Item : Crown Mushrooms

1.       How much longer are the owners of Crown Mushrooms going to hold a 100 acres of subdivision land to ransom.  I hear they have just sold out to Brunnings, a big soil company.  Was it going to happen to us who live next door?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The City is not in receipt of any current proposals for the site but Administration is aware that it is the intention of the owners to cease manufacturing of compost on site.

Item : Caravan Parking

There is no place in Wanneroo where you can camp overnight with family and enjoy our bushland.  The closest areas is approximately 80kms north or 85kms south.  When will Wanneroo unlock some of their national parks?

Response from Director City Businesses

Apart from the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park which is to undergo a redevelopment process, the City has one area of land under care and control which is zoned for camping. The location is Lot 12300, 1240 Wanneroo Road, Ashby. Reserve 834 and can be viewed on the City's website under the link to "Intra Maps".

PS01-05/14 –Adoption of Local Planning Policy 5:3 East Wanneroo

4.       The first step is to have the land zoned to urban and what exactly is Council going to do to speed that process up considering that in this proposal is not allowing small groups or small areas of land to be developed.  As we stand here tonight there is a small piece of land on the corner of Wanneroo Road and Gnangara Road that is currently being developed.   Yet year after year, decade after decade, nothing is happening to the land east of Wanneroo.   What is Council going to do to speed up this process, so we can move on with our lives?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The East Wanneroo Structure Plan proposed that district structure planning be done as a prerequisite to Urban zoning.  District structure planning for this area will involve  a wide range of detailed, technical studies, and is expected to be quite costly and time-consuming.

Through Local Planning Policy 5.3, Council is speeding up the process for Urban rezoning by proposing that only limited, high-level planning reports be prepared to support Urban rezoning, with the district structure planning studies to be undertaken following Urban rezoning.

The onus is now on the landowners, through their consultants, to prepare and submit to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), the applications for Urban rezoning, in the manner set out in LPP 5.3.  It should be noted that while a number of applications for Urban rezoning have been submitted to the WAPC by a number of landowner groups over the last year or so, these applications are not in a form which accords with LPP 5.3.  The applicants will therefore be expected to collaborate and consolidate their proposals into applications which accord with LPP 5.3.

Item : Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre Development

1.       Why were none of our objections or emails responded to, including objections dated 22 January 2013?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The City has provided a number of responses to various communications and enquiries from the residents at 190 Nicholas Road.  Details of any specific correspondence that has not been responded to should be provided to the City so that they can be reviewed and dealt with as appropriate.

2.       Why were plans not available to view online and make submissions and objections?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

In accordance with the City's District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2), applications can be advertised in a number of different ways.

There is no requirement in DPS 2 for plans to be available on the website. The letter to the neighbours stated that the plans would be available at the City's offices.

3.       Why were the residents only given two weeks to view plans, given that they had to come into Council offices between the 8-22 January 2013?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Plans are made available for viewing during normal business hours, however, viewing outside of business hours can be accommodated if requested and other arrangements can be made to provide documents to interested persons.

4.       Given the residents viewed these plans and made life changing and altering decisions to stay in our homes, why are we now being told that the lots planned on Nicholas Road may not be residential?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The Lot is zoned 'commercial' and as per DPS 2, this zoning allows for a number of different land uses, including residential housing.

The Western Australian Planning Commission has granted subdivision approval for individual lots along this road and the applicant has stated that they are intended to be developed for residential housing.

6.       When we met with Administration on 5 May we asked and filled out a statutory declaration for the adjoining landowner's details and were given outdated information so to date no one has provided us with information of the adjacent landowner?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Details of the owners (and/or their representatives) will be provided in separate correspondence.

7.       Given the development of the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre, why was it necessary to build a boundary wall all the way from Gungurru Avenue to Nicholas Road if the lots on Nicholas Road are to be residential?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The masonry wall was proposed and provided as a buffer between the existing residential development and the development site, albeit that some of the future development will be residential.  Masonry walls are not entirely uncommon between residential lots and it is a contemporary building product.

8.       Why was the wall planned and allowed to be built using cheap ugly masonry bricks given the suburbs visual appeal of limestone retaining walls?  Would it not have been better for the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre to blend in rather with the community as opposed to standing out like the visual eyesore it is, given the monstrosity of the development?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The materials used for the wall are contemporary materials used in construction.  It is noted that they are similar to other materials used in the construction of the buildings on site.

11.     Given that we objected to the boundary wall what guarantee can we have now that our lives are not in danger due to approval being given to these walls with these serious security issues on them?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The City cannot provide any guarantee regarding the possible actions of others.

12.     What traffic management considerations are in place for this development considering the congestion that is already occurring on Nicholas Road due to the Hocking Primary School?

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Please refer to the City's letter to you dated 13 May 2014 regarding traffic management.

