Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7:00pm, 14 October, 2014

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo


 

Public Question & Statement Time

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Deputations

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations 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.


Recording of Council Meetings Policy

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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


 

 

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

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo on Tuesday 14 October, 2014 commencing at 7:00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

10 October, 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

OC01-10/14     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 September 2014  1

SOC02-10/14 Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 7 October 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  1

PT01-09/14      Requesting Completion of the Walk/Cycle Path, Solaia Loop  1

PT02-09/14      Objecting to Proposal to delete two east-west roads connecting Vandia Pass and Trojan Bend with Cheltondale Drive  2

PT03-09/14      Requesting a Moratorium on Proposed Intensive Amendment to DA2012/1349, regarding DA20144-1042, 163 Belgrade Road  2

PT04-09/14      Requesting Rates be Reduced in Eglinton Area Due to Lack of Amenities  3

PT05-09/14      Requesting Installation of Footpaths to Both Sides of Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive, Tapping  3

Item  8_____ Reports_ 4

Planning and Sustainability  4

Policies and Studies  4

PS01-10/14      Review of Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning  4

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  68

PS02-10/14      Proposed Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Single Dwelling House  68

PS03-10/14      Adoption of Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  73

PS04-10/14      Adoption of Amendment No. 131 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  95

PS05-10/14      Adoption of Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80  103

Development Applications  180

PS06-10/14      Reconsideration of Conditions - Development Application for 'Industry - Extractive' at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup  180

Other Matters  267

PS07-10/14      Proposed Pedestrian Accessway Closure – Portion Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo  267

City Businesses  277

Regulatory Services  277

CB01-10/14     Application to vary the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policy 2.1 at Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall  277

Property  283

CB02-10/14     Cancellation of Part of Reserve 33522 (Lot 9062 Neville Drive, Wanneroo) 283

Infrastructure  290

Infrastructure Projects  290

IN01-10/14       Tender No 01422 - Provision of Cost Planner Consultancy Services for the Design, Documentation and Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension  290

IN02-10/14       Old Yanchep Road State BlackSpot Project - Advice of Status  298

Traffic Management  303

IN03-10/14       State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs 2015/2016 Submissions  303

IN04-10/14       Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grants Program 2014/2015 - Outcomes  329

IN05-10/14       Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2015/2016  334

IN06-10/14       Review Proposed Roundabouts along The Avenue, at Adora Street and Azelia Street, Alexander Heights  344

IN07-10/14       Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Feedback  359

IN08-10/14       Proposed Speed Limit Change - Rousett Road  370

Community Development  375

Community Capacity Building  375

CD01-10/14     Library Services Policy and Management Procedure  375

Communication and Events  398

CD02-10/14     Community Engagement  398

Community Programs and Services  422

CD03-10/14     Oldham Reserve Changeroom Extension Project - Update  422

Corporate Strategy & Performance  434

Finance  434

CS01-10/14     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 September 2014  434

CS02-10/14     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 August 2014  499

CS03-10/14     Collection of Rates and Service Charges Policy  512

CS04-10/14     Rates Charges Policy  519

CS05-10/14     Change Valuation of Land Method  523

Governance  528

CS06-10/14     Donations to be Considered by Council - October 2014  528

CS07-10/14     Proposed Council Meeting Dates for 2015  536

Chief Executive Office  539

Office of the CEO Reports  539

CE01-10/14     Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer  539

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 541

MN01-10/14    Cr Hugh Nguyen – Request Waiver of Fees for Vietnamese Multicultural Association  541

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 545

Item  11____ Confidential_ 545

CR01-10/14     Carabooda - Compliance  545

CR02-10/14     Acquisition of Land from Lot 8 (289) and Lot 14 (286) Gnangara Road for the Upgrade of Gnangara Road  545

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 545

Item  13____ Closure_ 545

 


Agenda

 

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

Cr Truong   Leave of Absence from 24 September to 18 October 2014 inclusive

Cr Hayden Leave of Absence from 29 September to 31 October 2014 inclusive

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-10/14       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 September 2014

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 September 2014 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:-

 

CR01-09/14 – Offer to purchase Lot 105 (196) Gnangara Road, Landsdale be amended to include the words "Absolute Majority" after the words "Delegates" in Item 3. of the resolution.

SOC02-10/14    Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 7 October 2014

That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 7 October 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  

PT01-09/14       Requesting Completion of the Walk/Cycle Path, Solaia Loop

Cr Treby presented a petition of 40 signatories from the public and residents of the Chianti Estate, Wanneroo Road, requesting the completion of the walk/cycle path to be continued from the southern end of Solaia Loop through to the northern end where the path starts again behind Contis winery.

 

 

Update

 

The dual use path (DUP) located within the Yellagonga Park reserve is identified in the Yellagonga Management Plan (YMP) and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) (formerly DEC) has constructed sections within the existing reserve (that is; MRS Parks and Recreation reserve south of Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64 (ASP 64)). ASP 64 required a Landscape Masterplan, which was prepared and identifies the DUP in a manner consistent with the YMP. ASP 64 requires that subdividers prepare a wetland rehabilitation plan and construct the DUP to the satisfaction of the DPAW and the City and this has occurred for the northern section, however the southern section has not been constructed and this is understood to be due to a receivership matter that has delayed the development and release of further stages of the subdivision with the area. Further development including the rehabilitation of the wetland buffer (inclusive of the DUP) will be delayed pending the resolution of the receivership matter. Administration understands that the affected land is currently for sale. It is anticipated that once the land is sold the development of the area will continue and the City will pursue the completion of the works in due course with the future landowner.

 

Cr Treby presented a petition of 19 residents of Vandia Pass and Trojan Bend objecting to the proposal to delete two east-west roads connecting Vandia Pass and Trojan Bend with Cheltondale Drive as per proposed Amendment No. 36 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8.

 

Update

 

The applicant is proposing amendments to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8, which will be advertised for public comment in the near future and prior to any consideration by the City.  The matter will be  presented to a Council Meeting later this year or early in 2015 if objections are received that are unable to be addressed by the applicant through further modifications to the Structure Plan.  If no objections are received or the objections received are able to be addressed, the matter may be determined under delegated authority by City Administration without being presented to Council for determination. 

 

Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 25 signatories who all reside in the Crown Mushroom buffer area requesting a moratorium on the proposed Intensive Amendment to DA2012/1349, regarding DA20144-1042, 163 Belgrade Road".

 

Update

 

The City has requested further information from the proponent before being able to progress the above development application for additional works at the property.  Until the information is received no further action will be taken by the City on this development application. It is unknown at this stage if and when this development application will be presented to Council.  Should the additional information requested be provided and should it address matters that have been raised, the development application may be able to be determined under delegated authority by City Administration without being presented to Council.

 

 

 

Cr Hewer presented a petition from 11 residents of the Eglinton area requesting that their rates be reduced significantly due to not receiving the amenities being paid for.

 

Update

 

The City's Rating Service has reviewed the petition list and are preparing the explanation of the rates charged for these properties. The City is currently arranging some site inspections on a few properties on the list so as to determine their current purpose of the land.  It is anticipated that a report in response to this petition will go to Council's 11 November meeting.

 


Cr Newton presented a petition (not in the usual format) of 92 petitioners requesting the installation of footpaths to both sides of Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive, Tapping due to speeding motorists.

 

Update

 

A report will be presented to the 11 November 2014 Council meeting.

 

 


 

Item  8      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Policies and Studies

PS01-10/14       Review of Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning

File Ref:                                              3981 – 14/248865

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider adoption of draft Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2) for the purpose of advertising, to replace existing LPP 4.2.

 

Background

Structure Plans provide a framework for the coordinated provision and arrangement of future land use, subdivision and development in proposed new urban areas, or in existing urban areas where carefully coordinated redevelopment is necessary.  The City's requirements for preparation, assessment and operation of Structure Plans are contained in Part 9 and Schedule 7 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

The existing version of LPP 4.2 was adopted by Council on 19 October 2010 to expand and elaborate on the provisions of Part 9 of DPS 2.

 

In August 2012 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) released Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines with the objectives of standardising the scope, format and content of structure plans, defining the statutory and non-statutory elements of structure plans, detailing information requirements and encouraging pre-lodgement consultation.  In addition to the guidelines prepared by the WAPC, various State and Local Planning Policies have been prepared or amended since adoption of LPP 4.2.

 

LPP 4.2 has been reviewed in the context of the WAPC Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines as well as relevant State and Local Government Policies that have been prepared or amended since LPP 4.2 was adopted by Council. A draft revised version of LPP 4.2 was presented to Council Forum on 2 September 2014 for information and discussion. 

Detail

The structure and format of the draft policy is fundamentally different to the current policy and therefore a 'tracked changes' version is not possible. Instead, a copy of the existing Policy is included as Attachment 1 and a copy of the proposed draft policy is included as Attachment 2.


 

 

The revised Policy:

 

·        Identifies and clarifies requirements for Part 1 (statutory section) of Structure Plans such as clearly identifying the type and timing of additional reports/information required in subsequent planning processes;

 

·        Identifies requirements for Part 2 (explanatory section) of Structure Plans;

 

·        Provides more detailed information regarding the circumstances and extent of technical documentation required in support of a Structure Plan; and

 

·        Provides a more streamlined advertising process for Structure Plans and Structure Plan Amendments. 

 

Key differences between the existing and revised policy are identified in a table included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

Preliminary informal consultation with the Department of Planning and key industry stakeholders has occurred in finalising the draft policy for presentation to Council. Informal feedback from industry stakeholders has been positive and feedback received from the Department of Planning has not identified any matters that would prevent Council from considering initiation of advertising. Minor changes to the Policy, primarily to more clearly articulate policy provisions have been made since presentation to Council Forum.

 

In accordance with Clause 8.11.3.1 (a) of DPS 2, it is necessary to advertise a draft Policy for a minimum of 21 days. Administration proposes to advertise the revisions to LPP 4.2 for a period of 42 days (consistent with the advertising period applied to other draft local planning policies). A period of 42 days rather than the minimum 21 days is considered appropriate as the Policy has broad ranging implications affecting large areas of land throughout the City. A period of 42 days will provide the Department of Planning, landowners and consultants an adequate period of time to consider the Policy detail and prepare submissions. It is proposed that the Policy will be advertised by way of the following:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

After advertising, a summary of submissions received and Administration's response to those submissions will be included in a report to Council for consideration of final adoption of the Policy.  

Comment

The existing LPP 4.2 has been useful to the City and developers in providing a framework for the preparation and assessment of structure plans and structure plan amendments; however having now used the Policy for several years, Administration has identified some aspects of the Policy that could be improved.

 

The revised draft policy now better relates to the WAPC Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines and provides greater clarification on information requirements where this is necessary. The requirements of State and Local Planning Policies adopted since adoption of the existing policy are now also considered.

 

The format and structure of the revised Policy has been modified to relate to content and process requirements in an order that will facilitate easier preparation and assessment rather than being presented in the order in which clauses occur in DPS 2.

 

Overall, the revised draft policy is expected to better integrate with the WAPC Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines and related State and Local Planning Policies. Additionally, improved clarification regarding information requirements and reduced advertising timeframes is expected to result in more accurate and relevant documentation being submitted at structure plan lodgement and greater efficiencies in the assessment process.  

Statutory Compliance

Preparation and proposed advertising of LPP 4.2 is consistent with requirements of Clause 8.11.3.1 of DPS 2.

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

The existing Policy lacks clarity in a number of areas and does not recognise or align with the requirements of more recently adopted State and Local Planning Policies and Guidelines. The revised draft Policy addresses these matters, and will therefore reduce the risk of conflicting information, applicant confusion and unreasonable processing times.

Policy Implications

The revised version of LPP 4.2, if finally adopted by Council, will supersede the current version of LPP 4.2. Reference to LPP 4.2 (once adopted) has been identified for inclusion in LPP 3.2 Activity Centres and LPP 4.4 Urban Water Management when those policies are next reviewed. 

Financial Implications

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

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 


 

Recommendation

That Council, PURSUANT to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the revised Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning, as contained in Attachment 2 for the purpose of advertising, and ADVERTISES it for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of:-

 

a)      Advertisement in all local newspapers circulating within the City of Wanneroo for two (2) consecutive editions;

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Existing LPP 4.2: Structure Planning

10/54052

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Draft proposed LPP 4.2: Structure Planning

14/274274

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Table of key differences between existing and draft revised LPP 4.2

14/236066

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                           8


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             10


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                         26


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                         43


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             65


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                             68

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

PS02-10/14       Proposed Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Single Dwelling House

File Ref:                                              6919V02 – 12/96167

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider adopting, for the purpose of public advertising, Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to provide exemptions under DPS 2 for single house developments.

 

 

Background

In the process of reviewing the City's development assessment and planning approval processes, Administration has noted that the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) exemption of "Single Dwelling House" from the need for approval has different terminology, to the exemption under DPS 2 for "Single House" and associated "dwelling" development. In addition, Administration noted that no definition exists for "Single Dwelling House" in DPS 2, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) or even the MRS itself.

 

The inconsistency in the wording of the exemptions under DPS 2 and the MRS, and the lack of a definition for "Single Dwelling House", mean the single house exemption under
DPS 2 is unclear and creates confusion between the requirements of the two planning schemes. Amendment No. 129 proposes to clarify these exemptions by amending DPS 2 so that the single house exemption is consistent with that of the MRS, and so that all applicable terms are clearly defined to avoid any doubt when applying and interpreting these exemptions.

 

The Amendment also seeks to ensure that incidental development associated with a single house, such as a garden shed and patio, are exempt from the need to obtain planning approval.

 

Amendment No. 129, (along with other planning implementation matters), was presented to Council Forum on 29 July 2014. After seeking further clarification and detail on the exact impacts of the Amendment, it was presented back to Council Forum on 2 September 2014.

Detail

The MRS's "Single Dwelling House" exemption is included in Part III - Zones, under the subheading "Development of Land in Zones", where subclause 24(2) states that:

 

"Approval under this Part is not required for the development of land if:

 

b)      that development consists of:

 

(i)      the erection on a lot of a single dwelling house which will be the only building on the lot..."

 

The exemptions under DPS 2 are included in subclause 6.1.3, which state that:

 

"the Council's prior Planning Approval on land zoned by the Scheme is not required if the development consists of:

 

(b)     the erection on a lot of a single house which will be the only building on that lot and where a dwelling is a permitted (“P”) use in the zone in which that lot is situated...”

 

There are some clear inconsistencies between the MRS exemptions and those included in DPS 2. While the MRS exempts a "Single Dwelling House" from the need for approval, DPS 2 exempts a "Single House" from need for planning approval if a "dwelling" is a permitted ("P") use in the zone in which the development is proposed. These inconsistencies, along with the fact that "dwelling" is not a prescribed use class in DPS 2 and "Single Dwelling House" is not defined in the MRS, DPS 2 or the R Codes, mean that the exemptions are unclear and could be subject to different interpretations if not resolved.

 

Amendment No. 129 to DPS 2 proposes to clarify these exemptions by:

 

·        replacing the term "Single House", in the first sentence of subclause 6.1.3 (b) of DPS 2, with the term "Single Dwelling House", as is used in the MRS;

 

·        replacing the term "dwelling" with the DPS 2 use class "Single House"; and

 

·        including a definition for "Single Dwelling House" in DPS 2, so that both the use class 'Single House' as well as any incidental development is clearly covered by this exemption. The proposal would amend subclause 6.1.3 (b) so that it would read as follows:

 

"(b)    the erection on a lot of a Single Dwelling House which will be the only building on that lot and where a 'Single House' is a permitted (“P”) use in the zone in which that lot is situated...”; and

 

The proposed definition for "Single Dwelling House" to be inserted into Schedule 1 of the Scheme is as follows:

 

"Single Dwelling House: means a Single House, as defined by the Residential Design Codes, as well as any incidental development thereto, as defined by the Residential Design Codes."

