Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7:00pm, 16 September, 2014

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

·             Deputation requests must relate to items on the current agenda.

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

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

 

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

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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

 

 

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

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo on Tuesday 16 September, 2014 commencing at 7:00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

11 September, 2014

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1______ Attendances_ 1

Item  2______ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3______ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4______ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-09/14     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 19 August 2014  1

Item  5______ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6______ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7______ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  2

PT01-08/14      Requesting Additional Car Parking Bays at Butler Train Station  2

PT02-08/14      Objecting to the Removal of the 13 Fig Trees Opposite 1-15 Russell Road, Madeley  2

PT03-08/14      Requesting Meeting Room at Oldham Oval, Yanchep  2

Item  8______ Reports_ 3

Planning and Sustainability  3

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  3

PS01-09/14      Adoption of Proposed Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98  3

PS02-09/14      Proposed Amendment No. 138 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 908 (869) Connolly Drive, Merriwa  38

PS03-09/14      Determination of Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No.80  47

PS04-09/14      Initiation of Advertising for Amendment No. 140 – Rezoning of Lot 4 & 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup  81

Other Matters  96

PS05-09/14      Proposed Amendment 1263/57 to Metropolitan Region Scheme: Lots 89 to 95 and 100 Dundebar Road and Lot 88 Garden Park Drive, Wanneroo  96

PS06-09/14      Apppointment of Community Representative to the Environmental Advisory Committee  106

PS07-09/14      Motions from Special Electors Meeting - Tree Preservation  108

City Businesses  115

Property  115

CB01-09/14      Proposed new commercial Lease to Carol Marshall over a portion of Lot 511, Clarkson Library, Ocean Keys Bvd, Clarkson (Tenancy 4) 115

CB02-09/14      Proposal to allow the Tiger Kart Club Inc to exercise its first five (5) year Lease option over portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup  122

CB03-09/14      Proposed Excision and Purchase of Portion of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen  140

Community Safety & Emergency Management  148

CB04-09/14      Dog Exercise Areas And Places Where Dogs Are Prohibited  148

Infrastructure  153

Infrastructure & Coastal Maintenance  153

IN01-09/14       Two Rocks Coastal Management  153

IN02-09/14       Tender No 01440 - Provision of Consultancy Services for Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management  162

Traffic Management  174

IN03-09/14       PT02-06/14 Petition to Reduce, Remove or Modify the Traffic Calming Measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson  174

Community Development  193

Community Programs and Services  193

CD01-09/14     Oldham Reserve - Building Extension - Financial and Resource Capacity  193

CD02-09/14     Community Facilities Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund - 2014 Funding Round  214

Corporate Strategy & Performance  227

Finance  227

CS01-09/14      Warrant of Payments for the Period Ending 31 August 2014  227

CS02-09/14      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 July 2014  296

CS03-09/14      Change Valuation of Land Method  309

CS04-09/14      Change Valuation of Land Method - Rate Record Review   314

Risk and Business Improvement  327

CS05-09/14      Year End Corporate Progress Report 2013/14  327

CS06-09/14      Amendments to the 2014/15 Audit Plan  383

CS07-09/14      Internal Audit Services Contract Extension  394

Governance  401

CS08-09/14      Review of City of Wanneroo Local Laws under Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995  401

CS09-09/14      Donations to be Considered by Council - September 2014  404

Chief Executive Office  410

Office of the CEO Reports  410

CE01-09/14      Appointment of the Chief Executive Officer to the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, Western Australian Planning Commission  410

Item  9______ Motions on Notice_ 412

MN01-09/14     Cr Sabine Winton – Amendment No. 109 to District Planning Scheme No.2. 412

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 415

Item  11____ Confidential_ 415

CR01-09/14     Offer to Purchase Lot 105 (196) Gnangara Road, Landsdale  415

CR02-09/14     Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex - Stage 2 Contractual Dispute and Commercial Arbitration  415

CR03-09/14     Mayor Roberts - Chief Executive Officer's Annual Performance Review - 2013/2014  415

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 416

Item  13____ Closure_ 416

 

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Whadjuk people.  We would like to pay respect to the Elders of the Nyoongar nation, past and present, who have walked and cared for the land and we acknowledge and respect their continuing culture and the contributions made to the life of this city and this region and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

 

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

Item  1     Attendances

Item  2     Apologies and Leave of Absence

 

Recommendation

 

That Council GRANT a Leave of Absence to:

 

(a)         Cr Truong from 24 September to 18 October 2014 inclusive; and

(b)        Cr Guise from 24 October to 7 November inclusive.

 

Item  3     Public Question Time

 

Item  4     Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 19 August 2014 be confirmed.

 

Item  5     Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6     Questions from Elected Members

Item  7     Petitions

New Petitions Received

 

Update on Petitions  

PT01-08/14      Requesting Additional Car Parking Bays at Butler Train Station

Cr Winton presented a petition of 594 signatories requesting an additional 100% in the number of car parking bays currently allocated (approximately 900) at Butler train station which are insufficient given the population growth in the far Northern suburbs.   Update   As the operations and associated infrastructure of the train station is the responsibility of the State Government, a letter, with a copy of the petition has been forwarded to the Managing Director of the Public Transport Authority for consideration. A letter has also been sent to the petition organiser making him aware of what actions have been taken in response to his petition.  No further action required by the City.

 

PT02-08/14      Objecting to the Removal of the 13 Fig Trees Opposite 1-15 Russell Road, Madeley

Cr Winton presented a petition of 1,674 signatories objecting to the removal of the 13 fig trees opposite 1-15 Russell Road, Madeley which are structurally sound and can be maintained.   Update   A letter has been sent to the petition organiser confirming that the petition was received at Council's meeting on 19 August 2014 and that Council supported a Motion on Notice to revoke its previous decision on 24 June 2014 to remove the trees. It was confirmed that the trees will be retained and works will be programmed to reduce the tree load and canopy overhang to the road.  No further action required regarding this petition.

 

PT03-08/14      Requesting Meeting Room at Oldham Oval, Yanchep

Cr Hewer presented a petition of 561 signatories requesting a meeting room at Oldham Oval in Yanchep be given urgent consideration.  Stage one is the existing structure (change rooms, toilets etc) with stage two being the meeting room as initially planned/designed approximately 15 years ago.  After 15 years of delays and the massive increase in the Yanchep/Two Rocks population it is now time for our young and old sporting players and their memorabilia to have a meeting room to call home.   Update   The subject matter of the submitted petition is being considered in a report to be presented to Council on 16 September 2014. Notification to the petitioner will be made on the outcomes of the deliberation of the aforementioned report.

 

 

Item  8     Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

File Ref:                                               10698 – 14/170301

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98 (LSP 98) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability for final approval and forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant	Department of Housing
Owner	Housing Authority
Location	Lot 14143 (16) Harford Way, GIRRAWHEEN
Site Area	42,035.18m²
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development, R20

 

 

Background

On 2 August 2013, the Department of Housing on behalf of the Department of Education submitted the proposed Local Structure Plan No. 98 – Former Hainsworth Primary School Site (LSP 98) included as Attachment 1 to the City for approval.

 

The structure plan area is currently zoned 'Urban Development' under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).  The site, formerly a Primary School, was rezoned from 'Public Purpose Reserve (Primary School)' to 'Urban Development' by Amendment No. 110 to DPS 2 to allow for future residential development on the site.

 

On 3 January 2014, the Manager Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of LSP 98 commenced on 28 January 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of DPS 2 and closed on 11 March 2014.

Detail

The Hainsworth LSP area applies to Lot 14143 (16) Harford Way, Girrawheen.

 

Attachment 2 contains a location plan which depicts the LSP 98 area.  The total site area is approximately 4.2 hectares and is currently vacant.

 

LSP 98 proposes additional roads within the subject area which connect with the existing road network. 

LSP 98 also includes a small 808m² Public Open Space (POS) for the purposes of passive recreation and drainage.  The purpose of the POS is to retain existing mature trees within the subject site.

 

LSP 98 proposes a residential density code of R40 and R60 within the subject site, which is expected to yield approximately 160 dwellings. 

Consultation

The draft LSP 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 11 March 2014, with eight (8) submissions being received.  A summary of submissions received and Administration responses are shown in Attachment 3.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 98 is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

Road Network

 

The applicant originally proposed the local access streets within the subject area at a width of 15.0m as stated under Part 2 of LSP 98, however, the existing road reserves of Harford Way, Burnham Way and Roydon Way which feed into the subject area are a width of 17.9m.

 

The proposed road network layout is considered appropriate based on the existing road network adjacent to the Structure Plan area.  The proposed road layout provides for adequate traffic movement and connections to the existing road network are distributed evenly.  This will improve vehicle and pedestrian permeability within the area.

 

The Department of Planning (DoP) has recommended that the road reserve width be at 17.9m in order for the proposed roads to connect seamlessly and consistently with the existing roads connecting the LSP area and to allow for on-street car parking bays. 

 

Although in some cases road reserve widths are shown in Local Structure Plans, it is considered by Administration that road reserve widths are generally determined at subdivision stage, and it is inappropriate for the Structure Plan to include detailed engineering requirements without the necessary survey's and engineering drawings being provided.  It is also noted that the road reserves shown on the LSP 98 Map are indicative and do not prescribe a specific road reserve width.

 

Therefore, LSP 98 has been modified to remove any reference to road reserve widths, as this issue can be dealt with through a subdivision application for the subject area at a later stage.

 

Public Open Space

 

The proposed POS is 808m² in area and is intended to be used partly for drainage purposes, and partly for the retention of existing mature trees.  Whilst part of the POS will perform a drainage function, it will be designed as a usable area for the local community for the majority of the year.

 

The area proposed is less than the required 10% POS, however, the applicant proposes a cash-in-lieu payment for the percentage of POS not provided. 

This is considered by Administration to be acceptable, as 11.45% POS already exists within Girrawheen and there are two parks in close proximity, Roydon Park (5,100m²) immediately adjoining to the south east and Hainsworth Park (4.6 ha), 100 metres to the south east.

 

The cash-in-lieu payment will be made at subdivision stage and will be calculated at the market value as defined under Section 155 of the Planning & Development Act 2005.  This contribution will be kept in a Trust for the future provision and/or development of POS and related community facilities within the Girrawheen area.

 

The design and works associated with this POS site will be addressed as part of any future subdivision application within the Structure Plan area.

 

Drainage

 

Part of the stormwater generated by the future subdivision is intended to be drained into the near-by POS, Roydon Park, in accordance with Water Sensitive Urban Design, and also consistent with Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management (LPP 4.4) and the City's Urban Water Management Strategy.  This drainage strategy avoids the need for a dedicated drainage sump. The City prefers to avoid the provision of sumps where possible, due to the amenity aspect and maintenance issues associated with the future use of the sump.

 

Roydon Park is an existing POS site adjoining the Structure Plan area at Lot 9164 (17) Roydon Way, Girrawheen.  It is 5,100m² in area and serves as a passive local park.  There are a number of mature trees within the POS, however the understorey has been removed as a result of regular maintenance by the City.

 

The proposed stormwater basin in Roydon Park covers an area of 1,136m² (approximately 20% of the POS site) to a maximum depth of 0.5m. This basin is proposed on the northern most area of Roydon Park, adjacent to the Structure Plan area.

 

As the stormwater basin is a maximum depth of 0.5m, covers a small percentage of Roydon Park and will only be utilised in major rainfall events, the POS can still be used for passive recreation purposes for most of the year.

 

The proposed 808m² POS site within the Structure Plan area will contain a basin which is 636m² in area and has a maximum depth of 0.5m.

 

These stormwater basins are a maximum depth of only 0.5m, and will be turfed/vegetated so as to be used for passive recreation purposes.  These basins will not be fenced or will function as a sump, and will only contain stormwater for a short period of time during major rainfall events.  These stormwater basins can therefore be utilised by the community for the majority of the year for recreation purposes.

 

Administration supports the Hainsworth Drainage Review provided by the applicant (contained within Part 3 of LSP 98) including the applicants proposal to direct stormwater into Roydon Park, due to the following:

 

·        Additional POS is not necessary as there is currently an overprovision within Girrawheen;

·        A sump is not supported within the Structure Plan area, as this would result in the loss of land for residential purposes, and would impact the streetscape, residents adjoining the sump and require ongoing maintenance by the City;

·        The inclusion of a basin within Roydon Park would not impact its usability due to the shallow depth of the basin; and

·        The proposed cash-in-lieu funds to be provided by the applicant can be allocated to larger and more frequently used POS within the area.

Works associated with the stormwater drainage strategy will be addressed in further detail, and implemented, as part of any future subdivision application within the Structure Plan area.

 

Density

 

LSP 98 proposes a residential density coding of R40 and R60.  The City's Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy (LPP 3.1) shows the subject area as potential R40.

 

All lots excluding a large parcel in the south-east corner of the Structure Plan area consistent with the future potential coding, and are proposed at R40.  The parcel in the south-east corner is proposed at a density coding of R60.

 

LPP 3.1 states that the purpose of the policy is the following (emphasis added):

 

"increase residential density and housing choice in existing and planned residential areas that have easy access and close proximity to retail and employment centres, public transport services, areas of high amenity, major arterial routes, educational institutions and community facilities."

 

It is considered that the parcel of land proposed to be coded R60 in the Structure Plan area meets the purpose/objective of LPP 3.1, and is supported, for the following reasons:

 

·        The R60 coded parcel of land is adjoining an existing POS site (Roydon Park), and is therefore in close proximity to an area of high amenity;

 

·        Part 2 of LSP 98 states that the R60 parcel in the south-east corner is intended to accommodate approximately 55 multiple dwellings in an apartment (unit) format.  This increases the diversity of housing choice within the locality;

 

·        A large residential strata titled development which includes approximately 15 grouped dwellings, and is 11,402m² in area, is located to the east of the subject area, and immediately adjoins the R60 parcel of land.  It is considered that an R60 coding adjoining this strata development would not have an impact, due to the communal nature and strata format of the land adjacent;

 

·        The proposal provides an increased residential density which is consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commissions 'Liveable Neighbourhoods' in providing high density residential development within close proximity of areas of high amenity;

 

·        As the land is not currently fragmented (subdivided), it is possible to achieve a more desirable high density development outcome, than if the land was in split ownership or had previously been developed;

 

·        The R60 parcel is within 400m of a small local centre (Hainsworth Shopping Centre), community facilities (Hainsworth Leisure Centre) and an educational institution (Emmanuel Christian School), situated south-east of the subject site.  These services can be accessed by pedestrians from the subject site through Roydon Park and across Hainsworth Park; and

 

·        Clause 8.11.2.2 of the City of Wanneroo's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) states that "a Local Planning Policy is not part of DPS 2 and shall not bind the Council in respect of any application for planning approval, but the Council shall have due regard to the provisions of any Policy".

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the draft LSP 98 meets the intent and objectives of LPP 3.1 and therefore the proposed coding is supported by Administration.

Significant Trees

 

The applicant has illustrated a total of 26 significant trees on the LSP 98 Map.  These trees are intended to be retained with the POS site and, where possible, within the verge of the proposed road reserves.

 

The applicant has included Clause 7.1.3 in LSP 98 which requires these significant trees to be retained unless this is not possible due to the location of utility services, footpaths, crossovers, formal on-street parking bays, the road grade and/or advice from an Arborculturalist.  This information will be provided through an application for subdivision, at which point the City will determine the number of trees to be retained and the applicants compliance with LSP 98.

 

General Provisions

 

Clause 7.1 of the draft LSP 98 includes a list of development requirements, these are briefly described below:

 

·        Corner Lots are to address both streets through their design by orientating built form to provide passive surveillance to both elevations of the dwelling;

 

·        Development adjacent to Public Open Space (POS) shall address the POS in terms of its design to provide passive surveillance, and is permitted to a minimum 1.0m setback to the POS; and

 

Clause 7.2 of the draft LSP 98 includes one (1) alternative standard to address the 'Design Principles' of the Residential design Codes for R40 lots only.  This standard is briefly described below:

 

·        The building (excluding the garage or carport) shall be setback from the street a minimum of 2.0m, with no averaging of this setback being permitted.

 

These provisions are considered acceptable by Administration as they will contribute to a positive and attractive streetscape. 

 

Modifications

 

Several modifications to advertised version of draft LSP 98 have been made as a result of Administration's assessment and the submissions received during advertising. These modifications generally relate to the format and content of draft LSP 98 which are summarised in Attachment 4.

 

All of the modifications included in Attachment 4 have been incorporated in the August 2014 version of draft LSP 98, which is included as Attachment 1.

Conclusion

In light of the above comments, Administration considers that the proposed LSP 98 included as Attachment 1 is satisfactory.

 

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2.  Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan, Council may refuse to adopt the Structure Plan or resolve that the Structure Plan is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that the Local Structure Plan be adopted as shown in Attachment 1.

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

No risks are associated with the adoption of LSP 98.

Policy Implications

Administration's assessment of draft LSP 98 has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the City's Local Planning Policies, in particular, Local Planning Policy 4.2 – Structure Planning (LPP 4.2), Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space (LPP 4.3), Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy (LPP 3.1) and Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management (LPP 4.4)

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that the proposed Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98 dated August 2014 submitted by Department of Housing included in Attachment 1 is satisfactory;

2.      FORWARDS the Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98 included as Attachment 1 and the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 3 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2;

3.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98 documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN the documents; and

 

4.      NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of the draft Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98 included as Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's response to those submissions and ADVISES submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Hainsworth Local Structure Plan No. 98	14/235107	Minuted
2.	Attachment 2 - Location Plan	14/221954
3.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions	14/236073	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Post-Advertising Modfication Table	14/224189

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               10803 – 14/226147

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a request by TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage (TPG) to amend District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to include 'Place of Assembly' as an additional use under Schedule 2 – Section 1, at Lot 908 (869) Connolly Drive, Merriwa.

 

Applicant	TPG Town Planning, Urban Design and Heritage
Owner	Whitford Church of Christ Inc
Location	Lot 908 (869) Connolly Drive, Merriwa
Site Area	1.616 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Residential

 

 

Background

On 12 August 2013, TPG lodged proposed Amendment No. 138 to DPS 2 with the City. Following the receipt of the Amendment, the City requested a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) be submitted and the proponent undertake preliminary community consultation.  On the 20 March 2014, TPG provided the updated Amendment documents, including the TIA as requested and a community consultation outcomes report.

 

On 2 May 2014 the City received a Development Application (DA2014/561) for the construction of a 'Place of Worship' and 'Child Care Centre' on a portion of the site. Under DPS 2, 'Place of Worship' is an 'A' use requiring public notification of the proposal, and 'Child Care Centre' is a discretionary 'D' use in a 'Residential' zone.  The application is currently being assessed by the City and will be determined separately to this Amendment proposal.

Detail

Site

The subject site is located at Lot 908 (869) Connolly Drive, Merriwa and comprises 1.616 hectares.  The site is bound by Connolly Drive to the East and Jenolan Way to the north, and the Royal Australian Air Force Association (RAAFA) Cambrai Village retirement village to the south and west.  The subject site is zoned 'Residential' under DPS 2 and is currently vacant. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2, pursuant to Clause 3.20, by inserting the additional use of 'Place of Assembly' to Schedule 2 – Section 1 for Lot 908 (869) Connolly Drive, Merriwa.

 

'Place of Assembly' as defined under DPS 2 "means premises where the public assemble or go for any cultural, religious, recreational, sporting or other activity save that where the scale of development proposed is greater than can be reasonably accommodated in any area, the use shall be dealt with as a 'Special Place of Assembly'".

 

 

This land use differs from a 'Place of Worship', which solely relates to religious activities.  A 'Place of Worship' is defined in DPS 2 as 'includes buildings used primarily for the religious activities of a church, but does not include an institution for primary, secondary or higher education, or a residential training institution'.

 

The additional use of 'Place of Assembly' is necessary to facilitate the development of a community centre for the Whitford Church, from which it can operate a range of community programs and church services, creating a community hub.  These activities include:

 

·        After school youth groups;

·        Programs and seminars aimed at students;

·        Provision of free counselling services;

·        Operation of parenting and marriage courses;

·        Operation of an op-shop and a small cafe by the Church; and

·        Running of community based events.

 

The Amendment will allow the proposed additional use of 'Place of Assembly' to become an additional use for the subject lot, which is a prohibited 'X' use within a 'Residential' zone under DPS 2.  The 'Place of Assembly' land use definition will enable a variety of community programs and services to be operated by Whitford Church from the site.

As the 'Place of Assembly' includes a broad range of activities, it is considered appropriate that the community be given the opportunity to comment on the detailed design of the future development.  This being the case, it is considered appropriate that there is an ability to advertise such uses for public comment.  For this reason, a condition will be included to ensure that a future development application for a 'Place of Assembly' will be subject to public advertisement in accordance with DPS 2 requirements.

The applicant’s justification for the proposal is summarised below:

 

1.      The proposal is consistent with the objectives and intent of the City's Strategic Plan to provide for greater community facilities and services;

 

2.      The site is contextually appropriate for the proposed additional uses as it is in close proximity to residential amenities, such as local shops, recreation reserves and public transport which will compliment the community services intended for the site;

 

3.      The concept has been designed having due regard to the adjoining RAAFA residential estate to minimise any adverse impacts;

 

4.      The proposed Amendment will not have any undue effects on the amenity of the surrounding area; and

 

5.      The proposed Amendment will assist to realise the concept masterplan, which will in turn significantly improve the provision of community services and facilities within the City of Wanneroo.  Refer to Attachment 2 for the concept plan (it should be noted that this is indicative only, and detailed design will be submitted as part of a development application for 'Place of Assembly').  Stage 1, the development application for a 'Place of Worship' and 'Child Care Centre' (DA2014/561) has been proposed in accordance with this concept masterplan.

 

 

Consultation

Scheme amendments are subject to public consultation.  However, before doing so the Amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to no objections being received from the EPA, the Amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

·        Placement of a sign on affected sites, giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

Prior to submitting the updated Amendment in March 2014, the applicant also conducted their own community consultation.

 

As part of this community consultation, letters were sent providing information on the proposal, an invitation to attend information sessions, and in some instances the opportunity for a meeting to discuss the proposal.  The stakeholders engaged during this were:

 

·        Residents of Jenolan Way and Connolly Drive;

·        RAAFA management;

·        RAAFA residents;

·        Salvation Army – Merriwa Corps;

·        Addison Park Day Care Centre;

·        City of Wanneroo Councillors;

·        City of Wanneroo Officers;

·        Centre Manager of Merriwa Plaza Shopping Centre;

·        Fred's Hardware;

·        Merriwa Tavern; and

·        Merriwa Primary School.

 

Following this, on the 4 March 2014 and 12 March 2014, TPG and Whitford Church undertook several community consultation workshops with the following community groups and key stakeholders including:

 

·        Approximately 50 residents of the RAAFA Retirement Village, on 4 March 2014;

·        The Manager of the Addison Park Day Care Centre, on 4 March 2014; and

·        Approximately 6 participants at a Merriwa Community Information Session on 12 March 2014.

