement was endorsed by the Minister for the Environment on 15 February 2000 and the provisions of the Statement are contained in Schedule 12 to DPS 2. 

 

The LSP 91 area is bounded by Bush Forever site 397 to the west and Bush Forever site 406 (Wilbinga Conservation Reserve) to the north.  Ministerial Statement 538 requires regionally significant vegetation (Bush Forever sites) to be protected from impacts associated with development of the LSP area through the following measures:

 

·    Clear delineation of regionally significant areas of vegetation from the amendment area through the use of dual use paths, rods, public open space areas and the like;

·    Control of off-road vehicle use and dumping of rubbish;

·    Fire management; and

·    Promotion of community awareness of bushland protection.

 

In addition, Ministerial Statement 538 required the preparation and implementation of the following Environmental Management Plans for a range of lots within the Yanchep-Two Rocks district, including the LSP 91 area:

 

·    Stygofauna and/or Troglobitic Fauna Management Plan;

·    Drainage, Nutrient and Water Management Plan;

·    Karst Management Strategy;

 

·    Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan; and

·    Aboriginal Culture and Heritage Management Plan.

 

With the exception of the Drainage, Nutrient and Water Management Plan (now referred to as an Urban Water Management Plan), LSP 91 does not include any of the other Management Plans referred to by Ministerial Statement 538. 

 

Discussion of how LSP 91 responds to the requirements of Ministerial Statement 538 is provided below.

 

Protection of regionally significant vegetation

 

Delineation between Bush Forever and LSP 91 area

LSP 91 identifies the need for a road interface between the Bush Forever sites and the LSP area to be provided as a minimum to reduce the chance of rubbish and weeds entering the Bush Forever sites from the LSP 91 area.  Additionally, LSP 91 discusses the need for fencing of the boundary of the Bush Forever area to deter uncontrolled access and protect the Bush Forever sites.  The Landscape Concept Plan provided in Part 3 depicts a dual use path separation between the northern regional open space and the Wilbinga Conservation Reserve.  Ultimately, all of these measures will be incorporated into the detailed design of the LSP 91 area, which will occur at the subdivision stage.  Administration is satisfied the LSP demonstrates that the detailed design of LSP 91 will provide a clear delineation between the Bush Forever sites and the LSP area and therefore meets the requirements of Ministerial Statement 531.

 

Off Road Vehicle use/Dumping of rubbish

Control of off-road vehicle use is managed through the Control of Vehicles (Off-road areas) Act 1978 and dumping of rubbish is managed through the Litter Act 1979.  Given these issues are governed by independent legislation, Administration does not consider LSP 91 is required to address them directly, but has noted that LSP 91 has identified that fencing is required to the Bush Forever sites which would assist in control of off-road vehicle impacts and dumping or rubbish. 

 

Fire Management

A Bushfire Hazard Assessment was provided as part of LSP 91, consistent with the requirements of LPP 4.2. The Part 1 statutory provisions of LSP 91 require a Fire Management Plan to be provided at the subdivision application stage.  Therefore, Administration is of the view LSP 91 has provided sufficient information at the structure planning stage to satisfy the requirements of Ministerial Statement 531. 

 

Community awareness for bushland protection

LSP 91 is a broad level planning document which provides the framework for the future development of the structure plan area.  Issues such as promotion of community awareness of bushland will be considered during the detailed design stage for development adjacent to, or within conservation areas, including any future development which is integrated with the Wilbinga Conservation Reserve.  There is no requirement for LSP 91 to address this issue at the structure planning stage.

 

Environmental Management Plans

 

Karst Management Strategy/Stygofauna and/or Troglobitic Fauna Management Plan

Ministerial Statement 538 requires proponents to review existing geotechnical information and undertake further site investigations to confirm the nature and extent of karst landform at the local structure planning stage.  The presence of karstic features would in turn indicate that subterranean fauna may be present in the area requiring further studies to determine the extent of populations. 

 

The Office of the Environmental Protection Authority has advised that there would be no expectation for the proponent to prepare management plans as prescribed by Ministerial Statement 538, where studies show the likelihood of karsts and subterranean fauna is low.

 

DSP 43 requires a karst investigation to be undertaken for each structure plan area prior to lodgement of the structure plan.  A karst investigation specific to the LSP 91 area did not accompany the structure plan.  The proponent has relied on information from karst and geotechnical reports undertaken at the district structure planning stage and a desktop geotechnical study for the East Two Rocks Agreed Structure Plan No. 83 (ASP 83) area to demonstrate the likelihood of karst landform as low.  Administration is of the view that LSP 91 should be updated to include a desktop assessment specific to the structure plan area and has recommended a modification accordingly.  In the event the desktop assessment identifies karstic features within the LSP area, the proponent would be required to undertake further studies to determine the extent of karstic features and subterranean fauna assemblages and prepare relevant management plans to comply with the requirements of Ministerial Statement 538.

 

Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan

Ministerial Statement 538 requires a Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan to be prepared for 'Industrial' land to identify desired environmental outcomes and waste disposal options.  As LSP 91 does not propose any 'Industrial' land, a Solid and Liquid Waste Management Plan is not required.

 

Aboriginal Culture and Heritage Management Plan

Ministerial Statement 538 requires an Aboriginal Culture and Heritage Management Plan to be prepared to identify management strategies for identified archaeological sites.  There are no identified Aboriginal heritage sites within the LSP 91 area and therefore preparation of a Management Plan is considered unnecessary at this stage.  It should be noted that Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 requires protection and reporting of any unregistered Aboriginal Heritage sites during the development of the LSP 91 area.  If required, management strategies shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with the Act.

Conclusion

Considering the above comments, the draft LSP 91 is considered to be acceptable, subject to the recommended modifications included in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 to this report being made.

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 the Local Structure Plan be approved subject to the modifications included in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy

 

 

"2      Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities

2.1    Great places and quality lifestyle - people from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.

Policy Implications

Administration's assessment of LSP 91 has been undertaken in accordance with 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 North Two Local Structure Plan No. 91 dated December 2012 submitted by CLE Town Planning & Design on behalf of Atlantis @ Two Rocks Pty Ltd, New Orion (Aust) Pty Ltd and Two Rocks Investments Pty Ltd and included as Attachment 2 is SATISFACTORY, subject to the modifications specified in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability;

 

2.       REFERS the North Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 91 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification in accordance with Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2;

 

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the duly modified North Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 91 documents and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission;

 

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

 

5.       REQUESTS that the Western Australian Planning Commission initiate an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme to formally reserve the 30 hectare land parcel identified as Regional Open Space in the Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plan No. 43 from 'Urban' to 'Parks and Recreation'.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

13/209561

 

2View.

Attachment 2 - Part 1 Advertised version

13/55247

Minuted

3View.

Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions

13/105071

Minuted

4View.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of Internal Modifications

13/154462

Minuted

5View.

Attachment 5 - DSP 43 Map

13/209858

 

6View.

Attachment 6 - NCGCCFP

13/213149

 

7View.

Attachment 7 - Plan showing modification to DOS/POS

13/201659

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       271


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       272


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       289

Proposed Local Structure Plan No. 91 – North Two Rocks

Lot 14 Lisford Avenue and Lot 206 Shearwater Drive, Two Rocks

Schedule of External Submissions

No.

Issues

Administration Comment

Modification Required

1

Western Power

1.1

Given the presence of overhead powerlines and/or underground cables adjacent to or traversing the property, the proponent is to ensure all works comply with Worksafe Regulation 3.64 – Guidelines for Work in the vicinity of Overhead Powerlines.  Western Power must be contacted if proposed works involve; any changes to existing ground levels around poles and structures; working under overhead powerlines and/or over underground cables.  Any change to the existing power system is the responsibility of the developer.

Noted.  It is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure all works comply with the Worksafe Regulation 3.64 – Guidelines for Work in the vicinity of Overhead Powerlines during the development stage.

No modification required.

2

Department of Fire and Emergency Services

2.1

The Department requests the following conditions be applied:

"Any future development resulting from this proposal will comply with the requirements of the Western Australian Planning Commission and Fire and Emergency Services Authority publication "Planning for Bush Fire Protection".

Noted.  Part 7.2.1 of LSP 91 confirms that a Fire Management Plan is required to be lodged at the time of subdivision.  A Fire Management Plan will be required to be prepared for every subdivision application in accordance with the Planning for Bush Fire Protection publication.

No modification required.

3

Department of Water

Land Use Planning – Swan Avon Region

3.1

The Department is currently assessing the Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) and will only support the proposal once this has been approved.  The Department will notify the City when the LWMS has been approved.

Noted.   Administration notes the Department of Water's response to the proponent dated 8 August 2013, requesting modifications to the LWMS.  The Department of Water is reminded the City is the responsible authority for approving the LWMS, and any requests for modifications must be made through a submission to the City.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration has considered the advice provided to the proponent by the Department of Water and considers some of their requests reasonable.  Accordingly, Administration has recommended modifications 57, 58, 59 & 71 on the Schedule of Internal Modifications.

No modification required.

4

Department of Education

Strategic Asset Planning

4.1

The Department has had no consultation with the developers regarding the interface between the school sites and POS (Part 2, Figures 13 and 14 identify POS adjoining school sites).

Noted.  Administration is proposing a modification to the POS structure which will result of in four of the previously co-located schools becoming stand-alone sites, where the interface issue will no longer exist.  The Department of Education has confirmed that four hectare sites will be satisfactory.

 

The interface between those sites which will remain co-located with POS will be considered during the detailed design stage during the subdivision process, in a joint planning exercise involving the proponent, the Department of Education and the City.  

No modification required.

4.2

The concept plans identify a separation by either road or pedestrian path between schools and POS, making access for students difficult and unsafe.  The Department seeks further consultation with the developers to ameliorate this situation.

Noted.  See response for 4.1 above.

 

Consideration of the need and location for pedestrian crossings will be undertaken during the detailed design stage, and consultation will be undertaken with the Department of Education by the proponent and the City where necessary.

No modification required.

4.3

The Department has had regular meetings with the City of Wanneroo regarding shared facilities and correspondence indicates the City has had no input on the landscape concept plans.

LSP 91, including the landscape concept plans, has been referred to all relevant internal service units within the City for their comment.  Administration considers this process provides adequate opportunity for internal service units within the City to provide feedback.  Administration notes that no internal comments were received on this issue and Administration is generally accepting of the design.

No modification required.

4.4

The Department will continue to liaise with the City regarding the co-location of shared facilities throughout the North Two Rocks Structure Plan area as the structure planning process continues.

Noted.

No modification required.

4.5

The Department is satisfied with the number and location of primary and high schools shown in the LSP, however, some final adjustments may be required at a later stage.

Accepted.  Administration acknowledges the possibility of adjustments to the number and location of high schools once a more detailed design has been completed.  It is possible that a structure plan amendment may be required in the future to accommodate any changes.

No modification required.

5

Coordinated Transport Portfolio Response

Incorporating Main Roads Western Australia & Department of Transport

 

Road Network and Traffic Modelling

5.1

MRWA has concerns and intends to work with the City to identify and resolve a number of key issues with the road network between the approved Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plan and the proposed LSP, especially in evaluating road network connections to the south.

Noted.

No modification required.

5.2

MRWA has identified the likely need for future regional road connections to Guilderton.  This will warrant further strategic and detailed planning, and consultation by MRWA, to seek a proposed MRS amendment to meet future transport demand.

Noted.  The northern boundary of the LSP 91 area is the northern boundary for the City of Wanneroo and the MRS.  Any proposed road connections outside this area would require consultation with the Shire of Gingin and the Department of Planning.

No modification required.

 

Public Transport Network

5.3

The proposed public transport routes were developed in consultation with PTA.  However, further consultation with PTA through the subsequent planning stages is required to ensure bus stop locations, design requirements and the alignment of feeder bus routes provision is not compromised.

Noted.  Consultation between the proponent and the PTA will occur at the relevant stages of the planning process.

No modification required.

5.4

The road width for the District Distributor B reservation for the central transit corridor is adequate to support light rail in the future.  Future consultation is required with the Department of Transport's Public Transit team at the detailed planning stage to accommodate the location of stations and the type of road furniture to be provided within the central median in order to minimise future reconstruction costs.

Noted.  These discussions will occur between relevant authorities at the appropriate time during the planning process.

No modification required.

 

Rail and Freight Network

5.5

The eastern boundary of the LSP area abuts the current MRS rail reserve, for the northern suburbs rail line.  MRS Amendment 1248/57 – Yanchep City Centre Structure Plan has been initiated by the WAPC and is currently out for public comment.

 

The amendment proposes to realign the railway reservation.  DoT acknowledges this amendment has strategic importance, especially with respect to the future rail alignment, however this does not impact on LSP No. 91.

Noted.  Currently, the MRS Rail Reserve traverses the eastern boundary of the LSP 91 area.  MRS Amendment 1248/57 proposes to realign the MRS Rail Reserve so it would no longer traverse the eastern boundary of LSP 91.

No modification required.

 

Cycling and Pedestrian Network

5.6

Section 8.10.8 of the WAPC's "Transport Assessment Guidelines For Developments Volume 2 – Structure Plans" specifies that "the key component of the analysis is the ability of pedestrians/cyclists to cross major roads and intersections".  The LSP does not identify specific roads that could be difficult for pedestrians/cyclists to cross.  DoT requests specific intersections be identified where safe crossing facilities will be provided to ensure that major roads can be crossed safely by pedestrians and cyclists, especially at school locations.

Noted.  The LTS addresses pedestrian/cycle facilities, however, does not specifically identify roads which may be difficult for pedestrians/cyclists to cross.  The final layout of the road network will be determined at the detailed design stage, where more consideration can be given to the need for safe road crossings for pedestrians/cyclists. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that there are school sites situated abutting major arterial roads which could be difficult for pedestrians/cyclists to cross.  Accordingly, the LTS should identify those roads which may potentially require consideration of safe pedestrian/cyclist crossings in the future.   

The LTS shall be updated to identify roads which could be difficult for pedestrians/cyclists to cross and identify potential crossing solutions.

5.7

Section 6.2 of the Transport Assessment The Traffic & Movement Network Strategy: Road Crossings – Grade-separated road crossings for Pedestrians/cyclists states that the primary schools are understood to have catchments that do not span major arterial roads.  DoT does not agree given there are three primary schools located close to district distributor roads.

Agreed.  LSP 91 currently comments that primary schools within the LSP area are understood to have catchments which do not span major roads.  Administration considers that it is possible that catchments could potentially span major roads.

 

 

The LTS shall be updated to acknowledge primary school catchments could potentially span major roads.

 

 

 

 

 

5.8

In regards to the school near the two intersecting district distributor roads, Figure 18 Intersection Control in the Transport Assessment Report shows that this intersection will be a roundabout or signalised 4 way.  Further consultation is required with MRWA to ensure that the intersection at Shearwater and the Primary School considers grade separated pedestrian crossings.

Noted.  The LTS addresses the issue of grade separated crossing and comments that consideration of such crossings should be undertaken on a district wide basis taking into account land uses on both sides of the road.  Administration is satisfied that the proponent has given a broad level of commitment to future consideration of grade separated crossings.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration is of the view that the LTS should consider the provision of a school crossing arrangement for the primary school situated just north of Secondary Centre B on Shearwater Avenue.

The LTS shall be updated to consider the provision of a school crossing arrangement, at the intersection of Shearwater Avenue and the primary school, which may be activated for school start and finish times and inclusion of appropriate signage.

5.9

DoT requests a continuation of the east-west cycle lane (orange route) located in the north west corner of the LSP to connect to the coastal recreational path (Figure 19: Principal Pedestrian and Cyclist Network).  This is to ensure consideration is given to children who will potentially cycle to school.

Agreed. 

The LTS shall be updated to depict a continuation of the east-west cycle lane across the north west corner of the LSP 91 area to the coastal recreation path.

5.10

Figures 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B District Distributor B within the Transport Assessment report show a 1.5m path for pedestrians.  Some people cycling will not be comfortable with an on-road cycle lane, and DoT requests a minimum 2m path width on one side of the DDB to cater for less confident cyclists.

The LTS depicts several possible configurations for paths and cycle lanes.  The preferred configuration for paths and cycling lanes illustrated in figures 10A and 10B depicts the cycling lane between the footpath and parking lane.  Therefore, cyclists will not need to be within the traffic in the preferred scenario. 

 

The alternative scenarios presented in figures 11A and 11B depict joined pedestrian/cycle paths which are entirely separated from the road.  The pedestrian path widths which are consistent with path widths previously supported by the City.  Furthermore,  the 2.0 metre verge depicted in these cross sections could potentially be paved with trees provided at suitable spacings, which would create a wider pavement for pedestrians and cyclists. 

No modification required.

5.11

The DoT's Cycling Infrastructure Team will work with the City to ensure the LSP and further development of the area is aligned with the key recommendations from the draft WA Bicycle Network Plan.  The relevant plans in the LSP will require amendment to take this into consideration.

Noted. 

No modification required.

 

Road Access & Intersections

5.12

Further consultation should be undertaken between the City, DoP and MRWA to develop an access strategy to rationalise access points and intersection spacing along each of the proposed District Distributor Roads and the main key neighbourhood connector roads.

Dismissed.  Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access (LPP 3.8) was prepared to provide a consistent and strategic approach to traffic movements to and from Marmion Avenue.  LPP 3.8 was a strategic response to the growth in the area, and was not prepared to specifically cater for any one structure plan area.  Given LSP 91 does not propose any District Distributor A Roads/Integrator A (i.e. Marmion Avenue), Administration considers it onerous to require the proponent to develop an access strategy prior to progression of the LSP.

No modification required.

5.13

Intersection control and any traffic management issues should be identified and a resolution agreed at the LSP stage, in accordance with the WAPC Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines developed in August 2012.

Noted.  Part 5 of the LTS discusses property access, intersection control and traffic management treatments for the LSP 91 area.  In addition, Figure 18 proposes intersection control methods for the LSP area.  The level of detail provided in the LTS is consistent with detail provided and supported by MRWA/DoT for the East Two Rocks LSP 83.  

No modification required.

 

Road Cross Sections

5.14

The road cross sections and detailed signalised intersection diagrams (showing cycling/bus lanes and bus queue jump lanes) provided in the Transport Assessment report are not cross referenced to the road hierarchy to make clear where these cross sections are to be applied to the LSP.  Also the midblock cross sections do not demonstrate bus lanes consistent with the intersection cross sections provided.

Dismissed.  Administration is satisfied with the cross referencing of the road cross sections and signalised intersection diagrams. 

 

The midblock cross sections depict the midblock reserve layout where there are no bus lanes present, whereas the intersection cross sections depict a bus queue jump lane at the intersection.  The two drawings represent different parts of the road network (i.e. midblock and intersection).

No modification required.

5.15

The road cross sections provided need to referenced to the relevant road hierarchy and in accordance with LN and not specifically aligned to only what is applied with the City of Wanneroo guidelines.

Dismissed.  The referencing of the road cross sections is consistent with referencing which has been supported by the City on numerous structure plans.

No modification required.

 

General

5.16

The land within the Two Rocks Secondary Centre should be excised from the approved LSP to enable detailed road and transit alignment redefinition.

Dismissed.  A separate Activity Centre Structure Plan will be prepared for the Two Rocks Secondary Centre B which will further clarify road alignment.  This is outlined in Part 6.5.1 of the Part 1 statutory provisions and is also a requirement of DSP 43.

No modification required.

5.17

Future residential developments situated along all freight routes are to comply with State Planning Policy 5.4 – Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight.

Dismissed.  There are no freight routes within the LSP 91 area.

No modification required.

5.18

The development of an access strategy which includes the development of 15% concept designs and intersection spacing/control concerns are to be addressed at the LSP planning stage and not at the subdivision planning stage.  This requirement is essential to ensure that relevant conditions are imposed at the subdivision and development application stage.

Dismissed.  See response for 5.11 above.

 

 

No modification required.

6

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) independent submission

6.1

Main Roads requires excision of the North Two Rocks Town Centre zone from the LSP 91 approval process until the LSP transport network and its southern DSP connections are more logically defined.  This will allow some opportunity to reach an agreeable coordinated network in the Town Centre development with expedient connections to the south.

Dismissed.    See response for 5.16 above.  Main Roads does not have the statutory authority to require excision of the town centre zone from the LSP area.  LPP 4.2 only requires local distributors and above to be depicted on the LSP map, with the more detailed road network to be considered during the subdivision process.

No modification required.

6.2

Future Town Centre zone planning should be undertaken by initiating a separate town centre zone structure plan for the Two Rocks Secondary Centre, rather than progressing a DAP as suggested.  Structure planning should include all future town centre zone areas located north and south of Reefbreak Drive, and also include the portion located within the adjacent approved East Two Rocks LSP 83.

Noted.  See response for 5.16 above. 

This includes the Two Rocks Secondary Centre B, North Two Rocks District Centre F and North Two Rocks Coastal Activity Centre R.  Part 7.1 of the Part 1 statutory provisions states Detailed Area Plans are to be prepared for Neighbourhood and Local Centres.

No modification required.

6.3

The transport reports for LSP 91 and LSP 83 (East Two Rocks) do not provide SIDRA analysis for future transport infrastructure in accordance with WAPC Transport Assessment Guidelines for developments.  The developer will be required to undertake Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) to support the LSP's.  TIA reports should be provided to MRWA to confirm future interim/ultimate infrastructure and road reservation requirement for LSP 91 and LSP 83 areas located outside the town centre zone.  TIA reports are required prior to subdivision approval.

Dismissed.  LSP 83 was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 12 April 2013, accordingly further traffic impact assessments are not required to support the LSP.  The level of information provided in the LTS for LSP 91 is considered to be adequate for this stage of the planning process.

 

No modification required.

6.4

Main Roads requires the alignments of key internal DSP District Distributor A's (DDA's) and 'other regional' roads to be developed to a 15% design concept stage prior to subdivision approval.

Dismissed.  LSP 91 does not propose any DDA's or 'other regional roads'.

No modification required.

6.5

MRWA suggests network planning should cater for a local road connection to Guilderton along the eastern boundary of the Wilbinga National Park to provide the opportunity for a more direct coastal connection between Two Rocks and South Guilderton communities.  This advice supersedes MRWA previous preference for a more direct regional road connection.

Future local road connectivity may be gained from the north perimeter road within LSP 83 at the northern boundary of the MRS. This will generate a small amount of local traffic to the Two Rocks Town Centre in LSP 2031 traffic modelling.

Noted.  The eastern boundary of Wilbinga National Park does not intersect with the LSP area and is situated significantly to the east outside of the City of Wanneroo boundary.  The City does not have the power to plan a road outside of its boundaries. 

 

The northernmost extent of LSP 91 is the City's municipal boundary.  There is no strategic planning which has occurred to identify the need for any connection beyond the City's boundaries to the future South Guilderton development. This is a process which should be driven by Main Roads with the support of the Department of Planning.  This structure planning process is not the appropriate mechanism for this to occur.

No modification required.

6.6

MRWA suggests planning for a future corridor connection between Mitchell Freeway and Brand Highway via the Reefbreak Drive interchange/Clover Road alignment.

Dismissed.  Not related to LSP 91.  Any future corridor connection between the Mitchell Free and Brand Highway would be outside the LSP area.

No modification required.

 

Comments on Traffic Modelling

6.7

Daily trip generation assessment – The NW corridor trip production appear reasonable against the DoP's Strategic Transport Evaluation model (STEM) 2006 calibration.  The trip attractions appear reasonable when compared against STEM for retail and non-retail employees, but how do they compare against STEM for education and dwellings.

Agreed.  A comparison between the NW corridor trip production against the STEM for education and dwellings should be provided to ensure the trip generation assessment is reasonable.

The LTS shall be updated to provide a comparison against the STEM for education and dwellings.

6.8

Peak hour trip generation assessment – no detail has been provided on the derivation from the ROM all day productions/attractions to PM peak hour productions/attractions.

Agreed.  It is reasonable to require justification to demonstrate how the ROM all day productions/attractions to PM peak hour productions/attractions were derived. 

The LTS shall be updated to provide detail on how the ROM all day productions/attractions to PM peak hour productions/attractions were derived.

6.9

Peak hour trip distributions – no detail has been provided on the derivation from ROM all day distributions to PM peak hour distributions.

Agreed.  The derivation from ROM all day distributions to PM peak hour distributions should be provided to justify the peak hour trip distributions provided in the LTS. 

The LTS shall be updated to provide detail on how the ROM all day distributions to PM peak hour distributions were derived.

6.10

Internal and external trip assessment – no detail explaining how the PM trip distribution was obtained from the ROM all day trip distribution.

Agreed.  Administration agrees that further detail outlining how the PM trip distribution was obtained from the ROM all day trip distribution is required to justify the assessment provided. 

The LTS shall be updated to provide detail on how the PM trip distribution was obtained from the ROM all day trip distribution.