Comment

The proposed Amendment would result in the Single House exemptions under DPS 2 being consistent with the relevant exemption under the MRS and would further clarify the extent of the DPS 2 exemption. The proposal strengthens the current DPS 2 exemption from the need to obtain planning approval for 'Single House' development in the Residential and Special Residential zones, where that use class is a permitted ("P") use. It will also apply the same exemption to incidental development, such as garden sheds and patios.

 

The proposed Amendment will formally remove the need for planning approval for 'Single House' and incidental developments in the Residential and Special Residential zones, where that use class is a permitted ("P") use, thus avoiding the delays sometimes associated with the need to obtain planning approval.

 

The proposal is consistent with the MRS and the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC's) State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), as the proposed definition of "Single Dwelling House" is based on the "Single house" and "Incidental development" definitions in the R Codes.

 

During drafting of Amendment No. 129, Administration approached the Department of Planning (DoP) seeking preliminary comment. DoP officers advised that other local governments have recently finalised similar amendments to their Planning Schemes for the purpose of streamlining development processes and that this type of amendment was encouraged.

 

Impacts of Proposed Amendment No. 129

 

Currently, development applications are required for all incidental development (sheds, pergolas, retaining walls) within the residential zone, whether the proposal is compliant with the R-Codes or not. Once a development application has been approved, often a building permit application will also be required to be lodged and checked against the National Construction Code to ensure the development is structurally sound.

 

Amendment No. 129 will remove the requirement for development applications seeking planning approval to be lodged, however, incidental development that does not comply with the R-Codes and other guidelines (e.g. setbacks) will require a 'Codes Variation' which is assessed against the design principles of the R-Codes and the City's LPP 2.1 by the City’s Building Services Section. With the assistance of the Planning Implementation Section, as required, the application can be reviewed to ensure that the proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding area.

 

Two flow on benefits of Amendment No. 129 are:

 

·        Financial saving to land owners who no longer need to submit applications for planning approval and the associated fees; and

·        Reduced timeframes for compliant development.

 

For the above reasons Administration recommends the initiation of Amendment No. 129 for the purposes of advertising.

Consultation

All scheme amendments must (by law) be 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;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website;  and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

The Town Planning Regulations provide that where an amendment is consistent with the MRS and State policies and strategies, then the consent of the WAPC will not be required to advertise the amendment. However, if an advertising period of less than 42 days is proposed, the WAPC’s consent to advertise is required.

 

Given that the proposed amendment is consistent with the MRS and State Planning Policies, as discussed in the Comment section of this report, and an advertising period of 42 days is recommended, the consent of the WAPC to advertise is not required in this instance.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Should Council support the recommendation to initiate the Amendment it is considered there would be a slight decrease in fees being received by the City; however, Administration would be able to offer an increased service. Should Council refuse to initiate the Amendment it is considered the City would remain at status quo which is not considered by Administration as the best level of service to the community. 

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Should Council support the recommendation to initiate the Amendment it is considered there would be a slight decrease in fees being received by the City.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by:

a)      Replacing the words Single House" with the words "Single Dwelling House" within the first sentence of subclause 6.1.3 (b);

b)      Replacing the word "dwelling" with the words "'Single House'" in subclause 6.1.3 (b); and

c)      Inserting the following definition into Schedule 1 - Interpretations under
1. General Definitions:

"Single Dwelling House: means a Single House, as defined by the Residential Design Codes, as well as any incidental development thereto, as defined by the Residential Design Codes."

 

2.      REFERS Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority for comment pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

 

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

 

4.      FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 129 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                             73

 

PS03-10/14       Adoption of Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2

File Ref:                                              9933 – 14/239279

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

Drescher & Associates

Owner

Alkimos Baptist College

Location

Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa

Site Area

20,397m²

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Special Use

 

 

Background

On 19 September 1997, an 'Educational Establishment' was approved (DA6637) by the then Shire of Wanneroo on what was known as Lot 1803 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa (the parent property of the subject site) under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). The use-class 'Educational Establishment' was an 'AA' use within the Residential Zone under TPS 1, which meant that the use is not permitted unless approval is granted by Council. A Location Plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

 

On 20 October 2008, a change of use application was approved by the City for a 'Place of Worship' and 'Educational Establishment' on Lot 1803.  A 'Place of Worship' is an 'A' use and an 'Education Establishment' is an 'X' use within the Residential Zone under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). However, the 'Educational Establishment' was previously approved under TPS 1 and therefore non-conforming use rights existed for the school site.

 

In March 2009, Amendment No. 101 to DPS 2 was lodged with the City, which proposed the following:

 

1.       Recode the eastern half of Lot 1803 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa (parent lot) from 'R20' to 'R40', for the purpose of developing a grouped dwelling development; and,

 

2.       Rezone the remainder of the site from 'Residential' to 'Private Clubs and Recreation' for the purpose of continuing the existing school site in operation.

 

Council resolved at its Meeting on 25 August 2009 to adopt Amendment No. 101, and on 1 September 2009 forwarded the Amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The Hon. Minister for Planning supported the amendment on 16 July 2010, subject to the proposal being modified to zone the western half of the site from 'Private Clubs and Recreation' to 'Special Use', and inserting three (3) separate conditions into Schedule 2 – Section 3 - Special Use Zone Table which relate to the proposed school site.

 

The conditions included as part of the Special Use Zone (No. 2-3) are stated as follows (numbering included):

 

1.       "The use of Educational Establishment is restricted to the existing school buildings and any minor extension approved by Council."

 

2.       "The area between existing school buildings and Grand Paradiso Parade is to be retained for the use of the Educational Establishment as open space or playground area."

 

3.       "The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 290 students."

      

Since the adoption of Amendment No. 101, Lot 1803 has been subdivided; with the school site now being known as Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa. Other small additions related to the 'Educational Establishment' have been approved by the City on Lot 900, including three (3) transportable classrooms, toilet facilities, shed additions and shade sails.

 

On 7 July 2013, Drescher & Associates on behalf of the landowner, Alkimos Baptist College, lodged Amendment No. 137 to DPS 2 to amend the wording of a condition (item 3 listed above) of Schedule 2 - Section 3 – Special Use Zone (No. 2-3).

 

Council, at its meeting of 29 April 2014 considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS04-04/14):

 

“That Council:

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, INITIATES Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by amending the wording of a condition of Schedule 2 - Section 3 – Special Use Zone (No. 2-3) to the following:

 

          "The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 410 students until 31 December 2016, at which point, after this date the Educational Establishment shall revert to a maximum of 290 students, unless Council otherwise approves an extension to this timeframe."

 

2.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, FORWARDS Amendment No. 137 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. 137 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. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information."

1.                         

 

Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment documentation.

Detail

Amendment No. 137 seeks to amend the current condition ("The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 290 students") to state the following:

 

"The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 410 students until 31 December 2016, at which point, after this date the Educational Establishment shall revert to a maximum of 290 students, unless Council otherwise approves an extension to this timeframe."

 

The applicant has lodged the amendment proposal in order to accommodate year 11 and 12 students until such time as another campus for the Alkimos Baptist College is developed at a new site in Alkimos. It is anticipated that the new school in Alkimos will be open by February 2017 and the school site in Merriwa will continue to operate, but revert back to 290 students.

In accordance with Table 2 (Clause 4.4) – 'Car Parking Standards' of the City of Wanneroo's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), a total of 85 car bays would be required to facilitate the proposed 410 students on-site. Currently there are only 61 existing on-street and on-site car parking bays.

 

In order to provide the City with some assurance that the required amount of car bays can be provided on-site, the applicant has included a car parking arrangement plan (refer Attachment 3) which illustrates a total of 107 car parking bay on-site and on-street.

 

The additional car parking bays located off Dalvik Avenue have already been approved by the City as part of Development Application DA2013/1143, and the provision of these bays was a condition of planning approval. The remaining car parking bays off Seagrove Boulevard will need to be approved by the City through a development application and constructed by the applicant in order to accommodate the increase in student numbers. The proponent has indicated that they will lodge an application with the City shortly after final approval of the Amendment.  

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the Amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 26 May 2014, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.  The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 21 July 2014 and 2 September 2014 by way of on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to 91 affected and nearby landowners. The City received no submissions within this advertising period.

 

Comment

 

In assessing the Amendment, Administration considered that the only issue associated with the increase in students numbers, would be the availability of car parking bays and any associated vehicular traffic.

 

Vehicular traffic will increase as a result of the Amendment. However, it is considered that providing adequate car parking will help move vehicles off the street and alleviate congestion.

 

The proposed 107 on-street and on-site car parking bays shown in Attachment 3 are considered satisfactory by Administration, as the number of bays proposed exceeds the required amount by 22 bays. Therefore, it is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed the car parking on-site and demonstrated that the required number of bays can be provided to accommodate the increase in student numbers.

 

Based on the above, it is recommended by Administration that the Amendment be adopted without modification and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination.


 

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 137 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

In accordance with Regulation 17(2), Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 137 and must resolve to either (a) adopt the amendment with or without modification, or (b) not proceed with the amendment.

 

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

 

Administration recommends that Council adopts Amendment No. 137 in accordance with Regulation 17(2)(a) without modification.

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

Nil

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, ADOPTS Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, as shown in Attachment 2 without any modification;

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the Amendment No. 137 documentation by the Director, Planning and Sustainability; and

 

 

 

3.       FORWARDS the Amendment No. 137 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration, REQUESTING the Hon. Minister for Planning grant final approval of the Amendment.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

14/276153

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 Documents

14/161113

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Car Parking Proposal - 60 Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa

14/276155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             78


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                         79


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             90


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                         91


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             92


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             94


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                             95

PS04-10/14       Adoption of Amendment No. 131 to District Planning Scheme No. 2

File Ref:                                              8580 – 14/244327

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil.

Attachments:                                       4  

Previous Items:                                   PS02-11/13 Report;   PS02-11/13 Resolution- Adoption of Amendment No. 131 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Ordinary Council - 12 Nov 2013 7.00pm      

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public re-advertising of Amendment No. 131 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

Drescher & Associates

Owner

Ian William Storey & Julia Frances Storey, Colin Strafford Heap, Mr Gaetano Genovese & Maria Genovese

Location

Lot 141 (14) Clyde Court, Wanneroo

Lot 142 (15) Clyde Court, Wanneroo

Lot 143 (7) Clyde Court, Wanneroo

Site Area

2002.57 m² (Lot 141)

2003 m² (Lot 142)

2005 m² (Lot 143)

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

 

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 12 November 2013 (refer item PS02-01/13) resolved to adopt, without modification, Amendment No. 131 to DPS 2 to recode Lots 141 (14), 142 (15) and 143 (7) Clyde Court, Wanneroo from Residential R5 to Residential R20. This has the potential for the landowners to subdivide the land in the future, should they choose to do so.

 

In accordance with the Council's resolution (refer item PS02-01/13), the amendment documentation was forwarded to Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its consideration requesting the Hon Minister of Planning grant final approval to the Amendment.

 

Attachment 1 contains the location plan depicting the subject lots and Attachment 2 contains the Amendment plan showing the existing and proposed Residential Density Code map.

Detail

The Department of Planning has expressed a concern to the City that the landowners of six lots backing onto the subject land have not been provided with sufficient notification of the proposed Amendment.

 

Accordingly, the Department of Planning, pursuant to Section 83 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 18 (1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, has requested the City to re-advertise by way of letters to the six specific landowners for a period of 42 days.

 

 

 

Attachment 3 contains the location plan depicting the extent of re-adverting as requested by the Department of Planning.

Consultation

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 15 July 2014 and 26 August 2014 by way of letters to the landowners of the following properties:

 

·    Lots 149, 150 and 151 James Spiers Drive, Wanneroo; and

 

·    Lots 301, 302 and 303 St Fillans Bend, Wanneroo.

 

During the submission period one submission was received objecting to the proposal. A summary of the submission received and Administration's response is included as Attachment 4, and is discussed in the ‘Comment’ section below.

Comment

The objection relates to the following matters:

 

·    Loss of privacy, amenity and overshadowing as a result of the proposal; and

 

·    Loss of land value.

 

Privacy, amenity and overshadowing are regulated by the State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes and will be considered by the City upon application for any future dwellings at the development application stage.

 

The proposed increase in density from Residential R5 to Residential R20 is consistent with the R20 coded land to the south and east (refer to Attachment 2) and also with the objective and principles of the City's Local Housing Strategy. The Local Housing Strategy pursuant to Clause 9.2.1 (d) recommends that the existing residential areas within 250 metres of main bus routes have a density of 20-30 dwelling units/site hectare. The proposed residential R20 coding achieves a density of 22 dwelling units/site hectare which is within the recommended density range. This principle is further reinforced by the WAPC's Directions 2031 and Beyond Strategy which seeks to achieve higher residential densities within existing neighbourhoods. As such, the proposal is considered to be in line with the local and state planning strategies.

 

The potential decrease in property values in the locality resulting from this proposal is not deemed by Administration to be a valid planning consideration.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the Amendment be adopted without modification and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 131 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

In accordance with Regulation 17 (2), Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect to Amendment 131 and must resolve to either (a) adopt the amendment with or without modification, or (b) not proceed with the amendment.

 


 

 

 

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

 

Administration recommends that Council adopts Amendment No. 131 in accordance with Regulation 17 (2) (a), without modification.

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

Council's decision to adopt this amendment is not considered to raise any specific risk management concerns for the City.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No. 131 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to recode Lots 141 (14), 142 (15), and 143 (7) Clyde Court, Wanneroo from Residential R5 to Residential R20 as shown in Attachment 2;

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the Amendment No. 131 documentation by the Director, Planning and Sustainability;


 

 

3.       FORWARDS the Amendment No. 131 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon. Minister for Planning grant final approval to the amendment;  and

4.       NOTES the submission in Attachment 4, ENDORSES Administration's responses to and recommendations on each, FORWARDS the submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Amendment 1 - Location Plan

13/45600

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Proposed Residential Coding

13/45597

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Location Plan Depicting the Extent of Re-advertising

14/248734

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Summary of Submitters Comments on Amendment No. 131 to DPS 2

14/267415

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                             99


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       100


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           101


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           102


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           103

PS05-10/14       Adoption of Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80

File Ref:                                              2957-04 – 14/245718

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan (ASP 80) and determination of the amendments.

 

Applicant – Amendment No. 3

Turner Master Planners Australia

Applicant – Amendment No. 4

Wakefield Planning

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

 

 

Background

Amendments No. 3 and No. 4 to ASP 80 affect 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.  The purpose of both amendments is to alter land use permissibility on Lot 810 and Lot 811, as outlined in the 'Detail' section, below.

 

Amendment No. 3 – Lodgement and Previous Considerations

 

On 4 April 2014, Turner Master Planners, 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 Elected 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 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

As outlined in the 'Detail' section below, although Amendment No. 4 also proposes 'Medical Centre' as a discretionary (or 'D') use on Lot 810 and Lot 811, the landowner intended for Amendment No. 3 to be considered independently to Amendment No. 4, so that Medical Centre and Pharmacy could then be established in a timely manner.

 

At its Meeting of 16 September 2014 (PS03-09/14), and at the request of the landowner, Administration presented Amendment No. 3 to Council for its consideration. Administration had recommended that Amendment No. 3 not be adopted, as the proposal did not satisfy the current Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct of ASP 80.

