B&WLogo_circle&text

 

 

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR ELECTED MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo

on 15 July, 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 15 July, 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                         Draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industries  1

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  25

3.2                         Adoption of Amendment No. 13 to the Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (East Wanneroo Cell 2) 25

3.3                         Adoption of Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (Additional Use of 'Warehouse' at Lot 435 Gibbs Road) 40

Other Matters  54

3.4                         North Alkimos Dog Beach  54

City Businesses  59

Regulatory Services  59

3.5                         Dog Exercise Areas and Places where Dogs are Prohibited  59

3.6                         Application to Construct a Limestone Boundary Wall at Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar  64

3.7                         Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  68

Property  74

3.8                         Proposed Sublease - WA Sporting Car Club Inc to Telstra Corporation Limited - Barbagallo Raceway  74

3.9                         Proposed Deed of Variation of Licence to Minister for Education over a Portion of Reserve 32938, Oldham Park, Yanchep  78

3.10                      Proposed Dedication of Right of Way as a Public Road - 48L Parri Road, Wangara (Lot 123 on Diagram 98586) 85

Infrastructure  91

Infrastructure Projects  91

3.11                      Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project - One Way Traffic Flow System in Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive  91

Tenders  99

3.12                      Tender No 01418 - Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment Stage 6B Baseball (Building, Civil and Electrical Works) 99

3.13                      Tender No. 01420 - Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads for a Period of Three Years  106

Traffic Management  113

3.14                      Clarkson Train Station Precinct - Residential Parking Permits  113

3.15                      PT04-05/14 - Request Additional Street Lighting and Speed Limit Reduction on Sydney Road  121

3.16                      City of Wanneroo RoadWise Strategic Action Plan 2014/2015  128

Community Development  157

Capacity Building  157

3.17                      Welcome to Country Protocols Policy  157

3.18                      Early Childhood Policy and Strategy  174

Program Services  196

3.19                      PT02-05/14 - Request to include Hardcastle Park on Passive Parks 10 Year Capital Works Program   196

Corporate Strategy & Performance  200

Finance  200

3.20                      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 June 2014  200

Governance  284

3.21                      Donations to be Considered by Council - July 2014  284

3.22                      Appointment of Complaints Officer to Support the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007  288

Chief Executive Office  292

Office of the CEO Reports  292

3.23                      Advocacy Plan  292

3.24                      Establishment of Community Reference Group - Operating Model Review   384

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 390

Item  5_____ Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover) 390

5.1                         Insurance Services 2014/15  390

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 390

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 390

7.1                         City of Wanneroo Fleet Services Enterprise Agreement 2014  390

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 390

Item  9_____ Closure_ 390


Agenda

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Cr Hewer – Leave of absence 5 July to 2 August 2014 inclusive.

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    Draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industries

File Ref:                                              11221 – 14/92655

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   PS01-06/14 - Ordinary Council - 24 June 2014      

 

Issue

To consider Draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industries (LPP 2.7), and its suitability for public consultation, in accordance with Clause 8.11 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

Background

Council considered this report at its meeting on 24 June 2014 (Item PS01-06/14) and resolved to refer the matter back to Council Forum for further consideration. In accordance with that decision, the draft policy was discussed at the Council Forum on 1 July 2014, at which the following queries were raised:

 

·        What is the status and impact on draft LPP 2.7 of the review of State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials (SPP 2.4)?

·        Is the City represented on the Stakeholder Reference Group for the State Government's Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Perth and Peel Regions?

 

In terms of the first question above, the Department of Planning has not disclosed the precise timing for release of a revised SPP 2.4, although Administration understands that will be closely coordinated with the release of the Draft Strategic Assessment, which is being led by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It is possible these two documents will be released for public comment this calendar year, although Administration cannot guarantee that will be the case. Administration considers it inappropriate to not advance LPP 2.7 pending the eventual release of a revised SPP 2.4, when there is no indication when that will occur or what form the revised SPP will take. In any event, such revision to the SPP will likely take at least 12 months to conclude, which is time that the City can ill afford to be without its own policy guidance on the matter.

The facts of the matter are that, firstly, Council is only obliged to 'have due regard' to the provisions of SPP 2.4 when considering and making recommendations or determinations on applications for extractive industries – Council is not bound to adhere to the provisions of the SPP. Secondly, extractive industries require two planning approvals (one from the Western Australian Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and one from the local government under its operative Planning Scheme) and the City therefore has complete discretion to make whatever decision it thinks fit in respect of an extractive industry proposal, regardless of the WAPC's position or decision on the same proposal. LPP 2.7 is vital to provide guidance to the City on the exercise of discretion when determining extractive industry proposals. Thirdly, SPP 2.4 relates primarily to areas defined by the State Government as 'priority resource areas', whereas draft LPP 2.7 would apply to all zones in the City of Wanneroo where an extractive industry can be approved under DPS 2, regardless of whether or not the land is defined as a priority resource area under the SPP.

 

In terms of the second question raised at the Council Forum, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) has advised that no formal invitation was sent to local governments inviting them to become a member of the Strategic Assessment Stakeholder Reference Group. However, WALGA advised that at a meeting of the Outer Metropolitan Growth Councils Policy Forum, it was generally agreed that those Council's should be represented by the City's of Armadale and Swan. WALGA has advised that other members of the Reference Group include representatives from the Shire of Murray and the South West Group (comprising the local governments of Cockburn, Fremantle, Kwinana, Melville, Rockingham and East Fremantle). Administration has requested that the City of Wanneroo be included on this Reference Group as a key stakeholder, in terms of urban growth, future industrial development and the extent of priority resource areas within the City. This request has been forwarded to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet for its consideration.

 

In Administration's view, the status of the State Government's Strategic Environmental Assessment for Perth and Peel and the existence of the associated Stakeholder Reference Group, have no bearing on draft LPP 2.7. This is primarily because (based on all available information and advice) the Strategic Environmental Assessment will identify existing vegetation complexes and environmental attributes to be protected, in order to define the permitted extent of development for (among other things) extraction of basic raw materials.

 

Administration understands the Strategic Assessment aims to achieve something of a 'pre-approval' for the clearing of vegetation across the Perth and Peel region. Development that falls outside the 'pre-approved' areas would then need to undergo separate environmental assessment and approval, as is currently the case. Hence, the Strategic Assessment will affect the vegetation clearing approval requirements for different forms of development (including extractive industries) but will not likely affect any other aspect of such development. To illustrate this point, for example, the Strategic Assessment will not affect the land use permissibility of extractive industries under the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

With the exception of the preceding paragraphs, all other text in this report is identical to that presented to Council on 24 June 2014, including Administration's recommendations and the draft policy itself.

 

The City currently has no policy guidance on how it deals with 'Industry – Extractive' (hereafter referred to as 'Extractive Industry') applications under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). Administration anticipates that once adopted, a local planning policy for Extractive Industries would guide the City's assessment and determination of Extractive Industry applications for planning approval on land zoned or reserved under DPS 2.

 

A draft LPP 2.7 was presented to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) at its meeting held on 24 September 2013. At that meeting, the EAC members:

 

·        Raised questions relating to the collection of bonds as well as the location of extractive industries approved by the City under DPS 2 (Administration responded to these questions for the EAC in its Agenda for its 6 May 2014 meeting); then

 

·        Resolved to move the following:

 

That the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) NOTES the draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industry, included as Attachment 1 and REQUESTS that the Policy be referred back to the EAC for further consideration following discussion of the policy at a Council Forum.

 

As per the above resolution, the City's Administration presented the draft LPP 2.7 to a Council Forum meeting for discussion on 26 November 2013.

 

Following Council Forum, Council at its Special Meeting of 17 December 2013 resolved to approve an application for 'Industry – Extractive' at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup. Following Council's determination of this application, Administration reconsidered the content of the initial draft LPP 2.7; and prepared a revised draft LPP 2.7.

 

The revised draft LPP 2.7 was presented to the EAC at its meeting held on 6 May 2014. At this meeting, the EAC resolved the following:

 

"That the Environmental Advisory Committee SUPPORTS the draft Local Planning Policy 2.7: Extractive Industry included as Attachment 3, subject to the following changes being made and RECOMMENDS that Council adopts the draft Policy for the purpose of advertising:

 

1.       Reword Part 2, Clause 2.1 (c) to state the following:

 

          "display of the development application and all accompanying documentation on the City's website; and"

 

2.       Amend Part 2, Clause 2.1 (d) by replacing the words "outer extent of the disturbance area" to "perimeter of the subject lot".

 

3.       Amend the heading of Part 2, Clause 6.2; by replacing the words "Crushing and Blending" to "Crushing, Blending and Manufacturing".

 

4.       Add an additional sentence to Part 2, Clause 6.2 to state the following:

 

          "These Crushing, blending and manufacturing activities may only be supported where it is considered by the City to be incidental to an approved Extractive Industry."

 

5.       Include an additional Clause (7) to Part 2  that states the following:

 

          "7.   Bonding

 

Council reserves the right to require payment of a bond(s) through the inclusion of a condition of approval on a case-by-case basis, to secure compliance with any requirements of Council's Approval."

 

6.       Include an additional provision (n) to Schedule 2, Clause 5 that states the following:

 

          "A management plan addressing how the Extractive Industry will be managed to reduce its impact on nearby land parcels with significant environmental attributes."

 

7.       Amend the wording of Schedule 2, Clause 7 (b) to state the following:

 

          "Restoration and reinstatement of the site both progressively and upon completion of excavation operations."

 

8.       Insert a new Clause 8 of Schedule 2 that states the following:

 

          "A list of all chemicals and substances to be brought on-site, to be used for the purpose of crushing, blending and/or manufacturing. These chemicals and substances may be permitted on-site provided they are used for approved activities that are incidental to the Extractive Industry use."  

 

          And re-number the existing Clause 8 to Clause 9 accordingly."

 

All the modifications referred to in the above EAC Resolution are supported by Administration and have been incorporated into a draft LPP 2.7 included as Attachment 1, which is now submitted for Council's consideration.

Detail

Once final adoption is granted by Council, LPP 2.7 will guide consistent assessment and determination of Extractive Industry applications for planning approval. LPP 2.7 will ensure that the City grants Planning Approval for Extractive Industries that are appropriately sized, scaled, located and managed, to minimise possible detrimental impacts on the surrounding land uses, amenity and the environment.

 

The draft Policy is made up of two parts:

 

Part 1 – Policy Operation, details the operational requirements, including the Policy’s application, objectives and definitions.

 

Part 2 – General Policy Provisions, outlines the required standards and assessment criteria used to determine an Extractive Industry. The provisions are divided into the following sections:

·        Application requirements;

·        Advertising of applications;

·        Conditions;

·        Extraction of basic raw materials for subdivision works;

·        Sequential land use;

·        Incidental activities; and

·        Bonding.

 

Draft LPP 2.7 has been formatted to be consistent with other Local Planning Policies adopted by Council in recent years.

Consultation

In accordance with Clause 8.11.3.1 of DPS 2, it is necessary to advertise a draft policy for public comment for a period of not less than 21 days. Administration proposes to advertise the Draft LPP 2.7 for a period of 42 days by way of the following:

 

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

 

·        Display at appropriate City venues and on the City’s website ; and

 

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

 

After advertising, the policy would be referred back to the EAC to consider any submissions received before being presented to Council for final adoption.

Comment

There is approximately 3,958 hectares (or almost 40 square kilometres) of limestone and sand resource identified as 'Priority Resource' in the City of Wanneroo under State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials (SPP 2.4). A significant portion of this 'Priority Resource' area is situated within the General Rural and Rural Resource zones, which have a combined area of approximately 6,570 hectares (or almost 66 square kilometres).

 

Schedule 1 of draft LPP 2.7 identifies the location of the 'Priority Resource' areas referred to in SPP 2.4. According to SPP 2.4, these 'Priority Resource' areas are regionally significant and need to be preserved for future excavation.

 

Once adopted, LPP 2.7 will address these issues by providing guidance on the following:

 

1.       Minimum information to be submitted with an Extractive Industry application before it will be considered by the City;

2.       Extent and duration of advertising for Extractive Industry applications;

3.       Assessment criteria that all Extractive Industry applications will need to meet; and

4.       Standard conditions to be placed on all City planning approvals for Extractive Industry.

 

It is essential that a local planning policy be implemented to guide the assessment of applications for approval for Extractive Industries under DPS 2.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Once adopted, LPP 2.7 will apply independently of and in addition to the City's Extractive Industries Local Law 1998. Extractive industries will still require planning approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and DPS 2, with LPP 2.7 providing guidance on how the City will determine applications under DPS 2. Once these relevant planning approvals have been obtained, then an extractive industry operator will need to separately apply for and obtain an extractive industry licence from the City. This will provide the opportunity for the City to further address off-site impacts of an extractive industry operation, such as accelerated wear and tear on the City's road network as a result of haulage vehicles.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Without LPP 2.7, the City will be at risk of:

 

·        Ad hoc assessment of Extractive Industry applications;

·        Lodgement of inconsistent supporting documents and reports by applicants for Extractive Industry proposals;

·        Uncertainty on the information required for the City to undertake a complete assessment of these proposals; and

·        Lengthy and unacceptable timeframes for the City to process Extractive Industry applications.

 

LPP 2.7 is specifically intended to address and mitigate these risks.

Policy Implications

Once adopted, LPP 2.7 will be given effect under Clause 8.11 of DPS 2. It will form part of the City's Local Planning Policy Framework.

Financial Implications

The cost of advertising the draft policy can be met from the existing Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

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.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Draft Local Planning Policy 2.7 - Extractive Industries - For Council Report

14/160965

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                   7


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     25

Draft

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

3.2    Adoption of Amendment No. 13 to the Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (East Wanneroo Cell 2)

File Ref:                                              3378-13 – 14/179509

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         N/A

Attachments:                                       3  

Previous Items:                                   PS04-06/13 - Ordinary Council - 25 June 2013

                                                            PS06-09/13 - Ordinary Council - 17 September 2013      

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 13 to the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (ASP 4) and adoption of the amendment.

 

Applicant

City of Wanneroo

Owner

Mr Marin Garbin & Mrs Judith Garbin

Location

Lot 9001 (30) Capri Leone Way, Sinagra

Site Area

1.824 ha

MRS Zoning

Urban Development

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

ASP 4 Zoning

Residential, Buffer Precinct

 

 

Background

Amendment No. 13 to ASP 4 has been prepared by the City in accordance with Council's resolution of 17 September 2013 (Council Agenda item PS06-09/13). This agenda item related to a request for reconsideration of the refusal of a single house in the buffer zone at 30 Capri Leone Way, Sinagra (a location plan is included as Attachment 1). Council's resolution is as follows:

 

"That Council:-

1.       ADVISES the owners of 30 (Lot 9001) Capri Leone Way, Sinagra that Council is unable to set aside the decision made under delegated authority on 25 March 2013 in respect of the proposed single house on that lot (included as Attachment 2), due to the effect of Clause 3.3 of the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4; and

2.       REQUIRES Administration to prepare an Amendment to the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (ASP 4) for Council's consideration, to introduce an ability for Council to determine applications for single houses within the buffer precinct defined by ASP 4, where the single house is associated with a bona fide rural use of the property and is no closer than 300 metres to the poultry sheds located on Lot 1665 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo."

 

In accordance with Council's resolution, Administration has prepared and advanced an amendment to ASP 4 on behalf of and at no expense to the owners of 30 Capri Leone Way, Sinagra.

 

On 21 November 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 be advertised. No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of Amendment No. 13 to the East Wanneroo Cell 2 ASP 4 commenced on 7 January 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

Detail

Amendment No. 13 ASP 4, in line with Council's resolution, proposes to:

 

1.       Modify the development requirements within the existing Buffer Precinct to:

 

·        allow consideration of a Single House where it is associated with approved rural use;

·        provide standards relating to subdivision; and

·        provide standards for the development of rural uses.

 

2.       Modify the Zoning Plan incorporated within ASP 4 to coincide with the modified development requirements of the Buffer Precinct as outlined above. 

 

Amendment 13 to ASP 4 also rectifies an incorrect reference to the Zoning Plan, as it is currently referenced as 'Zoning Map' in Clause 1 of the ASP 4 text. Although this was not part of Council's resolution, Administration has proposed an additional minor modification in order to provide continuity throughout the structure plan document.

 

The proposed Amendment No. 13 to ASP 4 Zoning Plan and proposed amendment text is included as Attachment 2, along with the existing ASP 4 Zoning Plan and Clause 3.3 text.

Consultation

The amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. The submission period closed on 19 February 2014, with four submissions being received. A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses are shown in Attachment 3.

 

Of the four submissions received, two were in support, one raised no objection and one objected to the amendment. The objection was submitted by Ingham's Enterprises Pty Ltd (Ingham's). The main points raised in the objection are as follows:

 

1.       The amendment facilitates the intensification of residential development, which is contrary to State Planning Policy 4.3: Poultry Farms (SPP 4.3) in the absence of assessment, modelling and/or consideration of potential amenity impacts on residents;

2.       Increased risk of complaints and objections to the poultry farm operation being raised by additional residents;

3.       Ingham's has a right to continue operations and it is considered unreasonable for the City to force the operation from the site by allowing residential development to increase in the vicinity; and

4.       An erosion of the buffer will further increase undue political pressure for uneconomical relocation.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of Amendment No. 13 is provided below.

Comment

Intensification of Residential Development and Associated Amenity Impacts

 

In its submission on the proposal, Ingham's contends that the amendment facilitates the intensification of residential development in the vicinity of the long-term, well-established poultry operation.

The submission also contends that this intensification of residential development is contrary to SPP 4.3, which provides that where development is proposed within 500m of a poultry farm, the applicant should show that the operation of a poultry farm 'will not adversely affect the amenity of the new residents' and also demonstrate measures to mitigate adverse impacts.

 

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the intensification of residential development within close proximity of the operating poultry farm. However, Administration is of the view that Amendment No. 13 will not, in itself, facilitate intensification of residential development. Rather, the amendment will introduce the ability for the City to grant (or not grant) approval to a development application for a single house on the property where it is located within the outer buffer and where associated with an approved rural use only. In this regard, it must be noted that even if Amendment No. 13 is adopted and incorporated in ASP 4, the landowner will still need to apply for development approval for a house within the buffer and that application may be refused if the City forms the view that the house is not associated with a bona fide rural use of the property.

 

SPP 4.3 states that 'in consideration of proposals for the zoning, subdivision and development  of land for residential purposes (closer than 500 metres to any existing or approved poultry sheds) and rural-residential purposes (closer than 300m to any existing  or approved poultry shed), the Commission and/or local government may require an assessment to show that the operation of the poultry farm will not adversely affect the amenity of the new residents in the proposed residential and rural-residential area.' [emphasis added]

 

The proposed amendment does not propose to allow residential development closer than 500m or rural-residential development closer than 300m to an approved poultry shed; therefore there is no requirement to provide an assessment to show that the operation of the poultry farm will not adversely affect the amenity of residents. The proposed amendment contemplates a single house between 300m and 500m (the 'Outer Buffer') only where the single house would be associated with a legitimate rural use (i.e. for 'rural-residential purposes').

 

Administration therefore does not consider that the Amendment facilitates the intensification of residential development within the buffer in a manner contrary to that prescribed by SPP 4.3. Further, SPP 4.3 is controlled and administered by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and the Commission will therefore consider the relevance of SPP 4.3 when making its decision on Amendment No. 13.

 

Increased Risk of Complaints and Objections to the Poultry Farm Operation

 

The risk of increased and continued complaints by residents to the operation of the poultry enterprise was raised as a concern by Ingham's. Ingham's considers that the integrity of the buffer must be maintained in order to manage the operation and any complaints, given that the encroachment of residential development on the well-established operation is the cause of this issue, and not the other way around.

 

Administration acknowledges Ingham's concerns regarding the potential encroachment of residential development on the existing poultry farm operation and the associated potential of increased resident complaints. However, in Administration's opinion and experience (working in the Wanneroo Town Centre), any complaints raised regarding odour from Ingham's operations could just as easily arise from residents living outside the existing buffer area.

 

 

 

 

 

In order to address the issue of any complaints relating to odour (or other amenity issues) that may arise from allowing a single house to be located within the outer buffer where associated with a rural use, it is proposed to modify the amendment text in Clause 3.3.3 to require both a written acknowledgement and a formal application for a notification on title to be required, as follows:

 

v.       Any application for such development is accompanied by a written acknowledgement by the applicant and/or landowner, acknowledging the nature and legitimacy of the existing poultry farm operations on Lot 1665 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo and acceptance of the existence, or potential; existence of noise, dust, odour and other impacts which may be associated with that use; and

 

vi.      Any approval issued by the City for such development shall be subject to the applicant and/or landowner arranging for the inclusion on the title of the land concerned, a notice to the same effect as given in item (v) above, to facilitate awareness of the matters concerned by future owners of that land.  

 

The intent of this modification is to ensure that any landowner, or future land owner, who may choose to live within an existing poultry farm buffer, is aware of the potential impacts of living within such a buffer area. 

 

Relocation

 

In its submission, Ingham's has stated that it is not currently feasible to relocate its operations due to the substantial infrastructure on site. Further, Ingham's stated that should the City or the State wish to offer incentives, provided for by SPP 4.3, to make it feasible to relocate the poultry farm operation, Ingham's is open to entering into discussions.