6.11

It is acknowledged that peak hour modelling outputs were not available from ROM as an input to the consultants work when the work was prepared.  MRWA can now provided access to peak hour modelling outputs.

Noted.  The applicant is currently updating the North West Corridor Ultimate Development Model to incorporate PM peak hour modelling outputs. 

The NWC model, developed by traffic engineering consultant Bruce Aulubaugh with cooperation from the City, provides ultimate development traffic forecasts for the area north of Hester Avenue, south of the Two Rocks boundary, east of the coast, and west of Old Yanchep Road.

 

The NWC model is based on full build out land use data (dwellings, jobs, school enrolments, and special vehicle trip generators such as train stations, district recreation sites and beach recreation nodes) based on District and Local Structure Plans, and full build out road network to the local distributor level.

 

Furthermore, the NWC model has been used in the assessment and approval of other recent LSPs in the NW corridor, and no requirements have been placed on those structure plans to incorporate 2031 ROM data.

No modification required.

6.12

MRWA requests a more detailed explanation of the derivation of PM peak hour productions/attractions, distributions, internal/external trip patterns and how these were obtained from the ROM all day trip productions/attractions, distributions and internal/external trip patterns.

Agreed.  The proponent has agreed to update the LTS to provide this level of detail.

The LTS shall be updated to provide more detail on how the PM peak hour productions/attractions, distributions, internal/external trip patterns were obtained from the ROM all day trip productions/attractions, distributions and internal/external trip patterns.

6.13

Modelling needs to be robustly validated against ROM outputs.  Validation of the model was done utilising screen-lines of all day volumes against derived peak hour volumes – not ideal.

See response for 6.11 above.

No modification required.

6.14

MRWA would prefer to see the model updated to incorporate outputs from out ROM peak hour modelling and the results submitted for further review and comment.

See response for 6.11 above.

No modification required.

 

Pedestrian and Cycle Network

6.15

MRWA supports 2.0 metre minimum wide footpaths to accommodate wheelchairs passing and the possibility of shared use on footpaths.

Dismissed.  The minimum footpath width proposed by LSP 91 is 1.5 metres on district distributor A's and district distributor B's (DDB), where a separate cycle lane is offered.  In this regard, a wider footpath is not considered necessary.  A 3 metre wide shared footpath is proposed on some Neighbourhood Connectors, to accommodate flexible uses such as alfresco dining, walking and casual riders.

No modification required.

6.16

Cycling facilities located within the various speed zones shall conform to desirable or preferred standards laid down in section 4.8 of the Austroads Guide to Road Design – Part 3.

Noted.  The design of cycling facilities within various speed zones would be considered during the detailed design phase of the subdivision process.  It does not need to be addressed at the structure planning stage. 

No modification required.

6.17

MRWA requires all cross-sections on Neighbourhood Connector 'A' roads with parallel parking be modified to provide an 'acceptable minimum' 4.0m combined cycle lane/parking facility width, where car-only vehicle parking is expected.

 

Previous Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 14 (Bicycles) utilised a combined 'absolute minimum' cycle lane/parking facility width of 3.7 metres in 50km/h zones where space was limited.  This required and presumed cyclists to ride close to adjacent vehicle lane in order to avoid a potential collision with a car door. This concept is no longer supported in the text of the new Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3.

Dismissed.  A combined cycle lane/parking facility of 3.7 metres in width is considered acceptable by the City's Engineers and is consistent with other Neighbourhood Connectors within the City.  This width provides flexibility at the detailed design stage to provide appropriate widths for cycle lanes and parking facilities. 

No modification required.

6.18

MRWA preference is for a 1.5m exclusive bicycle lane on neighbourhood connector roads to encourage local amenity and provide safer cycling to work or school on roads which have narrow vehicle lanes.  MRWA accepts it is acceptable it is possible for a 1.2m cycle lane on these roads.  1.2m cycle lanes are acceptable in brownfields locations, however it would be need to be shown why no additional width to cater for a 1.5m lane was not available.

Noted.  1.5m cycle lane widths will be provided on DDB's.  Neighbourhood Connectors with reserve widths greater than 22m provide a shared parking/cycle lane of 3.7m in width, which is considered adequate to allow for narrower/wider parking and cycle lanes where appropriate.  A 1.2m wide cycle lane is proposed on Neighbourhood Connectors with a 20m road reserve.

 

Administration notes that there are a number of instances where the City has supported cycle lane widths of 1.2m on Neighbourhood Connectors.

 

Local Structure Plan No. 72: South Alkimos makes provision for cycle lane widths ranging between 1.2m and 1.5m. The 1.5m cycle lane width is applied in instances where the Secondary Transit System (STS) will operate, and where 60km/hr is the speed limit (Integrator Arterial B between the coast and Romeo Road/Marmion Avenue).  The 1.2m cycle lane is applied to Neighbourhood Connectors in 50km/hr environments where there is no STS.

 

Local Structure Plan No. 44: Capricorn Coastal Village makes provision for a 3.7m combined cycle/parking lane (1.2m cycle lane and 2.5m parking lane). The City has supported this provision on the basis that a combined parking/cycle lane width of 3.7m is adequate on a Neighbourhood Connector road in a 50km/hr environment where the adjacent travel lane is 3.3m wide.

 

Administration acknowledges the acceptable cycle and parking lane widths set out for Neighbourhood Connectors in Liveable Neighbourhoods (1.5m cycle lane and 2.1m parking lane). However, Liveable Neighbourhoods notes that "where a visually narrower carriageway is needed to assist with speed control, or where parking turnover is high, the parking lane may be widened to 2.3m and the cycle lane narrowed to 1.2m". The proposed 3.7m cycle and parking lane width can be supported by this provision in Liveable Neighbourhoods on the basis that it will result in a more operationally efficient road design and a safer shared space environment. 

Furthermore, the variation set out in Liveable Neighbourhoods would result in a combined cycle and parking lane width of 3.5m, which is considerably narrower than the 3.7m being proposed by this LSP.

 

In addition, Administration notes that Austroads (AP-G88-2011) sets out a desirable cycle lane width of 1.5m and an acceptable range of 1.2m to 1.5m in 60km/hr environments. As Neighbourhood Connectors have a speed limit of 50km/hr in almost all circumstances, Administration supports the proposed 1.2m cycle lane width on the basis that this narrow cycle lane width is supported in 60km/hr environments in Austroads.

 

In light of the above, Administration supports the proposed cycle and parking lane width of 3.7m and road width of 3.3m  and exclusive cycle lane widths of 1.2 metres for Neighbourhood Connectors with 50km/hr speed limit as this will result in a more efficient and safe road design than could otherwise be achieved by applying the standard approach recommended by Liveable Neighbourhoods.

No modification required.

6.19

MRWA considers it highly likely that Marmion Avenue will become a primary freight route within the Two Rocks Town Centre zone south of Breakwater Drive.  All future detailed traffic assessments and designs should allow for freight vehicle requirements.

Dismissed.  This does not relate to the LSP 91 area.  There are no identified freight routes within the LSP 91 area.  Schedule 1 of SPP 5.4 depicts Marmion Avenue (primary freight road) terminating well south of the LSP 91 area. 

No modification required.

6.20

Interim intersection treatments for the LSP area will need to be determined in conjunction with MRWA Network Services Branch.  If signalisation is not warranted at this point in time, there may be larger land requirements associated with future interim treatments (either with or without a freeway or Marmion Avenue northern extension).

Noted.  Issues relating to interim intersection treatments and potential land requirements to accommodate the treatments will be dealt with at the detailed design stage through the subdivision process.

No modification required.

6.21

Marmion Avenue south of Toreopango Ave is classified as an 'other regional road' in the MRS and a primary freight route by SPP 5.4.  MRWA considers the extension of Marmion Avenue shown highlighted in pink on Attachment 1 and proposed Transit Corridor may have significant undesirable future noise impacts, particularly upon DSP proposed education developments within the Two Rocks town centre zone south of Reefbreak Drive.  A formal noise study should be undertaken to demonstrate that subdivision planning or design for residential and noise sensitive buildings can suitably be accommodated within the Town Centre LSP.

Dismissed.  The area this comment relates to is not part of, or within close proximity to the LSP 91 area. 

No modification required.

6.22

MRWA considers robust determination of the future road network is required before further comments can be made about LSP 91.  MRWA suggests the City should undertake additional consultation with key stakeholders including DoP and DoT to resolve these and other DSP traffic modelling and Two Rocks town centre planning issues.  These consultations should include a review of long term future land uses north of the MRS.

Dismissed.  LPP 4.2 requires the general indicative location of roads classified as local distributors (Neighbourhood Connectors) and above to be depicted on the structure plan map.  The detailed road design including lower order Neighbourhood Connectors and local streets will be finalised at the subdivision stage.  Administration does not consider further consultation with DoP and DoT is necessary at this stage of the planning process.  The City of Wanneroo is not the responsible authority for land outside the MRS northern boundary, and therefore is not the appropriate authority to enter into discussions regarding long term land uses north of the MRS.

No modification required.

6.23

Figure 18 of the LTS notes MRWA have indicated 375m minimum spacing between traffic signals is acceptable.  MRWA advises this is an absolute minimum deemed appropriate between two sets of signals, and not intended to suggest that a series of intersections could be spaced at this distance along Lisford Avenue/Breakwater Drive, the loop road around the town centre and the DDB/DDA alignment.

Noted.  The notation on Figure 18 refers only to a portion of Breakwater Drive, and not the loop road around the town centre and DDB/DDA alignment.  The notation is indicative only and identifies the minimum traffic signal spacings for this portion of the road.  The final location and distance between traffic signals will be determined at the subdivision stage, when Main Roads will be provided with further opportunity to comment.

No modification required.

6.24

Table 5 from Austroads part 5 2005 has been provided as a guide, however this has been superseded and replaced with Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 6 Table 2.4 which provides similar advice. 

Agreed.  Administration considers it appropriate to refer to the most recent guidelines.

The LTS shall be updated to replace reference to Table 5 from Austroads Part 5 2005 with reference to Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 6 Table 2.4.

 

The intersection details in the LSP area north of the town centre zone appear to accommodate volumes which are unlikely to be problematic.  Some of the intersections are not so clear cut and should be better understood at this time whilst there is an opportunity to modify plans to accommodate eventualities.

Noted.  There will be opportunity during the detailed design stage to refine the detailed road network.

No modification required.

6.25

MRWA suggests consideration is given to how the road network might and should develop over time – ie a road network development strategy both with and without Mitchell Freeway and a future extension of Marmion Avenue.

Dismissed.  It is not the role of the landowners of the LSP 91 area to undertake a strategic evaluation of the corridor.  This is the responsibility of MRWA.   The applicant has satisfied the requirements of LPP 4.2 in relation to the appropriate traffic reports and details required to be submitted at the LSP stage.  In this regard, Administration does not agree that a corridor study is necessary prior to progression of LSP 91.

No modification required.

6.26

MRWA requests the developer to bond with Council, funds for the establishment of all sets of traffic signals and associated civil works required.  This includes signing, road markings, relocation of services, street lighting and MRWA costs involved in checking the design and construction drawings, including site inspections.

Noted.  There is no statutory basis to incorporate provisions regarding bonding of future works at the structure planning stage.  The requirement for a developer to meet the costs associated with civil works is dealt with through a condition of subdivision approval.

No modification required.

6.27

The developer should be responsible for all costs associated in the land acquisition, design and construction of intersections and access.  This includes signing, road markings, relocation of services, street lighting and MRWA costs involved in checking the design and construction drawings and any site inspections.

Noted.  See response for 6.26 above.

No modification required.

6.28

No direct vehicle access shall be permitted to or from the transit corridor reserve from subdivision lots.  This shall be noted on the deposited plan in accordance with section 150 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as a restrictive covenant for the benefit of the City of Wanneroo at the applicant's expense.

Noted.  Where appropriate, a condition requiring an access restriction pursuant to Section 150 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 would be placed as a condition of subdivision approval.

No modification required.

6.29

No direct vehicle access shall be permitted to or from any future Marmion Avenue reserve.   This shall be noted on the deposited plan in accordance with section 150 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as a restrictive covenant for the benefit of the City of Wanneroo at the applicant's expense.

Noted.  See response for 6.28 above.

No modification required.

6.30

No earthworks shall encroach on any future Marmion Avenue reservation.

Dismissed.  Marmion Avenue does not extend as far as the LSP 91 area.  Therefore, the development of the LSP 91 area will not impact upon its reservation. 

No modification required.

6.31

No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto any future Marmion Avenue reservation.

Dismissed.  See response for 6.30 above.

No modification required.

6.32

The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within any future Marmion Avenue reservation.

Dismissed.  See response for 6.30 above.

No modification required.

6.33

The ground levels on any future Marmion Avenue boundary are to be maintained as existing.

See response for 6.30 above.

No modification required.

6.34

All noise treatments identified in the LSP noise report will be the responsibility of the developer.  A notification pursuant to section 165 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 is to be placed on the Certificates of title of lots affected by abutting road traffic noise and vibration from any future extension of Marmion Avenue and the Transit Corridor.

See response for 6.30 above.  There was no noise report submitted with LSP 91. 

No modification required.

7

Department of Planning

7.1

The proposed LSP should be prepared in accordance with the WAPC's Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines and associated Structure Plan Digital Data and Mapping Standards released in August 2012.

Noted. 

No modification required.

7.2

The LSP is inconsistent with the DSP, particularly in respect to the regional road network.  The Infrastructure and Land Use Coordination Branch recommends the LSP be redesigned to reflect the approved DSP.

Dismissed.  DSP 43 is a broad level planning document which is intended to offer a dynamic and flexible development framework for the DSP area.  Administration considers that the regional road network proposed by LSP 91 is generally consistent with the general arrangement of infrastructure as depicted on DSP 43.

 

DSP 43 requires LSP's to be generally consistent with the intent of the DSP in regard to the general arrangement of land uses and infrastructure as depicted on the LSP map.   Administration is satisfied that the general arrangement of land uses and infrastructure proposed by LSP 91 is consistent with DSP 43 and therefore does not agree LSP 91 should be redesigned to reflect DSP 43.

 

For further detail please refer to the body of the Council report.

No modification required.

7.3

Frontage access is not permitted onto Shearwater Avenue, which is reserved as an 'Other Regional Road' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Noted.  A condition requiring a notification on title restricting access onto Shearwater Avenue will be placed on the relevant subdivision approval.

No modification required.

7.4

The WAPC has previously resolved not to support the tenure, zoning and development of land within the physical processes setback and coastal foreshore reserve at Lots 14 and 206 Shearwater Avenue.  The WAPC does not consider any sufficiently valid reason to depart from its long established practice to require land necessary for foreshore purposes to be ceded to the Crown free of cost.  WAPC does acknowledge that State Planning Policy 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy does not preclude development within the physical processes setback, however it provides a clear framework for appropriate development where it can be demonstrated that risk factors can be satisfactorily adapted and managed.

Noted.  As acknowledged by the WAPC in its submission, SPP 2.6 does not preclude development within the physical processes setback.  Administration does not consider it reasonable for the proponent to cede land free of cost simply due to 'long established practice', where there is the potential for development to occur within the physical processes setback.

 

It is considered that LSP 91 does not adequately address the requirements of SPP 2.6 with respect to the coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning necessary to support development within the physical processes setback.  Further coastal risk management and adaptation planning is required to ensure the development being proposed is suitable  within the physical processes setback area, and will further inform the preparation of a Foreshore Management Plan.

Part 7.2.1 of the Part 1 statutory provisions shall be updated to require a 'Coastal Risk Management and Adaptation Plan' to be prepared pursuant to State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning Policy.

7.5

The provision of activity centres within the LSP area should be generally consistent with the DSP.  Any variation to the DSP in relation to this requires further detailed consideration.

Noted.  See response to 6.2 above.

No modification required.

7.6

The overlap between the R80 to R100 and R80 to R160 density ranges provided in Clause 6.2.3 (b) of Part 1 of the LSP could be confusing in interpreting these statutory provisions.  Further consideration is necessary to ensure clarity for future designation of residential densities can be achieved.

Agreed. 

Plan A shall be updated to replace the density coding R80 to R100 with R80 to R160.  Part 6.2.3 (b) of the Part 1 statutory provisions shall be retitled R80 to R160 Range.

8

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

8.1

The City is reminded of its obligation under s15 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 to report the finding of any previously undiscovered Aboriginal heritage site or object to the Registrar of Aboriginal sites.

Noted.  Plan A currently makes the following reference:

"The following obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 are recognised and will be implemented in the development of the site:

·        Protect and report of any unregistered Aboriginal Heritage site; and

·        Prevent disturbance to any Aboriginal Heritage site without prior consent under Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act from the Minister of Indigenous Affairs

In the event that any sites of significance are discovered, appropriate management strategies shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with the Act".

No modification required.

8.2

It is unclear whether the 1991 Macintyre & Dobson ethnographic heritage survey report represents the viewpoints of contemporary native title interests which intersect the area.

Noted.  Administration is of the view the level of detail provided in the EMS regarding Aboriginal heritage is sufficient and consistent with the level of detail provided in other structures plans supported by DIA (North Eglinton). 

No modification required.

8.3

The Department encourages any potential development within the area to be preceded by reference to the State's Cultural Heritage Diligence Guidelines.

Noted.  There are no Aboriginal heritage sites within the LSP 91 area.  In the event any sites of significance are discovered within the LSP 91 area, the proponent would be required to prepare and implement relevant management strategies in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

No modification required.

8.4

The City is encouraged to give consideration to draft an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan.

Noted.  Note 6 on Plan A recognises the proponent's responsibilities under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 in the event any sites of significance are discovered within the LSP 91 area.  This includes appropriate management strategies being prepared and implemented in accordance with the Act, which would be facilitated through an Aboriginal Heritage Management Plan. 

No modification required.

9

Water Corporation

Land Planning – Development Services Branch

9.1

The Water Corporation's (WC) planning for this area was based on an average R-Code of R20.  Plan A shows a minimum density code of R30 which is higher than the overall density the WC planned for. 

 

Plan 2248-37H-06 within the technical appendices provides a dwelling yield estimate of approximately 12,000 dwellings units.  This is more comparable to the WC's planned level of demand for water servicing.

 

Lots 14 & 206 which form the LSP 91 area have a total area of 835ha minus 25% for POS, roads etc, leaving about 626ha.  Based on 12,000 dwelling units, this equates to approximately 19 dwellings per hectare.

Noted.  The residential densities denoted on Plan A identifies the range of densities proposed in the LSP 91 area.  They do not represent the overall density across the gross LSP area.  LSP 91 proposes 11,879 dwellings which is comparable to the WC's planned level of demand for servicing.

No modification required.

9.4

The Water Corporation does not support residential density codes being approved by WAPC at subdivision stage, as this does not enable long term planning of infrastructure.

Dismissed.  LPP 4.2 permits ranges in residential densities to be shown on the structure plan.  This is consistent with the WAPC's Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines publication.  Approval of density codes at subdivision stage allows flexibility during the detailed design phase to account for factors which may not be known at the structure planning stage.

Notwithstanding the above, if the WC objects to residential density codes being approved by the WAPC at the time of subdivision, the WC should address this concern directly with the WAPC.

No modification required.

9.5

Wastewater planning for Yanchep and Two Rocks will be served by a large gravity sewer approximately 14km in length flowing to the Alkimos wastewater treatment plan.  This gravity has been sized with regards to expected land use planning and the first stages of this gravity sewer have already been constructed through the recent developments north of the Alkimos wastewater treatment plant in Shorehaven.

Noted.  See response for 9.1 above.

 

The LWMS makes reference that there is the potential to install an on-site wastewater treatment system within LSP 91 operated by a licensed water service provider.

No modification required.

9.6

Yanchep and Two Rocks are both stand-alone water supply schemes with limited capacity.  The Water Corporation has high level conceptual planning to join this scheme using a groundwater scheme, however, water allocations in this expansion have not been secured and depend on the availability and quality of groundwater and water levels in the Yanchep caves.  It is likely the Water Corporation will be unable to supply more than what is planned for, and would be faced with investigated additional sources for increased development.

Noted.  See response for 9.1 above.

No modification required.

10

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW)

Regional & Fire Management Services Division

(received after consultation period closed)

10.1

The conditions of the formal assessment undertaken by the Environmental Protection Authority will need to be complied with.

Noted.

No modification required.

10.2

DPaW is not satisfied that Ministerial Condition 2.3 has been adequately addressed by LSP 91.  This condition relates to requirements for regionally significant vegetation surrounding the amendment area being adequately protected from indirect and direct impacts associated with the development of the amendment area. 

Noted.  Ministerial Statement No. 538 requires the protection of regionally significant vegetation from direct and indirect impacts associated with the development of the LSP area.  The Ministerial Statement does not identify which stage of the planning process this should occur, however, lists the following ways in which the vegetation should be protected:

·        Clear delineation of regionally significant areas of vegetation from the amendment area through the use of dual use paths, roads, public open space areas and the like;

·        Control of off-road vehicle use and dumping of rubbish;

·        Fire Management; and

·        Promotion of community awareness of bushland protection.

 

LSP 91's response to the abovementioned points is discussed below.

 

The EMS provided in the Part 3 Technical Reports discusses the need for a road interface between the Bush Forever sites and the LSP area as a minimum.  Additionally, the EMS discusses the need for fencing of the boundary of the Bush Forever area to deter uncontrolled access.  The Landscape Concept Plan provided in Part 3 depicts a dual use path separation between the northern regional open space and the Wilbinga Conservation Reserve.  Administration is satisfied the LSP provides a sufficient level of commitment to protection of the Bush Forever sites, acknowledging that the final design will occur at the subdivision stage. 

 

Control of off-road vehicle use is managed through the Control of Vehicles (Off-road areas) Act 1978 and dumping of rubbish is managed through the Litter Act 1979.  Given these issues are governed by independent legislation, Administration does not consider LSP 91 is required to address them directly, but has noted that LSP 91 acknowledges fencing is required to the Bush Forever sites which would assist in control of off-road vehicle impacts. 

 

A Bushfire Hazard Assessment was provided with LSP 91, consistent with the requirements of LPP 4.3.  The Part 1 statutory provisions require a Fire Management Plan to be prepared for each subdivision application within the LSP 91 area. 

 

LSP 91 is a broad level planning document which provides the framework for the future development of the structure plan area.  Issues such as promotion of community awareness of bushland will be considered during the detailed design stage for development adjacent to, or within conservation areas, including any future development which is integrated with the Wilbinga Conservation Reserve.

 

Currently, the proponent's response to compliance with Ministerial Statement 538 provided in Part 2 does not discuss how LSP 91 addresses Fire Management or that control of off-road vehicles and rubbish dumping are managed by other legislation.  Administration is of the view Part 2 should be updated to clearly demonstrate how LSP 91 addresses the requirements of Ministerial Statement 538.

Part 2 shall be updated as follows:

 

The existing text in Column 3 (North Two Rocks LSP Response) of Table 6 (Condition 2.3) shall be replaced with the following information:

 

·        The Vegetation and Fauna Management Strategy (Appendix 2) and Landscape Concept Plan (Appendix 3) address the protection of regionally significant vegetation;

·        Control of off-road vehicle use is managed through the Control of Vehicles (Off-road areas) Act 1978;

·        Dumping of rubbish is managed through the Litter Act1979; and

·        The Bushfire Hazard Assessment (Appendix 4) provides a bushfire hazard assessment for the LSP area.  A Fire Management Plan will be prepared at each subdivision application area.

10.3

DPaW has particular concerns regarding fire management and the proposed interface with the adjoining conservation park.

Noted.  See response for 2.1 above.  A detailed bushfire hazard assessment has been provided as Appendix 4.  The interface between the LSP 91 area and adjoining conservation park will be considered at the detailed design stage which occurs during the subdivision process.

No modification required.

10.4

LSP 91 provides for 30 hectares of regional open space on the northern boundary of the LSP area.  LSP 91 states that opportunities exist for the regional open space to be integrated with adjoining educational facilities and the Wilbinga Conservation Park.  This issue requires further discussion with DPaW as the primary purpose of this reserve is for nature conservation.

Noted.  The detailed design for the interface between the LSP 91 area and the adjoining Wilbinga Conservation Park has not yet been agreed and will occur prior to and during the subdivision process.  At this time, the proponent will consult with DPaW to discuss the interface between the Wilbinga Conservation Park and the LSP 91 area, including opportunities for passive recreation through a network of managed paths. 

No modification required.

10.5

DPaW recommends a perimeter road between residential development and the Wilbinga Conservation Park.  The width of this perimeter road should be sufficient to accommodate all road, dual use path and drainage infrastructure whilst still allowing for a gently sloping fill batter (e.g. 1 in 6) which meets the natural ground level well inside the road boundary, and that will allow for successful revegetation post construction.  Appropriate fencing should be installed along the boundary of the conservation area and perimeter road.