 

The key planning issue raised through this community consultation related to the potential impact of an increase in local traffic.  The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) to address these concerns.

 

Other comments made by the community related to the potential for future partnership arrangements between Whitford Church and the City of Wanneroo and Merriwa Primary School, as well as the potential duplication of existing services.  These issues are outside the scope of this Amendment.

 

 

 

The community consultation report submitted with the Amendment concluded that there is a high degree of community support for the proposal.

Comment

Land Use Appropriateness

 

A 'Place of Assembly' is an 'X' (prohibited) use within a Residential Zone.

 

The intention of the proposal is to allow for Whitford Church to develop a community facility from where it can operate a number of community, religious and cultural-based programs.  It is more than a 'Place of Worship' and in addition includes:

 

·        A small-scale, low-cost op-shop to be operated by Whitford Church and will not be an independent commercially operated shop;

·        Ancillary offices for the Whitford Church staff that will be based on the site, and these will not be leased externally;

·        A small cafe, intended to only be used in conjunction with other services and programs on-site, and will not be commercially operated or leased separately;

·        After-school youth groups, tutoring, computer classes for seniors, free counselling services, parenting and marriage courses and other similar activities from the site; and

·        A small village green to include a multi-purpose sports area to provide an active space for members of the community to use that will be managed by the Church.

 

Administration considers that the intended future land uses are part of to the operation of the site by Whitford Church and are land uses that fall within the definition of the 'Place of Assembly'.

 

This Scheme Amendment, however, is only to consider if the additional use 'Place of Assembly' is appropriate for the site, and does not assess the detail of any future development proposal.

 

Following the Scheme Amendment process a detailed development application is still required for a 'Place of Assembly' to be developed on the site.  As part of any development application, the proposal will need to be assessed and be in accordance with the definition of 'Place of Assembly' as outlined in the Detail section of the report and advertised for public comment before it can be approved. 

 

Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)

 

A TIA was prepared and submitted by KC Traffic and Transport, based on the site being developed in accordance with the indicative masterplan (Attachment 2)

 

The TIA calculated that the proposal will generate approximately 1,156 additional vehicular movements per day, and a peak hour generation of 139 vehicle movements.  Of these vehicle movements, 30% would be attracted from north and north-east along Connolly Drive, 55% from south and east along Connolly Drive, and 15% will be attracted from west along Jenolan Way.

 

The TIA concluded that based on these figures, the existing road network is adequate to accommodate the proposal.

 

The City's Traffic and Transport Team has indicated that the existing road network is capable of supporting the increased traffic as a result of the proposal. 

 

 

It is noted that the access off Connolly Drive, although included as part of the indicative masterplan, is not something the City would support, but this would be addressed during the development application process.

 

Administration recommends initiating the Amendment to introduce 'Place of Assembly' as an additional use under Schedule 2 – Section 1 of DPS 2.

Statutory Compliance

If Council decides to initiate the proposal, the Amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

Should Council refuse to initiate the Amendment there are no appeal rights for the applicant.

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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, INITIATES Amendment No. 138 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by amending Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses to insert the following:

 

NO	STREET/LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
1 - 36	869 Connolly Drive, Merriwa	Lot 908	Place of Assembly   Condition:   Development Application for 'Place of Assembly' to be subject to advertising, in accordance with DPS No. 2 requirements

 

2.      Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, FORWARDS Amendment No. 138 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment;

 

3.      Subject to no objection being received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), ADVERTISES Amendment No. 138 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulation 1967; and

 

4.      FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 138 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Locality Plan	14/228032
2.	Attachment 2 - Masterplan	14/225982

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               2957-03 – 14/236948

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan (ASP 80) and determination of the Amendment.

 

Applicant	Turner Master Planners Australia
Owner	Goldrange Pty Ltd & Greenpark Asset Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 810 (1397) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo Lot 811 (1387) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo
Site Area	Lot 810 – 2.8009 hectares Lot 811 – 2.9488 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
SP 80 Zoning	Special Use Zone

 

 

Background

Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80 affects Lot 810 (1397) and Lot 811 (1387), Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.  A plan showing the location of Lot 810 and Lot 811 is provided as Attachment 1.

 

ASP 80 prescribes land use permissibility on Lot 810 and Lot 811, which ASP 80 currently zones as 'Special Use'.  This zone applies within the 'Central Precinct' of ASP 80, which also includes Lot 1 (1369) and Lot 132 (1351) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo, located to the south of Lot 810 and Lot 811. 

 

Lodgement and Previous Correspondence to Elected Members

 

On 4 April 2014, Turner Master Planners Australia, on behalf of the landowners, lodged Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80. On 11 April 2014, the (Acting) Manager Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for Members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of Amendment No. 3 to the ASP 80 commenced on 13 May 2014 and concluded on 24 June 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

Lodgement of Petition

 

Prior to the lodgement of the Amendment proposals, a petition was addressed to the Mayor with 517 signatures for Council to consider a Medical Centre including Pharmacy, to be located at Lot 810 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.  This petition was tabled at the 1 April 2014 Council Meeting (PT06-04/14).  Included in the Minutes of the 29 April 2014 Council Meeting is the following update, provided by Administration:

 

"A Medical Centre and Pharmacy are currently not permissible land uses on the subject sites of Lot 810 (1397) and Lot 811 (1387), Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo pursuant to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80. 

 

 

On 4 April 2014 Administration received a proposal to amend ASP 80 by adding 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' to the list of permissible land uses to allow for these to be carried out on the subject sites.

 

On 11 April 2014, Administration forwarded a Memorandum to Elected Members, advising of its intention to advertise the proposal under Delegated Authority.  If the proponent is successful in amending the Structure Plan, then Administration will be in a position to accept and consider an Application for Planning Approval for a Medical Centre and Pharmacy."

 

A response to the principal petitioner is pending Council's resolution on the proposed Amendments.

Detail

The Amendment No. 3 documentation is included as Attachment 2. Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80 proposes the following modification to the ASP 80 text:

 

Modifying Clause 2.1 of Table C by adding the following additional uses to the list of discretionary ('D') uses:

 

Medical Centre and Pharmacy (as 'D' uses on Lots 810 and 811 only)

 

No change to the Structure Plan map (Plan 1) has been proposed as part of this Amendment.

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, display on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners.  The submission period closed on 24 June 2014, with four submissions received.

 

Of the submissions received, two supported and two objected to the proposed Amendment. The submissions objecting to the proposal expressed concerns regarding Council's previous considerations on structure plan proposals, conflict with the Structure Plan intent statements and the viability of nearby designated activity centres.  These issues are discussed in detail in the Comment section of this report.

 

A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 3.

Comment

Council's Previous Considerations

 

At the 8 February 2011 Council Meeting, Council considered (what was then) a draft version of ASP 80.  That draft version of ASP 80 listed a number of uses that would be permissible in the 'Central Precinct' that are not included in Table C of the agreed version of ASP 80, including the 'Medical Centre' land use.  The 'Pharmacy' land use was not proposed to be permissible at that time. However, at that Meeting, Council decided to amend Administration's recommended motion, and resolved the following:

 

 

 

"That Council:

 

1.      NOTES the submissions received in response to Draft Structure Plan No. 80 (included as Attachment 3) and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions; and

 

2.      PURSUANT to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that the ‘Revised’ Draft Drovers Place Precinct Structure Plan No. 80 dated January 2011 (included as Attachment 5) is SATISFACTORY and RE-ADVERTISE the structure plan in accordance with Part 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of 60 days to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Sustainability, subject to the list of discretionary land uses for the Central Precinct, appearing under Clause 2.1 in Table C of the ‘Revised’ Structure Plan in Attachment 5, being amended as follows:

 

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

 

b)      Making the uses “Education Establishment” and “Place of Worship” discretionary (‘D’) uses only on Lots 1 and 132."

 

Following the above resolution, Administration re-advertised draft Structure Plan No. 80 for a 60-day time period, concluding on 10 May 2011.  During the advertising, a submission was received that suggested that the list of proposed permissible uses for the Central Precinct was too limiting and that, amongst other uses, a "Medical Centre and Pharmacy" should be included as permissible land uses in the Central Precinct.  Administration prepared its response to the abovementioned submission as outlined below:

 

"The suggested uses are those better suited to a pedestrian based activity centre.  The uses suggested are commonly found within designated activity centres and therefore not considered appropriate within the Central Precinct.  The inclusion of these uses may compete with nearby centres and do not represent 'niche businesses' as required by the intent of this precinct".

 

Administration's comment above was made prior to the Council adopting Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres (LPP 3.2), which now nominates the Amendment area as an out-of-centre development (refer to the 'Policy Considerations' sub-section, below).  Further discussion on what a 'niche business' is considered to be is included in the 'Structure Plan Considerations' sub-section, below.

 

Structure Plan Considerations

 

The Intent of the 'Central Precinct' (refer to Table C, Section 1.1 of the ASP 80 text) is as follows:

 

"The intent of the Central Precinct is to provide for niche business and cultural uses that benefit from high exposure to Wanneroo Road but do not significantly compromise the viability of nearby activity centres and encourage a built form that respects and recognises the environment of Yellagonga Regional Park."

 

The above statement is broken into four parts, as discussed below:

 

 

 

Niche Business and Cultural Uses

 

In the absence of a definition in DPS 2 or ASP 80, Administration accepts that a 'niche business' could be defined as a business that is "specialised or differentiated from other businesses of that type".  The definition of 'niche business' has previously been applied in the State Administrative Tribunal's considerations of Amendment No. 1 to ASP 80 (refer to State Administrative Tribunal reference DR394 of 2012). 

 

The applicant in their Amendment documentation has outlined that a Medical Centre would comprise of eight medical practitioners, comprising of up to four general practitioners, a radiographer (x-ray imaging), a pathologist, a dentist and a physiotherapist. Administration does not consider the services that medical professionals would provide as being specialised or different to what other typical medical practitioners provide.  Therefore, Administration does not consider this use as a 'niche business.'

 

Similarly, the applicant has not presented an argument to suggest the 'Pharmacy' would offer specialised goods or services, or could be differentiated from typical pharmacies.  The applicant in their Amendment submission has explained that the 'Pharmacy' use was proposed to support an adjoining Medical Centre.  Therefore, the 'Pharmacy' use proposed is not considered a 'niche business'.

 

The 'Medical Centre' use is considered to be a land use relating to the treatment of human ailment or injury, whereas the 'Pharmacy' use is considered a 'commercial' land use. Therefore, neither of the proposed uses can be considered as 'cultural uses'.

 

Exposure to Wanneroo Road

 

Administration considers that any use situated on Lot 810 and Lot 811 would receive at least some benefit being exposed to Wanneroo Road.  However, Medical Centres do not depend on passing traffic to sustain business, but rather sustain business from receiving patients who are ill or injured.  Similarly, the Pharmacy is reliant on the proposed adjoining Medical Centre, and would not fully depend on passing traffic to sustain business.

 

Viability of Nearby Centres

 

Two submissions of objection received raised concern that the proposed Amendment would significantly compromise the viability of the approved Medical Centre directly opposite the Central Precinct (Lot 19 Clarkson Avenue).

 

The most recent approval for commercial development on Lot 19 was granted by Administration under Delegated Authority on 15 May 2014 (DA2012/548).  A part of the approved commercial development consisted of a Medical Centre accommodating up to two practitioners.  It is difficult to gauge at this point in time if the proposed Amendment would significantly compromise the viability of any Medical Centre on Lot 19, as the commercial development on Lot 19 is yet to be constructed.

 

Built Form Interface with Yellagonga Regional Park

 

The Amendment proposes to permit additional uses on two lots (Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road) that already have an established built form.  The proposed Amendment is not considered to conflict with this aspect of the Intent of the Central Precinct.

 

Policy Considerations and Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80

 

Part 5.6 of State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP 4.2) contains a provision in relation to 'out-of-centre' developments. 

 

Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres (LPP 3.2) expands on this SPP 4.2 provision, and states the following in the 'Purpose and Application' section:

 

"That health, welfare, community services, entertainment, recreation, commercial and cultural facilities that attract a significant number of employees or users and/or generate significant vehicle trips cannot always be accommodated within or adjacent to activity centres within the Activity Centres Hierarchy.  In these circumstances these uses should occur in out-of-centre developments as referred to in provision 5.6 of State Planning Policy 4.2.

 

The City of Wanneroo recognises Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo (Drover's Place) and the land area bounded by Wanneroo Road, Mangano Place and Calabrese Avenue (Calabrese Triangle) as such out-of-centre developments."

 

As outlined above, LPP 3.2 nominates the Amendment area as a site that can accommodate 'out-of-centre developments', however, the ASP 80 Statement of Intent that currently applies for the Central Precinct does not align with the above provision of LPP 3.2. On 30 May 2014, Wakefield Planning, on behalf the landowners, lodged Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80. Amendment No. 4 proposes extensive modifications to ASP 80, including modification to the current Statement of Intent.  It is likely that the changes to the Statement of Intent proposed in Amendment No. 4 will reflect the wording in LPP 3.2 that health facilities that attract a significant number of employees or users and/or generate significant vehicle trips should occur in 'out-of-centre' developments.  If Council were mindful to support changes to the Statement of Intent of ASP 80 in Amendment No. 4, then a 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' would be considered as acceptable uses.  However, because Amendment No. 4, to reflect the above has not been considered by Council, the proposed additional uses have to be assessed against the existing Statement of Intent in Amendment No. 3.

 

It is for this reason that Administration would have preferred both Amendment No. 3 and No. 4 to be considered by Council concurrently.  Although the applicant has been advised of Administration's preference, the applicant has requested that Amendment No. 3 be presented to the 16 September 2014 Council Meeting.  Administration agreed to the applicant's request, as Council is required under Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 to determine structure plan amendments within 60 days from the close of advertising.  In the case of Amendment No. 3, 60 days from the close of advertising occurred on 22 August 2014, and therefore has already lapsed.  Presenting Amendment No. 3 and No. 4 concurrently to this Council Meeting was not possible, as the advertising period for Amendment No. 4 concluded on 26 August 2014, and Administration has not had an opportunity to consider the detail and implications of the submissions prior to the preparation of this Report.

 

Whilst Administration's recommendation is to refuse to adopt Amendment No. 3, Council does have the option to defer Amendment No. 3 until the 14 October Council Meeting, to enable consideration of Amendment No. 3 and No. 4 concurrently.  If Council is mindful to defer the consideration of Amendment No. 3, then the application would continue to exceed to the statutory 60 day time period for determination.  Applications that are not determined within the 60 time period are deemed refused under Clause 9.6.4 of DPS 2 for the purpose of a right to review at the State Administrative Tribunal.

 

Landowner Justification for the Proposal

 

Wakefield Planning, on behalf of the landowner, has provided Administration with three points outlining (in their view) how Amendment No. 3 can be considered prior to Amendment No. 4:

 

·        The provisions of LPP 3.2 recognise the amendment area as an 'out-of-centre' development.

 

 

         The Policy acknowledges that health facilities that attract a significant number of employees or users and/or generate significant vehicle trips cannot always be accommodated within or adjacent to activity centres within the Activity Centres Hierarchy, and in those circumstances, should occur in out-of-centre developments;

 

·        Support could be given if consideration is given for Council as part of this amendment to adopt a modification to the Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct; and

 

·        The proposed land uses of 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' can be considered as "niche" uses, in a similar manner that the 'large format liquor store' and 'hairdresser with training component' were considered as "niche" uses by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), during its deliberations of Amendment No. 1 to ASP 80 (refer to previous Council Item PS02-08/13).

 

Administration disagrees that Amendment No. 3 can be adopted for reasons provided by Wakefield Planning. Administration's comments on the submission from Wakefield Planning are provided below:

 

·        Amendment No. 3 cannot be supported based on the provisions of LPP 3.2 alone, whilst having no regard to the Statement of Intent outlined for the Central Precinct in ASP 80. This is because ASP 80 operates pursuant to Part 9 of DPS 2.

 

·        The changes to the Statement of Intent as suggested by Wakefield Planning are considered as a significant departure from the advertised version of the Amendment No. 3 proposal. If Administration were to consider such changes, it would be inclined to grant stakeholders a chance to further comment in light of the suggested change, by re-advertising the amendment.

 

·        Although SAT previously considered the 'large format liquor store' and 'hairdresser with a training component' as "niche" uses, Administration does not consider that 'Medical Centre' or 'Pharmacy' as "niche" uses.

 

·        As discussed earlier in this report, a modification to the Statement of Intent proposed in Amendment No. 4 (to align with LPP 3.2) would allow the City the opportunity to consider the permissibility of land uses on Lot 810 and 811 that are appropriate for an 'out-of-centre' development.

 

Legal Advice

 

Administration has sought legal advice on both Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4. A summary of the legal advice has been provided to Elected Members.

 

Conclusion

 

There has previously been significant debate over the range of land uses that can be accommodated within the Drovers Place Precinct Structure Plan Area. Council and the WAPC have previously not supported the introduction of uses that were considered to be 'typical' or 'commonly' found within a recognised activity centre.

 

Although the Amendment area is not a recognised activity centre under the City's LPP 3.2, this Policy acknowledges that special considerations could be made for 'health' and 'commercial' uses that "attract a significant number of employees or users and/or generate significant vehicle trips…".

 

 

 

 

The proposed land uses conflict with the existing Statement of Intent in ASP 80, as 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' are not considered to be 'niche business' or 'cultural use', nor are they considered uses that would significantly benefit from high exposure to Wanneroo Road.

 

It is for the reasons outlined in this Report that this Amendment is not supported by Administration.

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 Council refuse to adopt Amendment No. 3 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 for reasons outlined in this Report.

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

Should the applicant be aggrieved by Council's decision, the applicant can undertake the following pursuant to Clause 9.12 of DPS 2:

 

a)      Within 14 days of Council's decision, submit a written request to the City requesting its reconsideration of the decision; or

 

b)      Exercise right to review, and lodge an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of Council's decision.

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning, Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres and State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      NOTES the petition tabled at 1 April 2014 Council Meeting for Council to consider a medical centre including pharmacy, to be located at Lot 810 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo (PT06-04/14), and ADVISES the principal petitioner of its decision outlined in Item 2. below;

 

2.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (a) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, REFUSES TO ADOPT Amendment No. 3 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2, for the following reason:

 

         The proposed additions of 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' as discretionary (or 'D') uses for Lot 810 and Lot 811 is contrary to the Intent for the Central Precinct outlined in Table C of Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, as:

 

a)      The 'Medical Centre' or 'Pharmacy' do not qualify as 'niche businesses', as these uses typically do not provide any service or product that is different or unique to other (similar) businesses that operate in the Perth Metropolitan Area;

 

b)      Neither of the 'Medical Centre' or 'Pharmacy' uses can be considered as 'cultural uses'; and

 

c)      The 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' are not considered land uses that would significantly benefit from high exposure to Wanneroo Road.

 

3.      NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 3 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 included as Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommendations in response to those submissions and ADVISES the submitters of its decision; and

 

4.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 3 and three copies of the Amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Lots 810 & 811 (1397 & 1387) Wanneroo Road	14/195124
2.	Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80	14/237158	Minuted
3.	REVISED Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions for Report - Amendment 3 to ASP80	14/237178	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               11222 – 14/210897

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider adopting Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) for Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to apply provisions for a ‘Restricted Use’ – Park Home Park, to facilitate development of a Lifestyle Village, comprising up to 400 dwelling units.

 

Applicant	Rowe Group
Owner	National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd
Location	Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup
Site Area	16.58ha
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

 

 

Background

The subject site is located south east of the intersection of Mornington Drive and Coogee Road and comprises Lot 4 (a former turf farm that ceased operation in 2007) and Lot 5 (which is uncleared, and contains some 8ha of Banksia woodland).  A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

On 5 September 2006, National Lifestyle Village (NLV) lodged an application to amend DPS 2 to rezone Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup from ‘Rural Resource’ to ‘Private Clubs/Recreation’.  At its meeting of 26 June 2007, Council resolved to adopt Amendment No. 65 to DPS 2 and referred it to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).  On 18 December 2008, the WAPC wrote to the City notifying that it would not grant its consent to advertise the amendment as the proposal:

 

"1.     Comprises development which is not consistent with the ‘Rural’ zoning of the land in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), and whilst the land is considered for ‘Possible Future Urban’ under the Future of East Wanneroo document, the long term zoning intentions are not finalised;

 

2.      Is premature in the absence of structure planning and strategic planning for the area;

 

3.      Is ad-hoc when considered in the context of the rural cell in which it is located and would create a precedent for requests for additional incremental changes to land uses and increases in development intensity; and

 

4.      The proposed zoning of ‘Private Clubs/Recreation’ allows for a range of permitted and discretionary uses and is not considered appropriate at this location in the context of ‘Rural’ zoning of the land under the MRS and the existing intensive agricultural uses on the surrounding ‘Rural Resource’ zoned land.”

 

 

On 8 February 2011, formal application was made by NLV to amend DPS 2 to apply provisions for a ‘Restricted Use’ – Lifestyle Village to Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup (Amendment No. 111).  At its meeting of 20 September 2011, Council resolved that it was not prepared to initiate Amendment No. 111 to DPS 2 for the following reasons;

"1.     The urban nature of the proposal is premature in an area that is still largely used for rural purposes which may lead to potential for land use conflicts;

 

2.      The proposal is premature as the area is only shown as having potential for urban development in the East Wanneroo Structure Plan and further investigations are required to determine the suitability of the area for urbanisation;

 

3.      No detailed planning or structure planning has been undertaken in the locality; and

 

4.      The proposal will be inconsistent with the City’s Biodiversity Strategy."

 

On 22 August 2013 an application was made by Greg Rowe on behalf of NLV to amend DPS 2 as per Amendment No. 111 with additional conditions on development, as per Administration's recommendation of 20 September 2011.  Administration informed the applicant that it would not present the matter back to Council until the East Wanneroo Local Planning Policy 5.3 (LPP 5.3) had been adopted as discussed below.

 

Amendment No. 140 is the subject of this report.

Detail

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by rezoning the site from the ‘Rural Resource’ to ‘Restricted Use’ – Lifestyle Village, as depicted in Attachment 2, with the applicant proposing the following to be included in Schedule 2 (Section 2 – Restricted Uses) of DPS 2:

 

NO	STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	RESTRICTED USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
2-4	11 and 39 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup	Lots 4 and 5	Park Home Park (Lifestyle Village)   Conditions: I.   The number of dwelling units (park homes) shall not exceed 400. II.  Freehold or strata subdivision is not permitted. III. Notification, as appropriate, to prospective purchasers of the potential impact of the surrounding land uses contemplated by the ‘Rural Resource’ zone including but not limited to the impacts of odours, noise, light and/or dust. IV.  A viable conservation area shall be retained on Lot 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to the City’s satisfaction. V. The following management plans must accompany any development application for the site; a)      Traffic Impact Assessment b)      Flora and Fauna Management Plan c)       Bush Fire Management Plan

 

As per Amendment No. 111 to DPS 2, the applicant’s justification for the proposal is summarised as follows:

 

1.      The site is proposed for urbanisation under various State Government strategic documents, including the East Wanneroo Structure Plan, which identifies the site for potential urban purposes;

 

2.      The proposal, whilst facilitating an alternative type of housing, is not considered a traditional residential use, and may be progressed under the current Rural zoning of the MRS;

 

3.      A Restricted Use – Lifestyle Village has been applied for rather than a Private Clubs/Recreation zone or Additional Use zone, thus limiting development options for the site to that use only, thereby avoiding creation of a precedent for ad-hoc residential rezoning or development of the area; and

 

4.      The Concept Plan and design objectives for the site illustrate the net environmental benefits of the proposal, including 3ha of vegetation to be retained, best practice stormwater and drainage management and water re-use.