 

Administration acknowledges that there is scope within SPP 4.3 to provide incentives for the relocation of poultry farms in the vicinity of future residential or rural residential areas. However, exploring such options is a separate and significant issue to Council's consideration of Amendment No. 13.

 

Conclusion

 

Amendment No. 13 has been prepared by Administration at Council's request and at no cost to the landowners of Lot 9001 (30) Capri Leone Way, Sinagra. Those landowners, as well as (potentially) the owners of the eight other properties that fall within the buffer in ASP 4, will be the sole beneficiaries of Amendment No. 13, as it will allow them to apply to build a house within the 'Outer Buffer' to be shown on the structure plan map. However, any such application will only be approved where it is associated with a bona fide rural use of the property and is no closer than 300 metres to the poultry sheds located on Lot 1665 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.

 

The proposed Amendment is not considered to be incompatible with the provisions and intent of SPP 4.3 and is also considered unlikely to significantly alter the function of the existing poultry farm buffer. In light of this, and in light of Council's previous position on the matter, the proposed amendment is considered to be acceptable, subject to modifications. 

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. 13 to the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 be approved with modifications.

 

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the State Planning Policy 4.2: Poultry Farms.

Financial Implications

Administration has spent approximately 80 hours preparing and advancing Amendment No. 13 up to the point of presenting this report to Council. It is estimated that an additional 20-30 hours of officer time will be spent concluding the amendment in accordance with Council's decision and referring it to the WAPC for consideration. In total, this equates to approximately $8,000.

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. 13 to East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4, as submitted by the City of Wanneroo on behalf of Mr Marin Garbin and Mrs Judith Garbin, and as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report is SATISFACTORY subject to the modifications contained in Attachment 3 of this report, 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. 13 to East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4, 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. 13 to East Wanneroo Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 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 submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Location Plan - Lot 9001 (30) Capri Leone Way Sinagra

14/179655

 

2View.

Proposed and Existing ASP 4 Zoning Plan & Text - Amendment 13 to East Wanneroo Cell 2 ASP 4

14/188950

Minuted

3View.

Schedule of Submissions- Amendment 13 to Structure Plan No. 4

14/89191

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 30


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    31


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 32


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    35

CITY OF WANNEROO

AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO THE EAST WANNEROO CELL 2 AGREED STRUCTURE PLAN NO. 4

  SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Closed 19 February 2014)

NO

SUBMITTOR

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION

ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE

RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION

1.

Laurie Sinagra (on Behalf of Winifred Sinagra)

1.1

The proposed amendment is supported; however it does not go far enough.

Noted.

No action required.

1.2

It is time for the government, both state and local, to stand up and move Ingham's Chicken Farm somewhere more appropriate. We are tired of hearing that there are clauses that support them remaining due to their ongoing presence in the area. The unfortunate thing is that ordinary people who have been there longer than Ingham's appear to have no rights.

State Planning Policy 4.3: Poultry Farms (SPP 4.3) aims to minimise the impact of existing poultry farms on residential and rural-residential uses, but also protect the interests of existing poultry farms from encroaching development. The proposed amendment is in line with SPP 4.3, but is not considered to 'support' the existence of Ingham's in the Wanneroo Town Centre.

No action required.

2.

Benara Nurseries

2.1

Supports the proposal to create an 'outer buffer' between 300m and 500m from the poultry sheds situated at Lot 1665 Wanneroo Road, Sinagra.

Noted.

No action required.

2.2

Sees this amendment as an important shift in allowing people to live within 500m of the poultry sheds in the same manner as those who currently live in the outer buffer to the east of the poultry sheds and suffer very little discomfort.

Noted, however; there is no existing outer buffer to the east of the poultry sheds.

No action required.

3.

Department of Planning

3.1

Raises no objection, in principle, to the proposal and will formally assess the proposed Amendment once the City has made its determination and forwarded the proposal to the WAPC.

Noted.

No action required.

4.

Ingham's Enterprises Pty Ltd

4.1

Ingham's Enterprises objects to Amendment 13 in its entirety (other than the minor textural changes).

Noted.

No action required.

4.2

The Amendment facilitates the intensification of residential development in the vicinity of the long-term, well-established poultry operation. This will enable up to nine (9) dwellings to be constructed on surrounding rural lots – this is a substantial increase in the intensity of development and number of residents in the vicinity of the poultry operation. This will also increase the risk of objections being raised due to the nature of the operation and increased number of residents who will live in proximity to the poultry farm.

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the intensification of residential development within close proximity of the operating poultry farm. This matter has been dealt with in the body of the report under the heading 'Intensification of Residential Development and Associated Amenity Impacts'

 

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the increase in objections which may be received. This matter has been dealt with in the body of the report under the heading 'Increased risk or complaints and objections to the poultry farm operation'

 

No action required.

4.3

The intensification of residential development is contrary to State Planning Policy 4.3 – Poultry Farms (SPP 4.3), which provides that where development is proposed within 500m of a poultry farm, the applicant should show that the operation of a poultry farm 'will not adversely affect the amenity of the new residents'; and also to demonstrate measures to mitigate adverse impacts.

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the intensification of residential development within close proximity of the operating poultry farm. This matter has been dealt with in the body of the report under the heading 'Intensification of Residential Development and Associated Amenity Impacts'

No action required.

4.4

From the information provided, no assessment, modelling or even consideration of potential impacts on residents has occurred. The Amendment report states that 'the textual change proposed for Clause 3.3 of Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (ASP 4) are aligned with the provisions of Part 5.4 of SPP 4.3, and therefore the amendment does not warrant further studies such as those referenced in SPP 4.3 to examine potential land use conflicts'. This is incorrect, and additional investigations should occur, in order to ensure compliance with the SPP. 

See Administration's response to Item 4.3

No action required.

4.5

The amendment is justified by the City as enabling a residential dwelling to be constructed on Lot 9001 – in aerial photography of the site; there is already a dwelling on this lot. We note that the land has already been subdivided for residential use (outside the 500m buffer). Allowing another dwelling on the lot is allowing a grouped dwelling to be constructed, which is not permitted.

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in this regard. There is an existing dwelling on Lot 9001; however, this would be required to be demolished as a condition of subdivision (WAPC 143620), to facilitate the creation of the final residential lots outside of the buffer zone and the road reserve (continuation of Francina View).

 

The owners of Lot 30 Capri Leone Way, Sinagra have subdivided the portion of their lot located outside the buffer, and sought approval to construct their own residence entirely inside the existing buffer zone. The application for a Single House was refused, and a request for reconsideration was subsequently considered at Council. 

No action required.

4.6

It is unclear from the amendment documentation as to whether the said dwelling is a replacement dwelling, or an intensification of development on the lot. It is assumed that the proposal is to facilitate further subdivision up to the buffer boundary, which will require demolition of the existing dwelling (hence the application for a new dwelling). We question the need for the Amendment if there is already a dwelling on the lot, which the amendment is purported to address. It appears that the proposal for a dwelling on the site is not in fact intended to support a rural use on the lot, but represents the development of a residential dwelling on residual residential land. This is contrary to the provisions of the proposed amendment.   

Administration is of the view that the proposed amendment is for the sole benefit of the owners of Lot 30 Capri Leone Way, Sinagra, who have subdivided the portion of their lot located outside the buffer, and now wish to construct their own residence entirely inside the existing buffer zone. Administration does not consider the amendment necessary, as the existing text of ASP 4 provides guidance on where and under what circumstances development would be considered within the poultry farm buffer.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed Amendment No. 13 is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of SPP 4.3, which appears to allow for rural-residential development to no more than 300m of a poultry farm without the need for assessment of adverse impacts. Again, the amendment will not, in itself, facilitate the properties within the outer buffer being able to be developed as single houses. Rather, the amendment will introduce the ability for Council to grant (or not grant) approval to a development application for a single house on the property where in the outer buffer and where associated with an approved rural use only. Should the Amendment be adopted by both the City and the WAPC, the City would assess any application for a Single House against the provisions of the structure plan.

No action required.

4.7

The significant risk of increased and continued complaints by residents to the operation of the poultry enterprise is of a considerable concern to Ingham's. The integrity of the buffer must be maintained in order to manage the operation and any complaints. It is also undesirable from the City's perspective, given that the City is responsible for following up complaints. It is nonsensical to increase the density of development in proximity to the site where it will clearly risk raising the number of complaints to the operation. We wish to remind the City that the encroachment of residential development on the well-established operation is the cause of the issue which has arisen in the first place, and not the other way around.

Administration notes Ingham's concerns in relation to the increase in objections which may be received. This matter has been dealt with in the body of the report under the heading 'Increased risk or complaints and objections to the poultry farm operation'

 

Insertion of text in Clause 3.3.3 as follows:

 

v. Any application for such development is accompanied by a written acknowledgement by the applicant and/or landowner, acknowledging the nature and legitimacy of the existing poultry farm operations on Lot 1665 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo and acceptance of the existence, or potential; existence of noise, dust, odour and other impacts which may be associated with that use.

 

vi.   Any approval issued by the City for such development shall be subject to the applicant and/or landowner arranging for the inclusion on the title of the land concerned, a notice to the same effect as given in item (v) above, to facilitate awareness of the matters concerned by future owners of that land.  

 

4.8

Ingham's has been operating legally and in accordance with licensing agreements. A poultry operation has been present on the site since the 1960's. Our investment in the site is considerable and we are a major employer and contributor to the City of Wanneroo's local economy. We have a legal and moral right to continue our poultry operation from this site, and it is completely unreasonable for the City to try and force our operation from the site by allowing residential development to increase in the vicinity, clearly contrary to the objectives and requirements of SPP 4.3. 

Administration notes Ingham's objection to the proposed amendment on the basis that it allows residential development to increase in the vicinity of the poultry farm operations, and also notes Ingham's objections to the political pressure being exerted in relation to the relocation of Ingham's.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration reiterates that the proposed amendment does not increase the residential density of the area, but instead allows for Council to consider applications for a Single Dwelling to be approved within the outer buffer, where it is associated with a bona fide rural use. The City considers that the integrity of the buffer is both maintained and clarified through the proposed amendment, and that the proposed amendment is in line with buffer requirements set out in SPP 4.3.

No action required.

4.9

It is not currently feasible for Ingham's to relocate from the site due to the substantial infrastructure on site. Should the City or the state wish to apply incentives, provided for by SPP 4.3, to make it feasible to relocate our operation, we would be pleased to enter discussions, but it is not an option in the current context. On this basis, an erosion of the buffer will further increase undue political pressure for uneconomical relocation.

Noted.

 

Administration acknowledges that there is scope within SPP 4.3 to provide incentives for the relocation of Poultry farms in the vicinity of future residential or rural residential areas. Should Council wish to pursue the relocation of Ingham's, it is considered that such actions should be in accordance with the SPP 4.3, and through discussions with Ingham's.

 

No action required.


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     40

3.3    Adoption of Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (Additional Use of 'Warehouse' at Lot 435 Gibbs Road)

File Ref:                                              8498 – 14/165655

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         N/A

Attachments:                                       3  

Previous Items:                                   PS04-12/13 - Ordinary Council - 10 December 2013      

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

FPDC

Owner

Mark Zagar

Location

Lot 435 (263) Gibbs Road, Nowergup

Site Area

14.523 hectares

MRS Zoning

Rural

DPS 2 Zoning

General Rural

 

 

Background

On 10 October 2012, the applicant lodged proposed Amendment No. 130 with the City. The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by allowing an additional use of 'Warehouse' on Lot 435 (263) Gibbs Road, Nowergup. Attachment 1 contains the location plan of the site.

 

Council, at its meeting of 10 December 2013 considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS04-12/13):

 

"That Council:-

1.      Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purposes of applying an Additional Use zone to Lot 435 (No. 263) Gibbs Road, Nowergup and modifying “Schedule 2 - Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses” to include ‘Additional Use and Conditions (Where Applicable)’ for Lot 435 Gibbs Road, Nowergup as follows:

NO

STREET/ LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

1-36

263 Gibbs Road, Nowergup

Lot 435

Warehouse

 

Conditions:

(i)        Warehouse use restricted to areas in and around the existing poultry sheds;

(ii)       Warehouse to be used for storage purposes only;

(iii)      Warehouse must not open to the public for sale of goods;

(iv)      Unless otherwise approved by Council, the period of any development approval granted for a warehouse use on the property shall not exceed the lesser of 5 years from the date of development approval for the warehouse use, or 12 months from the commencement of subdivisional works for the creation of rural small holding or rural residential allotments on neighbouring or adjoining lots;

(v)       Any development approval granted for a warehouse use on the property shall be contingent upon the cessation of all poultry farm operations on the property.

 

2.      REFERS Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and if the EPA advises that the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

3.      FORWARDS a copy of the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information."

Attachment 2 contains the Scheme Amendment text, as modified by Council's resolution.  

Detail

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by allowing an additional use of 'Warehouse' on Lot 435 (263) Gibbs Road, Nowergup. The intent of this amendment is to ultimately facilitate the conversion of existing poultry farming sheds to warehouse storage.

 

Amendment No. 130 will not, in itself, cause the property to be used for warehousing. Rather, the amendment will introduce the ability for the City to grant (or not grant) approval to a development application to use the poultry sheds as a Warehouse(s). Currently, the City has no ability to approve this use in the General Rural zone.

 

The definition of 'Warehouse' in DPS 2 is as follows:

 

Warehouse: means premises used for storage of goods and may include the carrying out of commercial transactions involving the sale of such goods by wholesale.

 

A Warehouse land use is a prohibited ('X') use within the General Rural zoning of the subject site under the Zoning Table (Table 1) of DPS 2.

 

 

 

 

The applicant has proposed the additional use of Warehouse as a "temporary" use that would 'expire' upon the commencement of any rural residential subdivision of adjoining land, or other appropriate trigger. At its meeting on 10 December 2013, Council resolved to modify the amendment to condition this timeframe as follows:

 

           "Unless otherwise approved by Council, the period of any development approval granted for a warehouse use on the property shall not exceed the lesser of 5 years from the date of development approval for the warehouse use, or 12 months from the commencement of subdivisional works for the creation of rural small holding or rural residential allotments on neighbouring or adjoining lots."

The proposed amendment has been lodged by the landowner with the intention to cease operating the existing poultry farm, whilst maintaining an income from the proposed warehousing, in order to facilitate the site's possible transition to a 'landscape protection area' and tourism/recreation precinct in future, as envisaged by the landowner.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 3 February 2014, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.  The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 8 April 2014 and 20 May 2014 by way of on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. The City received a total of 12 submissions, comprising 1 partial objection and 11 non-objections. The 11 non-objections were 11 copies of the same letter, signed by 12 different landowners (one letter contained two signatures).

 

A table summarising the submissions received and Administration's response and recommendations thereon, is included as Attachment 3. The key points from the submissions received are as follows:

 

·        The proposed amendment may set an undesirable precedent in the area;

·        The proposed additional use of 'Warehouse' is inconsistent with the General Rural zoning, and justification for the additional use does not meet the criteria set out in the State Planning Policy 4.3 – Poultry Farms (SPP 4.3), or the provisions of the Future of East Wanneroo Report and the City's Interim Local Rural Strategy;

·        The proposed amendment enables the existing poultry farm on Lot 435 Gibbs Road to be decommissioned, in recognition of the increasing community desire for improved amenity in Nowergup; and

·        The proposed amendment will improve the amenity of the area by removing serious noise, odour, dust and truck traffic issues associated with the existing poultry farm that have been affecting neighbours for many years.

 

These issues are discussed in the Comment Section of this report.

Comment

Precedent of an Additional Use of ‘Warehouse’ in a Rural Area

 

The submission from Jackson McDonald on behalf of Lime Industries Pty Ltd largely objected to the proposed amendment and supported the view expressed by Administration in its previous report to Council (in December 2013).

 

This submission reiterated the potential for Amendment No. 130 to establish an undesirable precedent for other landowners to submit proposals to Council to allow non-rural or quasi-industrial uses on rural-zoned lots.

 

Administration is of the view that this issue remains valid, given that the same argument for an additional use of ‘Warehouse’ could be made for any other rural property containing large structures, such as machinery sheds, packing sheds and greenhouses. Additionally this amendment could give rise to a precedent of non-rural or quasi-industrial uses in place of established allowable rural uses, such as extractive industries and intensive agriculture, thereby potentially enabling non-rural uses, such as industrial manufacturing and large scale processing, to take place on rural land.

 

Council, in its previous assessment of this proposal, did not raise concern that the proposal would set an undesirable precedent in the area, but did consider that the proposed land use was of a lesser impact than the current operating use of a poultry farm.

 

Council will need to consider whether to maintain its previous position on this issue, in light of the above submission. In this regard, it should be noted that Council's decision to initiate a Scheme Amendment does not prejudice Council's final decision in respect of that Scheme Amendment, after it has been advertised for public comment.

 

Objectives of the General Rural Zone

 

The submission from Jackson McDonald on behalf of Lime Industries Pty Ltd supported the view previously expressed by Administration in its previous report to Council, in relation to the incompatibility of the proposal when considered in the context of the objectives of the General Rural zone. Administration considers that this issue remains valid in the case of this proposal, because the existing General Rural zone will survive as the predominant 'base zoning' of the land.

 

As outlined in the previous report to Council, the proposal is considered to be largely incompatible with the objectives of the General Rural zone, because it is not of an agricultural, horticultural or equestrian nature and would be more akin to allowing a quasi-industrial activity to establish within the General Rural zone; and it is not likely to contribute to maintaining or enhancing the rural character and amenity of the area. However, it is accepted that it is largely a subjective judgement as to whether the proposal would contribute to or detract from the rural character and amenity of the area.

 

Council, in its previous assessment of this proposal, formed the view that the proposed Additional Use of ‘Warehouse’ was of a lesser impact than the current operating use of a poultry farm. Council will need to consider whether to maintain its previous position on this issue, in light of the above submission.

 

Proponent Justification of Additional Use of 'Warehouse'

 

The submission from Jackson McDonald on behalf of Lime Industries Pty Ltd supported the view expressed by Administration in its previous report to Council, and raised the following arguments against the applicant's justification for proposed Amendment No. 130:

 

·        The proposal does not qualify for the incentives to relocate the existing poultry farm as referenced in Section 5.5 of SPP 4.3;

·        The City's Local Planning Policy: Interim Local Rural Strategy (ILRS) encourages the continuation and protection of rural and agricultural uses on rural-zoned land, and does not envisage or contemplate industrial uses such as ‘Warehouse’;

 

 

 

·        The proposal is not justified under the provisions of the Future of East Wanneroo Report, as it is considered likely that the area will remain rural for the foreseeable future.

 

Council, in its previous assessment of this proposal, determined that the proposed Additional Use of ‘Warehouse’ and its accompanying justification was adequate in light of the existing land use impacts of the operating poultry farm. Council will need to consider whether to maintain its previous position on this issue, in light of the above submission. 

 

Decommissioning of the Existing Poultry Farm

 

The letters of support received for the proposed amendment states that the relevant landowners ‘fully support the proposed amendment to enable the existing poultry farm on Lot 435 Gibbs Road to be decommissioned, in recognition if the increasing community desire for improved amenity in Nowergup’. It must be noted that the proposed amendment does not, in itself, enable the existing poultry farm on Lot 435 to be decommissioned.

 

Amendment No. 130 will not, in itself, remove any noise, odour, dust and/or truck traffic issues that may be associated with the existing poultry farm operations on Lot 435, nor will the Amendment (if finally approved) compel the landowner to cease operating the poultry farm. It is therefore incorrect to presume with any certainty that the amendment will improve the amenity of the area or nullify any amenity issues associated with the operating poultry farm. It is, however, considered reasonable to presume that if the poultry farm ceases operating and is replaced with a warehousing land use, then some of the off-site impacts of the poultry farm (such as odour and dust) will disappear, as the warehouse use is unlikely to generate any off-site odour and dust concerns.

 

Conclusion

 

Some of the concerns raised by Administration in its previous report to Council on Amendment No. 130 remain valid and have now been reiterated in one of the submissions received on this proposal. Council must now consider all the submissions received and decide whether to adopt Amendment No. 130 with or without changes, or whether to not proceed with the amendment.

 

If in considering the submissions received (which mainly support the proposal), Council maintains its previously held view on the appropriateness of this Scheme Amendment, then it is recommended that Council adopt Amendment No. 130 without modification.

 

Statutory Compliance

 

Amendment No. 130 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967. In accordance with Regulation 17(2), Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 130 and must resolve to either (a) adopt the amendment with or without modification, or (b) not proceed with the amendment.

 

Further, pursuant to Regulation 18(1), within 28 days of the passing of that resolution, the City must provide the WAPC with (among other things) a schedule of submissions and Council's recommendation and response to the submissions, together with particulars of any modifications recommended to the amendment.

 

Administration recommends that Council adopts Amendment No. 130 in accordance with Regulation 17(2)(a), without modification in accordance with Regulation 18(1)(c).