Noted.  See response for 10.4 above.  On assessment of detailed design drawings for any perimeter road, the City would not support a design where battering did not meet the natural ground level inside the reserve boundary. 

 

LSP 91 does indicate that a fence will be installed along the boundary of the Bush Forever sites (including Wilbinga Conservation Park) to deter uncontrolled public access. 

No modification required.

10.6

No soil, vegetation, earth spoil or other debris is to be stored or disposed of within the boundary of any conservation area.

Noted.  A Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) will be prepared prior to the commencement of subdivisional works.  The CAMP will outline how conservation areas protected during the construction stage.

No modification required.

10.7

DPaW has a major interest in ensuring that the urban design and fire management plans for adjacent properties provide a safe defendable area for firefighters and that all fire protection requirements are provided for on the property itself and do not place impositions or reliance upon the management of adjoining DPaW lands.  The urban design should meet the requirements of the WAPC Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (Edition 2).

Noted.  See response for 2.1 above.  The design of the LSP 91 area will be required to comply with any approved Fire Management Plan.

No modification required.

10.8

The proposal will cause a loss of habitat for Carnaby's Black Cockatoo, listed as 'endangered' under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  The proponent will need to consider its notification responsibilities in accordance with Commonwealth Guidelines regarding matters of National Environmental Significance.

Noted.  This advice will be provided to the proponent.

No modification required.

10.9

The proposed creation of a 'Special Use' zone to allow for tourism and recreational activities and retaining the land in private ownership rather than ceding the land to the crown may be contrary to SPP 2.6.

Noted.  SPP 2.6 does not preclude development within the physical processes setback subject to a coastal hazard risk management and adaptation process being following.

 

Administration is comfortable that the modifications it has requested in relation to the 'Special Use' zone will ensure development proposed within this zone will comply with SPP 2.6.

No modification required.

10.11

The submitted environmental report states that no management strategies are proposed for stygofauna and trogolobitic fauna as it is unlikely subterranean fauna are present within or adjacent to the site.  DPaW are of the view a more detailed assessment of the LSP area should be undertaken in accordance with the EPA's Environmental Assessment Guideline 12: Consideration of subterranean fauna in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia.

Dismissed.  The EPA publication Environmental Assessment Guideline 12: Consideration of subterranean fauna in environmental impact assessment in Western Australia states that where a desktop study demonstrates that subterranean fauna habitat is unlikely to be present then no further surveys are warranted.

 

Currently, the EMS does not provide a desktop study which is specific to the LSP 91 area.  It relies on previous studies undertaken at the district structure planning stage and local structure planning stage for East Two Rocks (ASP 83).  Administration is of the view the EMS should be updated to include a desktop karst study specific to the LSP 91 area and the findings of this study should referred to in the relevant sections of Part 2 and Part 3 of LSP 91.

The EMS shall be updated to include a desktop karst assessment of the LSP 91 area.  Relevant text within Part 2 and Part 3 of LSP 91 shall be updated to refer to the findings of the desktop assessment accordingly.

 

Should the desktop karst assessment identify karstic features within the LSP area which are not compatible with future development of the structure plan area, the EMS shall be further updated to include a Karst Management Strategy and Subterranean Fauna Management Plan.

10.12

DPaW is of the view a targeted Level 2 Flora survey should be carried out in accordance with the EPA's Guidance Statement No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia to determine the presence or otherwise of Declared Rare Flora within the LSP area.

Disagree.  The environmental report refers to a flora and vegetation survey undertaken in 1991 and a follow up survey of a finer scale in 2006 to determine if any vegetation sites could be identified as 'threatened ecological communities' or 'priority ecological communities'.  Neither survey identified the presence of Declared Rare Flora within the LSP area. 

 

The 1991 survey identified one declared rare flora species typically associated with and generally limited to areas of limestone ridges, within Bush Forever site 284, to the east of the LSP area.  There are no limestone ridges present within the LSP area and therefore it is considered unlikely this species would occur on the site.  Therefore, Administration does not agree that a Level 2 Survey is necessary for the LSP.

No modification required.

10.13

DPaW recommends that the natural stands of tuart trees are appropriately retained in POS.

Noted.  The natural stands of tuart trees are situated within POS site K.  It is intended that the trees will be retained providing they are safe and can be integrated into detailed design of the POS.

 

Administration notes that LSP 91 provides 3.1% conservation open space, meeting the 3% required by LPP 4.3.

No modification required.

10.14

DPaW acknowledges LSP 91 meets the City's minimum requirements for provision of conservation POS, however, they would support protection of greater areas of the dune system as a means to protect valuable fauna habitat.

Noted.  The conservation open space provided by LSP 91 complies with LPP 4.3.  There is no statutory requirement for the proponent to provide additional areas for conservation purposes.

No modification required.

10.15

DPaW recommends as much native vegetation is retained as possible.  It is important that neighbourhood parks incorporate, wherever possible, existing topography and native vegetation including mature trees.  In addition, flora species utilised in landscaping should be endemic to the local area.

Noted.  It is the City's preference for native vegetation outside of conservation areas to be retained where possible, however, it is noted there is no statutory requirement for vegetation outside of conservation areas to be retained.

No modification required.

10.16

The 13.5 hectares of existing Parks and Recreation reserve that extends into the LSP area immediately to the south of the coastal activity node does not appear to completely align with the existing MRS boundaries.

Noted.  The existing Parks and Recreation Reserve depicted on the LSP 91 map is not consistent with that shown in DSP 43 and the MRS.  The Reserve depicted on the LSP 91 map extends further eastward towards the 'Mixed-Use' zone. 

 

LSP 91 does not address the proposed tenure or management options available for this land which is in private ownership, however, the proponent has indicated the land is proposed to be part of the existing Parks and Recreation Reserve. 

 

To prevent any confusion regarding future tenure or management of the land, Administration is of the view the LSP 91 map should be amended to depict the Parks and Recreation Reserve consistent with DSP 43 and the MRS.

Plan A shall be amended to depict the Parks and Recreation Reserve boundaries as shown in DSP 43 and the MRS.

P10.17

DSP 43 identifies a marina located adjacent to Centre R, however, this is not depicted in LSP 91.  Future marinas are subject to further detailed environmental, social and economic assessment requiring referral to the EPA under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Noted.  The marina depicted in DSP 43 falls outside of the LSP 91 area.  Any future development of a marina adjacent to the LSP area would be required to the obtain the  appropriate statutory approvals

No modification required.

10.18

The LSP 91 area abuts a portion of Bush Forever site 397 and it is evident there are associated proposals to access and utilise the coastal reserve and beach.  DPaW considers the activities listed in the FMP unacceptable within the bushland area that has been set aside for the preservation of coastal vegetation and landforms.  This area forms part of an ecological corridor between Mindarie in the south to Wilbinga in the north.

 

The importance of providing formal public access within conservation reserves is acknowledged, however, the location of public infrastructure including toilets, change rooms, kiosks, carparks and roads must be accommodated outside of designated conservation reserves.

Noted.  LSP 91 does not propose development within Bush Forever site 397.  A 'Special Use (Coastal)' zone to facilitate development consistent with SPP 2.6 is proposed, however, it does not encroach within Bush Forever site 397.

No modification required.

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       322

Proposed Local Structure Plan No. 91 – North Two Rocks

Lot 14 Lisford Avenue and 206 Shearwater Drive, Two Rocks

Schedule of Internal Modifications

Modification No.

Recommended Modification

Administration comment

Part 1 statutory provisions

1.  

Part 1 shall be updated to reference that the Structure Plan applies to Lot 14 Lisford Avenue and Lot 206 Shearwater Drive.

Currently, LSP 91 refers to Lots 14 and 206 Shearwater Avenue.  It is essential LSP 91 refers to the correct address.

2.  

The text '(non statutory)' shall be removed from Part 2.0 b).

Editorial modification.

3.  

The ';' shall be removed following the word 'either' under Part 4.0.

Editorial modification.

4.  

Section 6.1 shall be updated to include an additional dot point which outlines land uses in the 'Special Use' coastal zone shall be in accordance with Part 6.6 of the Part 1 statutory provisions.

Part 6.6 introduces uses which may be considered in the 'Special Use' coastal zone.  It is appropriate to reference this in the 'Land Use Permissibility' section of the Part 1 statutory provisions.

5.  

Section 6.2.3 b) shall be updated to insert the word 'other' after the word 'all'.

Editorial modification.

6.  

The first sentence of Part 6.4 shall be replaced with:

"A minimum of 10% public open space will be provided in accordance with the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods".

Editorial modification.

7.  

Section 6.4 shall be updated to include the following text:

 

'Remnant (existing) vegetation and locally significant natural areas are located in Public Open Space sites C, D, E, F, K, L, N & P.  No clearing of vegetation within these sites is to be undertaken without prior approval from the City of Wanneroo.

Figure 11 of Part 2 identifies the location of significant trees and vegetation in POS sites C, D, F, K, N & P.  The Part 1 statutory provisions should include provisions to ensure the retention of significant vegetation and trees.

8.  

Table 2 shall be updated to include a notation identifying those sites where community facilities will be provided.

LPP 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2) requires the general indicative location of community purpose sites to be provided on the structure plan map.  Administration considers that inclusion of a notation in Table 2 will allow easy identification of community purpose sites on Plan A.

9.  

The following text shall be incorporated into sub-clause 6.5.1:

 

"The Activity Centre Structure Plan shall incorporate the employment generating land uses of the adjacent Mixed Use zone in relation to achieving the Economic Self Sufficiency targets for the Secondary Town Centre as a whole."

It is considered necessary that the Activity Centre Structure Plan demonstrates the economic self sufficiency targets can be achieved for the Secondary Town Centre.  This modification will ensure the provisions of LSP 91 relating to the future Activity Centre Structure Plan are consistent with the provisions contained within Local Structure Plan 83 East Two Rocks.

10.

Section 6.5.2 shall be updated to include the works 'prior to adoption of a structure plan' after the word 'supported' in the first sentence.

Editorial modification.  The additional words add more clarity.

11.

The words 'that would not prejudice future development outcomes; or' shall be inserted at the end of the existing text for 6.5.2 c).

Editorial modification.

12.

The following text shall be inserted as a new point, following 6.5.2 c):

 

"the consolidation of land for "superlot" purposes to facilitate land assembly for future development".

Editorial modification.  This is a standard provision of all structure plans.

13.

Section 6.6 Special Use (Coastal) Zone shall be replaced with the following text:

 

"6.6  Special Use (Coastal) Zone

 

6.6.1        Objectives

 

The objective of the Special Use (Coastal) zone is to recognise the portion of the Physical Processes Setback, pursuant to State Planning Policy 2.6 within the Structure Plan boundary, and to put in place suitable development controls that allow for the land to be used within the 100 year planning timeframe as described by the Policy. The zone recognises the constraints in terms of use and the need to minimise risk. 

 

6.6.2        Foreshore Management Plan

 

a)     A Foreshore Management Plan is required to be prepared as a condition of subdivision approval where the application area adjoins the Special Use (Coastal) Zone consistent with the LSP Foreshore Management Strategy.The Foreshore Management Plan shall include the following information:

·   Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan, prepared in accordance with State Planning Policy 2.6;

·   Identification of any areas of landform or vegetation retention within the Special Use (Coastal) Zone and/or Foreshore Reserve, and details of the treatment/rehabilitation of this area;

·   Identification of indicative locations for buildings, infrastructure, indicative land use, public parking and access within the Forehore Reserve and Special Use (Coastal) Zone;

·   Identification of tenure and management responsibilities for the Special use (Coastal) Zone and Foreshore Reserve; and

·   Identification of indicative locations of drainage and associated infrastructure.

b)     There is a general presumption against further subdivision within the Special Use (Coastal) Zone except where necessary to facilitate provision of services or public infrastructure to enable the vesting of land in a public authority in the interests of orderly and proper planning.

 

6.6.3        Land Use Permissibility

a)     No development shall occur in the Special Use (Coastal) Zone in the absence of an approved Foreshore Management Plan.

 

b)     Subject to clause 6.6.3 d), all land uses as defined in Schedule 2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 are classified as Prohibited (X) uses in the Special Use (Coastal) Zone, with the exception of the following, which are discretionary 'D' uses:

·      Camping Ground;

·      Car Park;

·      Club (Non-Residential);

·      Private Recreation;

·      Public Exhibition Facility;

·      Restaurant;

·      Stall-general; and

·      Take away food outlet.

 

c)     In addition to having regard to the matters contained within Part 6.8 of District Planning Scheme No.2, the City shall only exercise its discretion pursuant to (b) above where it can be demonstrated that:

 

i)     any buildings proposed are readily capable of removal and relocation, or are alternatively designed to adapt to/withstand coastal processes, including future sea level rise; and

 

ii)    the use can be considered in accordance with Part 7 of Schedule 1 to State Planning Policy 2.6.

 

d)    In addition to the land uses outlined in clause 6.6.3 b) and subject to compliance with clause 6.6.3 e), the City may permit at its discretion (as discretionary 'D' uses) the following uses within the Special Use (Coastal) Zone:

 

·     Civic building;

·     Hotel;

·     Motel;

·     Place of Assembly;

·     Place of Worship;

·     Reception Centre;

·     Resort;

·     Tavern;

·     Caravan Park; and

·     Park Home Park.

 

e)     The City shall only exercise its discretion pursuant to d) above where:

 

i)     The portion of the use that is located within the Special Use (Coastal) Zone is ancillary / incidental to the remainder of the use located outside of the Special Use (Coastal) Zone;

 

ii)    The portion of the use that is located within the Special Use (Coastal) Zone  does not include any permanent habitable buildings, essential facilities or other infrastructure which is essential to the ongoing operation of the use in the adjacent urban development zoned land; and

 

iii)    Where it is demonstrated that the use can be considered in accordance with Part 7 of Schedule 1 to State Planning Policy 2.6.

6.6.4        Development Requirements

 

Prior to considering a Development Application for any of the abovementioned uses, the City shall be satisfied that the proponent has provided sufficient indemnity to the City of Wanneroo (and/or other responsible public authority) to ensure the City and/or public authority is not liable for any loss or damages resulting from the impact of coastal processes on development in the Special Use (Coastal) Zone.

 

6.6.5        Term of Approval

 

a)    Any approval granted pursuant to clause 6.6.3 shall be limited to a period of not more than 30 years from the date of approval, at which point the approval will lapse and the development shall be removed. 

b)    Council may consider a request to extend the term of approval at any time prior to its expiry, where it can be demonstrated through technical analysis that the subject land is, in the opinion of the City, unlikely to be affected by sea level rise and any other coastal processes within the foreseeable future.

c)    Any extension to the term of approval granted under clause 6.6.5 b) shall only be for a term not exceeding 10 years.

d)    There is no limit to the number of extensions that the City may grant, subject to satisfaction of (b) above.

6.6.6        Monitoring and Review

 

The Physical Processes Setback, identified on Plan A as the Special Use (Coastal) Zone, is subject to monitoring and review in the event that one or more of the following occurs:

 

i)        A change in the identified coastal hazards through a change in science or policy framework;

ii)        A change in the physical characteristics of the coast that is likely to impact the coastal processes (e.g. construction of a breakwater, groyne or marina);

iii)       A change in community values;

iv)      A change in land use; or

iv)       A substantial time period has lapsed since the previous review.

Any change to the Physical Processes Setback / Special Use (Coastal) Zone boundaries arising from any monitoring and review will require an amendment to the Local Structure Plan".

Administration is of the view the current wording of Section 6.6 relating to the Special use (Coastal) zone does not adequately respond to the requirements of State Planning Policy 2.6 (SPP 2.6), particularly in relation to the need to undertake adequate coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning for development proposed within the physical processes setback area.

 

The modified text incorporates the requirement for a Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) to be prepared and included within the Foreshore Management Plan.  The CHRMAP will identify areas within the physical processes setback which are most at risk of affects from coastal processes, and therefore less suitable for development.  It will also identify those areas which are capable of accommodating development within the 100 year planning timeframe identified by SPP2.6.

 

Whilst SPP 2.6 refers to a 100 year planning timeframe, Section 6.6.5 of LSP 91 proposes to limit planning approvals to 30 years.  This requirement will ensure sufficient technical detail is available to support the continuation of uses and/or new uses on the land.

 

Additionally, the modified text includes provisions which require future developers within the Special Use (Coastal) zone to demonstrate that the land uses comply with the circumstances outlined in section 7 of Schedule 1 to SPP 2.6.

 

 

14.

Part 7.1 shall be updated to identify that Detailed Area Plans are required as a condition of subdivision.

Currently, 7.1 states Detailed Area Plans are required prior to any development within Neighbourhood and Local Centres.  The requirement for a DAP is usually conditioned through the subdivision process. 

15.

Section 7.1.1 shall be updated to include an additional point f), which states the following:

 

"Development within Neighbourhood and Local Centres is to provide an appropriate interface with the future development of adjacent schools/POS.”

All Neighbourhood and Local Centres are abutting schools sites or POS.  Therefore, it is appropriate that Detailed Area Plans for these centres include provisions and design elements which address the interface between the centre and adjacent schools/POS sites.

16.

Section 7.1 shall be updated to including the following:

 

c) allow for interim development

 

Editorial modification.  This wording is consistent with wording used in other structure plans.

17.

The term 'porvided' in Section 7.2.1 shall be replaced with 'provided.

 

 

Editorial modification.

18.

Section 7.2.1 shall be updated to require preparation of a detailed Noise Assessment and/or Detailed Management Plan for sensitive uses affected by the MRS Railway Reserve.  The Noise Assessment and/or Detailed Management Plan shall be submitted with the first application for subdivision which proposes creation of new lots within a distance of 100 metres of the MRS Railway Reserve.

 

Currently, the MRS Railway Reserve runs along the eastern boundary of the LSP 91 area.  MRS Amendment 1248/57 proposes to realign this Reserve outside of the LSP 91 area.  Whilst Administration is confident MRS Amendment 1248/57 will be approved and the Reserve will no longer affect LSP 91, it is considered prudent to have provision within the Part 1 statutory provisions to require relevant noise reports to cater for the possibility the MRS Amendment may not progress.

19.

Section 7.2.1 shall be updated to require a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan to be prepared and submitted for approval prior to the first application for subdivision.

A Vegetation and Fauna Management Strategy (VFMP) is required to demonstrate that best practice and management techniques are employed during the clearing stage of development.  This involves minimising damage to vegetation retention areas an appropriately trapping and relocating fauna during clearing.

 

DSP 43 requires a Vegetation Management Strategy (VFMS) to be provided at the structure planning stage, which should, where appropriate should include a fauna and fauna habitat survey.  The level of detail within the VFMS is insufficient to constitute a VFMP.  Therefore, a VFMP is required to be provided prior to the first application for subdivision being submitted.

20.

Section 7.2.1 shall be updated to require a Residential Density Plan to be submitted with the first application for subdivision.

This is a standard requirement for the majority of structure plans which propose residential lots.

21.

Section 7.2.2 shall be updated to remove the word 'strategies' at the end of the first paragraph.

Editorial modification.  The items listed under this paragraph are not all strategies and therefore the text preceding the list should be updated accordingly.

22.

Section 7.2.2 shall be amended to 'Landscape and Drainage Management Plan'.

The Landscape Plan should also provide information regarding drainage within the LSP 91 area.  The modification ensures the title of the management plan refers exactly to the information it will provide.

23.

Section 7.2.2  iv) shall be amended to state as follows:

 

"Foreshore Management Plan (for the entire LSP 91 foreshore area, including Coastal Hazard Risk Assessment and Adaptation Plan prepared in accordance with State Planning Policy 2.6, where the application area includes or abuts the MRS Parks and Recreation/Foreshore Reserve or Special Use (Coastal) zone"

 

This modification responds to Administration's recommended modification 13 requiring a Coastal Hazard Risk Assessment and Adaptation Management Plan (CHRMAP) to be included within the Foreshore Management Plan (FMP).

 

Administration has also recommended the words 'for the entire LSP 91 foreshore area' be inserted to clarify that a singular FMP is submitted rather than individual FMP's for different stages of subdivision.

24.

Section 7.2.2 shall be updated to include the following:

 

"Detailed Noise Assessment and/or Noise Management Plan (implementation), for lots affected by the MRS Rail Reserve".

Implementation of the recommendations of the Noise Assessment and/or Noise Management Plan will be necessary at the subdivision stage.

25.

Section 7.2.2 shall be updated to require implementation of the Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan as a condition of subdivision approval.

The VFMP is required to be implemented as a condition of subdivision.

26.

Section 7.2.2 shall be updated to include the preparation and/or implementation of a Conservation Area Management Plan prior to the commencement of subdivisional works as a condition of subdivision approval.

A Conservation Area Management Plan will provide a framework and implementation plan for the management of designated conservation areas during construction. 

27.

Section 7.2.2 shall be updated to include point b).  Point b) shall refer to the requirement for a notification, pursuant to Section 165 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to be placed on the certificates of titles of proposed lots which are capable of accommodating a noise-sensitive land use in the vicinity of the possible Light Rail Transit to advise future purchasers that Light Rail Transit may be developed in the future which may impact on the amenity of these lots.

Currently, LSP 91 does not address the potential amenity impacts of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) on noise-sensitive land uses.  Administration considers that purchasers of land within the vicinity of the LRT should be notified of the potential for the LRT to be developed to ensure purchasers are fully aware of the possibility this may occur and impacts which could result.

28.

Section 7.3 shall be updated to be consistent with the Residential Design Codes (August 2013), which now refers to 'Deemed to comply' standards instead of 'Acceptable Development'.

Editorial modification.  The 'Acceptable Development' standards previously included in the Residential Design Codes have now been replaced with 'Deemed to Comply' standards.  LSP 91 should be updated to ensure it relates to the current standards.

29.

Table 3: Lots Accessed Via Rear Laneway shall be updated as follows:

 

·    Under the heading 'Public Open Space Interface', the sentence 'Buildings on public open space lots shall be setback a minimum of 1 metre from the public open space boundary' shall be replaced with 'buildings abutting public open space shall be setback a minimum of 1 metre from the public open space boundary.

 

·   Under the heading 'Private Open Space', the words 'of laneway' shall be removed from c).

 

 

Editorial modification.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 only refers to laneway lots.  Excluding laneway lots from the provision would effectively mean that no lots were required to have private open space on the northern or eastern most boundary.  It is a standard requirement for private open space to be situated on the northern or eastern boundaries.

Plan A – Structure Plan Map

30.

Note 1 shall be updated to reflect MRS amendment 1248/57.

Note 1 currently refers to a possible MRS amendment.  MRS amendment 1248/57 is currently under consideration to realign the railway reserve.

31.

Plan A shall be updated to show the indicative public transport routes which are included in Part 2 and Appendices 8 and 9.

Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2) states the general indicative location of public transport routes and stations shall be shown on the structure plan map.  Currently, Plan A makes no reference to public transport routes and/or stations.

32.

Plan A and the legend should be updated to depict indicative public transport routes, including possible future Light Rail Transit within the LSP 91 area.

LPP 4.2 requires indicative public transport routes to be shown on the structure plan map.

 

33.

Plan A and the legend shall be updated to show the indicative location of principle shared paths.

LPP 4.2 states the general indicative location of principle shared paths shall be shown on the structure plan map.  Currently, the Plan A legend makes reference to 'Cycle Lanes (shared path one side footpath one side) however this has not been denoted on the Plan.

34.

Plan A shall be updated to extend the proposed north-south Neighbourhood Connector adjacent to the eastern-most high school to connect with the Neighbourhood Connector running south of Neighbourhood Centre G.

The transport modelling shows the local road between these two Neighbourhood Connectors will carry traffic volume over its capacity, and therefore Administration is of the view it should be upgraded to a Neighbourhood Connector.

 

LPP 4.2 requires the general indicative location of roads classified above Local Distributors (Neighbourhood Connectors) or above under Liveable Neighbourhoods to be shown on the Structure Plan map. 

35.

Plan A shall be updated to extend the east-west Neighbourhood Connector (which runs through Neighbourhood Centre H), which terminates at the intersection of a north-south Neighbourhood Connector, to the eastern boundary of LSP 91.

The transport modelling shows the road continuing off the Neighbourhood Connector will carry traffic volume over its capacity, and therefore Administration is of the view it should be identified as a Neighbourhood Connector.

 

LPP 4.2 requires the general indicative location of roads classified above Local Distributors (Neighbourhood Connectors) or above under Liveable Neighbourhoods to be shown on the Structure Plan map. 

36.

Reference to 'left in/left out' shall be removed from the legend.

There is no reference to 'left in/left out' depicted on Plan A.

37.

Reference to 'District Distributor A' shall be removed from the legend.

There is no 'District Distributor A' depicted on Plan A.

38.