 

The application also included a concept plan (contained in Attachment 3) and in the supporting report refers to the provision of 347 park home sites and incidental facilities.  The concept plan is indicative only, does not have any statutory power and only provides a guide for the proposed development.  Should the Amendment progress to finalisation, further detail will be required at the development application stage, prior to any development occurring on site.

 

In addition to the above, the applicant has also addressed Council's reasons of 20 September 2011 not to initiate the Amendment which is detailed in the Comment section below.

Consultation

All scheme amendments must (by law) be subject to public consultation.  However, the Town Planning Regulations provide that where an amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and State policies and strategies, then the consent of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) will not be required to advertise the amendment.  In this instance, the proposed Amendment No. 140 to DPS 2 is not consistent with the MRS (see Minister for Planning's Section 76 determination referred to later in this report).  As a result, the consent of the WAPC will be required, prior to advertising the Amendment to
DPS 2.

 

The Amendment will also need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

 

 

Subject to no objections being received from the EPA and advertising consent being granted by the WAPC the Amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

·        Placement of a sign on affected sites, giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

Comment

East Wanneroo Structure Plan

 

The site is designated as ‘Potential Urban’ under the WAPC’s final ‘East Wanneroo Structure Plan’ (EWSP).  Despite this designation in the EWSP, there is no guarantee that the surrounding area will actually be rezoned to ‘Urban’ under the MRS or developed for urban purposes, given that further studies and planning need to be undertaken in accordance with the EWSP, to more precisely define the opportunities and constraints to urbanisation of the area and the potential and suitability for land to be developed for that purpose.  Therefore, in the meantime, until those further investigations have been completed, any rezoning proposal must be assessed on its merits.

 

Local Planning Policy 5.3 – East Wanneroo

 

Further to the EWSP as discussed above, the City's East Wanneroo Local Planning Policy 5.3 (LPP 5.3) was adopted by Council on 27 May 2014 (PS01-05/13).  The purpose of LPP 5.3 is to define the City’s expectations and requirements for the progression of planning within the EWSP area.

 

The process outlined in the Policy identifies that higher level planning should be undertaken before any development of an urban nature is permitted. Notwithstanding this, LPP 5.3, Clause 2.2.2 allows consideration of planning proposals of an urban or related nature under certain circumstances.  Clause 2.2.2 of LPP 5.3 states;

 

"Planning proposals of an urban or related nature which are submitted for land within the Policy Area and which do not involve the undertaking of one of the 'Steps' included in Table 1, shall only be entertained by the City if they will not prejudice the effective undertaking of the planning process set out in Table 1, and the ability for urban and related development to be able to occur in the Policy Area in an orderly and proper manner."

 

Step 2 in table 1 of LPP 5.3 relates to the preparation of applications for DPS 2 amendments for rezoning to Urban Development.  However this proposal relates to an amendment to Restricted Use – Park Home Park, which is different to the Urban Zone referred to in LPP 5.3.  The current proposal therefore does not involve the undertaking of one of the 'steps' referred to in LPP 5.3 and therefore Clause 2.2.2 is applicable to this proposal. 

 

Under Clause 2.2.2, a proposal may be considered for support by Council if it meets the following criteria;

 

·        The proposal will not prejudice the effective undertaking of the planning process set out in table 1; and

·        The proposal will not prejudice the ability for urban and related development to be able to occur in the Policy Area in an orderly and proper manner.

 

 

Considering the above, Administration is of the view that the proposed Scheme Amendment is satisfactory for referral to Council for formal consideration for the following reasons:

 

·        The use of Park Home Park (Lifestyle Village), while providing for residential occupancy, does not constitute a form of urban development (because of the transportable nature of the park homes) that might present an undesirable precedent to consider rezoning of land for residential development elsewhere in the East Wanneroo area;

 

·        The site is contiguous to the existing residential development front of Banksia Grove, can be accessed from the existing road network. Due to this proximity to the residential development the proposed development can be serviced by existing infrastructure (such as power, water and sewer);

 

·        The proposed development is generally ‘self-contained’ and does not rely on the coordinated provision of communal essential infrastructure that is required to facilitate future development throughout most of East Wanneroo; and

 

·        The Water Corporation has previously advised that the proposed development on Lots 4 and 5 can be accommodated within the capacity of the existing reticulated sewer and water network. The Water Corporation did, however, also advise that if the sewer capacity is allocated to this site then no further development can be accommodated east of Pinjar Road until a significant upgrade of the sewer infrastructure has been undertaken.

 

Developer Contributions

 

No information presently exists on the quantum and cost of common infrastructure required to service future development in East Wanneroo and therefore it may be difficult to bind the proposed development (at least at the rezoning stage) to contributing to future infrastructure costs, when those costs are not yet known and may not be known for some time yet.  Council may wish to consider an interim policy to cover this circumstance similar to the approach for development in the coastal growth corridor.  The opportunity to require payment of a contribution will arise at the subdivision or development approval stage (should they be known) and is not directly applicable to this proposed Scheme amendment;

 

Section 76 Request to the Minister for Planning

 

Section 76 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (P & D Act) allows the Minister for Planning to order local government to prepare or adopt a scheme or amendment to the planning scheme under certain circumstances.  The Chief Executive Officer of NLV, requested that the Minister for Planning order the City to initiate Amendment No. 111 to allow advertising of the proposal to commence.

 

On 27 November 2013 John Day, Minister for Planning, Culture and the Arts, wrote to the City indicating that he would not order the City to initiate Amendment No. 111 under section 76 of the P & D Act.  The letter is included in Attachment 4, however, the reasons are summarised below:

 

1.      The land is located within the East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area which requires further high level investigation to be undertaken prior to development.  This will ensure orderly and proper planning in general and a co-ordinated approach to planning and the provision of infrastructure and other community requirements.  This may include planning for water and sewerage, road requirements, bushfire management and potential land use conflicts;

 

 

2.      The proposed amendment is to provide for a residential development which is inconsistent with the general intention of the Rural zoning of the land in the MRS.  It may result in land use conflicts between rural uses with residential areas;

3.      The proposed amendment is not supported by arrangements for funding and development contributions for infrastructure and facilities; and

4.      Approvals of the amendment would set a precedent for other more intensive non-rural developments in the rural zone.  This could have a cumulative effect on the intention of the MRS Rural zone.

 

In addition to the above, Administration was also informed by the Department of Planning (DoP) that, based on the information that had been provided, they would not be inclined to support a local scheme amendment to the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2, to apply a Restricted Use provision in the absence of an MRS rezoning first being approved for the subject lot.  Further advice went on to say that the City can decide whether to initiate the proposed local scheme amendment and that the WAPC would then formally and independently consider the scheme amendment proposal if Council decides to initiate the amendment and seek approval to advertise it for public comment.

 

While Council should not be fettered by the advice received on this proposal from the Minister, it is clear that the Minister does consider the proposal to be of an urban nature and therefore does not support the proposal without further planning as outlined in EWSP.

 

Consideration within a Rural Zone

 

As outlined in the Council report of 20 September 2011, Administration considers the proposed use of Lot 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup can be accommodated within the DPS 2 zone 'Rural Resource' and therefore the MRS zone of 'Rural'. Administration's reasons are summarised below;

 

·        A Park Home Park cannot clearly be defined as a residential development and could be considered within a rural MRS zone (because of the transportable nature of the park homes);

·        Clause 2.2.2 of LPP 5.3 applies to this proposal as it is not considered to trigger any of the eight steps as outlined in the LPP 5.3.  Due to the self contained nature of the proposal it is not considered the proposal would prejudice the planning process or the ability for future urban development to occur and therefore it should be entertained by Council;

·        Due to the self contained nature of the proposal it would not require any additional road linkages to surrounding sites and therefore would not prejudice any surrounding development;

·        The concept plan incorporates a 20 metre vegetation buffer to the existing rural development to allow the rural area to continue to operate and not cause objectionable nuisance.  The site will also contain a notification on the title to identify the potential nuisance to the owner;

·        The Park Home Park land use would appear more like a caravan park with communal facilities rather than conventional urban developments.  This built form would not have as significant an impact as other possible built forms; and

·        It is considered the proposal would not set a precedent for any future development as it is of a unique nature and could not be easily replicated.

 

Response to Council's considerations of 5 April 2011

 

In their revised proposal, the proponents have included justification to address Council's concerns and reasons for not initiating Amendment No. 111 as identified in the Background section above.  A summary of the applicant's justification includes:

 

 

·        Management strategies, including the retention of trees, fencing and the low lying nature of the surrounding land uses, have been created to deal with land use conflict with the adjoining market garden sites.  Whilst it is noted that these sites will likely be urbanised in the future, and therefore rendering the management strategies superfluous, the interim measures should be robust enough to enable evolution to a permanent approach to eliminate land use conflict;

·        The City's LPP 5.3 identifies the opportunity for land uses which are not considered to be within the standard planning approval framework to be considered;

·        Whilst district structure planning has yet to be undertaken, the self sustaining nature of the Lifestyle Village will ensure that it would not have any impact on the services of the area; and

·        While significant investigations have been undertaken, including an offset strategy report for the loss of natural vegetation and preliminary comments from DoP and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, approval for the proposal is only to initiate the scheme amendment.  Referral to other key agencies, such as the Office of Environmental Protection, Department of Water and Water Corporation will occur at future stages.

 

Other Considerations

 

In the report presented to Council on 5 April 2011 (PS09-04/11) Administration also raised further points specific to the environmental impacts of the development and bushfire management.  As per Administration's previous recommendations it is considered that these matters can be considered at further stages of development and addressed through a Flora and Fauna Management Plan and Bush Fire Management Plan.

 

The above management plans, as well as other considerations such as traffic and development contributions will be considered in greater detail at subdivision or development application stage.

 

Conclusion

 

The initiation of the Scheme Amendment is the first step towards the development of the land for a lifestyle village that would increase the choice of lifestyle and housing options in the City.

 

Administration considers the use of Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup as a lifestyle village can be accommodated within the Rural zoning of the land under the MRS and is therefore satisfied that the proposal would not compromise the planning process proposed through the WAPC’s EWSP or LPP 5.3.  If Council agrees with Administration's position, that the development is compatible with the current Rural zoning under the MRS, then the Amendment should be initiated.  Council's decision to initiate Amendment No. 140 to advertise the matter will not fetter its ability to make a recommendation against the Amendment following advertising of the Amendment (if granted by the WAPC).  This should be reinforced to the applicant as part of any recommendation to support the proposal.

 

However, if Council is concerned that the proposal will adversely impact the local environment and that the Scheme Amendment is premature in relation to the surrounding EWSP area, or may set an undesirable precedent, then the Amendment should not be initiated.

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

 

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

Should Council refuse to initiate the Amendment there are no appeal rights for the applicant. Should Council support the recommendation to initiate the amendment then Administration consider there are no substantive risks.

Policy Implications

This proposal is assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 5.3 East Wanneroo.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purpose of:-

a)      Amending the Scheme Map for Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to designate ‘Restricted Use’; and

b)      Modifying  ‘Schedule 2 - Section 2 (Clause 3.21) – Restricted Uses’ to include Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup as follows:

NO	STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	RESTRICTED USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
2-4	11 & 39 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup	Lots 4 & 5	Park Home Park (Lifestyle Village)   Conditions: i.                 The number of dwelling units (park homes) shall not exceed 400.     ii.  Freehold or strata subdivision is not permitted. iii. Notification, as appropriate, to prospective purchasers of the potential impact of the surrounding land uses contemplated by the ‘Rural Resource’ zone, including but not limited to the impacts of odours, noise, light and/or dust. iv. A viable conservation area shall be retained on Lot 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to the City’s satisfaction. v.  The following management plans must accompany any development application for the site: a)    Traffic Impact Assessment b)    Flora and Fauna Management Plan c)    Bushfire Management Plan

 

2.      REFERS Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to:

a)      the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

b)      The Western Australian Planning Commission for its consent to advertise under Regulation 25AA of the Town Planning Regulations 1967;

3.      Subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority and consent to advertise being granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 140 for public comment pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 for a period of 42 days; and

 

 

4.      ADVISES the owners of Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup, that Council initiation of Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 does not imply and must not be misinterpreted as support of the concept plan submitted.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Location Plan	11/95904
2.	Amendment Plan	14/216211
3.	Concept Plan	14/217679
4.	Letter from Minister for Planning	14/217670

 

 

 

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                               2080 – 14/204478

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider endorsement of a submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on proposed Amendment 1263/57 to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), which proposes rezoning nine properties on Dundebar Road and Garden Park Drive, Wanneroo from Rural to Urban Deferred.

 

Applicant	Rowe Group acting on behalf of F Tati, P & H Servaas, K R McMahon and Redray Holdings
Owner	F Tati, P & H Servaas, K R McMahon, Redray Holdings, G & A Brandt, A & M Del Borrello, T T Huong Nguyen
Location	Lots 89-95 & 100 Dundebar Road, and lot 88 Garden Park Drive, Wanneroo
Site Area	18.44ha
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

 

 

 

Background

In January 2013, the WAPC invited preliminary comment from the City on a proposal it had received for rezoning from Rural to Urban Deferred under the MRS, of nine properties on Dundebar Road and Garden Park Drive, Wanneroo.

 

The location of the subject land is shown on Attachments 1 and 2.  It involves an area of 18.44 ha.

 

Administration advised the WAPC in writing on 28 February 2013 that it did not support the proposed MRS Amendment as doing so would be premature and prejudicial to Council's final decision on proposed Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) which was in preparation at the time.  A copy of the Administration letter is included as Attachment 3.

Detail

The WAPC has resolved to amend the MRS to rezone the subject land to Urban Deferred, and is now advertising the proposal for a public submission period, closing on 5 September 2014.

 

The Amendment Report (dated July 2014) notes that the Amendment will facilitate an aged persons development consisting of independent living units, aged persons facility, medical centre and a pharmacy on approximately half the subject land, with the remainder containing residential lots and public open space (amongst other uses).  A copy of the proposed layout plan is included as Attachment 4.

 

The Amendment Report also advises that the following requirements are to be addressed prior to the lifting of Urban Deferment:

 

·        A District Structure Plan (DSP) being prepared for the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP) area; and

·        A Bush Fire Hazard Assessment being undertaken for the site to the satisfaction of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

 

In respect to the above requirement for DSP preparation, it should be noted that the WAPC letter to the City on the proposed Amendment states:  "please be advised that a District Structure Plan will be required to be prepared by the City of Wanneroo and endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission prior to any lifting of the Urban Deferred Zone.  The City is encouraged to advance the initiation and finalisation of a District Structure Plan accordingly."

 

While the Amendment Report refers to the EWSP requirement that MRS Amendments likely needing to be supported by a DSP, it goes on to provide the following justification for initiation of this Amendment prior to DSP preparation:

 

"The WAPC supports the progression of this amendment, as it is considered a relatively small area of land which abuts an established residential area with no infrastructure and servicing constraints.  Therefore, the proposed Urban Deferred zoning is not considered to prejudice the future preparation of a DSP for the EWSP area."

 

In respect to the WAPC's consideration of the City's preparation of draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3), the Amendment Report refers to the first and second drafts of LPP 5.3, then concludes stating: "At this stage, draft LPP 5.3 has not been finalised".

 

In this regard, it should be noted that the WAPC resolved to initiate this Amendment at its meeting of 28 January 2014, so the above statement may be more a reflection of the advice provided by the Department of Planning (DoP) to the WAPC at that time, rather than reflecting the situation as at July 2014 (the date of the Amendment Report).  

 

Regarding why it has taken so long for the Amendment to be advertised, given that the WAPC initiated it in January of this year, the DoP has advised that this is due to additional information needing to be provided to the Environmental Protection Authority, as part of its assessment of the proposal.

Consultation

The WAPC undertook preliminary consultation with relevant agencies in January 2013, and is now undertaking a formal public submission period on the proposed Amendment.

Comment

Council adopted LPP 5.3 at its meeting of 27 May 2014 (item PS01-05/14).  This Policy sets out an 8 step planning process to guide the further planning of the East Wanneroo area.  The WAPC was formally advised of Council's adoption of LPP 5.3 by way of correspondence dated 5 June 2014.

 

The first step in the Policy's planning process involves landowners preparing and submitting applications to the WAPC for amendment of the MRS to rezone all of the area shown as 'potential urban' on the EWSP to Urban.  This was to be done through two amendments: one for the potential urban land north of Dundebar Road, and one for the potential urban land south of that road.

Proposed MRS Amendment 1263/57 is proposing to rezone only a small part of the potential urban land north of Dundebar Road to Urban Deferred.  It is therefore contrary to LPP 5.3 in the following ways:

 

1.      It does not involve all of the potential urban land north of Dundebar Road;

2.      It involves rezoning to Urban Deferred, and not Urban; and

3.      It does not address a prerequisite under LPP 5.3 for undertaking of Step 1, which involves the proponent first obtaining the City's prior approval to undertaking this work, in order to be entitled to subsequently claim development contribution 'credits' for the costs incurred in doing this work.

 

Being contrary to LPP 5.3, this proposed MRS Amendment presents the following problems:

 

1.      It will set a precedent for further ad hoc, piecemeal planning rather than the East Wanneroo area being subject to a comprehensive planning approach as proposed under LPP 5.3.

 

         Subsequent to this MRS Amendment being initiated, the WAPC has resolved to initiate a similar small-scale rezoning to Urban Deferred of a 26 ha area of land on Caporn Street, Wanneroo, which is expected to be advertised for submissions shortly.

 

         Administration is aware that other landowner groups may be looking to apply for Urban Deferred zoning of their area, based on this proposed MRS amendment.  Assessment and processing of such piecemeal applications which are likely to follow if this proposed MRS Amendment is approved, will be time consuming and resource intensive for the City and the State planning and other agencies.

 

         The aged care component of the proposal which this rezoning is intended to facilitate does represent a type of facility and housing which will be of considerable benefit to the district, once developed.  However, this is not considered to justify departing from the planning process set out in LPP 5.3, and experiencing the problems described in this report.

 

2.      Through requiring that MRS rezoning to Urban occur through only two amendments covering the total potential urban area, LPP 5.3 aims to facilitate a collaborative approach being taken by the various landowner groups and their respective consultants who are active in that area.

 

         This will be especially important for when the landowners come to prepare the two DSPs required under LPP 5.3, as these will involve a wide range of detailed studies at considerable cost.  Piecemeal MRS Amendments discourages such collaboration occurring between the landowner groups. 

 

3.      The WAPC has indicated that the City should prepare a DSP for the EWSP area.  The City's LPP 5.3 requires landowners to prepare MRS Amendments and DSPs for the area.  The WAPC's position is very frustrating, as the WAPC and DoP were well aware at the time that this MRS Amendment was initiated of Council's position as set out in modified draft LPP 5.3, which was adopted by Council on 28 May 2013 (item PS01‑05/13) for readvertising.

 

         It is also frustrating because the City's approach in LPP 5.3 is consistent with advice provided by WAPC in July 2011, in response to a request made by the City at that time for the WAPC to rezone the total potential urban area to Urban Deferred:

 

        

 

         "The Department of Planning is not resourced or funded to undertake the various studies required to progress the urbanisation of land in East Wanneroo.  Even more importantly, it is not appropriate that the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) or the Department of Planning assume the role of proponent over privately owned land.

 

         In this respect, it is a well accepted principle that the onus for undertaking such studies rest with those on whom the benefit is conferred.  That is, those which will benefit from the capitalisation associated with the urbanisation of the land.  This principle is also applied to local planning scheme amendments in which applicants seek to rezone land to realise a higher and better use."

 

4.      The Amendment Report refers to only two things needing to be done for WAPC to then lift Urban Deferment: preparation of a DSP, and a Bushfire Hazard Assessment being undertaken.  This infers that WAPC would then consider approving subdivision applications in that area.

 

         The planning framework to be established through the LPP 5.3 planning process involves a number of other important elements, including Local Structure Plans (LSP) and Development Contribution Plans (DCP), which need to be in place prior to subdivision stage.  It is concerning that the WAPC may be contemplating subdivision in the absence of such important mechanisms being in place.

 

5.      It does not allow the City to implement a proper accreditation and accounting system to handle subsequent claims for DCP credits.

 

Given that this MRS amendment application is contrary to LPP 5.3, and the problems this presents as indicated above, it is recommended that Council objects to this Amendment.

Statutory Compliance

If the City wishes the WAPC (and subsequently the Minister for Planning) to be made formally aware of its views on this Amendment, then it needs to make a submission to WAPC on it.

 

In respect to implications for City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), rezoning to Urban Deferred does not trigger any statutory requirement for the City to amend DPS 2.  However, lifting of Urban Deferment will require DPS 2 to be amended to make it consistent with the MRS.

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

There are no risks to the City associated with adoption of this report's recommendation.

There are risks associated with not adopting the recommendation, in that it may make it more likely that the proposed MRS amendment will be approved.  This will mean that the City will be faced with the problems outlined previously in this report.

Policy Implications

The proposed MRS Amendment is contrary to LPP 5.3.  If it is approved, the City may need to review its position on LPP 5.3.

Financial Implications

Approval of this proposed MRS Amendment may make it more difficult for the City to establish comprehensive and effective DCPs for the East Wanneroo area.

 

It might also lead to the City needing to reconsider its position regarding preparation of DSPs for the area.  DSP preparation would be very costly, however noting that it should be possible to recover such costs through DCPs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      OBJECTS to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1263/57 relating to lots 89 to 95 and 100 Dundebar Road and lot 88 Garden Park Drive, Wanneroo for the reasons set out in this report;

2.      FORWARDS a copy of this Administration report to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) as the City's formal response to proposed Metropolitan Region Amendment 126/57;

3.      ADVISES the WAPC and the Department of Planning that it is disappointed that the State planning agencies have chosen to pursue an approach for progressing the planning of East Wanneroo which is contrary to that proposed under Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3), and SEEKS to work with the State planning agencies to arrive at a shared approach, based on LPP 5.3, which will facilitate the establishment of a comprehensive planning framework for the East Wanneroo area which will enable it to develop in an orderly and proper manner;  and

4.      ADVISES the WAPC and the Department of Planning that while Council is objecting to this current MRS Amendment for this small area of land on Dundebar Road, it would support an MRS amendment which involved rezoning to Urban of all of the land north of Dundebar Road which is shown as potential urban under the East Wanneroo Structure Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	MRS Amendment map	14/204569
2.	Proposed Amendment diagram	14/204575
3.	WAPC letter	14/206950
4.	Concept Structure Plan	14/206959

  

 

File Ref:                                               1441 – 14/215901

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

To appoint a community representative to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC).