 

 

 

 

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of State Planning Policy 2.5 – Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning and State Planning Policy 4.3 – Poultry Farms Policy. The proposal has also been assessed under the City’s Interim Local Rural Strategy and the Future of East Wanneroo Report.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the summary of submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 contained in Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommendations thereon and FORWARDS that Attachment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration in respect of Amendment No. 130

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17(2)(a) ADOPTS Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, as advertised for public comment and set out in Attachment 2 without modification;

 

3.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the Amendment No. 130 documentation by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer;

 

4.       FORWARDS the Amendment No. 130 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning grant final approval to the Amendment; and

 

5.       ADVISES submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Location Plan - Lot 435 (263) Gibbs Road

13/209320

 

2View.

Amendment No. 130 Text (as advertised)

14/176940

Minuted

3View.

Amendment 130 to DPS 2- Schedule of Submissions

14/169689

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    46


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 47


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    48

 

CITY OF WANNEROO

AMENDMENT No. 130 TO THE CITY OF WANNEROO DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO. 2

  SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Closed 20 May 2014)

 

No.

Summary of Submission

Administration Response

Recommendation

1.0

Jackson McDonald on behalf of Lime Industries Pty Ltd, owner Lot 52 Nowergup Road NOWERGUP

1.1

Lime Industries generally supports the matters set out in the report to Council in December 2013, in which the City's Planning Officers recommended that Council not support the proposed amendment.

Noted.

No modification required.

1.2

The underlying zoning of 'General Rural' is not proposed to change and the addition of 'Warehouse' as an additional use is inconsistent with that zoning. Under DPS 2 'Warehouse' is a prohibited use in all zones other than industrial zones, indicating that it is incompatible with the uses that are permissible in the General Rural Zone.

Agreed.

Administration's view is that the proposed Warehouse use is incompatible with the objectives of the General Rural zone, because it:

·    Is not of an agricultural, horticultural or equestrian nature and would be more akin to allowing a quasi-industrial activity to establish within the General Rural zone; and

·    Is not likely to contribute to maintaining or enhancing the rural character and amenity of the area.

The objectives of the General Rural zone remain a valid consideration in the case of this proposal, because the existing General Rural zone will survive as the predominant 'base zoning' of the land. All of the Scheme objectives and provisions relating to the General Rural zone will therefore continue to apply and will be unaffected by the proposed additional use.

 

Notwithstanding the above, DPS 2 makes provision for Additional Uses and in this regard may be supported subject to the modified conditions as per Council's previous resolution.

No modification required.

1.3

The justification for the additional use does not meet the criteria set out in the Statement of Planning Policy 4.3: Poultry Farms for incentivising the relocation of poultry farms.

Agreed.

The proposed Scheme Amendment is not considered to meet the above-mentioned requirements of Section 5.5 of SPP 4.3 for the provision of incentives to relocate the existing poultry farm.

 

Notwithstanding the above, DPS 2 makes provision for Additional Uses and in this regard may be supported subject to the modified conditions as per Council's previous resolution.

No modification required.

1.4

The additional use is not justified by the provisions of the Future of East Wanneroo report or the City's Local Planning Policy – Interim Local Rural Strategy.

Agreed.

Administration reiterates that it does not support Amendment No. 130 in the absence of any detailed investigations being carried out that would confirm the suitability of the area for any purpose other than the existing General Rural zone.

 

Notwithstanding the above, DPS 2 makes provision for Additional Uses and in this regard may be supported subject to the modified conditions as per Council's previous resolution.

No modification required.

1.5

The supporting documents for Amendment No. 130 contain a number of references to the current and proposed limestone extraction operations in the locality of Lot 435. It is understood that if Amendment No. 130 is approved and planning approval is later granted for a Warehouse use on Lot 435, there is no prospect of that Warehouse use impacting upon or otherwise limiting the limestone extraction operations already approved by the City on Lot 52.  At the time of considering an application for planning approval this may require some limitation or conditions relating to the type of materials that can be stored on Lot 435 or as to the manner of operation of the Warehouse use.

Any potential impacts arising from any future Warehouse use can be more accurately ascertained and assessed at the time of lodgement of a development application.

 

The amendment text itself contains conditions limiting the use of any future Warehouse to storage, and also restricts the manner in which any proposed warehouse would operate. Further to this, it is considered likely that there would be a number of conditions imposed as part of any development application approval which may be issued for the Warehouse use approval itself.

No modification required.

1.6

While Lime Industries generally reiterates its support for the views expressed in the report to Council in which the City's Planning Officers recommend that the proposed Additional Use be refused, Lime Industries Pty Ltd has no reason to actively oppose Amendment No. 130.

Noted.

No modification required.

1.7

While, for the reasons set out above, Lime Industries Pty Ltd does not actively oppose the Amendment No. 130, limited as it is to just Lot 435, Lime Industries Pty Ltd strongly opposes any prospect of similar proposals for other land and agrees with the City's Planning Officer's reasons that this would be undesirable on planning and other grounds.

The City cannot provide assurances that similar proposals for other landholdings will not be lodged in the future. Supporting Amendment No. 130 has the potential to establish a precedent for other landowners to submit proposals to Council to allow non-rural or quasi-industrial uses on rural-zoned lots.

 

While it could be argued that the amendment is unique and would not establish a precedent, the same argument could just as easily be pursued for any other rural property containing large structures, such as machinery sheds, packing sheds and greenhouses. Additionally, the argument could be raised to justify non-rural or quasi-industrial uses in place of established allowable rural uses that generate off-site impacts, such as extractive industries and intensive agriculture (i.e. mushroom farming). Neither of these scenarios would be desirable and therefore Administration maintains its original position that Amendment No. 130 should not be supported.

Notwithstanding the above, DPS 2 makes provision for Additional Uses and in this regard may be supported subject to the modified conditions as per Council's previous resolution.

No modification required.

2.0

Russell Anderson of 258 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

2.1

Fully supports the proposed amendment to enable the existing poultry farm on Lot 435 Gibbs Road to be decommissioned, in recognition if the increasing community desire for improved amenity in Nowergup.

While support of the proposed amendment is noted in the submission, it is important to note that the proposed amendment will not in itself lead to the existing poultry farm on Lot 435 being decommissioned.

 

Amendment No. 130 will not, in itself, lead to the property ceasing operations as a poultry farm. Rather, the amendment will introduce the ability for Council to grant (or not grant) approval to a development application to use the poultry sheds as a Warehouse(s).

 

Further, it is noted that the decommissioning of the use of the property as a poultry farm can be initiated at any time by the landowner regardless of the proposed amendment.

No modification required.

2.2

The proposed amendment will improve the amenity of the area by removing serious noise, odour, dust and truck traffic issues that have been affecting neighbours 24/7/365 for many years. The amendment will also stop activities associated with the collecting of poultry during the nights 7pm to 7am with semi trailers, forklifts etc.

As detailed above in Administration's response to Item 2.1, Amendment No. 130 will not, in itself, remove any noise, odour, dust and/or truck traffic issues that may be associated with the existing poultry farm operations. 

 

It is important to understand that this amendment merely introduces the ability for Council to grant (or not grant) approval to a development application to use the existing poultry sheds as a Warehouse(s). The amendment does not, in itself, cause the property to cease operating as a poultry farm, and therefore it is incorrect to presume with any certainty that the amendment will improve the amenity of the area or nullify any amenity issues associated with the operating poultry farm.

 

The removal or lessening of the issues of noise, odour, dust and truck traffic are considered to be a potential result of any future approval of a development application for a warehouse use, subsequent to the adoption of the proposed amendment, and not a direct result of the amendment itself. 

No modification required.

2.3

Believes the amendment will have many positive amenity outcomes for the area and encourages the City to finalise the proposal as soon as possible.

Noted.

No modification required.

3.0

R. McLeod of 321 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

3.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

4.0

Steve Lindsay of 217 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

4.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

5.0

Mendo Boskovski of 2310 Wanneroo Road NOWERGUP (Ocean View Tavern)

5.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

6.0

Gerdina Epskamp of 169 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

6.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

7.0

Kathryn McLeod of 321 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

7.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

8.0

K. Winterton of 169 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

8.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

9.0

Geoffrey Jansen of 86 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

9.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

10.0

Ron Turnbull of 299 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

10.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

11.0

Chris & Philomena Waddell of 180 Karoborup Road CARABOODA

11.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

12.0

Paul Winton of 185 Gibbs Road NOWERGUP

12.1

Please see items 2.1 to 2.3 above

Please see Administration's response to items 2.1 to 2.3 above

No modification required.

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     54

Draft

Other Matters

3.4    North Alkimos Dog Beach

File Ref:                                              5523 – 14/174357

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the location and timing of the North Alkimos Dog Beach.

 

Background

On 29 April 2014, Council considered a proposed 320m southern extension to Quinns Dog Beach (PS08-04/14) and resolved not to proceed with the proposed extension and required Administration to finalise the location and timing of a dog beach in North Alkimos and report back to Council by 22 July 2014 on the progress of this request.

Detail

The need for an additional dog beach was one of the key concerns raised through community consultation undertaken for the City's Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Part 1. An overwhelming majority of submitters supported an additional dog beach, indicating the need to continually provide this service relative to the City's growing population.

Recommendation 3 of the CMP Part 1 outlines that the City is to liaise with PEET to finalise the location and timing of a dog beach in North Alkimos. The CMP Part 1 map for this area (refer to Attachment 1) indicatively shows the location of the dog beach as being in the northern portion of PEET's Shorehaven development. The exact location and length of the dog beach can only be determined when the City has received and endorsed the Foreshore Management Plans (FMPs) for the adjacent land. An FMP indicates the location of footpaths and future amenities within the foreshore.

PEET has submitted and had approved an FMP for the northern portion of its Shorehaven development (refer to Attachment 2). Administration can therefore recommend the location of the southern boundary of the proposed dog beach, which could align with one of the proposed beach access ways. However, the City has not yet received an FMP for Stockland's Amberton development to the north and therefore cannot determine the exact location of the northern boundary of the proposed dog beach.

Emerge Associates is completing the Amberton FMP on behalf of Stockland and has indicated that a draft FMP will be submitted in the near future. Once Council has assessed and determined the FMP, Administration will be able to finalise the boundaries of the dog beach and report back to Council with a recommended location.

Timing of the North Alkimos Dog Beach is subject to the construction (by PEET and Stockland) of supporting infrastructure, in particular the adjoining roads, car parks and beach access ways. Administration recognises that the timing of supporting infrastructure is based on the sale of lots in the areas adjacent to the foreshore and is therefore unable to control the timeframe for the delivery of this infrastructure.

 


 

Consultation

 

Administration has met with PEET and Stockland to discuss future coastal planning and use options for the section of beach near the boundary between PEET's Shorehaven estate and Stockland's Amberton estate.

 

Comment

 

The plan contained in Attachment 1 already illustrates the general location of the North Alkimos dog beach. Although the length of the dog beach is yet to be determined, the only appropriate location for the dog beach is generally as depicted Attachment 1.

 

Administration considers it important to establish the location of future dog beaches prior to the arrival of adjacent residents. This enables future residents to make an informed decision as to the area they are buying into, rather than changes being implored by Council at a later date which from previous experience may lead to objections from residents adjacent to the proposed dog beach.

 

To ensure that existing and future residents of Alkimos and Eglinton are informed of the intended future dog beach location, it is recommended that a copy of that plan be provided to the Residents Associations that have formed in the area. This will go some way towards alleviating demands from new residents who are eager to have access to a dog beach in the Alkimos/Eglinton area, whilst also guarding against opposition that might be raised towards a dog beach in this location in future.

 

The general location of the dog beach should mitigate some of the conflicts associated with mixed use beaches as there will be adequate swimming beaches available immediately north and south of the dog beach, as per the Alkimos Eglinton District Structure Plan. Administration will provide further detail as to the location and timing of the North Alkimos dog beach to Council following Council's consideration of the draft Amberton FMP.

Statutory Compliance

As specified in Section 31(3C) of the Dog Act 1976, a local public notice is required of Council's intention to create a dog beach at North Alkimos. Council should initiate this process once the relevant supporting infrastructure is in place.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Risk implications exist for the City if public access and usage of the proposed North Alkimos dog beach is allowed prior to the construction of relevant infrastructure and supporting amenities. Access to the proposed dog beach should only be permitted once Council resolves to create a dog beach at the approved location.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost of signage, bins and bag dispensers as well as their installation would be covered through the City's future operational budgets. Consideration should be given to those financial implications closer to the projected timeframe for the delivery of relevant infrastructure.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the future North Alkimos dog beach is to be established in the general area outlined in Attachment 1 and that Administration will recommend the exact location following the endorsement of the Amberton Foreshore Management Plan; and

2.       ADVISES Amberton Residents Association and Alkimos Progress Association of Council's intention to implement a dog beach in the general area outlined in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

North Alkimos dog beach indicative map CMP Part 1

14/178806

 

2View.

North Alkimos Foreshore Master Plan

14/178818

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 57


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 58

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     59

Draft

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

3.5    Dog Exercise Areas and Places where Dogs are Prohibited

File Ref:                                              2027V02 – 14/164421

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider places within the City of Wanneroo where dogs may be exercised, and where dogs are prohibited.

 

Background

From 1 November 2013 the Dog Amendment Act removed a local government's requirement to make local laws in relation to dog exercise areas in the district, and places where dogs are absolutely prohibited. In order to relieve local governments from having to remove these provisions from their local laws by following the local law making process set out in section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Dog Amendment Regulations 2014, that came into effect on 21 May 2013, provide a sunset date of 31 July 2014 for the operation of those clauses.

 

This means that if a local government has a local law containing clauses which establishes dog exercise areas, or prohibit dogs absolutely from areas, these clauses will be inoperable from 31 July 2014. Should local governments wish to establish exercise areas or specify places where dogs are prohibited they must do so via a council resolution (by absolute majority) in accordance with the amended section 31 of the Dog Act 1976 rather than through a local law.

Detail

Dog Exercise Areas

 

Section 10 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 states: "all public reserves vested in or under the care, control and management of the local government, excluding road and street reserves are designated as dog exercise areas for the purposes of the Dog Act".

 

This section of the local law permits dogs (other than dangerous dogs) to be exercised off lead, whilst under the effective control of a person liable for control of the dog in accordance with the Dog Act 1976, in all of the City's parks and reserves, unless specified 

 

Places Where Dogs Are Absolutely Prohibited

 

The Second Schedule of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 states: "Kingsway Sporting Complex, Madeley, being Reserve No. 28058, other than those parts of Kingsway Sporting Complex that are places where dogs are prohibited absolutely as specified in the Fourth Schedule of this local law or that have been designated as a Dog Exercise Park adjacent to the north east corner of the main entrance to Kingsway Sporting Complex, Madeley on Hepburn Avenue, 400 metres west of the intersection of Skeit Road and Hepburn Avenue identified as a fenced area signposted as a Dog Exercise Park".

 

The Second Schedule in effect allows dogs to be exercised on lead in Kingsway Sporting Complex (other than the netball courts where they are absolutely prohibited – refer to the Fourth Schedule below).

 

The Fourth Schedule of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 designates the following places where dogs are prohibited absolutely:

 

"1.     Any public building, shop or business premises, with the exception of a shop or business premises where dogs are sold.

 

2.       The 3 bituminised areas located on the northern portion of Kingsway Sporting Complex, Reserve No 28058, which have netball courts marked on them and any bituminised areas located between or adjacent to those netball courts.

 

3.       Frederick J Stubbs Grove, Quinns Rocks, being Reserve No. 22915

 

4.       Wanneroo Showgrounds, Wanneroo, being Reserve No. 12990

 

5.       Foreshore Reserve 20561, other than:

 

a.       Two Rocks Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding southward from a point adjacent to the southern groyne of the Two Rocks Marina (being prolongation westward of the southern boundary of the unnamed road reserve situated between Part Lot 1000 and Part Lot 50 of Swan Location 1370) to a line which is the prolongation easterly and westerly of the northern boundary of Swan Location 8508 commonly known as Leemans Landing;

 

b.       Yanchep Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding northwards for a distance of approximately 400 metres from a line being the prolongation westerly of the southern boundary of Reserve No. 32978 (in the vicinity of Nautical Court, Yanchep) to a line being the prolongation westerly of the northern boundary of Reserve No 32978;

 

It should be noted that in February 2014 Council resolved to extend the Yanchep dog beach 340 metres to the south.

 

c.       Quinns Rocks Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding northwards for a distance of 1000 metres from a line being the prolongation westerly of the northern side of Tapping Way Road Reserve in the northern part of the Quinns Rocks locality; and

 

d.       Any coastal walkway or pedestrian access way, being part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561."

Consultation

Community Development (Facilities) has provided feedback with regard to amendments to the existing Second and Fourth Schedules in relation to removing any reference to a dog exercise park at Kingsway Sporting Complex, and an allowance for dogs to be in public buildings and/or the showgrounds during City approved shows, exhibitions or events.

 

Community Development (Community Engagement) has also provided feedback with regard to future coastal developments. Once these developments reach an appropriate stage, further reports will be presented to Council requesting approval to designate additional dog exercise areas on beaches within these developments.

Comment

The following paragraphs detail the recommended dog exercise areas, and specify where dogs are prohibited.

 

Dog Exercise Areas

 

All public reserves vested in or under the care, control and management of the City of Wanneroo, excluding Kingsway Sporting Complex, Madeley, being Reserve No. 28058, and road and street reserves are designated as dog exercise areas for the purposes of the Dog Act.

 

Places Where Dogs Are Absolutely Prohibited

 

1.       Any public building (except during City approved shows, exhibitions or events), shop or business premises, with the exception of a shop or business premises where dogs are sold.

 

2.       The 3 bituminised areas located on the northern portion of Kingsway Sporting Complex, Reserve No 28058, which have netball courts marked on them and any bituminised areas located between or adjacent to those netball courts.

 

3.       Frederick J Stubbs Grove, Quinns Rocks, being Reserve No. 22915.

 

4.       Wanneroo Showgrounds (except during City approved shows, exhibitions or events), Wanneroo, being Reserve No. 12990.

 

5.       Foreshore Reserve 20561, other than:

 

a.       Two Rocks Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding southward from a point adjacent to the southern groyne of the Two Rocks Marina (being prolongation westward of the southern boundary of the unnamed road reserve situated between Part Lot 1000 and Part Lot 50 of Swan Location 1370) to a line which is the prolongation easterly and westerly of the northern boundary of Swan Location 8508 commonly known as Leemans Landing;

 

b.       Yanchep Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding southwards for a distance of approximately 740 metres from line being the prolongation westerly of the northern boundary of Reserve No 32978 being Compass Park, Yanchep..

 

c.       Quinns Rocks Beach, being that part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561 proceeding northwards for a distance of 1000 metres from a line being the prolongation westerly of the northern side of Tapping Way Road Reserve in the northern part of the Quinns Rocks locality; and

 

d.       Any coastal walkway or pedestrian access way, being part of Foreshore Reserve No. 20561.

Statutory Compliance

At least 28 days before specifying a place to be a place where dogs are prohibited at all times or times specified, or a dog exercise area the local government must give local public notice as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.7 of its intention to do so. Following the 28 day period for public notice a further report will be presented to Council to specify by Absolute Majority, those places where dogs may be exercised, and those places where dogs are absolutely prohibited.

Although there will be a lag time between when the local law will become inoperable, and when the dog exercise and dogs prohibited areas are adopted, the City's Rangers will take on an educational rather than enforcement role in relation to these matters.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Other than minor amendments in relation to allowing dogs in public buildings and/or the Wanneroo Showgrounds during City approved shows, exhibitions or events, the promulgation of dog exercise areas and areas where dogs are absolutely prohibited has already undergone a process of community consultation (at the time the local law was advertised) and has been approved by Council. If the recommendations of this report are not approved by Council the clauses contained in the Animals Local Law 1999 will become inoperable. In effect, the City's Rangers would be powerless to act on complaints in relation to the exercise of dogs in the City's parks, reserves (including foreshore reserves).

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      Pursuant to Section 31(3C)(b) of the Dog Act 1976, GIVES 28 days local public notice of its intention to specify as a dog exercise area, all public reserves vested in or under the care, control and management of the City of Wanneroo, excluding the following places:

 

a)      Dedicated road reserves, rights of way and pedestrian access ways;

b)      Reserve No. 28058 (Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, Madely);

c)      All parts of Foreshore Reserve 20561 that are not already specified as dog exercise areas (being Two Rocks, Yanchep and Quinns Rocks Dog Beaches);

d)      Any public building, except during City approved events;

e)      Any shop or business premises, except a shop or business premises where dogs are sold;

f)       Reserve No. 22915 (Frederick J Stubbs Grove, Quinns Rocks);

g)      Reserve No. 12990 (Wanneroo Showgrounds), except during City approved events.

 

2.       Pursuant to Section 31(3C)(a) of the Dog Act 1976, GIVES 28 days local public notice of its intention to specify places b) – g) (inclusive) in 1 above, as places where dogs are prohibited; and

 

3.      NOTES that a further report will be presented to Council at the conclusion of the local public notice periods referred to in 1 and 2 above, for Council to consider formally specifying the places referred to in those recommendations as dog exercises areas and places where dogs are prohibited, in accordance with Sections 31(3A) and 31(3B) (respectively) of the Dog Act 1976.

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     64

Draft

3.6    Application to Construct a Limestone Boundary Wall at Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar

File Ref:                                              3601 – 14/174098

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the Building Permit Application for a limestone boundary fence at Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar.