13.     "Why have the plans been altered so drastically without residents consultations?  Nicholas Road was to have no access to the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre however major changes now have 2 access points to the loading dock and car park on Nicholas Road without consultation."

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Under DPS 2, consultation with adjoining residents is only required if an application is proposing to vary provisions of the DPS 2. An amended development application was approved to include one access point onto Nicholas road. As this access point complied with the provisions of the DPS 2 no advertising was carried out.

14.     "Why were dust suppression methods not adhered to by the site considering how many complaints were made to councils administration?  Why do council administration staff feel they can call rate payers and residents liars for trying to bring issues to Council attention?"

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Administration contacted the builders on site on several occasion requesting that measures be taken to address dust emanating from the site.  Whilst the builder did take steps to ameliorate the issue, the dust issue did continue to some extent.  It is understood that the issue has now been resolved.

15.     "Why were residents not consulted with regards to a footpath that Woolworth required to be developed along the whole boundary of the development including the residential lots on Nicholas Road that were not on original or subsequent plans?  The footpath at present just stops and does not connect with the road along Nicholas Road causing serious OH&S issues."

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The footpath was approved in association with the approval granted for the development of the site.  Administration is reviewing this matter and will be investigating the need for some modifications to the footpath so that it connects to the existing footpath on the south side of Nicholas Road and to ensure that it is completed in a safe manner.

16.     "What measures will be put in place to stop people and vehicles headlights from the car park looking into residents bedrooms and bathrooms?"

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

The masonry wall is expected to screen the adjoining residential properties from vehicle headlights and prevent people overlooking the properties.

17.     "What preventative measures will be put in place to stop shopping trolleys from being littered in the neighbourhood and or thrown onto residents homes from the car park?"

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

This is the responsibility of the shopping centre owner.

18.     "Why are there plans to have residential properties on Nicholas Road with rear street access, making them drive into Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre to access their properties.  This style of home does not suit the community of Hocking and will cause further hazards as the residential properties access will also be the Woolworths loading dock which is not wide enough for a truck and motor vehicle to pass at the same time."

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

Residential properties with rear access is an acceptable form of development.  Further it reduces the streetscape being punctuated with individual driveways and in this case enables the existing street parking embayment's along Nicholas Road to be retained. The width of the laneway is sufficient for vehicle access and as in all cases, drivers of vehicles need to exercise due care to prevent accidents.

PS01-05/14 –Adoption of Local Planning Policy 5:3 East Wanneroo

1.       In regard to the Director Planning and Sustainability's reply to Mr Manners when he advised of the process that landowners have to follow.  These processes have been done initially to my knowledge at least 25 years ago because I remember seeing plans for my block and the Manners' block in the Wanneroo Shopping Centre which actually outlined 107 Belgrade Road which was Lot 29 at that time as a school.  Now to my knowledge I was never as a landowner asked whether or not I wanted that land to be urbanised as at that time none of us did.  We caved in after 25 years of hearing about how this place was going to be made urban and it never happened. 

          All the processes that Director Planning and Sustainability was advising of have actually all been done recently through a syndicate under the name of Brett (sorry do not have his last name) and we know that has already been submitted to Council. 

2.       The question recorded at the 20 May 2014 Council Briefing Session is not correct.  The response does not answer the question asked which was taken on notice.  The first line of the response includes the word 'significant' when I asked how many.  Significant, does that mean 10 or 20 or 50 and would appreciate clarification.  I ask also how many reiterations of local planning policies have been done, I did not ask anything about a State Government process or a comment or a policy, I asked only about local.

          The response to my question to this Council, of which I have been a ratepayer for 35 years, I found insulting.  So I ask once again for an accurate, research and honest response to my question of last week and for the sake of accuracy I can provide it in writing.

          The first point I asked, is how many local planning policies (not State), how many draft plans, how many frameworks, how many applications to other agencies, how many requests for submissions from stakeholders, how many requests for public meetings have been held since 1981?

So a year by year response would have been a responsible reply but a collective number for each of those plans since 1981 would be acceptable.

Response from Director Planning and Sustainability

According to the City's records, the number of policies, plans and consultation exercises relating to the East Wanneroo area can be summarised as follows:

Local Planning Policies: 1

Draft plans (State and local): 8

Frameworks: unclear what this is referring to.

Applications to other agencies: 5 (if this is referring to applications by consultants on behalf of landowners to the Western Australian Planning Commission for amendment of the Metropolitan Region Scheme).

Requests for submissions from stakeholders: 7 (if this is meaning submissions the City has made on the various State government draft plans for this area)

Requests for public meetings: unclear if this is meaning requests which have been made to the City for public meetings to be held, or meaning the number of public meetings which have been held.  If the latter, public meetings have been arranged by either the City, State agencies, or local Members of Parliament.  This makes the number of these meetings difficult to determine.