 

 

 

However, Council resolved to defer consideration of this Amendment to the 14 October 2014 Council Meeting, so it could consider Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 4. As discussed in the ‘Comment’ section below, although Amendment No. 3 could not be considered in light of the existing Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct, it could be considered under the Statement of Intent proposed to be applied as part of Amendment No. 4.

 

Applications that are not determined within 60 days from the close of advertising are deemed refused under Clause 9.6.4 of DPS 2, for the purpose of a right to review at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). In the case of Amendment No. 3, 60 days from the close of advertising occurred on 22 August 2014, and therefore a right to review at the SAT exists. The applicant exercised this right for review on 10 September 2014 by lodging an application for review at the SAT. Administration then attended a Directions Hearing on 3 October 2014, where the SAT has issued orders, inviting Council to reconsider the deemed refusal at this Council Meeting pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

 

Amendment No. 4 – Lodgement and Previous Considerations

 

On 30 May 2014, Wakefield Planning Australia, on behalf of the landowners, lodged Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80.  On 18 June 2014, the Manager Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for Elected 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. 4 to the ASP 80 was carried out between 15 July 2014 and 26 August 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of 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 Amendments No. 3 and No. 4.


 

 

Detail

Amendment No. 3

 

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)

 

Amendment No. 3 was submitted prior to Amendment No. 4.  The landowner intended for this Amendment to be considered independently to Amendment No. 4, so that a Medical Centre and Pharmacy could be provided in a timely manner.  However, when Administration reviewed the proposal following the advertising period, Administration considered it necessary for Council to consider both amendments simultaneously for reasons outlined in the 'Comment' section of this Report (under the sub-heading 'Administration Comment – Amendment No. 3', below).

 

Amendment No. 4

 

The Amendment No. 4 documentation is included as Attachment 3.  The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to address land use permissibility on Lot 810 and Lot 811 through one comprehensive amendment.

 

A table outlining the changes proposed as part of Amendment No. 4 – in relation to the ASP 80 text – is included as Attachment 4.

Consultation

Both Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 were 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.

 

Amendment No. 3

 

Administration advertised Amendment No. 3 from 13 May 2014 to 24 June 2014, with four submissions received.  The submissions objecting to the proposal expressed concerns regarding Council's previous consideration, conflict with the Statement of Intent and the viability of nearby designated activity centres.  A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 5.

 

Amendment No. 4

 

Administration advertised Amendment No. 4 from 15 July 2014 to 26 August 2014, with six submissions received.  The submissions objecting to the proposal predominantly expressed concerns regarding the viability of nearby centres.  A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 6.


 

 

Comment

Administration Comment – Amendment No. 3

 

Amendment No. 3 proposes to modify Clause 2.1 of Table C by adding the 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' to the list of discretionary (or 'D') uses.

 

In the absence of the revised Statements of Intent proposed in Amendment No. 4 (refer to the sub-section 'Administration Comment – Amendment No. 4', below), this proposal would have been considered on the current Statement of Intent.  This Amendment proposal does not satisfy the current Statement of Intent, for the following reasons:

 

·        Administration did not consider 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' as 'niche businesses'. 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.  The Administration does not consider these services as 'niche', as they are not specialised or different to what other typical medical practitioners and pharmacies provide;

 

·        The 'Medical Centre' use is considered to be a land use relating to the treatment of human ailment or injury, and therefore cannot be considered as a 'cultural use'. Similarly, as the Pharmacy is intended to operate in conjunction with the Medical Centre, this use too is not considered a 'cultural use'; and

 

·        Medical Centre would not depend on exposure to Wanneroo Road, but rather would attract business from receiving patients who are ill or injured.  Similarly, the applicant has outlined that the Pharmacy is reliant on the proposed adjoining Medical Centre; and as such, would not fully depend on passing traffic to attract business.

 

The proposed changes to the Statement of Intent (as discussed under the sub-heading 'Administration Comment – Amendment No. 4, as below) are aligned to this Amendment.  One of the items in the (revised) Statement of Intent is for Lot 810 and Lot 811 to accommodate a health facility (among other use types).  As the Pharmacy would be supporting the health facilities, this use too is considered aligned to the (revised) Statement of Intent.

 

Therefore, Administration recommends Council adopt Amendment No. 3, subject to Council resolving to adopt the modifications to the Statements of Intent as proposed under Amendment No. 4.

 

Administration Comment – Amendment No. 4

 

Amendment No. 4 proposes extensive changes to the ASP 80 text, all of which are outlined in the Table included as Attachment 4.  The comments below expand and further discuss two key matters associated with the Amendment proposal, being the modifications to the Intent of the Central Precinct and the modified land use permissibility.

 

Intent of the Central Precinct

 

The current 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."

 

Amendment No. 4 proposes to create two distinct 'Special Use' zones within the Central Precinct.  Special Use Zone 'A' would encompass Lot 1 and Lot 132, and Special Use Zone 'B' would encompass Lot 810 and Lot 811. The Amendment proposes alternate Statements of Intent for the two Special Use zones. The Statement of Intent for Special Use Zone 'A' reflects the current Statement of Intent, whereas the Amendment proposes a new Statement of Intent to be applicable for Special Use Zone 'B'. Collectively, the Statement of Intent as proposed by the applicant is as follows:

 

1.1     The intent of the Special Use Zone “A” within 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.

 

1.2     The intent of the Special Use Zone “B” within the Central Precinct is to accommodate showrooms as well as providing for retail and commercial businesses which require large areas such as bulky goods and category/theme-based retail outlets which are destination based and generally have a wide but thin catchment and which due to their nature are generally not appropriate in or cannot readily be accommodated in a traditional district or neighbourhood centre.

 

1.3     Development within both the Special Use Zone “A” and the Special Use Zone “B” is encouraged to provide a built form that respects and recognises the environment of Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

Administration has considered the wording of the proposed Statement of Intent.  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'.  The current Statement of Intent of ASP 80 is considered restrictive in allowing 'out-of-centre' development to be carried out in accordance with LPP 3.2.

 

The wording proposed for Statement of Intent item 1.2 is recommended to be expanded to align with the provisions of LPP 3.2 and SPP 4.2.  To better align with LPP 3.2 and SPP 4.2, minor modifications to Statement of Intent item 1.2 are proposed by Administration, so that the resulting Statement of Intent states as follows:

 

 

 

 

1.2     The intent of the Special Use Zone “B” within the Central Precinct is to accommodate 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; and

·        Do not significantly compromise the viability of nearby Activity Centres.

This modification is reflected in the Schedule of Modifications (included as Attachment 8) and is supported by the applicant.

 

Administration supports the applicant's proposed Statements of Intent item 1.1 and item 1.3, and these are not subject to any recommended modification by Administration.

 

Changes to Land Use Definitions and Permissibility

 

Administration has reviewed all proposed land use permissibility and definition changes proposed under Amendment No. 4. A summary of that review is outlined in the Table included as Attachment 7.

 

The key land use permissibility changes are discussed below:

 

Beauty Parlour - Administration considers a typical 'Beauty Parlour' if established on Lot 810 and Lot 811 would not satisfy the Statement of Intent item 1.2, as proposed to be modified by Administration. Typically, this use is considered more appropriate in an Activity Centre. However, Administration is supportive for this land use being a 'D' use on Lot 810 and Lot 811, subject to a modification to the amendment proposal that incorporates the following condition:

 

"With a general training component and with a minimum area of 150m2."

 

Without the inclusion of the condition above, the 'Beauty Parlour' use class is not considered to satisfy the Statement of Intent item 1.2, as proposed by Administration. The same condition as above is currently applied in ASP 80 for the 'Hairdresser' land use.

 

Bank – The proposed permissibility of the ‘Bank’ land use is not considered to satisfy the Statement of Intent item 1.2, as proposed to be modified by Administration. Although this use is considered a 'commercial' facility, and could generate vehicle trips from customers, this use on Lot 810 and Lot 811 is considered capable of compromising the viability of nearby Activity Centres.

 

Shop – The proposed permissibility of the ‘Shop’ land use from 'X' to 'D' is not considered to satisfy the Statement of Intent item 1.2, as proposed to be modified by Administration.

 

The applicant has argued that the proposed condition of imposing a minimum retail net lettable area of 200sqm is suitable, as 200sqm is typically larger than 'Shop' tenancies found in Activity Centres. Administration considers that the 'Shop' land use (even with the proposed conditions) is capable of compromising the viability of nearby Activity Centres. The discrepancy with the Statement of Intent is not related to the minimum retail net lettable area of the 'Shop' tenancy, but rather how the 'Shop' use would compromise the viability of Activity Centres. For example, such premises that would not be prohibited under the condition proposed include newsagents, florists, variety stores (such as Red Dot or Thingz), clothing shops and jewellery stores.


 

 

These premises should they be established with a retail net lettable area of more than 200sqm are considered to have a similar impact on the viability nearby Activity Centres than if they were established with a retail net lettable area of less than 200sqm.

 

Furthermore, the retail net lettable area prescribed is not limited to the floorspace that goods are displayed for sale. The NLA would also include areas not typically accessible for customers such as common staff facilities, and storage areas. This could result in 'Shops' being established where goods are displayed for sale in an area significantly less than 200sqm.

 

General Store and Showroom – The proposed 'General Store' land use is intended to accommodate retail premise types that provide for a general range of goods, including but not dominated by food and groceries. The applicant has sited "Aldi" as a business that would be considered as a 'General Store', as it would provide a general range of goods, including but not dominated by food and groceries. The applicant has stipulated in their Explanatory Report that food and groceries would occupy between 30% and 40% of the floor area as compared to a typical supermarket where these items typically occupy over 60% of the floor area.  In addition, the floorspace of these stores is substantially less than a "full line" supermarket, with floor areas of up to 1500sqm being common, as compared to the 2500sqm "entry size" full-line supermarket (such as Woolworths and Coles).

 

Provided it is controlled appropriately, Administration considers the small-scale display of household goods, food and groceries could be appropriate for an 'out-of-centre' development. Rather than introducing the 'General Store' land use, Administration considers that imposing conditions for the 'Showroom' use class is more appropriate. The current definition for 'General Store' allows for the sale of general merchandise; however, the sale of food and groceries is restricted to 40% of the floorspace. There is no restriction for the remaining 60% of the premise being used for the display and sale of other goods (that are not food and groceries) that may be more appropriate being sold in 'Shops' located in a nearby Activity Centre.

 

The condition that is proposed by Administration to be imposed for the 'Showroom' use class to respond to this issue is as follows:

 

"Notwithstanding the definition of 'Showroom' outlined in Schedule 1 of DPS 2, the City may permit a showroom premise to contain up to 35% of NLA to be used for the display and sale of household goods, food and groceries".

 

Further to the above, because of the discretionary nature of the condition above, the land use permissibility for 'Showroom' should remain as 'D'. Therefore, Administration does not support the land use permissibility for 'Showroom' being modified from 'D' to 'P'.

 

No change is proposed in limiting Showroom NLA to 5,500sqm on Lot 810 and Lot 811, as currently prescribed in ASP 80.

 

Mast or Antenna and Telecommunications InfrastructureThe proposed permissibility of the ‘Mast or Antenna’ or 'Telecommunications Infrastructure' land uses are not considered to satisfy the Statement of Intent item 1.2 (as proposed to be modified by Administration) and item 1.3 (as proposed by the applicant). Although these uses will not compromise the viability of nearby activity centres, these uses:

·    will not attract a significant number of employees or users and/or has the potential to generate significant vehicle trips from interested persons; and

·    are not considered capable in providing for a built form that recognises the environment of Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

 

 

Growers Mart – Administration supports the amendment proposing to modify the land use permissibility of 'Growers Mart' from 'D' to 'P'. This modification to the permissibility does not conflict with the Statement of Intent item 1.2 (as proposed to be modified by Administration) as the land use permissibility change is not considered to have significant planning implications on nearby Activity Centres.

 

The applicant is seeking a revised definition of 'Growers Mart' as follows:

 

Growers Martmeans an area of land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution and retail sale of fresh food products through multiple tenancies and includes the sale of other food products provided these are both ancillary to and subordinate to the primary use of the land.

 

The applicant has advised that the definition as above avoids the term 'primary produce', but instead looks to a definition including the term 'fresh food'. Fresh food, by common usage is food that generally has a limited life (i.e. has a 'use-by' date, rather than a 'best before date') without freezing or further processing and which would include all the current elements at the Drover's Grower's Mart.

 

However; Administration is proposing further modification to the applicant's proposed definition of 'Growers Mart', so that the definition reads as follows:

 

Growers Mart — means an area of land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution and retail sale of fresh food products through multiple contiguous tenancies.

 

Administration's rationale for the proposed definition is as below:

 

·        The proposed definition includes the word 'contiguous' to satisfy the applicant's intention for the tenancies within the Growers Mart to be clustered together; and

 

·        Administration's proposed definition would also remove text that relates to the sale of other food products that are ancillary or subordinate to fresh food products sold in the Growers Mart. Administration considers that the sale of other food products that are ancillary or subordinate can be considered under Section 2.3 of Table C, as proposed by the applicant (refer to Item 11 in the Table included as Attachment 4).

 

Minimum net lettable area for Liquor Store – The existing land use of 'Large Format Liquor Store' currently has a condition in ASP 80 requiring a minimum area of 1250sqm. This Amendment proposes this use (re-classified to 'Liquor Store' to coincide with the term used in DPS 2) to have a minimum area of 950sqm. Administration considers 'large-format' liquor stores satisfy Administration's proposed Statement of Intent, as these premises would attract a significant number of employees or users, generate significant vehicle trips and do not comprise the viability of activity centres.

 

Permissibility of Hairdresser, Liquor Store and Storage Yard – The existing land uses of 'Large Format Liquor Store' and 'Self Storage Units' (now proposed under Amendment No. 4 to be referred to as 'Liquor Store' and 'Storage Yard' respectively) are 'D' uses on Lot 811 only, whereas the 'Hairdresser' land use is a 'D' use on Lot 810 only. As both Lot 810 and Lot 811 currently (and are proposed to) have the same Special Use zoning and Statement of Intent, there is no planning basis for these land uses to be prohibited on one lot, yet permissible on the respective adjoining lot.

 

Administration supports the land use permissibility for Hairdresser, Liquor Store and Storage Yard on both Lot 810 and Lot 811 being modified from 'D' to 'P' in this instance. This modification to the land use permissibility satisfies Statement of Intent item 1.2 (as proposed to be modified by Administration), for the following reasons:

 

·        These uses (incorporating the respective conditions on floor space and training component) are considered as commercial facilities;

·        These uses could potentially generate significant vehicle trips from customers or other interested persons; and

·        These uses are unlikely to have significant planning implications on nearby Activity Centres.

 

Subsequent Correspondence from the Applicant – Amendment No. 4

 

On 23 September 2014, the applicant requested Administration's consideration of further modifications to ASP 80 relating to the 'Showroom' definition. Rather than deleting the 'Showroom' definition currently outlined in Section 2.4 of Table C of ASP 80 (as the Amendment currently proposes), the applicant has requested that the 'Showroom' definition be retained and modified as follows (changes emphasised in bold):

 

Showroom Definition – Means the land or premises used to display, sell by wholesale or retail, or hire, goods such as  automotive parts and accessories, camping and sporting equipment, electrical light fitting, pet supplies, floor coverings, furnishings, furniture, household appliances (where such household appliances are not of a bulky nature, or otherwise permitted by this definition, the display of such household appliances is not to exceed 10% of the NLA of an individual showroom premises area), party supplies, specialist clothing,  hardware, or goods of a bulky nature but excludes open air displays.  May include foodstuffs up to a limit of 680m2 or 70% whichever is the lesser, per showroom tenancy.