 

Background

On 15 October 2013 the owners of Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar submitted a Building Permit application to construct a side boundary fence. On 26 November 2013 the application was formally refused by the City for the following reasons:

 

·        The application did not comply with the Third Schedule of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001;

·        The information requested by the City had not been received (namely amended plans to comply with the City's Private Property Local Law 2001).

 

On 5 December 2013 an appeal against the City's decision to refuse the application was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal by the owners of Lot 1, No:16 Perry Road, Pinjar. On 10 February 2014 the State Administrative Tribunal withdrew the application and upheld the City's decision to refuse the Building Permit Application.

 

On 28 March 2014 the owners of 16 Perry Road, Pinjar lodged a new application to construct a side boundary fence. Contained within this application was a formal request that Council considers the application in accordance with Part 3.6 of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001.

Detail

Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar is zoned "General Rural"

 

Part 3 Section 3.2 (1) (c) of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001 stipulates that a sufficient fence on a rural lot is one that is constructed and maintained in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the Third Schedule.

 

The Third Schedule of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001 states that:

 

"Subject to clause 5.2 relating to estate fences, a sufficient fence on a Rural Lot for the purpose of the Dividing Fences Act is a fence of posts and wire construction, the minimum specifications for which are –

 

(a)  Wire shall be high tensile wire and not less than 2.5mm. A minimum of five wires shall be used, these are generally with the lower wires spaced closer together than the higher wires so as to prevent smaller stock passing through, and connected to posts in all cases, and threaded through 12mm holes in posts to all fences;

 

 

 

 

 

(b)  Posts shall be of indigenous timber or other suitable material including timber impregnated with a termite and fungicidal preservative cut not less than 1.8m long x 100mm diameter at small end of round or 125mm x 60mm if split or sawn. Posts to be set minimum 600mm in the ground and 1.2m above the ground; and

(c)  Strainer posts shall be not less than 2.25m long and 150mm diameter at the small end and shall be cut from indigenous timber or other suitable material. These shall be placed a minimum of 1m in the ground.

 

Permissible Alternative Fences

 

Permissible alternative fences apply to front fences only and are not intended for other boundary fences on a rural lot or special rural lot.

 

With approval from the local government, open front fences may be constructed of:

 

(a)  An open picket timber fence

 

(b)  Brick, stone or concrete piers with an open infill of timber, wrought iron or tubular metal; or,

 

(c)  Such other open fencing as approved by the local government."

 

The Building Permit Application submitted by the owners of Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar is for a limestone wall on the side boundary along Chitty Road, Pinjar. The wall has the following specifications:

 

·        Is constructed of reconstituted limestone blocks;

·        Has a maximum height of 1.8 metres;

·        Has a total length of 137.87 metres;

·        Has open infill in-between the 1.8 metre high piers.

 

Whilst the design of the wall falls into the permissible design mentioned in (b) above, it is located along the side boundary and therefore cannot be approved by administration.

 

Part 3 Section 3.6 of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001General discretion of the local government states:

 

" (1)   The local government may approve the erection of a fence which does not comply with the requirements of this local law.

  (2)   In determining whether to approve the erection of a fence, the local government may consider, in addition to any other matters that it is authorised to consider, whether the erection or retention of the fence would have an adverse effect on:

 

(a)  The safety or convenience of any person; and

 

(b)  The safe or convenient use of any land."

Consultation

Planning Implementation has been consulted with the advice being that the proposed fence is exempt from requiring Development Approval. Given that no Development Approval is required, there is no formal requirement to consult with the adjoining owners.

Comment

Whilst the Building Permit Application does not comply with the requirements of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001 – Third Schedule, it has been designed as such that it can be approved through Part 3 Section 3.6 – General discretion of the local government.

In regards to Part 3 Section 3.6 (a) "The safety or convenience of any person", the owners of Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar have sighted privacy, security and noise as the reasons they would like the wall along their side boundary. The side boundary in question is along Chitty Road. This portion of Chitty Road is isolated and a "no-through" road. It currently only serves access to Lot 5, No:23 Chitty Road which is owned by Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd. The noise created by trucks entering and departing Inghams is causing the owners of Lot 1, No16 Perry Road discomfort. In addition to the noise, the isolation of Chitty Road appears to be the reason various materials have been stolen from Lot 1, No:16 Perry Road, Pinjar. The presence of a timber post and wire fence would not be sufficient to alleviate these issues.

 

In regards to Part 3 Section 3.6 (b) "The safe or convenient use of any land", the location of the proposed wall would not cause any safety issues relating to sightlines. Part 3.5 of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001 addresses sightlines at vehicle access points. Under this part a fence is exempt from requiring a truncation to support sufficient sightlines where there is a distance of 3.5 meters between the fence and a carriageway or footpath. The nearest point the fence is proposed to be to the carriageway is 4.8 meters. It is therefore determined that there is sufficient setback to allow for sightlines for vehicles accessing Lot 1, No:16 Perry Road Pinjar.

 

The proposed limestone wall would also add to the safety and security of the owners at Lot 1, No: 16 Perry Road, Pinjar as it would provide a sufficient barrier to deter trespassers. In addition to this, it would also provide an aesthetically pleasing frontage to the property as the existing (approved) front fence along Perry Road, Pinjar is constructed in the same manner as what is currently proposed for the boundary along Chitty Road.

Statutory Compliance

Approval of the Building Permit Application requires the local government to be satisfied that the fence meets the requirements of Part 3 Section 3.6 of the City's Private Property Local Law 2001.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

The approval of this proposed boundary fence has the potential to set precedence. In saying this, part of the current review of the City's Local Law will involve the recommendation that secondary street boundary fences are considered in the same manner as front fences. If this recommendation is approved through the review of the Local Laws then the approval of this boundary fence will not be setting precedence.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the application for a limestone side boundary fence at Lot 1, No:16 Perry Road, Pinjar.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     68

Draft

3.7    Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs

File Ref:                                              2323V04 – 14/177435

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider six applications for an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs that have been evaluated against a set of criteria.

 

Background

Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 (Amendment 2008 GG 058) stipulates:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Detail

Six applications have been made under the Dog Act 1976 and are submitted for consideration. Each application has been assessed against the City's Application to Keep More than Two Dogs Guidelines and Scoresheet.

 

As part of the assessment process, Rangers have inspected all of the properties to ensure means exist on the premises at which the dogs will ordinarily be kept for effectively confining the dogs within the premises.

 

Consultation

 

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

Comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Application One: 66 Keanefield Drive, Carramar

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Female tri-colour Husky - sterilised

2.       Female grey Husky - sterilised

3.       Male white & red Husky – sterilised

4.      Male black & grey Husky - sterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 636m2

Objections:

Nil (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep four dogs at 66 Keanefield Drive, Carramar. The applicant would like to keep four dogs at the property as she has had approval for three dogs for some time and has rescued a fourth Husky. The dogs are well exercised as the applicant is an active member of the Western Australian Sled Dogs Sports Association.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep indoors and outdoors at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

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

 

Application Two: 9 Jindinga Way, Wanneroo

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Female brown & white Springer Spaniel - sterilised

2.       Female tan & white Jack Russell - sterilised

3.       Male brown & white Springer Spaniel - unsterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 683m2

Objections:

Nil (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 9 Jindinga Way, Wanneroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she has had approval in the past but unfortunately her third dog passed away from a brain tumour shortly after receiving approval from Council.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep inside at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

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

 


 

 

Application Three: 11 Chesstree Avenue, Alkimos

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Male black & white Miniature Schnauzer/Maltese X -       unsterilised

2.       Male cream & apricot Maltese/Lhasa Apso X - unsterilised

3.       Male black & white Maltese/ShihTsu X - unsterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 450m2

Objections:

Nil (five neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 11 Chesstree Avenue, Alkimos. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she looked after her neighbour's dog when she went to England due to family illness and then didn't come back to Australia.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep inside at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the number of dogs at this property. The applicant subsequently submitted the application soon after the complaint. The complainant was consulted with regard to this application and did not object.

 

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

 

Application Four: 9 Catania Court, Mindarie

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Female white Maltese - sterilised

2.       Male white Maltese - sterilised

3.       Female white Maltese - sterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 774m2

Objections:

Two (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 9 Catania Court, Mindarie. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she lives at the property with her mother, brother and sister and her sister owns the other two dogs. All three dogs came to Australia with the family from South Korea.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties two objections were received regarding barking and yapping made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the number of dogs at this property. The applicant subsequently submitted the application soon after the complaint. The complainant was one of the neighbours that objected to this application.

 

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

 

Application Five: 6 Savona Grove, Mindarie

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Male tan Miniature Dachshund - sterilised

2.       Female tan Miniature Dachshund - sterilised

3.       Female black & tan Miniature Doberman - sterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 615m2

Objections:

One (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 6 Savona Grove, Mindarie. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she has recently arrived in Australia from South Africa and is aware that she needs approval from Council.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking and yapping made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received in relation to the applicant's dogs at this address.

 

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

 

Application Six: 7 Gaerwen Way, Butler

 

Description of Dogs:

1.       Female white Spoodle - sterilised

2.       Male caramel Spoodle - sterilised

3.       Female tan Golden Retriever - sterilised

Property Zoning / Size:

Residential / 822m2

Objections:

One (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 7 Gaerwen Way, Butler. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she purchased a Golden Retriever in the hope that her deep bark will deter intruders as her property has been broken into in the past.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking and yapping made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

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

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

The proposal 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.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

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

66 Keanefield Drive, Carramar;

9 Jindinga Way, Wanneroo;

11 Chesstree Avenue, Alkimos;

9 Catania Court, Mindaire;

6 Savona Grove, Mindarie; and

7 Gaerwen Way, Butler;

2.       ADVISES that the exemption relating to the six properties in Recommendation      1 are subject to the following specified conditions:

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

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

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

d)      Any and all unregistered dogs are to be registered with the City of Wanneroo within 14 days; and

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

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     74

Draft

Property

3.8    Proposed Sublease - WA Sporting Car Club Inc to Telstra Corporation Limited - Barbagallo Raceway

File Ref:                                              4558 – 14/152211

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider WA Sporting Car Club entering into a sublease with Telstra Corporation Ltd in relation to WA Sporting Car Club's lease at Barbagallo Raceway.

 

Background

The WA Sporting Car Club Inc ('WASCC') currently leases a southern portion of Lot 12748 (440) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup from the City of Wanneroo (Attachment 1 refers).  Lot 12748 is Crown Reserve 10866 managed by the City under a management order for the purpose of "Telecommunications Site, Motor Racing Track and Associated Infrastructure" and with the power to lease, subject to approval from the Minister for Lands.  The WASCC's lease is for a term of twenty one (21) years and is due to expire on 30 September 2022.

 

The lease area comprises a racing track and supporting infrastructure. The racing track is used throughout the year for numerous events such as the recently successful V8 supercars event held annually at this venue.

 

In addition to the motor racing infrastructure at the site, there is a 150m² area which comprises a lattice telecommunications tower and associated infrastructure at ground level.  This area (Attachment 1 refers) is used by Optus Mobile Pty Limited ('Optus') under a sublease arrangement, which the City is a party to, between the WASCC and Optus.  The sublease was approved by Council at its meeting on 10 August 2004 (CS04-08/04 refers).

 

On behalf of the WASCC, Telstra Corporation Limited ('Telstra') has submitted a request to the City for Telstra to enter into a sublease arrangement with the WASCC to use an area of 60m² near the Optus sublease site to install a new Telstra telecommunications base station (Attachment 1 refers).

Detail

The proposed base station would require the erection of a 25 – 30 metre free standing tower within a fenced compound and located as shown on Attachment 1.

 

The proposed lease area of 60m² (10m x 6m) required by Telstra is an elevated site and is approximately 70m from the area occupied by Optus.

 

Telstra has recently submitted a draft sublease to the City for comment and Administration has provided a response requesting a number of changes be made.  In addition to the requested changes, Administration has also advised Telstra that the free standing tower is considered a "high impact" structure in accordance with the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 and, therefore, Telstra will be required to submit development and building applications to Administration for assessmentThe development application will also be referred to the West Australian Planning Commission. 

 

 

Telstra has yet to provide a response to the City regarding the changes to the draft sublease and the requirement to submit development and building applications.

 

The sublease also provides for a rent of $18,000.00 per annum inclusive of outgoings (excluding GST) payable to the WASCC, of which the City will receive approximately $360 (2%), in accordance with the revenue formula in the WASCC's lease with the City.

 

WASCC's lease stipulates that any subletting requires the consent of the City and the Minister for Lands.

Comment

Although Administration has reviewed the draft sublease and provided comment to Telstra to ensure the document is in an acceptable form, Telstra was asked if it has given consideration to co-locating with Optus.  It advised that it does currently have equipment on the tower in agreement with Optus, however Telstra has advised it is not feasible for it to continue to operate on the tower due to Optus having reservations for future equipment which is restricting Telstra in what it can install on the tower which, in turn, effects the efficiency of the coverage in the area.

 

If Telstra continued on the tower, it has advised major strengthening work would need to be carried out at an extremely high cost, which would not be a one off requirement as further structural work would most likely be needed in the future as more equipment is needed to service the ever increasing coverage and data demands.  Telstra advised a new monopole avoids highly expensive structural costs and avoids difficulties with Optus allowing both carriers to meet their coverage demands now and in the future.

 

It is proposed the term of the sublease will coincide with the remaining term of the head lease between the City and the WASCC, less one (1) day.

 

Once the terms and conditions of the sublease have been agreed, a final draft will be sent to the Minister for in principle approval.

Statutory Compliance

Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires various transactions relating to Crown Land to be approved by the Minister.  A sublease over Crown Land is such a transaction.

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.

3.4    Smart Communities - Our community and businesses have access to the right information, education and technology they need to be successful.

 

Risk Management Considerations

Administration will ensure that the proposed sublease will include provisions that any equipment transmitting from the Telstra tower is to be 'low impact'.  Telstra will also be responsible for having its own appropriate insurances in place such as public liability, agreed and evidenced by the City.

Policy Implications

The proposed sublease arrangement to Telstra is not affected by the City's current Tenancy as the Tenancy Policy does not deal with sublease tenancy arrangements.

Financial Implications

The City will receive a percentage of the WASCC's revenue it receives from Telstra in accordance with the revenue formula in the lease between the WASCC and the City.  In accordance with the formula in the WASCC's lease with the City for calculating revenue, the City invoiced the WASCC $36,297.82 including GST for the period 1 October 2012 to 30 September 2013.  The addition of the revenue from the sublease will reflect an approximate increase in revenue to the City of $360 (2%).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the Chief Executive Officer will sign a letter to the Minister for Lands requesting an Application to Commence Development (DA) form be signed and returned to the City of Wanneroo for assessment;

2.       CONSENTS to the sublease of a 60m² portion of Crown Reserve 10866 for a high impact telecommunications tower and low impact transmitting equipment, subject to planning approval granted from the West Australian Planning Commission and the City of Wanneroo; and

3.       AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a sublease between the City of Wanneroo and the WA Sporting Car Club Inc and Telstra Corporation Limited in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

WA Sporting Car Club Inc - Proposed Sublease Area to Telstra

14/153998

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    77


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     78

3.9    Proposed Deed of Variation of Licence to Minister for Education over a Portion of Reserve 32938, Oldham Park, Yanchep

File Ref:                                              5453 – 14/163993

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   CS08-01/06 - Ordinary Council - 31 January 2006

                                                            CS05-05/06 - Ordinary Council - 16 May 2006      

 

Issue

To consider Yanchep District High School ("Yanchep DHS") was approved by Council (pursuant to resolutions on 31 January 2006 and 16 May 2006) to enjoy the non-exclusive use of a portion of Reserve 32938, Oldham Park, Yanchep ("Oldham Park") during school hours.

 

The Yanchep district is one of a number of locations where planning approval was granted for the co-location of schools and public recreation facilities.

 

This report requests that Council considers entering into a Deed of Variation of Licence with the Minister for Education over a portion of Oldham Park to facilitate access by the students and teachers at Yanchep DHS to the toilet block in Oldham Park.

 

Background

Oldham Park is Crown land incorporated within Lot 9136 on Plan 10180 and Lot 9690 on Plan 11862 (land comprised in, respectively, Qualified Certificates of Crown Land Title Volume LR3139 Folio 801 and Volume LR3138 Folio 100). 

 

Oldham Park was created in accordance with section 20A of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA) (now section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)), and is managed by the City for the purpose of "public recreation" under a management order dated 12 June 2006.

 

Oldham Park is adjacent to land owned by the Minister for Education and operated by the Department of Education for Yanchep DHS (Attachment 1 refers). 

 

31 January 2006 and 16 May 2006 – Council Resolutions

 

At its meetings on 31 January 2006 and 16 May 2006 (Items CS08-01/06 and CS05-05/06), Council considered proposed shared use arrangements at six sites, including Yanchep DHS and Oldham Park.  Following a period of public consultation, Council resolved (by resolution CS05-05/06):

 

"That Council:-

...

2. APPROVES, subject to the endorsement of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the execution of Licence Agreements with the Minister for Education to grant priority use of the following reserves by the listed schools:-

...

•     Yanchep District School, Lagoon Drive, YANCHEP and Oldham Park."

 


 

 

In accordance with resolution CS05-05/06, the City granted a licence to the Minister for Education to permit the non-exclusive use by the Department of Education ("DoE") of a portion of Oldham Park during school hours ("the Licence") (Attachment 1 refers, the area subject to the Licence being marked as "the Facilities").  The Licence was for a term of 21 years, commencing on 1 January 2006 and expiring on 31 December 2027.

Detail

The Licence provides that the City can recover maintenance costs from the DoE in relation to the maintenance of Oldham Park.  $18,121.48 (plus GST) was payable by the DoE for the 2014 calendar year (prior to the variation proposed by the present report).

 

In November 2013, the DoE requested access to an additional portion of Oldham Park during school hours.  Increasing student numbers at Yanchep DHS have placed further pressure on DoE's resources.  Whereas the Facilities licensed by the Licence were intended to be used by teachers and students at Yanchep DHS for physical education classes, the DoE now intends to also use the Facilities during recess and lunch times. 

 

The expanded use is permitted under the terms of the Licence.  However, as a result of the increased use of Oldham Park, the DoE has requested a licence to use the toilet/ablution block on Oldham Park together with adjacent land to allow for egress between the toilet block from the existing Facilities (Attachment 1 refers, the proposed additional area being cross-hachured and marked as "the Additional Facilities").

 

Administration (Community Facilities and Property Services) and DoE have had formal discussions regarding the variation of the Licence to incorporate the Additional Facilities.

 

DoE has agreed in writing to vary the Licence by way of a Deed of Variation of Licence ("the Deed") to include the additional portion of Oldham Park within the licensed area. 

 

The essential terms of the draft Deed as agreed with the DoE, subject to approval by Council and the Minister for Lands, are as follows:

 

Licensed Area

The existing licensed area ("the Facilities") together with the toilet block in Oldham Park and a portion of land for egress between the Facilities and the toilet block ("the Additional Facilities") (refer to Attachment 1).

 

(Note that the toilet block is a portion of a larger building at Oldham Park, but has separate doors and is not interconnected with the remainder of that building.  The Deed provides that the DoE's access is limited to the toilet block and does not extend to the rest of the building.)

 

Date of Variation

 

The inclusion of the Additional Facilities within the licensed area will apply from 1 January 2014.

 

Licence Term

The balance of the term of the Licence that commenced 1 January 2006, expiring 31 December 2027.

 

Maintenance of the Additional Facilities

The City is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the toilet block and adjacent land.  This is consistent with the City's responsibility for maintenance of the Facilities under the Licence.

 

 

 

The maintenance fee payable by the DoE is suggested to be increased by $3,200 (plus GST) (calculated at a rate of $80 (plus GST) per week over 40 weeks) to reflect the City's additional maintenance obligations in respect of the toilet block and adjacent land. 

 

The total maintenance fee for the 2014 calendar year would be $21,321.48 (incorporating the existing maintenance fee of $18,121.48 (plus GST) as reviewed annually and by reference to the consumer price index ("CPI") since 2006, plus the additional amount of $3,200 (plus GST)), and thereafter to be reviewed annually by reference to CPI during the remainder of the Licence term.

 

 

All other terms of the Licence remain unchanged as follows:

 

Commencement Date

1 January 2006.

 

Insurance

The DoE is responsible for maintaining a public liability insurance policy.  The Licence provided that the insured amount was not to be less than $10,000,000, but could be increased at the discretion of the City.

 

The Deed will provide that the insured amount will increase to $20,000,000.

 

Maintenance of Facilities (including mowing, cleaning and rubbish removal)

 

City's responsibility.

Statutory Compliance

DoE's responsibility.

 

Consultation

The essential terms of the proposed Deed have been prepared in consultation with the DoE.

 

Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires the City to obtain consent to the Deed from the Department of Lands ("DoL") on behalf of the Minister for Lands. 

 

The City has written to the DoL advising of the licensing of the Additional Facilities and providing a draft of the Deed. 

 

The DoL advised the City on 21 January 2014 that it had no objections to the inclusion of the proposed portion of Oldham Park within the licensed area and provided "in principle" consent to the draft Deed.  The DoL advised it did not require further public consultation (as had been the case in the development of the Licence). 

Comment

The proposed licensing of the Additional Facilities (namely, the toilet block and adjacent land) to the DoE is ancillary to the existing use of Oldham Park by Yanchep DHS under the Licence (as was previously approved by Council by resolution CS05-05/06).