 

Background

In accordance with Section 5.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), following the 2013 Local Government Elections, Council sought nominations for community representatives on its various advisory committees, including the EAC.

 

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

 

The EAC’s Terms of Reference provide for a maximum of seven members, comprised of three elected members and a maximum of four community representatives.

 

At the 29 October 2013 Special Council Meeting (SCS02-10/13) Council appointed Cr Driver, Cr Winton and Cr Hewer as delegates to the EAC, while Cr Smithson, Cr Newton and Cr Treby were appointed as deputy delegates.

 

At the 10 December 2013 Council Meeting (CS06-12/13) Council appointed City of Wanneroo residents Mr John Kelly, Mr Kevin McLeod, Mr John Boonzaier and Mr Lewis Flood to the community representative positions.

 

Following the resignation of Mr John Boonzaier on 24 June 2014, there is now one vacant community representative position on the EAC.

Detail

The City has received a community representative nomination for the available position on the EAC from Dr Gustave Gintzburger.

 

Dr Gintzburger's experience and qualifications are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarised as follows:

 

·        PhD in Ecology and Plant Biology;

·        International Consultant on Range Ecology and Management; and

·        Scientific Secretary of the 1991 International Rangeland Congress (IRC).

Comment

The EAC Terms of Reference allow a maximum of four community representatives. Three of these positions are currently held by existing community members. The City has received a nomination from Dr Gintzburger for the remaining vacant community representative position on the EAC.

 

 

 

Dr Gintzburger currently resides in Mariginiup and has not previously been a member of the EAC.

 

Dr Gustave Gintzburger would be an appropriate community representative and would bring valuable experience and knowledge to the EAC. Administration therefore recommends the appointment of Dr Gintzburger to the EAC.

Statutory Compliance

Pursuant to Section 5.10(1)(a) of the Act, a local government is required to have its members appointed to a committee by absolute majority.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, APPOINTS Dr Gustave Gintzburger to the City of Wanneroo Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) as a community representative.

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                               4092 – 14/238594

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   MN02-08/14 - Removal of Fig Trees in Russell Road, Madeley - Rescission Motion - Ordinary Council - 19 Aug 2014 7:00pm       

 

Issue

To consider the motions raised at the Special Meeting of Electors held on 25 August 2014 concerning the preservation of significant trees.

 

Background

Council considered the removal of 13 fig trees (Ficus macrocarpa 'hillii') in Russell Road, Madeley at its meeting on 24 June 2014 (IN01-06/14) and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:

 

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

 

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

 

3.      ADVISES the petitioners of Council's decision."

 

Council considered a Motion on Notice at 19 August 2014 Council Meeting, and resolved to revoke the previous decision made on 24 June 2014, and subsequently, not to remove the fig trees and instead conduct tree maintenance works to reduce tree load and canopy overhang.

 

On 25 August 2014 a Special Meeting of Electors was held "to consider the revocation of a decision of Council made at is 24 June 2014 meeting - Item No. IN01-06/14 to remove fig trees opposite 1-15 Russel Road, Madeley."

 

At this meeting there were seven motions presented in writing, of which six were carried.  In accordance with Council's direction, this report addresses the six carried motions from the Special Meeting of Electors.

Detail

The six motions carried at the meeting all related to the mechanism by which Council might ensure the future protection of significant trees.  A summary of each of the carried motions is outlined below:

 

·        Motion 1: That Council reviews and updates its Tree Preservation Policy;

·        Motion 2: That Council implements and maintains a Significant Tree Register;

·        Motion 3: That Council updates the Municipal Heritage Inventory to include significant trees;

·        Motion 4: That Council lists the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Significant Tree Register;

 

·        Motion 5: That Council lists the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Municipal Heritage Inventory; and

·        Motion 6: That Council amend the Street Tree Policy to mandate the preservation and maintenance of all mature trees.

 

A review of these motions identifies three key requests:

 

1.   To review of the City's existing Tree Preservation Policy (Motions 1 and 6);

 

The City's existing Tree Preservation Policy provides broad statements of intent with regard to the identification and protection of significant trees in the City.  It applies only to the identification and protection of significant trees through the following circumstances:

 

·        Structure Plans, Subdivision and Planning Approval; and

·        Public Open Space Reserves

 

In both circumstances the Policy states that wherever possible and practicable, significant individual trees shall be preserved on private lots and retained appropriately within road reserves, public open space reserves and carparks, and that development should be located to minimise the impact on significant trees.

 

The Policy states that the removal of trees should be considered as a last resort after all other options have been considered.

 

The Policy also provides a broad definition of significant trees, and notes that trees identified as a result of the application of the Policy will be recorded on the City's property information system.

 

2.      To prepare a Significant Tree Register, that includes the Ficus Trees on Russell Road (Motions 2 and 4); and

 

The City does not currently have a significant tree register in place.

 

3.      To review the Municipal Heritage Inventory to address significant trees, including the Ficus Trees on Russell Road (Motions 3 and 5)

 

The City maintains a Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) in accordance with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (Heritage Act), which requires local governments to compile and maintain an inventory of places and areas that are of cultural heritage significance for the local government district.  The MHI does not have any statutory force under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) but is a list of places considered by Council to have cultural heritage significance.  Items identified from the MHI with cultural values requiring added statutory protection under DPS 2 are included on the Scheme Heritage List.

 

The City's MHI includes a number of natural features such as caves, wetlands, natural springs, and two specific groups of trees – Olive trees in Perry's Paddock, Yellagonga Regional Park, and the Avenue of Trees on Yanchep Road, Yanchep National Park.  The only trees included on the Scheme Heritage List are the Avenue of Trees in Yanchep National Park.

 

Although significant trees may be included on the MHI or Scheme Heritage List, it must be for their cultural heritage significance rather than any specific environmental or aesthetic values.

Consultation

Nil

 

Comment

Review of the City's existing Tree Preservation Policy (Motions 1 and 6);

 

·        Motion 1

 

Administration supports Motion 1 that the Tree Preservation Policy be reviewed, and work on this review has already commenced. 

 

The City's Tree Preservation Policy was originally adopted by Council on 1 July 2004 to provide a mechanism to protect significant trees in development areas and public open space. It was last reviewed in July 2006, and is now significantly overdue for review.

 

Increasing pressure from greenfield and infill development has found the Policy lacking in its ability to effectively protect significant trees in new development areas of the City.  Furthermore, on occasions where the removal of mature trees has been proposed as a result of community petitions or complaints (as has been the case with the Ficus trees on Russell Road) it has become clear that the existing Policy does little to provide guidance to Administration or Council on how these requests ought to be considered.

 

The Policy does provide a definition of significant trees, however, this definition is considered to be too broad in scope to be of practical use in protecting trees on development sites.

 

The reviewed Policy will need to clearly state the City's position on the retention and protection of significant and mature trees; the City's criteria for determining the significance of trees; the circumstances under which the removal of trees would be supported; and what the City would require in return for the approved removal of any trees on development sites. The Policy should also provide guidance on the protection and maintenance of trees in streets, parks and open space areas, private land and development sites.

 

It is expected that the review of the Tree Preservation Policy will be completed by the end of December 2014, with a revised draft Policy to be presented to Council early in 2015 for consideration to advertise for public comment.

 

·        Motion 6

 

Motion 6 requests that the City amend the Street Tree Policy to mandate the preservation and maintenance of all mature trees.  As the City does not currently have a Street Tree Policy it is uncertain whether the motion is referring to the Tree Preservation Policy, or another related document such the Street Tree Masterplan or Verge Treatment Guidelines. 

 

Regardless of which document the motion refers to, there may be genuine reasons why a mature tree is unable to be kept, such as ill health, disease, or a genuine risk to the community.  Furthermore, if the motion is in fact referring to the Tree Preservation Policy, it is considered premature to predict the position on tree retention and maintenance that may eventuate through the review of this Policy.

 

As a result, Administration does not support this motion.

 

Prepare a Significant Tree Register, that includes the Ficus Trees on Russell Road (Motions 2 and 4)

 

·        Motion 2

 

Motion 2 requests the establishment of a Significant Tree Register. 

 

 

Administration supports this Motion in principle, however, the preparation of a Significant Tree Register is a significant undertaking requiring an audit of the whole City and is therefore dependent on Council approving funds in the 2015/15 budget for the appointment of consultants to undertake this work.  It is also noted that work on this register cannot commence until such time as the Tree Preservation Policy has been reviewed, and an approach to determining the significance of trees has been adopted by Council. 

 

It will also be necessary to identify the mechanism by which the Significant Tree Register will actually provide additional protection to the trees identified.  DPS 2 does not currently include any specific provisions relating to the protection of significant trees and this will therefore be investigated as part of the City's review of DPS 2 which is currently underway.

 

·        Motion 4

 

Administration is not currently in a position to respond to this motion, given the need to first review the Tree Preservation Policy and list funds for consideration in the 2015/16 budget for the preparation of a Significant Tree Register.

 

Further work is required to more clearly define the guidelines or criteria with which the City could identify significant trees across the City.  Until such time as the criteria for significance is determined and a Significant Tree Register has been established, it is not possible to determine whether it would be appropriate or not to include the Ficus trees on Russell Road.

 

Review the Municipal Heritage Inventory to address significant trees, including the Ficus Trees on Russell Road (Motions 3 and 5)

 

·        Motion 3

 

Motion 3 requests the City review the MHI to include significant trees.  Administration does not support this motion on that basis that it is not possible to include all significant trees in the MHI by default. 

 

There is clear guidance set out in the Heritage Act on the criteria and processes that apply to identifying places for inclusion in a MHI.  Although these may include significant trees on the basis of their cultural heritage significance, it is unlikely to include all significant trees across the City.  The Significant Tree Register referred to above would be more likely to be the appropriate tool to protect significant trees.

 

In relation to the review of the MHI and Scheme Heritage List more generally, this will be addressed as part of the preparation of the City's new Local Planning Scheme No. 3, which is currently under way.

 

·        Motion 5

 

Motion 5 requests the inclusion of the 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the MHI.  For the reasons outlined above in relation to Motion 3, Administration does not support this motion.

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995 states the following in relation to decisions made at electors’ meetings:-

 

"(1)    All decisions made at an electors’ meeting are to be considered at the next ordinary council meeting or, if that is not practicable —

(a)         at the first ordinary council meeting after that meeting; or

 

         (b)     at a special meeting called for that purpose,

whichever happens first.

 

(2)     If at a meeting of the council a local government makes a decision in response to a decision made at an electors’ meeting, the reasons for the decision are to 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:

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

The following risks to the City have been identified in relation to motions being considered:

·        Motion 1: That Council reviews and updates its Tree Preservation Policy.

 

Should Council support this motion, there is a risk that it may impact on the delivery timeframes for other Corporate Business Plan (CBP) projects, as this project is not currently identified in the CBP.

 

There is a significant reputational risk involved in not supporting the motion.  There is also a risk of continuing to make ad hoc decisions in relation to future tree removal issues or petitions.  

 

·        Motion 2: That Council implements and maintains a Significant Tree Register.

 

The creation of a Significant Tree Register is not currently planned or budged for.  As a consequence, should Council support this motion there is a risk that the creation of the Register will have an adverse impact on the delivery of other projects already identified in the Corporate Business Plan.  There is also a risk that additional ongoing staff resources will be required to keep such a register current and up to date.

 

·        Motion 3: That Council updates the Municipal Heritage Inventory to include significant trees.

 

Should Council support this motion, there is a risk that a number of significant trees may not be accepted as being appropriate for inclusion on the MHI.

 

·        Motion 4: That Council lists the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Significant Tree Register; and

·        Motion 5: That Council lists the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Municipal Heritage Inventory.

 

Should Council support these motions, there is a risk that it will prejudice any future position Council may wish to make on tree protection when considering the reviewed Tree Preservation Policy.  Additionally there is a risk that the trees may not meet the criteria established for significant trees as part of this Policy review.

 

 

 

·        Motion 6: That Council amend the Street Tree Policy to mandate the preservation and maintenance of all mature trees.

 

Should Council support these motions, there is a risk that it will prejudice any future position Council may wish to make on tree protection when considering the reviewed Tree Preservation Policy.

Policy Implications

Motions 1 and 6 involve Administration reviewing the City's existing Tree Preservation Policy.

Financial Implications

Once the criteria for determining the significance of trees has been established through a review of the Tree Preservation Policy, it may be necessary to apply this criteria to all trees across the City in order to prepare a significant tree register. The City does not have the resources and/or expertise to undertake this work in-house and would therefore need to engage consultants to complete the necessary survey work.

 

The costs of undertaking this work are currently unknown and there are no funds available in the current 2014/15 budget for this purpose.  As part of reviewing the Tree Preservation Policy, the cost of undertaking this work will be investigated and an appropriate sum listed for consideration in the 2015/16 budget process.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      NOTES the motions adopted at the Special Meeting of Electors held on 25 August 2014;

2.      SUPPORTS Motion 1 to review and update the City's Tree Preservation Policy because the Policy is significantly overdue for review;

3.      In relation to Motion 2 LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION in the 2015/16 budget the appointment of consultants to assist the City to prepare a Significant Tree Register and NOTES that work on this register cannot commence until such time as the Tree Preservation Policy has been reviewed and an approach to determining the significance of trees has been adopted by Council;

4.      DOES NOT SUPPORT Motion 3 to update the Municipal Heritage Inventory to include significant trees because it is not possible to include all significant trees in the Municipal Heritage Inventory by default, without a full assessment of their cultural heritage significance in accordance with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

5.      DOES NOT SUPPORT Motion 4 to include the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Significant Tree Register because it is not possible to determine whether the Ficus trees on Russell Road, Madeley are appropriate for inclusion until such time as the criteria for determining the significance of trees is determined through the review of the Tree Preservation Policy and a Significant Tree Register has been established;

 

 

6.      DOES NOT SUPPORT Motion 5 to list the stand of 13 Ficus Hillii trees in Russell Road, Madeley on the Municipal Heritage Inventory because:

a)      there is no Council endorsed criteria to determine whether these trees are significant;

b)      it is not currently possible to determine whether these trees are of cultural heritage significance; and

c)      the Municipal Heritage Inventory is not the appropriate tool to protect significant trees; and

7.      DOES NOT SUPPORT Motion 6 to amend the Street Tree Policy to mandate the preservation and maintenance of all mature trees because the City does not currently have a Street Tree Policy and there may be genuine reasons why a mature tree is unable to be kept such as ill health, disease, or a genuine risk to the community.

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

City Businesses

Property

File Ref:                                               4170 – 14/161729

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider entering into a new commercial lease over a 83m² portion of Reserve 47718, Lot 511, Clarkson Library, Ocean Keys Blvd, Clarkson (Tenancy 4) with the current tenant Carol Marshall for a term of three (3) years with a three (3) year option, subject to advertising.

 

Background

The Clarkson Library complex was constructed in 2004 and is located on the northern side of Ocean Keys Blvd, Reserve 47718, Lot 511 on Deposited Plan 39299 being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume LR3134 Folio 540. The main "Ocean Keys Shopping Centre" complex is located to the south of the subject property.

 

Reserve 47718 is a category "C" reserve and vested in the City for the purpose of "Community Purposes" under a Management Order with power to lease for a term not exceeding 21 years, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.

 

The land is currently zoned as "Urban" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and "Centre" in the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2 and forms part of an Agreed Structure Plan. The current zoning permits a variety of retail and commercial uses.

 

Incorporated into the Clarkson Library building (Building) are three commercial tenancy areas which have street frontage to Ebb Way, Clarkson.  Details of the existing mixed commercial cluster of tenancies that operate out of the Building are as follows:

 

·    Tenancy 1 (Cartridge World - franchise outlet) is approximately 49m² and is currently leased to L&C Perth Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Liao and Chen Family Trust for the permitted use of a "Retail outlet for sale of printer cartridges and associated products";

·    Tenancy 2 (The Salon) (is approximately 55.5m² and is currently leased to Sharon Johnson and Joy Ann Smith trading under the business name, "The Salon @ Ocean Keys" for the permitted use of a "Hair Dressing and Beauty Salon"; and

·    Tenancy 4 (The Full Monty Cafe) (Attachment 1 refers) is approximately 83m² and is currently leased to Carol Marshall (tenant) for the permitted use of a "Cafe".

There is no tenancy known as Tenancy 3 in the Building. All three of the commercial tenancies operating out of the Building have the non-exclusive right to use the Buildings common areas within the Buildings standard trading hours and other times as permitted under the terms of the individual leases.

 

The existing lease to the tenant of Tenancy 4 (Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 November 2004, CR01-11/04) commenced 13 December 2004 for a term of five (5) years with an option to renew for a further term of five (5) years.

The tenant exercised the 5 year lease option on 8 September 2009 and the further term commenced 13 December 2009 and will expire 12 December 2014.

Detail

The proposed new lease comprises a total area of approximately 83m² (cafe/kitchen area: 77m², storeroom: 6m²) known as Tenancy 4 together with a right of access to those parts of the Building designated as common areas (Attachment 1 refers) which is essentially the service corridor, ablutions and bin store that all three commercial tenancies share. Historically, all three commercial tenancies have contributed to the upkeep of the common areas through their variable outgoings.

 

On 27 July 2014, the tenant wrote to the City requesting that it consider entering into a new lease for a three (3) year period commencing 13 December 2014 with a further three (3) year option. The tenant was notified that any future tenancy between both parties is subject to Council approval, Ministerial consent, a market rent review and advertising as per current legislation requirements.

 

Under the terms of the City’s current Tenancy Policy approved by Council, the tenant is categorised as a 'commercial' tenant being a non-exempt disposition under the Local Government Act 1995. In accordance with the Tenancy Policy, annual rent is to be negotiated at market rate.

 

The City currently receives an annual lease income stream from Tenancy 4 of $23,994.77 per annum (plus GST) for rent, with annual CPI increases, and $3,230.16 (plus GST) in variable outgoings.

 

A market valuation was sought from a licensed valuer to establish the current annual rental of Tenancy 4 as per required legislation and a rate of $340/m² per annum net for the 77m² cafe/kitchen area and $200/m² per annum net for the 6m² storeroom was suggested by the licensed valuer inclusive of the right to use the common area facilities. This equates to $27,380 per annum based on a lettable area of 83m². In addition, variable outgoings (less electricity, Council rates and the Emergency Services Levy (ESL)) were estimated to be approximately $3,250 per annum.

The licensed valuer concluded that the current market value of Tenancy 4 is $30,630 (plus GST) per annum semi-gross inclusive of variable outgoings (less electricity, Council r

ates and ESL).

Accordingly, the following essential terms for the proposed semi-gross lease have been agreed with the tenant and are subject to Council and Minister for Lands approval:-

 

Leased Premises:	Exclusive use of Tenancy 4 (The Full Monty Cafe) being an area of 83m2 and use of the Clarkson Library Building common areas (Attachment 1 refers) to Carol Marshall
Permitted Purpose:	Cafe
Lease Term:	Three (3) years with a three (3) year option
Commencement Date:	13 December 2014
Lease Rental:	$30,630 (plus GST) per annum inclusive of all outgoings except electricity, ESL, and Council rates for Tenancy 4 (83m2)
Outgoings included in Lease Rental for Tenancy 4 - (83m2):	Water rates and usage, building insurance, ground maintenance, building compliance & services (pest control, graffiti removal, contract labour material and plant) and Alarm Monitoring & Servicing
Electricity for Tenancy 4 – (83m2):	Lessee responsibility
Outgoings included in Lease Rental for Common Area:	Cleaning, building maintenance, consumables and electricity
Common Areas:	Lessee is permitted to use (on a non exclusive basis) the common areas during the Buildings standard trading hours and other times as permitted. The common area is defined as the entrance and exit ways in relation to the walkway/service-corridor/passageway, toilets/washrooms and rubbish storage area
Council Rates & Taxes:	Lessee responsible for Council rates and ESL for Tenancy 4 (83m2)
Public Liability Insurance:	Lessee responsibility - $20 million
Cleaning:	Lessee responsibility for Tenancy 4 (83m2)
Lessee Services:	Lessee responsible for the provision of any special requirements such as telephone and broadband services
Building Maintenance:	Lessee to keep and maintain every part of the inside of the leased premises including all ceiling panels, lighting and electrical installations, doors, windows frames, floor coverings and all other fixtures and fittings in good and substantial repair and condition. The Lessee is responsible for the outer surface of any plate glass
CPI/Rent Reviews:	Annual increase in accordance with CPI. A market rent Review will apply at the commencement of the proposed three (3) year option period should the tenant exercise its option in accordance with the lease terms

Consultation

The essential terms of the proposed lease have been prepared in consultation with the tenant.

It is proposed that subject to Council approval to the lease, formal commercial lease documentation will be prepared by the City's external solicitor, Kott Gunning which will include the disclosure requirements of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985.

Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires the City to obtain consent to the lease from State Land Services at the Department of Lands (DOL) on behalf of the Minister for Lands. The City has briefed the DOL of the lease proposal and it has subsequently advised in writing on 4 August 2014 that based on the information provided to-date, it has no objection to the negotiation of a new lease on the terms outlined. Once the lease has been prepared by the City's external solicitor, the City will forward the document to the DOL for its consideration and request "in-principle" consent.

Comment

Should Council agree to the lease, given that the proposed lease is not an ‘exempt disposition’, it will be necessary to publish a local notice of the proposal inviting public submissions.  Subject to no submissions being received from the advertising process, formal consent to the lease as outlined in this report is sought from Council.

Should any submissions be received, the lease will not be executed until a further report is be presented to Council for consideration.

The proposed new lease of Tenancy 4 to the tenant to continue its cafe operation is supported by Administration for the following reasons:

·        A market review of rent is available at the commencement of the option period should this be exercised;

·        The current zoning for the land under the Agreed Structure Plan No 2 is ‘commercial’ and a cafe is a permitted use;

·        The tenant has a good relationship with the City and is aware of how the Building operates. There is no perceived negative impact on the operation of the Building or the adjoining leased areas; and

·        No fit out of the premises is required.

The tenant has previously tried to sell the business on two separate occasions during 2014. Should the tenant wish to sell the business following approval, a formal process will follow including a report to Council for consideration.

Statutory Compliance

The public notice advertisement is required to fully comply with the requirements under the following sections of the Local Government Act 1995 with respect to the proposed disposition:

·        Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 states:

“A local government can dispose of property (including leasing) other than by public tender or auction if, before agreeing to dispose of the property:   

(a)     It gives a local public notice of the proposed disposition –

(i)      describing the property concerned;

(ii)     giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii)     inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given.”