Plan A shall be updated to depict the primary school site immediately north of the 'Secondary Centre B', immediately west of 'Local Centre 2' , west of 'District Centre F' and immediately south of the 'Regional Open Space' as stand-alone school sites of a minimum 4 hectare size.  The balance of POS removed from these sites shall be distributed amongst the remaining school sites to ensure that a minimum 2.5 hectares of co-located POS is available.

The 5 hectare district open space currently proposed to co-locate with the high school on the eastern boundary is too small to accommodate the necessary infrastructure.  Accordingly, this modification will ensure this site is of sufficient size to provide necessary infrastructure, whilst also ensuring primary schools within the LSP 91 area are of sufficient size to accommodate their own playing fields.

39.

Plan A shall be updated to identify each strategic open space site.

Table 2 of the Part 1 statutory provisions identifies each strategic open space type by a letter (A, B, C etc), however, POS on Plan A is not referenced making it difficult to identify which site is which.  Plan A should cross reference the POS sites with Table 2.

Part 2

40.

Part 2 shall be updated where necessary to be consistent with recommended modifications to the Part 1 statutory provisions.

Editorial modification to ensure consistency between Part 1 and Part 2.

41.

The Executive Summary in Part 2 shall be updated to clarify that DSP 43 identifies 42 hectares of ROS.

Page 12 of Part 2 refers to DSP 43 depicting 30 hectares of ROS in the LSP 91 area, however, page 13 states that 42 hectares of ROS is proposed in LSP 91.  This modification will ensure it is clear that there is a total of 42 hectares of ROS within the LSP 91 area, consisting of one 12 hectare site and one 30 hectare site.  

42.

Part 2 shall be updated to refer to LSP 91 allowing for 'four' local centres being created.

Currently, Part 2 refers to LSP 91 allowing for the creation of 'five' local centres.  Table 1 in the Part 1 statutory provisions and Plan A both refer to four local centres.

43.

Section 1.3.3 shall be updated to reflect the endorsement of the Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No. 69 and the East Two Rocks Local Structure Plan No 83.

LSP 69 and LSP 83 have both now been formally endorsed by the WAPC.  LSP 91 should reflect this.

44.

Section 1.3.5 shall be updated to refer to Ministerial Statement 538.

Editorial modification.  One of the references to this Ministerial Statement incorrectly refers to Statement 583.

45.

Table 6 of section 1.3.5 shall be updated to delete reference to a Stygofauna and Troblogitic Fauna Management Plan and Karst Management Plan being provided in Appendix 2 and replaced with reference to the desktop karst assessment for the LSP 91 area and its findings.

Currently, Table 6 states that a Stygofauna and Troglobitic Fauna Management Plan and a Karst Management Plan is included in Appendix 2, however, Appendix 2 does not include these plans.   As a consequence of the Department of Parks and Wildlife's submission regarding subterranean fauna, Administration has recommended a modification to update the Environmental Management Strategy to include a desktop karst assessment.

Therefore, it is necessary to update Table 6 to delete reference to the non-existent management plans and include reference to the desktop karst assessment and its findings.

46.

Section 2.6.1 shall be updated to provide clarification on the Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan and how it will provide guidance on future development within the Special Use (Coastal) zone.

Administration has recommended a modification requiring a CHRMAP as part of the Foreshore Management Plan.  Part 2 should be updated to provide some background and context to this report.

47.

Section 2.7.1 shall be updated to refer to MRS Amendment 1248/57.

Currently, Part 2.7.1 refers to a proposed omnibus amendment to the MRS to realign the railway reserve.  MRS Amendment 1248/57 has been now been initiated.

48.

Note 5 under table 8 on Page 58 shall be updated to replace the words 'up to' with 'of a minimum', where referring to the balance of the POS contribution.

The amended wording clarifies the minimum POS contribution of 10%.

49.

The word 'treted' in the second dot point in the second column of text on page 59 shall be replaced with 'treated'.

Editorial modification.

50.

Section 3.2 shall be updated to state that conservation POS shall not be used for drainage purposes.

The City does not support the use of conservation POS for drainage purposes.  Part 2 should be updated to reflect this.

51.

Section 3.5.1 shall be updated to provide additional information on the detail and intention/design of drainage reserves and attenuation/infiltration areas.

The level of information provided in Part 2 related to the Stormwater Management Strategy is insufficient in relation to the intention/design of drainage reserves and attenuation/infiltration areas. 

52.

Section 3.7.1 shall be updated to acknowledge the Two Rocks Secondary Centre is within a local ecological linkage, as identified by the City's Local Biodiversity Strategy and that the future Activity Centre Structure Plan for the Secondary Centre will address this.

The Activity Centre Structure Plan which will be prepared for the future Two Rocks Secondary Centre will need to address this local ecological linkage.  Part 2 should provide a broad level commitment that this will be incorporated within the future Activity Centre Structure Plan.

Part 3

53.

All necessary plans and text shall be updated to be consistent with the recommended modifications to Part 1 and Part 2 of LSP 91.

Editorial modification to ensure consistency in the detail provided across Parts 1, 2 and 3 of LSP 91.

Local Transportation Strategy (LTS)

54.

Figures 12 and 13 of the LTS shall be updated to demonstrate that a left turn slip lane can be accommodated within the reserve width.

A left turn slip lane is required at traffic signals to improve the level of service at intersections and reduce the risk of rear end crashes.  Currently, it is not demonstrated that a left turn slip lane can be accommodated within the reserve width.

55.

The LTS shall be updated to demonstrate that all potential signalised intersections will have sufficient road reserve widths to accommodate left and right turn slip lanes of sufficient lengths.

Currently, the LTS does not adequately demonstrate that all potential signalised intersections will have sufficient road reserve widths to accommodate left and right turn slip lanes of sufficient lengths.  This information should be provided in the LTS.

Local Water Management Strategy

56.

The LWMS shall be updated to include the following:

 

"It is acknowledged that the project is located within the North West Growth Corridor and has been identified in the North West Growth Corridor licensing schedule (DoW, June 2013), which aims to rationalise the groundwater abstraction allowance and rates for developments within the corridor.  The detailed landscape design of POS, including irrigation, will be progressed on advice from the City of Wanneroo to demonstrate the long term sustainability of landscaping within the framework of the North West Coastal Growth Corridor licensing schedule (DoW, June 2013).

The water estimates for POS irrigation are based on DOW's guidelines of 7500KL/ha/year.  In light of recent work between the City and the Department of Water, Administration is of the view the LWMS should be updated to reflect the reduction of the irrigation rate to 6750KL/ha/year, and minimisation of irrigable areas within POS and streetscapes.

57.

Section 2.5.2 shall be updated to include information regarding how the headworks/infrastructure for the four Water Corporation production wells will be managed.

There are four Water Corporation production wells situated within the LSP 91 area.  The Department of Water has requested further details regarding how the headworks and infrastructure for these wells will be managed.  Administration agrees the LWMS should include information to address the management of these production wells.

58.

The LWMS shall be updated to provide an indicative water use/irrigation schedule which demonstrates compliance with the North West Growth Corridor licensing schedule.  The schedule should include a breakdown of water required for irrigation and timing of when irrigation is to be required.

This level of detail is consistent with the detail required for LWMS' in recent structure plans (Jindee LSP 84, North Eglinton LSP 93).

59.

The LWMS shall be updated to include a Landscaping Concept Plan which should show the proposed active/turfed and passive POS and other landscaping requirements (e.g. for entry statements and road verges) for the LSP 91 area.  This irrigation of these areas should correlate to the indicative water use/irrigation schedule.

A Landscaping Concept Plan will outline the potential extent for landscaping within the LSP 91 area to demonstrate that what is proposed can be accommodated within the allocation identified in the North West Growth Corridor licensing schedule. This level of detail is appropriate for the structure planning stage.

60.

Section 5.1.10 shall be updated to acknowledge that only stormwater runoff from active POS for a 1 in 100 year event is permitted in the foreshore reserve and all other drainage and runoff is contained within the LSP area.  Any drainage areas within the foreshore reserve shall be usable for community benefit.

The City does not support stormwater runoff within the foreshore reserve unless it is from active POS in a 1 in 100 year event.  The drainage area/s within the foreshore reserve should be usable for community benefit.  LSP 91 should be updated to reflect this.

61.

The LWMS shall be updated to reference that the City will be part of any discussions in relation to the potential installation of a development scale wastewater reuse scheme for irrigation purposes.

It is noted the LWMS outlines that there is potential for a development scale wastewater reuse scheme for irrigation purposes, however the LWMS does not reference the City being included in discussions regarding this.

62.

The LWMS shall be updated to replace reference with the City's Drainage Design Guidelines WD5 (2000) with the City of Wanneroo (2001) Development Design Specification WD5 Stormwater Drainage Design'.

The City's Drainage Design Guidelines WD 5 (2000) have been superceded with the City of Wanneroo (2001) Development Design Specification WD5 Stormwater Drainage Design.

63.

The LWMS shall be updated to state that sumps will not be used for drainage purposes.

LPP 4.4: Urban Water Management does not support the use of sumps for drainage purposes.  This is a standard requirement for all structure plans.

64.

Section 4.2.1 shall be updated to demonstrate that the bio-retention swale equivalent to 2% impervious areas can be designed to treat stormwater up to 1 in 1 year ARI events and be separated from higher ARI events.

The LWMS should demonstrate that the bio-retention swale can treat stormwater up to 1 in 1 year ARI events which can be separated from higher ARI events.

65.

Section 4.2.1 shall be updated to acknowledge that the City's standard requirement is for bio-filters to be located at the first entry point to the drainage system or off-line from piped sections and that where possible, this will be undertaken.   

Currently, the LWMS refers to the provision of downstream bio-filters and does not recognise the City's standard requirement that 1 in 1 year ARI is captured upstream.

 

Administration acknowledges that upstream bio-filters are not appropriate in all instances, (due to topography, design etc) and bio-retention systems will need to be located downstream.  Additionally, the ongoing maintenance of landscaping and engineering infrastructure must be considered, given the City will ultimately be responsible for this.

and engineering maintenance. 

 

Accordingly, Administration is of the view the LWMS should be updated to acknowledge the City's standard requirement for upstream bio-filters and that where possible, they upstream bio-filters will be provided.

66.

Section 4.2.1 shall be updated to demonstrate that flood events greater than 1 year ARI and up to 5 year ARI can be managed through gullies/side entry pits and piped drainage system to infiltration basins.

Currently, the level of detail provided within the LWMS does not sufficiently demonstrate that flood events greater than 1 year ARI and up to 5 year ARI can be managed through gullies/side entry pits and piped drainage systems to infiltration basins.  The City's Engineers have requested that the LWMS be updated to demonstrate this is possible.

67.

Section 4.2.1 shall be updated to demonstrate that the minimum freeboard for habitat floor level shall be 0.3m for dynamic, 0.5m for static and 1.0m for low trapped water level.

Currently, the LWMS indicates that minimum building floor levels will generally be 0.3m above the estimated 100 year ARI local stormwater level.  The City's Engineers have advised that the minimum free board requirements are 0.3m from dynamic water level, 0.5m from the static water level and 1.0m for low trapped water level, as per the requirements of the Department of Water.

68.

Section 4.2.1 shall be updated to acknowledge that soakage/infiltration (open jointed pipes, subsoil drainage lines, open based side entry pits etc) will not occur within the road pavement and that all infiltration/open based pits will be located outside of the road pavement.

Currently, the LWMS refers to stormwater runoff from impervious areas of the road reserve being collected in a gully or side entry pit.  The City's Engineers have advised that this is not acceptable, and that infrastructure such as open jointed pipes, subsoil drainage lines and open based side entry pits will not be supported within the road pavement.

69.

Section 4.2.2 shall be updated to include explanatory text relating to the storage requirements and plans for storm events depicted in Figures 7 and 8 and Table 4.

The addition of explanatory text will provide more clarity for the interpretation of Figures 7 and 8 and Table 4.

70.

Table 4 shall be updated to provide drainage calculations and basin sizes for an effective impervious area no greater than 10  hectares.

The Engineers Australia publication Australian Runoff Quality: A guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design (2006) requires drainage calculations and basin sizes for effective impervious areas (EIA) to be no greater than 8 hectares.  Given the scale of the LSP 91 area, the City's Land Development Engineer has agreed to an EIA of no greater than 10 hectares.  The LWMS should be updated to be consistent with the requirements of this publication.

71.

The LWMS shall be updated to be generally consistent with the pre and post development monitoring requirements outlined in the Western Australian Planning Commissions Better Urban Water Management (2008) and the Department of Water's The Interim: Developing a Local Water Management Strategy.

The LWMS does not provide any detail on pre or post monitoring programs.   The City's Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management requires any LWMS to be consistent with the requirements of the both the WAPC's Better Urban Water Management (2008) and the DoW's The Interim: Developing a Local Water Management Strategy (2008), both of which require details relating to monitoring to be included in the LWMS. 

Environmental Management Strategy

72.

The EMS shall be updated to provide a broad level commitment to retain vegetation in good or better condition outside of designated conservation areas where possible.  Additionally, the EMS shall be updated to detail how specific native vegetation in good or better condition will be retained in active POS, streetscapes and road reserves where possible.

The EMS should address the retention of vegetation in good or better condition outside of designated conservation areas and how specific native vegetation will be retained in active POS, streetscapes and road reserves.

73.

Section 2.9.2 of the EMS shall be updated to provide further information regarding the methods utilised in the 1991 Flora and Fauna Survey conducted by Alan Tingay & Associates.

LPP 4.2 requires a Level 2 Flora and Fauna Survey to be provided at the LSP stage.  The City's Environmental Planner has accepted the manner of survey undertaken is consistent with current standards and agreed that additional surveys are unlikely to provide any further information of use.

74.

Section 3.2 of the EMS shall be updated to replace reference to Ministerial Statement 533 with Ministerial Statement 538.

Editorial modification.

75.

Table 3 of the EMS shall be updated to replace reference to the 'Coastal Management Strategy' with 'Foreshore Management Strategy'.

Editorial modification.

76.

Attachment 1 shall be updated to identify the three sections of the dune system which have been retained in the LSP 91 area.

Section 4.2 of the EMS refers to Attachment 1 identifying the three sections of the dune system.  Attachment 1 does not specifically identify the three sections of dune system.

77.

Attachment 1 shall be updated to display the vegetation condition mapping in addition to area of POS and designated use of each (conservation, active etc).

The City's Environmental Planner has requested this information be depicted on Attachment 1 to the EMS.

Foreshore Management Strategy

78.

The FMS shall be updated to state that beach safety audits to support the proposed location for regional, district and local beaches will be provided with the Foreshore Management Plan.

The location of regional, district and local beaches identified by LSP 91 were based on those identified in DSP 43, however, Administration notes that no safety audits have been undertaken to support their location.  Administration considers it appropriate that beach safety audits are provided as part of the Foreshore Management Plan, which will be required as a condition of subdivision.

79.

Section 5.1.10 shall be updated to acknowledge that only stormwater from active POS for a 1 in 100 year event is permitted in the foreshore reserve and all other drainage should be contained within the LSP area unless agreed by the City.  Any drainage areas which are present within the foreshore reserve shall be usable for community benefit.

The FMS does not acknowledge that unless otherwise agreed, only stormwater runoff from active POS for a 1 in 100 year event is permitted in the foreshore reserve, and that any drainage areas within the foreshore reserve shall be usable for community benefit.  Administration considers the FMS should be updated to include this information.

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    340


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    341


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       342

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    343

City Businesses

Property

3.4    Proposed development of a portion of Lot 500, Leach Road, Wanneroo by the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.).

File Ref:                                              6261 – 13/211113

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider supporting the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.) (WCMS) proposal in-principle to lease a portion of Lot 500, Reserve 10845, Leach Rd, Wanneroo to develop and construct a concrete tilt slab building, subject to obtaining Lotteries Commission funding.

 

Background

The WCMS was formed in 2009 and is a 'Not-for-Profit' charitable organisation that currently leases a 1,250m2 portion of Lot 1, Wade Court, Girrawheen (Lot 1) (refer Attachment 1). Lot 1 encompasses a total area of 2,532m2 and is owned in freehold by the City under Certificate of Title Volume 1993 Folio 65.

 

The existing 1,250m2 leased premises from which the WCMS operates comprises an un-bituminised car park and a building known as 'Daisy House'.  The western portion of Lot 1 that abuts Koman Way, Girrawheen comprises an unutilised and un-leased grassed area of 1,228m2 and a 54m2 shed that is leased to the Lions Club of Girrawheen (Inc.) that is located in the far north-west portion of Lot 1.

 

The WCMS's existing three (3) year lease with the City commenced 1 September 2011 and is scheduled to expire 31 August 2014.  The lease provides for a further two (2) year option commencing 1 September 2014 should the WCMS elect to exercise its option.

 

The WCMS is a charitable organisation which was formed as a place for men to come together in the community for camaraderie and to participate in hands on projects such as computer refurbishment and wood and metal works.  Since its incorporation in March 2010, the WCMS has expanded rapidly.  The WCMS computer refurbishment programme has been a particular success and enabled the WCMS to consolidate a unique role in the community that has enabled it to become self-funding, self-sufficient and self-sustaining.

 

Such is the success of the WCMS that it has quickly outgrown the premises it currently leases and it is unable to increase its membership numbers until such a time as it has more appropriate accommodation.  The long term sustainability of the WCMS current operation is subject to question unless a solution is found to its current accommodation problem.

 

The WCMS initially approached Administration in May 2012 requesting consideration to an extension to its lease tenure and potential building and car park expansion into the un-leased western portion of Lot 1.  Following preliminary discussions with Administration, the WCMS began to investigate and explore several potential building renovation, extension and car parking options at its existing leased premises.

 

It subsequently became apparent to both parties that there are several issues in respect of further developing both the WCMS's existing leased premises and the unleased portion of Lot 1.

The WCMS initial proposal to construct a new workshop over the majority of the existing un-bituminised car park that services 'Daisy House' compromised the viability of the project as it did not take into account sufficient car parking to service the building. The existing car park is already at maximum capacity and WCMS members currently utilise car parking bays of the abutting Summerfield Shopping Centre, Lot 4, Wade Court, Girrawheen. In order to rectify the car parking shortage, the WCMS suggested utilising the un-leased south-western portion of Lot 1. However, the proposal did not take into account the existing vegetation. In order for this portion of Lot 1 to be utilised as a conforming car park, clearing permits would be required from the Department of Environment Regulation due to the number of trees, grass trees and native palms on-site. Any development of this densely vegetated area would also have required the City to undertake community consultation with residents of Koman Way, Girrawheen as a new car park on the proposed portion of Lot 1 would impact on their visual amenity. Further, there is already increased vehicular traffic and street parking in Koman Way during school terms from the nearby Hudson Park Primary School located at Lot 102 Arnos Way, Girrawheen. 

 

In addition, whilst there are no immediate plans for Administration to develop Lot 1, it is City freehold land zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and zoned 'Civic and Cultural' under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2) and therefore consideration should be given to other possible uses.  As a consequence, the City and the WCMS agreed to explore other options.

 

From May 2012 until the present, there have been numerous meetings, discussions and correspondence exchanged between the WCMS and Administration in order to find a suitable solution to the WCMS's expansion plans. 

 

In order to assist the WCMS consider its options, Administration identified the following alternative sites that could potentially be utilised by the WCMS, subject to Council approval and Ministerial approval where applicable and provided the details to the WCMS for its consideration:

 

1)      Lot 990 The Broadview, Landsdale;

 

2)      Lot 5483, Park Lane, Alexander Heights; and

 

3)      Portion of Lot 500, Leach Road, Wanneroo.

 

It became apparent to the WCMS following consultation with various builders and architects that the cost to develop its existing facility at Lot 1 would cost similar, if not more than constructing an entire new purpose built facility on one of the alternative lots suggested by Administration.

 

The WCMS subsequently advised Administration that its preferred location to construct a purpose built new facility was on a portion of Lot 500, Leach Road, Wanneroo (Lot 500) (refer Attachment 2).  This is due to its preference to re-locate to a more central location such as the Wanneroo Town Centre and its desire to lease a minimum land area of 2000m2 to aid development and increase its membership. The other suggested sites identified by Administration were deemed not central enough by the WCMS as the majority of its current members reside in the central Wanneroo area. The WCMS currently has approximately 60 members and estimates that if it is allowed to develop and re-locate to Lot 500, its membership would double within 2 years given the sites proximity to the Wanneroo Town Centre.

 


 

Full details of Lot 500 are as follows:

 

Land:

Lot 500, Leach Road, Wanneroo - Reserve 10845, Volume LR3147 Folio 365

Size:

Total area of Lot 500 is 4,412m2

Area currently leased:

1,962m2 portion of Lot 500 that contains a duplex property currently leased to the Wanneroo Agricultural Society (Inc.) and the Volunteer Task Force (Inc.)

Current un-leased area:

2,450m2 (refer Attachment 2)

Current Vesting Purpose:

'Community Purposes Office' purpose as per the City's Management Order

Power to Lease:

Power to lease up to 21 years subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands

MRS Zoning:

Urban

DPS2 Zoning:

Centre

 

Currently 2,450m2 of Lot 500 is un-let, vacant and previously used to form part of an old BMX track on-site.  The City has the ability to lease this land under the terms of its Management Order subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.  There is currently no consideration for its future use at this time by internal stakeholders.

 

It is unlikely that any future development at this location would result in any conflict of interest with the two existing lessee's located within the leased duplex property on the southern portion of Lot 500 or the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club (Inc.) (WSSC) that lease a 19,430m2 portion of abutting Lot 502, Crisafulli Avenue, Wanneroo.  The existing lessees are informally aware of the proposal and do not have any objections.

 

Lot 500 is located within an area assigned as 'Parks and Recreation' under the City's Structure Plan No. 23: Wanneroo Town Centre (ASP 23).  Planning Implementation has advised that it does not consider that an Amendment to ASP 23 is necessary to accommodate the proposed development of a Men's Shed on Lot 500 because the WCMS has outlined that its current activities include computer refurbishment, recreational woodworking and gardening.  These activities are considered to be of a recreational nature and are consistent with the Parks and Recreation classification for which the property is reserved. The City's DPS 2 stipulates that the City when considering applications for Planning Approval for land within a Local Reserve, shall have due regard to the ultimate purpose intended for the Local Reserve. Lot 500 is situated within the Showgrounds Precinct under ASP 23. The Statement of Intent for the Showgrounds Precinct is as follows:

 

"It is intended that the Wanneroo Showgrounds will continue to provide recreational opportunities for the community and contribute to the “evolved country town” character of Wanneroo. The semi-rural environmental qualities of the Showgrounds will be enhanced and its place in Wanneroo’s history acknowledged and appropriately interpreted in any future development."

 

It therefore may be considered that the proposed Men's shed provides for recreational opportunities for the community and contribute to the “evolved country town” character of Wanneroo.

 

In lieu of the above, it is not considered that an Amendment to ASP 23 is necessary to accommodate the development of a Men's Shed on Lot 500.


 

Detail

The WCMS is proposing to construct a purpose built concrete tilt slab Men's Shed on a portion of Lot 500.  It has submitted an artist's impression of the proposed building (refer Attachment 3) along with draft plans (refer Attachment 4). It is proposed that the main construction materials would be concrete for floors and tilt panel for the buildings walls.  Roof material would be insulated colorbond steel.

 

The WCMS has requested that the City provide a letter of in-principle support to its proposed development to enable the WCMS to formally approach the Lotteries Commission to source the required funding to undertake the proposed project.

 

If funding is secured, it is proposed that Administration commence Agreement for lease (AFL) and lease negotiations with the WCMS, subject to Council and Ministerial approval.  Terms of both documents would likely be based on the following essential terms for the land only.  It is proposed that the following terms will be provided to the WCMS in due course for negotiation and subsequently reported to Council in a further report in late 2014:

 

AFL:

 

Land:

A 2,450m2 portion of Lot 500, Reserve 10845 (refer Attachment 2)

Lessee:

Wanneroo Community Men’s Shed (Inc.)

Commencement Date:

To commence following:

 

1.  Council approval to the AFL and lease;

2.  In-principle Ministerial Consent obtained to the AFL and lease; and

3.  Approval to commence development (DA) and a building licence has been granted by the City

Terms:

Development is to be in accordance with the DA issued by the City, agreed development plans and specifications, all required approvals and in compliance with applicable legislation and regulations, and an approved timetable for practical completion including fit out of the premises.

 

Practical completion of the development will result in the commencement of the lease agreement

Termination clause:

The existing WCMS lease on Lot 1 will be required to be surrendered prior to the commencement of the proposed new lease at Lot 500

 

 


 

Lease:

Land:

A 2,450m2 portion of Lot 500, Reserve 10845 (refer Attachment 2)

Lessee:

Wanneroo Community Men’s Shed (Inc.)