 

 

 

Community Facilities supports the use of the Additional Facilities by Yanchep DHS and has met with the Yanchep DHS principal to discuss the operational requirements and responsibilities expected of the school as are outlined in the Licence and the Deed (in respect of the Deed, being those items listed in the Details section of this report).

 

From a land management and leasing/licensing perspective, there is no reason why the proposed licence of the Additional Facilities should not proceed, on the basis that:

 

a)      The management order for Oldham Park permits the licensing of the land;

 

b)      The DoL has consented to the licensing of the Additional Facilities and to the draft Deed;

 

c)      The DoE has licensed a portion of Oldham Park for more than 8 years, without any serious problems arising during that time for curricular activities as well as sporting carnivals and events;

 

d)      Teachers and students at Yanchep DHS already use the toilets at Oldham Park and access across the adjacent land during school events and carnivals throughout the school year;

 

e)      The use of the Additional Facilities by teachers and students at Yanchep DHS will be non-exclusive, meaning that it will not prevent the use by the public.  Further, the City has not granted any lease or other conflicting rights to the Additional Facilities to any other party;

 

f)       The DoE will provide an increased maintenance fee to the City, to reflect the increased use of the Additional Facilities (in particular the toilet block) by Yanchep DHS teachers and students; and

 

g)      The City already maintains Oldham Park, and the increased maintenance expenses arising from increased use of the toilet block is reflected in the increased maintenance fee paid by the DoE.

Statutory Compliance

The proposed Deed is considered an exempt disposition under Regulation 30(2)(c)(ii) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, which states:

 

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

          ...

              (c)     the land is disposed of to —

                   ... 

(ii)     a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Crown in right of the State or the Commonwealth....”

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.

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

Administration cannot identify any apparent risk in agreeing to the Deed with the DoE.  In the event that a risk arises, it is considered to be negligible or low on the basis that:

a)      The DoE has licensed a portion of Oldham Park for more than 8 years, without any serious problems;

 

b)      Teachers and students at Yanchep DHS already use the toilets at Oldham Park and access across the adjacent land during school events and carnivals throughout the school year.  The Deed merely seeks to formalise this arrangement;

 

c)      The indemnity provided to the City under the terms of the Licence will be extended to the use of the Additional Facilities under the terms of the Deed; and

 

d)      The use of the Additional Facilities by teachers and students at Yanchep DHS will be non-exclusive, and will not prevent the use by the public.

If the City refused to licence the use of the Additional Facilities by the DoE, the capacity of the DoE to provide facilities for students and teachers at Yanchep DHS may be prejudiced.  Whilst Yanchep DHS students and teachers could continue to use the toilet block in Oldham Park (as members of the public), without the Deed the City would not be entitled to recover a contribution to its maintenance costs.

Policy Implications

The licensing of portions of Oldham Park by the DoE accords with the City's Shared Use Facilities with the Department of Education policy, and with the DoL's guidelines for the co-location of DoE schools and public recreation reserves. 

 

In the course of the previous approval of the Licence, the City engaged in the public consultation recommended by the DoL's guidelines.  The DoL has not requested that further public consultation be conducted for the licensing of the "Additional Facilities".  The inclusion of the Additional Facilities within the licensed area is ancillary to the operation of the existing Licence.

 

Administration notes that shared use licences are being developed by the City and DoE for a number of sites:

 

·    Houghton Park/ Carramar Primary School;

 

·    Kingsbridge Park/ Butler Primary School;

 

·    Peridot Park/ Neerabup Primary School;

 

·    Belhaven Park/ Quinns Beach Primary School;

 

·    Riverlinks Park/ Somerly Primary School; and

 

·    Ashdale Park/ Ashdale Primary School,

 

with preliminary discussions underway for further licence arrangements at DoE sites in Banksia Grove and Butler (North). 

 

Reports in respect of these licence arrangements are anticipated to be submitted to Council during the 2014/15 financial year.

 

Financial Implications

Under the terms of the Deed, the City will receive an annual contribution of $21,321.48 (plus GST) from DoE for the 2014 calendar year.  This contribution is calculated on the basis of:

 

·    The contribution of $8,000 per annum (plus GST) initially payable under the Licence, as reviewed annually to $18,121.48 (plus GST) for the 2014 calendar year; and

 

·    An additional amount of $3,200 (plus GST) in respect of the maintenance required for the Additional Facilities.

 

The contribution will assist in the maintenance costs incurred by the City in respect of the oval and toilet areas of Oldham Park.

 

The contribution from DoE will be subject to further annual CPI reviews during the balance of the term of the Licence, with the next review occurring on 1 January 2015.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the variation of the existing licence to the Minister for Education to incorporate an additional portion of  Reserve 32938, Oldham Park, Yanchep (refer to Attachment 1) into the licensed area for the remainder of the term of the licence, such variation being subject to approval by the Minister for Lands;

2.       AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a Deed of Variation of Licence between the City and the Minister for Education in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy;

3.       NOTES the increase in fees payable by the Minister for Education under the licence will offset the increased maintenance costs, ensuring that no additional burden is placed on ratepayers;

4.       NOTES the operational requirements and responsibilities to be borne by the Minister for Education as described in the licence and the Deed of Variation.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Reserve 32938, Oldham Park, Yanchep - Additional Licensed Area

14/6442

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    84


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     85

3.10  Proposed Dedication of Right of Way as a Public Road - 48L Parri Road, Wangara (Lot 123 on Diagram 98586)

File Ref:                                              10614 – 14/144576

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the dedication of the private right-of-way ("the ROW") at 48L Parry Road, Wangara as a public road.

 

Background

The ROW is freehold land registered to the State of Western Australia.  The property is identified as Lot 123 on Diagram 98586 (part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2193 Folio 440) (Attachment 1 and 2 refers).

 

On 22 July 2013, Complex Land Solutions contacted the City to request the City's support for the dedication of the ROW as a public road.  Complex Land Solutions are the property consultants for Dynamic Land Developments, who are in turn the consultants for the land owners and proponents of a subdivision of neighbouring land (Western Australian Planning Commission ("WAPC") reference 147613).

 

Complex Land Solutions' proposal noted that a condition of subdivision application 147613 was that the ROW should be dedicated as a public road to facilitate the approval of the subdivision. 

 

The neighbouring land owners have agreed, via Complex Land Solutions, to meet all costs associated with the dedication of the ROW as a public road.

 

Subdivision application 147613 was approved by the WAPC on 28 October 2013.

 

No proposal has been made to dedicate as road the nearby ROWs identified as Lots 124 and 125 on Diagram 98586 (Attachment 2 refers).  It is anticipated that the status of these ROWs will be resolved at the time of the extension of Whitfords Avenue to connect to Gnangara Road.

Detail

Section 56(1)(c) of the Land Administration Act 1997 ("LAA") provides that where the public has had uninterrupted use of the land within a private ROW for a period of not less than ten years, a local government may request the Minister for Lands to dedicate the land as a public road.

 

The ROW is understood to have been in continuous use by the public as a thoroughfare for a period of approximately 14 years.

Consultation

Initial public consultation occurred between 1 August 2013 and 24 September 2013, and was carried out by way of enquiries with other City service units, letters to relevant government agencies, and advertisements in the Wanneroo Times and on the City’s website:

 


 

 

1.       City Business Units:

 

          Comments were sought from Infrastructure Projects, Infrastructure Assets, Transport, and Planning Implementation.  All units were supportive of the proposed dedication, with Planning Implementation further recommending that the dedication should follow the WAPC approving subdivision application 147613.

 

2.       Service Authorities and Government Agencies:

 

          The City received six (6) submissions from servicing authorities and government agencies (ATCO Gas Australia, Telstra, Water Corporation, Western Power, the Department of Regional Development and Lands (State Land Services division) (now the Department of Lands) and the WAPC). 

 

          No objections were raised from the servicing authorities and government agencies.

 

3.       Advertising:

 

          A notice was published in the Wanneroo Times on 20 August 2013, and a further notice was published on the City's website between 16 August 2013 and 24 September 2013.

 

Further public consultation occurred between 11 March 2014 and 23 April 2014, when Administration wrote to the landowners adjoining the ROW.  Input was received from the following adjoining landowners:

 

(a)     Eugene Rabbone and Stephanie Rabbone (48 Parri Road, Wangara):  Mr Rabbone initially contacted City officers to obtain information concerning the proposed dedication.  Mr and Mrs Rabbone subsequently provided a signed consent to the dedication of the ROW as a public road.

 

(b)     Peter Alan Rowles and Dianne Gaye Rowles (56 Parri Road, Wangara):  Mr and Mrs Rowles provided a signed consent to the dedication of the ROW as a public road.

 

(c)     Vinko Vulin (one of the owners of 34 Windsor Road, Wangara):  Mr Vulin initially contacted City officers to obtain information concerning the proposed dedication.  Mr Vulin did not proceed with making any submissions to the City prior to the requested response dates of 16 April 2014.

 

No adverse submissions were received from members of the public.

Comment

On the basis that:

 

(a)     no service authorities, members of the public, or service units within the City had any objection to the proposal to dedicate the ROW as a public road;  and

 

(b)     the dedication would facilitate the development of land in the vicinity of the ROW,

 

Administration recommends that Council supports the dedication of the ROW as a public road.


 

 

Statutory Compliance

The City must comply with section 56 of the LAA and regulation 8 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998, dealing with public advertising, objections and service agency responses to the proposed dedication of a right of way as a public road, and must formally resolve in favour of the dedication, prior to advising the Department of Lands and requesting the Minister for Lands to dedicate the ROW as a public road.

 

The Department of Lands has confirmed that, where a local authority makes a request under section 56 of the LAA for the dedication of a ROW as a public road, the local authority must indemnify the Minister for Lands in respect of that dedication.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

Pursuant to section 3.53(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), the City is currently responsible for the maintenance of the ROW as an "otherwise unvested facility", being a thoroughfare belonging to the State of Western Australia and not vested in any other authority. 

 

Although the statutory basis for the City's responsibility for the ROW will shift to section 55(2) of the LAA following its dedication as a public road, the City's practical responsibility for the ROW should not change as the City is already responsible for costs associated with care, control and management.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Complex Land Solutions has advised that its clients, the subdivision proponents, will cover any costs associated with the dedication of the ROW as a public road.

 

The road will be constructed over the ROW (following dedication) by the subdivision proponents (or their consultants), as part of the overall construction of subdivisional roads.  Following construction, the road will be maintained by the City in accordance with section 55(2) of the LAA.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 


 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submissions received from government agencies and service authorities in respect of the proposed dedication of the private right of way at 48L Parry Road, Wangara (being Lot 123 on Diagram 98586 and part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2193 Folio 440, and being the land identified in Attachment 1) ("the ROW") as a public road;

2.       SUPPORTS the dedication of the ROW as a public road;

3.       AUTHORISES a request being made to the Minister for Lands pursuant to Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 for the dedication of the ROW as a public road;

4.       INDEMNIFIES the Minister for Lands against any claim for compensation arising from the dedication; and

5.       DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to execute such documents as are required by the Minister for Lands to effect the dedication of the ROW as a public road.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Right of Way - Lot 123 (48L) Parri Road, Wangara

13/183219

 

2View.

Diagram 98586

13/183401

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    89


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                 90

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     91

Draft

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Projects

3.11  Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project - One Way Traffic Flow System in Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive

File Ref:                                              15231 – 14/178821

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider responses to a proposed one way traffic flow system heading east out of Servite Terrace via Cafaggio Crescent and south along Senario Drive into Dundebar Road, Wanneroo.

 

Background

Council considered a report on the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project (Item IN02-03/14 refers) at its meeting on 4 March 2014 and resolved in relation to the proposed one way traffic flow system as follows :

 

"2.        ENDORSES an amendment to the Town Centre Structure Plan to address roadwork changes to Senario Drive and Cafaggio Crescent;

5.         APPROVES the construction of the following road work linked to the road reserve adjacent to the Civic Centre site subject to Administration addressing the advertised outcome to the road closure advertisement of Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive based upon the construction of:

a.         A one way traffic flow system heading east from Cafaggio Crescent to Senario Drive with localised drainage and angle carparking;

b.         A one way traffic flow system heading south from Senario Drive to Dundebar Road with localised drainage and angle carparking;

c.         A mini roundabout at the intersection of Senario Drive and Dundebar Road;

d.         Localised drainage and additional carparking at the southern end of Servite Terrace;

9.         NOTES that Administration will comply with the procedure prescribed in Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 concerning public notification for the proposed implementation of the one way traffic flow system and road closure from Servite Terrace to through traffic via Cafaggio Crescent into Senario Drive and into Dundebar Road;

 

10.       NOTES that Administration will work with management of the St Anthony's School to explore development/implementation of a traffic management plan to accommodate the proposed one-way arrangement for Senario Drive and Cafaggio Crescent to assist in controlling/distributing traffic flow during peak school drop-off and pick-up times as a possible RoadWise initiative; and"

Actions are currently being followed up in accordance with Council resolutions.

 


 

 

With Reference to Resolution 2, it is confirmed that there is no requirement to amend the Wanneroo Town Centre Structure Plant (WTCSP) to address the proposed roadwork changes. The WTCSP identifies a road around the Civic Centre which will be retained as part of the proposed changes to Senario Drive and Cafaggio Crescent. The directional traffic flow is not inconsistent with the WTCSP and therefore does not need to be amended. When future development occurs to the north of the Civic Centre, as identified in the WTCSP Residential Precinct, it is possible to amend road layout to accommodate two way traffic flow without the need to amend the WTCSP. There will be no further action by Administration on this resolution.

 

This report considers submissions received in response to public and private notifications arising from actioning Resolutions 9 and 10 as prior considerations to the proposed implementation of Resolution 5.

Detail

As prescribed in Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, Administration publicly advertised for a period of 28 days, the proposed closure to two way traffic flow system on Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive between Servite Terrace and Dundebar Road in favour of the proposed one way traffic flow system This proposal has been initiated to accommodate the proposed reconstruction of these roads, inclusive of angle car parking.

The proposed one way traffic flow system is presented as a schematic below.

Furthermore, the City gave notice that it intends to carry out the proposed reconstruction of Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive, during the first half of the 2014/2015 financial year.

Notifications were simultaneously sent to the appropriate State Authorities, advertised in the 13 May 2014 edition of the Wanneroo Times, on the City's Website and letters in this regard were also forwarded to adjoining affected property owners/occupiers. Comment was sought by no later than 10 June 2014.

Two signs were erected, one at the west end of Cafaggio Crescent and the other at the south end of Senario Drive, presenting the same information as notified and aimed at seeking comment from passing motorists, specifically those motorists being parents of children attending St Anthony's School.

 

In accordance with Council Resolution 10, Administration met with the management of the St Anthony's School and Catholic Church to explore options for traffic management to accommodate the proposed one way traffic flow system during peak school drop-off and pick-up times.

Apart from acknowledgement letters in reply from State Supply Authorities, three letters were received that required either a direct response or the need for further investigation of existing traffic flows on roads surrounding the Civic Centre.

A letter dated 16 May 2014 from the Commissioner of Main Roads WA raised four matters, with Administration's responses noted as follows:

1.   The reasons for the changed traffic flow:

       Response: At present, 307 vehicle parking bays area available for the Civic Centre, comprising 239 bays on site, 29 bays within the basement car park and 39 bays in adjoining streets.  The proposal to turn Senario Drive and Cafaggio Crescent into one way streets with angle parking bays will:

·      Increase the total number of bays available to 409 and provide the additional parking required to service all required City staff at one location in the proposed Extension to the Wanneroo Civic Centre;

·      Mitigate the need to construct a Multi-Level carpark (estimated to cost in the order of $9m) on Council land; and

·      Improve safety for parents and children in the vicinity of the adjoining St Anthony School.

 

2.    Evidence of public consultation of no less that 35 days:

       Response: The City has undertaken the required public consultation by way of public notice as prescribed in Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 for its normal period of 28 days as the Act is silent on the number of days required.  Administration therefore requested that the 35 days stated by Main Roads WA be adjusted accordingly.

 

3.    Copy of the appropriate Council meeting motion indicating approval for the proposed drawings:

Response: A copy of the minutes for Item IN02-03/14 was provided, with Resolutions 5, 9 and 10 identified as being relevant to advancing the proposed drawings.

 

4.   Submission of the detailed drawings showing road markings and signings:

      Response: Subject to a supportive outcome of Council's consideration of this report, Administration will advance detailed design and associated drawings for the proposed works, with road marking and signage drawings to be forwarded to Main Roads WA for approval.

 

Letter dated 23 May 2014 from the Principal of St Anthony's School that raised three matters, with Administration's responses noted as follows:

 

1.    Quote: "St Anthony's School has two car parks.  Our main car park is off Servite Terrace, closer to Dundebar Road, the other further along Servite Terrace, towards the back, just beyond Cafaggio Crescent.  Children from Years 1-6 are picked up at the front car park while kindy-pre-primary and any older siblings use the roundabout at the corner of Servite Terrace and Dundebar Road and traffic is banked all the way down and onto Wanneroo Road."

Response: It is noted that traffic flow out of the School's car park can be controlled by School management though placement of appropriate traffic signage within the school's boundary and educating parents to oblige left in and left out traffic movements in favour of controlled vehicular movements.

 

As a consequence, Administration does not support the school's suggestion that a slip lane be installed at the western road entry into the Dundebar Road roundabout so that traffic flow eastwards along Dundebar Road from Wanneroo Road would not be impeded by the blockage created at the School's southern car park. 

 

The construction of a slipway at the Dundebar Road roundabout would be a very expensive exercise and not justifiable given event occurs twice daily and only during school terms (i.e. during am and pm school drop-off/pick-up times).  The proposed upgrade to Servite Terrace will place a turning circle well clear of new street vehicle parking and this will suitably cater for school traffic making a left turn out of the School's two car parks.

 

2.    Quote: "Making Cafaggio Crescent one way (travelling east from Servite Terrace) would force all parents to enter from the corner of Dundebar Road and Servite Terrace thus increasing congestion, I am unsure of the number of parents entering from Cafaggio.  City of Wanneroo Manager Infrastructure Projects indicated that they would set up a traffic counter to investigate."

       Response: Refer to section titled "Traffic Investigation".

 

3.    The last paragraph sought advance notification as to the timing of the proposed road works so that the School could inform its parent community and prepares plans with drop off and pick up procedures. 

Response: Administration will arrange for signage to be posted on site and will provide advance notice to all parties that may be affected, notifying intended construction commencement and completion.

 

Email received by the City on 11 June 2014 from a parent of St Anthony's School who raised a general concern, with Administration's responses noted as follows:

Quote: "I am one of the parents whose children attend St Anthony's School in Wanneroo.  I have a child in Year 2 and a child in Kindy and another on the way who will attend the same school. 

We have been instructed by the school that if we have a child who attends Kindy or Pre Primary, to use the pickup line accessing the Padua car park, not the church carpark.  Both children are to be collected from this area.  I currently use Senario Drive and Cafaggio Crescent to miss the congestion along Dundebar Road to access the Padua car park.

If the proposed changes are implemented, this will limit the access to the Padua car park as there will only be one entrance via Servite Terrace.  Currently, it is hard enough to drive down Dundebar Road to turn onto Servite Terrace to access the school and changing Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive to one way will only add to the congestion along Dundebar Road at school pick up times.

I do not believe that Cafaggio crescent and Senario Drive should be changed to one way as this will only add to the congestion along Dundebar Road."

       Response: Refer to section titled "Traffic Investigation".

 

To address the concerns relating to Traffic movement received by both the Principal of St Anthony's School and the school parent on an informed basis, four traffic counters were set up on Friday 9 June 2014, for a period of one week (seven days).  These counters were set up to measure vehicle numbers using Servite Terrace north of the Dundebar Road roundabout; Senario Drive and vehicles entering/leaving the Civic Centre car park from Servite Terrace and Dundebar Road.

 

Traffic Investigation

A summary of the traffic data collected by the counters is shown on Attachment 1, and summarised as follows (AWT – Average Weekly Traffic):

1.    Traffic flows for Senario Drive

Northbound (ie: from Dundebar Road) peak between 8am and 9am = 6 AWT

Northbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 8 AWT

Total northbound over a 24 hour period = 31 vehicles

Southbound (ie: to Dundebar Road) peak between 8am and 9am = 69 AWT

Southbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 51 AWT

Total southbound over a 24 hour period = 192 vehicles

Northbound flow operates at 16% of the southbound flow

 

2.    Traffic flows for Servite Terrace

Northbound (ie: from Dundebar Road) peak between 8am and 9am = 379 AWT

Northbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 203 AWT

Total northbound over a 24 hour period = 964 vehicles

Southbound (ie: to Dundebar Road) peak between 8am and 9am = 137 AWT

Southbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 81 AWT

Total southbound over a 24 hour period = 771 vehicles

Northbound flow operates at 125% of the southbound flow

 

3.    Traffic flows for the Administration Centre Carpark (Dundebar Road Entry/Exit)

Northbound (Entry) peak between 8am and 9am = 58 AWT

Northbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 6 AWT

Total northbound over a 24 hour period = 132 vehicles

Southbound (Exit) peak between 8am and 9am = 2 AWT

Southbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 10 AWT

Total southbound over a 24 hour period = 151 vehicles

Northbound flow operates at 87% of the southbound flow.