Item : Crown Reserves

The relinquishment of management orders for Crown Reserves was on the Council Agenda for 1 April 2014 and one of these was a parcel of land on Wanneroo Road which was zoned for camping.  Can you please advise how many more parcels of land like this exist in the City of Wanneroo because if the residents don't know about it we cannot use them for camping therefore they will be given up.

Response from Director City Businesses

Apart from the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park which is to undergo a redevelopment process, the City has one area of land under care and control which is zoned for parks and recreation. The location is Lot 12300, 1240 Wanneroo Road, Ashby. Reserve 834 and can be viewed on the City's website under the link to "Intra Maps".

Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre Development

1.         Correspondence by the City makes reference to ASP42 of the Hocking Neighbourhood Centre.  Can copies be supplied of the site surveys that Council used to approve plans for the commercial centre?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

ASP42 is the Structure Plan for the site and is available on the City's website and covers a broader area.  That is separate to site surveys that may have been lodged when the development application was submitted and subsequently approved by Administration.  Copies of any site survey accompanying that application can be supplied.

2.         What are the Council laws regarding land levels and community consultation as people can see into the adjoining properties bedroom and bathroom windows  when standing in the car park of the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

There is no rule or policy that dictates finished levels of shopping centres or other developments that are non-residential in nature, but which adjoin residential properties.  When an application of this nature is assessed by Administration it is expected that existing and proposed levels and any interface issues resulting from proposed levels with adjacent properties will be taken into account.

3.         What consideration was given then during this approval process to the current situation where the car park overlooks adjoining properties windows?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Admittedly, this is not the best possible outcome that could have been achieved and a greater level of attention should have been paid at the assessment and determination stage to address the fill levels and proposed finished levels of the car park as well as the interface with surrounding residential properties.  Information is currently being sought from staff in relation to the assessment that was conducted to determine what level of detail and attention was given to these issues.

4.         When will residents receive an answer and can this report be viewed?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Once the information has been received it will be discussed with any interested parties, but at present I cannot give an exact timeframe.  There will not be a specific report.  However, if the site levels that were approved are now the same as what has been constructed by the developer on that site, there is no means of recourse by the City as the development would be compliant with what was approved.

5.         Referring to question 16 asked at the last Council meeting which was "What measures will be put in place to stop people's vehicles headlights from the car park looking into residents' bedrooms and bathrooms".  The answer received was "The masonry wall is expected to screen the adjoining residential properties from vehicle headlights and prevent people from overlooking the properties".  Since this has not been done, what measures will be put in place to have this rectified?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Staff are liaising with the developer's architect in terms of potentially adjusting the height of the wall to satisfy adjacent residential landowner's preferences.  In addition, the space between the property boundary and the edge of the car park that has been created is a designated landscaping area and that is still to be landscaped by the developer to the City's satisfaction.

6.         A petition was raised at the last Council meeting.  When will notification of our petition and its progress be received and how long does this process take?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

In the Agenda papers there is an update provided in response to the petition tabled by Cr Guise.  A formal response will be provided to the petition convenor. 

7.         How can residents request this item be included in an Agenda so that a deputation can be sought prior to the Council meeting given that a deputation was denied for this meeting?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Invariably Council would have allowed a deputation, however due to all time slots being full due to having received four deputations for items on the Agenda, you were not afforded that opportunity.  It is recommended that if you have further questions that you put them in writing to the Director and if necessary, a meeting can be arranged with the Director of Planning and Sustainability and his staff to discuss the issues further.

8.         Given that answers to the public questions asked at the last Council meeting were only received yesterday, leaving little time for preparation and research, can the responses to these questions be given in a timely manner?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Noted and the Director will take that on board.

Caravan parks and camping grounds

As one of the fastest growing suburban areas with a population in excess of 172,000 residents, the City is under pressure to ensure it achieves the aspirations of the community for a healthy substantial, natural built environment.  Can the City provide more caravan and camping grounds in areas that meet the requirements of residents?

Response by Mayor Roberts

The City is currently undertaking renovation work at the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park.  Camping is a pastime enjoyed by many residents and the City will endeavour to designate facilities in the right areas whilst keeping in mind the impact on the environment.

Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre Development

1.         What consideration did Council give to objections by all residents in January 2013 to the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre and why did residents not get responses to these?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Question taken on notice.

Further Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

All submissions were taken into consideration as part of the assessment of the application.  A separate response will be provided to you detailing how the submissions were dealt with.

2.         When was approval specifically given to raise the natural land level by over 1.8m and what studies did Council undertake to look at the impact on existing residents and land levels?

Response by Mayor Roberts

The Director Planning and Sustainability has answered that question when responding to
Ms Beatty.

3.         Can copies of the planning approvals for Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre in 2012, 2013 and 2014 be supplied?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Yes.