Use of Premises:

Provision of charitable works and services to the male community relating to health and welfare

Lease Term:

Ten (10) year land lease plus an option to renew for five (5) years

Commencement Date:

Following Practical Completion of the development (proposed to be detailed in the AFL)

Rent:

$1 (peppercorn) per annum

Rates & Taxes*:

All rates and taxes assessed on the Premises are payable by the lessee

Outgoings/Services:

All outgoings associated with the Premises, including electricity, water and gas, telephone etc shall be payable by the lessee whether billed directly or otherwise

Building Insurance:

Lessee responsibility

Contract and Risk (CAR) Insurance:

Lessee responsibility to ensure that a CAR policy is in place to ensure that the proposed construction works are insured adequately

Other Insurance (including contents, public liability, plate glass and the like):

Lessee responsibility

Maintenance of Premises and Cleaning:

Lessee responsibility

Structural Maintenance:

Lessee responsibility

Statutory Compliance:

Lessee responsibility

Ownership of Improvements to the Land:

Ownership of all improvements erected or constructed on the Land by the lessee shall at the expiry of the lease (and option period) revert to the City

*Note: The WCMS usage of the proposed new facility if built will be for charitable purposes.  The WCMS would therefore be exempt from paying Council rates.

The WCMS will be required to obtain the relevant Development Approval (DA) and Building Licence for any future proposed new building at Lot 500.

The WCMS proposes to fund the project with a combination of Lotteries Commission monies and other options such as Rotary, Lions and possibly some commercial funding.  The WCMS would be required to detail its financial capacity to undertake the proposed project to the City in greater depth in due course.

Whilst the WCMS's existing three (3) year lease of a portion of Lot 1 is scheduled to expire 31 August 2014, it is anticipated that the WCMS will exercise the further two (2) year option available as per the requirements of the current lease.  This would provide security of tenure to the WCMS at its current premises and allow for the proposed construction of the new facility at Lot 500.  Should Lot 500 be constructed and fitted out prior to the expiration of the existing lease (on the bases that the WCMS exercises its 2 years option), a Surrender of lease document will be required to be prepared and executed by all relevant parties to terminate the existing lease for Lot 1.  The proposed new lease on Lot 500 would then commence on practical completion of the building and surrender of the existing lease.

 

Further investigation into the future of Lot 1, 'Daisy House' will be required should Council support the development of Lot 500.  The building could be demolished with the land developed or sold.  Alternatively, the building could be leased to another 'Not-for-Profit' organisation subject to the relevant approvals being obtained (considering that the proposed new Tenancy Policy, whilst not yet adopted by Council states that the City should avoid leasing City freehold land to community organisations where possible).

 

Should the WCMS successfully source the required funding for the proposed development, a further report will be put to Council detailing the negotiated essential terms of an AFL and lease for the land, which subject to Council and Ministerial approval, will either be prepared by the City’s Property Lawyer or an external solicitor.

Consultation

Administration has advised State Land Services at the Department of Lands (DOL) of the WCMS proposal as in-principle consent would be required to any subsequent AFL and lease on behalf of the Minister for Lands, pursuant to Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1998.  The DOL has no issue with the proposed building concept and resulting land lease, subject to the appropriate Building Licence, DA and lease consent processes taking place. The DOL has also advised that the 'Community Purposes Office' classification of the reserve is suitable for the WCMS's purpose to 'provide charitable works and services to the male community relating to health and welfare'.  An amendment to the City's Management Order will therefore not be required.

 

Should the required AFL and lease proceed at a later date, Administration will forward the legal documents to the DOL requesting formal in-principle consent.

 

Should the WCMS obtain the necessary funding to undertake the proposed development, the two existing lessee's located within the duplex property on the southern portion of Lot 500, will be formally notified in writing and provided with regular updates regarding the development from Administration as will the WSSC located on a portion of abutting Lot 502, Crisafulli Avenue, Wanneroo.  Nearby residents will also be notified in writing.

 

Property Services, Planning Implementation and Community Facilities support the concept of the proposed purpose built facility at Lot 500 subject to all relevant approvals being granted and legislative requirements met.

Comment

The WCMS has expanded rapidly since relocating to its existing leased premises in September 2011.  It is a well utilised group that has extensive community support.

 

The proposed development on Lot 500 would create a purpose built dedicated Men's Shed facility that would provide:

 

·        a gathering place for men to discuss the daily issues of life;

·        computer refurbishment;

·        computer training;

·        woodworking;

·        recycling;

·        mentoring;

·        indoor recreational games; and

·        gardening.

 

The WCMS would project manage and remain responsible for the building during and after construction, until the expiry of any future lease term (and option period) which would ensure that the City had minimal responsibility for maintenance and repairs.

 

The WCMS has researched its proposal adequately thus far and provided information to Administration detailing how other Men's Sheds have undertaken similar projects on other local government controlled land.  Administration believes that the project planning to-date by the WCMS has been undertaken with the diligence that is required for a project of this nature. However, Administration is unable to further progress the issue until the WCMS proposed application to the Lotteries Commission is submitted and assessed by that body.  Should Council resolve to allow Administration to provide an in-principle letter of support from the City to the WCMS, it will lodge the letter with adequate plans and a suitable business case with the Lotteries Commission requesting appropriate funding for the proposed venture.

 

Administration recommends supporting the WCMS proposal at this stage as moving from its existing base at Lot 1 to a portion of Lot 500 would allow the WCMS to expand and also allow Administration to consider developing or selling Lot 1 which is owned in freehold by the City.

Statutory Compliance

Any future AFL and lease would be considered an exempt disposition (under WCMS's charitable status) under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, which states:

“30(2)     A disposition of land is an exempt disposition if –

          (b)     the land is disposed of to a body, whether incorporated or not –

                        (i)      the objects of which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and

                        (ii)     the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions;”

 

The objectives of the WCMS under the terms of its Rules of Association are:

 

·        Focal point for volunteers to contribute towards a range of community development projects;

 

·        Create a positive and welcoming environment that encourages community spirit; and

 

·        The property and income of the Association shall be applied solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Association and no part of that property or income may be paid or otherwise distributed, directly or indirectly, to members, except in good faith in the promotion of those objects.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “4     Civic Leadership - Working with others to ensure the best use of our resources.

4.2    Working With Others - The community is a desirable place to live and work as the City works with others to deliver the most appropriate outcomes.


 

Policy Implications

Any future AFL or lease negotiations will be conducted in accordance with the City's Tenancy Policy.  It should be noted however that in this instance, the proposed tenure would exceed the maximum recommendation under the 'Not-for-Profit' section of that lease category.  This is because the WCMS will be required to provide long term security of tenure in order to raise the necessary funds to undertake a capital project of the proposed nature.

 

Financial Implications

 

Any future building constructed and/or required site works at Lot 500 will be at the full cost of the WCMS with no contribution from the City.

 

Lotteries Commission funding will be a prerequisite of any future development of Lot 500. However, there is no guarantee that a project of this size will receive the necessary funding support from the Lotteries Commission. Should Council resolve to grant in-principle support to the proposed development by the WCMS and allow the Chief Executive Officer to provide and sign a letter to the WCMS to this effect, this will allow the WCMS to approach the Lotteries Commission with the intent of sourcing the necessary funding. The WCMS has been advised by Administration that the City will not make any financial contribution to the proposed building and that the project will only occur should the relevant funding be granted by the Lotteries Commission.

 

The WCMS is currently self sufficient and meets all operating costs at its current leased premises. Its computer refurbishment programme generates adequate income for the entity and the construction of a dedicated purpose built facility on a new site should allow the WCMS to generate more revenue from this lucrative venture along with the ability to expand into other fields to increase its revenue.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       SUPPORTS in-principle the proposed development of a portion of Lot 500, Reserve 10845, Leach Rd, Wanneroo, by the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.) (WCMS) and AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide and sign a letter to the WCMS to this effect to enable the WCMS to approach the Lotteries Commission to request funding to facilitate the proposed project;

2.       NOTES that the proposed development of a portion of Lot 500, Reserve 10845, Leach Rd, Wanneroo by the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.) will require separate approval from the Minister for Lands together with the relevant Development Approval and Building Licence being granted by the City; and

3.       NOTES that should sufficient funding be sourced by the Wanneroo Community Men's Shed (Inc.) (WCMS) from the Lotteries Commission, Administration will present a further report to Council for formal consideration of an Agreement for Lease and Lease with the WCMS.

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Existing leased area: Portion of Lot 1, Wade Court, Girrawheen

13/213703

 

2View.

Attachment 2- Proposed lease area: Portion of Lot 500, Leach Rd, Wanneroo

13/211128

 

3View.

Attachment 3 - Artists impression of proposed  building.pdf

14/43847

 

4View.

Attachment 4 -  Proposed Plans: Portion of Lot 500, Leach Rd, Wanneroo

14/44350

 


  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    352


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    353


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    354


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        358

3.5    Implementation of the Proposed Environmental Offset Package for the City's Landholdings in the Neerabup Industrial Area

File Ref:                                              3714 – 14/30046

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the funding and implementation of an environment offset package for the City's landholding in the Neerabup Industrial Area, in accordance with advice received from State and Federal Government environmental authorities.

 

Background

The City owns in freehold several major landholdings which form part of the Neerabup Industrial Area (NIA) (refer Attachment 1). Lots 9000, 9003, 41 and portion of Lot 600 Neerabup represent approximately 212 hectares of the total area of 1,032 hectares of the NIA.

 

In order to determine the developable area of the City's NIA landholdings, the City engaged environmental consultants, Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (Eco Logical), to carry out an environmental assessment of the subject land and formulate an environmental offset package that could be presented to the relevant Government authorities. 

 

In October 2013 Eco Logical lodged a proposed environmental offset package on behalf of the City, with the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) at State level and with the Federal Government's Department of the Environment (DotE) for consideration and determination.

 

The offset package proposed:

 

·        the purchase of 295ha of land outside of the NIA, identified to be of suitable quality for direct land offsets in exchange for developing the City's NIA landholdings;

·        to remove and relocate approximately 90ha of topsoil from the City's NIA landholdings to an offsite location;

·        to retain and maintain 50ha of natural bushland within Lots 9000 and 41, Neerabup as a conservation area;

·        to retain and maintain 24 Mary Street, Wanneroo as conservation area. Lot 24 is 4 hectares in area, owned Freehold by the City and whilst not registered "bush forever" has vegetation cited as very good to excellent (thus significantly reducing the prospect of future development on that site); and

·        the rehabilitation of 20ha of Pinjar Park located on Old Yanchep Road, Pinjar formerly used as a landfill site.

 

The developable area resulting from the City's offset package is depicted in Attachment 2.

 

The DotE considered the City's proposed offset package in liaison with DPaW and has recently presented an amended offset package to the City. This amended proposal does not affect the developable area depicted in Attachment 2.

Detail

Following consideration of the City's offset package by DPaW and DotE, an amended environmental offset package was presented back to the City by the DotE.

 

The amended offset package proposes:

 

·        to increase the purchase of suitable quality direct offset land from 295ha (as initially proposed) to 650ha. DotE inferred a preference for landholdings classified as 'good' to 'excellent' within the Gingin area;

·        to cede free of cost to the Crown as a Class 'A' Nature Reserve, the identified 50ha of conservation quality vegetation within Lots 9000 and 41, Neerabup as defined on attachment 2;

·        to cede free of cost to the Crown the whole of Lot 24 Mary Street, Wanneroo  as a Class 'A' Nature Reserve; and

·        the rehabilitation of 20ha of Pinjar Park located on Old Yanchep Road, Pinjar formerly used as a landfill site.

 

For the City's submission to proceed, both the State and Federal Government authorities require formal commitment from the City that it agrees to and will fund the implementation of the proposed (amended) Environmental Offset Package as outlined above.

Consultation

The City has engaged the services of environmental consultants Eco Logical, working in conjunction with both State and Federal environmental agencies in negotiating the terms and conditions of an Environmental Offset Package for the NIA.

 

The City has also appointed APP Corporation Pty Ltd (APP) to provide an order of magnitude business case for future development options and potential for the NIA.

Comment

According to DotE, the expected cost of the direct land offsets is estimated to be $450,000 for the purchase of 650ha of suitable quality land based on preferential landholdings identified in the Gingin area. In addition, it was estimated that implementation and management of ongoing maintenance is expected to cost in the vicinity of $200,000 (Net present value over 10 years capitalised).

 

DotE advised Administration that due to minimal success rates with the relocation of topsoils in the past, that the process was no longer favoured and that the purchasing of additional suitable landholdings was simpler and a preferred alternative. This will reduce the cost of the offset package by up to $1m.

 

Based on the amended figures, Administration has compiled a table included as Attachment 3 highlighting the potential savings in the Environmental Offset Package.

 

Therefore the indicative cost to be incurred by the City for the purchase and ongoing maintenance of land incorporated in the amended offset package is estimated at $2,045,000, compared to approximately $3,065,000 for the City's original offset proposal.

 

Furthermore, the City was informed by DotE that it would be viewed as favourable for the City to transfer the freehold ownership of the 50ha environmentally constrained portion of Lot 9000 Neerabup and Lot 24 Mary St, Wanneroo to be conserved as Class 'A'  nature reserves. The DotE is considering whether the greater protection offered by these Class 'A' reserves would justify it reducing the direct offset purchase to less than 650 hectares. In this regard, Administration's recommendation 3 proposes an authorisation to the Manager Property Services to negotiate the purchase of a lesser area of land on this basis.

 

Along with addressing environmental issues within the NIA, the City is currently investigating development options and the feasibility and viability of developing its landholdings the NIA.

 

This follows from Council's decision on 10 December 2013 (CB02-12/13) to appoint a consultant to provide a business case for the City's freehold landholdings within the NIA.

 

The services of the consultant are required for the development of an order of magnitude (cost estimate) business case, to provide Council with sufficient information to make informed decisions regarding the future development of the City's landholdings.

 

Finalisation and endorsement of an Environmental Offset Package for the NIA will significantly benefit the City, as it will formally define and authorise the developable area of the NIA and assist with Council's future development decisions.

 

The State and Federal environmental authorities now require the City to formally commit to funding the implementation of the conditions the Environmental Offset Package as outlined in amended proposal.

Statutory Compliance

Any future development and/or disposal of the City's landholdings within the NIA must be undertaken in accordance with Sections 3.57, 3.58 and 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.2    Growing Business - Our community is a preferred place for business to locate and grow.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The indicative cost of $2,045,000 will be required to fund the purchase and maintain environmental offset landholdings for the Neerabup Industrial Area. This is planned to be accommodated within the City's 2014/2015 Capital Works Programme and beyond, under PR-1006 pending the adoption of the Draft 10-Year Infrastructure Capital Works Program 2014/2015 to 2023/2024.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the Department for the Environment and Department of Parks and Wildlife's revised Environmental Offset Package for clearing and development of the City's landholdings in the Neerabup Industrial Area, comprising the following:

 

         

          a)      Purchase of 650 hectares of suitable quality direct offset land within the Gingin area classified as 'good' to 'excellent';

 

          b)      Ceding free of cost to the Crown as a Class 'A' Nature Reserve, the 50 hectares of Lots 9000 and 41 Mather Drive, Neerabup as depicted in Attachment 2;

 

          c)      Ceding free of cost to the Crown as a Class 'A' Nature Reserve, the whole of Lot 24 Mary Street, Wanneroo; and

 

          d)      Rehabilitation of 20 hectares of the former Pinjar Park Landfill Site (Reserve11598 Old Yanchep Road, Neerabup).

 

2.       NOTES the cost of implementing the Environmental Offset Package referred to in 1. above is estimated to be in the order of $2.04 Million and LISTS this amount for consideration in the City's 10 Year Capital Works Program, generally in accordance with the staging in the table in Attachment 3;  and

 

3.       ADVISES the Department for the Environment and Department of Parks and Wildlife that Council AGREES to the revised Environmental Offset Package for clearing and development of the City's landholdings in the Neerabup Industrial Area, as outlined in 1. above, and AUTHORISES the Manager Property Services to seek to negotiate the purchase of less than 650 hectares of land for direct offset, on the basis that the ceding of 50 hectares of Lot 9000 and 41 Mather Drive, Neerabup and all of Lot 24 Mary Street, Wanneroo as Class 'A' Nature Reserves warrants a reduced requirement for offsite offset land.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

NIA - ASP No.17 - Tenure

14/32981

 

2View.

NIA - Eco Logical - Offset Package Subject Lots

14/56447

 

3View.

NIA - Planned Environmental Offset Package

14/47047

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       362


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    363


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       364

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        365

Draft

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Projects

3.6    Ocean Reef Road Noise Attenuation Investigation

File Ref:                                              10999 – 13/208904

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the outcomes of the investigation of noise attenuation options for the section of Ocean Reef Road adjoining Shiraz Boulevard, Pearsall.

 

Background

At its meeting of 2 April 2013 Council considered Motion on Notice MN01-04/13 addressing the existing right turn movement from Brady Street onto Ocean Reef Road, and resolved the following:

1.   SUPPORTS the part closure of the Brady Street/Ocean Reef Road junction to prevent vehicles traffic turning right from Brady Street onto Ocean Reef Road;

2.   REQUESTS Administration to invite public submissions on this part closure in accordance with Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 and report back to Council on the outcomes of this process; and

3.   LISTS an amount in the 2013/2014 budget for detailed investigation and design for noise attenuation treatments along Shiraz Boulevard.

Resolution 1 was noted by Administration, with Resolution 2 followed up through presentation of a report at the Council meeting held on 12 November 2013 (IN05-11/13).  Follow-up associated with Resolution 3 is the subject of this report.

 

The City has received numerous complaints over the past two years about traffic noise emanating from Ocean Reef Road and its impact on residents of Shiraz Boulevard between Higginsville Parade and Archer Street. Council subsequently approved funds of $50,000 in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program for investigation and concept design for sound attenuation options (Project No. PR-2617). The prime purpose of this investigation was to review the impact of noise arising from traffic on Ocean Reef Road and the outcome of the Transport Noise Assessment Report (June 2012), with a view to determining noise attenuation options and associated costs.

Detail

In 2009, the Western Australian Planning Commission developed State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Consideration in Land Use Planning (the Policy) for major roads.

 

The Policy provides guidance on measures to minimise the adverse impacts of transport noise on surrounding noise sensitive land uses.  It seeks to reduce noise impacts without placing unreasonable restrictions on noise-sensitive developments, or adding unduly to the cost of transport infrastructure and applies to either the construction of a new transport corridor or the construction of a new development adjacent to an existing or future transport corridor.


 

 

The objectives of the Policy are to:

·        Protect people from unreasonable levels of transport noise by establishing a standardised set of criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals;

·        Protect major transport corridors and freight operations from incompatible urban encroachment;

·        Encourage best practice design and construction standards for new development proposals and new or redevelopment transport infrastructure proposals;

·        Facilitate the development and operation of an efficient freight network; and

·        Facilitate the strategic co-location of freight handling facilities.

 

With regard to road traffic noise, the Policy applies only to major roads, which are defined as one of the following:

·        State roads and national highways;

·        Urban primary distributors, as described on the metropolitan functional road hierarchy network;

·        Other urban roads carrying more than 20,000 vehicles per day (vpd);

·        Other rural primary distributors carrying more than 5,000vpd; and

·        Primary freight roads in the Perth metropolitan region, southwest region or state-wide.

 

SPP 5.4 applies to planning proposals that propose or are affected by major transport corridors. The SPP is given effect through structure planning provisions and subdivision and development conditions, such that where a development proposes, or is (or is potentially) affected by noise from a nearby transport corridor, then planning controls are imposed on that development to mitigate the effects of that noise.

 

SPP 5.4 does not apply to roadworks carried out by local government, because those works are carried out as 'public works' and are exempt from the need to obtain planning approvals or comply with planning schemes. As such, SPP 5.4 has no statutory jurisdiction or application over roadworks carried out by local governments, including in the case of Ocean Reef Road. SPP 5.4 acknowledges this fact and consequently expresses an 'expectation' that works carried out by public authorities should comply with the intent of the SPP; however, this in no way obliges the City, or any other local government, to comply with any part of the SPP, or carry out acoustic assessments, or install noise attenuation as part of its road construction projects.

 

In summary, whilst SPP imposes noise-related planning controls on developments affected by transport noise, it cannot and does not impose those same obligations on local governments with regard to road projects, which are exempt from the need to comply with planning schemes and policies generally.

 

The Transport Noise Assessment Report (June 2012) indicates that both the existing and predicted noise levels arising from Ocean Reef Road are above the Policy limit criteria adjacent to Shiraz Boulevard. To achieve a future noise level that is either under or no more than 3dB above the Policy limit criteria, it was indicated that a combination of a 4m high noise wall and a low-noise road surface would be required.

 

Based mainly on previous experience with the design of noise walls for Main Roads WA, the City engaged consultants GHD Pty Ltd to provide a report detailing the various noise attenuation options, concept design and associated cost estimates. A copy of the resultant report titled; Ocean Reef Road Noise Wall Options Report (January 2014) is available in the Elected Members Reading Room for further perusal.

 

In summation, the GHD Pty Ltd report has investigated precast post and panel system and a limestone block wall options for the construction of a noise wall at this particular location. The concept design proposes the wall to be positioned to allow for the following:

·        Maximise noise effectiveness and minimise the height of wall required in relation to the road level of Ocean Reef Road, thus blending better with the built environment;

·        Allow for clear zone requirements associated with fixed objects outside of errant vehicle movements;

·        Avoid costly service relocations;

·        Prevent creating areas that will trap rubbish;

·        Minimise impacts to surrounding vegetation; and

·        Cost of implementation.

 

Based on consideration of these features, the suggested wall alignment proposes two separate wall heights and lengths along Shiraz Boulevard, they being 2.5m in height between Archer Street and Traminer Way and 4m in height between Traminer Way and Higginsville Parade. The 2.5m high noise wall is shown as located on a 3m alignment from the Shiraz Boulevard carriageway, whereas the 4m high noise wall is shown located on an alignment of approximately half a metre from the shared path, this being an overall offset of 7.5m from the lane edge of Ocean Reef Road. Shared path connections have not been detailed in the concept stage and would need to be adjusted at these locations.

 

In progressing cost estimates, the GHD Pty Ltd report costed two options based on an overall wall length of 870m as follows:

 

Option 1: Precast concrete post and panel system for an estimated cost of $2.7M. This system was used by Main Roads WA on Roe Highway Stages 4 and 5, with the panels coated with patterns agreed to in consultation with residents on the property side of the wall and artistic patterns on the road side of the wall. A lesser quality product comprising of steel posts and precast concrete hollow panels is also available, and is a more functional product than aesthetic, resulting in a 10-15% reduction in overall cost than the better quality product ie $2.5M.

 

Option 2: Limestone block wall for the suggested alignment and height is estimated at $1.9M. This type of noise wall was used extensively in the construction of the Kwinana Freeway extension and Forrest Highway. The existing housing development between Shiraz Boulevard and Ocean Reef Road that begins east of Higginsville Parade consists of this option. Using limestone blocks would create the illusion that the proposed wall is a continuation of the existing wall thereby providing a consistent aesthetic for road users on the Ocean Reef Road side of the wall, though not necessarily for the Shiraz Boulevard residents.

 

Should implementation of noise walls on Ocean Reef Road, adjacent to Shiraz Boulevard, be supported then Option 2 (limestone block wall) would appear to provide the better value for money.

 

The use of earth bunds was discounted based on the following considerations:

·        The footprint of the earth bund would push the alignment of the wall towards the centre of the reserve and have a much higher impact on the existing vegetation. For example, a 1:1.5 slope earth bund 4m high (which has its own safety concerns for anyone who may choose to traverse it) would occupy a footprint width of at least 13m on level ground over the available road reserve width; and

·        Earth bunds invariably weather and potentially scour over time which can create a maintenance issue and at worst, if used with walls, the wall structural integrity may be compromised if left unattended.

Consultation

No consultation with affected residents has occurred during the concept design/cost estimate phase and preparation of the report by GHD Pty Ltd.

Comment

Administration does not support the construction of noise attenuation measures albeit that Ocean Reef Road is considered as a major road in terms of the Policy as a consequence of the vehicle per day definition.  The following reasons for Administration's position are noted as follows:

·        The Policy does not apply retrospectively to developments prior to 2009;

·        The Policy only applies to either the construction of a new transport corridor or the construction of a new development adjacent to an existing or future transport corridor;

·        The Policy is generally not used for increases in traffic noise as a result of increased traffic volumes, as is the case for Ocean Reef Road;

·        Noise walls defeat the purpose of urban planning objectives that are focussed on maintaining an open vista with unimpeded access, and to facilitate crime prevention through urban planning design principles; and,

·        It is the general practice of most Council's, so as to avoid precedence and cost impost to road construction improvements.