·    Section 3.58(4) of the Local Government Act 1995 states:

“The details of a proposed disposition that are required by subsection (3)(a)(ii) include:

(a)     the names of all other parties concerned;

(b)     the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(c)     the market value of the disposition –

(i)      as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition”.

In addition, the proposed lease tenure complies with the requirement of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Act 1985 whereby a minimum tenure term of five (5) years is required along with the provision of a Disclosure Statement.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

Risk Management Considerations

Administration recommends that the commercial lease is approved in order to support local business and to provide for the continued effective use and management of this portion of the Building. Administration has negotiated a lease/and or renewal of lease tenancies with all three Building tenants in 2014 and therefore is required to provide a consistent, equitable and uniformed approach to arrangements for all tenancies within the Building.

City Administration is aware that the existing tenant of Tenancy 4 has tried to sell the business twice during 2014 and that there is the future possibility of the City having to consent or withhold consent to any future tenant proposed assignment of lease within a specified timeframe of 28 days from a receipt of notice in accordance with section 10 of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985.

Policy Implications

The proposed lease has been negotiated in accordance with the 'commercial' guidelines as outlined in the City's Tenancy Policy.

Financial Implications

The proposed lease will generate an annual income stream to the City of $30,630 (plus GST) per annum semi-gross, inclusive of all outgoings except electricity. Annual CPI increases will apply together with an opportunity to review the rent to market at the commencement of the proposed option period, should the tenant elect to exercise the option.

 

The changes to the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Act 1985, effective 1 January 2013 prohibit landlords from claiming legal expenses relating to the preparation, negotiation or execution of leases and associated documentation. It is estimated that the preparation of the proposed commercial lease by the City' external solicitor, Kott Gunning will cost in the region of $1,500 (plus GST) and disbursements.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      APPROVES in principle, a commercial lease of a 83m² portion (Tenancy 4) of Reserve 47718, Lot 511, Clarkson Library, Ocean Keys Boulevard, Clarkson (Attachment 1 refers) to Carol Marshall, for a term of three (3) years commencing 13 December 2014 with a three (3) year option subject to the requirements of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Act 1985 and the Minister for Lands approval;

2.      AUTHORISES the publication of a local public notice of the intention to enter into the lease in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995;

3.      NOTES if any submissions are received a further report will be presented to Council; and

 

4.      In the event there are no submissions,

a)      NOTES the Chief Executive Officer under delegated authority will           approve the lease; and

b)      AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a lease between the City and Carol Marshall in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Lease area

14/209110

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               4559 – 14/226956

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider allowing the Tiger Kart Club Inc (Club) to exercise its first five (5) year lease option commencing 1 December 2014 over a portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup, despite non-compliance with part of the existing lease.

 

Background

The Club currently leases a portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup from the City.  The land subject to the lease is also known as Lot 600 on Deposited Plan 302260, being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 87 Folio 163A.  Lot 600 is owned freehold by the City.

 

The leased area is approximately 7.7 hectares (Attachment 1 refers).

 

The Club was formed in 1958, making it the oldest kart club operating in Western Australia today, and has occupied Lot 600 since December 1988 (first under a prior 21 year lease).  It consists of approximately 425 members with membership increasing on a monthly basis.  The Club operates a second track “Cockburn International Kartway” at Henderson and has occupied that site since 1960.

 

Under the City's current Tenancy Policy, the Club is categorised as a 'not for profit' entity and therefore the Lease is on the basis of 'no cost to the City'.  The Club is currently responsible for all costs for utility outgoings, building insurance, public liability insurance, rates and taxes, repairs and maintenance of the leased premise and operational compliance matters.  The annual lease fee is currently $5,545.87 per annum plus GST and was negotiated with the Club in recognition that there is a sublease arrangement in place with a commercial kart operator which the Club receives some income from besides membership fees.  This annual lease fee is in addition to the above costs which the Club meets.  The Club holds regular internal and open state meetings and has hosted a number of major events at Neerabup.

 

The current lease, which commenced 1 December 2009, was approved by Council on 17 November 2009 (report item CS09-11/09 refers) in accordance with the City’s Tenancy Policy.  Council resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.           APPROVES the leasing of portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup to the Tiger Kart Club Inc for a term of five (5) years together with one option to renew for a further term of five (5) years, commencing 1 December 2009;

 

2.      NOTES that the right to exercise the option to renew is conditional upon the development of the Club’s facility, as outlined in its 2009 – 2019 Business Plan, being progressed to the satisfaction of the City within the first four years of the initial term of the lease, and is also conditional upon a revised 5 Year Business Plan, including any proposals for further development during the further term, being submitted to the City for consideration at the time the Club exercises its option to renew in accordance with the lease provisions;

 

3.      ACKNOWLEDGES that failure by the Club to satisfy the City in regard to the progress achieved in the first four years in accordance with the 2009 – 2019 Business Plan or failure to present the revised 5 Year Business Plan would result in the Club forfeiting the right to exercise the option in accordance with the default provisions of the lease;

4.      ACKNOWLEDGES the arrangement between the Tiger Kart Club Inc and the commercial kart hire operator (Australia Racecare Pty Ltd) and APPROVES a formal sublease between the Tiger Kart Club Inc and Australia Racecare Pty Ltd being entered into; and

5.      AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to and execute a lease between the City and the Tiger Kart Club Inc. and associated sublease documentation between the Tiger Kart Club Inc and Australian Racecare Pty Ltd. for a maximum term of ten (10) years subject to 2. and 3. above."

 

In 2012, the Club requested a variation to the lease to add a second option term of five (5) years, to increase the Club's chances of securing grant funding from the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF).  The variation had the effect of potentially extending the overall lease term, including options (if exercised), to 30 November 2024.

 

At the time of requesting to vary the lease, the Club also submitted an updated list of all the works it originally proposed in its business plan to carry out during the course of 2013, amounting to $197,669 (excl GST).  These works include bitumen resurfacing of the track and installing race safety lighting.  The Club has amortized this capital investment over the now fifteen (15) year lease (should the options be exercised at the appropriate times).

 

In this regard, a further report was presented to Council at its meeting on 18 September 2012 (CB04-09/12 refers) and Council resolved the following:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.      APPROVES a variation to the existing lease to the Tiger Kart Club Inc over portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup, to provide an additional five (5) year option term commencing 1 December 2019, provided the Tiger Cart Club Inc has exercised its first option terms, and

 

2.      AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to the Deed of Variation between the City and the Tiger Kart Club Inc."

Detail

Due to the potential length of tenure (ten (10) years including the first option term) granted at the commencement of the lease it was thought prudent at the time to place conditions on the options contained within the lease.  The exercising of the options are conditional upon the Club satisfying the City that it has developed the site in accordance with the proposed works (such as the bitumen resurfacing of the track mentioned earlier) in its business plan.

 

In order to ensure that the Club adequately progressed the development of its facility in accordance with its business plan objectives, clause 7(2)(a) in the lease provides the circumstances under which the option term can be granted.  Clause 7(2)(a) states;

 

"The Lessee may only accept this offer and exercise the option if:

        

(a)     the Lessee have punctually paid rent and observed the covenants contained in this Lease throughout the Term; and....."

 

The Club has met all the covenants in its lease except for the timing of its submission of its Tiger Kart Club Business Plan 2014 – 2019 (Attachment 2 refers) ("Option Period Business Plan") which covers the first five (5) year option period.

 

In regard to the Club's submission of its Option Period Business Plan, the Club should have submitted this to the City in accordance with the relevant provisions in its lease, that being no later than nine (9) months prior to the end of the term of the lease and not earlier than twelve (12) months prior to the end of the term of the lease, ie. between 30 November 2013 and 1 March 2014.  Unfortunately, due to an inadvertent oversight by the Club, it only recently submitted its Option Period Business Plan on 15 August 2014.

 

Administration has reviewed the Option Period Business Plan and, given the Club's history of meeting its development proposals, is satisfied with the Option Period Business Plan and considers that the Club will continue to improve the facility through the option term.

 

As a result of a recent inspection, Administration is satisfied as to the works (such as the bitumen resurfacing of the track) that have been undertaken to the leased premises.  Save for the timing of the Club's submission of the Option Period Business Plan, which the Club has been made aware of, Administration considers all the other clauses associated with the exercising of the option as having been met.  The timing of the submission of the Option Period Business Plan is the only issue preventing the Club from exercising its first five (5) year option with such option only being available if the City agrees to accept that the submission is late.

Consultation

Administration met with the Club on site to verify the works, as referred to earlier, have been completed.  Administration confirms that it is not aware of any other issues relating to the lease apart from what is described in this report.

Comment

Administration recommends that Council allows the Club to exercise its first five (5) year option scheduled to commence 1 December 2014 despite the late submission of the Option Period Business Plan.

 

The works undertaken to date by the Club have resulted in significant improvements to the site at no cost to the City.

 

Whilst the submission of the Option Period Business Plan was a few months late it should be noted that the Club is a volunteer organisation with somewhat limited resources.  Since the Club's occupancy of the leased premises dating back to 1988, the Club has continued to make improvements and has demonstrated capacity to repay borrowings in the order of $685,000 against both of its facilities (the leased premises and the Henderson facility).  It is a very progressive club with a well established committee which is keen to fulfil the club's Option Period Business Plan.

 

The Club and the City have a good working relationship and both parties aim to work collaboratively going forward to manage the lease.

 

A Deed of Variation of Lease will be required to be executed between the City and the Club to waive the wording "and observed the covenants contained in this Lease" that is contained in clause 7(2)(a) of the existing lease but only in respect of the initial five (5) year lease term. 

 

 

The Club's second five (5) year option term for the period 2019-2024, should the Club choose to exercise it, remains conditional upon the Club submitting a new business plan for this period in the required timeframe to the satisfaction of the City.  The Club is also required to complete the works as outlined in the Option Period Business Plan.

 

Given the Club's development works to date and that it will be carrying out further works during the option period in accordance with its Option Period Business Plan such as renovating the canteen and upgrading the toilets, Administration supports the variation to the existing lease.

 

By allowing the Club to exercise its first five (5) year option, the Club retains the right to exercise its second five (5) year option of renewal.  Administration believes the Club can achieve the proposals it has laid out in its Option Period Business Plan (which covers the period 2014 to 2019, being the first five (5) year option).

Statutory Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City, under the provisions of the lease (as varied), can determine whether or not the Club is allowed to exercise future options in the lease.  In this regard, if the Club does not undertake works as outlined in its Option Period Business Plan during the course of the first five (5) year option period (2014-2019) to the satisfaction of the City, and also submit a new business plan to cover the second five (5) year option period (2019-2024), the City is entitled under the lease to not grant the Club its second five (5) year option.  Therefore, the risks to the City if the Club does not perform the option covenants are considered negligible.

Policy Implications

The Lease was negotiated in accordance with the City’s Tenancy Policy at the time of the lease negotiations in 2008 and the proposed variation still accords with the Tenancy Policy.

 

 

Financial Implications

The granting of the exercising of the option to the Club would continue to provide an annual income of $5,545.87 plus GST to the City with increments by CPI to apply on an annual basis.  The Club has continued to meet its requirement to pay the annual fee throughout the term of the lease.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.         NOTES the Tiger Kart Club Inc. has not complied with a covenant in the lease by failing to provide its Option Period Business Plan for the period 2014 to 2019 between 30 November 2013 and 1 March 2014;

2.         ACKNOWLEDGES that the Tiger Kart Club Inc. submitted its Option Period Business Plan for the period 2014 to 2019 on 15 August 2014, and that notwithstanding the late submission, the Option Period Business Plan is otherwise in a form acceptable to the City;

3.         APPROVES the variation of the existing Lease to delete that part of clause 7(2)(a) that states " and observed the covenants contained in this Lease";

4.         AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a Deed of Variation of Lease between the City and the Tiger Kart Club Inc. in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy;

5.         NOTES that the Tiger Kart Club Inc. has exercised its first five (5) year lease option commencing 1 December 2014 for a portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue, Neerabup; and

6.         NOTES that the right of the Tiger Kart Club Inc. to exercise the second option to renew is conditional upon the further development of the Tiger Kart Club Inc.,  as outlined in the Option Period Business Plan and is also conditional upon the submission of a further five (5) year business plan for the period 2019-2024, including any proposals for further development during the second option period, being submitted to the City between 30 November 2018 and 1 March 2019 for consideration in accordance with the terms of the lease.

7.                                                         

 

Attachments:

1.	Tiger Kart Club Lease Area	14/228147
2.	Tiger Kart Club Business Plan 2014 to 2019	14/226947

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               5207 – 14/228906

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   PS04-09/13 - Adoption of Amendment No. 125 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Portion of Lot 9474 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen - Ordinary Council - 17 Sep 2013 7.00pm      

 

Issue

The City entered a conditional contract (the Contract) with Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc. (the School) for the purchase of a 1.08 hectare portion of Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen (Casserley Park) by the School. 

 

This report is the final stage for Council to complete the Contract.

 

Background

The School approached the City in 2011 with a proposal to purchase a 1.08ha portion of Casserley Park (the School Portion) (Attachment 1 refers).  The acquisition of the School Portion by the School is intended to allow for the School to expand.

 

Casserley Park is more particularly described as Lot 9474 on Diagram 45810, being the whole of the land comprised in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume LR3090 Folio 327.

 

26 June 2012 – Council Resolutions

 

Council, at its meeting of 26 June 2012, resolved as follows (Item CB05-06/12):

 

"That Council BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

 

1.      APPROVES the ENTERING into a conditional contract of sale of land with Emmanuel Christian Community School for the purchase of a 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen at market value determined by the Valuer General, plus GST if applicable;

 

2.      AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to affix the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo, and execute a conditional contract of sale of land between the City and Emmanuel Christian Community School;

 

3.      SUBJECT to Emmanuel Christian Community School entering a conditional contract of sale of land with the City of Wanneroo and the rezoning approval, AUTHORISES the excision and purchase of a 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen at 5% unimproved market value determined by the Valuer General plus GST if applicable; and

 

4.      NOTES a further report will be presented to Council with any submissions to the advertisements for the rezoning, excision and purchase of the portion of Crown Reserve 34608, and detailing the negotiated sale of the portion of Casserley Park."

 

 

 

Subsequent to resolutions CB05-06/12 and PS02-06/12 (the latter resolution in respect of the rezoning of the land), the City entered into the Contract with the School.

Detail

The Contract is subject to two conditions:

 

1.      The amendment of the relevant local planning scheme (namely Amendment No. 125 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2)) to rezone the School Portion from "Parks and Recreation" to "Private Clubs & Recreation" (the Rezoning Condition).

 

2.      The State of Western Australia (the State) (acting through the Department of Lands (DoL)) selling the School Portion to the City in freehold (the Freehold Sale Condition). 

 

The conditions must be satisfied by 10 January 2015 (or such other date mutually agreed by the parties).  In the event that the conditions have not been satisfied by the due date, the Contract will automatically terminate.

 

Rezoning Condition - Amendment No. 125

 

Following Council's approval of Amendment No. 125 (Item PS04-09/13), and further consultation with the WAPC, the City submitted Amendment No. 125 (modified in accordance with the WAPC's request to describe the zoning as "Private Clubs/Recreation") to the WAPC for endorsement.  Endorsement is expected to occur during August 2014.  Thereafter, the Rezoning Condition will be satisfied.

 

Freehold Sale Condition – Next Steps

 

The Freehold Sale Condition must be completed so that the City can be in a position to sell the School Portion.

 

The following steps are required to satisfy the Freehold Sale Condition:

 

1.      A survey to identify the exact area of the School Portion;

2.      An updated valuation of the School Portion;

3.      The City to enter into a contract with the State (prepared by DoL) for the sale of the School Portion to the City as a separate freehold parcel of land (the Freehold Contract); and

4.      The DoL subdivides Casserley Park to excise the School Portion, and sells the School Portion to the City.

Administration understands that the Freehold Contract will incorporate the following particulars:

·        Land to be acquired by the City:  The School Portion (as surveyed);

 

·        Purchase price:  5% of the market value as determined by Landgate Valuation Services (the Valuer General);

 

·        Settlement date:  60 days following the date of execution of the contract by both parties, or such other date agreed in writing by the parties; and

 

 

 

·        Proceeds of sale:  In accordance with the DoL Government Land Policy Manual policy statement "Section 20A Public Recreation Reserves – Policy No. 4.1.5" (the DoL Policy), the City must apply the net proceeds of the sale of the School Portion to the School to capital improvements to recreation reserves in the general locality (including the remainder of Casserley Park). Administration has contacted the DoL and they advised that they have no clear policy on what constitutes "the general locality." It is open to the Local Government to interpret this at their discretion.

 

·        The net proceeds will be retained in the City's Section 20A Reserve or in a separate trust fund to be established (Trust Fund), as determined in consultation between Administration and the DoL. 

 

Following settlement of the Freehold Contract, the Freehold Sale Condition will be satisfied. At this stage, the Contract will be unconditional.

 

The Contract incorporates the following particulars:

 

·        Purchase price:  $1,400,000 (plus GST);

·        Settlement date:  The later of 30 days following the issue of a separate Certificate of Title for the School Portion to the City, or 30 days following the settlement of the sale of the School Portion to the City.  The settlement date may be amended by the parties; and

·        General Conditions:  The 2011 Joint Form of General Conditions for the Sale of Land (the General Conditions) forms part of the Contract.

Administration proposes to seek advice from its panel solicitors, Kott Gunning (the firm that drafted the Contract for the City), in respect of any negotiations regarding the terms of the Freehold Contract, and in the settlement of the Freehold Contract and the Contract.

Consultation

The DoL advised Administration on 11 February 2014 that, provided the Rezoning Condition was satisfied at the time that the City requested that the DoL prepare the Freehold Contract (as will be the case), no further public consultation would be required.

Comment

Given that:

·    Council previously considered and supported the proposed excision of land from Casserley Park for purchase by the School;

·    There remains a large number of public open spaces within the suburbs of Girrawheen and Koondoola;

·    An expansion of the School will expand the educational options for the local community; and

·    The City will retain the net proceeds of the sale of the School Portion to be applied to the remainder of Casserley and other nearby reserves,

Administration submits the following actions for Council approval:

·    The excision of the School Portion from Casserley Park by the State;

·    The purchase of the School Portion by the City from the State; and

·    The sale of the School Portion to the School by the City.

 

Statutory Compliance

The disposal of the School Portion by State to the City will be subject to section 86 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) (LAA):

 

"86         The Minister may sell by private treaty the fee simple in, or lease, Crown land —

...

(c)     subject to the Local Government Act 1995, to any local government.

 

The transaction must also accord with the DoL Policy.

 

The disposal of the School Portion by the City to the School will be an exempt disposition pursuant to Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Local Government Act (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (WA):

 

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

         ...

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

                   ... 

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

 

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

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

Risk 1 Consideration

In the event that the Rezoning Condition or the Freehold Sale Condition is not satisfied by 10 January 2015 or such later date agreed by the parties, the Contract will terminate. 

Risk 2 Consideration

      If either party (the City or the School) delays in completing settlement of the Contract by more than 3 business days following an agreed settlement date, the other party may claim penalty interest. 

Risk 3 Consideration

      The General Conditions provide terms relating to the rights of a party in respect of a default by the other party to the Contract, extending to terminating the Contract, claiming penalty interest, or suing the defaulting party for damages arising from the default.  Administration considers that the risk of the City defaulting under the Contract is very low (given that the School will bear the majority of obligations at settlement). 

 

Risk 4 Consideration

      During the period between the settlement of the Freehold Contract and the settlement of the Contract, the City will be directly responsible for the School Portion as the owner of that land in freehold.  However, the City already bears responsibility for the School Portion pursuant to section 46 of the LAA as the authority responsible for the "care, control and management" of Casserley Park.

Risk 5 Consideration

      The Contract requires that the School constructs an initial stage of school buildings on the School Portion within 3 years of the settlement of the Contract.  The City has a right to repurchase the School Portion at a price equal to the original purchase price (less costs and expenses incurred by the City) if the construction works are not completed within time, with the City being permitted to protect its right to repurchase by registering a caveat on the Certificate of Title for the School Portion.  There is potential that the City's caveat may need to follow any mortgage lodged by a financier of the School, and that the City may be requested by the School to withdraw any initial caveat (and to register a new caveat) in the event that there are changes to the financing arrangements.

Risk 6 Consideration

      In the event that the City exercises its right to repurchase the School Portion (as described at the Risk 5 Consideration above), there is a residual risk that the City would be left as the owner of the School Portion in freehold.  In such circumstances, the City would have the option to sell the land at market value to a third party, or to transfer the land to the State for no consideration (the DoL has advised that it would not agree to pay the City for the School Portion).  The net proceeds of any sale to a third party would be retained in either the Section 20A Reserve or a Trust Fund.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City is able to purchase the School Portion at 5% of the unimproved market value (as determined by the Valuer General).  The valuation completed in July 2012 assessed an indicative value of $1,400,000 (excluding GST).  This valuation will be revised, and adjusted by reference to the survey of the School Portion.

 

The Contract provides that the School will pay a fixed purchase price of $1,400,000 (excluding GST) for the School Portion.  The School will pay all costs associated with the purchase.

 

The $70,000 required to pay for the School Portion is available in the Section 20A Reserve account. The $70,000 paid will be returned to the same Section 20A Reserve account when the land is sold to the School with an overall net outlay for the City being nil.

 

The net profit (following the deduction of the amount of approximately $70,000 from the proceeds) is to be received by the City and retained either the Section 20A Reserve or a Trust Fund as determined by Administration in consultation with the Department of Lands. 

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      NOTES that the City entered a conditional contract with Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc. (the School) dated 11 January 2013 for the purchase of a 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen by the School;

2.      AUTHORISES the purchase by the City of a 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen in freehold from the State of Western Australia at 5% of the unimproved market value as determined by the Valuer General (plus GST, if applicable);

3.      APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:

a)      the unbudgeted expenditure pursuant to section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) of 5% of the valuation (estimated at $70,000) to acquire the 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen in freehold from the State of Western Australia; and

b)      the recovery from the proceeds of sale of the 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen to Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc. of an unbudgeted income in an identical amount,

         noting that the transaction will be at no cost to the City, with the proceeds of $1.4 million (plus GST if applicable) sale price less the 5% acquisition costs to be retained and applied in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) and applicable Department of Lands' policies;

4.      AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to affix of the common seal of the City of Wanneroo, in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy, to:

a)      The contract of sale, Transfer of Land document and any other associated documentation relating to the purchase by the City of a 1.08 hectare portion (subject to survey) of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen in freehold; and

b)      The Transfer of Land document and any other associated documentation (including but not limited to caveat and withdrawal of caveat forms) relating to the sale by the City of the portion of Crown Reserve 34068, Casserley Park, 48 Casserley Avenue, Girrawheen acquired in freehold pursuant to (2) and (4)(a) to Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc.; and

5.      DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to:

a)      vary:

i)       The date for satisfaction of any conditions; and

ii)      The settlement date,

set out in the contract between the City and Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc. dated 11 January 2013, and in the contract of sale between the City and the State of Western Australia entered pursuant to (2) and (4)(a);

 

 

b)      vary any construction time periods specified in the contract of sale between the City and the State of Western Australia entered pursuant to (2) and (4)(a); and

c)      sign any notices to be issued by the City pursuant to the contract between the City and Emmanuel Christian Community School Inc. dated 11 January 2013, or pursuant to the contract of sale between the City and the State of Western Australia entered pursuant to (2) and (4)(a).