4.         Why has the wall and step not been rectified given the safety concerns raised by residents six weeks ago?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Staff are still liaising with the developer for that work to be undertaken.

Foreshore work, Quinns Rocks

1.         The first groyne has had rockwork placed on the inside of it, why is this being done?

Response by Director Infrastructure

As part of the coastal protection works, there is a requirement between the groyne and sandbags to do the rock revetment and replace what was originally put in.  Also as part of the process, maintenance work is being done to groyne no. 1 and this is nearing completion.  Following this, the sand bagging and retaining wall part of the project will continue.

2.         So the first groyne will stay in its natural configuration, it is not being altered?

Response by Director Infrastructure

Groyne no. 1 will stay in its current configuration with the maintenance work being completed at the moment.  A long term solution has not yet been decided.

3.         Has the City progressed any further with steps and access over the rocks?

Response by Director Infrastructure

There has been no progress to date on that matter.

The detailed design of the sand bag and rock revetment undertaken in December 2013 highlighted the need to raise the height of the revetment at its interface with the groyne. It was indicated that this will result in the loss of the beach access to the south of the southern groyne unless there is significant accretion of sand there. However, the raising of the interface height was considered to be a requirement to provide protection to the car park access which could otherwise be under threat from wave action.

The focus for the City since September 2013 storms has been to provide coastal protection and the provision of beach access south of groyne 1 has not been a priority project. It will be appropriate for such access to be considered as part of the development of the long term coastal protection options for Quinns Beach.

4.         Has any budget consideration been made for the car park and maintenance following damage by the heavy machinery?

Response by Director Infrastructure

Maintenance work will be carried out to the car park as required, either through the operating budget or through funds allocated to the project.

1.         Why did Council approve an 840sqm liquor barn on Lot 19, Clarkson Avenue, Tapping which is approximately 100m from a school and what would be the traffic impact on Covus Road and Hirindi Bend?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

A liquor store is permitted 'as of right' on that particular property and cannot be refused by the City on the basis of it being undesirable.  A liquor store of that size was previously approved by Council and the Liquor Licensing Department has subsequently issued a licence for it.  At the time the development was assessed and determined by Council, consideration was given to a range of factors, including submissions received and traffic impacts. 

2.         Can a copy of the traffic impact study be provided?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

It would depend on what was submitted at the time of the application, but a summary would have been provided in the report to Council last year. 

Further Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

An extract from the Council report of 29 May 2012 is included below which provides background regarding the consideration of traffic at the time the initial application for development on the site was being processed.

"Traffic Impacts

Many of the submitters had concerns that the proposal would result in an increase in traffic travelling through the area, which would compound existing traffic congestion experienced by residents and compromise the safety of children who attend the nearby St Stephens School.

Administration requested that a Transport Assessment Report be provided as part of the application, in order to determine and justify any potential traffic implications for the surrounding road network. The report found that the proposal would generate 1,048 vehicle movements per peak hour during a typical weekday PM peak period, whilst preserving acceptable levels of service and queuing times into and out of the development as well as local roads that intersect with Clarkson Avenue. The aforementioned amendments to the initial design of the proposal included the deletion of the western-most crossover and the extension of the existing Clarkson Avenue median strip, which has been recommended as a condition of approval.  These changes are considered to have resulted in an improved outcome with regard to traffic movements immediately surrounding and within the subject site.

Administration notes that as the proposal would provide conveniences that do not currently exist elsewhere within the immediate locality, it is likely that a significant amount of the traffic generated by the proposal would already travel through the local road network to reach such conveniences elsewhere. While the proposal would result in an increase in the amount of traffic within the immediate vicinity, this was already anticipated and considered by Council as part of the rezoning of the land from Residential to Commercial through Amendment No. 12 to ASP 3. "

Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre Development

1.         The City approved a 2m high masonry wall, however the highest point of the wall on the residential side is 3.04m?  The reason it is built this high is due to the land levels being raised so how can this mistake have been made?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

If the wall has been built on the development site, then it would likely be 2m high from the finished level on the development site.  If the approved plans require the wall to be 2m on top of the finished level of the development site, then it will be taller on the residential properties side.  This is one of the issues that I will consider.

2.         Is any consideration given to existing infrastructure such as residents when a commercial development such as this is being built and its impact?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Yes.  Whether those residences existed at the time that the application was assessed and approved or not is immaterial.  Adjacent properties were zoned residential and consideration would and should have been given by Administration to the interface issues between the commercial development and adjacent residential development.

Mushroom Farm, Wanneroo

The mushroom farm has been up for sale but this has again fallen through.  What is to be done with this eyesore?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

The City cannot influence the sale of private property.

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Hewer

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 May 2014 be confirmed.