 

It is noted that the Western Australian Planning Commission is conditioning land subdivisional development applications that are located adjacent to arterial road alignments such that noise attenuation is to be incorporated within the subdivisional and building development design to mitigate the need for any future noise wall construction.

Statutory Compliance

In 2009, the Western Australian Planning Commission developed State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Consideration in Land Use Planning (SPP5.4 or the Policy) for major roads.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.

Policy Implications

Council, at its meeting on 28 May 2013, considered Item No IN07-05/13 - Transport Noise Assessment – Lukin Drive, Merriwa and resolved to:

 

5.       NOTES that a draft Noise Attenuation Policy will be prepared for consideration by Council by December 2013."

 

The Director Planning and Sustainability subsequently advised Elected Members by way of a memorandum dated 8 November 2013 that Administration had assessed this matter again and will be recommending to Council that rather than prepare a separate Noise Attenuation Policy, the preferred approach is to amend the City's existing Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2). 

In this regard LPP 4.2 would be amended to make specific reference to the need to undertake a Noise Assessment in accordance with the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 as this policy already provides ample guidance for the City to assess the adverse impacts of transport noise on nearby noise sensitive land uses without the need for the City to prepare a separate local planning policy on the matter.  It is intended to present a separate report to Council recommending various amendments to LPP 4.2, including the noise attenuation issue as addressed in this report

Financial Implications

The cost of implementing a proposal to install noise walls on Ocean Reef Road adjacent to Shiraz Boulevard between Archer Street and Higginsville Parade is between $1.9M and $2.7M, dependent on the noise wall option chosen. There are no funds in the Ten Year Road Works Program to provide noise attenuation walls on roads within the City.

 

Should the City be called upon to fund noise walls then the only beneficiaries are the affected landowners.  As a result this may qualify for the imposition of a Specified Area Rate to recover this type of cost, however, considering the number of properties the cost per ratepayer is likely to be excessive.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the report prepared by GHD Pty Ltd entitled "Ocean Reef Road Noise Wall Options Report (January 2014)";

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the construction of a noise attenuation wall along the boundary of Ocean Reef Road and Shiraz Boulevard between Archer Street and Higginsville Parade, Pearsall at an estimated cost of between $1.9M and $2.7M as detailed in the report prepared by GHD Pty Ltd entitled "Ocean Reef Road Noise Wall Options Report (January 2014)"; and

3.       ADVISES property owner/occupiers of properties in Shiraz Boulevard between Archer Street and Higginsville Parade, Pearsall, of Council's decision.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        371

Draft

Traffic Management

3.7    Parking Prohibition Removal - Scenic Drive, Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              5597 – 13/179304

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the removal of the existing parking prohibitions on Scenic Drive, Wanneroo, 100m south of Neville Drive.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 3 April 2007, considered Item No IN06-04/07, regarding the provision of parking embayments on Scenic Drive and Neville Drive, Wanneroo adjacent to Buckingham House Museum and the Lake Joondalup Kindergarten.  Council resolved in part as follows;

 

"2.        APPROVES the installation of “NO STOPPING” on Scenic Drive, Wanneroo as shown on Drawing 2244-1-0 (Attachment 3 refers)."

Recent works along Scenic Drive between Neville Drive and Church Street required the installation of Traffic Treatments in accordance with the City's Capital Works Program for 2013/2014.

 

A location plan identifying the subject area is attached (Attachment 1 refers).  Drawing No 2244-1-1 details the Council endorsed parking prohibitions plan (2244-1-0 referred to above) (Attachment 2 refers).  .

Detail

In accordance with the Traffic Treatments program along Scenic Drive between Neville Drive and Church Street, the City included the installation of a pedestrian crossing through the northern most blister island.( Attachment 3 refers) The installation of the pedestrian crossing required the deletion of two parking bays, one on each side of the pram ramp on the eastside of Scenic Drive to give pedestrians more protection by enlarging the raised area immediately adjacent to the carriageway.

 

Parking at this location is at a premium with many parents and park visitors utilising the parking embayment area to its maximum capacity during the mornings and evenings.  The removal of the two bays as a result of the recently installed pedestrian crossing has negatively impacted on the parking availability.

 

Currently the park on the east side of Scenic Drive south of Neville Drive is accessed via a gate which has been built within the existing on-street 90 degree parking area.  The existing parking prohibitions installed as a result of IN06-04/07 were done to ensure the bitumen area between the road and original gate access was kept clear.  It is now considered that this area would be better utilised for parking.  Subsequently this change would require both the removal of the existing parking prohibitions and the relocation of the existing parks access gate.

Consultation

Consultation is considered unnecessary as no properties front Scenic Drive at this location.

Comment

The removal of the parking prohibitions and relocation of the park access gate will allow for an additional two parking embayments to be utilised in the on-street 90 degree parking area. Administration recommends that the gate be relocated 20m north of the existing location.  It is considered that as the park access gate is utilised for park maintenance only, the relocation will have minimal affect on traffic utilising Scenic Drive. A drawing detailing the removal of the existing parking prohibitions signage and linemarking, and the removal of the gate (and subsequent replacement of bollards) has been shown in Drawing No. 2244-1-2 (Attachment 4 refers). A drawing detailing the existing gate location and the proposed new location is detailed on the attached aerial plan (Attachment 5 refers).

Statutory Compliance

The proposal is in accordance with the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2003 as amended.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost of the removal of the parking prohibitions signs and linemarking, gate relocation, bollards installation and subsequent embayment linemarking is estimated to be $1,000.  Work will be undertaken by the City's maintenance crews and funded from the City's Maintenance budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the removal of 2 x "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP" (R5-35(R) and R5-35(L)) signs and associated linemarking on the east side of Scenic Drive, south of Neville Drive as shown on Drawing No. 2244-1-2 (Attachment 4 refers)

2.       NOTES that embayment line marking associated with the creation of the two new parking bays will be installed as shown on Drawing No. 2244-1-2 (Attachment 4 refers).


 

 

3.       NOTES that the existing access gate will be relocated 20m north as shown on the attached aerial plan (Attachment 5 refers).

4.       NOTES that four bollards will be installed in place of the relocated gate as shown on Drawing No. 2244-1-2 (Attachment 4 refers).

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

ScenicDrive-LocalityPlan

14/32328

 

2View.

2244-1-1 Scenic Drive - Council Endorsed Parking Prohibitions

14/41043

 

3View.

2430-1-0_ScenicDrive_TrafficTreatments

14/32471

 

4View.

2244-1-2 Scenic Drive - Parking Prohibitions Removal

13/213694

Minuted

5View.

ScenicDr_GateRelocationPlan

14/55939

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    374


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    375


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       376


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       377


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    378


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        379

3.8    Golf Links Drive, Carramar - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation

File Ref:                                              3125V02 – 13/239864

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       10         

 

Issue

To consider the results of public consultation into the proposed installation of traffic management treatments along Golf Links Drive, Carramar.

 

Background

In response to petition PT01-08/12, Council, at its meeting on 11 December 2012, considered Report IN06-12/12 and resolved as follows:

1.    REQUESTS Administration to develop a traffic management plan for Golf Links Drive for consideration by the community and presentation to Council by the June 2013 meeting;

2.    NOTES that the traffic data for Golf Links Drive will be referred to the WA Police through the Local Government Speed Enforcement Program;

3.    NOTES that traffic trends on Golf Links Drive will continue to be monitored;

4.    NOTES that Golf Links Drive has been added the Speed Advisory Trailer driver education program; and

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

 

In response to Item 1 of the above resolution, Council at its meeting of 12 October 2012 considered Report IN07-08/13 and resolved as follows:

 “That Council:-

1.    ENDORSES the proposed traffic management plan for Golf Links Drive as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No's. 2887-1-0 and 2887-2-0 (Attachment 3) as the basis for community consultation; and

2.    NOTES that a report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation process, should the Director Infrastructure consider that the traffic management plan for Golf Links Drive requires significant amendments to reflect the feedback from the community.

 

A location map of the subject site is shown at Attachment 1.

Detail

The Golf Links Drive Traffic Management Project is listed for construction as part of the City's 2013/2014 Capital Works Program – Traffic Treatments. The original proposal as detailed on Drawing Numbers 2887-1-0 and 2887-2-0 (Attachment 2 refers) consisted of:

·    the installation of speed cushions along the road sections used as part of a bus route: between Balladong Loop and Houghton Drive; and Keanefield Drive and Pinjar Road; to meet minimum lane width requirements for the Public Transport Authority, and

·    the installation of a 1.4m wide flush red asphalt and raised median islands, between Houghton Drive and Keanefield Drive, the non-bus route road section,.

 

Consultation

Pursuant to Council's Resolution IN07-08/13, Item 1, the draft traffic management scheme for Golf Links Drive was advertised for a period of 19 days from 10 October 2013 to 28 October 2013 by way of:

·      Advertisements placed in the Wanneroo Times editions of 1 October 2013;

·      Display on the 'Have Your Say' section of the City’s website;

·      Notice boards erected on Golf Links Drive; and

·      Written notification to owners and residents of the 137 properties abutting Golf Links Drive.  The area covered by the survey is shown in Attachments 3.  A copy of the survey is included as Attachment 4.

 

In response, 77 submissions were received; 51 from the owners and residents on Golf Links Drive (37% response rate) and 26 from other residents of Carramar (Attachment 5 refers).

 

Of the total responses received 48 (62%) supported the proposal and 29 (38%) objected, while for Golf Links Drive owners/residents 42 (82%) supported the proposal and 9 (18%) objected.

 

The 42 positive responses from Golf Links Drive owner/residents while representing 82% of Golf Links Drive respondents only represents 31% of total Golf Links Drive residents and property owners.

 

A summary of the responses and Administration's comments are shown on Attachment 6 with more detailed comments on the more common responses listed below:

 

1.   Golf Links Drive is being used as a short cut between Wanneroo Road and Pinjar Road.  Golf Links Drive should be closed at Wanneroo Road

 

There appears to be a common misunderstanding as to the function of Golf Links Drive.  Golf Links Drive has been developed as a Neighbourhood Connector in accordance with its role as shown in Agreed Structure Plan No.21B for Carramar and Tapping (Attachment 7 refers).  Golf Links Drive is also classified as a Local Distributor Road in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and as such is meant to provide connectivity between the Local Access Streets in Carramar and the surrounding District Distributor Road network.  A Local Distributor Road is also expected to cater for bus routes and higher levels of commercial vehicles.  The volumes and types of traffic recorded using Golf Links Drive are well within the roads design capacity.

 

Additionally, while western Carramar is well established, the developments in Banksia Grove and the extension of Pinjar Road will continue to impact on traffic along Golf Links Drive. The future development of the Banksia Grove District Centre, located at the north-east corner of the Joondalup Drive/Pinjar Road intersection, will result in the continued growth of traffic on Golf Links Drive. To accommodate this expected growth in traffic and in accordance with Agreed Structure Plan No. 21A - Banksia Grove (Attachment 8 refers) it is anticipated that ultimately the intersection of Golf Links Drive and Pinjar Road will become a four way intersection controlled by traffic signals. However, while traffic volumes will increase, it can be expected that traffic speed will reduce as free flowing traffic is replaced by platoons of vehicles, the speed of which is dictated by the lead vehicle.

 


 

 

The closure of Golf Links Drive at Wanneroo Road would also significantly alter the traffic distribution within the locality of Carramar with increased traffic volumes on Houghton Drive, Cheriton Drive and Keanefield Drive as road users attempt to access the arterial road network.

 

2.   Heavy vehicle use on Golf Links Drive

The traffic count data for Golf Links Drive shows the percentage of commercial vehicles using the road varies from 5% at the western end to 7% at Pinjar Road.  These percentages are not high considering the roads classification and function.

 

It is acknowledged that the subdivisional and housing development within Banksia Grove is adding to the commercial vehicles usage on Golf Links Drive, however, this is ultimately a short term problem that will reduce as subdivisional and house construction winds down.

 

There are also some truck movements between the Neerabup Industrial Area(NIA) and the sand/limestone quarries along Flynn Drive, as well as the subdivisional developments in Banksia Grove.  The ultimate extension of Pinjar Road to Flynn Drive will provide an alternative connection between the NIA and the southern suburbs which will reduce pressure to use Tranquil Drive or Wanneroo Road.  Additionally, Council has already agreed to the partial closure of Tranquil Drive onto Flynn Drive which will restrict vehicles from the NIA cessing Golf Links Drive via Tranquil Drive or Rustic Gardens.  This work has been included in the Flynn Drive deviation contact the tender for which was accepted by Council at its meeting of 4 February 2014.

 

3.   Speed humps are noisy

The City acknowledges that there is the potential for increased road noise from speed cushions either from vehicle braking and then accelerating or from trade vehicle and trailers where contents may become dislodged.

 

The 1.6m wide rubber speed cushions proposed for Golf Links Drive were promoted by the State Government's 'Anti-Hoon' Program as generating less noise than traditional speed humps and are meant to be straddled with minimum vertical displacement.  To date the City has not received any noise complaints as a result of existing speed cushion installations.

 

4.   The traffic management treatments will not deter hoons

Traffic management should only be used to control systemic traffic problems and it is not intended to be used to engineer social change.  In reality, hoons are only a very small proportion of drivers and hooning is an anti-social behaviour that ultimately can only be controlled by WA Police.  As roads need to be built to accommodate service vehicles and emergency vehicles, as well as cars, it will always be possible for hoons to engage to some degree in anti-social behaviour.

 

5.   Why is the street lighting being upgraded from 80W to 125W?

The existing 80W street lighting does not meet the needs of the current Standard Australian AS1158 for road lighting of traffic treatments and consequently upgraded street lighting is required at each traffic treatment.

 

6.   Install traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road/Golf Links Drive intersection

Wanneroo Road is a Primary Distributor Road under the control and management of Main Roads WA (MRWA).  Additionally, MRWA is also the State authority to approve traffic related road signs and lines including traffic control signals.  Consequently, the upgrading of the Golf Links Drive intersection is primarily the responsibility of MRWA. 

 

 

 

The City supports the dualling of Wanneroo Road between Joondalup Drive and Halls Road and has lobbied the State Government to raise the priority of this project.  Currently, the project is not listed in MRWA 5 year forward estimates.

 

The Perth Metropolitan Region Scheme allows for the possibility for the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive to be upgraded to a grade separated interchange.  The City has raised the importance of this project with the State Government.  MRWA approval for traffic signals at Golf Links Drive would be dependent on traffic volumes, accident history, signalised intersection spacing and any effect the signals would have on the operation of the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive interchange.

 

7.   Why not spend the money to improve the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive intersection?

Wanneroo Road is a Primary Distributor Road under the control and management of Main Roads WA (MRWA). The Strategic Business Case 2012 for the Mitchell Freeway Extension included a project to upgrade this intersection and is currently being addressed by the project team. The upgrading of the Joondalup Drive intersection is primarily the responsibility of MRWA. The City has lobbied the State Government to raise the priority of upgrading the intersection to a grade separated interchange.

 

8.   The traffic management plan will divert traffic onto adjacent streets.

The traffic management plan has been designed to control driver behaviour and limit speeds without transferring traffic onto adjacent roads or compromising the function of Golf Links Drive as a Local Distributor Road.

Comment

In response to objections raised, Administration has amended the proposal by:

·    deleting two median islands outside 144/146 and 148/150 Golf Links Drive which may have restricted property access

·    reducing the length of the raised median island outside 116 Golf Links Drive which may have restricted property access

·    the installation of speed cushions on the western and northern approach to the Golf Links Drive/Cheriton Drive/Rustic Gardens roundabout

·    increasing the length of the splitter island in all approach legs to the Cheriton Drive/Rustic Gardens/Golf Links Drive roundabout

·    providing a pedestrian break in the median island outside 177 Golf Links Drive

·    reducing the length of the raised median island outside 223 Golf Links Drive

 

The amended Traffic Management Scheme for Golf Links Drive TMS is shown in City Drawing Nos. 2887-1-1 and 2887-2-1 (Attachment 9 refers).

 

If all resident's objections based on noise or lighting issues were accepted and the speed cushions removed there would be four sets of speed cushion less in the overall traffic management scheme, as shown on Drawing Numbers 2887-1-2 and 2887-2-2 ( Attachment 10 refers). This option would significantly increase the distance between treatments which would likely result in the overall traffic management scheme being compromised and not being as effective as originally proposed. This modified traffic management scheme is not supported.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

$320,000 has been allocated to project PR–2652 Golf Links Drive – Construct traffic treatments in the City's 2013/2014 Capital Works Program.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the installation of traffic treatments along Golf Links Drive, Wanneroo, as detailed in City of Wanneroo Drawing No's. 2887-1-1 and 2887-2-1 (Attachment 9);

2.       ADVISES the residents and owners of properties on Golf Links Drive of Council’s decision; and

3.       ADVISES the respondents to the Golf Links Drive community consultation of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Location Map of Golf Links Drive, Carramar

12/111999

 

2View.

Proposed TMS - 2887-1-0 & 2887-2-0

14/26662

 

3View.

Proposed TMS - Consultation Map

14/26791

 

4View.

Community Consultation Survey

14/44681

 

5View.

Community Consultation Response Summary

14/18954

 

6View.

Community Consultation Detailed Responses & Administration Comments

14/44560

 

7View.

ASP 21B - South Carramar and Tapping

14/44614

 

8View.

ASP 21A - Banksia Grove

14/44610

 

9View.

Revised TMS Proposal - 2887-1-1 & 2887-2-1

14/26681

Minuted

10View.

Alternate TMS Proposal - 2887-1-2 & 2887-2-2

14/44819

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       384


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       385


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       387


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    389


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       391


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       395


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       409


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       410


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       411


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       413


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        415

3.9    St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo - Proposed Footpath Community Consultation Results

File Ref:                                              7881 – 13/136972

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the outcome of community consultation associated with the proposal to construct a footpath along the south side of St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo, between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent.

 

Background

The City's Capital Works Program 2012/2013 listed the following three projects to construct footpath sections on the south side of St Fillans Bend, between Calabrese Avenue and Tyne Crescent.

PROJECT

LOCATION

DESCRIPTION

COST

PR-2357

St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo

Construct 145m x 1.5m path, south side, Loyal Terrace to Lothan Way

$19,000

PR-2358

St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo

Construct 155m x 1.5m path, south side, Tyne Crescent to Appin Way

$20,000

PR-2359

St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo

Construct 180m x 1.5m path, south side, Lothan Way to Calabrese Avenue

$23,000

Subsequent to the City advising residents of the intent to commence construction, Council received petition PT04-02/13 at its meeting on 5 February 2013, objecting to the section of footpath covered by Project No. PR-2358.  The petition read as follows:

“Petition to stop the installation of a footpath.

Below are the owners/occupants of properties in which will be affected by the instalment of a footpath mid February 2013 and who are strongly against any footpath."

 

A report addressing the petition was considered by Council at its meeting 2 April 2013 at which time Council resolved as follows (IN05-04/13 refers):

1.    REQUESTS Administration to consult with the residents of St Fillans Bend to determine the level of support for a construction of the remaining section of footpath along St Fillans Bend between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent;

2.    REQUESTS Administration to report back to Council on the results of the consultation in Item 1, above; and

3.    ADVISES the petitioners of Council's decision.

A report was presented to Council on 23 July 2013 (IN04-07/13 refers) regarding the proposed footpath but was referred back to Administration for further investigation due to a number of residents not receiving letters regarding the consultation.  Administration has conducted further community consultation to ensure all residents are included.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan of the subject area and Attachment 2 for a sketch of the proposed footpath location.

 

 

 

Detail

St Fillans Bend is classified as an Access Street in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy.  It is 610m in length and runs east-west between Calabrese Avenue and Tyne Crescent.

 

To date, projects PR-2357 and PR-2359 have been completed and a footpath now extends along St Fillans Bend between Calabrese Avenue and Appin Way.

Consultation

Council, at its meeting 23 July 2013, referred Item No IN04-07/13 back to Administration due to a number of residents not receiving letters regarding the consultation. The original consultation received 13 responses supporting the proposed footpath, however, responses were not received from the original seven petitioners opposed to the proposal.

 

Administration conducted further consultation to ensure all residents were included.  Refer Attachment 3 for consultation map.  A total of 210 letters were sent to residents in the vicinity of the proposed footpath, 61 responses were received; 50 replied yes, 9 replied no and 2 did not provide a response on the form returned.  A number of residents provided comments to the proposal which have been collated below, along with Administrations response:

 

Comment

Administration Response

Yes there should be a pathway but it is unreasonable to set it is back behind the light poles.  Move the 2 light poles and put it up against the kerb otherwise we say No.  Council should move the poles.

This is one of the options being considered.

We signed a petition against this like the road closures of Backshall Place we will probably be overridden again.

The petition date of 5 February 2013 has been included in this report for consideration.

Waste of money would be better to complete cycleway around the lake.

Considering the percentage of the community that support the project, Administration supports completion of this footpath link.

The residents of this section of St Fillans feel that this footpath is not needed.  The footpath coming out onto Tyne Court at this point is a potential danger.  The people driving down St Fillans look only left and pull out; there have already been 2 minor accidents at this point as well as traffic speeding around the S bends there.  We feel the money used would be better spent on the exit to Ocean Reef Road.

The safety concerns regarding the installation of the proposed footpath are noted and will be considered during the design and construction of the proposed footpath.

I hope this is only going to the residences that are going to be affected because everyone will of course say yes.

Footpaths are considered part of public infrastructure; therefore residents within a walkable catchment area should be consulted regarding the installation of a proposed footpath.

It's a total waste of money on such a quiet road; there are much more important things to spend money on.

Footpaths are provided to protect vulnerable road users on all roads within the City.

As a mother of a toddler I frequently walk with a pram down St Fillans towards Tyne Crescent and find it very unsafe having to walk on the road.  It makes sense that a path should run down the entire street rather than ending at Appin Way.

These safety concerns regarding the installation of the proposed footpath are noted.  The intent of the footpath projects for St Fillans Bend is to add to an already existing footpath section between Calabrese Avenue and Appin Way and thereby provide pedestrians safe passage along the full length of St Fillans Bend between Calabrese Avenue (and the bus services on Wanneroo Road) and Tyne Crescent (Studmaster Park).

We have already completed a survey indicating support to complete the footpath link.  Why wasn't the whole street consulted about the proposed footpath prior to its construction? Unbelievable how long this has taken.

A number of residents in St Fillans Bend did not receive the consultation letters.  A further consultation has been conducted to ensure all residents were included.

Comment

The road reserve, which includes the verge, is public property and utilised by the City for the provision of public infrastructure including footpaths, street lighting and other services. The function of the road reserve is to cater for the transport needs of all road users.  While vehicles may be the dominant form of road transport, they are not the only user group and pedestrians and cyclists should be considered equally with motorists.  Where traffic speeds are low and road lengths short, it is sometimes practicable for all road users to share a single facility, the road pavement. Should traffic volumes or speed make this dangerous for a particular road user group, separate facilities such as footpaths, shared paths or on-road cycle lanes can be provided.

 

Liveable Neighbourhoods, under Pedestrian Movement Network states:

"Liveable Neighbourhoods recognises the complexity of daily movement patterns and the need to make pedestrian trips as short and pleasant as possible.  The primary pedestrian network is the street system, which is detailed to support pedestrian movement.

Footpaths should ideally be provided on both sides of all streets.  For cost reasons, footpaths may be omitted from one side of lower order access streets, unless the street forms an important pedestrian link (eg to a school, centre or station).

A standard footpath width of 1.5m is specified.  This enables two pedestrians to pass with comfort, and enables ease of use by people with prams, wheelchairs and other mobility aids."

 

The State Road Safety Strategy - Towards Zero is based on a Safe Systems approach which recognises that the human body is vulnerable and that unprotected pedestrians are unlikely to survive collision speeds above 30km/h.  As a consequence, where road traffic speeds cannot be reduced to safe levels, vulnerable road users should be separated.

 

Given the need to protect vulnerable road users, the intent of the footpath projects for St Fillans Bend was to add to the existing footpath section between Calabrese Avenue and Appin Way and thereby provide pedestrians safe passage along the full length of St Fillans Bend between Calabrese Avenue (and the bus services on Wanneroo Road) and Tyne Crescent (Studmaster Park).

 

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 under Section 23 requires non-discriminatory access to premises which the public, or a section of the public, is entitled or allowed to use.

 

Premises include:

(a)     a structure, building, aircraft, vehicle or vessel;

 

(b)     a place (whether enclosed or built on or not); and

(c)     a part of premises (including premises of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)).

 

As a footpath is defined as a 'premises', and covered by Section 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the City is therefore required to provide a footpath to meet the requirement of the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992.