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Emmanuel Christian Community School - Proposed Excision from Casserley Park, Girrawheen

11/127738

  

 

 

Community Safety & Emergency Management

File Ref:                                               2027V02 – 14/227467

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the establishment of exercise areas, or specify areas where dogs are prohibited in accordance with Sections 31(3A) and 31(3B) of the Dog Act 1976 via a Council resolution by Absolute Majority.

 

Background

The City of Wanneroo had their Animal Local Law 1999 enacted on 13 July 1999.

 

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.

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 22 July 2014 (CB01-07/14) resolved the following;

 

"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, Madeley);

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."

 

As defined in the Local Government Act 1995 section 1.7, the local government must give local public notice of 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 of its intention to do so.

 

The 28 day period for public notice was given on 5 August 2014, thereby expiring on 2 September 2014.

Detail

For the City of Wanneroo these definitions are:

 

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". Unless further exemptions are made that any dog owner may exercise off the lead in any of the City's reserves (called Dog Exercise Area).

 

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 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 Animals Local Law 1999 designates the following places where dogs are prohibited absolutely:

 

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.

Consultation

Pursuant to Section 31(3C)(a) of the Dog Act 1976, Administration has provided 28 day's public notice of the establishment of exercise areas or specify areas where dogs are prohibited in accordance with Sections 31(3A) and 31(3B) of the Dog Act 1976, expiring on 2 September 2014.

 

No comments have been received throughout the public notice period.

Comment

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.

 

To enable the City to re-establish the 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.

 

The City of Wanneroo Animal Local Law 1999 contains clauses which establish dog exercise areas, or prohibit dogs absolutely from areas.

 

It should be noted this report is due to the State Legislation change and in no way looks at the review of local laws or areas.  Administration would like to clarify this to allow Elected Members to be aware that a separate local law review is underway and will result in clarification and discussion around individual areas within the City.

Statutory Compliance

This action was pursuant to the implementation of the Dog Amendment Regulations 2014.

 

This means that if a local government has a local law containing clauses which establish 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.

 

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.

Although there has been a lag time between when the local law will became inoperable, and when the dog exercise and dogs prohibited areas are adopted, the City's Rangers have taken 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

Absolute Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council :-

        

1.      SPECIFIES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as a dog exercise area, all public reserves vested in or under the care, control and management of the City of Wanneroo, excluding road and street reserves, designated as dog exercise areas for the purposes of the Dog Act 1976.

        

2.      SPECIFIES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the following places as places where dogs are absolutely prohibited:

 

         a)      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;

 

         b)      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 or treated;

 

c)      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;

 

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

 

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

 

         f)       Foreshore Reserve 20561, other than:

 

i)            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;

 

ii)           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;

 

iii)         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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure & Coastal Maintenance

File Ref:                                               1702 – 14/217802

Responsible Officer:                            Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3  

Previous Items:                                   IN02-02/12 - Review of "Two Rocks Coastal Management - May 2006" Study Report on the Coastal Erosion North of Two Rocks Marina - Ordinary Council - 07 Feb 2012 7.00pm      

 

Issue

To consider recent technical advice regarding Two Rocks coastal management and presentation of coastal management options at a public meeting.

 

 

Background

Council considered reports in 2003 and 2004 (Items TS15-12/03 and TS18-06/04 refer) and approved the commissioning of coastal engineering consultants to undertake a study of the coastal erosion at Two Rocks north of the Two Rocks Marina.  The study was completed in May 2006 and Council considered a report (IN14-06/06 refers) at its meeting on 27 June 2006 and resolved to receive the study report, which recommended the construction of two partial length groynes to protect the Two Rocks Coastline.  Submissions were made to the State Government in 2006 seeking funding for the implementation of the recommended coastal management option but no funding commitment was received by the City.

 

The “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006 Study Report" noted that there was no immediate requirement to implement the recommended coastal management option for “construction of two partial length groynes”.  It was anticipated that the groynes may be required in five years from the year the report was completed (i.e. due in 2011).  The City again approached the State Government in August 2011 by writing to the Minister for Transport seeking consideration of the matter, with a view to providing funds to the City for implementing the recommended coastal management option to ensure the protection of the infrastructure along the Two Rocks Coastline.  The Minister advised the City in October 2011 to seek grant funding under the 2012/2013 Coastal Protection Grants Program and update the options recommended in the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006 Study Report".

 

Council considered a report at its meeting on 7 February 2012 (IN02-02/12 refers) and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

In May 2012, the Department of Transport (DoT) invited applications for the allocation of funding under the Coastal Protection Grant Programs 2012/13.  In accordance with Council decisions made on 2 February 2012, two applications were submitted to the DoT for the allocation of grant funding under its “Coastal Protection Grants Program 2012/13” to undertake a “Review of Two Rocks Coastal Management Study” covering approximately 1.0 km of coastline immediately north of the Two Rocks Marina.

 

The City received a letter dated 14 August 2012 from the Minister for Transport advising that grant of $50,000 has been approved for this project.  The grant provided up to 50% in partial funding of the total estimated cost of the project with the funding of the remainder by the City.

 

Following confirmation of the grant funding, a Consultants' Brief was finalised in consultation with DoT's coastal engineers and following a detailed tender evaluation process M P Rogers & Associates (MRA) was appointed to undertake a two stage study including:

 

Stage 1:

·        Desktop review and knowledge summary;

·        Understanding of coastal process;

·        Coastal management options/strategies; and

·        Summary, discussion and selection of options for comprehensive evaluation.

 

Stage 2:

·        Comprehensive evaluation of Coastal Management options;

·        A community presentation meeting; and

·        Presentation of a detailed report.

Detail

MRA was engaged by the City in November 2012 to undertake a review of Two Rocks coastal management including preliminary design of management options. The study area (Refer to Attachment 1) extends from the North Yanchep headland to the Mallee Reef salient. DoT's coastal engineers provided final review comments on this study in March 2014 and finalised draft study report – "Two Rocks Coastal Management" (MRA Study) was received in April 2014. A copy of the draft study report has been placed in the Elected Members reading room for perusal.

 

Stage 1 of the MRA Study includes a detailed review of previous studies, assessment of coastal processes and evaluation of conceptual coastal management options including managed retreat, sand nourishment, sand bypassing, seawall, staged groynes and offshore breakwaters.

 

The MRA Study states that the construction of the Two Rocks marina in 1973 interrupted the longshore drift in the area, resulting in the accretion of sediment to the south and erosion of the shoreline to the north. Historical shoreline movement rates were assessed in order to determine the rates of shoreline recession to the north of the marina. Based on this analysis, MRA has determined a maximum erosion rate of approximately 0.7m/year. Storm induced erosion was also assessed via the SBEACH computer model resulting in a possible 20m of shoreline recession during a severe storm event. In addition, recession due to sea level rise was also investigated resulting in an additional 2m and 5m of recession over a 10 year and 25 year planning timeframe respectively.  Refer to Attachment 2 for estimates of future shoreline locations for 10 and 25 year planning timeframes.

 

Stage 2 of the MRA Study involved further investigation and preliminary design of the managed retreat and staged groyne options, with concluding remarks as follows:

 

·    Managed retreat option including relocation of the Sceptre Court stairway, viewing platform and access path, relocation of the navigation marker and 80m extension of the marina's northern seawall has an estimated capital cost of $1M and is likely to be suitable for an estimated 45 years before the Sovereign Drive road reserve is vulnerable to erosion. Refer to Attachment 2.

·    Two groynes north of the marina with a staged construction including a 50m extension of the marina's northern seawall and relocation of the Sceptre Court stairway, viewing platform and access path has an estimated capital cost of approximately $4.7M and is likely to be suitable for an estimated 80 years before the Sovereign Drive road reserve is vulnerable to erosion. Refer to Attachment 3.

 

Stage two options were assessed based on environmental, social and economical impacts along with long term risks to existing infrastructure. Both options achieved the same overall ranking with the increased cost and social impacts of the Staged Groyne option counteracted by the high long term risk of the Managed Retreat option. Ultimately the Managed Retreat option was ranked first due to the lower capital costs and the planning timeframe of 25 years.

 

Additionally, MRA has provided recommended actions to obtain further information to assist in future investigations and implementation of coastal management options including:

 

·    Beach Surveys;

·    Photographic Beach Monitoring;

·    Hydrographic Surveys; and

·    Geotechnical Investigation.

 

A geotechnical investigation was recently commissioned by DoT and undertaken by Aurecon in May/June 2014 to investigate the location of bedrock within the coastal dune system north of the existing Two Rocks marina. Final recommendations from this study are as follows: "Assessment from the processed datasets indicates that for the majority of the interpreted sections, the level of limestone bedrock is above the mean sea level. Based on this classification system it is considered that the limestone underlying the sand dune formation may provide some erosion protection and hence the potential for significant erosion of the sand dune formation beyond Sovereign Drive is limited". Implementation of future coastal management works will require a detailed design study which will incorporate the findings of this geotechnical investigation into the basis of design.      

Consultation

The Coastal Infrastructure Section of DoT has undertaken a detailed review of the draft Two Rocks Coastal Management study and is satisfied with MRA's response to comments and the finalised report. DoT has shared all available studies and information regarding coastal studies at Two Rocks.

The City will continue to consult with DoT regarding the recommended coastal management options and management responsibilities of the Two Rocks coastline into the future. 

Comment          

The MRA Stage 2 assessment of the two preferred coastal management options (managed retreat and staged groyne construction) has identified managed retreat as the highest ranking option based on a net present value analysis over a planning timeframe of 25 years. Over an extended timeframe, as additional infrastructure such as Sovereign Drive and private development becomes vulnerable to coastal processes, this option would no longer be ranked higher than the staged groyne option. Therefore, it is recommended that in the short term, the managed retreat option is enforced whilst undertaking appropriate monitoring to track shoreline movements. However in order to address erosion issues in the medium to long term it is recommended that measures are put in place to allow for the implementation of the staged groyne option. Such measures would need to include further consultation with DoT regarding State Government funding for both detailed design and implementation phases of the project.

 

A community presentation meeting as detailed in the Stage 2 scope of work above has not yet been undertaken. It was originally planned to hold such presentation meeting on the finalisation of the draft study report but was deferred in view of the DoT's geotechnical investigation. Now the City has received these details, it is intended to hold a community presentation meeting where MRA will present the findings of its study report allowing the community to raise any concerns and ask relevant questions to Administration and the Consultant. 

 

DoT has been regularly monitoring the Two Rocks coastline through photographic monitoring up to May 2014 in order to investigate seaweed movements and shoreline change. DoT's investigation into seaweed movement is now complete and the City has taken over photographic beach monitoring commencing August 2014. This is currently scheduled to take place quarterly and following major storm events as per MRA's recommendations. This will assist in identifying timeframes on the need for retreat of existing assets and supplementary coastal management works.

 

DoT is undertaking surveys of the near shore and beach areas north of Two Rocks Marina every 1 to 2 years to capture any significant movement of sediment in the area. This is likely to continue into the future, however in order to capture a continuous record of seasonal and long term beach change, it is proposed to appoint a Contractor to undertake pre and post winter beach surveys every year until such time that coastal management options are implemented.

Statutory Compliance

Any coastal protection works are subject to obtaining all necessary statutory approvals including Development Application, Clearing Permit and Aboriginal Heritage Approval. However, these approvals will be required at the time of preparation of the design and documentation of the approved coastal management options.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

The draft study report has established that there is no immediate coastal erosion threat to the adjoining assets other than the navigational marker and the Sceptre Court stairway and this risk can be managed by ongoing monitoring and undertaking some protection/remedial works as necessary. However, if no coastal management works are undertaken in short to medium term (5 to 10 years), the erosion trend suggests the loss of the foreshore dunes and hence the loss of environmental/amenity value of the adjoining foreshore areas. It is therefore important that the risk due to ongoing coastal erosion is managed by the implementation of the coastal management options within the next 5 to 10 years timeframe.

Policy Implications

The Coastal Protection Policy for Western Australia is a DoT Operational Policy and identifies issues relating to the coastal protection in Western Australia. This Policy describes the responsibilities of the local coastal managers (such as Local Authorities) and the State Government and provides details of any funding opportunities/conditions for coastal protection works.

 

The State Government, through the DoT (pursuant to its Coastal Protection Policy for Western Australia) can provide funding assistance of up to 50% for emergency coastal protection works, however that is subject to several conditions, the most relevant being:

 

·        The funds must be available in the State budget and the City must cover the balance of the costs;

·        The funding assistance will only cover the immediate costs of the works and not any incidental costs such as fencing, landscaping repairs, etc.;

·        Assets must be at immediate risk from erosion and be valued at equal to or more than the costs of the works; and

·        The works must be designed primarily to halt the immediate erosion threat. 

Financial Implications

Direct costs associated with the community presentation meeting are estimated to be under $500 and form part of the routine operating budgets. 

 

There is no direct cost related to the photo monitoring program as it is undertaken by the City's Project Manager Coastal Projects.

 

The estimated cost of the Beach Surveys is in the order of $7,000 per year and is funded from the routine foreshore maintenance operating budgets.

 

The exact cost of the coastal management options is dependent of the adoption of a suitable option and detailed design/documentation. Since the MRA Study clearly indicates that the Two Rocks Marina has been the cause of the coastal erosion to the north of the marina, it is Administration's view that the City is not liable to fund any coastal erosion management works. Hence the budget provisions for such works should be made by the State Government as the owner of Two Rocks Marina.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      RECEIVES the M P Rogers and Associates draft report titled "Two Rock Coastal Management" dated April 2014;

2.      AUTHORISES a presentation of the recommendations and coastal management options from the study report outline in Item 1 at a public meeting to be held in Two Rocks;

3.      NOTES that Administration will undertake ongoing photographic beach monitoring on a quarterly basis and following major storm events, and six monthly beach surveys to capture seasonal and long term changes.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - STUDY AREA Two Rocks Coastal Management	14/235046
2.	Attachment 2 - Managed Retreat Concept	14/235047
3.	Attachment 3 - Staged Groyne Concept	14/235048

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               16988 – 14/230395

Responsible Officer:                            Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2  

Previous Items:                                   IN09-03/14 - Quinns Beach Coastal Protection - Need for a Limestone Retaining Wall along Fred Stubbs Park - Ordinary Council - 04 Mar 2014 7:00pm

                                                            IN08-03/14 - Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Protection - Establishment of a Community Reference Group and Terms of Reference - Ordinary Council - 04 Mar 2014 7:00pm

                                                            IN05-12/13 - Quinns Beach Erosion and Management - Immediate Coastal Protection Works - Ordinary Council - 10 Dec 2013 7.00pm      

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01440 for the Provision of Consulting Services for Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management.

 

Background

Coastal engineering consultant, Cardno, was appointed in November 2012 to identify and provide recommendations on longer-term coastal management options for Quinns Beach, with the draft report received by the City just prior to the September 2013 storms. This study included 3 Stages as follows:

·    Review and knowledge summary and assessment of coastal processes, evaluation of coastal management options and selection of two options for further investigation.

·    Comprehensive evaluation of selected coastal management options including:

o  Shifting artificial headland and Groyne 1 to the north, removal of groyne 2, installation of a 4th groyne north of the existing groyne field and sand renourishment;

o  Managed retreat; and

o  Shifting artificial headland to the north, modification of existing groynes at their present locations, and an additional headland structure, groyne and sand renourishment.

·    Monitoring and Maintenance Plan.

Whilst the City was considering the details of the draft Study Report, Quinns Beach suffered severe erosion due to storms in September 2013. A section of beach located immediately to the south of the southern groyne (Groyne 1) adjoining Fred Stubbs Park was severely impacted by consecutive winter storm events, resulting in significant loss of beach sand and adjacent park area. As a result, a design brief for immediate coastal protection works was developed, in consultation with the Department of Transport (DoT), and Cardno was engaged to undertake the design of a Geo-synthetic Sand Container (GSC) and Rock Revetment; Limestone Retaining Wall (to retain a greater park area); and Sand Renourishment. Implementation of these works, including maintenance of the southern groyne commenced in late February 2014 and is scheduled for completion in September 2014.

 

 

Following review of the Cardno 2012 study by DoT, the need for further refinement of the coastal processes assessment through collection of local data and development of calibrated numerical models was identified in order to ensure that the most appropriate option is adopted for the long term management of the Quinns Rocks coastline. 

 

A data collection regime was undertaken by the City, DoT and Consultants to gather data required as input into a detailed coastal processes assessment (Stage 1 of the proposed Study) including hydrographic surveys, monthly beach profile surveys, monthly photographic monitoring, and metocean data collection of wave, water level and current data at two locations offshore of Quinns Beach.

 

The scope of work included in the consultancy brief comprises:

 

·    Stage 1 - To undertake a detailed coastal processes assessment based on existing studies and recently collected data;

·    Stage 2 - To assess coastal management options and identify a preferred option based on a multi criteria analysis;

·    Stage 3 - To provide detailed design drawings and technical specifications (suitable for tendering purposes) for the preferred coastal management option;

·    Stage 4 - To provide technical advice during tendering and construction phases of the project; and

·    Stage 5 - To provide technical advice and coastal engineering services post construction

Stages 1 and 2 have been specified as a lump sum price, whereas stages 3 to 5 are based on schedule of rates, given the unknowns associated with detailed design and implementation until completion of stages 1 and 2.

 

The study area includes the Quinns Rocks and Jindalee coastline covering a length of approximately 4.5km, with a southern boundary at the limestone outcrops north of Mindarie Marina and a northern boundary at the limestone outcrops north of the recent development at Jindalee (refer to Attachment 1).

 

On 9 July 2014, the City received approval from the Minister for Transport for the "Quinns Beach Numerical Modelling and Development of Long Term Coastal Protection" Coastal Adaptation and Protection Grant for an amount of $123,000 (refer to Attachment 2). This value is intended as a 50% contribution to the study, including consultancy fees addressed in this report, along with fees associated with the ongoing collection of beach survey data and metocean data.

 

As part of the long term coastal management project, a Community Reference Group (CRG) was established in June 2014 including City Officers, Elected Members, DoT Representative and Community Representatives. The aims of the group are to:

 

·    Receive information at the key stages of the development and detailed design of the options for Quinns Beach long term coastal management.

·    Provide input in to the development of the long term options for Quinns Beach coastal protection; and.

·    Present community views to the Group.

The first CRG meeting was held on 8 July 2014 to present the proposed Consultancy scope of work and obtain any feedback before finalising the document and advertising the tender.  

 

 

 

This report now considers the outcome of Tender No. 01440 for the Provision of Consulting Services for Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management.

Detail

Tender No. 01440 for the Provision of Consulting Services for Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management was advertised on Saturday 26 July 2014 and closed on Thursday 14 August 2014.  A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members' Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

 

Tender submissions were received from the following nine companies:

·    SMEC Australia Pty Ltd;

·    GHD Pty Ltd;

·    M P Rogers & Associates;

·    Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited;

·    Cardno WA Pty Ltd;

·    WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd;

·    BMT JFA;

·    PRDW Australia; and

·    AECOM Australia Pty Ltd;

 

The Tender Evaluation Team comprising the Manager Infrastructure and Coastal Maintenance, Project Manager Coastal Projects, Contracts Officer and Department of Transport Representative evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

 

Evaluation results based on the above selection criteria are as follows:

 

Price for Services offered (30%)

The evaluation of this criterion was based on the lump sum prices submitted by the tenderers in the Price Schedule for Stages 1 and 2.

 

 

 

Based on lump sum prices tenderers have been ranked as follows:

 

 

 

Understanding of project scope and proposed approach and methodology (20%)

The evaluation of this criterion was based on the information included in the tenderers' submission regarding the appreciation of the work involved, proposed methodology, details of the specific techniques and proposed modelling package/s, identification of the risks and challenges and a detailed program of work (Project Plan) including milestones, timeframes and details of the nominated personnel.

 

Generally, all tenderers provided a submission with sufficient detail to meet this criterion, however top ranking tenderers were able to demonstrate a more detailed technical understanding of the project complexities and specific requirements with a high level of detail.

 

Cardno demonstrated a high level understanding of the study area and project requirements. The proposed modelling approach details the use of two separate numerical modelling packages in the first part of Stage 1 to identify the most appropriate model to be used for the remainder of the study. SMEC and Worley also produced a very detailed methodology indicating a high level of technical understanding, particularly with regards to the modelling requirements in Stage 1 of the study. Their proposed approach is very clear and concise and as a result, they have been scored the same as Cardno under this criterion.

 

BMT JFA also explained its approach with using in-house developed models instead of the internationally recognised models recommended by all other tenderers. BMT JFA and Jacobs' modelling approach, demonstrated understanding of the complexity of the project is very good and this is reflected in their ranking.

 

PRDW, M P Rogers & Associates and GHD all achieved the same score under this criterion. All of these tenderers indicated a sufficient level of understanding and a suitable approach to all stages of the study.

 

AECOM's understanding of the project requirements and the proposed modelling approach is not as detailed as the other tenderers.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Organisation's experience and capability (20%)

The evaluation of this criterion was based on the information included in the tenderers' submissions regarding the organisational structure, experience, recent relevant examples of similar projects, experience with coastal processes assessments, numerical modelling (specifically sediment transport modelling), design of coastal structures, referees and details of any proposed Sub Consultants.

 

Cardno and BMT JFA were ranked the highest under this criterion and achieved identical scores. Cardno demonstrated a high level of modelling and coastal engineering capabilities including coastal engineering design, community consultation, technical advice during current construction works demonstrated in recent similar project examples provided with the submission. BMT JFA also demonstrated a high level of expertise in both modelling and coastal engineering/geomorphology by proposing a project team including JFA, WBM, Oceanica and Damara, all of which are specialists in their respective fields.

 

PRDW, Worley, SMEC and Jacobs have demonstrated their capabilities very well with success in recent similar projects, including sediment transport modelling in Australia or internationally and achieved a very good score, however at a slightly lower level than Cardno and BMT JFA.

 

GHD and M P Rogers & Associates achieved a slightly lower score than the tenderers detailed above, whilst still meeting the requirements of this criterion. This lower ranking is due to their capabilities and experience with sediment transport modelling which is not as well demonstrated in their submission compared with the other tenderers.

 

AECOM has provided a sound offer but the project examples do not indicate direct relevant experience in sediment transport.

 

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

 

 

Key personnel experience and capability (20%)

The evaluation of this criterion was based on the information included in the tenderers' submission regarding the project team members' skills/knowledge/experience in coastal processes assessments, numerical modelling (specifically sediment transport modelling) and design of coastal structures.