Amendment

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Winton

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 May 2014 be confirmed with an amendment to the Contents page and Page 16 to correct the spelling of Mrs Sangalli's name.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre

1.       It is understood that Administration is in liaison with the owners of property and there is verbal advice from the architect about the wall height.  Is there anything in writing from the owners and if not can this be obtained from the owners addressing the wall height to protect the neighbours' privacy?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

This will be investigated and if not written advice obtained.

Further Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

The Architect acting for the developer has verbally notified Administration that plans of the proposed modifications to the wall are expected to be submitted to the City for review within the next two weeks. Administration will formalise this undertaking in writing with the Architect.

2.       There is advice the owner has no intention of trying to do anything on the neighbours' side of the wall.  Advice to the neighbours is they have the right to render or paint the brick wall however they still need to approach the landowner Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre.  Is this correct and what is the reason?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

The only reason why residential landowners might want to confer with the shopping centre landowner is if the wall itself is contained wholly within the property boundary of the shopping centre site; then technically speaking any improvements, embellishments or changes to the surface of the wall facing the residential properties will actually be on the adjacent commercial zoned property.  When formalising the wall height in writing with the Architect, Administration will also seek a written position from the proponent in relation to either it, or the residents finishing the wall on the residential side, to improve its aesthetics.

Crown Mushrooms

3.       Do the non-confirming rights still stand as a zoning rule over this property, it was certainly given non-conforming rights earlier on? 

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

As previously stated at the last meeting non-conforming use rights most likely don’t apply because the mushroom farm is a legitimate rural use in the rural zone, so there would be no need for non-conforming use rights to apply.  This information was provided as a 'Further Response' in the Minutes of the last Council meeting.

How was the advertising carried out, especially to the residents in the area?  Was it addressed to the householders and possibly considered as junk mail?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

The liquor store formed part of the broader development on site that was approved by Council in August last year.

Further Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

The application for the initial development was advertised in accordance with District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). A letter was sent out on 5 August 2011 to 162 residents in the vicinity of the property.

The application for the Liquor store was dealt with at the 20 August 2013 Council meeting and was not advertised because a Liquor Store is a Permitted ("P") use under DPS 2 in a Commercial zone and cannot be refused by reason of the unsuitability of the use.

When is the expected timeframe for handover of this land to be vested with the City and has there been any communication between the City and the developer regarding the development of this public open space?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

The subject land is already Crown Land, although it is presently unvested, because the City is not yet prepared to seek a management order for the vesting of that property until such time as it has been developed with works approved by the City – being the actual construction of the open space.

In March last year, Administration approved the landscape drawings for development of that particular property and is now liaising with the developer to determine the timeframe for delivery.  It is worth noting that when the Western Australian Planning Commission granted subdivision approval for the property that resulted in the creation of that future open space site, there was no corresponding condition imposed by the Commission requiring the open space to be developed; it merely required the land to be given up for free and ceded with the Crown.  As consequence there is not likely to be any opportunity to withhold clearance of subdivision titles pending development of that site. 

At this particular stage, we can only liaise with the developer and not seek a management order for the City to inherit responsibility of that site until it has been properly developed to our satisfaction.

An article titled "Travel Bill for Councils Over $400k" appeared on page 13 in The West Australian newspaper edition of 16 June 2014.  Information in regard to the City of Wanneroo does not seem to give a clear indication of what the City has spent.  It states travel amounted to $3,877 for
2012-2013 and $3,580 for the current year.  The article does indicate these amounts are for flights only however ratepayers could interpret this as the entire expense whereas there are other costs such as conference fees, accommodation etc.  The City could be labelled as withholding full information; would it not be prudent to declare all expenses? 

Response by Mayor Roberts

Certainly the City of Wanneroo is one of the most frugal councils in the metropolitan area. 

Response by Manager Communication and Events

The West Australian newspaper asked a number of questions of just about every local government in the metropolitan area.  The City supplied answers to all of the questions possible in the timeframe given and do not control what elements of that information are shared with their readers.  The report was fair and the only item the City queried with The West Australian was they referred to the use of business class over certain hours which the City does not do and was not in our answers.  The newspaper selects which of the elements of the response to a wide range of questions it will finally use in the article.  If required Elected Members can be provided with a copy of Administration's full response.

1.         The State Government is currently undertaking a strategic assessment of the Perth and Peel regions.  This strategic assessment will not just consider the environmental impacts of future urban development but very importantly also the industrial land, transport, infrastructure corridors, future basic raw materials extraction required to support future development.  As part of that review, a review of the basic raw materials State Planning Policy 2.4 is being undertaken.  There is a stakeholder reference group including industry, environmental groups, WALGA and local government representatives.  Did the City receive correspondence regarding the establishment of this stakeholder reference group?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

There is no recall of seeing any such correspondence.