 

From the seven residents directly affected, five do not support the project and two residents did not provide a response.  In addition, of the 14 residents that live on both sides of the St Fillans Bend adjacent to the project, three support the project, eight do not support the project and three did not provide a response. Given the 30% response rate to the questionnaire with 50 responses in support, Administration recommends that the remaining footpath section along St Fillans bend between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent be constructed.

 

Streetlights on St Fillans Bend, between Tyne Crescent and Appin Way, are located 1m from the kerb line providing insufficient space for a footpath to be constructed on the back of the accordance with plans approved by the City. kerb. The original project proposal was to construct a 1.5m pathway behind the existing streetlights to reduce the cost associated with relocating them. The majority of pathways already constructed in St Fillans Bend have been constructed on the back of the kerb. The streetlights in Regent Estates, including St Fillans Bend, were installed by the developer in a staged manner and changed from one side of St Fillans Bend to the other.

 

Given the alignment of the majority of pathways already constructed in St Fillans Bend are kerbside and the responses to community consultation, Administration recommends that a 1.8m wide pathway be constructed, kerbside through crossovers for the remaining section of St Fillans Bend to keep the proposed alignment consistent with the remainder of St Fillans Bend (Attachment 4 Refers). Where a footpath is located on the kerb an additional 0.3m width of the path is recommended to provide separation from passing vehicles, allow for doors opening from parked cars and reduce obstructions from bins on refuse pickup days. Also by constructing the pathway kerbside, the relocation of the existing two street lights would be required. Both the additional 0.3m width of the path and relocation of the two existing streetlights would increase the project cost by approx. $28,000, subject to a detailed design and quotation by Western Power.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.

Policy Implications

Nil

 

Financial Implications

Council approved carry over funding of $31,736 for Project PR-2358 in the 2013/2014 Pathways Capital Works Program for the construction of this section of footpath. The carry over funding is to construct 155m of 1.5m wide footpath through crossovers along St Fillans Bend between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent on the property boundary.

 

The revised estimated cost to construct 155m of 1.8m wide kerbside footpath through crossovers, along St Fillans Bend between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent and relocation of two streetlights, is $60,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the construction of a 155m of 1.8m wide cast insitu concrete footpath on the southern side of St Fillans Bend between Appin Way and Tyne Crescent (Attachment 4 refers), Wanneroo at an estimated cost of $60,000, noting that this is subject to a detailed design and quote by Western Power for the relocation of two street lights;

2.       LISTS for consideration in the 2013/2014 Mid-Year Budget Review, the sum of $28,264 for the additional costs associated with increasing the width of the proposed footpath in St Fillans Bend and the relocation of two streetlight poles by Western Power (Attachment 4 refers);

3.       ADVISES all residents of St Fillans Bend of Council's decision; and

4.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

St Fillans Bend - Footpath - Location Map

13/34161

 

2View.

St Fillans Bend - Proposed Footpath

13/100832

 

3View.

St Fillans Bend Consultation Map

13/162201

 

4View.

St Fillans Bend Streetlighting

14/64615

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    420

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    421

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       422


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       423

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        424

Draft

Other Matters

3.10  Yanchep Boardwalk - Development Approval and Construction Program Update

File Ref:                                              4445 – 13/212577

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the status of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) Development Approval process and construction program for the lowering and realignment of the northern section of the Yanchep Boardwalk.

 

Background

The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) issued an Order dated 30 August 2012 which granted conditional development approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) to the City of Wanneroo for the Yanchep Boardwalk. This decision granted retrospective approval of the southern portion of the Yanchep Boardwalk (as constructed) and approval for the realignment and lowering of the northern section of the boardwalk.

 

A copy of the SAT Order is shown at Attachment 1 and the approved plans (2532-14A and 2532-15A) are shown at Attachment 2.

 

The two key conditions of development approval related to the works being completed within two years of the date of the Order and the approval by WAPC of a management plan to address weed control, erosion control, stabilisation and revegetation of all disturbed areas, appropriate revegetation species and ongoing monitoring and maintenance.

 

Detail

A comprehensive site survey and detailed engineering design were undertaken to ensure the boardwalk and adjoining on-ground concrete path are reconstructed in accordance with the approved plans referred to in the SAT Order. This revealed that constructing a new concrete path to connect the northern end of the lowered boardwalk to the existing concrete path that leads to the lookout from Compass Circle, would require a consistent path gradient of about 3.88%. At this gradient, and to avoid any development works occurring beyond the footprint of what has been approved, the City would need to construct retaining walls alongside the new concrete path, up to 1.55 metres in height. This is due to the new path needing to traverse and be set within the side of a sand dune with a steep cross-fall.

 

It is Administration's opinion that the retaining walls required either side of the concrete path would be unattractive, would present ongoing maintenance concerns (as litter and other debris would gather along the section of path flanked by walls), would not be in keeping with the amenity of the coastal location and would be unacceptable from a safety and crime-prevention viewpoint.

 

Consequently, Administration revised the design of the path, as illustrated in Attachment 3 (Drawing Nos. 2532-20-0, 2532-21-0 and 2532-22-0) with the following changes to the (approved) design proposed:

 


 

·        The revised design increases the grade of the path to 7.14% (1 in 14) for the majority of its length, to better match the surrounding natural ground level. Towards its northern end, the revised path also incorporates a vertical curve or 'crest' to tie back into the existing concrete path to the lookout. Again, this has been done so the vertical alignment of the path better matches existing surrounding ground levels; and

 

·        The revised design marginally expands the footprint of the approved development to enable construction of limestone pitched batters and shallower stabilised earth batters on either side of the path, in lieu of vertical retaining walls.

 

These changes only seek to alter the vertical alignment of the new on-ground concrete path and to marginally increase the horizontal footprint for the path's construction, arising from the desire to improve the finish of the path. These revised drawings have no impact whatsoever on the approved vertical and horizontal alignment of the aluminium boardwalk, which was the principal component of this development approval.

 

At its meeting on 21 August 2012, Council considered a report on the Yanchep Boardwalk (Confidential Item CR04-08/12) and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council AUTHORISES the Director Planning and Sustainability to continue to act on behalf of the City to do all things necessary to conclude the State Administration Tribunal Matter DR 44/2012 pursuant to section 54 of the State Administration Tribunal Act 2004 and as outlined in this report."

 

In accordance with this authorisation, the Director of Planning and Sustainability submitted an application for Approval to Commence Development, dated 3 December 2013, based on the revised Drawing No's 2532-20-0, 2532-21-0 and 2532-22-0.

 

Conditional Approval to Commence Development for the Modifications to Pathway associated with Yanchep Boardwalk was issued by WAPC on 29 January 2014, refer Attachment 4. This Conditional Approval included the same two conditions as the SAT Order in relation to the rehabilitation of the site.

Consultation

No further public consultation was undertaken during preparation of the revised plans for WAPC consideration

Comment

The City now has two Development Approvals for the lowering and realignment of the Yanchep Boardwalk as summarised below:

1.   The SAT Order issued on 30 August 2012 which enables the realignment and lowering of the northern section of the boardwalk.

2.   The WAPC Development Approval dated 29 January 2014 which enables the construction of the northern pathway connection to the lowered and realigned boardwalk, inclusive of the stone pitched embankment and fence relocation.

 

The deadline for the completion of these works in accordance with the conditional approval is 30 August 2014 and prior to the commencement of the works a rehabilitation management plan needs to be prepared to the satisfaction of WAPC.

 

In fulfilment of Conditions in the SAT Order and the Development Approval dated 29 January 2014 relating to the rehabilitation of the site, a draft Rehabilitation Management Action Plan (RMAP) has been prepared for the Commission's endorsement and addresses the clearing permit for the proposed works, granted by the Department of Environment Regulation.

The draft RMAP was submitted to the Department of Planning in December 2013 and interim comments provided. These are currently being addressed and a final plan will be submitted for approval prior to any works commencing.

 

The City intends to advertise the tender for the modifications to the Yanchep Foreshore Pathway and Boardwalk on 1 March 2014, with awarding scheduled for late March 2014, under delegated authority of the Chief Executive Officer. The specifications for the works includes the application of a surface treatment to the aluminium boardwalk to minimise noise and sideway slip during wet conditions to address issues raised during community consultation on this project. Works associated with the modifications to the boardwalk are expected to be completed by early July 2014, with the rehabilitation works to follow and be completed by early August 2014.

Statutory Compliance

The status of the statutory requirements for the Modifications to the Yanchep Boardwalk is as follows:

 

·    Building Licence – to be undertaken once contract has been awarded.

·    Clearing Permit – amended Clearing Permit received from DER.

·    RMAP – initial comments from Department of Planning on the draft Plan are currently being reviewed for final submission to WAPC for approval.

·    Demolition Licence – Building Services advises that as the modifications only require part removal of the structure, there is no requirement for a Demolition Licence.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget has an amount of $244,041 allocated under Project No PR-2015 Yanchep Boardwalk Modifications to undertake modifications to the boardwalk in accordance with WAPC Development Approval. A further $49,000 has been allocated in Project No PR-2210 for the implementation of the rehabilitation works in accordance with the draft RMAC.

 

The order of cost estimate for the lowering and realignment of the Yanchep Boardwalk in accordance with the approved drawings, and the associated rehabilitation works in accordance with the draft RMAC is $201,000 There are sufficient funds within the 2013/2014 Capital Works to complete all works in accordance with the  conditions of the development approvals.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council;

 

1.       NOTES that the City has received Development Approval for the lowering and realignment of the Yanchep Boardwalk as summarised below:

 

a)      The State Administrative Tribunal Order issued on 30 August 2012 which enables the realignment and lowering of the northern section of the boardwalk

 

b)      The Western Australian Planning Commission Development Approval dated 29 January 2014 which enables the construction of the northern pathway connection to the lowered and realigned boardwalk, inclusive of the stone pitched embankment and fence relocation

 

2.       NOTES that a Rehabilitation Management Action Plan is being finalised for submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval in accordance with the conditions of development approval; and

 

3.       NOTES that Yanchep Boardwalk lowering and realignment works are programmed to commence in April 2014, subject to receipt of approval of the Rehabilitation Management Action Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Order

12/107134

 

2View.

Attachment 2 - 2532-14A (Aeiral Photo Plan) & 2532-15A (Plan & Longitudinal Section)

13/216260

 

3View.

Attachment 3 revised designl

14/59916

 

4View.

Attachment 4 - approval to Commence Development

14/59929

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    428


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       431


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       433


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                    436


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        442

3.11  Berkley Road Local Structure Plan – Drainage Strategy Implementation and Release of Temporary Drainage Sumps

File Ref:                                              9713 – 13/213682

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider design and funding options to resolve ineffective stormwater disposal arrangements in Marangaroo.

 

Background

The Berkley Road Local Structure Plan (BRLSP) was originally prepared in the early 1990's and guided land subdivisional development within this area (Attachment 1 refers).  Over time the City has collected developer contributions through the imposition of subdivision conditions to fund the acquisition of 10% Public Open Space and the provision of regional roads (including stormwater drainage). The drainage provision for regional roads included allowance for the disposal of local stormwater drainage into a designated drainage sump within the Marangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network. The BRSLP did not include any funding provision for stormwater pipe or remedial stormwater drainage expenditure and simply provides capacity within the sump for local stormwater drainage.

 

The fragmented landownership within the BRLSP has resulted in subdivision occurring in an 'adhoc' manner, creating difficulties for the City in coordinating the provision of storm water drainage infrastructure between subdividers until, in late 1990 the City engaged an engineering consultant to prepare a Catchment Strategy to assist in the coordination of drainage within the BRLSP. After this time, all developers within the BRLSP area provided adequate sized stormwater pipe to enable drainage to be directed through each landholding that was subdivided to a designated drainage sump located in St Quentin Parkway. Unfortunately, several down-catchment landholdings had already subdivided prior to the preparation of the Catchment Strategy, resulting in sections of under-capacity pipe that in turn prevents stormwater generated within the upper stormwater catchment from flowing to the St Quentin Parkway Drainage Sump (StQPDS) during storm events.

 

To facilitate land subdivision some developers provided temporary drainage solutions pending completion of development down-catchment.  In these cases the developer retained ownership of the residential lot on which the temporary drainage sump was constructed. The developer continues to pay rates on the land pending ultimate connection of stormwater drainage network down-catchment into the designated drainage sump. For several years the City has been receiving requests from three of the original developers within the BRLSP area for resolution of this issue. Funding was subsequently allocated in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program for investigation, concept development, detailed design and construction estimate preparation (PR-2663 – Annual Stormwater Drainage Asset Renewal Program).

 

To resolve this issue the City recently engaged another engineering consultant to review the existing stormwater drainage network within the area serviced by the StQPDS and provide options to enable the release of the lots containing temporary drainage sumps back to the original developers. The subject lots include Lot 170 Gaby Way (Conoble Park Pty Ltd), Lot 333 Gaby Way (Stockland WA and Others) and Lot 29 McNamara Place (Wisegroup Investments Pty Ltd).

 

A plan noting the location of the StQPDS along with the location of the three lots containing temporary drainage sumps is attached for reference (Attachment 2 refers).

 

Detail

An engineering consultant was commissioned in July 2013 to review the existing drainage conditions and performance of the Marangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network, identify the deficient sections of the network and provide design options for mitigating the risks associated with these deficiencies. This included assessment of the impact on the known  undersized section of pipe located in Goldsworthy Entrance and Russon Court on removal of the temporary sumps and the connection of the network west of Mirrabooka Avenue (ie: the upstream sub-catchment) to the network to the east of Mirrabooka Avenue (ie: downstream sub-catchment). The scope also included developing a detailed design suitable for the implementation of the most cost-effective solution.

 

The engineering consultant's assessment included assessment of the risk of surface flooding, property damage and the effect on the road network level of service.  The outcome of the assessment has indicated that the removal of the temporary sumps and connection of the network west of Mirrabooka Avenue to the network east of Mirrabooka Avenue would not be expected to result in major drainage issues, other than localised increases in gutter flow due to an undersized pipe found as part of the site investigation undertaken at this location.  However, the assessment did identify a matter of more serious concern, this being the absence of an overland flow path across Mirrabooka Avenue from west to the east.  Furthermore, release back of the lots containing the temporary sumps would result in hazardous water ponding at the low point on Mirrabooka Avenue and subsequent surface flooding in major storm events.

 

The initial recommendations arising from the engineering consultant's investigations have identified a number of issues that will require resolution before consideration can be made to release back the lots containing the temporary drainage sumps to the developers.  Given the complexity of the issue, it has been recommended that the City seek an interim solution by completing some minor works and thereafter, releasing two of the three lots containing the temporary drainage sumps this financial year.  This will provide time to finalise requirements relating to the ultimate solution and seek associated funding as part of the forthcoming Capital Works budget process in order to implement proposed works in the 2014/2015 financial year.

 

The two lots that could be released back to the developers on implementation of the interim solution are:

·    Lot 170 Gaby Way (Conoble Park Pty Ltd); and

·    Lot 333 Gaby Way (Stockland WA and Others).

Both lots are held in freehold title by the respective developers noted and also have caveats placed on them by the City in relation to the temporary drainage sumps contained on each lot. If the caveats are to be released then they will need to be formally withdrawn. This will require the Mayor and CEO to execute and seal a "Withdrawal of Caveat" for both lots and any other associated release related documentation in accordance with the execution of documents policy to release both developers from the drainage requirement caveat.' However, prior to release, the respective developers will be required to disconnect the drainage outfall to the temporary sump, make good the connections to the existing drainage pipe system and reinstate the lots to make them suitable for residential development/sale.

 

The third lot; Lot 29 McNamara Place (Wisegroup Investments Pty Ltd) located immediately adjacent to Mirrabooka Avenue, will need to be retained in order to implement the ultimate solution.

 

A summary of the two stages of proposed upgrade; they being the interim and ultimate solutions follows:

 

Interim Solution

In order to advance consideration in relation to release of two of the three lots containing temporary sumps (ie: Lot 170 Gaby Way and Lot 333 Gaby Way), it is proposed that the following interim works (refer Attachment 3) at an estimated cost of $70,000 be implemented:

·    Upgrade a small (approximately 10 metres long) section of drainage pipe at the low point in the median strip of Mirrabooka Avenue from 450mm diameter to 750mm diameter;

·    Connect the two Side Entry Pits near the low point on Mirrabooka Avenue; and

·    Install an overflow baffle at the drainage pit that connects to the temporary sump located in Lot 29.

On completion of the above listed works the two lots would then be able to be released back to the respective developers this financial year.  However, the risk of flooding, albeit mitigated to some extent, would still be an issue on Mirrabooka Drive and improved protection would be reliant on implementation of the ultimate solution.  As a consequence, funding will need to be sourced from the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program to ensure that the interim works are able to be implemented before the onset of next winter, with these works to be completed by no later than 30 May 2014 to allow for release of the two lots.

If the proposed interim solution is implemented, it is imperative that storm events are closely monitored/managed.  Any flooding arising on Mirrabooka Avenue will need to be actively managed as part of normal maintenance protocols in such situations until the ultimate solution is implemented.

 

Ultimate Solution

The detailed design for the ultimate solution has discounted the need to upgrade the section of under-capacity pipe in Goldsworthy Entrance and Russon Court (or for that matter, duplicating the undersized pipe).  This approach only covers off on a 5-year storm event but the overland flow from a greater storm event in the network to the west of Mirrabooka Avenue would not be resolved.  This is attributed to Mirrabooka Avenue bisecting the Marangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network and in itself becoming a trapped low point that cannot be designed out from an overland flow perspective. 

The cost to upgrade the under-capacity pipe is in the order of $600k and combined with the overland flow issue, is not seen to be value for money.  As a consequence, options to upgrade retention capacity in the network to the west of Mirrabooka Avenue were explored by the engineering consultant, with the outcome arising promoting the need to acquire the temporary drainage sump located on the third lot, namely; Lot 29 McNamara Place.  The proposed solution is two staged as outlined below:

Stage 1

This stage proposes reshaping of the temporary drainage sump and extending it into the adjoining Banyan Close Drainage Sump (BCDS) that in itself will also be enlarged to take advantage of the space currently available within this drainage reserve.  This then increases the available sump volume thereby mitigating the impact of potential flooding of Mirrabooka Avenue in major storm events due to the absence of an overland flow path across Mirrabooka Avenue from the west to the east.  The increased retention capacity of the combined sumps provides for additional storage/infiltration time before excess inflow overflows into the network to the east of Mirrabooka Avenue through upgrade works to the drainage infrastructure proposed as part of the interim solution.

The proposed Stage 1 works shown in  Attachment 4 are estimated to cost  $100,000 (exclusive of the purchase of Lot 29) are summarised below:

·    Earthworks to connect the temporary sump with the BCDS to maximise volume within the combined land area (ie: the Banyan Close Drainage Reserve and Lot 29);

 

·    Perimeter fencing upgrade; and

·    Miscellaneous drainage pipe/outlet improvements within the combined sumps.

It is noted that this stage of the ultimate solution does not provided for 100-year storm event capacity as per the City's drainage specifications. However, it is best fit given the physical constraints of the built-up environment within which the drainage issue exists, and is promoted on the basis that it mitigates the impact of a potential flooding event arising from a greater than 20/50-year storm event.  As for the interim solution, any flooding that may eventuate will therefore need to be managed as part of normal maintenance protocols in such situations.

It is proposed that this stage be funded in the forthcoming 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget Program, with implementation scheduled early in the financial year in order to minimise the time from when the interim solution is implemented.

Stage 2

This stage is effectively held in reserve and should only be considered for budget consideration subject to performance and the degree of road flooding that arises following implementation of Stage 1 works.  Stage 2 works provide for diversion of stormwater generated in the upper reaches of the Marangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network to the north of Gaby Way and redirects this to the Hibiscus Close Drainage Sump (ie: located to the south of Gaby Way).  This will require an extensive length of interconnecting pipe to be installed at an estimated cost of $450k. 

It is noted that implementation of this stage would raise stormwater containment capacity up to a 50/100-year storm event.

It is suggested that consideration for inclusion of this stage of works in the 10-Year Capital Works Program should only be made should road flooding prove to be an issue following implementation of Stage 1 works.

Consultation

A number of meetings and verbal/email communications in follow up has been undertaken with the consultant acting on behalf of the developers of the three lots.  This consultation was directly related to addressing the release of the lots now that land subdivisional development downstream of the temporary sumps has been completed and associated interlinked piped stormwater network is operational.

Comment

It was considered that an upgrade of an undersized section of pipe within the Marrangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network in Goldsworthy Entrance and Russon Court needed to be undertaken on an as soon as practical basis in order to release three lots containing temporary drainage sumps back to the original developers now that subdivisional land development of the downstream network has been fully completed. 

 

In assessing required upgrade options it was determined that upgrading or duplicating the undersized pipe is not a feasible solution as the catchment serviced by the StQPDS is bisected by Mirrabooka Avenue.  As a consequence, localised flooding problems will be exacerbated as the overland flow path within the overall network is compromised by Mirrabooka Avenue.

 

In considering release of the lots utilised as temporary drainage sumps an upgrade strategy has been developed whereby an interim solution at an estimated cost of $70,000 needs to be funded from surplus municipal funding generated from completed projects in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget in order to advance implementation. 

 

 

Subject to Council endorsement of the funding sought, works covered by the interim solution would then be able to be constructed, and subsequent release of the two lots located on Gaby Way. This is subject to the developers of the land undertaking required works to disconnect the temporary sumps contained on each lot.  The third lot (located on McNamara Place) is required as part of the ultimate solution and acquisition and transfer into a Drainage Reserve with a link to the BCDR adjacent to it. 

 

The risk of a storm event arising where surface flooding may potentially occur is limited to "inconvenience" to the motorist on Mirrabooka Avenue in the vicinity of McNamara Place (the local road adjacent to the potential flooding location).  The surface flooding is not considered life threatening, nor is it damaging to property.  The worst case scenario would be that Mirrabooka Avenue (or the local road in the immediate vicinity of the flooding location) would be closed to traffic until flooding subsides.  Any surface flooding that may eventuate would be managed as part of normal maintenance protocols in such situations.

 

An exhaustive review of the land subdivisional development records was undertaken, with no cause identified whereby legal recourse to recoup the cost of proposed works from the developers of land within the Marrangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network was found.  As a consequence, the cost of upgrade as proposed (ie: the interim and staged ultimate solutions as described) becomes the responsibility of the City and needs to be funded as part of the City's ongoing Capital Works Program.

 

Accordingly, it is suggested that the interim works be implemented this financial year, thereby allowing release of the Lot 170 Gaby Way and Lot 333 Gaby Way and Stage 1 of the ultimate solution be funded as part of the 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget in order to minimise the risk of surface flooding between implementation of both solutions. In regard to the latter, acquisition of Lot 29 McNamara Place will need to be advanced such that its saleable value is considered on an "as is" basis given improvement work would need to be undertaken by the developer to bring it up to a saleable standard for residential development.  Payment of the subsequently agreed purchase price would be sourced from the City's Acquisition of Land Reserve.

 

Stage 2 of the ultimate solution is to be held in reserve pending review of performance and the degree of road flooding that arises following implementation of Stage 1 works

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.

Policy Implications

Nil


 

 

Financial Implications

The estimated cost of the interim works associated with upgrade of the Marangaroo Stormwater Drainage Network is $70,000 and given the City's outstanding requirement to review and potentially release back lots containing the temporary sumps, there is currently no budget provision in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget for these works.  In reviewing possible surplus municipal funding within the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget, the City's 2013/2014 MRRG Road Rehabilitation Program has been completed, with surplus municipal funds available.  The savings generated arose in the main to more streamlined roll out of the works arising from a well managed and coordinated City/Contractor partnership, with a reduction in cost primarily relating to traffic management (the main cost variable for this type of work).  Funds for the interim works are able to be sourced from the following road rehabilitation projects:

 

Project No

Description

Available Funds

PR-2603

Joondalup Drive/Tumbleweed Drive Roundabout Renewal, Banksia Grove

$25,000

PR-2606

Marmion Avenue Renewal, Mindarie `(Section B)

$25,000

PR-2610

Ocean Reef Road Renewal, Woodvale

$20,000

 

Funding from the BRLSP account could possibly be considered where the works, or portion of the works, can be identified as being within the scope of the BRLSP. The BRLSP account contains funds that may be utilised for a defined purpose, including the acquisition and construction of Regional Roads (Hepburn Avenue and Mirrabooka Avenue) and drainage sites that have the potential to accommodate all urban runoff for the residential subdivision of the area.  Consideration could be given to the suitability of allocating funds from this source towards the relevant components making up the staged ultimate solution.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       AGREES to undertake the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue "interim" drainage upgrade works, Marangaroo as shown on Attachment 3 at an estimated cost of $70,000;

2.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of $70,000 for the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue "interim" drainage upgrade works, Marangaroo;

3.       NOTES the following budget variation to fund the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue "interim" drainage upgrade works, Marangaroo;

Project No.