 

Cardno and BMT JFA achieved the highest ranking under this criterion due to their demonstration of relevant experience and capabilities in their proposed project teams. BMT JFA have proposed a highly skilled project team with highly experienced staff for technical review roles ensuring a quality product is delivered at the end of the project. Cardno's proposed team has strong coastal engineering and modelling capabilities/experience as demonstrated by the submitted CV's and examples of previous projects.

 

SMEC and Worley have both proposed a highly experienced coastal engineering and modelling team which would be very capable of delivering this project.

 

PRDW have proposed an experienced modelling team situated in South Africa and a local project manager with a high level of experience and local coastal knowledge. PRDW has been ranked slightly lower than the higher ranking tenderers due to a lack of local experience from the majority of the project team.

 

GHD and Jacobs have identified a very, capable and experienced modelling and engineering team. These tenderers, however did not demonstrate significant experience in sediment transport modelling projects.

 

M P Rogers & Associates have put forward a capable and experience coastal engineering team, however the level of experience with sediment transport modelling is unclear in the submission. AECOM's proposed in-house staff's experience is limited in terms of coastal and modelling.

 

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

 

 

Occupational Health and Safety Management, Quality and Risk (10%)

The evaluation of this criterion was based on the information included in the tenderers' submission regarding OHS policy, examples of completed forms, contractor safety management and responses to the OHS questionnaire.

 

All tenderers completed the Occupational Health and Safety Questionaire appropriately and provided supporting health and safety documentation, details of management systems in place, example forms etc. Based on the details of previous projects, capability statements and/or previous projects identified in staff CVs, experience in management of Contractor safety has been demonstrated. As such, all tenderers were scored equally under this criterion.                                                                                                                                   

 

Overall Weighted Score

The overall ranking as summarised below is based on the tenderer's scores against each criterion and its weighting noting that the difference in ranking does not necessarily reflect the actual difference in the scores achieved by each tenderer:

 

 

Based on the significant range in lump sum prices and the closeness of the overall scores for the top three tenderers, further assessment was undertaken of potential costs of Stage 3, based on the schedule of rates provided by each tenderer and a generalised number of hours at various levels for a typical coastal detailed design study. The results of this assessment did not change the overall ranking.

 

Following the tender evaluation meeting, clarifications were sought from both Cardno and BMT JFA regarding their proposed numerical modelling approach in order to confirm the scores assigned to them for the "proposed approach and methodology" criteria.

 

Cardno was requested to provide further detail on the proposed modelling approach, specifically regarding the investigation of two different models.

 

 

Cardno confirmed that two different modelling packages would be set up for the first part of the Stage 1 study and the most appropriate model would then be selected for use in the remainder of the study based on comparisons with collected data. Further to this, Cardno also provided technical papers on the XBeach model.

 

BMT JFA was requested to provide further examples of where their proposed modelling packages developed in house have been used and associated design outcomes implemented. BMT JFA provided the City with further modelling study examples and a technical paper on the proposed models but didn't provide examples of implemented projects and their performance compared with model results.

 

The clarifications received from both Cardno and BMT JFA reinforced the score achieved by these tenderers in the "proposed approach and methodology" criterion.

 

On the basis of the overall weighted score and the detail as noted above, Cardno was assessed as providing the best value for money and having the necessary resources, experience, technical expertise and safety management systems to fulfil the requirements of the contract.

Consultation

The Coastal Infrastructure Section of the Department of Transport provided comments on the Consultancy brief and a staff member was involved in the tender evaluation process. Additionally, the City held a Community Reference Group Meeting on 8 July 2014 to present the proposed Consultancy scope of work and obtain any feedback before finalising the document and advertising the tender. The Community Reference Group was also briefed on the status of the tender evaluation on 2 September 2014.

Comment

The consultancy services proposed in Tender No. 01440 are necessary to obtain a detailed understanding of the coastal processes along Quinns Beach and for the development of coastal management measures to ensure the protection of the City's and public assets into the future.

 

Cardno achieved the highest score in accordance with the selection criteria and weighting as detailed above and accordingly is the recommended tenderer to undertake the works outlined in Tender No. 01440 Provision of Consultancy Services Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management.

 

A financial assessment of Cardno WA Pty Ltd trading was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd has verified that Cardno WA Pty Ltd has been assigned a Score of 9.41 indicating that it has a very strong financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract.

 

Reference checks were not undertaken as Cardno WA Pty Ltd has recently been engaged by the City for coastal engineering consultancy services for the 2012 Quinns Beach study and the organisation and all proposed staff for this Contract are well known by City Officers and deemed to be suitable to undertake the proposed scope of works.

 

 

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:

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

The tender submission from Cardno WA Pty Ltd has achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting. The information contained in Cardno's tender submission does not highlight any concerns which may pose a risk of non-delivery of services by Cardno. In addition, the financial assessment conducted by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd has not indicated any risks associated with awarding this tender to Cardno.

Policy Implications

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of the City's Purchasing Policy.

Financial Implications

The recommended tenderer's lump sum price of $114,516.00 (Stages 1 and 2) lies within the expected range of consultancy fees and provides value for money for the proposed scope of works.

 

50% of this fee and further design fees will be covered by the Department of Transport Coastal Adaptation and Protection Grant for the "Quinns Beach Numerical Modelling and Development of Long Term Coastal Protection" of which $123,000 is available in 2014/15 for this study along with associated metocean data collection and beach profile surveys. 

 

Funding allocation for the Provision of Consulting Services for Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management have been made in approved 2014/15 Capital Works Program in "Project Number 2561 - Design of long-term coastal protection works at Quinns Beach".

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Cardno WA Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01440 for the Provision of Consulting Services Quinns Beach Long Term Coastal Management for a Stage 1 and 2 lump sum price of $114,516 and schedule of rates for Stages 3 to 5; noting that the commencement date of the Contract shall be 6 October 2014 with expiry dates of 30 June 2015 (Stages 1 and 2 based on lump sum price) and 30 June 2017 (Remaining Stages based on schedule of rates); and options to extend the contract for two 12 month periods subject to (a) satisfactory performance; and (b) price adjustment of the year 3 rates based on Perth Consumer Price Index or 5% increase whichever is greater.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Tender Evaluation - Study Area	14/235020
2.	Tender Evaluation - Letter of CAP Grant Approval	14/235021

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Management

File Ref:                                               3120V03 – 14/178679

Responsible Officer:                            Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       10         

 

Issue

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

 

Background

Council received petition PT02-06/14 at its meeting of 24 June 2014.  The petition contains 119 signatures and reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration: To remove, reduce or modify the traffic calming measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson so as to be less intrusive in regards to noise and hoon traffic."

 

Within the 119 Signatories of the petition, there are 70 from Aldersea Circle, with a number being multiple signatories from the same property. The petition represents 53 properties out of total 108 properties abutting Aldersea Circle. Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan of the subject area.  Attachment 2 shows a map of the petition signatories in the Clarkson area.  Additional signatures were collected from residents in Mindarie, Quinns Rocks, Butler, Merriwa and Ridgewood.

Detail

Aldersea Circle is classified within the City's Functional Road Hierarchy as a Local Distributor Road and has been constructed with a 7.4m wide pavement.  Main Roads WA gives an indicative traffic volume range of 6,000 vehicles per day for a Local Distributor Road such as Aldersea Circle.  Average Weekday Traffic counts indicate a traffic volume in the region of 2,000 vehicles per day which indicates that Aldersea Circle is functioning well within its capacity. 

 

The majority of properties fronting Aldersea Circle are residential, however Clarkson Primary School and Richard Aldersea Park abut the northern end of Aldersea Circle and Anthony Waring Park abuts the southern side of Aldersea Circle.  A footpath is located on one side of Aldersea Circle to cater for pedestrians, including children from local schools with three school crossings located at the Renshaw Boulevard, Brooks Pass and Pitchford Glade intersections.

Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken in August 2012 to determine the view of affected residents and property owners.  A total of 132 letters were sent asking residents if they agree or disagree with the installation of speed cushions on Aldersea Circle.  A total of 57 responses were received (43% response rate).  Of these, 40 strongly agreed, 5 agreed, 3 disagreed and 9 strongly disagreed.  It is noted that two submissions were received from two separate properties. 

One property submitted two resident responses, one strongly agreeing and one disagreeing.  The owner and resident of another property also submitted responses   strongly agreeing to the proposal.  With 79% of responses either strongly agreeing or  agreeing with the installation of speed cushions on Aldersea Circle, it was considered that the proposal had sufficient community support to proceed and the project was included in the City's Capital Works Budget 2012/13 and approved by Council.

 

During community consultation the City advised residents, by letter, of both the positive and negative impacts of the rubberised speed cushions, including the issue of increased vehicle noise with specific reference being made to the noise created by the displacement of loads in trade vehicles and trailers.  Residents were also asked whether they agreed to have a speed cushion outside their residence and whether they would agree to have a new streetlight adjacent or opposite their residence.   These responses were incorporated into the design as far as possible without compromising the overall effectiveness of the treatment.

 

Refer to Attachment 3 for a copy of the community consultation letter sent to residents and property owners and Attachment 4 showing a map of responses from residents and owners with properties abutting Aldersea Circle.

 

It is noted that 26 of the 53 signatory properties abutting Aldersea Circle of the Petition did not respond at the time of community consultation for the installation of speed cushions and 15 properties who strongly agreed/agreed at the time of community consultation have changed their position now. The remaining 12 properties disagreed at the time of initial community consultation

Comment

In July 2011, the City received a complaint from a resident reporting excessive speed along Aldersea Circle.  To obtain an objective assessment of the situation, the City evaluated Aldersea Circle in accordance with the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TMIIP) which provides the decision making process to decide between roads which require infrastructure changes and those requiring better policing. This is standard practice when complaints are made about speeding on this class of road. This assessment was undertaken in July 2011 using traffic data collected in March 2009. The assessment is based on the scoring of 9 criteria:

 

·    Speeding

·    Traffic volumes

·    Crash history

·    Road design and topography

·    Vulnerable road users – pedestrian/cyclists

·    Activity generators – schools/retail

·    Commercial vehicle volumes

·    Amenity

·    Future needs

 

This is a generic policy used for assisting the decision making process about the introduction of traffic treatments. There are many different traffic treatment options available and each of them has different positive and negative impacts on residents. Considering the variety of traffic treatments available, the varied impacts and the inability to covert the impact into numerical figure does not allow the City to include this impact as part of the TMIIP Policy.

 

As a result of this investigation, it was found that Aldersea Circle received a Traffic Management Score of 71.  A score over 60 indicates that traffic management treatments are warranted to provide the community with a safer road environment. 

Based on the assessment undertaken by the City, the installation of traffic treatments on Aldersea Circle was included in the City's Capital Works Budget 2012/13 which was approved by Council on 26 June 2012.

 

Following Council approval of the works, Administration conducted an assessment of potential traffic treatments to determine the most effective treatment option available at this location.  The decision to install speed cushions instead of other traffic management treatments was based primarily on the geometry of the road and existing crossover locations which precluded the use of a number of horizontal displacement devices such as median treatments and blister islands.    The speed cushions chosen are vertical displacement devices and are effective in reducing vehicle speeds and minimising associated negative impacts such as increased vehicle noise and impact on public transport and emergency vehicles compared with other vertical displacement devices such as plateaux and asphalt speed humps.  As the speed cushions do not require any longitudinal element to be built into the median, they do not impact on property access. If motorists, including emergency vehicle drivers slow down and traverse the speed cushions at low speed, the generated noise and discomfort is very low compared to other vertical displacement devices. In regard to effect on emergency vehicles, it is acknowledged that all traffic treatments affect this class of vehicle. For example, emergency vehicles need to slow down at roundabouts, blister islands, speed humps and other horizontal deflection treatments.

 

Report IN07-04/11 was presented to Council in April 2011.  This report outlines both the positive and negative impacts of speed cushions for general use within the City when compared to alternative forms of traffic management.  The report also examined both community acceptance and the effectiveness of speed cushions using a review of speed cushions installed on Burnett Drive, Clarkson and information from the State Government Anti Hoon Speed Humps Program.  The report recommended that speed cushions be considered for greater use by the City, and in response to this report Council voted unanimously to:

 

1.      ENDORSE the use of rubber speed cushions as an acceptable traffic management treatment; and

2.      NOTE that rubber speed cushions will be installed in accordance with the guidelines used by Anti Hoon Speed Humps Program and at sites which qualify for traffic management under the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy.

 

Administration concedes that while the speed cushions are considered to minimise noise in relation to other vertical displacement devices, there is still a recognised impact on noise levels for properties within close proximity to the speed cushions.  It should be noted, however, that all traffic treatments which are designed to reduce vehicle speeds have impacts regarding noise as vehicles decelerate on approach to the traffic treatment and accelerate again on exit. Should it be resolved that the speed cushions be removed, Administration considers that there is no effective alternative traffic treatment which could be installed in Aldersea Circle that would effectively control vehicle speeds while reducing noise levels and allowing property access to all residents.  Any treatment option would be considerably more expensive to install and would either impact on residents' access to their properties or would require spacing of treatments at distances which would severely limit the effectiveness of the overall traffic management scheme.

 

Speed cushions are widely used by local governments throughout Australia.  The State Government also supports the use of speed cushions and administers a 'Anti Hoon Speed Hump Program' supporting their installation within the state.  The speed cushions used along with linemarking and signage have been designed to meet Main Roads WA (MRWA) standards and lighting has been provided to meet current Australian Standards.

 

The City has previously installed rubberised speed cushions at a number of locations within the Coastal Ward with repeated success in reducing vehicle speeds.  Traffic count data was used to assess the impact of speed cushions at these locations with the 85^th % speed (the speed which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below) and the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit used as the basis on which to measure success.  A summary of previous speed cushion installations is presented below:

 

Traffic Counter Location	85th % Speed (km/h)		Vehicles Exceeding Speed Limit (%)
	Before	After	Before	After
Burnett Drive, Clarkson	60	45	65	6
Alexandria View, Mindarie	53	34	23	1
Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie	58	41	41	3
Jenolan Way, Merriwa	55	47	46	9

 

Community consultation was conducted by the City in August 2012 with the majority of respondents in favour of installing rubberised speed cushions on Aldersea Circle.  Minor design changes were made based on the feedback received during community consultation and the speed cushions were installed in February 2014.  Maps of the speed cushion locations are shown in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 and the final design as constructed is shown in Attachment 7 and Attachment 8. It is to be noted that the City has previously installed speed cushions on various City roads. A list of roads with length and number of cushions are listed below.

 

Road Name	No of Locations	Total Number of Speed Cushions	Length of the Road (m)
Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie	3	6	381
Jenolan Way	5	15	515
Victorsen Parade	4	8	778
Brazier Road	3	6	1284
Driver Road Darch	5	10	899
Russell Road	3	6	963
Burnett Drive Clarkson	6	12	535
Coldstream Circuit	5	10	1089
Backshall Place	3	6	700

 

For comparison, 22 speed cushions are installed at 11 locations on Aldersea Circle on a 1600m length. The number and location of speed cushions on any road depends on the availability of other treatments along the road such as roundabouts, horizontal deflections and property access. The type and location of speed cushions along Aldersea Circle were chosen based on MRWA standard drawing no. 200931-0004-1 (Attachment 9 refers). MRWA approves and installs signs and line marking on the basis of the standard drawings. In accordance with Main Roads standards, speed cushions should ideally be spaced between 80 and 100m apart with a maximum of 250m to achieve the best results. All of the above criteria were considered at the time of selecting location for speed cushions on Aldersea Circle.

 

Following the installation of traffic treatments on Aldersea Circle, the City received feedback from four residents about vehicles mounting the kerb to avoid travelling over the speed cushions.  To rectify this issue, bollards were installed between 21 and 23 May 2014 near all speed cushions to stop this practice.  It is noted that the vast majority of signatures on petition PT02-06/14 were collected prior to the installation of these bollards with only 18 of the 119 signatures collected after 21 May 2014.  Administration considers that the installation of the rubber bollards represents a substantial modification which has improved the operation of the traffic treatments on Aldersea Circle. 

During this period the City also received one report of a newly installed light not working, one report that large vehicles were not being slowed and requesting larger speed cushions to address this and one complaint about noise.  In addition to this, one resident submitted two complaints to Council citing the following perceived issues:

 

·        the speed cushions having limited effect in slowing large vehicles;

·        emergency vehicles being bumped as they cross the speed cushions;

·        noise created by vehicles at the speed cushions;

·        motorists doing burnouts on the speed cushions;

·        skateboarders using the speed cushions as ramps;

·        vehicles driving around the speed cushions;

·        pregnant ladies finding the speed cushions uncomfortable;

·        a car almost being rear ended because they had to slow at the speed cushions and the car behind was too close;

·        additional lighting causing a neighbour angst;

·        the speed cushions having no effect on the 'gunbarrel effect';

·        spinal stress for people with pre-existing medical conditions;

·        people mentioning that they need wheel alignments;

·        a real estate agent saying that property prices could be lowered;

·        drivers being distracted by speed cushions; and

·        council not being properly informed of the negative impacts of speed cushions

 

The City has carried out objective testing in order to determine the effectiveness of the rubberised speed cushions in reducing vehicle speeds on Aldersea Circle.  Traffic counts were undertaken in June 2014 with the counters being placed in the same locations as those of the original traffic counts used to assess Aldersea Circle.  These counters work by measuring the time difference and axle length of vehicles passing over two tubes laid perpendicular to the road. The information collected can be used to determine vehicle speeds, traffic volumes and vehicle classifications.  It is not possible at this time to conduct a full assessment in accordance with the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy as five years of crash data is required to allow an accurate assessment of crash history.

 

A Summary of the results of the traffic counts is presented in the table below:

 

Traffic Counter Location	85th % Speed (km/h)		Vehicles Exceeding Speed Limit (%)
	June 2012	June 2014	June 2012	June 2014
North of Victorsen Parade	58	48	56	9
East of Hurst Trail	59	45	57	6
North of Pitchford Glade	57	46	46	7
North of Frawley Ramble	58	50	59	15
COMBINED DATA	58	48	55	9

 

Overall, there has been a 10km/h drop in the 85^th percentile speed from 58 km/h to 48 km/h.  Compliance with the default speed limit of 50 km/h has also significantly improved from 55% of vehicles travelling over the speed limit prior to traffic treatments to just 9% of vehicles exceeding 50km/h following the installation of the rubberised speed cushions.  These results are consistent with the results of previous installations of rubberised speed cushions within the City.

 

 

Additional analysis of the traffic counts east of Hurst Trail was conducted to determine the effect of the speed cushions near Clarkson Primary school during the hours of 7:30am – 9:00am and 2:30pm to 4:00pm when the 40 km/h school zone is in place.  Prior to the installation of the speed cushions, 77% of vehicles were over the 40 k/h speed limit with the 85^th percentile speed 55 km/h.  After the installation of the speed cushions, the proportion of speeding vehicles fell to 23% and the 85^th percentile speed dropped to 42 km/h.

 

The overall speed distributions for Aldersea Circle are shown graphically in Attachment 10.

 

No specific reference is made in the petition regarding the nature of the 'hoon traffic' which the petitioners feel is intrusive.  The issue of vehicles mounting the verge or footpath to avoid the speed cushions has been addressed with the installation of bollards and the incidence of high speed 'hoon behaviour' has also been significantly reduced with the proportion of vehicles travelling more than 20 km/h over the speed limit falling from 1.0% to 0.2% of vehicles and the highest recorded speed falling from 133 km/h to 91 km/h.  Other than the fall in vehicle speeds, there is no objective measure to determine the effects of the traffic treatments on hooning.

 

The installation of speed cushions on Aldersea Circle has had a significant and measurable impact in reducing the number of vehicles travelling over the speed limit and in reducing the incidence of high speed hooning but traffic treatments cannot be 100% effective in eliminating hoon behaviour.  While the City is concerned for the safety of all road users, its authority and responsibility is limited to the safe construction and maintenance of its roads.  Individual drivers have the responsibility to drive within the State road rules. If drivers choose to disregard those rules the WA Police is the only authority to enforce compliance.  If hoon driving is still occurring on Aldersea Circle, community members are encouraged to report their concerns to the WA Police to assist them with enforcement of the Road Traffic Code. Complaints about speeding/hooning should be directed to WA Police by calling the 'Hoon Hotline' on 13144. More information about reporting hoon behaviour can be found on the WA Police website in the following link

 

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Yoursafety/Antisocialbehaviour/Reportinghoons/tabid/1127/Default.aspx

 

Speed is a major factor in both the incidence and severity of crashes.  Vehicles travelling at higher speeds are more likely to be involved in a crash and the outcomes of the crash are likely to be more severe.  This is because travelling at greater speed:

 

·    allows motorists less time to recognise hazards;

·    increases the distance the vehicle travels while reacting to hazards;

·    increases the vehicle’s stopping distance after braking in response to the hazard;

·    reduces the opportunity for other road users to avoid a collision;

·    makes it more likely that a driver will lose control of the vehicle; and

·    increases the impact forces in the event of crash, making severe injuries more likely.

 

Crash Data is one of the criteria used in the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy which contributes to the Traffic Management Score.  As yet, it is not possible to accurately measure the impact of the speed cushions on crash rates in Aldersea Circle.  The City has access to crash data held by Main Roads WA.  This data is updated annually and the most recent update includes the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013, but does not include the period following the installation of speed cushions.

 

 

This information is collected by Main Roads from all road crashes reported to WA Police.  At present, WA Police require that a crash be reported where:

 

·    the incident resulted in bodily harm to any person; or

·    the total value of property damaged to all involved parties exceeds $3000; or

·    the owner or representative of any damaged property is not present.

 

This information is broken down by Main Roads WA into five categories of crash severity, these being fatal; hospital; medical; property damage only (PDO) Major and PDO minor.  In assessment using the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy, these categories are combined to form the three categories, fatal; injury and PDO.

 

For clarification, Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes are those crashes where no medical treatment is required by individuals involved in the crash. These crashes do not specifically refer to damage to a property, but include damage caused to vehicles and infrastructure as a result of a crash.

 

A summary of current five year crash data is included in the table below and shows the inherent annual variation in the number of reported crashes over the period January 1 2009 to December 31 2013 where no significant infrastructure changes have taken place in Aldersea Circle.

 

Year	Fatal	Injury	PDO	TOTAL
2009	0	0	0	0
2010	0	0	3	3
2011	0	0	0	0
2012	0	0	1	1
2013	0	2	0	2

 

The rubberised speed cushions installed in Aldersea Circle have had a significant and measurable effect in reducing vehicle speeds.  This reduction in vehicle speeds is expected to lead to positive road safety outcomes for the local Community.  It is considered that the benefits in reducing the risk of death or serious injury from motor vehicle crashes outweigh the concerns expressed in the petition.