 

On consideration of this request, Administration does not support the modification for the following reasons:

 

·        With regard to the sale of foodstuffs, the definition proposed above could permit the provision of small supermarkets (such as IGA Express, Coles Central, Farmer Jacks etc). Administration considers that this would compromise the viability of nearby activity centres;

 

·        With regard to specialist clothing, the definition proposed above could result in the City being required to approve clothing store types that compromise the viability of nearby activity centres and/or were not intended for Lot 810 and Lot 811; and

 

·        A use class that permits the predominant sale of foodstuffs and specialist clothing has not previously been advertised.

 

Legal Advice – Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4

 

Administration has sought legal advice from its legal representatives on Amendments No. 3 and No. 4, which has previously been provided to Elected Members under a separate cover.

 

Conclusion

 

Council and the WAPC have previously not supported the introduction of uses within the Drovers Place Precinct Structure Plan area that could be potentially located within a recognised activity centre.

 

Amendments No. 3 and No. 4 to ASP 80 are the first amendments affecting Lot 810 and Lot 811, since LPP 3.2 recognised Lot 810 and Lot 811 as an 'out-of-centre' development.  There was not that established recognition when prior Structure Plan proposals that affected Lot 810 and Lot 811 were considered by the City.


 

 

 

The revised Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct proposed in Amendment No. 4 aligns with the provisions of LPP 3.2, which has been prepared in accordance with Clause 8.11 of DPS 2, in which ASP 80 forms a part under Part 9 of DPS 2.

 

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 'out-of-centre development'.  Most land uses that are proposed to be accommodated within Lot 810 and Lot 811 are considered appropriate to exist in this out-of-centre location, whilst not undermining the viability of surrounding activity centres.

 

It is for the reasons outlined in this report that both Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 are supported in principle by Administration, subject to modifications listed in Attachment 8.

Statutory Compliance

The SAT has invited Council to consider Amendment No. 3 in accordance with section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

 

The Structure Plan Amendments have 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 adopt Amendment No. 3 without modification and adopt Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 subject to modifications.

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

Nil

Policy Implications

As discussed above, the modifications to the Statements of Intent proposed in Amendment No. 4 have been assessed and considered 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 Items 2. and 4. below;

 

2.       Pursuant to Clauses 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 3, submitted by Wakefield Planning Australia on behalf of Goldrange Pty Ltd & Greenpark Asset Pty Ltd is SATISFACTORY, subject to the recommended modifications listed in the Schedule of Modifications included as Attachment 8 being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability;

 

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, SUBMITS three copies of Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification, once modified in accordance with 2. above;

 

4.       Pursuant to Section 31 (2) (c) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, SET ASIDE the deemed refusal of Amendment No. 3, and pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, and subject to item 2. above, RESOLVE that Amendment No. 3 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2, is SATISFACTORY and SUBMITS three copies to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

 

5.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 3 and the duly modified Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN the Amendment documents; and

 

6.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 3 and Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 included as Attachment 5 and Attachment 6, ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

NEW Attachment 1 - Lots 810 & 811 (1397 & 1387) Wanneroo Road

14/280083

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Council - AMENDMENT NO 3 - DROVERS PLACE PRECINCT

14/234193

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Council - AMENDMENT NO 4 - DROVERS PLACE PRECINCT

14/234192

Minuted

4.

NEW ATTACHMENT 4 -Table Outlining Changes to ASP 80 resulting from Amendment No  4

14/280084

 

5.

NEW ATTACHMENT 5 - Summary of Submissions for Report - Amendment 3 to ASP80

14/280085

Minuted

6.

NEW ATTACHMENT 6 - Summary of Submissions for Report - Amendment No. 4 to ASP80

14/280087

Minuted

7.

NEW ATTACHMENT 7 - Table Discussing Changes to Land Use Permissibility

14/280490

 

8.

NEW ATTACHMENT 8 - Administration Recommended Modifications

14/280090

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           114


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       115


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       119


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           129


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       131


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           132


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           141


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           146


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           164


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           174


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           180

 

Development Applications

PS06-10/14       Reconsideration of Conditions - Development Application for 'Industry - Extractive' at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup

File Ref:                                              DEV11/1122 – 14/93764

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

For Council to reconsider Planning Approval conditions for the approved 'Industry – Extractive' at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup (DA2011/827).

 

Applicant

TME Town Planning and Engineering

Owner

Lime Industries Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup

Site Area

20.89 hectares

DPS 2 Zoning

Rural Resource

MRS Zoning

Rural

 

 

Background

Council's Previous Decisions

 

Council at its meeting of 23 July 2013 resolved to refuse the application for "industry – extractive and incidental earth moving equipment training" at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup (refer to PS05-07/13). The applicant was aggrieved by Council's decision, and subsequently sought to have the matter determined by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).  As part of those proceedings, this matter was scheduled for a four day Full Hearing, scheduled to commence on 9 December 2013.

 

However, as a consequence of an agreement reached between the parties in out-of-session without prejudice discussions, the Full Hearing was adjourned. Following those discussions, the SAT formally invited Council to reconsider its decision from 23 July 2013 pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

 

Council considered this item at its meeting on 10 December 2013 and resolved to defer consideration of the report to a Special Council Meeting on 17 December 2013. Council at that Special Council Meeting resolved to approve this development application subject to conditions (SPS01-12/13).

 

The applicant has sought the review of certain conditions of the approval issued in December 2013. The conditions which are now the subject of the proceedings before the SAT are outlined in the 'Detail' section below. It is these conditions which are the subject to reconsideration to be undertaken by Council.

 

SAT Mediation

 

The conditions that formed the decision of Council were prepared by Administration, together with the City's solicitors, in consultation with the applicant's legal representatives. During the time the conditions were prepared, no comment was received from the applicant's legal representatives that would indicate a need for Administration to modify the conditions as prepared.

 

After Council's decision of 17 December 2013 (SPS01-12/13), the applicant expressed grievance with some of the conditions imposed; and therefore, rather than withdraw the matter, the applicant continued to exercise their rights for review through SAT. The matter was subsequently heard at a Directions Hearing on 31 January 2014, where it was resolved that the matter be the subject of Mediation, which occurred on 10 March 2014. It was at this Mediation session that the applicant agreed to provide information to the City, for it to reconsider the conditions imposed.

 

On 22 April 2014, the applicant provided information to the City. Administration requested additional information to be provided by the applicant. Some additional information was provided on 7 July 2014.

 

It was then agreed between Administration and the applicant that further Mediation was required.

 

The City's officers attended a Mediation Hearing at the SAT on 12 August 2014, together with the City's solicitors and experts in geotechnical risk and karstic features and subterranean ecology. As a result of that Mediation hearing, SAT issued Orders on 14 August 2014 that require the applicant to submit further information, and for Council to reconsider its previous decision on or before 14 October 2014.

Detail

Following Council's Planning Approval, the Applicant sought to have the following conditions from Council's decision from 17 December 2013 (SPS01-12/13) reconsidered through the SAT review process:

 

Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Karstic Features Management Plan

 

k)      Prior to undertaking any excavation on Lot 52, the landowner shall obtain the City’s written approval of a geotechnical risk assessment (Geotechnical Risk Assessment). The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to:

 

(i)      Further assess the risk of cavities beneath the operational areas of Lot 52;

 

(ii)     Include a geophysical survey carried out by a suitably qualified geophysical consultant using ground penetrating radar;

 

(iii)     If the results of the geophysical survey indicate the presence of any geophysical anomalies, include the results of further investigations into whether cavities are present beneath the operational areas of Lot 52;

 

l)        If cavities are identified as being present, or if further investigations are not undertaken in accordance with (k)(iii) above, excavation within the parts of Lot 52 identified as potentially being impacted by cavities may not occur;

 

m)     Except if the Geotechnical Risk Assessment specifies a different level for safe excavation, no excavation is to occur within 4 metres of the winter maximum groundwater level;

 

n)      Prior to undertaking any excavation on Lot 52, the landowner shall obtain the City’s written approval  of a karstic features management plan for the protection of the environmental and ecological values of the karstic features within the subject site (the Karstic Features Management Plan).


 

 

          The Karstic Features Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the policies authored or endorsed by the Environment Protection Authority, including but not limited to Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development (Guidance Statement 33) 2008;

 

o)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the Geotechnical Risk Assessment, the Karstic Features Management Plan and the report entitled “Investigation of Karst Features Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup” (the Landform Research Report) included as Attachment 6;

 

p)      In the event of an inconsistency between the Geotechnical Risk Assessment and any condition within, or document referred to in, this approval, the Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to prevail to the extent of that inconsistency;

 

Access

u)      Access to Lot 52 shall be from Nowergup Road where indicated on the site plan, via a sealed crossover designed and constructed to the City's specifications;

 

w)      The route for all haulage vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be via Wanneroo Road and Nowergup Road.  Haulage vehicles shall not:

 

·        Exit the property in an easterly direction on Nowergup Road;

 

·        Enter the property by travelling westward along Nowergup Road; or

 

·        Enter or exit the site from Dunstan Road;

 

Miscellaneous

 

jj)       The landowner is to maintain perimeter security fence around the boundary of Lot 52; and

 

kk)    No peat, landfill, soil, chemical or any other substance or material is to be brought into the site for the purposes of:

 

i)       filling the land to achieve the approved finished contour levels, or

 

ii)       blending it with the limestone extracted; or

 

iii)      manufacturing products or materials from the limestone extracted; or

 

iv)     storage or stockpiling.

Consultation

No further consultation has been undertaken since Council's previous considerations of the proposal.

Comment

Through the SAT process, the applicant has requested reconsideration of the conditions outlined in the 'Detail' section above. For reasons outlined below, Administration has recommended modification to the conditions above as well as any consequential changes necessary to some of the remaining conditions.

 

Geotechnical Risk and Karstic Features

 

The City's legal representatives sought the opinion of Douglas Partners (expert on geotechnical risk) to provide their comment on the conditions suggested by the applicant.

 

Through the subsequent SAT proceedings, Douglas Partners and the applicant's appointed experts in the equivalent field of study participated in joint conferencing and without prejudice discussions. Following those discussions, Douglas Partners formed the view that the geotechnical risks associated with the proposal could be addressed by a modified version of the conditions contained in the approval issued in December 2013. The terms of the conditions, as approved by Douglas Partners, are reflected in the terms of conditions (k), (l) and (m), which are set out under the heading Recommendations below.

 

Plans and diagrams supporting the above are included as Attachment 1.

 

The City's appointed expert on karstic features (Subterranean Ecology) is of the view that Condition (n) should still require a Karstic Features Management Plan being prepared (and approved by the City) prior to excavation.

 

To coincide with the conditions on geotechnical risk and karstic features, Administration also notes that other conditions of Planning Approval be reconsidered or added as follows:

 

·        Condition (h) and (i) is intended to refer to the Environmental Management Plan included as Attachment 2. So as not to avoid confusion with the Karstic Features Management Plan required under Condition (n), Administration recommends that Council reconsider Condition (i), so that the term 'Management Plans' is replaced with the term 'Environmental Management Plan'; and

 

·        Condition (ff) being reconsidered to require an Annual Report to contain additional information as follows:

 

o   a report on the actions taken to ensure compliance with the proposed modifications to condition (l); and

 

o   the results of any investigations or monitoring required by the Karstic Features Management Plan.

 

·        Although the approval has an expiry date as prescribed in Condition (b), some of the remaining conditions (such as revised Condition (k)) may require the applicant to complete certain actions after the date of expiry. The City's legal representatives have recommended an additional condition be included (Condition (nn)) to clarify the applicant's obligation to address the requirements of the conditions after the approval expires.

 

In light of the above, Administration recommends the following conditions:

 

h)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the Environmental Management Plan, included as Attachment 2, and the conditions of this approval;

 

i)        In the event of any inconsistency between these conditions and the Environmental Management Plan, the conditions of Planning Approval will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency;

 

k)      Within 90 days of the completion of excavation operations (or within such other period approved by the Manager Planning Implementation in writing), the landowner shall carry out a geophysical assessment of the excavated floor levels of the site, including the use of ground penetrating radar, to the satisfaction of the City, to verify that there are no adverse stability issues related to the limestone that may compromise future land use.

 

l)        The landowner must ensure that a person who is competent and experienced in identifying karst features shall carry out inspections of the faces and floors of the excavation areas on a daily basis during excavation operations and record the results. If any evidence of a cavity is identified:

 

(i)      all excavation operations in the area potentially affected by the cavity shall immediately cease and must not recommence:

 

A.      until paragraph (ii) of this condition (l) is complied with; and

 

B.      other than in accordance with paragraph (iii) of this condition (l);

 

(ii)      the landowner shall promptly obtain a geotechnical risk assessment of the affected areas from a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist (Geotechnical Risk Assessment). The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to, without limitation:

 

A.      define the area affected by the cavity identified;

B.      analyse the risks to human health and property arising from the operations on Lot 52;

C.      outline the management strategies and investigations required to reduce the risks to human health and property arising from the operations on Lot 52 to acceptable levels;

D.      contain a conclusion regarding whether it is safe for excavation operations to recommence within the area affected by cavities, and if so, the conditions on which those operations should be recommenced; and

E.      be provided in draft to the City and, in the event that the City makes comments on the Geotechnical Risk Assessment, the final Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to take those comments into account; 

 

(iii)     the landowner must comply in all respects with the Geotechnical Risk Assessment;

 

m)     Within 7 days of a request being made by the City, the landowner must provide the City with copies of its records containing the results of the inspections undertaken pursuant to condition (l);

 

o)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the:

 

(i)      The Site Plan included as Attachment 1, including so that:

 

A.      no excavation within the 'proposed pit' occurs below the levels prescribed; and

 

B.      no heavy machinery is operated on the top of the quarry face;

 

(ii)      Karstic Features Management Plan; and

 

(iii)     Geotechnical Risk Assessment, if required by condition (l);

 

ff)      By 31 July each year, a report (Annual Report) shall be submitted to the City that includes, in respect of the period from 1 July to 30 June of the year in question:

 

(i)      the progress of the excavation activities;

 

(ii)      production levels;

 

(iii)     the progress of rehabilitation undertaken and completed;

 

(iv)    the measures taken to suppress and minimise dust;

 

(v)     the measures taken to suppress and minimise noise;

 

(vi)    the number and type of community complaints and responses, and whether and how such complaints have been resolved;

 

(vii)    results of noise, dust and bore monitoring;

 

(viii)   a report on the actions taken to ensure compliance with condition (l); and

 

(ix)    the results of any investigations or monitoring required by the Karstic Features Management Plan;.

 

nn)    For the avoidance of doubt, all conditions of this approval regarding the rehabilitation, closure and future use of the site, or which otherwise requires works to be undertaken following the expiry of this approval, are enforceable notwithstanding the expiration of the approval.

 

Access (Crossover and Internal Access Road)

 

When Council considered the proposal at its Special Council Meeting of 17 December 2013, the site plan considered by Council (included as Attachment 5 to SPS01-12/13) indicated the location of a new crossover on the Nowergup Road verge adjacent to Lot 52, as well as an internal access road to connect to that crossover.

 

The applicant has requested review of this condition, to utilise an existing crossover currently situated on the Nowergup Road verge. Administration did not support the applicant using this crossover, due to its position on the verge of adjoining Lot 1 to the west. The existing crossover would require vehicles to traverse through the north-eastern corner of adjoining Lot 1, on approach to the disturbance area approved on Lot 52 (the reverse applies on exiting the property).

 

Through the Mediation process, it was agreed that the existing crossover adjoining Lot 1 would not be used, and that the applicant would construct a new crossover which does not require vehicles entering or exiting Lot 52 to encroach into neighbouring lots.