2.         Did the City seek to be represented on this reference group?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

As Administration wasn't aware of the imminent formation of that reference group it was not possible to seek representation on it.  Notwithstanding this, the City has continued to make representations to the State government over many years to get further clarification in relation to the status of its review of the Basic Raw Materials Policy. 

3.         More concerned with the latest stakeholder reference group and not past lobbying.  In terms of the overall land holdings impacted by the review would Administration consider that 40 square kilometres would qualify us as a major stakeholder in such a review?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

Yes.

4.         Do we know who the local government representatives are and has the City made any efforts to represent its views, concerns, aspirations for State Planning Policy 2.4 to these local government representatives?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

No, however, this will be reviewed and further details sought in relation to the reference group and its representatives.

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 36 signatories requesting the provision of additional car parking facilities at Warradale Park, Landsdale to accommodate the demand of the local community who use this public open space.

This petition be forwarded to the Community Development directorate for action.

Cr Winton presented a petition of 119 signatories requesting the removal, reduction or modification of the traffic calming measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson so as to be less intrusive in regards to noise and hoon traffic.

This petition be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Smithson presented a petition of 28 signatories requesting the installation of "No Parking" signs in Leeuwin Lane which provides rear garage access to residents of Sanctuary Garden, Roosky Appointment, Keswick Road and Kilkee Street in Ridgewood.

This petition be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Hewer presented a petition of 53 signatories requesting that traffic lights be installed at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar.

UPDATE

A report will be presented to the  next Council Meeting 22 July 2014.

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 45 signatories requesting Hardcastle Park, Lot 3000 Hardcastle Avenue, Landsdale, be included on the City's Passive Park 10 Year Capital Works Program.

UPDATE

Currently listed for assessment as part of the 2015/16 Passive Parks 10 Year Capital Works Program process and will be prioritised in accordance with outcome of assessment.

Cr Guise presented a petition with 15 signatures from the residents of Hocking against the design, visual appearance and security of the western boundary wall that has been erected for the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre in Hocking and offers two solutions.

UPDATE

The City approved development application DA2012/1371 for the Hocking Neighbourhood Centre (Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre) located at Lot 20 (100) Gungurru Avenue, Hocking on 9 April 2013. DA2012/1371 was an amendment to the original approval for the Shopping Centre (DA2010/1299) approved on 21 February 2011.

The amendment (DA2012/1371) included the relocation of the underground/basement car parking area to the western half of the lot (adjacent to existing residential properties).

Administration advertised the amended proposal on 8 January 2013 to the six (6) adjoining landowners to the west of the subject site. All six (6) adjoining landowners objected to the proposal and cited issues including security, safety, noise and anti-social behaviour. In order to address the concerns raised by the submitters, Administration required the applicant to amend the plans to include a screen wall in accordance with Clause 4.19 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). The development application was subsequently approved by the City and included conditions of approval which required the applicant to construct a 2.0m high masonry wall on the western boundary, a 3.0m landscaping buffer between the car park and the shared boundary, non-mountable kerbing and wheel stops for bays facing the western boundary (residential properties). The boundary wall as approved by Administration is not terraced and is to be 2.0m in height. As a result, scaling the wall is no less easier than that of a standard boundary fence.

The materials used are contemporary materials used in construction and it is noted that they are similar to those used in the construction of the shopping centre itself.

As the development application (DA2012/1371) for the shopping centre, and the boundary wall, have already been approved by the City, there is no ability for Council to revoke the approval or require the landowner/applicant to redesign the wall or change the materials and colours used. However, the applicant has informed Administration that they will discuss the details of the boundary wall further with the adjoining landowners and subsequently submit an application for approval by the City to address the height of the wall and modifications to deal with the security concerns raised by residents of adjoining properties.

Cr Cvitan presented a petition with 256 signatories all residing in the Lakelands Leisure Village area requesting extra lighting and reduction of speed limit on Sydney Road leading to and from the approach to Lakelands Leisure Village and Lakelands Drive due to the vast increase in traffic that is now using Sydney Road both during the day and at night making entering and exiting more dangerous.

UPDATE

A report will be presented to the  next Council Meeting 22 July 2014.

On 1 October 2011, Cr Monks presented a petition of 64 signatures requesting that Council support the retention of this rural sector as a Rural Living Precinct which will enhance work and lifestyle options and maintain the current environmental balance and values within the area, and that Administration meet with the residents in this location to further investigate and progress the rezoning of the area to a Rural Living Precinct.

UPDATE

Action on this petition has been held pending the finalisation of the Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3). LPP 5.3 was adopted by Council at its meeting of 27 May 2014. 

This has enabled Administration to provide detailed advice to the petitioners regarding how they can best progress consideration of their proposal in the context of the planning process for East Wanneroo set out in LPP 5.3.