 

4.    Traffic flows for the Administration Centre Carpark (Servite Terrace Entry/Exit)

Eastbound (Entry) peak between 8am to 9am = 90 AWT

Eastbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 20 AWT

Total eastbound over a 24 hour period = 288 vehicles

Westbound (Exit) peak between 8am and 9am = 11 AWT

Westbound peak between 2pm and 3pm = 17 AWT

Total westbound over a 24 hour period = 272 vehicles.

Eastbound traffic flow operates at 106% of the westbound flow.

Consultation

Administration met with the Principal of the St Anthony's School and the St Anthony's Catholic Church Priest to discuss concerns regarding management of traffic and the implementation of its plans during the construction phase of the proposed one way traffic flow.  It was agreed that there would be negligible impact on parishioners of St Anthony's Church however; the school could commence to make specific arrangements to address parental children drop-off and pick-up.

Comment

The following points are made in addressing the findings from the traffic count survey:

 

·     Traffic flows into and out of Servite Terrace from Dundebar Road

The traffic flow difficulties that are evident in the general area, but have no bearing upon the proposed one way traffic flow system, occur during the St Anthony's School peak pick-up and drop-of times and can lead to a backing up of traffic in Wanneroo Road from Dundebar Road due to vehicles not being able to enter Servite Terrace and St Anthony's School. 

This was reflected through an average recorded weekday flow of 380 vehicles entering Servite Terrace from Dundebar Road at 8am and 203 vehicles at 3pm, while the traffic exiting Servite Terrace into Dundebar Road at the same times of the day was recorded at 137 and 106 vehicles respectively.  It is assumed that the difference in vehicle numbers can be attributed to some 70 and 51 vehicles respectively accessing the road network, while the balance of vehicle flow numbers can be attributed to vehicles parking in the City or St Anthony's School car parks.

 

·     Traffic flows around the north and east side of the Civic Centre

The proposed one way traffic flow system from Servite Terrace via Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive and then into Dundebar Road would, when implemented under the current measured traffic flows, only inconvenience peak school drop-off and pick-up times at an average recorded weekday flow of 6 and 8 vehicles respectively.

 

The traffic flow counts indicate that there is currently very little use made of Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive.  However and based on the traffic data collected, it also indicates an opportunity for increased use of the proposed one way traffic system by St Anthony's School parents following drop-off and pick-up of their children to alleviate current congestion on Servite Terrace, with the roundabout at the Dundebar Road/Civic Drive intersection to be utilised as a "U-turn" device for those parents that need to access Wanneroo Road in continuation of their travels.  This in turn would need to be self-managed by the school through formation of a RoadWise Committee and supported by education of the school community.

 

As part of proposed works associated with the implementation of the one way traffic flow system, a cul-de-sac is proposed at the northern end of Servite Terrace and is intended to remain in place until such time that this road is extended and ultimately connected to Wanneroo Road as a consequence of future land subdivisional development of the area. The proposed cul-de-sac will provide a controlled turning facility that currently does not exist, with three point turning required at this time that in its own right generates delay/congestion.

 

Works Programme

The works programme for the forward civil works relating to the implementation of the one way traffic flow system and associated angle parking is outlined below:

Council Consideration

Tues 22 July 2014

Engineering Consultant Re-engaged

Fri 25 July 2014

Notification of Temporary Road Closure to accommodate construction activity

Mon 15 September 2014

Completion of documentation for In-House Construction

Fri 19 September 2014

Construction Commencement

Mon 29 September 2014

Construction Completion (12 weeks)

Fri 19 December 2014

 

The Engineering Consultant has been allocated eight weeks to prepare detailed construction documentation before the City's Engineering Crew commences the works.  The Consultant will not be required to administer the works over the 12 week construction period.

Statutory Compliance

Notification as to the proposed road closure was undertaken in accordance with Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 and its associated regulations.

 

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.

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

 

2.3     Safe Communities

Promote a sense of safety in the community

Risk Management Considerations

No perceived risk is noted other than the willingness (or otherwise) of the school community to self-regulate traffic movements at school drop –off and pick-up times to assist with mitigation of congestion on Servite Terrace.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Costs incurred to date relating to the implementation of the "Road Closure Notice for One Way Traffic Flow" includes $657.62 paid to Market Force for its advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and $553.60 paid to Road Signs Australia for signs erected at the west end of Cafaggio Crescent and at the south end of Senario Drive.

 

The estimated cost of construction of the one way traffic flow system is $873,000 and there is sufficient budgeted funding available in the 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget allocated to the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project (PR-2233) to cover the cost of these works.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the proposed partial closure to through traffic in Cafaggio Crescent and Senario Drive, in accordance with Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995 to accommodate the proposed One Way Traffic Flow System heading east out of Servite Terrace via Cafaggio Crescent and south along Senario Drive into Dundebar Road, Wanneroo;

 

2.       AUTHORISES Administration to proceed with the design and construction of the One Way Traffic Flow System outlined in Item 1 as essential forward civil works in support of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project (PR-2233); and

 

3.       ADVISES the respondents to the "Road Closure Notice for One Way Traffic Flow" process of Council's decision, incorporating the comments in this report.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Traffic data

14/184438

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                    98

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                     99

Draft

Tenders

3.12  Tender No 01418 - Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment Stage 6B Baseball (Building, Civil and Electrical Works)

File Ref:                                              15216 – 14/141933

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01418 for Building, Civil and Electrical Works at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment Stage 6B Baseball.

 

Background

The City has progressed with the staged re-development of the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex over several years. Recently Tender No. 01346 for the Supply and Installation of Lighting for Baseball Diamonds 1 and 2 (part of Stage 6A works) was awarded by Council at its meeting of 10 December 2013 (Item No IN03-12/13 refers). This contract is being finalised with the lights currently in use.

 

The final stage of the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment project
(Stage 6B), involves the following scope of works:

·        Baseball Diamond 3 redevelopment comprising earthworks, turfing, reticulation, fencing, dugouts/scorers box and sports lighting, similar to that completed for Baseball Diamonds 1 and 2;

·        Installation of six baseball batting cages with covered protection, lighting and enclosed by fencing on a concrete base covered with synthetic turf; and,

·        Footpath improvements and turfing of the drainage swale.

 

Due to the diverse scope of works required, the City engaged a consultant architect to prepare designs for tender.

Detail

Tender No. 01418 was advertised on Saturday 10 May 2014 and closed on
Tuesday 27 May 2014.

 

Tenders Received.

Tenders were received from the following companies:

 

BCL Group Pty Ltd

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

Civcon Civil & Project Management

CPD Group Pty Ltd

Devco Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Devco Builders

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

Van Construction

 

A tender submission was also received from BGC Concrete, however as the schedules were incomplete, this tender submission was not considered for further evaluation.

 


 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation Team (TET), comprising the Contracts Officer, Project Manager Infrastructure Development and Consultant Architect, evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria and weightings:

 

Item No

Description

Score

1

Price for Works Offered

50%

2

Previous Experience in Similar Works

10%

3

Works Methodology

10%

4

Availability, Capacity & Resources

10%

5

Safety Management

20%

 

The initial review of the remaining tender submissions by the TET confirmed that they were all conforming tenders. 

 

Tender Pricing (50%)

The eight conforming tenders were assessed, and based on the information provided in the tender submissions, were ranked on tender price, as follows:

 

Tenderer

Tender Price

Ranking

BCL Group Pty Ltd

$980,695.50

1

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

$1,161,561.00

2

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

$1,212,291.65

3

Civcon Civil & Project Management

$1,300,802.00

4

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

$1,303,889.00

5

CPD Group Pty Ltd

$1,325,151.50

6

Devco Builders

$1,448,313.00

7

Van Construction

$1,480,745.00

8

Prices received are noted as being within the range of the consultant architect's estimate and three of the tender prices fall within the budget remaining for Stage 6B at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.

 

Tenderer’s Previous Experience in Similar Works (10%)

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd and RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd presented high standard experience profiles for this type of work, with the remaining tenderers assessed against this benchmark.

 

It is advised that Bistel Construction Pty Ltd was only recently established, and its experience profile was based on the Company Director's employment history from previous companies (ie: experience originating from Doric Construction and Bistel Pty Ltd, both "building" construction oriented companies).

 

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd was established by the Company Director to provide and focus on "civil" construction oriented work.   In further assessing the experience history presented in Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's submission, it is noted that the emphasis in relation to the work to be carried out will be project management focused, managing various sub-contractors specialist in their relevant fields (ie: earthworks, irrigation, turfing, floodlighting/electrical, concreting, building, etc).

 

Ranking was determined as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

1

CPD Group Pty Ltd

2

Civcon Civil & Project Management

3

Devco Builders

4

BCL Group Pty Ltd

5

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

5

Van Construction

6

 

Tenderer’s Works Methodology (10%)

Tenderers that supplied a detailed rather than a generic work methodology, associated with a program schedule were assessed higher, as demonstrated by the top three tenders in this criteria.

 

Based on the information provided, the tenders were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

2

CPD Group Pty Ltd

3

BCL Group Pty Ltd

4

Civcon Civil & Project Management

4

Devco Builders

4

Van Construction

4

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

5

 

Tenderer’s Availability, Capacity and Resources (10%)

Tenderers were assessed higher where they provided details of experienced personnel nominated for the project, listed key items of plant required to execute the works, and where they had known capacity to manage subcontractors. The majority of tenders provided adequate demonstration of this requirement with some demonstrating this requirement better than others.

 

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's submission clearly indicated that the Company Director will have direct "project manager" responsibility for the works, supported by two personnel with site responsibility.  Both these personnel come with a wide experience base in the industry.

 

Based on the information provided, the tenders were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

2

Civcon Civil & Project Management

3

CPD Group Pty Ltd

3

BCL Group Pty Ltd

4

Devco Builders

4

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

5

Van Construction

6

 

Tenderer’s Safety Management (20%)

Most tenderers had a differing focus on safety management that is either generic or specific to the business, and as a consequence, the quality of safety management supplied varied accordingly. The lower ranked tenderers reflected a generic presentation of safety material against this criterion.

 

Even though a new company, the safety management presentation by Bistel Construction Pty Ltd demonstrated a sound appreciation of safety management procedures.

 

Based on the information provided, the tenders were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

CPD Group Pty Ltd

2

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

2

Civcon Civil & Project Management

3

Devco Builders

3

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

4

BCL Group Pty Ltd

5

Van Construction

5

 

Overall Weighted Score

The overall weighted scores including price assessment have resulted in the following tender ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

RWE Robinson & Sons Pty Ltd

2

BCL Group Pty Ltd

3

CPD Group Pty Ltd

4

Civcon Civil & Project Management

5

Devco Builders

6

Premier Commercial & Industrial Builders

7

Van Construction

8

Consultation

Nominated contacts in the Kingsway Baseball and Softball Clubs were consulted during the design stage and both Clubs signed off on the design drawings that formed the basis of the tender as advertised.

Comment

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's tender submission achieved the highest overall ranking, with the following characteristics noted:

 

·    Second lowest price submission;

·    Is considered as the best tender submission in the qualitative assessment for all the selection criteria;

·    Registered builder operating under Licence No 7089;

·    Whilst the company has only been recently established, the Company Director has extensive experience in the construction industry. Reference checks have indicated positive feedback of the work undertaken by the Company Director; and,

·    Projects that have been successfully undertaken by the Company Director are significant, with complexity rivalling and exceeding that required for this project.

 

The TET determined that the tender received from Bistel Construction Pty Ltd addressed all aspects of the selection criteria, and that it has the necessary resources to fulfil the requirements of the works proscribed by Tender No 01418.

The works program for this project subject to Council's consideration relating to tender award is outlined as follows:

Execute Contract

4 August 2014

On Site Commencement

18 August 2014

Practical Completion (16 weeks)

 5 December 2014

The 16 week construction period nominated in the tender is heavily dependent on the lead time for the manufacture of the light poles and structural steel members.  Furthermore, given the work is to be project managed in totality, the scheduling and timing of sub-contract works will be crucial in ensuring timely completion within the 16 week construction period nominated.

Statutory Compliance

The tender has been evaluated against the selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act and associated regulations.

 

The City has complied with requirements for a Development Approval by way of providing advice to the Department of Planning as notification under S.6(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

Further, a Building Application has been submitted for the project, with approval subject to insertion of the successful Tenderer's name on the Application for Building Permit.

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.

 


 

Risk Management Considerations

A financial check from Corporate Score Card could not be undertaken on Bistel Construction Pty Ltd due to the recent incorporation of Bistel Construction Pty Ltd in May 2014.  By way of background, Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's sole Company Director is also a joint Director of Bistel Pty Ltd (a company that has been in existence for 9 years) and a financial check from Corporate Scorecard of this company has advised that it has been rated 'pass' and assigned a score of 4.4, indicating satisfactory financial capacity.

 

The Company Director of Bistel Construction Pty Ltd has also provided a Statutory Declaration clarifying the relationship between Bistel Construction Pty Ltd and Bistel Pty Ltd, and the proposed commitment of resources by Bistel Construction Pty Ltd if it is awarded Tender 01418 by Council. Further, it was agreed that prior to Possession of Site, Bistel Construction Pty Ltd will provide a Bank Guarantee of 10% of the tendered lump sum, over and above the normal 5% provision in lieu of cash retention deducted from payments certified during the course of the works.

 

Administration is satisfied sufficient financial risk associated with award of tender to Bistel Construction Pty Ltd has been mitigated through the provision of the validly executed and sworn Statutory Declaration and the proposed "10%" Bank Guarantee.

 

No other major risks have been identified in relation to the works covered by Tender 01418, other than the usual contractual/commercial risks that are managed through appropriate contract administration/supervision practices. Given Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's relatively short history and in order to ensure successful delivery of the project, Administration will commit to undertaking a greater contract management role in delivering this project to mitigate safety and/or commercial risks.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The table below lists current Stage 6 project costs along with the recommended Tenderer's tendered price:

 

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment Stage 6

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Allocated Project Budget for 2013/2014 (PR-2247)

 

$2,132,928

Allocated Project Budget for 2014/2015 (PR-2949)

$50,000

Expenditure to Date (Kingsway RSC Stage 6A & part 6B costs)

 $954,987

 

Tender 01418 Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

$1,161,561

 

Contingency/Risk Management

$50,000

 

Project Management

$15,000

 

Tender Advertisement & Administration Costs

$3,000

 

Total Expenditure

$2,184,548

 

Total Funding

 

$2,182,928

Funding Balance Shortfall

 

$1,620

 

A minor budget shortfall is noted, however, this is to be managed within the project contingency nominated.

Furthermore, in Bistel Construction Pty Ltd's tender submission, adjustment to the electrical design has been suggested, this in turn being a potential source of cost savings. The impact of this adjustment is to be further assessed should Council resolve to award the tender to Bistel Construction Pty Ltd.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Bistel Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01418 for Building, Civil and Electrical Works at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment Stage 6B Baseball for the tendered lump sum of $1,161,561 as per the General Conditions of Tendering, conditional upon a Bank Guarantee of 10% of the tendered lump sum being submitted prior to Possession of Site.

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   107

Draft

3.13  Tender No. 01420 - Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads for a Period of Three Years

File Ref:                                              15228 – 14/174661

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01420 for the Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads for a Period of Three Years.

 

Background

Arterial Roads provide part of the transport network throughout the City and the services specified in the tender documentation will ensure that the road verges and medians are maintained to provide safe sightline clearances for motorists and present a neat and tidy appearance.

 

Currently the City's in-house resources undertake the maintenance of arterial roads four to six times per year.  A new strategic initiative was approved commencing in the 2013/14 operating budget to engage external contractors to provide this maintenance service.  In May 2013 an external contractor was appointed on a short-term contract to test the market cost and the required contract specifications.  Adjustments have been made to the contract specifications and scope for the proposed long-term contract, with additional arterial roads included in the scope.  The additional roads are Beach Road, Lenore Road, Marangaroo Drive and Wanneroo Road.

 

The arterial roads to be maintained under proposed Contract No. 01420 are:

·     Alexander Drive from Gnangara Road to Beach Road;

·     Beach Road (northern verge only) from Wanneroo Road to Alexander Drive;

·     Hepburn Avenue from Wanneroo Road to Alexander Drive;

·     Lenore Road from East Road to Ocean Reef Road;

·     Marangaroo Drive from Wanneroo Road to Alexander Drive;

·     Mirrabooka Avenue from Ocean Reef Road to Beach Road;

·     Ocean Reef Road from the City of Joondalup boundary to Motivation Drive;

·     Pinjar Road from Vosnacos Way to Joondalup Drive; and

·     Wanneroo Road from Joondalup Drive to Beach Road.

 

A map showing the arterial roads to be maintained is shown in the Arterial Roads Streetscape Maintenance Master Map at Attachment 1.

 

Services to be undertaken under the contract include weed control; pruning, litter collection, mowing, edging, brushcutting and reporting of vandalism and graffiti.  Each streetscape will be serviced every two months.

Detail

Tender No. 01420 for the Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads for a Period of Three (3) Years was advertised on 24 May 2014 and closed on 10 June 2014.  A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Term

Detail

Contract Type

Lump sum price

Contract Duration

Three years

Commencement Date

1 August 2014

Expiry Date

31 July 2017

Extension Permitted

Yes, two periods of 12 months or part thereof.

Rise And Fall Included

Maximum Perth All Groups CPI increases upon extensions.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

·     Environmental Industries Pty Ltd;

·     GLG Greenlife Group Pty Ltd;

·     Landscape and Maintenance Solutions Pty Ltd;

·     Sanpoint Pty Ltd trading as LD Total; and

·     Skyline Landscape Services (WA).

 

The Tender Evaluation Team, consisting of the Coordinator Parks Maintenance South, Coordinator Parks Maintenance North, Coordinator Engineering Maintenance and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Selection Criteria

Weighting

Price for the services offered

40%

Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations

20%

Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services

20%

Demonstrated occupational health and safety management

20%

 

The tender submission from Landscape and Maintenance Solutions was for a lump sum price of $589,020 over the three-year initial contract period.  The scores allocated by the Tender Evaluation Team for the three qualitative criteria for Landscape and Maintenance Solutions were all low indicating that Landscape and Maintenance Solutions tender submission was a marginal offer partly meeting the tender evaluation criteria.  This resulted in the Tender Evaluation Team excluding Landscape and Maintenance Solutions from the comparative evaluation with the other four tenderers.

 

Price for the services offered (40%)

This criterion was based on the lump sum prices submitted with the tender documentation and has ranked the tenderers as follows:

 

Tenderer

Lump Sum Amount over a Three-Year Period

Ranking

Skyline Landscape Services

$1,074,920.89

1

LD Total

$1,736,403.02

2

GLG Greenlife Group

$1,838,365.99

3

Environmental Industries

$2,822,509.71

4

Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' experience in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances.

 

Environmental Industries currently provides similar contracted services for the City of Wanneroo which it performs to a satisfactory standard.  Environmental Industries provided details of other relevant contracts and clients including Events West, Landcorp, Serco, the Cities of Bunbury, Gosnells, Joondalup, Swan and Subiaco, and the Shires of East Pilbara and Roebourne.

 

GLG Greenlife Group provided details of relevant contracts and clients including Broadcast Australia, Lake Claremont Golf Course, Western Power and the Cities of Belmont and Nedlands.

 

LD Total currently provides similar contracted services for the City of Wanneroo which it performs to a satisfactory standard.  LD Total provided details of other relevant contracts and clients including the City East Alliance, Satterley Property Group and the Cities of Kwinana, Stirling and Joondalup.

 

Skyline Landscape Services provided details of contracts and clients including Brookfield Johnston (Western Power Sites), NSW Transport, Transfield, Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and North Sydney Council.  Skyline has no experience in streetscape maintenance Western Australia.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Environmental Industries

1

GLG Greenlife Group

1

LD Total

1

Skyline Landscape Services

2

 

Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' staff resources and plant and equipment listed for use in carrying out the services under this contract, and the tenderers' proposed methodology to utilise the resources to deliver the services.

 

GLG Greenlife Group provided a good methodology describing pre-start, litter collection, mowing, brushcutting, hard area maintenance, planted and mulched area management, reporting and environmental considerations.  GLG also described resources to deliver the services including relevant staff qualifications and adequate plant and equipment, such as ride-on mowers, trucks, tractors, 4WD weed control rigs, utilities and relevant minor plant.

 

LD Total provided a good methodology including describing site supervision, mowing, weed control, traffic management and litter collection and described resources to deliver the services including relevant staff qualifications and adequate plant and equipment, such as ride-on mowers, trucks, tractors, weed control rigs, a skid steer loader and relevant minor plant.

 

Environmental Industries provided a limited description of methodology relevant to this contract.  Staff resources were described but not staff qualifications.

Adequate plant and equipment was described, such as ride-on mowers, trucks, a tractor, weed control spray units, utilities and relevant minor plant.

 

Skyline Landscape Services provided good general methodology but little methodology specific to this contract and onsite staff qualifications were not described, although the management team is well qualified.  Adequate plant and equipment were described, such as ride-on mowers, tractors, a weed control rig, and relevant minor plant.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

GLG Greenlife Group

1

LD Total

1

Environmental Industries

2

Skyline Landscape Services

3

 

Demonstrated occupational health and safety management (20%)

Evidence of safety management policies, procedures and practices was assessed from the tender documents.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers' submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) policy documentation, working documentation and responses to an OH&S Management System Questionnaire.