 

In light of the above, Administration considers that:

 

·        Condition (u) should still require the applicant to access Lot 52 via Nowergup Road on a sealed crossover designed and constructed to the City's specifications. This sealed crossover would be a new construction situated to the east of the existing crossover; and

 

·        Condition (v) – relating to internal access – be modified to ensure that this internal access does not encroach into neighbouring lots.

 

Therefore, Administration is proposing that Conditions (u) and (v) be reconsidered, and modified as follows:

 

u)      Access to Lot 52 shall be from Nowergup Road and via a sealed crossover, which:

 

(i)      is designed and constructed to the City's specifications; and

(ii)      aligns with the access road referred to in condition (v);

v)      The access road from Nowergup Road to Lot 52 shall be modified to avoid any encroachment onto adjoining land.  The access road from the intersection with Nowergup Road shall be constructed and sealed to ensure dust emissions from machinery and traffic are minimised;

 

The applicant supports the proposed revisions to Conditions (u) and (v) as drafted above.

 

Access (Haulage Route)

 

Both Administration and the applicant agree that the condition currently results in undesirable outcomes, particularly the possible impacts that haulage trucks could have on the properties situated on Gibbs Road. There is no basis to restrict haulage vehicles using Nowergup Road east of Lot 52, as haulage vehicles from other extractive industry sites already use this portion of road.

 

Therefore, Administration is proposing that Condition (w) is modified as follows:

 

w)      The route for all haulage vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be via Nowergup Road.  Haulage vehicles shall not enter or exit the site:

 

(i)      from Dunstan Road; or

(ii)      via Gibbs Road;

The applicant supports the proposed revisions to Condition (w) as drafted above.

 

Miscellaneous (Fencing)

 

Currently, Condition (jj) requires the applicant to install perimeter security fencing around the boundary of Lot 52.

 

The applicant has expressed their intention to undertake the following works and fence the subject site in accordance with the 'Concept Fencing and Signage Plan':

 

·        Maintain existing gates and adjacent fencing located at the existing Dunstan Road and Nowergup Road entrances to the site;

·        Repair and maintain the post and wire fencing on the eastern boundary of Lot 52, which is currently in poor condition;

·        Install and thereafter maintain new post and wire fencing along the southern boundary and portions of the western boundary; and

·        Install and maintain signage at selected locations along the boundaries and in the vicinity of the Disturbance Area.

 

The location of fencing and signage described above is included on the 'Concept Fencing and Signage Plan' included as Attachment 3.

 

The 'Concept Fencing and Signage Plan' also indicates portions of the western and northern boundaries of Lot 52 that are not proposed to be fenced.


 

The applicant's justification for the omission of fencing on these boundaries is that the existing topography (steep terrain) and dense vegetation are sufficient deterrents for unwarranted access.

 

The City's Officers have undertaken a site inspection of all lot boundaries of Lot 52. Following the site inspection, Administration agrees that topographical and environmental constraints make it impractical for the applicant to erect fencing on portions of the western and northern lot boundaries. Therefore, Administration is proposing that Condition (jj) is modified as follows:

 

jj)       Prior to the commencement of development, the landowner shall install and maintain fencing and signage in accordance with the 'Concept Fencing and Signage Plan' (included as Attachment 3), to ensure the security and safety of the operational areas within Lot 52; 

 

The applicant supports the proposed revisions to Condition (jj) as drafted above.

 

Miscellaneous (Materials onsite)

 

The applicant has requested the City reconsider Condition (kk), to permit the importation of specific chemicals used to treat the limestone extracted on the site.

 

Condition (kk) of the current approval prohibits the importation of materials for blending. The applicant has requested a reconsideration of this condition, so that calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate and molasses can be imported to the site, and blended with the extracted limestone to create agricultural lime products. To manufacture agricultural lime products, the applicant has advised Administration that approximately 1,500 tonnes of calcium hydroxide, approximately 2,500 tonnes of calcium carbonate and approximately 200 tonnes of molasses are required on a per annum basis. The applicant has also advised that the material bought onto the site would be received in bulker bags or by tanker, in quantities depending on the amount of limestone extracted. The product bought onto the site would generally be blended with the limestone on the same day.

 

The term 'Industry – Extractive' as defined in DPS 2 is not limited to limestone extraction, but also allows for the manufacture of products from the extracted material. Administration is willing to entertain the modification of condition (kk) and introduction of conditions (ll) and (mm), as the importation of the prescribed substances is necessary for the manufacturing processes, which can be carried out as part of the 'Industry – Extractive' land use.

 

Condition (ll) recommended by Administration specifies that 'reasonable quantities' of hydroxide, calcium carbonate and molasses may be bought onto the site. Administration considers 'reasonable quantities' as being the amounts sufficient for the material to be immediately blended with limestone, so that there is no surplus material that is thereafter stored or stockpiled.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration considers that Condition (kk) should still be applied to prevent the following occurring on the land:

 

·        The importation of material onto the site for the purpose of filling the land; or

 

·        The storage and stockpiling of materials not required to support the approved operations on Lot 52.

 

Therefore, Administration deems it appropriate for condition (kk) to be reworded and expanded into three conditions, as outlined below:

 

kk)    Subject to conditions (ll) and (mm) below, unless otherwise approved by the City in writing,  no peat, landfill, soil, chemical or other substance or material is to be brought onto Lot 52 for the purposes of:

(i)      filling the land to achieve the approved finished floor levels; or

(ii)      manufacturing products or materials from the limestone extracted; or

(iii)     storage or stockpiling;

ll)       Reasonable quantities of the following materials and substances may be brought onto Lot 52 for the sole purpose of blending with the limestone extracted from Lot 52 for the purpose of manufacturing agricultural lime in accordance with this approval:

(i)      Calcium hydroxide;

(ii)      Calcium carbonate; and

(iii)     Molasses;

 

mm)  The landowner may store on the site the agricultural lime produced by blending the limestone extracted from the site with one or more of the materials and substances referred to in condition (ll), or such other materials approved by the City pursuant to condition (kk), in such quantities as is reasonably required to meet the market demand for its product;

 

The applicant supports the proposed revisions to Condition (kk), and the proposed addition of Condition (ll) and (mm) as drafted above.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the SAT has invited Council to reconsider the conditions of its decision on or before 14 October 2014.

 

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

The following options are available to Council in dealing with the SAT’s invitation to reconsider the conditions of its Planning Approval:

 

1.       Advise the applicant and SAT that it is not prepared to reconsider the conditions; or

 

2.       Reconsider the conditions in light of the additional information provided by the applicant and refuse to approve revised conditions as recommended by Administration for stated reasons; or

 

3.       Reconsider the conditions in light of the additional information provided by the applicant, set aside the current conditions in dispute and approve revised conditions as recommended by Administration following consultation with the applicant.

 


 

 

If Council pursues Option 1 or 2, this matter could proceed to a full hearing at SAT, with that Hearing likely to occur later in 2014. Should the matter proceed to a Full Hearing, the SAT could reconsider conditions in dispute, and approve revised conditions that it considers appropriate. This could be a poorer outcome than if Council approves the application subject to revised conditions that Administration considers appropriate.

Policy Implications

State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials (SPP 2.4) applies to this proposal and identifies the subject site as a ‘Priority Limestone Resource’, meaning the resource is of particular significance (due to the amount of resource, its location and/or its quality). SPP 2.4 sets out the matters that Council must consider before determining applications for extractive industry. These include matters such as the significance of the resource; the effect on the environment and agricultural land; the effect of traffic, noise, dust and vibration on the amenity of the surrounding area; and the ability to rehabilitate the land for sequential land use, compatible with long term planning objectives for the area.

Financial Implications

Financial implications would be dependent on the decision of Council and the applicant's further action arising there from.

 

To date, the City has expended significant legal costs in respect of this SAT matter. Should the matter proceed to a hearing, the City is likely to incur further costs in legal and expert fees. These costs do not include the substantial Administration time involved to date and which will be further required should the matter proceed to full hearing.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ADVISES TME Town Planning Management and Engineering and the State Administrative Tribunal that, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, Council has reconsidered its decision of 17 December 2013 relating to the application for an 'Industry – Extractive' (and ancillary earthmoving equipment training) at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup and RESOLVES to set aside its previous decision (SPS01-12/13), and APPROVE the revised 'Industry – Extractive' proposal subject to the following conditions:

 

          Terms of this Approval

 

a)      This approval does not permit activities pertaining to “earthmoving equipment training” to be carried out on Lot 52;

 

b)      Subject to the following paragraphs (i) to (iii), this approval shall be valid for a total period of 10 years expiring on 10 December 2023 consisting of two consecutive 5-year periods from the date of issue.

 


 

 

(i)      At least 12 months (but not more than 18 months) prior to the end of the first 5 year period of this approval (expiring on 10 December 2018), the landowner shall submit to the City of Wanneroo a report (Compliance Report) outlining compliance with the conditions subject to this approval.

 

(ii)     With the aid of the Compliance Report, the Manager Planning Implementation shall within six months of receiving the Compliance Report, review the landowner's compliance with these conditions (including compliance with any associated plan, permit or direction).

 

(iii)    If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view (acting reasonably) that the Compliance Report is satisfactory, or if the Manager Planning Implementation does not complete their review within six months of receiving the Compliance Report, the second 5 year period of this approval will commence from the later date of either:

 

·        the expiry of the first five year period; or

 

·        the date 6 months from when the Compliance Report is submitted;

 

c)      If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view under condition (b)(ii) above (acting reasonably) that the Compliance Report is unsatisfactory or that the landowner's compliance with these conditions is unsatisfactory:

 

(i)      The Manager Planning Implementation shall as soon as possible inform the landowner in writing of the matters considered to be unsatisfactory;

 

(ii)     If those matters are addressed by the landowner to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation (acting reasonably) prior to the expiry of the first 5 year period, then the second 5 year period will commence in accordance with condition (b)(iii) above;

 

(iii)    Otherwise, the second 5 year period referred to in condition (b) above will not commence unless further planning approval is sought and obtained and all structures, plant, machinery, equipment and other material erected on Lot 52 pursuant to this approval shall be removed no later than 30 June 2019 and the site rehabilitated as outlined in this approval;

 

          Lapsing Period

 

d)      Notwithstanding condition (b) and (c) above, if the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of 24 months from the date of approval, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, no further development shall be carried out without the further approval of the City having first been sought and obtained;

 


 

Boundaries of the Disturbance Area

 

e)      All clearing of vegetation and operations relating to this approval shall be confined within the boundaries of the proposed pits (the Disturbance Area), as indicated on the site plan included as Attachment 1 (Site Plan). No other areas of Lot 52 shall be utilised in a manner subject to this approval without the further planning approval of the City;

 

          Vegetation

 

f)       All necessary permits, licences and permissions (which may include a licence issued under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and/or a permit issued under the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004) are to be obtained prior to the commencement of works related to the clearing of vegetation;

 

          Hours of Operation

 

g)      Unless alternative hours are agreed to in writing by Council, the hours of operation for the approved development shall be as follows:

 

(i)      Crushing shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays);

 

(ii)     Loading and movement of trucks into and out of the Site shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1200 on Saturday (excluding public holidays); and

 

(iii)    Clearing, establishment, excavation works and all other operations not referred to in paragraphs (i) and (ii) shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1200 on Saturday (excluding public holidays);

 

          Environmental Management Plan

 

h)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the Environmental Management Plan included as Attachment 2, and the conditions of this approval;

 

i)       In the event of any inconsistency between these conditions and the Environmental Management Plan, the conditions of Planning Approval will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency;

 

j)       Any cutting, grinding, chipping or mulching of trade waste vegetation to be utilised for soil stabilisation or dust suppression on the site shall at all times occur within the Disturbance Area. Unless agreed to in writing by the Manager Planning Implementation, trade waste vegetation not utilised on the site shall be disposed of at a landfill site that is acceptable in the opinion of the Manager Planning Implementation;

 

         


 

 

Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Karstic Features Management Plan

 

k)      Within 90 days of the completion of excavation operations (or within such other period approved by the Manager of Planning Implementation in writing), the landowner shall carry out a geophysical assessment of the excavated floor levels of the site, including the use of ground penetrating radar, to the satisfaction of the City, to verify that there are no adverse stability issues related to the limestone that may compromise future land use;

 

l)       The landowner must ensure that a person who is competent and experienced in identifying karst features shall carry out inspections of the faces and floors of the excavation areas on a daily basis during excavation operations and record the results. If any evidence of a cavity is identified:

 

(i)    all excavation operations in the area potentially affected by the cavity shall immediately cease and must not recommence:

 

A. until paragraph (ii) of this condition (l) is complied with; and

 

B. other than in accordance with paragraph (iii) of this condition (l);

 

(ii)   the landowner shall promptly obtain a geotechnical risk assessment of the affected areas from a suitably qualified and experienced geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist (Geotechnical Risk Assessment). The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to, without limitation:

 

A.      define the area affected by the cavity identified;

B.      analyse the risks to human health and property arising from the operations on Lot 52;

C.      outline the management strategies and investigations required to reduce the risks to human health and property arising from the operations on Lot 52 to acceptable levels;

D.      contain a conclusion regarding whether it is safe for excavation operations to recommence within the area affected by cavities, and if so, the conditions on which those operations should be recommenced; and

E.      be provided in draft to the City and, in the event that the City makes comments on the Geotechnical Risk Assessment, the final Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to take those comments into account; 

 

(iii) the landowner must comply in all respects with the Geotechnical Risk Assessment;

 

m)     Within 7 days of a request being made by the City, the landowner must provide the City with copies of its records containing the results of the inspections undertaken pursuant to condition (l);

 

n)      Prior to undertaking any excavation on Lot 52, the landowner shall obtain the City’s written approval  of a karstic features management plan for the protection of the environmental and ecological values of the karstic features within the subject site (the Karstic Features Management Plan).