For the area concerned, the first step in this process involves undertaking a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) amendment for the total area shown as 'potential urban' on the East Wanneroo Structure Plan, situated north of Dundebar Road.  The processing of this MRS amendment will provide opportunity for the petitioners to have their proposal and views formally considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the Minister for Planning, and most likely Parliament as well.

The petitioners have also been advised that they will have a similar opportunity to have their proposal considered as part of the preparation of the North West Sub-region Structure Plan, the draft of which is expected to be released for comment around the end of this year.

File Ref:                                              11221 – 14/92655

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council, PURSUANT to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industries, as contained in Attachment 1 for the purpose of advertising, and ADVERTISES it for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of:

·     Advertisement in all local newspapers circulating within the City of Wanneroo for two consecutive editions;

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

·     Written notification to relevant landowners, stakeholders and government agencies, as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Winton, Seconded Cr Treby

That the item be referred back to a Council Forum for further consideration and analysis to be given on State Planning Policy 2.4 and its impact on the Draft Local Planning Policy 2.7.

carried

9/6

For the motion:           Cr Guise, Cr Hayden, Cr Newton, Cr Nguyen, Mayor  Roberts,
Cr Treby, Cr Truong, Cr Winton and Cr Zappa

Against the motion:   Cr Aitken, Cr Cvitan, Cr Driver, Cr Hewer, Cr Parker, Cr Smithson

File Ref:                                              9364 – 14/137086

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Nguyen

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 ADOPTS Amendment No. 133 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, as advertised for public     comment and set out in Attachments 1 and 2, without modification;

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 22(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the Amendment documentation;

3.       FORWARDS the Amendment No. 133 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning grant final approval to the Amendment;  and

4.       NOTES the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 133 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, and ENDORSES the responses to those submissions prepared by Administration included in Attachment 3 of this report to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission, and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              DA2014/326 – 14/145363

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Smithson, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the application submitted by Urbis Pty Ltd in accordance with the provisions of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 seeking approval for a Change of Use to Liquor Store at Tenancy 11, Lot 1061 (No. 2) Captiva Approach, Butler, as depicted in Attachment 2 of this report, subject to compliance with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation:

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Liquor Store. It does not relate to any other development on the lot;

b)      The use of the approved premises shall conform to the District Planning Scheme No. 2 definition of a "Liquor Store" which states:

          "means any land or buildings the subject of a liquor store licence granted under the provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act 1998."

2.       ADVISE the submitters of their decision.

carried

13/2

For the motion:           Cr Cvitan, Cr Driver, Cr Guise, Cr Hayden, Cr Hewer, Cr Newton,
Cr Nguyen, Cr Parker, Mayor  Roberts, Cr Smithson, Cr Treby,
Cr Truong and Cr Zappa

Against the motion:   Cr Aitken, Cr Winton

File Ref:                                              1904 – 14/148090

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Parker

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Administration comments on the draft State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning for Bushfire Risk Management and the draft Planning for Bushfire Risk Management Guidelines included in Attachments 7 and 8 as the basis for its submission to the Department of Planning.

2.       PROVIDES the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Emergency Services with a copy of the City's submission referred to in 1. above and ADVISES those Ministers that:

a)      Council is concerned at the amount of time which has elapsed since the preparation of the Keelty Report in February 2011 and the release of these draft proposals which are intended to implement a number of the Keelty Report recommendations, and seeks the Government's reassurance that it maintains the sense of urgency on this matter which was apparent at the time of preparation and release of the Keelty Report; and

b)      Council notes that these proposals are specifically targeted at new development and land uses, and are not intended for retrospective application to existing development, and is concerned that adequate action may not be intended to address the matters of existing development, especially houses, which are in areas of Extreme hazard level, and fall well short of the requirements of the Guidelines and AS3959 which should ideally be met.  Council seeks the Government's position on this matter.

Carried UNANIMOUSLY

File Ref:                                              3081V02 – 14/112850

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT REMOVE the Ficus microcarpa var. Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley;

2.       ENDORSES the regular inspections of the trees and the management strategy to undertake annual crown reduction, formative pruning and infrastructure repairs as required; and

3.       ADVISES the petitioners of Council's decision.

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Zappa

That Council:

1.         ADOPTS option 3 and authorises the removal of the Ficus microcarpa var. Hillii trees; opposite 1-15 Russell Road in Madeley;

2.         AUTHORISES the planting of replacement trees in the location in consultation with the adjacent property owners with a variety of species consistent with the City's Verge Tree policy and in keeping with the size and scale of residential development in the area; and

3.         ADVISES the petitioners of Council's decision.

carried

14/1

For the motion:           Cr Aitken, Cr Cvitan, Cr Driver, Cr Guise, Cr Hayden, Cr Hewer,
Cr Newton, Cr Nguyen, Cr Parker, Mayor  Roberts, Cr Smithson,
Cr Treby, Cr Truong and Cr Zappa

Against the motion:   Cr Winton

Reason for Alternative Recommendation

The size and scale of the trees in question are not in keeping with the current residential development coding for the area. Moreover, as the City is the custodian of the trees, it assumes full financial responsibility and risk for these trees over their life time.