 

Skyline Landscape Services adequately answered the questionnaire and provided comprehensive policies and procedures and demonstrated the use of working documentation including risk assessments, hazard reports, work injury/incident reports and job and site inspections.  Skyline Landscape Services also provided an assessment report for AS4801:2001 best practice occupational health and safety program.

 

LD Total adequately answered the questionnaire, provided limited policy documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports and toolbox records.  LD Total also provided a certificate of confidence for AS4801:2001 best practice occupational health and safety program

 

Environmental Industries adequately answered the questionnaire and provided documentation including comprehensive policies and procedures, risk assessments, working procedures, hazard report forms, induction check lists and work injury/incident report forms; however there were no examples demonstrating the active use of safety systems.

 

GLG Greenlife Group adequately answered the questionnaire and provided risk assessments and training records, and forms for incident reports and field risk assessments.  GLG also provided a copy of a certificate of registration for AS4801:2001 best practice occupational health and safety program; however there were no examples demonstrating the active use of safety systems.  Policy documentation provided was limited.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Skyline Landscape Services

1

LD Total

1

Environmental Industries

2

GLG Greenlife Group

3

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderers’ submissions were reviewed in accordance with the selection criteria with the key aspect of tender evaluation being price. 

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

Tenderer

Ranking

Skyline Landscape Services

1

LD Total

2

GLG Greenlife Group

3

Environmental Industries

4

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The tender submission from Skyline Landscape Services achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document; however, the Tender Evaluation Team required some clarification of the tender submission regarding the methodology and resources to be applied to the contract. 

 

Skyline Landscape Services was interviewed twice and further information was provided by Skyline that satisfied the Tender Evaluation Team's queries.

 

A financial assessment of Skyline Landscape Services was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd has verified that Skyline Landscape Services has been assigned a Score of 8.77, indicating that it has a very strong financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract.

 

A reference check for Skyline Landscape Services was carried out by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd, which indicated that Skyline Landscape Services has provided a good service to another client.

 

It is therefore recommended that Skyline Landscape Services is the successful tenderer.  Skyline Landscape Services has the experience, resources and safety systems to carry out the services in accordance with the contract requirements.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

The proposal 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.

 

Risk Management Considerations

The tender submission from Skyline Landscape Services achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting; however, received a relatively low score for the methodology and resources criterion.  This may indicate a risk of non-compliance with the contract specifications.

 

Non-compliance with the contract would lead to:

·     Intensive contract management by the City utilising unallocated management, supervisory and administrative resources;

·     Insufficient sightline clearances leading to safety risk to motorists;

·     Internal resources having to cover any service shortages leading to reduced services in parks and other streetscapes; and

·     Retendering of the contract after a short period of time.

 

As mentioned in the Comment section of this report, clarification information provided by Skyline Landscape Services has resulted in the Tender Evaluation Team being confident that this tenderer has a clear understanding of the methodology and resources required to satisfactorily complete the contract in accordance with the specified scope of services; mitigating the risk of contract non-compliance.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Based on the recommended tender's lump sum price, the three-year average annual value of the contracted services is $358,307 per annum, which is accommodated in the Parks and Reserves Maintenance operational budget on an ongoing basis.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Skyline Landscape Services (WA) for Tender No. 01420 for the Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads  for a Period of Three Years commencing on 1 August 2014 for a lump sum price of $1,074,920.89, with options to extend the contract for a further two 12 month periods, or part thereof, with maximum Perth All Groups CPI increases at the commencement of the option terms.

 

Attachments:

1View.

Arterial Roads Streetscape Maintenance Master Map

14/176900

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               113

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   114

Draft

Traffic Management

3.14  Clarkson Train Station Precinct - Residential Parking Permits

File Ref:                                              5597 – 13/146011

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the implementation of a system for issuing residential parking permits to residents and occupiers of business premises in the restricted parking area surrounding the Clarkson Train Station.

 

Background

In response to complaints from residents that patrons of the Metrorail train service were occupying the on-street visitor parking bays surrounding the Clarkson Train Station, Council at its meeting of 26 June 2012 extended the 3 hour parking restrictions, 8am to 5pm, Monday through Saturday, in the area surrounding the train station along Ocean Keys Boulevard and into Celebration Boulevard, Pavonia Link, Ladera Drive, Capital Turn and Bliss Way (IN05-06/12 refers).  The area covered by the parking prohibitions is shown in Attachment 1.

 

During the community consultation undertaken into the proposal a number of respondents raised the issue of the need for parking permits.  This was commented on in the Consultation section of the report which included the following paragraph:

"It is to be noted that 15 of the 70 households, who returned their survey form to the City expressed their concern that the proposed parking prohibitions will not allow them or their visitors to park longer hours and requested to provide residential parking permit allowing them unlimited time parking. This request will be reviewed after the prohibitions have been operational for three months."

 

Following the implementation of the parking prohibitions the City received a number of complaints and at its meeting of 30 April 2013 Council resolved as follows: (MN04-04/13 refers):

"That Council REQUESTS Administration to investigate and present a report to Council on the implementation of a system for issuing parking permits to residents and occupiers of business premises in the restricted parking area surrounding the Clarkson Train Station."

Detail

The Clarkson Train Station Precinct has been developed as a Transport Oriented Development (TOD) with 'Main Street' style shopping along Ocean Keys Boulevard. TOD's typically comprise higher density housing developments around rail or bus stations that promote pedestrian activity and public transport over private vehicle use.

 

The residential parking requirements within the Clarkson TOD have typically been provided at the rate of one on-site parking bay per residence with visitor and shopper parking provided on-street.

 

The Public Transport Authority (PTA) has developed two car parks adjacent to the Clarkson Train Station with a combined capacity in excess of 1,000 bays to cater for rail patrons. However, Clarkson Train Station is presently the head of the Joondalup rail line and as such caters for a larger catchment than will be the case when the Butler Station opens.

As a result, the current parking demand generated by the rail service exceeds that provided by the PTA.  In addition the State Government introduced a $2 parking fee for all PTA car parks for parking Monday to Friday, effective from 1 July 2014, which may result in some rail patrons seeking free parking in adjacent residential streets.

 

Since the implementation of the extended parking restrictions the main complaints by local residents and businesses have been:

·    The restricted availability for residents to park trade vehicles or company cars in multi vehicle households.

·    Staff parking for business owners.

 

Additionally, there is an impact on visitor parking and service/trade vehicle parking.

Consultation

The comments of Ranger, Safety and Emergency Management Services have been sought in the preparation of this report.

Comment

Clauses 71 of the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law provides the mechanism by which the City may issue Residential Parking Permits (Permit). The benefit to a Permit holder is that Clause 72 of the parking local law grants an exemption from any timed parking restrictions applicable to the roads nominated on the Permit, except for those roads abutting retail premises. No additional parking signage or amendment to signage is required to implement a Permit Scheme. However, the application of Permits as defined under the City local law is currently very limited.

 

A Permit can be issued to any resident of the parking region. The parking region as currently defined in Schedule 1 of the local law covers the entire City. The Permit applicant must also be the holder of a vehicle license registered at the address of the applicant, however, the Permit does not have to be for that vehicle.  Since the vehicle registration has to be recorded on the Permit there is no provision for random visitor or service/trade vehicles. There is also no provision for residents who do not own a vehicle but would like to allow for visitors or visiting trades.

 

There is nothing in the local law that limits the number of streets that may be nominated by a Permit applicant or that the roads have to be in the vicinity of the applicant's residence.  Consequently, a staff member of a business operating in the Clarkson Train Station precinct and who lives anywhere in the City could apply for a Permit nominating the residential streets in the precinct where they work. However, Clause 72(a) explicitly excludes roads adjacent to retail premises from roads where a Permit can apply. Similarly, a rail patron who resides in another suburb within the City could apply for a Permit nominating the streets around the station.

 

To determine the extent of permit use by metropolitan councils, Administration undertook a sample survey of the following councils:

City of Joondalup

City of Stirling

Town of Cambridge

City of Vincent

City of Subiaco

Town of Victoria Park

City of Melville

City of Fremantle

City of Cockburn

Of these only the City of Stirling does not currently issue Permits.  However, all the others have amended their parking local laws to make them more applicable to their circumstances. The majority also have complimentary parking policies which define administrative issues such as the areas over which Permits will apply and the number and type of Permits that can be issued per household.

 

While Administration can make judgements, as to who is eligible to apply for a Permit and the areas over which they are to apply there is potential for disagreement with applicants and create claims of unfairness that would require referral to Council for resolution. Before the City begins issuing Permits on a large scale Administration considers that the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law requires a review and a supporting Council Policy needs to be developed and endorsed by Council.

 

Administration is currently in the process of reviewing all the City's local laws in accordance with the Corporate Business Plan. This review is expected to take some 3 months.  Amendments to local laws take on average 6 months from initiation to gazettal as does the development of a new Council Policy.

 

In regard to the current parking demand around the Clarkson train station the extension of the Joondalup rail line to Butler will have a major impact.  Rail patrons from the northern suburbs will have the option of using the new Butler station which has parking capacity for 930 vehicles, reducing the parking demand at Clarkson station. The PTA have recently advised that the project is running 3 months ahead of schedule and it is now proposed that the Butler rail extension will be brought into operation some months earlier than the scheduled date of December 2014.

 

Permits can be issued under the City's current parking local laws, however they are unlikely to meet the needs of many of the residents who have complained about the current parking restrictions. The time restrictions on the Saturday appear to be the source of the majority of resident complaints. When the last Clarkson train station precinct parking prohibition extensions were designed in 2012 the time restrictions were extended to cover Saturday as it was anticipated that the relaxation of shop trading hours would see the normal Monday to Friday demand extend into Saturday. Since then, it has been observed that the PTA car parks have ample excess capacity on a Saturday. Consequently, Administration considers that the permissive parking applicable days for the residential streets surrounding the Clarkson train station should be amended from Monday to Saturday, to Monday to Friday.

Statutory Compliance

The following clauses from the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2003 as amended are applicable to this report:

 

Issue of Residential Parking Permits

71      (1)     The local government may, on written application, issue a residential parking permit in respect of a particular vehicle to a person who is:

(a)     the occupier of a dwelling house fronting a road within the parking region; and

(b)     the holder of the requisite vehicle licence under the Road Traffic Act for a vehicle licensed at the address shown on the application.

(2)     The residential parking permit issued by the local government may be either:

(a)     an annual residential parking permit, issued for a period not in excess of one year and expiring on 31 December in the year of issue; or

(b)     a temporary residential permit, issued for a period not greater than 6 months.

(3)     Every residential parking permit shall specify:

(a)     a permit number;

(b)     the registration number of the vehicle in respect of which the permit was issued;

(c)     the name of the roads or parking stations to which the exemption granted by clause 72 applies; and

(d)     the date on which the permit expires.

 

Conditions of Exemption for Residential Parking Permits

72      Where the stopping or parking of a vehicle on any part of a road, whether marked as a parking stall or not, is prohibited for more than a specified time, or in a ticket parking or metered zone without complying with the requirements for parking in the zone, the holder of a residential parking permit is exempted from such prohibition provided that such exemption shall apply only:

(a)     to the road, roads or parking station specified in the residential parking permit, and notwithstanding such specification areas of road adjacent to retail premises, where parking of all classes of vehicles is subject to time restrictions, shall be excluded from the area or areas specified as exempt;

(b)     if the residential parking permit is affixed to the windscreen or a window of the vehicle in a prominent position;

(c)     if the period in respect of which the residential parking permit was issued has not expired; and

(d)     if the holder of the residential parking permit at the time of parking the vehicle still occupies the dwelling house in respect of which the residential parking permit was granted.

 

Removal of Residential Parking Permit from Vehicle

73      The holder of a residential parking permit on ceasing to occupy the dwelling house in respect of which the permit was issued shall remove the residential parking permit from the vehicle to which it is affixed.

 

Fees for Residential Parking Permits

74      The fees payable for residential parking permits shall, in accordance with section 6.16 of the Act, be such fees as shall be set by a resolution of local government.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

The risk of not issuing permits is that the adjoining residents may not have the opportunity to park their vehicles close to their properties, which could lead to inconvenience and loss of amenity. Although this risk is low and impact is localised, the availability of appropriate parking permits will mitigate the risk.

 

There is a risk associated from the implementation of the parking permits due to potential lack of compliance. This risk is likely to be low and have localised impact and can be mitigated by a quick response by the City's Compliance Officers when reported to the City.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

It is estimated that the ongoing Administrative cost of processing and issuing Residential Parking Permits can be covered by a fee of $30 - $50, in accordance with Clause 74 of the Parking and parking Facilities Local Law.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES changing the permissive parking limits for Celebration Boulevard, Pavonia Link, Ladera Drive, Capital Turn and Bliss Way from “3P, 8:00AM-5:00PM, MON - SAT” (R5-3) to “3P, 8:00AM-5:00PM, MON - FRI” (R5-3), as shown in City Drawings 2734-1-2 and 2734-2-3 (Attachment 2);

2.       NOTES that Administration is undertaking a review of the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law as it relates to Residential Parking Permits in accordance with the Corporate Business Plan; and

3.       REQUESTS Administration to develop a Parking Permit Policy to support the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Location Map of Clarkson Train Station Precinct Parking Prohibition

12/66806

 

2View.

Clarkson Train Station Precinct - Parking Prohibitions - Drawing 2734

14/172654

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               119


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  120


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   122

3.15  PT04-05/14 - Request Additional Street Lighting and Speed Limit Reduction on Sydney Road

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 14/160927

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a petition for additional street lighting and a speed limit reduction on Sydney Road in the vicinity of the Lakelands Leisure Village.

 

Background

Council received petition PT04-05/14 at its meeting of 27 May 2014.  The petition was signed by 153 residents of the City of Wanneroo. The petition reads:

“We, the residents of Lakelands Leisure Village, 289 Sydney Rd, Gnangara, 6077, and its surrounds, request extra lighting and a reduction of the speed limit on Sydney Rd leading to and from the approach to Lakelands Leisure Village and Lakelands Drive.  We request this due to the vast increase of traffic that is now using Sydney Rd both during the day and at night making entering and exiting more dangerous."

 

A location plan of the Lakelands Leisure Village is shown at Attachment 1.

 

A previous petition (PT01-02/09) requesting a speed reduction on Sydney Road was considered by Council at its meeting of April 2009 (IN07-04/09 refers) which resulted in the following resolution: "That Council: REQUESTS Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of Sydney Road". The Main Roads WA response is shown at Attachment 2.

Detail

Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive are Local Distributor Roads in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy. The posted speed limit is 80km/h for Sydney Road and 60km/h for Lakelands Drive.  The land use zoning for the area is Special Rural and General Rural.

 

The Lakelands Leisure Village is located on the northwest corner of the junction of Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive.  Access to the Lakelands Leisure Village is off Sydney Road.

 

Street lighting on Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive is provided by luminaries mounted on Western Power distribution poles.  The standard of street lighting on this classification of road is similar to that provided for the majority of the City serviced by overhead power where intersections are lit and streetlights are provided on every second pole (Attachment 3 refers).

 

Previous work to improve safety along Sydney Road includes a 2009 Black Spot project to provide sealed shoulders and the lowering of a rise to the north of the Lakelands Leisure Village which residents considered was obstructing their view of approaching traffic.

 

For comparison a table of traffic data taken on Sydney Road, north of Lakelands Drive, is provided below:


 

 

Year

AWT

85%ile Speed

2014

2,767 vpd

86 km/h

2012

2,544 vpd

86 km/h

2007

2,048 vpd

93 km/h

Definitions:

AWT                    Average Weekday Traffic Volume in vehicles per day

85%ile Speed      The speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling.

Consultation

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

Comment

Council has previously expressed support for a review of the speed limit on Sydney Road.  Administration considers that a speed limit of 70km/h is appropriate for Sydney Road to recognise its classification and construction standard.

 

The request for an upgrade to the street lighting for Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive is not supported as the current standard of street lighting for both roads is equivalent to that of the majority of the City serviced by overhead power distribution.  There is currently a streetlight located between the two access driveways to the village.

 

It is acknowledged that traffic volumes on Sydney Road have increased over time and will continue to do so as drivers seek alternative routes between the east and north of the City.  Administration considers that if the residents of the Lakelands Lifestyle Village are seeking a permanent solution to their safety concerns then consideration should be given to providing alternative access to the village off Lakelands Drive (Attachment 3 refers).

 

The Chairman of the Lakelands Leisure Village was advised of this option on 4 April 2014.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

The risk to Council by accepting Administration's recommendations is considered minor with the impact limited to the Lakelands Leisure Village.

Policy Implications

Nil

 

Financial Implications

The upgrading of street lighting along Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive to the Australian Standard AS1158: Lighting for Roads and Public Spaces would cost in the order of $650-$1,000 per luminaire mounted on a power distribution pole and $5,000 for each free standing streetlight plus the ongoing operating power costs. The order of cost estimate for the installation of luminaires on each of the power distribution poles in Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive, as shown on Attachment 3, is $7,150 - $11,000.

 

The City's Draft 2014/15 – 2023/24 10-year Capital Works Program lists $30,000 in year one of the program for the design and documentation of upgrades to Sydney Road intersections to provide protected right turns with a further $600,000 in year three to undertake the work.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       SUPPORTS a posted speed limit of 70km/h for Sydney Road;

2.       REQUESTS Main Roads WA undertake a speed zone review of Sydney Road with the view of lowering the posted speed limit to 70 km/h;

3.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the upgrading of street lighting along Sydney Road and Lakelands Drive;

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

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Lakelands Leisure Village - Location Map

14/170870

 

2View.

Sydney Road Speed Limit Reduction MRWA Response

14/170911

 

3View.

Lakelands Leisure Village - Streetlights

14/170971

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               125

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               126


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  128


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   129

3.16  City of Wanneroo RoadWise Strategic Action Plan 2014/2015

File Ref:                                              1446V03 – 14/166046

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group’s Road Safety Strategic Action Plan for 2014/2015 (SAP).

 

Background

The Terms of Reference for the Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group (the Working Group) requires that a SAP be developed and reviewed annually. This SAP provides the basis for funding and implementing projects for the Working Group.

 

On 21 March 2013, the City of Wanneroo at the Blessing of the Roads and Human Spirit Awards Ceremony made a Declaration for Road Safety which states:

 

The City of Wanneroo commits to the Declaration for road safety by working towards a future of zero road fatalities and serious injuries on the Western Australian road network.

 

The Declaration for Road Safety will provide the guiding vision for the Strategic Action Plan 2014/2015.

Detail

The proposed SAP for 2014/2015 is included as Attachment 1 and is based on the 2013/2014 SAP. The SAP also aligns to the State Road Safety Strategy, Towards Zero, which is based on the safe system approach to road safety.

 

In addition to the ongoing actions from 2013/2014, a number of new actions/priorities have been identified based on an analysis of crash data for the City of Wanneroo. The crash data reveals that four of the City's key road safety priority areas align to four of the five Road Safety Council of WA priority areas. The Road Safety Council priority areas are addressed in the 2014/2015 SAP.

 

The new initiatives for the 2014/2015 SAP are outlined under the following headings:

 

Safe Roads and Roadsides

 

Capacity Building

-     Improve the knowledge and skills of City of Wanneroo Employees and RoadWise Working Group members through regular road safety training and development opportunities.

 

Safe Speeds

Enhanced Speed Enforcement Program

-     Review 85th percentile speeds within all school zones and provide relevant data to WA Police intelligence service to support targeted enforcement School Zones.

-     Review the provision of school crossings within the City.

 


 

 

Safe Road Use

               

Schools

-     Develop and implement a positive behaviour change program rewarding students and schools that achieve positive outcomes for active transport.

-     Encourage schools to participate in the SDERA (School Drug Education and Road Aware) programs and other related programs

Consultation

A report on the draft SAP was considered by the Working Group on 18 June 2014 with the following two minor amendments proposed:

·    Update the photos on the cover of the action plan

·    Include an additional action under the safe road use cornerstone:

-      "Encourage schools to participate in the SDERA (School Drug Education and Road Aware) programs and any other related programs."

These two amendments have been made to the draft 2014/2015 SAP.

 

The Working Group subsequently recommended "that the RoadWise Working Group supports the draft City of Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group Road Safety Strategic Action Plan 2014/2015 and amends the Key Outcomes (Safe Road Use) to encourage schools to participate in SDERA (School Drug Education and Road Aware) and other associated programs".

Comment

The SAP identifies actions to be undertaken for each financial year and includes specific past and new initiatives that need to be reviewed.

 

The main issues of concern that the Road Safety Council of WA have identified from the analysis of data from several years of crashes in Western Australia are:

-     Run off road regional and remote crashes;

-     Urban intersection crashes;

-     Impaired driving resulting from alcohol and other drugs;

-     Excess and inappropriate speed; and

-     Crash avoidance and protection for occupants and users.

 

In addition to the main issues identified by the Road Safety Council of WA, the City crash profile identifies from ten years of crash data, the main issues of concern for the City are:

-     Right angle crashes;

-     Hit object crashes;

-     Right turn through crashes;

-     Speed as a behavioural factor; and

-     Alcohol and other drugs as a behavioural factor.