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

Due to the location of property accesses on Aldersea Circle, Administration considers the installation of alternative traffic treatments will not be as effective as speed cushions in the reduction of vehicle speed. Installation of alternative vertical displacement devices is possible but these are considerably more expensive and there is additional noise as a result of more severe displacement to vehicles.

Horizontal displacement devices could be used and these would eliminate the noise caused by vertical displacement but there would still be noise generated by the deceleration and acceleration of vehicles. Additionally, the size of these treatments would mean that they would either restrict access to properties on Aldersea Circle or would need to be placed at intervals where they would have severely limited effect on vehicle speeds.  This view is supported by recent community consultation with residents of Quinns Road which found that blister islands were not supported by the community as they felt the associated impact on property access was not acceptable.

Council has consistently approved the installation of rubberised speed cushions on local roads to address speeding problems. Assessment of traffic speeds on Aldersea Circle since the installation of the speed cushions has shown that they have been effective in reducing the speed of motorists and minimised the risk of crashes. Based on this data, the removal of the speed cushions from Aldersea Circle will likely result in the vehicle speeds returning to the levels recorded prior to the installation of traffic treatments.  This increase in speed will increase the likelihood and severity of crashes.  In the case of a serious crash occurring on Aldersea Circle following the removal of the speed cushions, it is likely that Council's decision would be seriously questioned by the community as it is contrary to its risk appetite statement.

While the speed cushions can be reused in other locations, this traffic management project cost in the order of $74,000 and should the speed cushions be removed, then this action could be seen by the community as a waste of funds expended for this project.

Policy Implications

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy has been used in assessing this petition. The TM Policy was adopted by Council as a way of determining the justification and priority of competing requests for traffic treatments.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      DOES NOT SUPPORT the removal of or further modifications to traffic treatments on Aldersea Circle;

2.      ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's decision and the process with regards to advising WA Police of hoon behaviour;

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Aldersea Circle Location Map	14/193666
2.	Aldersea Circle, Clarkson - Speed Cushion Petition Signatories	14/225970
3.	Community Consultation - Speed Cushions - Aldersea Circle Clarkson pdf version	14/211299
4.	Aldersea Circle Community Consultation Map	14/226202
5.	Aerial Map Speed Cushions Aldersea Circle, Clarkson 1	14/224768
6.	Aerial Map Speed Cushions Aldersea Circle, Clarkson 2	14/224765
7.	Aldersea Traffic Treatments Drawing 1	14/193615
8.	Aldersea Traffic Treatments Drawing 2	14/193617
9.	Main Roads WA standard drawing for Speed Cushions on 7.4m road pavement - 200931-0004-1	14/236343
10.	Aldersea Speed Distribution.xlsx	14/226248

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Community Development

Community Programs and Services

File Ref:                                               7849 – 14/234959

Responsible Officer:                            Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6

Previous Items:                                   CD02-08/14 - Yanchep Active Open Space - Sports Amenities Building Extension - Ordinary Council - 19 Aug 2014 7:00pm       

 

Issue

To consider the financial and resource capacity within the 2014/15 Capital Works Budget to accommodate the provision of a Multipurpose Room extension to the existing Oldham Reserve Changerooms (the Project).

Do not delete this line

Background

At its meeting held on 19 August 2014, Council considered report CD02-08/14: Yanchep Active Open Space – Sports Amenities Building Extension and resolved the following:

 

"That Council:-

1. NOTES the proposal received from representatives of the sporting clubs based at Oldham Reserve to extend the existing change room building to include a 100m² Multipurpose Room;

2. SUPPORTS the inclusion of a 100m2 multipurpose room as a part of the Yanchep Active Open Space Sports Amenities Building within the existing project timeframe, noting that this will increase the cost of the project by an estimated $260,000, subject to further revision and the eligibility for funding from DCP;

3. NOTES additional design costs of approximately $26,000 in Project PR2253 design and documentation in 2014/15 to be addressed during the mid year review process;

4. LIST FOR CONSIDERATION in the 2015/16 budget the proposed 100m2 multipurpose room extension of the building at Oldham Reserve and that Administration liaise with the Clubs to identify their needs in this regard SUBJECT TO a financial contribution from the user groups; and

5. REQUEST the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a report on financial and resource capacity of the organisation to complete this project in the 2014/2015 financial year and bring back the report to the September council meeting".

This report will specifically address recommendation number five (5) as listed above.

The General Arrangement Concept for the proposed Oldham reserve changeroom extension

has been included in Attachment 1.

 

The development of the 100m2 multipurpose room extension originated from the original request put forward by representatives of the resident clubs at Oldham Reserve in their meeting with Mayor Roberts and Administration at the Civic Centre on 25 March 2014.

 

Detail

Assessment Guidelines  

 

In considering the focus of the report, the following assessment guidelines have been used in considering the organisational financial and resourcing capacity to undertake the Project within the 2014/15 financial year.

 

1.     Financial

·             The estimated cost of the Oldham Reserve Project, as reported to Council at its meeting held on 19 August 2014 was $260,000. This has been reviewed and now stands at $295,000 (Attachment 2). ·             Consequently, in terms of funding the project from the existing budget, only those projects which have the capacity to fund the Oldham Reserve Project have been considered. ·             Primary consideration has been given to projects listed in the 2014/15 Sports Facilities Capital Works Program (given that this is where projects of this nature would normally be listed), with secondary consideration given to projects listed in the 2014/15 Community Buildings and Passive Park Development Capital Works Programs. ·             In funding the project from the existing budget, the assessment has been undertaken on the basis that an existing project will need to be delayed to enable the Oldham Reserve Project to be commenced in the 2014/15 financial year. This is on the basis that there is no additional capacity to introduce a new project without deferring an existing project. ·             In terms of funding the project from reserve, the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve (the Reserve) has been the primary reserve considered.

2.     Resource Requirement

·             A project of this nature is classified as an architectural project, and as such would require the specific expertise of the City's Building Projects Team to manage and deliver the Project. The option to consider a transportable building is not considered an architectural project. ·             Consideration of resource capacity needs to take into account the current project commitments (workload) of the Building Projects Team.

 

Identification of projects by value of the project and nature of the work has been included in Attachment 3. This information has been provided for the 2014/15 Sports Facilities, Community Buildings and Passive Park Development Capital Works Programs.

 

Project Funding Considerations

 

Funding from 2014/15 Capital Works Budget

 

In respect to funding the Project from the existing 2014/15 Capital Works Budget, Attachment 4 provides an analysis of the projects considered as potential funding sources. This analysis indicated that the Butler North District Public Open Space Project (Butler) and the Pearsall Hocking Community Centre (Pearsall) as potential funding sources, as outlined in the discussion of options further on in this report.

 

Funding from Reserve

 

The total budget required to undertake this project is estimated to be $295,000 relating to the Materials & Contracts, with a contribution of $98,333 (one-third of $295,000) coming from the benefiting Clubs. A further $98,334 would come from the Department of Sport & Recreation's Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund (CSRFF) if grant funding were successful. In the event that grant funding were not successful, this would leave the City with an estimated $196,667 to fund. It should be noted if the CSRFF grant application was unsuccessful and the club contribution was not forthcoming, the City would need to consider funding the entire project cost of $295,000. It should be noted that conversations with the club to date have indicated their willingness to contribute to the cost of the project, however this is yet to be formalised by Administration.

 

In accordance to the City's Financial (Cash Backed) Reserves Policy and Management Procedure, all cash surplus identified during end of year closure is required to be transferred to the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve. The purpose of this reserve is stated as below:

 

·             For the purpose of accumulating funds to be used for the introduction of new or upgrade of existing services, maintenance, upgrade of existing assets and purchase of new assets or project works of the City over an expected period of 10 years.

 

Whilst the audit process for 2013/2014 financial year is currently underway, it is anticipated that a better than expected cash surplus position will be recorded thus additional funds will be transferred into the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve as part of the accounting process as guided by the City's Financial (Cash Backed) Reserves Policy and Management Procedure.

 

Accordingly, in respect to the City's potential obligation of $196,667, although there are various funding options potentially available to consider, the most appropriate in Administration’s view is for it to be funded from the City's Strategic Projects/Initiatives due to the additional, better than budgeted, cash surplus anticipated for 2013/2014. This option will have no impact on services or projects scheduled under the Adopted Budget 2014/2015 and the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) 2014/2015 to 2023/2024.

 

The current budgeted balance of the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve as of 30 June 2014 is $47.2 million. Quinns Rocks Beach project amounted to $2.993 million was funded by this reserve (Council Item IN05-12/13 and IN09-03/14) and there are a number of key projects to be funded from this reserve within the City's LTFP:

 

·             Civic Centre extension

·             Pearsall Hocking Community Centre

·             Banksia Grove Centre

·             Quinns Beach foreshore

 

Please refer to Attachment 6 for the summary details of the City's Long Term Financial Plan's reserves balances.

 

It is worth noting that there are no specific clauses addressing the allowances of borrowings between reserves in the City's policies and procedures. However, Section 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 allows changes to the purpose of a reserve account or the use of money in a reserve account for another purpose, in the circumstances when a one month's local public notice is given; the change of purpose or of proposed use of money has been disclosed in the annual budget for that financial year.

 

 

 

If Council resolves to adopt the project then it will be immediately funded from the City’s municipal funds as an initial accounting entry. During Mid Year Review, this funding requirement will be journalled to Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve. This process is consistent to the City's standard accounting operational procedure which is in line with Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 and the City’s Financial (Cash Backed) Reserves Policy and Management Procedure.

 

Project Support Resourcing Considerations

 

Resource Requirements and Funding

 

As outlined within the assessment guidelines at the beginning of this report, projects of this type are classified as architectural projects and require the specific skills of the City's Building Projects Team. Based on the information provided in Attachment 3, there are currently 18 projects in the 2014/15 financial year which are classified as architectural. The Building Projects Team comprises of 2 FTE, with a third currently being recruited. Given the current project list of this team and current available FTE, there is clearly no capacity for an additional architectural project to be added to the capital budget without an existing project being deleted.

 

A further review has been undertaken of the number and complexity of building projects in the 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget and it is considered that there would be insufficient resources to complete all approved projects.  Initially it was proposed to allocate a number of building capital projects to the Building Maintenance Team to implement, but on review this approach would severely stretch the capacity of this team and it is considered more appropriate that these projects be managed by the Building Projects Team.  This will require the employment of an additional Building Projects Officer for a 12 month fixed term contract at an annual salary cost of $81,588 plus on costs.  This position would manage the following 2014/2015 Building Projects, with priority to the Oldham Reserve Changerooms Extension Project, and provide technical input to the pre planning and implementation of some 2015/2016 Building projects:

 

Oldham Reserve Changeroom Extension                                                    $295,000.00

Fire Detection Systems – Community Centres Stage 1                                $230,000.00

Swipe Card and Security TV – Community Centres Stage 1                        $577,000.00

Kingsway Olympic Soccer Clubrooms – Compliance Works                        $350,000.00

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex – Building Renewal Works               $260,000.00

Universal Access Improvement Program (Part)

 

This additional resource would be funded through the 2014/15 budget mid-year review process.

 

The option to consider a transportable building is not considered an architectural project and therefore can be more easily resourced within existing staff resources.

 

Project Schedule

 

An indicative project schedule has been included in Attachment 5, and indicates that the project will take 64 weeks in total. The project schedule has been revised post Council's consideration of this report at the Council Briefing Session held on 9 September 2014, with no change to the estimated project length, however additional detail has been included in relation to the recruitment of an additional internal project resource and endorsement of the concept by the clubs and Council. A breakdown and description of key tasks is outlined below:

 

 

 

Key Task	Description
Feasibility and pre start	Develop project plan, site investigation, scope, engagement of Building Projects Officer, secure budget, project hand over from CD Directorate (client) to Infrastructure (internal project manager), identification of approval requirements. Environmental, Aboriginal heritage investigations etc. Negotiate and develop management model for the facility.
Design	Concept development, consultation and sign off. Detail design and required sign offs and preparation of documentation (working drawings – architectural, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical and all other required engineering services), approval of working drawings and development and approval of specifications. This includes the provision of the provision of upgrades to fire hydrant/booster requirements etc to the existing building.
Statutory permits and certificates	Development Approval, Building Permit application and certificate of design and construction compliance. Occupancy permits approval and engineering compliance certification. WAPC approval is not required, as the reserve is designated as a local reserve under the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2, therefore the City has the authority to approve development on this site.
Procurement quotations and tenders	Request for Quotation for design consultancy, including brief preparation, invitation for submission of RFQs, assessment of submissions and appointment. Secure club contribution to one-third of the project cost. Tender for construction, including brief preparation, advertisement for submission of Tenders, assessment of submissions and appointment.
Construction	Delivery of the physical structure on site. Includes site inspections and contract administration by COW resource. Practical completion inspection and administration.
Project close out	Preparation of close out report and documentation for closure of contracts, assets management, maintenance, insurance purposes and management of defects liability period (12 month period).

 

The revised project schedule also includes the endorsement of the General Arrangement Concept by the resident Clubs at Oldham Reserve and by Council at its meeting to be held on 14 October 2014.

 

It should also be noted that the project schedule reflects the fact that the project is in the initial stages of concept development and will be further refined as detail design and documentation for the project is completed. The durations listed within the project schedule is the total time allocation for that task from start to finish, not necessarily the time required to complete the task, noting that there is, in many cases, periods in which a task is not able to be progressed due to the impact of other related processes and the resourcing capacity of those officers assigned to completed those tasks. 

 

In any case the project schedule provided indicates that, at this early stage in the project, the project would not be completed in time for the commencement of the 2015 winter season, being April 2015.

 

Options

 

In considering the above analysis, three options present themselves for consideration.

 

Option 1 – Progress the Oldham Park Project via Funding from 2014/15 Capital Works Budget

 

As identified in the above analysis, this can only progress if another project of a similar nature (i.e. architectural project) is deferred from the 2014/15 Capital Works Program to free up the required resource and financial capacity to undertake the work. On this basis, the only option available for consideration is to defer the Pearsall Hocking Community Centre project (PR-1046). This will enable the Building Projects team to redirect resources from this project to the Oldham Reserve project and it will provide sufficient funds to enable the Oldham Reserve project to proceed. The balance of funds from the Pearsall Hocking Community Centre project ($110,000) would be handed back at mid year review and the detail design and documentation component of the budget re-allocated to the 2015/16 financial year.

 

Based on the indicative project schedule included within Attachment 4, the project would not be completed prior to the commencement of the 2015 winter season.

 

Option 2 – Provision of Interim Facilities via Funding from 2014/15 Capital Works Budget

 

An alternative, is to provide interim facilities at Oldham Reserve to provide a multi-purpose room and list the ultimate project for consideration in the 2015/16 10 Year Capital Works Program. The interim facility in question would be a transportable of the dimension of 12m x 9m, providing a multi- purpose room of the floor space sought by the resident Oldham Reserve clubs and would allow the clubs access to a multi-purpose space for the 2015 winter season.

 

Funding for the purchase of the transportable facility would be taken from PR-2955: Butler North District Open Space ($250,000). Initial estimates provided to Administration indicate that the purchase and installation of a 12m x 9m transportable would be in the order of $90,000, whilst hire of the transportable for a two year period (based on an estimated construction time) would be in the order of $80,400. Purchase of the transportables is considered a realistic option given the number of active reserve development projects which are going to occur in the northern coastal corridor in the coming years. Such projects include Butler North District Public Open Space, Banksia Grove District Public Open Space, Yanchep Active Open Space and the desire for clubs based at active reserves such as Gumblossom Reserve, Ridgewood Reserve, Riverlinks Park and Addison Park for facilities of this type.

 

Funding of the transportables (either purchase or hire) from PR-2955 would still allow Administration to progress with the review of the Butler District Open Space Master Plan, providing revised staging and cost estimates to inform the development of the 2015/16 10 Year Capital Works Program. 

 

It should be noted that funding has been made available in the 2014/15 10 Year Capital Works Program for the provision of transportable facilities for use at Riverlinks Park (PR-2961at $50,000), to support the use of this reserve once the floodlighting project for the reserve has been completed and at Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (PR-2948 at $29,300) while the existing changerooms are demolished and re-built.

 

Option 3 – Progress the Oldham Park Project via Funding from the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve

 

As outlined earlier in this report, the project can be funded from the City's Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve, with the funding of the additional Building Projects Office resource to occur via the City's operating budget. This would increase the capacity of Administration to deliver the project and to do so without impacting on any other projects listed for the 2014/15 financial year.

 

It should be noted that the additional project management resource will need to recruited, either through an external RFQ process or via the City's recruitment process.

Consultation

As noted in report CD02-08/14, Administration has been consulting with the sporting clubs based at Oldham Reserve in relation to the proposed extension of the Oldham Park Changerooms since March 2014.

 

Consultation with Yanchep based sporting clubs in regards to the Yanchep Active Open Space has been ongoing since February 2012.

 

In progressing the project, consultation will occur with the resident clubs at Oldham Park, which include the following clubs:

 

·             Yanchep Districts Junior Football Club;

·             Yanchep red Hawks Cricket Club;

·             Yanchep red Hawks Football Club; and

·             Yanchep Little Athletics Club

Comment

To meet the expectations of the resident Clubs at Oldham Reserve and if Council wishes to introduce this project at this point of time, funding the project via an allocation from the Reserve is the only realistic option available to Administration.

 

It should be noted that project start up will need to take into consideration the appointment of an additional Building Projects Officer, for reasons outlined above. Further, it should also be noted that the current timeframe indicates that the extension will not be completed before the commencement of the 2015 winter season.

 

It should also be noted that the current timeframe for the completion of the Yanchep Active Open Space (YAOS) project is late 2016, subject to (initially) the final approval of the City's Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (Developer Contribution Plan) and provision of technical data from the Developer to facilitate the commencement of the tender process for the Marmion venue extension and oval earthworks.

 

As outlined in report CD02-08/14, the YAOS is a district level facility, comprising two multipurpose senior sized playing fields.  These playing fields will be able to cater for both senior and junior AFL, rectangular field sports (primarily soccer and rugby), cricket, and little athletics.  To support these activities, the YAOS will also provide two multipurpose hard courts, floodlighting to playing fields (to a large ball sport training level), car parking, playground and a Sports Amenities Building. Consultation associated with the development of the YAOS concept occurred with all Yanchep based sporting clubs, including those who currently use Oldham Reserve.

 

The impact on the use of the YAOS as a result of the development of the multipurpose room extension at Oldham Reserve is not known at this point in time, however report CD02-08/14 did note that:

 

"the demand for multipurpose space at Oldham Reserve is clearly evident, based on the level of usage being experienced at Oldham Reserve and population growth within the surrounding community. "

 

 

 

 

It can also be assumed that those clubs currently based at Oldham Reserve would utilise the facilities at the YAOS. As outlined in report CD02-08/14, the focus of Administration has been on delivery of the YAOS and related Sports Amenities Building.  Consideration of future developments (above the City's standard level of provision) at Oldham Reserve and St Andrews have been based on waiting to understand how the YAOS will be used by the community and then using this to inform any additional infrastructure developments at these other facilities.

Statutory Compliance

It should be noted that Administration will be required to gain the required statutory approvals, permits and certificates, as they relate to Development Approval, Building Permits and Occupancy Permits, and also ensure that matters pertaining to Aboriginal Heritage, Environmental Approvals etc are adequately investigated and addressed. Do not delete this line

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.”Do not delete this line

Risk Management Considerations

Project risks associated with this project will be defined and managed within the project plan to be developed. However key risks that can be identified at this early stage include the following:

 

·             Financial Risk - Unsuccessful application for CSRFF grant funds and inability of clubs to contribute one-third funding, resulting in additional municipal funds required for the project.

·             Reputation Risk - Ongoing dissatisfaction from resident clubs at Oldham Reserve.

·             The introduction of this project outside the budget cycle will create a risk for the organisation in managing the demands from other clubs, some of which have long standing requests for facility extensions of a similar nature. Administration will need to liaise closely with clubs across the City to develop a long term funding and implementation plan that Council is able to support.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

As stated earlier in the report, the estimated cost of the Oldham Reserve Project, as reported to Council at its meeting held on 19 August 2014 was $260,000. This has been reviewed and now stands at $295,000 (Attachment 2). It should be noted that the project cost estimate provided is a Rough Order of Magnitude estimate, as noted on the cost estimate itself, and reflects the fact that the project is in the initial stages of concept development and will be further refined as detail design and documentation for the project is completed.

 

 

 

 

 

A breakdown of the key components of the cost estimates is outlined in the table below:

 

Key Task	Description
Demolition/Removals & Reinstatements	Removal of parts of the building and parts of the playground as required to facilitate construction. Provisional sum is based on an estimate taking into account previous works of this type.
Playground Works	Re-sizing of existing playground. Included in removal and site works.
Site Works	Allowance for possible work to prepare the site for construction. Provisional sum is based on an estimate taking into account previous works of this type.
External Services Allowances	Allowance for possible services modification. Provisional sum is based on an estimate taking into account previous works of this type.
New Building Extension & Verandah	Estimate based on 2014 construction costs for buildings of a similar nature. (Rawlinsons Construction Handbook 2014)
Cost Escalation	As per 2014 Building Index estimates (Rawlinsons Construction Handbook 2014). To allow for cost increases to construction tender.
Consultancy Services	Allowance for design and engineering consultancy services. Based on 10% of construction costs as per industry standards.
Contingency (Design and Construction)	Allowance for unforseen costs associated with design and construction components of the project. Based on construction industry quantity surveying practices.
Project Management	Internal cost recovery of City of Wanneroo Infrastructure Directorate resource costs.

 

Based on the advice provided earlier in the report in relation to funding of the Project from reserve, the funding requirement for the Project will be as follows:

Financial Year	PR No.	Description	Total Cost	Council (Res)	Grants	Club Cont.
2014/15	TBC	Design & Documentation and Construction	$295,000	$98,333	$98,334	$98,333

 

It should be noted that should the CSRFF application not be successful, the City will be liable for $196,667. Should both the CSRFF application not be successful and the clubs unable to contribute the sum of $98,333 (one-third of the estimated project cost), the City will be liable for the full project cost of $295,000.

 

In terms of the contribution from benefiting clubs, Administration have had conversations with the Clubs in this regard, with the Clubs indicating their willingness to contribute one third of the project cost, however this has not been formalised. To formalise the arrangement Administration will write to each of the resident Club's seeking written confirmation from the Clubs as to their intention to contribute to the project (support by a Committee Minute to that regard), provision of a fundraising plan from each club indicating how they will raise these funds, providing an indicative cash flow and the identification of the timing of progress payments. The full amount will be required by Administration prior to the project being tendered, which is scheduled to occur by the beginning of February 2015.

 

This approach has most recently been undertaken with the Sports Amenities Building at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Baseball and Softball facilities to increase the size of the meeting room of the facility.  In this situation the benefiting clubs are required to have their contribution confirmed and available prior to the construction tender for the project being let.

 

 

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority Do not delete this line