 

          The Karstic Features Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the policies authored or endorsed by the Environment Protection Authority, including but not limited to Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development (Guidance Statement 33) 2008;

 

o)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the:

 

(i)    The Site Plan included as Attachment 1, including so that:

 

A.  no excavation within the 'proposed pit' occurs below the levels prescribed; and

 

B.  no heavy machinery is operated on the top of the quarry face;

 

(ii)   Karstic Features Management Plan; and

 

(iii)  Geotechnical Risk Assessment, if required by condition (l);

 

          The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to Prevail

 

p)      In the event of an inconsistency between the Geotechnical Risk Assessment and any condition within, or document referred to in, this approval, the Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to prevail to the extent of that inconsistency;

 

          Predictive Contour Plan and Rehabilitation Plan

 

q)      Within 12 months of this approval and thereafter on an annual basis, the landowner shall submit a Predictive Contour Plan and Rehabilitation Plan, to illustrate the intended depth and direction of excavation and extent of rehabilitation in the coming 12-month period;

 

r)       The Disturbance Area shall be progressively rehabilitated when final contour levels and grades for each stage are achieved and within 12 months of the closure of each stage. Such rehabilitation shall be in accordance with an endorsed Rehabilitation Plan;

 

Post Expiration of this Approval

 

s)      Within six months following the expiration of this approval the landowner shall provide the City a detailed feature and contour survey of the site, and a geotechnical, compaction and stabilisation certification of the excavated floor of each stage;

 

          Ancillary Facilities

 

t)       All ancillary facilities, such as (but not limited to) ablution and lunchroom facilities shall be provided on the site prior to the commencement of operations. Such facilities may be provided outside the Disturbance Area, provided that the development of these facilities would not result in a loss of vegetation that is deemed unacceptable by the Manager Planning Implementation;

 

 

Access

u)      Access to Lot 52 shall be from Nowergup Road and via a sealed crossover, which:

 

(i)    is designed and constructed to the City's specifications; and

 

(ii)   aligns with the access road referred to in condition (v);

 

v)      The access road from Nowergup Road to Lot 52 shall be modified to avoid any encroachment onto adjoining land. The access road from the intersection with Nowergup Road shall be constructed and sealed to ensure dust emissions from machinery and traffic are minimised;

 

w)     The route for all haulage vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be via Nowergup Road.  Haulage vehicles shall not enter or exit the site:

 

(i)      from Dunstan Road; or

 

(ii)     via Gibbs Road;

 

          Noise Management

 

x)      The landowner shall ensure that all approved activities are in accordance with the noise management, suppression and mitigation measures contained in the Noise Management Plan (included as Attachment 4) and ensure that the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 are complied with at all times;

 

y)      If at any time compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 cannot be maintained; the operations on site shall immediately cease until such time that operations can comply with the aforementioned Regulations;

 

z)      Within six months of commencement of extraction operations, the landowner shall commission a consultant to assess noise emissions and verify compliance with the Noise Management Plan and requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations and shall submit that consultant’s report to the City. Any recommendations contained in the report shall be undertaken by the landowner within 3 months of the date of the report;

 

aa)    To ensure that the amenity of nearby residences is not unduly interfered with, vehicles, equipment and machinery used on the site (other than trucks collecting limestone or sand from the site) must not use reversing alarms  unless those alarms are required for the safe conduct of operations on the site (in accordance with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997);

 

bb)    Any reversing alarm on any vehicle, piece of equipment or machinery shall be broad-band reversing alarms;

 


 

 

cc)    In addition to any other condition, if an officer of the City inspects the site and is satisfied that any of the operations on the site are generating an unreasonable amount of noise, or that any of those operations are not compliant with any of the conditions relating to noise emissions (including non­-compliance with the noise management measures contained in the Noise Management Plan), the City may issue a direction requiring any of the following:

 

(i)   Noise monitoring;

 

(ii)  Submission of a noise assessment;

 

(iii) Submission of an amended noise management plan and implementation of that plan;

 

(iv)  The activities on the site brought into compliance with this approval;

 

In this condition 'an unreasonable amount of noise' means noise which exceeds the levels assigned by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

dd)    Crushing of materials shall only occur in the Disturbance Area, which shall be shielded by one or more of the following:

 

(i)      the slopes of natural landforms as they exist prior to the landowner commencing the development subject to this approval; and/or

 

(ii)     constructed bunds, stockpiles and other features as described in the Noise Management Plan;

 

          Complaints and Annual Report

 

ee)    The landowner shall:

 

(i)      Keep a complaints log in which the following is to be recorded:

 

A.  the date and time, where relevant, of each complaint made and received;

 

B.  the means (telephone, email or mail) by which the complaint was made;

 

C.  any personal details of the complainant that were provided or, if no details were provided, a note to that effect;

 

D.  the nature of the complaint (including a description of the operations and the equipment to which the complaint relates);

 

E.   the steps or actions taken in, and the timing of, the response to each complaint, including any follow up contact with the complainant; and

 

F.   if no actions or steps were taken in relation to the complaint/enquiry, the reason(s) why no actions or steps were taken;

 

(ii)     respond as soon as possible, and in any event within three working days, to any complaint received and provide the City with a copy of the response; and

 

(iii)    provide the complaints' log to the City, together with a copy of any complaints received and its response upon request;

 

ff)      By 31 July each year, a report (Annual Report) shall be submitted to the City that includes, in respect of the period from 1 July to 30 June of the year in question:

 

(i)      the progress of the excavation activities;

 

(ii)     production levels;

 

(iii)    the progress of rehabilitation undertaken and completed;

 

(iv)    the measures taken to suppress and minimise dust;

 

(v)     the measures taken to suppress and minimise noise;

 

(vi)    the number and type of community complaints and responses, and whether and how such complaints have been resolved;

 

(vii)   results of noise, dust and bore monitoring;

 

(viii)  a report on the actions taken to ensure compliance with condition (l); and

 

(ix)    the results of any investigations or monitoring required by the Karstic Features Management Plan;

 

          Department Licence

 

gg)    If required, a licence from the Department of Environment Regulation, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 in respect of the:

 

(i)   the site as a prescribed premises for quarrying operations; and

 

(ii)  the use of the crusher on the site for quarrying operations,

 

must be obtained prior to the commencement of the quarry, crushing or screening operations on site;

 

          Miscellaneous

 

hh)    All activities pertaining to any vehicle or equipment wash-down or servicing shall be confined to a wash down area with a pollutant trap within the Disturbance Area, which shall be provided before any vehicle or equipment wash-down or servicing commences on the site;

 

ii)      No explosives shall be stored on Lot 52 and no blasting shall be carried out without the written approval of the Manager Planning Implementation;

 

jj)      Prior to the commencement of development, the landowner shall install and maintain fencing and signage in accordance with the 'Concept Fencing and Signage Plan' (included as Attachment 3), to ensure the security and safety of the operational areas within Lot 52;

 

kk)    Subject to conditions (ll) and (mm) below, unless otherwise approved by the City in writing,  no peat, landfill, soil, chemical or other substance or material is to be brought onto Lot 52 for the purposes of:

 

(i)         filling the land to achieve the approved finished floor levels; or

 

(ii)        manufacturing products or materials from the limestone extracted; or

 

(iii)       storage or stockpiling;

 

ll)      Reasonable quantities of the following materials and substances may be brought onto Lot 52 for the sole purpose of blending with the limestone extracted from Lot 52 for the purpose of manufacturing agricultural lime in accordance with this approval:

 

(i)         Calcium hydroxide;

 

(ii)        Calcium carbonate; and

 

(iii)       Molasses; and

 

mm) The landowner may store on the site the agricultural lime produced by blending the limestone extracted from the site with one or more of the materials and substances referred to in condition (ll), or such other materials approved by the City pursuant to condition (kk), in such quantities as is reasonably required to meet the market demand for its product.

 

nn)    For the avoidance of doubt, all conditions of this approval regarding the rehabilitation, closure and future use of the site, or which otherwise requires works to be undertaken following the expiry of this approval, are enforceable notwithstanding the expiration of the approval.

 

2.       Subject to 1. above, ADVISES the applicant that:

 

a)      In relation to various conditions contained within item 1. above, the term 'Disturbance Area' refers to the portion of Lot 52 where bounded by the 'Proposed Stage Boundaries' indicated on the site plan included in Attachment 1;

 

b)      Development subject of this approval should only be operated while the landowner/operator holds a licence approved under the City of Wanneroo Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 (Extractive Industry Licence);

 

c)      If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view (acting reasonably) that any matter identified in the Annual Report is unsatisfactory, the Manager Planning Implementation shall notify the landowner in writing of that matter and may also give direction as to how that matter may be addressed.


 

          Details of the landowner’s response to any such notification shall be included in the Compliance Report referred to in item 1(b) above, as well as the Complaints Log and the Annual Report;

 

d)      A reference to legislation or policy includes a reference to that legislation or policy as amended or replaced from time to time; and

 

e)      If required, a licence must be obtained prior to the commencement of the approved development on Lot 52 from the Department of Water, in accordance with the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), in respect of the installation of bores;

 

3.       ADVISES submitters of the decision as outlined in item 1, above; and

 

4.       ADVISES the following agencies of its decision outlined in Item 1, above:

 

a)      The Western Australian Planning Commission;

b)      The Department of Environment Regulation;

c)      The Environmental Protection Authority; and

d)      The Department of Water.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Plans to Support Reconsideration of Geotechnical Risk Conditions

14/265142

Minuted

2.

REVISED Attachment 2 - Submitted Environmental Management Plan

13/109886

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Concept Fencing and Signage Plan

14/265125

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Noise Management Plan

12/155871

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       199


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       203


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       255


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       256


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           267

 

Other Matters

PS07-10/14       Proposed Pedestrian Accessway Closure – Portion Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              14541 – 14/166883

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the permanent closure of a portion of a pedestrian access way (PAW) at Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo.

 

Background

Drescher and Associates (the proponent) on behalf of the landowners of Lot 141 (14) and Lot 142 (15) Clyde Court have sought to close a portion of a PAW formally known as Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo, and amalgamate this land into the adjoining road reserve. The portion of the PAW proposed to be closed abuts Lot 141 and Lot 142 Clyde Court, as shown on the plan included as Attachment 1.

 

The PAW has a width of 0.1 metres (10 centimetres). Rather than function as land used for pedestrian access, the PAW acts to restrict vehicular access from Calabrese Avenue to Lot 141 and Lot 142. The PAW was created following subdivision approval (that created adjoining Lot 141 and Lot 142), issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in December 1995.

 

The landowners of Lot 141 and 142 Clyde Court, together with the landowners of Lot 143 Clyde Court have lodged an amendment to the City's District Planning Scheme (Amendment No. 131), which is subject to a separate report at this Meeting. Amendment No. 131 proposes to recode Lot 141, Lot 142 and Lot 143 Clyde Court from R5 to R20. Should Amendment No. 131 be adopted by the Minister for Planning, each lot would then be capable of being subdivided into four separate land parcels.

 

A resolution of Council is required that supports the closure of the PAW and its amalgamation with the adjoining road reserve. Should Council resolve to approve the closure of the PAW, the City is required to seek the endorsement of the Western Australian Planning Commission prior to referring the proposal to the Minister for Lands for final approval.

Detail

It is proposed to close a portion of the PAW at Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo and amalgamate a portion of this land parcel with the adjoining road reserve.

 

Currently, the PAW acts as a mechanism to lawfully restrict vehicular access onto Lot 141 and Lot 142 from Calabrese Avenue. The purpose of the proposed closure is to allow for lawful access from Calabrese Avenue onto Lot 141 and Lot 142 Clyde Court, or land parcels that may be created following subdivision of those lots.

 

The portion of the PAW proposed to be closed is 0.1 metres wide, approximately 86 metres in length and a total area of approximately 8.6 square metres. There is no visible distinction between the PAW land parcel and the adjoining road reserve. Due to the dimensions of the PAW and the purpose for which it was created, it does not contain any of the typical pedestrian facilities seen on most PAW's, such as footpaths.

 

The PAW land parcel is zoned 'Residential' R5 under DPS 2. The PAW land parcel is not proposed to be recoded to R20 under Amendment 131 to DPS 2.

Consultation

In accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, Administration arranged the publication of a notice in the Wanneroo Times on 22 April 2014, inviting comment for a 35 day time period concluding on 27 May 2014.

 

Administration undertook public consultation by way of sending letters to nearby landowners. Letters were also sent to relevant government agencies and service authorities as listed below:

 

·        Department of Lands

·        Water Corporation

·        Western Power

·        ATCO Gas Australia

·        Telstra

·        Western Australian Planning Commission

·        Main Roads Western Australia

 

A summary of the comments received from surrounding landowners, servicing authorities and government agencies is included as Attachment 2.

Comment

Local Planning Policy Considerations

 

Administration has considered the proposed closure of the portion of the PAW with reference to the City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways. The proposed closure would accord with the provisions of this Policy, as pedestrian access would still be maintained through the adjoining Calabrese Avenue road reserve.

 

The Policy also requires Council to consider other matters when a PAW closure is proposed, such as anti-social behaviour and availability of alternative access. These considerations are not relevant as the PAW already presents as part of the Calabrese Avenue road reserve.

 

Assessment of the Proposal

 

The portion of the PAW proposed to be closed has a length of approximately 86 metres, all of which directly abuts a road reserve. However, a length of only 68 metres directly abuts the Calabrese Avenue carriageway. The remaining length abuts a road reserve that does not presently provide for a road.

 

Should any future road (and its intersection with Wanneroo Road) be constructed where indicated on the plan included as Attachment 3 in the future, then vehicular access into Lot 141 and Lot 142 should be provided, so that access does not conflict with the possible intersection. Therefore, Administration is willing to support closure of the PAW only to the extent as shown on the plan included in Attachment 4.

 

The current traffic volumes on Calabrese Avenue north of St. Fillans Bend do not warrant the need to restrict vehicular access onto Lot 141 and Lot 142 Clyde Court. Closing the PAW would enable vehicular access onto the land which is currently Lot 141 and Lot 142 Clyde Court.


 

If the PAW was not closed, and Amendment No. 131 was finally adopted, the lots created through subsequent subdivision of Lot 141 and Lot 142 could potentially have a battle-axe configuration. However, closing the PAW would allow the option for lots created through subdivision of Lot 141 and Lot 142 to have vehicular access from either Calabrese Avenue and/or Clyde Court.

Statutory Compliance

The City must comply with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Regulation 9 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998, dealing with public advertising, objections and service agency responses to the proposed PAW closure.

 

The Department of Lands has advised that, where a local authority makes a request under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997, the local authority must indemnify the Minister for Lands in respect of that closure.

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

Council's decision to close (or not close) the PAW is not considered to raise any specific risk management concerns for the City as the current traffic volumes on Calabrese Avenue north of St. Fillans Bend do not warrant the need to restrict vehicular access onto Lot 141 and Lot 142 Clyde Court.

Policy Implications

The request to close the PAW has been considered in reference to the City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways.

 

The Department of Planning has prepared a 'Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways – Planning Guidance' (the Procedure), which provides guidance to process and assess requests to close PAW's. The Procedure outlines the role and process of the local government, Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Lands when considering requests to close PAW's.

 

The Procedure outlines one of two processes that should be followed when considering a request to close a PAW. The first being when the PAW closure request is in accordance with a WAPC endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan, and the second being when there is no WAPC endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan. As there is no WAPC endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan that affects the PAW, the process as below should be followed:

 

·        The local government receives a request to close a PAW;

 

·        The local government refers the PAW closure request to relevant infrastructure providers and other relevant agencies;

 

·        The local government consults the community likely to be affected by the PAW closure using two or more of the following methods that it considers appropriate:

 

placement of signs at either end of the pedestrian access way advising of the proposal to close the pedestrian access way;

press release and advertisement in the local newspaper and other media (the advertisement in the newspaper is required under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997);

direct mail out to households likely to be affected by the closure;

liaison with local community groups;

stakeholder workshops;

information sessions and discussion groups;

questionnaire surveys; and

public displays.

 

Administration considered the use of an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and a direct mail out to potentially affected households as appropriate forms of consultation in this instance.

 

·        The local government then assesses the proposal. Council would then resolve to close (or not close) the PAW, and advise all affected landowners of its decision.

 

Should Council resolve to approve the closure of the PAW, the City is required to seek the endorsement of the Western Australian Planning Commission prior to referring the proposal to the Minister for Lands for final approval.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 2 in respect to the proposed closure of a portion of the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo, and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

 

2.       SUPPORTS the closure of the portion of the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo, identified in Attachment 4, and FORWARDS the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its endorsement;

 

3.       Subject to the closure of the pedestrian access way formally known Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo being endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission, AUTHORISES Administration to request the Minister for Lands to amalgamate the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 56 (15P) Clyde Court, Wanneroo, as identified in Attachment 4, into the adjoining road reserve;

 


 

 

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

 

5.       ADVISES the proponent and submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Closure of 0.1 metre PAW - Lot 56 Clyde Court, Wanneroo.pdf

14/91071

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions - Proposed PAW Closure - Clyde Court, Wanneroo

14/239787

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Proposed PAW Closure - Portion Lot 56 Clyde Court

14/176071

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Proposed PAW Closure - Clyde Court

14/265662

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       272

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           273


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           275

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           276

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           277

 

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

CB01-10/14       Application to vary the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policy 2.1 at Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall

File Ref:                                              3571 – 14/264049

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider variations to the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and Local Planning Policy 2.1 in respect to the construction of a Single Dwelling on Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall

 

Applicant

Julian Coletta

Owner

Maria Coletta

Location

Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall

Site Area

550sqm

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential – R20

 

 

Background

On the 25 March 2014 an application for a codes variation for a single dwelling at the subject site was lodged with the City (BA2014/1676). The subject site is zoned as 'Residential' and has a Residential Density Code of 'R20'. Since receiving the application, the City has liaised with the applicant regarding the requirement to comply with the City's Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development. In June 2014 however, the City was requested by the Applicant's Town Planning consultant to present the application for a code variation to Council. Advice was sought and provided by Planning Implementation, the Policy's owner, and this matter is now being presented to Council in full partnership with the applicant.