 

As mentioned above, all of the issues identified in City of Wanneroo crash profile align to four of the five Road Safety Council of WA priority areas.

Statutory Compliance

The Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group is established under the Local Government Act 1996, Part 5-Administration, Section 5.9.c.

 

 

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.

Risk Management Considerations

The proposed SAP provides guidance to the Working Group and Administration to address Road Safety with a systematic approach.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A funding allocation of $5,000 for both routine operations of the Working Group and the SAP for 2014/2015 has been requested in the draft 2014/2015 Operating Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the City of Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group Strategic Action Plan for 2014/2015 as outlined in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

City of Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group Strategic Action Plan 2014 2015 amended copy

14/171914[v2]

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               132


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  135


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               142


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  143


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   158

Draft

Community Development

Capacity Building

3.17  Welcome to Country Protocols Policy

File Ref:                                              4095 – 14/166407

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a revised Welcome to Country Protocols Policy.

 

Background

Welcome to Country protocols are currently observed at many of the City's official events and ceremonies.  Through this, the City demonstrates respect for traditional Aboriginal cultural practices and recognises the Aboriginal people as the traditional owners in the cultural history of Wanneroo.  It also communicates Aboriginal cultural practices to the broader community to promote respect and understanding and demonstrates that Aboriginal cultures have survived and continue to be practiced. 

Detail

By encouraging the practice of Welcome to Country and/or Acknowledgement of Country at City of Wanneroo activities, the City is actively increasing awareness and recognition of Aboriginal people and cultures.  The Welcome to Country Protocols Policy (Attachment 1) is designed to assist staff and elected members in establishing a consistent approach for engaging Aboriginal Elder in City of Wanneroo events.  A supporting Management Procedure (Attachment 2) has also been developed to provide guidance for officers and elected members in their understanding Noongar protocols and how to work with Noongar people in a way that is respectful of culture and community.  This includes a guide for organising Welcome to Country and Smoking Ceremonies as well as providing wording for use by officers and elected members giving an Acknowledgement of Country. 

Consultation

The City's Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group has provided advice to inform the review of the policy and the drafting of the procedure, including the wording for the Acknowledgement of Country.  Advice from all relevant business units has been incorporated into this policy and its associated management procedure. 

Comment

The City of Wanneroo is located on Aboriginal land and it is important for officers, elected members and community members to understand the significance of observing protocols in recognising the Traditional Owners of the Land at City events and ceremonies.  This policy and procedure will assist officers and elected members in observing cultural protocols so as to demonstrate the respect that the City has for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 

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.

Risk Management Considerations

This Procedure provides a consistent approach to acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which the City is situated minimising any risk to the City's reputation of the perception of not respecting these original custodians.

Policy Implications

This is a revision of an existing policy.

Financial Implications

In providing a Welcome to Country, Aboriginal Elders are using their intellectual property and should be appropriately remunerated.  Fees are negotiated with the Elder engaged to provide the Welcome and included in the operational budgets of the relevant Units.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the Welcome to Country Protocols Policy as per Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Welcome to Country Protocols Policy

14/37415

 

2View.

Welcome to Country Protocols Procedure

14/71960

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               160


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               168


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   175

3.18  Early Childhood Policy and Strategy

File Ref:                                              10667 – 14/174727

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a new Early Childhood Policy and Strategy.

 

Background

Research clearly establishes that quality child health, early childhood learning and care and family support programs make a significant difference in improving outcomes for children from birth to eight, with particular benefits for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.  This wealth of evidence also demonstrates the significant economic and social benefits of ensuring that children experience a positive early childhood.

 

In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed Investing in the Early Years, a national early childhood development strategy and announced the implementation of the Early Years Learning Framework, which underpins early childhood development, care and education.  This commitment recognises that a child's environment affects how they grow and develop and that a holistic approach is required to make a lasting improvement in the lives of young children. 

 

The attached Early Childhood Policy and Strategy have been developed to support this work, recognising that healthy communities support families in nurturing happy and healthy children and successful adults to provide tomorrow's skilled workers and active community contributors. 

Detail

Rather than providing new services, the draft Early Childhood Policy (Attachment 1) and Strategy (Attachment 2) is designed to coordinate and strengthen current initiatives by building on the assets of individuals, groups and agencies to enable community based strategies that deliver a joint approach to improving outcomes and fostering the wellbeing and productivity of our next generation. 

 

The documents provide direction for the City over the next three years in supporting the community and agencies working with the community to coordinate their early childhood agendas to reinforce and strengthen existing initiatives to achieve improved outcomes.  This policy and strategy will play an important role in ensuring that the City applies the best available evidence and science to inform the facilitation of active partnerships and advocacy for high-quality early childhood services in Wanneroo.

Consultation

Extensive research and consultation with key government and non-government agencies working in the early childhood area has informed the development of this policy and strategy.  Ongoing feedback obtained from community engagement with the community, particularly parents and carers, at early years activities has been incorporated into this policy and strategy.  The draft policy and strategy have been provided to the Wanneroo and Surrounds Early Years Network and internal stakeholders for advice and comment. 

 

 

Comment

Results for the City of Wanneroo, from the 2012 Australian Early Development Index, testing the physical, social, emotional, cognitive and communication skills of five year olds, showed that 23.7% were developmentally vulnerable on one or more domains and 11.3% of these children were vulnerable on two or more domains. 

 

The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the home and community environments that children experience in their first years of life significantly contributes to their opportunities for a successful and healthy future.  This policy and strategy encourages a more joined up approach to early childhood efforts in the City that are aligned so that we improve the support available for families during the critical early years of children's development.

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.

 

The Early Childhood Policy is included as an action within the Corporate Business Plan 2013-2017 and links to the Public Health Plan strategy 2.3 Provide and support a range of quality facilities and services that have a positive impact on health and wellbeing.

Risk Management Considerations

Without this Policy and Strategy, there is a risk of a reactive approach to the development and provision of early years services in the City that does not take full advantage of the compelling existing evidence base that should be used to guide best practice.  The City of Wanneroo has a growing reputation for leading quality evidence based practice in early childhood initiatives as evidenced by our success in obtaining an Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) Local Champions Grant of $55,000 in 2013.  This Policy and Strategy will strengthen this and provide opportunities for expansion.  The City of Wanneroo has the largest number of children aged birth to four of any Western Australian local government and 15% of the City's population is aged eight and under.  Without a policy and strategy to provide a blueprint for the development of early childhood priorities, there is a risk that we will not make best use of resources in this vital area. 

Policy Implications

Mirroring the approach taken in the City's Community Health and Wellbeing Policy that community health is optimised when people live in neighbourhoods that are safe and are designed to promote health, this policy and strategy have been formulated recognising that when children experience an environment with supportive family and community relationships, they have a greater chance of achieving optimum development and good physical and mental health.

 

Financial Implications

Policy outcomes and Strategy actions will be achieved through operational plans using existing resources and via collaboration and partnerships with stakeholders.  No new services are included.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the Early Childhood Policy (as per Attachment 1) and  Strategy (as per Attachment 2).

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Early Childhood Policy

14/168055

 

2View.

Early Childhood Strategy

14/260

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               178


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               183


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  190


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                               196

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   197

Draft

Program Services

3.19  PT02-05/14 - Request to include Hardcastle Park on Passive Parks 10 Year Capital Works Program

File Ref:                                              5793 – 14/172432

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider petition PT02-05/14 presented to Council at its meeting held on 27 May 2014 seeking to include Hardcastle Park on the City's Passive Park 10 year capital works program. 

 

Background

The petition comprises of 45 signatures, requesting that Hardcastle Park (the Park) be considered for inclusion in the "City's Passive Park 10 Year Capital Works Program". The Park is located at 39 Hardcastle Avenue in Landsdale and is an undeveloped passive park, approximately one hectare in size (Attachment 1).

 

The Park has been the subject of resident concern since the development of the area (known as the Paranorda development) by the Watson Property Group (WPG). Much of the concern centres around the current level of development of the Park, compared to that initially indicated by WPG.

 

Negotiations between Administration and WPG have resulted in WPG agreeing to undertake the following works at the Park; installation of a central path, a bench, some revegetation, and fire access. At the time of this report being completed, a timeframe for completion of these works is yet to be provided by WPG.

 

It is Administration's intention to request that once the works are completed by WPG, the Department of Lands finalise the Management Order for the Park to allow the Park to come under the care and control of the City and to be considered for further development as a part of further 10 Year Capital Works Budgets.

Detail

Currently the City undertakes the development of two passive parks each financial year. Currently the City has 25 undeveloped and unirrigated passive parks that will require consideration for development in the future. In 2010 Administration developed the Passive Park Assessment Matrix to enable the assessment and prioritisation of the City's undeveloped and unirrigated passive parks. The Passive Park Assessment Matrix is based on the following key criteria:  

·        Health and Safety;

·        All/portions/land parcels of the land are under City Management;

·        Surrounding land use within 800m radius;

·        Percentage of surrounding land within 800m is developed;

·        Other fully developed park within 400 radius; and

·        Major Barriers preventing access to developed parks within 400m. 

 

The Passive Parks Assessment Matrix and resulting list of priority parks is reviewed every two years, with the next revision to occur in 2014. The result of this review will inform the development of the draft 2015/16 Passive Park 10 Year Capital Works Program, which will be submitted to Council for consideration as a part of the 2015/16 budget process. Hardcastle Park will be included in the 2014 review and the draft 2015/16 Passive Park 10 Year Capital Works Program.

Consultation

Administration has not undertaken any public consultation in relation to Hardcastle Park, however has been consulting with both WPG and local residents, through the Lansdale Resident's Association, regarding the Park's current condition.

 

It should be noted that Administration will undertake community consultation with local residents as part of the future development of the Park. The timing of this consultation will be informed by the outcome of the 2015/16 10 Year Capital Works program.

Comment

Administration acknowledges the concerns of residents in relation to the current state of Hardcastle Park.

 

Hardcastle Park does meet the criteria to enable it to be included in the City's Passive Park Assessment process and will be included in the 2014 review and the draft 2015/16 Passive Park 10 Year Capital Works Program.

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.

Risk Management Considerations

While the management of the park is still the responsibility of WPG, it is important that Administration continues to monitor the Park, to ensure public safety is not jeopardised. The early transition of the Park to the care and control of the City, will enable Administration to more effectively manage any risk prior to the development of the Park.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

WPG will be responsible for meeting all costs associated with the completion of the outstanding works identified earlier in this report.

 

There is currently no funding allocation for the upgrade of Hardcastle Park in the City's 10 year Capital works program.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       REQUESTS Administration to include Hardcastle Park in the 2014 Passive Parks Assessment Matrix review process and list Hardcastle Park in the draft 2015/16 10 Year Passive Park Capital Works Program, based on the outcome of the 2014 Passive Parks Assessment Matrix review process; and

2.       AUTHORISES the Director Community Development to inform the petition organiser of Council's resolution regarding petition PT02-05/14.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

ATTACHMENT 1 Hardcastle

14/180508

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                                                                  200

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 15 July, 2014                                   201

Draft

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Finance

3.20  Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 June 2014

File Ref:                                              1859 – 14/184558

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

Presentation to consider the list of accounts paid for the month of June 2014, including a statement as to the total amounts outstanding at the end of the month.

 

Background

Local Governments are required each month to prepare a list of accounts paid for that month and submit the list to the next Ordinary Meeting of the Council.

 

In addition, it must record all other outstanding accounts and include that amount with the list to be presented.  The list of accounts paid and the total of outstanding accounts must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Detail

The following is the Summary of Accounts paid in June 2014:

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – June 2014

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Bank Fees

Town Planning Scheme

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

97808 - 98367

1971 - 1992

 

 

$2,519,849.52

$10,657,277.61

$13,177,127.13

 

($3,716.86)

$2.50

($4,172.70)

$13,169,240.07

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – June 2014

Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$13,169,240.07

$26,267.12

$3,287,103.81

$16,482,611.00

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – June 2014

                           Cell 4

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 8

                           Cell 9

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$1,338.00

$1,317.35

$1,317.35

$200.00

$4,172.70

 

At the close of June 2014 outstanding creditors amounted to $1,671,912.19.

 

Consultation

 

Nil

 

Comment

The list of payments (cheques and electronic transfers) and the end of month total of outstanding creditors for the month of June 2014 is presented to the Council for information and recording in the minutes of the meeting, as required by the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Statutory Compliance

Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to list the accounts paid each month and total all outstanding creditors at the month end and present such information to the Council at its next Ordinary Meeting after each preparation.  A further requirement of this Section is that the prepared list must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

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.

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

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


 

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – June 2014

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Bank Fees

Town Planning Scheme

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

97808 - 98367

1971 - 1992

 

 

$2,519,849.52

$10,657,277.61

$13,177,127.13

 

($3,716.86)

$2.50

($4,172.70)

$13,169,240.07

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – June 2014

Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$13,169,240.07

$26,267.12

$3,287,103.81

$16,482,611.00

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – June 2014

                           Cell 4

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 8

                           Cell 9

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$1,338.00

$1,317.35

$1,317.35

$200.00

$4,172.70

 

WARRANT OF PAYMENTS JUNE 2014

 

 

 

 

PAYMENT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

00097808

04/06/2014

Ashleigh Sharp 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097809

04/06/2014

Wanneroo Cricket Club - Junior 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097810

04/06/2014

Quinns Districts Netball Club 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097811

04/06/2014

Ursula Brookmire 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097812

04/06/2014

Naomi York 

$700.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097813

04/06/2014

Billy Jo Harding 

$87.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097814

04/06/2014

Debbie Tarveran 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097815

04/06/2014

Chantelle Smith 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097816

04/06/2014

Quinns Rocks Playgroup 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097817

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097818

04/06/2014

William Lanca 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097819

04/06/2014

Elicia Sabau 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097820

04/06/2014

Dina Patel

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097821

04/06/2014

Vernice Rahmic 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097822

04/06/2014

Illona Perovic 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097823

04/06/2014

Lohana Samaj of WA Incorporated 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097824

04/06/2014

Carlie Robertson 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097825

04/06/2014

Gayle Bowness 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097826

04/06/2014

CJ & SM Bennetts

$2,500.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097827

04/06/2014

Judith Ridden 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097828

04/06/2014

Richard Crane 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097829

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$1,328.12

00097830

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$110.62

00097831

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$92.11

00097832

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$118.42

00097833

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$114.53

00097834

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$101.37

00097835

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$114.53

00097836

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$123.78

00097837

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$110.62

00097838

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$110.62

00097839

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$111.93

00097840

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$111.93

00097841

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$93.41

00097842

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$105.27

00097843

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$500.00

00097844

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097845

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097846

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097847

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097848

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097849

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097850

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097851

04/06/2014

North Coast Ball Club Incorporated 

$84.00

 

 

  Key Bond Refund

 

00097852

04/06/2014

PML Installations 

$209.01

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097853

04/06/2014

Aveling Homes Pty Ltd 

$468.07

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097854

04/06/2014

Capital Works Trading As Freelife Homes 

$333.34

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097855

04/06/2014

Aveling Homes Pty Ltd 

$389.89

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097856

04/06/2014

Simsai Construction Group Pty Ltd 

$361.75

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097857

04/06/2014

Capital Works Trading As Freelife Homes 

$366.43

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097858

04/06/2014

K & A Nisbett 

$360.00

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

00097859

04/06/2014

R & G Russell 

$360.00

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

00097860

04/06/2014

Vodafone Pty Ltd 

$151.11

 

 

  1 x Financial Assistance

 

00097861

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$7,837.10

00097862

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$349.00

00097863

04/06/2014

Tamala Park Regional Council 

$589,786.00

 

 

  Bond Refund - Catalina Stage 8 Clarkson WAPC 146408

 

00097864

04/06/2014

Advance Visual 

$147.00

 

 

Reimbursement Of Development Applications Fees - Withdrawn By Applicant

 

00097865

04/06/2014

Avalon Sheds & Stables 

$147.00

 

 

Reimbursement Of Development Application Fees - Withdrawn By Applicant

 

00097866

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$19.11

00097867

04/06/2014

Aqua Attack Drilling 

$45.80

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097868

04/06/2014

Avowest 

$328.01

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097869

04/06/2014

Canham Way Hardware Pty Ltd 

$83.03

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097870

04/06/2014

Colourdoor 

$77.17

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097871

04/06/2014

Dental Services Health Department 

$303.42

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097872

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$1,570.48

00097873

04/06/2014

Dimitrovich and Co 

$116.95

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097874

04/06/2014

Joondalup Radiator Service 

$44.98

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097875

04/06/2014

Louies Flyscreens 

$311.95

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097876

04/06/2014

Northwest Shedmasters Pty Ltd 

$8.94

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097877

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$457.86

00097878

04/06/2014

Rates Refund

$198.38

00097879

04/06/2014

Karen Van-Niekerk 

$50.00

 

 

Refund - Creative Ceramics With Di Sigel Workshop 26.05.2014

 

00097880

04/06/2014

Beauty Lounge 

$398.12

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097881

04/06/2014

Nowergup Poultry 

$45.80

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097882

04/06/2014

Owners of Strata Plan 9218 (15 Prindiville Drive) 

$407.48

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097883

04/06/2014

Karen Makin 

$142.50

 

 

Reimbursement - Repair And Installation Of Damaged Irrigation Caused By Council

 

00097884

04/06/2014

PVS Workfind 

$18.86

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097885

04/06/2014

Sleeperwood Furniture Factory 

$190.10

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097886

04/06/2014

Smileworx Orthodontics Pty Ltd 

$62.84

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097887

04/06/2014

VRP Peter Van Ruth 

$11.95

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097888

04/06/2014

Wanneroo Bmx Raceway Club Inc 

$53.72

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097889

04/06/2014

Wow Group (WA) Pty Ltd 

$386.48

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097890

04/06/2014

B & L Pump Repairs 

$29.01

 

 

Refund - Overpayment Of Commercial Waste Account

 

00097891

04/06/2014

Mr Michael Baron 

$90.00

 

 

Refund - Charge For Firebreak Installed - Owner Installed

 

00097892

04/06/2014

Resolve Group 

$216.00

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097893

04/06/2014

Ben Trager Homes Pty Ltd 

$704.52

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097894

04/06/2014

Instant Transportable Offices 

$153.00

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097895

04/06/2014

PML Installations 

$90.00

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097896

04/06/2014

Aveling Home Pty Ltd 

$382.65

 

 

Application Assessment Did Not Comply With Timeframe Regulations And Must Be Refunded As Per The Building Act 2011 Part 2 Division 2 Section 23 (4)

 

00097897

04/06/2014

Gemmill Homes 

$371.89

 

 

Partial Refund Of Codes Variation Fee BA14/2367 - Lot 371 Dorrigo Bend

 

00097898

04/06/2014

Alinta Gas 

$1,170.75

 

 

  Gas Supplies For The City

 

 

 

  3 x Financial Assistance $850.00

 

00097899

04/06/2014

Fines Enforcement Registry 

$1,634.00

 

 

Lodgement Of 38 Infringement Notice Records - Rangers

 

00097900

04/06/2014

Girrawheen Library Petty Cash 

$55.30

 

 

  Petty Cash

 

00097901

04/06/2014

Facility Officer WLCC Petty Cash 

$36.20

 

 

  Petty Cash

 

00097902

04/06/2014

Quinns Rocks Adult Day Care Petty Cash 

$126.10

 

 

  Petty Cash

 

00097903

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097904

04/06/2014

Water Corporation 

$7,921.77

 

 

  Water Charges For The City

 

00097905

04/06/2014

Yanchep Two Rocks Library Petty Cash 

$29.30

 

 

  Petty Cash

 

00097906

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097907

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097908

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097909

04/06/2014

Synergy 

$82,570.60

 

 

  Power Supplies For The City

 

 

 

  3 x Financial Assistance $816.30

 

00097910

04/06/2014

Telstra 

$16,130.03

 

 

  Phone Charges For The City

 

00097911

04/06/2014

Zurich Aust Insurance Ltd 

$2,000.00

 

 

Excess Payment - WN 32427 & WN 33581 - Insurance Services

 

00097912

04/06/2014

Cancelled

 

00097913

04/06/2014

Roy Bastick 

$95.00

 

 

  Volunteer Payment - Community Bus Driver

 

00097914

04/06/2014

Colonial First State Firstchoice 

$772.02

 

 

  Superannuation Contributions March 2014

 

00097915

04/06/2014

BT Super For Life 

$50.04

 

 

  Superannuation Contributions March 2014

 

00097916

05/06/2014

The Wagga Daily Advertiser 

$800.80

 

 

Advertising - The Senior For April 2014 - Heritage

 

00097917

05/06/2014

Townsville City Council 

$400.00

 

 

Conference Registration - LGCOG Townsville Registration  - Daniel Simms

 

00097918

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$786.29

00097919

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$273.89

00097920

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$225.21

00097921

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$762.82

00097922

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$2,323.90

00097923

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$325.25

00097924

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$410.75

00097925

10/06/2014

Rates Refund

$962.32

00097926

10/06/2014

Tanya Vandermark 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097927

10/06/2014

Anthony McAlear 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097928

10/06/2014

Cornelia Irani 

$787.50

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097929

10/06/2014

Janine Smallbone 

$504.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00097930

10/06/2014

Angelina Romeo