File Ref:                                              15223 – 14/172656

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council ACCEPTS the alternative tender submitted by Office Cleaning Experts Pty Ltd trading as OCE Corporate for Tender No. 01419 for the Provision of Cleaning Services for a Period of Three Years commencing on 1 July 2014 and expiring on 30 June 2017 for a lump sum price of $3,784,668 as per the schedule of rates in the tender submission, plus one year extension to 30 June 2018 to be granted by the Chief Executive Officer, subject to satisfactory performance and price adjustment based on Perth Consumer Price Index for the period from 1 January 2016 to
31 December 2016.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8053 – 14/76964

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Moved Cr Winton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT APPROVE the installation of the blister islands on Quinns Road as shown in City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2883-5-1(Attachment 2);

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the implementation of the other traffic management treatments outlined in this report due to their high costs of construction and the  City's Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy not indicating the need for traffic treatments;

3.       APPROVES the installation of median islands at the Quinns Road/Burt Street intersection as shown in City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2883-5-1 (Attachment 2); and

4.       ADVISES survey respondents and the residents of Quinns Road of Council's decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2129 – 14/106501

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Nguyen

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the modifications to the Southmead Drive/Brookway Retreat intersection to incorporate a children's crossing on Southmead Drive, Landsdale as per Attachment 4;

2.       LISTS an amount of $50,000 in the draft 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget for the implementation of the works outlined in Item 1; and

3.       ADVISES Landsdale Primary School and affected residents of Council's decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8706 – 14/118334

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the completion of the cast in situ concrete footpath on the northern side of Mandal Close between Rothesay Heights Bayport Circuit and Picton Court, Mindarie (Section 1);

2.       APPROVES the extension of the Mandal Close pathway from Picton Court to Rothesay Heights, Mindarie, as per funding adjustment approved as part of the 2013/2014 Midyear Budget Review (Section 2);

3.       SUPPORTS the future construction of the remaining section of the pathway link in Ramsgate Retreat to complete the link from the Mindarie Marina to the Mindarie Keys and Ocean Keys Shopping Centres (Section 3); and

4.       ADVISES all residents consulted of Council's decision.

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Winton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.         DOES NOT PROCEED with the proposed pathway link from Mindarie Marina to the Mindarie Keys and Ocean Keys Shopping Centres via Ramsgate Retreat and Mandal Close;

2.         APPROVES the removal of the pathway section constructed in Mandal Close and reinstates the nature strip, with the cost of the works funded from Project No.
PR-2577 – New Pathway, Mandal Close, Mindarie; and

3.         ADVISES all residents consulted of Council's decision.

carried

14/1

For the motion:           Cr Aitken, Cr Cvitan, Cr Driver, Cr Guise, Cr Hayden, Cr Hewer,
Cr Newton, Cr Nguyen, Mayor  Roberts, Cr Smithson, Cr Treby,
Cr Truong, Cr Winton and Cr Zappa

Against the motion:   Cr Parker

Reason for Alternative Recommendation

The community consultation indicates that there is a majority of opposition to this proposal, with 60% of the respondents not supporting the construction of a concrete pathway on the north sides of Mandal Close and Ramsgate Retreat. 

The safety concerns to justify this pathway are not clear, defined or specific to this pathway and could equally be applied to every road nature strip in the City.  I believe the City's priority, given limited resources, should be to provide pathways on through roads (and not cul-de-sacs) and  linkages for students and more vulnerable residents.

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 14/116610

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Newton

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of further traffic treatments on Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks;

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of a 'STOP' sign at the intersection of Gumblossom Way and Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks; and

3.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8053 – 14/130562

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Newton

That Council:-

1.       WITHDRAWS SUPPORT for the installation of rubberised speed cushions in Drovers Place due to the strong opposition to this proposal from adjoining property owners and residents and does not proceed with these works; and

2.       ADVISES the residents of Drovers Place, Wanneroo and the petition organiser of Council's decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              7242 – 14/137290

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Newton

That Council:-

1.       SUPPORTS the ongoing practice of giving priority to installing bus shelters at sites that meet the Public Transport Authority's Bus Shelter Grant Scheme;

2.       ENDORSES the proposed bus shelter installation program as shown on Attachment 2 as the basis for community consultation; and

3.       NOTES that a report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation, should the Director Infrastructure consider that the proposed 2014/15 Bus Shelter Installation Program require significant amendments to reflect the feedback from the community.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1859 – 14/158833

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of May 2014, as summarised below:-