 

As per DPS No. 2 a 'Single House' is a 'P' use within a 'Residential' zone. Clause 6.1.3(b) of DPS No. 2 states that Planning Approval is not required for "the erection on a lot of a single house which will be the only building on that lot and where a dwelling is a permitted ('P') use in the zone in which that lot is situated..." As the application does not comply with the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) a codes variation is required for the Building Licence to be approved.

Detail

The applicant, Mr Julian Coletta submitted a Codes Variation Application to the City on 25 March 2014 to have the following issues considered:

 

·        Clause 5.1.3 - An eastern side setback of 1.25m in lieu of the required 1.5m

 

·        Clause 5.3.1 - An outdoor living area with minimum dimensions of 3.8m in lieu of 4.0m

 

·        Clause 5.1.4 - Open space of 45.5% in lieu of 50%


 

 

Consultation

Consultation with the owners either side of Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall was undertaken by the applicant prior to submitting the Codes Variation Application. The two properties consulted with were:

 

Lot 241, 69 Kemp Street, Pearsall

 

Lot 243, 73 Kemp Street, Pearsall

 

No objections were received from the owners of these properties.

Comment

On 26 June 2014 the City's Senior Planner provided the following

response:

 

·        Clause 5.1.3 - The side setback variation of 1.25m in lieu of 1.5m to the eastern boundary is acceptable based on no amenity or overshadowing impact.

 

·        Clause 5.3.1 - The outdoor living area variation of 3.8m in lieu of 4.0m is acceptable due to the width of the alfresco area which can be included.

 

·        Clause 5.1.4 - The open space variation of 45.5% in lieu of 50% is not supported, based on the City's Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development which states that a variation on lots greater than 350sqm is not accepted (only a 2% concession on lots less than 350sqm)

 

Items one and two of the abovementioned can be considered by applying the Design Principles of the Residential Design Codes. These Design Principles provide specific criteria that must be met for the variation to be considered. Item three is specifically addressed by the City's Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development. Element 4 of this Policy does not allow consideration of variations for lots greater than 350sqm.

Side Setback

 

In regards to item one, it was deemed that the proposed side setback variation met the Design Principles outlined in Part 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes. Consequently Administration accepted this variation.

 

Outdoor Living Area

 

In regards to item two, it was deemed that the proposed side setback variation met the Design Principles outlined in Part 5.3.1 of the Residential Design Codes. Consequently Administration accepted this variation.

 

Open Space

 

Local Planning Policy 2.1 establishes agreed standards for the assessment and determination of development applications, including the Performance Criteria (now called Design Principles) of the Residential Design Codes. More specifically the Policy prescribes:

 

·    Standards that the City will use to determine whether certain Design Principles of the R-Codes are met;

·    Standards of development that the City considered to be unacceptable; and

·    When the City is not prepared to exercise its discretion in assessing applications under the Design Principles.

 

The Policy states that a variation to the deemed-to-comply provisions for open space is unacceptable for single houses on lots larger than 350m2 as it represents 'overdevelopment'.

 

The Policy further states that unless exceptional circumstances exist, an application for a open space variation should be refused.


The lot is 550m2, a levelled standard rectangular shape with a 16m frontage and 34m deep and there is currently no buildings on the lot. Given this, there is no 'exceptional circumstances' that exist which would warrant approving the open space variation.

 

LPP2.1 is currently being reviewed by Administration, which may affect how open space is assessed in the future. However until this occurs, the provisions of the current Policy are still applicable.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City's Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council REFUSE a Codes Variation Application for a Single House at Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall relating to Open Space as it is contrary to the provisions of Local Planning Policy 2.1 Residential Development.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Lot 242, 71 Kemp Street, Pearsall

14/267443

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           280


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           283

 

Property

CB02-10/14       Cancellation of Part of Reserve 33522 (Lot 9062 Neville Drive, Wanneroo)

File Ref:                                              8179 – 14/244526

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1

Previous Items:                                   CB07-11/13 ReportCB07-11/13 - Resolution- Cancellation of Part of Reserve 33522 (Lot 9062 Neville Drive, Wanneroo) - Ordinary Council - 12 Nov 2013 7.00pm

                                                            CB04-04/13 - ReportCB04-04/13 - Resolution- Cancellation of Part of Reserve 33522 (Lot 9062 Neville Drive, Wanneroo) - Ordinary Council - 02 Apr 2013 7.00pm       

Issue

To consider submissions regarding a proposed cancellation of approximately 215m2 of Reserve 33522. 

 

Background

A small portion of Reserve 33522 (Scenic Park), having an area of 215m2, is wholly comprised within a separate parcel of Crown land, known as Lot 9062 Neville Drive, Wanneroo ("Lot 9062") (Attachment 1 refers).  Lot 9062 is more particularly described as Lot 9062 on Deposited Plan 180865 and the whole of the land comprised in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume LR3047 Folio 113.

                                                                                                                

Reserve 33522 (including Lot 9062) is managed by the City on behalf of the Crown.

 

Administration reported to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 12 November 2013 (Item CB07-11/13).  Council resolved:

 

"That Council:-

1.       NOTES that, with reference to Resolution CB04-04/13(2)(b), Hughie William Collins has withdrawn his proposal to purchase part of the 215m2 portion (approximate, subject to survey) of Reserve 33522 as is wholly comprised in Lot 9062 on Deposited Plan 180865 (being whole of the land comprised in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume LR3047 Folio 113) ("Lot 9062");

2.       SUBJECT to no submissions being received pursuant to the advertising resolved by Resolution CB04-04/13(1), RESOLVES THAT:

a)      Resolution CB04-04/13(2)(a) will be implemented by the City;

b)      CONSENTS to the disposal of Lot 9062 by the Minister for Lands to the adjacent owners, Andrew John Ayling and Sheila Ayling; and

3.       NOTES, in the event that submissions are received pursuant to the advertising resolved by Resolution CB04-04/13(1), a further report will be presented to Council for consideration."

Detail

Lot 9062 is Crown land managed by the City, meaning that any disposal would involve:

 

1.   The partial cancellation of Reserve 33522 (in so far as it applies to Lot 9062)

 

The Department of Lands has advised that a resolution of Council is required before it attends to the removal of Lot 9062 from Reserve 33522.  Following the partial cancellation of Reserve 33522 (as it applies to Lot 9062), the balance of Reserve 33522 (approximately 7,760m2 or 97.3%) will remain unchanged.

 

The consultation described in this report is the final step before the City can resolve to support the partial cancellation of Reserve 33522.

 

2.   The sale of Lot 9062 by the Minister for Lands (for the State of Western Australia) to a purchaser

 

The City will not be involved in the sale transaction.  As Reserve 33522 is not a "section 20A" reserve (a reserve arising from a subdivision process under section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2008 (WA), previously section 20A of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (WA)), the proceeds of sale will be retained by the State and will not be deposited into a trust fund or reserve. 

 

The City will not benefit from the sale and is unlikely to have any significant involvement in the sale process.

Consultation

Prior Consultation

 

In the course of Property Services' review of the proposed disposal of Lot 9062, input was previously sought from relevant City service units (namely Asset Management, Community Facilities, Parks Maintenance and Planning Implementation), service authorities, the Department of Planning and the Department of Lands.  No objections were received.

 

Recent Consultation

 

Following Council's ordinary meeting on 12 November 2013, and on the basis of input from the Department of Lands, Administration engaged in a public advertising period (in excess of 42 days) by way of:

 

·    The installation of a sign in proximity to Lot 9062, situated in the unconstructed Scenic Drive road reserve facing Kulindi Crescent, being approximately 5 metres from the edge of Kulindi Crescent and approximately 10-20 metres from Lot 9062;

 

·    An advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper on 15 April 2014;

 

·    A notice made available for viewing on the City’s website; and

 

·    A letter to Mr Collins (as the only other landowner adjoining Lot 9062) on 9 April 2014.

 

Two submissions were received. Both of the submissions objected to the proposal. The key themes raised by objectors are as follows:

 

·    The loss of amenity as a result of the excision of Lot 9062 from Reserve 33522 (Reduced Amenity).

 

·    The acquisition of Lot 9062 by the adjoining landowners, Mr and Mrs Ayling, is an unnecessary expansion of residential land into Reserve 33522 (Residential Expansion).

 

·    Mr Collins would face reduced privacy at the rear of his property at 17 Thompson Drive as a result of Mr and Mrs Ayling potentially building into Lot 9062.  Mr Collins advised that he purchased his property on the basis that he did not have a rear neighbour, and enjoyed the privacy afforded by the parkland (Reduced Privacy).

 

·    The potential that Mr and Mrs Ayling could amalgamate their properties with nearby land (they also own nearby properties at 19 Thompson Drive, 19A Thompson Drive, 19L Thompson Drive, 21 Thompson Drive and 3 Noel Court, currently having an area of approximately 3,400m2) to create a retirement village or high density housing (Development Potential).

 

·    A portion of Mr and Mrs Ayling's property at 19A Thompson Drive encroaches into Lot 9062. Allowing Mr and Mrs Ayling to acquire Lot 9062 would "reward" this encroachment (Encroachment).

 

A detailed discussion of the issues identified during the advertising process is provided in the ‘Comment’ section below.

Comment

Reduced Amenity

 

Lot 9062 is a very small part of Reserve 33522, being less than 3% of the overall reserve area.  No part of Lot 9062 is identified as a "Bush Forever" site. 

 

Given that a portion of Lot 9062 is already subject to an historical encroachment from 19A Thompson Drive (see discussion below), part of Lot 9062 is already inaccessible to the public.  This further diminishes any loss of amenity from the removal of Lot 9062 from Reserve 33522.

 

Residential Expansion

 

The zoning for Lot 9062 is unusual for a reserve area, in that it is zoned "Urban" under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme, and zoned "Residential" under the District Planning Scheme No. 2 ("DSP2").  A planning Scheme Amendment is not required for the disposal of the land.

 

Reduced Privacy

 

There are no restrictive covenants or other interests registered on the Certificates of Title for Lot 9062 or 17 Thompson Drive which would provide a permanent requirement for open space at the rear of 17 Thompson Drive, or which ensure a right to privacy to the owner of 17 Thompson Drive.

 

17 Thompson Drive will continue to adjoin Reserve 33522 following the disposal of Lot 9062, with approximately 4 metres of common boundary to remain.

 


 

Development Potential

 

Lot 9061 and all of Mr and Mrs Ayling's properties along Thompson Drive and Noel Court have a Residential Density coding of R20 under DPS2. Under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), a R20 coded lot is required to have an average lot size of 450m2.  The land is not with the City's Local Housing Strategy area.

 

The additional land area of 215m2 from Lot 9062 would create the potential for Mr and Mrs Ayling to develop only one additional dwelling on their land.

 

To facilitate a higher residential density development an amendment to the DPS2 would be required to increase the coding of Mr and Mrs Ayling's lots. Any amendment to DPS2 is subject to a lengthy and comprehensive planning process, with no certainty of approval. Firstly the amendment would need to be initiated by the Council, then advertised for public comment and presented back to Council for determination and then finally determined by the Minister of Planning. As part of this process the adjoining landowners would have an opportunity provide their comments and objections.

 

Encroachment

 

Administration only became aware of the encroachment into Lot 9062 from 19A Thompson Drive as part of the review of the proposed acquisition of Lot 9062.  The encroachment has existed for a significant period of time (possibly several decades) and may predate the current landowners.  It seems likely that the encroachment was inadvertent.

 

Administration has previously advised Mr and Mrs Ayling in writing that the encroachment should be removed, but action was deferred pending the resolution of the status of Lot 9062.

 

Notwithstanding that it would be possible to dispose of only the encroached portion of Lot 9062 to Mr and Mrs Ayling, Administration prefers the disposal of the whole of the land, as it would address the long term status of this anomalous parcel of land.

 

Conclusion

 

On the basis that:

 

·    Lot 9062 involves a very small area of Reserve 33522;

 

·    Its removal from the reserve will not significantly diminish the amenity to residents;

 

·    The unusual zoning status of Lot 9062 permits residential use;

 

·    There is no obligation for the City to ensure the privacy of adjoining landowners;

 

·    A formal Scheme Amendment process (including public consultation) would be required in the event of a proposal to develop a retirement village or high density housing on land owned by Mr and Mrs Ayling (irrespective of whether that land includes Lot 9062); and

 

·    There is no evidence that the encroachment into Lot 9062 was deliberately effected with a view to securing the ownership of the land,

 

Administration recommends that Council supports the cancellation of Reserve 33522 (in so far as it applies to Lot 9062) and consents to the disposal of Lot 9062 by the Minister for Lands to Mr and Mrs Ayling.  In the event that the cancellation is approved, the portion of Reserve 33522 would be disposed of by the State of Western Australia to Mr and Mrs Ayling.

 

The disposal of Lot 9062 will not set a precedent, given that conditions applicable to the land are unlikely to be replicated in many other properties managed by the City.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Section 51 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), the Minister for Lands may cancel or amend the boundaries of a reserve.

 

Notwithstanding that Department of Lands initially advised that the Minister for Lands has discretion to require a statutory declaration and indemnity from the managing authority before it finalises the cancellation of a reserve, subsequent officer-level advice from the Department of Lands was that, on the basis that the City will not benefit from the disposal of Lot 9062, the City should not be required to indemnify the Minister for Lands in respect of the disposal.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Administration cannot identify any risk to the City in respect of the cancellation of Reserve 33522 (in so far as it applies to Lot 9062).  Equally, there would not appear to be any risk arising from Lot 9062 remaining within Reserve 33522 (if the cancellation did not proceed for any reason).

Given that the Department of Lands will effect any disposal of Lot 9062 to Mr and Mrs Ayling, Administration cannot identify any risk to the City arising from that transaction. 

If Mr and Mrs Ayling failed to purchase Lot 9062 from the Minister for Lands, Lot 9062 would be "unallocated" Crown land, and the Department of Lands may request that the City resumes management.  In such event, Administration would recommend that Lot 9062 did not remain a separate parcel of land, and that the land was instead amalgamated with the adjoining portion of Reserve 33522.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Lot 9062 is Crown land managed by the City, and the City is not entitled to receive the proceeds of sale.  All proceeds of sale will be received by the Department of Lands.