From

To

Description

PR-2603

$25,000

 

Joondalup Drive/Tumbleweed Drive Roundabout Renewal, Banksia Grove


 

PR-2606

$25,000

 

Marmion Avenue Renewal, Mindarie (Section B)

PR-2610

$20,000

 

Ocean Reef Road Renewal, Woodvale

PR-2940

 

$70,000

Mirrabooka Avenue drainage upgrade works

4.       NOTES that Lots 170 and 333 Gaby Way, Marangaroo will no longer be required for temporary drainage disposal sites when the Mirrabooka Avenue drainage upgrade works are complete;

5.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and CEO of the City of Wanneroo to affix the seal to Withdrawal of Caveats for Lot 170 Gaby Way and Lot 333 Gaby Way once the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue "interim" drainage upgrade works have been completed and the developers associated with these lots have disconnected the drainage outfall to the temporary sump, made good the connections to the existing drainage pipe system and reinstated the lots to make them suitable for construction of housing to the satisfaction of the Director Infrastructure;

6.       LISTS in the 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget (Stormwater Drainage) $100,000 for implementation of Stage 1 of the ultimate solution associated with the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue drainage upgrade works, Marangaroo, as shown on Attachment 4;

7.       AUTHOURISES Administration to commence land acquisition arrangements in relation to Lot 29 McNamarra; and

8.       NOTES that Stage 2 of the ultimate solution estimated at $450,000 is to be held in reserve pending review of performance and the degree of road flooding that arises following implementation of Stage 1 associated with the proposed Mirrabooka Avenue drainage upgrade works and if required, is to be listed on a priority basis in the 10-Year Capital Works Program for future funding consideration by Council.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Berkley Road Local Structure Plan

13/216996

 

2View.

Attachment 2 - Berkley Road Local Structure Plan

13/218277

 

3View.

Attachment 3 - Berkley Road Concept Plan

13/217019

Minuted

4View.

Attachment 4 - proposed drainage upgrade

14/58665

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       449


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       451


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       452


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                                                                       453


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        454

3.12  Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection - Establishment of a Community Reference Group and Terms of Reference

File Ref:                                              1806 – 14/53320

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the establishment of a Community Reference Group which will have input into the development of long term options for Quinns Beach coastal protection.

 

Background

Council considered a report (ITEM IN05-12/13) at its meeting on 10 December 2013. This report outlined the details of options for immediate and medium term coastal protection works at Quinns Beach. A number of decisions were made by Council including the following:

 

"That Council:

13.     REQUESTS Administration prepare draft terms of reference to establish a community reference group, made up of representatives of key stakeholders including community group representatives to have input into the development of long term options for Quinns Beach coastal management and present the draft terms of reference to the March meeting;"

This report considers the details relating to the establishment of a Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection Community Reference Group and its proposed Terms of Reference.

Detail

Quinns Beach has been subject to coastal erosion over many years and the City has been managing it actively since 1996.

 

Council was advised at its meeting on 10 December 2013 (Item IN05-12/13 refers) of a number steps are being taken in relation to the development of long term coastal protection option for Quinns Beach. These steps include:

 

1.   Collection of the near-shore wave data over the forthcoming summer and next winter;

2.   Undertaking regular beach surveys;

3.   Hydro graphic survey of the area by the Department of Transport;

4.   Appointment of Coastal engineering consultants in May 2014 to analyse all existing information/wave data and undertake numerical modelling to recommend suitable long term coastal protection option for the whole of Quinns Beach; and

 

It is noted that the implementation of steps 1 and 2 has commenced and the other two steps are scheduled to be implemented as planned. A recommendation for the suitable long term coastal protection options is likely to be available for the Council's consideration in December 2014. The implementation of any adopted long term coastal protection option will be subject to funding, Council's decision and other considerations such as approvals and community consultation.

 

Council resolved at its meeting on 10 December 2013 to form a Community Reference Group made up of representatives of key stakeholders, including community group representatives. The main objective of this Group will be to have input into the development and detailed design of long term options for Quinns Beach coastal protection.

 

The Group will nott have any approving authority and no role in the active management of any works relating to Quinns Beach coastal protection.

 

It is suggested that the proposed Group be known as "Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection – Community Reference Group.

 

Attachment 1 shows proposed Terms of Reference for Council's consideration.  It is recommended through the Terms of Reference that the membership be comprised of the following:

 

The Mayor;

Coastal Ward Elected Members or their delegates;

Director Infrastructure;

Manager Infrastructure Maintenance;

Project Manager – Coastal Projects;

Representative from the Department of Transport;

A maximum of six representatives from the community/community groups.

It is proposed that the community representatives on this Group shall be:

1.    residents or property owners within 2Km radius from the Quinns Beach car park off Ocean Drive;

2.    able to demonstrate an understanding of this significant project and willing to contribute;

3.    able to demonstrate their community network through local community organisations.

The process to seek community representatives' nomination is proposed to be undertaken during March and April 2014 and reported to Council for its' endorsement on 27 May 2014.

Consultation

 

Nil

Comment

The establishment of the proposed Community Reference Group will assist in sharing the information and seeking input at the key stages of the development of the long term coastal protection options for Quinns Beach.

 

Due to the significance of the coastal protection issues at Quinns Beach and interest shown by the community, the establishment of "Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection – Community Reference Group" with up to six representatives from the community/community groups is supported.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

 

 

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The costs associated with meetings and administration of this Group will be accommodated from within the City's operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY RESOLVES to ESTABLISH the "Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection – Community Reference Group" based on the Terms of Reference as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Terms of Reference for Quinns Beach Coastal Long Term Coastal Protction Community Reference Group

14/56423

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                               457

B&WLogo_paw&text

 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection – Community Reference Group

 

March 2014

 

Name:

Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection – Community Reference Group

Role/Purpose:

To have input into the development of long term options for Quinns Beach coastal protection.

Aims & Functions:

·   Receive information at the key stages of the development and detailed design of the options for Quinns Beach long term coastal protection.

·   To provide input in to the development of the long term options for Quinns Beach coastal protection.

·   To present community views to the Group.

 

Membership:

2.1     The Group shall consist of the following representation:

·   The Mayor

·   Coastal Ward Elected Members or their delegates;

·   Director Infrastructure;

·   Manager Infrastructure Maintenance;

·   Project Manager – Coastal Projects;

·   Representative from the Department of Transport;

·   A maximum of six representatives from the community/community groups.

2.2    The community representatives shall be:

1.   the residents or property owners within 2Km radius from the Quinns Beach car park off Ocean Drive;

2.   able to demonstrate an understanding of this significant project and willing to contribute;

3.   able to demonstrate their community network through local community organisations.

 

2.3    Membership shall be for a period of up to two years or until the detailed design is completed and terminating on the day of the Ordinary Council elections, with retiring members eligible to apply.

2.4    Group membership shall be appointed or removed by the Director Infrastructure.

2.5     Members must comply with the City’s Code of Conduct.

2.6     The Group has authority to second individuals from outside of the         group, on a voluntary basis, for their expert advice.

 


 

 

Operating procedures:

3.1     Chairperson:

a)      The members of a Group are to elect a Chairperson and deputy Chairperson from amongst themselves at the first meeting of the Group and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, Schedule 2.3, Division 1. (For transparency and accountability it is recommended that Council officers not be appointed to the position of Chairperson and deputy Chairperson.)

b)      The CEO or delegated nominee will attend the first meeting to conduct the election of the Chairperson or at a subsequent meeting if a new Chairperson is to be elected.

c)      The Chairperson will preside at all meetings.

d)      In the absence of the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson will assume the chair, and in his absence, a person is to be elected by the Group members present to assume the Chair.

e)      The Chairperson is responsible for the proper conduct of the Group.

 

3.2     Meetings:

a)      The Group shall meet on a quarterly basis as a minimum.

b)      All meeting dates are to be provided in Councillors Clipboard and in the City of Wanneroo diary.

c)      A Notice of Meetings including an agenda will be circulated to the Group members (including deputy delegates) at least 72 hours prior to each meeting where possible. 

d)      The Chairperson shall ensure that detailed minutes of all meetings are kept and shall, not later than five business days after each meeting, provide the Group members (including delegates) with a copy of such minutes.  The minutes are to be available for public inspection.

e)      Copies of all minutes are to be forwarded electronically, through TRIM the City’s electronic record keeping system, to Governance for filing in the elected members’ reading room.

f)       All agenda and minute documentation to be generated through Council’s Infocouncil software reporting system.

g)      The Group outcome or recommendation will have effect if it is supported by general consensus of the meeting or through vote made by the simple majority. A Simple majority is the agreement of not less than half of the votes present at the meeting.

h)      In the event that a vote is taken, all endorsed members (or delegates attending in lieu of the endorsed Elected Members) of the Group will have one vote. The Chairperson will have the casting vote and simple majority will prevail.

3.3     Quorum:

The quorum for a meeting shall be at least 50% of the number of endorsed members.

3.4     Administration:

3.4.1  Administration Support

Administration support for the group will be provided by the City of Wanneroo.  That support person will be the Director Infrastructure's Personal Assistant or her delegate as appointed from time to time.

3.4.2  Items for Discussion:

A Group member may request for an item for consideration at a meeting which is relevant to the purpose of the group. Such requests shall be made in writing to the Director Infrastructure 7 days prior to the compilation of the Agenda for that meeting. 

Delegated Authority:

4.1     The Group has no delegated power and has no authority to implement any agreed actions other than the dissemination of information to the Community.

4.2     The Group has no delegated authority to commit Council to the expenditure of monies.

4.3     Matters requiring Council consideration will be subject to separate specific reports to Council.

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 25 February, 2014                        460

3.13  Quinns Beach Coastal Protection - Need for a Limestone Retaining Wall along Fred Stubbs Park

File Ref:                                              1806 – 14/58902

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the outcome of community consultation undertaken in relation to the construction of a limestone retaining wall along the western edge of the remaining Fred Stubbs Park.

Background

Council considered a report (ITEM IN05-12/13 refers) at its meeting on 10 December 2013 on the options for immediate and medium term coastal protection works at Quinns Beach and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:

1.       ENDORSES Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2;

2.       UNDERTAKES community consultation on the need for a limestone retaining wall as per detail included in Option 2 - Revetment with a Limestone Retaining Wall as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 3;

3.       AUTHORISES administration to seek development approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission for the construction of the limestone retaining wall as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 3;

4.       NOTES that the construction of the limestone retaining wall and its associated works will be subject to a Council decision of a further report to be presented for consideration at the Council meeting scheduled on 4 March 2014 on:

a)      The outcome of community consultation on the need for a limestone retaining wall;

b)      The outcome of Western Australian Planning Commission development approval relating to the proposed construction of a limestone retaining wall; and

c)      Further funding implications;

5.       AUTHORISES Administration to invite tenders for coastal protection works with two separable stages - these being;

a)      Stage 1 comprising the revetment construction and directly associated coastal protection related works; and

b)      Stage 2 comprising the limestone retaining wall and its associated works, with construction subject to Council's decision as per Item 4 above;

6.       NOTES the submission dated 22 November 2013 submitted to State Government for the provision of funding to facilitate the construction of immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach on 25 November 2013;


 

 

7.       In view of the possible future erosion potential and consequential loss of infrastructure at Quinns Beach and pursuant to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $2,813,000 to undertake works associated with Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, noting that:

a)      Overall project funding is to be sourced from the City's Strategic Projects Reserve; and

b)      No funding commitment has as yet been received from the State Government for this project;

8.       REQUESTS the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to continue to advocate to State Premier and Treasurer to accept that the erosion issue is a shared responsibility and funding from the State Government should be provided to ensure that the local community is not burdened with the full cost of the works;

9.       DELEGATES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER the AUTHORITY to award tenders for the works associated with the construction of Stage 1 works comprising a Revetment with Batter Slope and directly associated works for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, and Stage 2 works comprising the construction of the limestone retaining wall and its associated works, noting that Stage 2 works will be subject to Council's decision as per Item 4 above and also subject to the cost of both stages of works not exceeding $3.246M;"

The community consultation process was completed in January 2014 as per Council decisions. This report outlines the details of this community consultation.

Detail

As per the detail provided in a report to Council on 10 December 2013 (ITEM IN05-12/13 refers) the limestone retaining wall is proposed along the western edge of the remaining portion of Fred Stubbs Park. Refer to Attachments 1 to 3 (design drawings) for further detail.

 

In accordance with Council decisions, the following community consultation strategy was implemented:

·    On-site corflute signs (two) displaying the artist's impressions and providing contact details for further information about the project and inviting the community to provide feedback;

·    Display drawings and related information at Civic Centre Foyer, Clarkson Library and Gumblossom Community Centre;

·    Direct mail inviting response (wider Quinns Rocks area – 1500 letters);

·    A notice on the City’s website under the "your say" section detailing the information about the project inviting the community to provide feedback;

·    Facebook link to the City's Website;

·    Community Newspaper advertisement; and

·    A community interactive session (5:00pm to 8:00pm held in Gumblossom Community Centre on 29 January 2014).

 

The community was requested to provide feedback on a comment sheet, refer
Attachment 4, and return it to the City in a “Reply Paid’ envelope, or submit it online, by the close of business on Friday, 31 January 2014. The community was also requested to answer the following question and provide any additional comments in the space provided in the comments sheet:

 

 

Do you support the proposed construction of a limestone retaining wall along the western edge of the remaining Fred Stubbs Park?

 

p Yes          p No

Please tick (ü) the relevant box

 

At the close of the community consultation period 396 responses were received as summarised below:

 

Number of Yes responses received                            342 (86.4%)

 

Number of No responses received                              50 (12.6%)

 

Number of responses with no preference                   4 (1%)

 

Further quantitative analysis of the results were undertaken to investigate only those responses from residents of Quinns Rocks. The results show a similar split between yes/no responses to the above percentages +/- 2%. 

 

Community comments summarised below have been extracted from questionnaire forms and combined into one comment where possible. Copies of all of the responses have been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for reference.

 

'Yes’ Community Comments

Comments made in support of the proposed concept are noted below:

1)   Protect the playground and parkland

2)   As much area of Fred Stubbs Park as possible should be retained

3)   The park is a real asset to the community and should be saved

4)   Limestone wall will greatly enhance the area

5)   Limestone wall will prove to be money well spent

6)   Installing the wall will strengthen the whole area

7)   The size of Fred Stubbs Park needs to be a large as possible

8)   Although the wall will restrict future flexibility it will give optimum advantage to maintaining at least a small parkland which is regularly utilised by locals and visitors.

9)   Long overdue

10) Build as soon as possible, before winter storms

11) Make the wall beautiful

12) Much appreciate the remedial work the council have undertaken

13) Thankyou

14) Something needs to be done

15) Should have been done years ago

16) Foreshore is an integral part of the lifestyle

17) Better than no action

18) Well done

19) Essential

20) We are pleased

21) A positive move

22) Best thing to do

23) Very practical idea

24) Hope you get it right first time

 

25) Need to keep these facilities safe and available

26) Do it for all of our families future

27) Regular visitor

28) Very important to protect our coastline

29) Great to hear that this beautiful beach will be restored

30) Please construct this limestone wall to protect the coast line without making it look un-natural and obstructive to the view of the coast line

31) Required urgently as the whole park is subject to erosion

32) Please save our foreshore

33) Yes please protect our beach

34) Only solution to the erosion occurring

 

‘No’ Community Comments

Comments made against the proposed concept are noted below:

1)   Large cost for a temporary solution

2)   Money better spent on long term solutions, other facilities or upgrade of the revetment design

3)   Too much money to save a playground and expensive recovery of the retaining wall if it fails

4)   Wall will limit future long term coastal protection options in this area

5)   Conduct detailed investigations before spending the money on the wall

6)   Wall integrity is dependent on short term sand bag revetment

7)   Natural sand dunes are preferred

8)   Wall will block the view of the ocean

9)   Significant drop may introduce a safety hazard

10) Target for graffiti and vandalism

 

The majority of the respondents (86%) indicated their support for the construction of a limestone retaining wall along the western edge of the remaining Fred Stubbs Park. However, it should be noted that upon reviewing the comments, it appears that a large proportion of these respondents (Comments 28 to 34) view the wall as a coastal protection solution. The sand bag revetment has been designed to protect this section of the coast from further erosion and the limestone retaining wall is simply an additional feature to allow for an increased width of the park. This information was provided to the community through the various consultation strategies identified above.

 

A number of comments also made further suggestions/requests for additional infrastructure and long term options, many of which were unrelated to the limestone retaining wall. These comments are summarised in Attachment 5 with responses where appropriate.

 

In accordance with Council Resolutions 5 and 9 as noted above, Tender No 01352 has been accepted by the CEO in accordance with the delegated authority approved by Council at its 10 December 2013 meeting for the works specified in three separable portions:

 

·    Separable Portion 1 – Construction of a Sand Bag Revetment (approximately 250m long) and a Rock Armoured Revetment (approximately 50m long);

·    Separable Portion 2 – Construction of a limestone retaining wall along the western edge of the remaining Fred Stubbs Park; and

·    Separable Portion 3 – Supply, delivery and placement of sand (beach renourishment) to the area seaward of the Quinns Beach car park.

 

 

Based on the accepted Tender from Curnow Group Pty Ltd, the cost of Separable Portion 2 (limestone retaining wall) is in the order of $550,000. Note that this cost is based on the preliminary design details provided in the Tender Document and a minor change is expected now that detailed design is complete. As per the Conditions of Tender, the Contractor is required to recalculate the cost based on the final design and submit this as a variation.

 

Construction works are scheduled to start before the end of February 2014 with completion during May 2014 before the start of the winter storm season. The Separable Portion 2 works (limestone retaining wall) can be completed within eight weeks from the date of instruction to the Contractor to proceed and are currently proposed to take place within this construction timeframe subject to:

 

a)   Council Decisions;

b)   Approval of the City's Development Application by the Western Australian Planning Commission, provided that any conditions of such approval can be accommodated within the Separable Portion 2  scope of works; and

c)   Funding implications.

 

An application seeking development approval for construction of the limestone retaining wall was submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 31 January 2014. This application is currently under assessment by the WAPC.

Consultation

A comprehensive community consultation was undertaken which included a direct mail out to approximately 1500 properties within the wider Quinns Rocks area, on-site signage, a notice on the City’s website and Facebook page, advertisement in the Community Newspaper and a community interactive session.

 

The session focussed on providing answers to the public's queries on the project and prompting the filling out of the questionnaire/comment forms.

Comment

The community response is satisfactory as 396 comment sheets were received by the City through mail and the website. As per the detail provided earlier, there is a strong community support from the questionnaire for the construction of a limestone retaining wall along the western edge of Fred Stubbs Park.

 

Although the community has indicated support for the limestone wall, many of the responses were based on the misconception that the wall would provide coastal protection. This is not correct and Administration has consistently emphasised that:

 

·    The limestone retaining wall is not required to prevent further erosion of the park from wave action. The sand bag revetment has been designed by the City's Coastal Engineering Consultant in order to withstand high water levels and storm wave action. The area above the sand bags will be monitored and maintained as required following major storm events and further loss of the park area is not anticipated even without the presence of the limestone retaining wall.

 

·    The construction of the limestone retaining wall will simply provide a wider park varying from approximately 12m wide at the northern end and 26m wide at the southern end. Without the wall, park widths will be approximately 7m at the northern end and 15m at the southern end. Total grassed areas associated with these two options have been estimated and are in the order of 2,500m2 without the limestone retaining wall and 3,700m2 with the limestone retaining wall.

 

The larger park area provided by the construction of the limestone retaining wall does not necessarily give a greater choice of the facilities which can be provided due to the shape of the park in both scenarios.

 

·    The construction of the limestone retaining wall may limit flexibility in the development of long term coastal protection options along the Quinns Rocks coastline. The construction of any hard structure such as a retaining wall at this location which will need careful consideration in the development of long term options. At this point in time it is not known whether the long term option will require hard coastal structures in the area of Fred Stubbs Park and it may therefore limit or prevent the development of some long term options. Alternatively, the long term options may require the removal of the limestone retaining wall structure which will incur a substantial cost.

 

·    The stability of the limestone retaining wall is dependent on the integrity of the sandbag revetment. If this was removed as part of the long term coastal protection works or if this revetment failed under extreme conditions (such as 1 in 100 years storm events) exceeding the selected design criteria, then the limestone wall would be undermined and may fail. Although suitable for a short to medium term timeframe, the limestone wall may need to be removed or require additional protection by long term coastal protection works in the future.

 

·    Coastal vegetation from the crest of the revetment to the edge of grassed area in Fred Stubbs Park will provide further environmental benefit and aesthetically pleasant site which will be limited if the limestone retaining wall is constructed.

 

In view of the technical implications associated with the construction of the limestone retaining wall with respect to potential long term coastal protection options, consideration needs to be given to the appropriate timing of the limestone retaining wall construction. Rather than construction of the limestone retaining wall now, it will be possible to consider this construction in 12 months time when long term coastal protection options are expected to be available for Council's consideration. This will ensure that the construction of the limestone retaining wall does not interfere with the long term plan for the Quinns Rocks coastline and will prevent the expenditure of funds for a structure that may potentially require removal in the near future.

 

If a decision is made to postpone the limestone retaining wall construction, the contract for Tender No 01352 will not be impacted on in terms of the remaining separable portions of the works. This is clearly detailed in the Tender Document which states:

The construction of Separable Portion 2 works involving the construction of a 5.9m high limestone retaining wall and its associated works is subject to a further decision by the City's Council in March 2014. Therefore the construction of Separable Portion 2 works may/or may not proceed. The tender for these works shall be awarded on the basis of evaluation criteria applicable to all three portions. However, all works associated with the Separable Portion 2 works shall only proceed with the City's written authorisation. In case the Separable Portion 2 works are not approved and do not proceed, the City shall advise the contractor and make payment for works associated with Separable Portions 1 and 3 only.

Although the community has responded in favour of the limestone retaining wall, it is recommended that the wall construction is considered by Council in 12 months when long term coastal protection options are expected to be available.


 

 

Statutory Compliance

Clearing Permit

The proposed coastal protection works involving the construction of a revetment necessitates clearing of native "dune" vegetation. An application seeking a clearing permit for the required area was submitted to the Department of Environment. This clearing permit was granted to clear 1.21 hectares of native vegetation on Lot 7019 on Plan 7318, Lot 15454 on Plan 40340 and Ocean Drive road reserve, Quinns Rocks, and Lot 15449 on Plan 40340, Mindarie for the purpose of coastal protection works (reference CPS 5900/1). It is noted that the area of clearing will be less than the area approved in the clearing permit and will be clearly marked on site by the contractor in consultation with the City's representatives.

 

Aboriginal Heritage Approval

Advice has been received from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) noting that a review of the Department's Heritage Database and the Register of Aboriginal  Sites indicates that there are no known Aboriginal heritage sites or other Aboriginal heritage places in the area where of the proposed limestone retaining wall.

 

The DAA also advised that the area has been subject to past erosion events and believes it is unlikely that the proposed works will result in any detrimental impact occurring to Aboriginal heritage values in the area. Therefore, there are no other DAA requirements that the City is required to fulfil prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Development Application

A Development Application for the construction of the limestone retaining wall was submitted to the WAPC on 31 January 2014. This application is currently under assessment by the WAPC and the outcome is not known at this stage.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

It is noted that Council decisions, made on 10 December 2013 (Item IN05-12/13 refers), allocated $2.813M for the costs associated with the Stage 1 of the coastal protection works involving the placement of sand bags and associated works. The funding implications relating to the construction of limestone retaining wall are subject to a further Council decision as part of the consideration of the results of the community consultation process and the outcome of the of the development application for the limestone retaining wall.

 

In accordance with Council's decision made on 10 December 2013 (Resolution 9 of IN05-12/13), Tender No 01352 has been awarded, including a Separable Portion for the construction of a limestone retaining wall.

 

 

The following table provides financial implications for the overall project:

 

Quinns Beach Coastal Protection works involving the construction of sand bag and rock revetment, limestone retaining wall and sand renourishment (PR-2561)

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Tender No. 01352: Quinns Beach Coastal Protection works involving the construction of sand bag and rock revetment, limestone retaining wall and sand renourishment - total lump sum price $2,494,997.14 split into:

 

 

·    sand bag and rock revetment and sand renourishment

$1,953,792.38

·    limestone retaining wall

$541,204.76

Provision of rock armour – provisional item

$78,400

Contingency based on the total cost of the recommended Tender

$150,000

Project Management

$120,000

 

Consultant's fees for the development of options for long term management of coastal erosion

$150,000

Expenditure + Commitment incurred to 31-Jan-2014

$149,821

 

Total Expenditure:

 

·    based on all works and excluding limestone retaining wall (approved works)

$2,602,013.38

·    based on all works and including limestone retaining wall