 

Mr and Mrs Ayling have agreed to cover any costs associated with the cancellation of Reserve 33522 in so far as it applies to Lot 9062 and the sale of Lot 9062.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority


 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       REQUESTS that the Minister for Lands:

a)      Revoke the Management Order applicable to Reserve 33522 in so far as it applies to Lot 9062 on Deposited Plan 180865 (being the whole of the land comprised in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume LR3047 Folio 113) ("Lot 9062"); and

b)      cancels the portion of Reserve 33522 as is wholly comprised in Lot 9062;

2.       DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to execute such documents as are required by the Minister for Lands from the City of Wanneroo to effect that revocation of the Management Order applicable to Reserve 33522 and cancellation of the portion of Reserve 33522 in so far as the same apply to Lot 9062 and is resolved by (1);

3.       CONSENTS to the disposal of Lot 9062 by the Minister for Lands to Andrew John Ayling and Sheila Ayling; and

4.       NOTES that in the event that a sale of Lot 9062 by the Minister for Lands to Andrew John Ayling and Sheila Ayling does not proceed, the City shall agree to assume management of Lot 9062 provided that Lot 9062 is amalgamated with the adjacent parcel of Reserve 33522.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Plan - Lot 9062 (with 17 and 19A Thompson Drive, Wanneroo)

13/29620

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       289

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           290

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Projects

IN01-10/14         Tender No 01422 - Provision of Cost Planner Consultancy Services for the Design, Documentation and Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension

File Ref:                                              7819 – 14/228248

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   CE01-04/12 - ReportCE01-04/12 - Resolution- Extension of Civic/Administration Centre - Ordinary Council - 03 Apr 2012 7.00pm

                                                            IN02-03/14 - ReportIN02-03/14 - Resolution- Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project - Ordinary Council - 04 Mar 2014 7:00pm       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01422 for the Provision of Cost Planner Consultancy Services for the Design, Documentation and Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension.

 

Background

At its meeting of 4 March 2014, Council considered a report on the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project (Item IN02-03/14 refers) and resolved in part as follows:

"6         ENDORSES the preparation of tender documentation for advertising the appointment of a Cost Planner to provide cost control services for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and report the tender outcome to Council;"

This report considers tender submissions and provides a recommendation for the acceptance of a cost planning firm to provide design, cost control and administrative services for the construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Project (WCC Extension) in accordance with Resolution 6.  The scope of the cost planner services will encompass the consultancies for architectural and spatial design, bill of quantities as well as an oversight of the construction of the proposed works.

Detail

Tenders No 01422 was advertised on 19 July 2014 and closed on 5 August 2014:

Tenders Received.

Tenders were received from the following 13 companies:

 

Tenderers Received

Tender Sum

Altus Group Consulting P/L

$106,485

Slatterly Australia P/L

$140,000

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

$145,000

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

$148,400

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

$179,000

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

$181,500

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

$184,700

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

$194,000

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

$198,920

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

$206,500

PCC Australia

$212,000

WT Partnership Aust P/L

$212,214

Turner & Townsend P/L

$240,800

 

Following the Council Briefing Session on 9 September 2014, Elected Members were advised that four tenderers had overlooked costs to meet the specification clause 7.14 "Provide a Bill of Quantities in format readily available and accessible to the City and for Tenderers use". The report was subsequently withdrawn from the agenda for the Council meeting on 16 September 2014 to seek further clarification from the tenderers. As the basis for cost planning work is to focus on documentation detail, letters were issued to all tenderers to confirm that provision of Bills of Quantities for the proposed extension and fitout contracts were included in the tenders as submitted.

Slatterly Australia P/L advised it had not allowed for the provision of Bills of Quantities and would therefore seek additional fees should this tenderer be considered for appointment.  As a consequence, the Slattery tender was deemed non-conforming and excluded from further tender evaluation.

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of three members whose functions were:

 

Evaluation Panel Member

Member's Function

Project Manager Major Buildings

To undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions

Manager Infrastructure Projects

To provide engineering input and oversight to the qualitative (technical) assessment

Coordinator Building Projects

To provide engineering input and oversight to the qualitative (technical) assessment

Contracts Officer

To oversee the process for statutory compliance and verify the value for money assessment (price versus non-price ratings)

 

The tenders were evaluated in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

(a)       Tenderer’s methodology - soundness and comprehensiveness of the proposed program and examples of documentation that will be in use/required for the project;

(b)       Tenderer’s qualifications, relevant experience of the key personnel and firms capacity;

(c)       Tenderer’s ability to oversee completion of the project within the nominated or provision of an alternative timeframe; and

(d)       Price for the Services offered.

 

The weighting applied out of a total of 100% to the four selection criteria was nominated as follows:

 

Item No

Category

Description

Weight

1

Methodology

Understanding of project scope inclusive of an outline of proposed methodology

20%

2

Capacity and Key Personnel

Nominate project personnel and level of involvement

20%

3

Timeline

Project program and proposed timing

10%

4

Lump Sum Fee

Submitted Fixed Lump Sum Fee.

50%

 

Tenders were assessed against the selection criteria outlined above, along with the financial risk assessment and reference checking to determine the best ‘value for money’ submission.

 

1.       Tenderer’s Methodology and Understanding of Project (20%)

An assessment was made based upon the tenderers’ declared understanding of the project, methodology, examples of similar work, the systems that would be employed in tracking capital and operating costs and recommendations if offered. Tenderers, such as WT Partnership Aust P/L, presented a concise, clear submission that addressed and understood the requirements of the consultancy and project scope, was given the higher rankings.  Firms providing a generic methodology without reference to the requirements of the WCC Extension were ranked at the lower end of the scale. 

It is noted that Chrystalis Quantity Surveying being a newly established firm was ranked taking its operating history into account as the established tenderers held a larger cost data base upon which to draw. Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L's ranking for this criterion was influenced by its qualification that limits the pricing options during the concept design stage; whereas the architect will be required to provide several design options for the City's consideration that will need to be supported by the cost planner's pricing.

In overall assessment of this criterion tenderers were ranked as follows:

Tenderer

Ranking

WT Partnership Aust P/L

1

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

2

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

3

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

4

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

5

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

6

Turner & Townsend P/L

6

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

7

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

7

Altus Group Consulting P/L

8

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

8

PCC Australia

8

2.   Capacity and Key Personnel (20%)

All tenderers were required to nominate project personnel, their years of experience and level of involvement.  Tenderers offering Directors, such as WT Partnership Aust P/L, or more senior qualified project leaders were ranked above those offering less experienced staff.  As a consequence, tenderers were then ranked based on detail provided as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

 

WT Partnership Aust P/L

1

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

2

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

3

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

4

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

5

Turner & Townsend P/L

6

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

7

Altus Group Consulting P/L

8

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

9

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

9

PCC Australia

9

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

10

3.   Tenderer’s Timeline (10%)

The tender documentation provided a key events project time line, with tenderers that provided comment/direction upon this program given a higher evaluation. Tenderers that offered a clear programme or sample of working documentation were ranked at the higher end of the scale than those that did not provide this detail. 

Ranking for this criterion was agreed as follows:

Tenderer

Ranking

WT Partnership Aust P/L

1

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

2

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

3

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

4

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

4

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

5

Altus Group Consulting P/L

6

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

6

Turner & Townsend P/L

6

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

7

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

8

PCC Australia

9

4.   Price of Works (50%)

To obtain the required service for this project, inclusive of bills of quantities for the building extension and the internal fitout after the respective tenders have been awarded, it is normal to expect cost planners to submit fees in the order of up to 1% of the overall building cost.  Contrary to this "rule of thumb" approach to pricing, Altus Group Consulting P/L has submitted an extremely low tender coupled with low hourly charge out rates, that while possible to provide a consultancy service, the level of service may not be in keeping with the required scope of the works and City requirements.

It was noted Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L qualified the contractual conditions applicable to the acceptance of its tender and Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L provided a tender breakdown of $167,300 which was $11,700 short of the submitted lump sum price of $179,000.

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L allowed for attendance at nine meetings during the design and documentation stage, with additional meeting attendance to be charged by at an hourly rate.  This approach has allowed this tenderer to submit a very competitive price.

Other tenderers that offered experienced staff are WT Partnership Aust P/L and Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L; where the difference in tender pricing is possibly attributable to the level of the directors' overview involvement in cost estimating and quantity surveying aspects of the project and direct involvement and attendance at crucial meetings.

Tenderers are ranked in ascending cost order as follows:

 

 

 

Tenderer

Lump Sum Prices

Ranking

Altus Group Consulting P/L

$106,485

1

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

$145,000

2

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

$148,400

3

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

$179,000

4

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

$181,500

5

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

$184,700

6

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

$194,000

7

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

$198,920

8

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

$206,500

19

PCC Australia

$212,000

10

WT Partnership Aust P/L

$212,214

11

Turner & Townsend P/L

$240,800

12

Overall Ranking Assessment for Cost Planner Consultants

The overall scoring of the Tenderers based on the weighted score tender evaluation undertaken is shown below:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

 

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L

1

Altus Group Consulting P/L

2

WT Partnership Aust P/L

3

Borrell Rafferty Associates P/L

4

Chrystalis Quantity Surveying

5

Gleeds Australia (West) P/L

6

Slatterly Australia P/L

7

Donald Cant Watts Corke (WA) P/L

8

Davis Langdon Australia P/L

9

Merefield Wilde & Woollard P/L

10

Turner & Townsend P/L

11

Rider Levett Buckland WA P/L

12

PCC Australia

13

 

Based on the above evaluation, Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L is recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer for Contract 01422.

Key characteristics of the recommended Consultant, Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L:

·    Perth's largest cost and quantity surveying practice; established in 1968, with 31 staff in the West Perth Office;

·    The project director, one of five local directors, who will be responsible for all deliveries, currently holds the position of National President of the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors;

·    Experienced tenderer with a proven record in undertaking the proposed consultancy work and has the resources to provide a timely and complete consultancy service within the projects time frame;

·    Offered changes to the documentation programme to allow for the documentation of the Bill of Quantities;

·    Offers appropriate tender breakdown information that is consistently less than the prices presented in other comparable submissions; and

·    The tenderer's acceptance as project cost planner will be its first consultancy award by the City.

Consultation

The scope of consultancy work associated with the design and costing for the WCC Extension as offered within Tender 01422 for cost planner consultancy services were progressed through the WCC Extension Project Control Group.

No external consultation was undertaken in relation to the development of the scope of works and associated tender documentation for this consultancy service.

Comment

The acceptance and appointment of a cost planner to provide cost control services for the WCC Extension addresses the required outcome to Council Resolution 6 arising from Report IN02-03/14, that being.

"6   ENDORSES the preparation of tender documentation for advertising the appointment of a Cost Planner to provide cost control services for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and report the tender outcome to Council."

To ensure probity associated with the appointment of the Architectural Consultant (ie: Tender 01421 for which a report is to be presented for tender award consideration by Council at its meeting scheduled on 11 November 2014), the first task for the appointed Cost Planner will be to provide an independent assessment, based upon the City weighted criteria, of the leading tender submissions received for the proposed architectural consultancy services.

Works Programme

The projects programme is outlined as follows:

Council Consideration of Architectural Consultancy Tender

Tues 11 November  2014

Execute Contracts

Fri 21 November 2014

Contract Start Date

Tues 2 December 2014

Report to Council Concept Plans with Cost Estimate

Tues 3 March 2015

Report to Council Contract Documentation with Cost Estimate

Tues 10 November 2015

Report to Council Construction Tender Outcome

Tues 2 February 2016

Construction Commencement

Mon 15 February 2016

Report to CEO Spatial Design Consultancy Tender Outcome

Tues 15 March 2016

Report to Council Fit-out Works Tender Outcome

Tues 8 November 2016

Commence Staff Relocation

Mon 24 July 2017

Complete On Site Construction (75 weeks)

Mon 7 August 2017

Practical Completion and final staff relocation

Fri 28 August 2017

Facility Commissioning

Mon 21 August 2017

The architectural consultant, once appointed, will be allocated 12 weeks for concept planning, 10 weeks for design development and 14 weeks for contract documentation before advertising the construction of the works.  The appointed architectural consultant will also administer the works over the 75 week construction period allocated and then attend upon the works 12 months Defects Liability Period.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders have been invited and evaluated against the selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act and associated regulations.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

Risk Management Considerations

Financial Risk Assessment

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L is a known service supplier that has successfully provided cost planning services for City projects. These services were provided under quotations conducted within the City's purchasing policy. Whilst a Corporate Scorecard assessment would be ideal, the risk to the City is minimal in this instance. Ralph Beattie Bosworth has been in business since 1979 and has recently completed major projects ($65M-$127M) for other local government bodies and state government departments.

 

Operational Risk Assessment

Other than Altus Group Consulting P/L, which submitted what was considered to be a low price for the consultancy services sought, the other top five ranked tenderers are considered capable of undertaking the consultancy services, as a number of staff within these entities, have successfully undertaken works for the City previously. Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L has in this instance offered a very competitive price for the consultancy services sought, and has provided one of its five company directors to manage and mitigate the project cost planning.

The City's practice, when undertaking a major building project, is to appoint a cost planner concurrently with the appointment of an architectural consultant to oversee costs associated with the design development and construction process for the proposed project.  The cost planner in this instance will act in a liaison role and participate as a team member to the appointed architectural consultant; provide independent advice relating to the architectural tender submission, project risk, cash flow and cost control assessment; oversee the facilities technical requirements and ongoing review of the total project cost, inclusive of construction progress payments and consultancy fees adjustments.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Funding of $27M in total has been listed in the City's 10-year Capital Works programme for the WCC Extension (PR-2332).

The following table identifies all costs associated with the project:

Tenders No 01422 - Cost Planning for the WCC Extension

Description

Project Costs

Project Funding

2012/2013 (Budget Expended)

$101,990

2013/2014 (Mid Year Review)

 

$1,098,610

2014/2015

 

$2,800,000

2015/2016

 

$20,000,000

2016/2017

 

$3,000,000

Expenditure/Commitments to Date:

Funds reallocated from PR-2332 to PR-2448 (Report IN04-03/13)

$384,400

 

Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd - Forward Civil Works

$40,600

 

MKDC - Spatial Planning

$32,300

 

Marketforce Express Pty Ltd

$658

 

Road Signs Australia

$554

 

Purchase Lot 14010

$1,000

 

One Way Traffic Flow System - Estimated Cost

$873,000

 

Tender Advertisement & Administration Costs

$4,990

 

Project Management

$100,000

Public Art 1%

$230,000

 

Proposed Commitment:

Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L – Cost Planning Fees

$145,000

 

Total Project Expenditure/Commitment

$1,812,502

 

Total Project Funding

 

$27,000,600

Funding Balance for WCC Extension

 

$25,188,098

The balance of funding remaining is allocated to the proposed architectural consultancy and subsequent construction of the WCC Extension and associated fitout works, with these components of the project subject to future consideration by Council.

It is recommended that Tender No 01422 for Cost Planning Consultancy Services for the design, documentation and construction of the WCC Extension be accepted from Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L for its tendered lump sum of $145,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS Tender No 01422 for the Provision of Cost Planner Consultancy Services for the Design, Documentation and Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension from Ralph Beattie Bosworth P/L for its tendered lump sum of $145,000.

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           298

 

IN02-10/14         Old Yanchep Road State BlackSpot Project - Advice of Status

File Ref:                                              10654 – 14/56422

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider options for the design and construction of Old Yanchep Road (Ziatas Road to Wattle Avenue) project, being subject to State BlackSpot Grant funding.

 

Background

The City was granted a total of $1.4M in State BlackSpot funding (ie: a two thirds contribution towards the project cost) for a 2.87km length of Old Yanchep Road between Ziatas Road and Wattle Avenue.  Proposed works and associated funding was spread over the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 financial years (Stage 1/Design and Approvals and Stage 2/Construction respectively) to implement superelevation on three curves, seal shoulders, and install edge-lines and raised pavement markers. The balance of the project budget of $700,000 was sourced from municipal funds (ie: one third of the total project cost), giving an overall project budget of $2.1M (PR-2598).

 

The adopted 2013/2014 Capital Works budget included $260,000 State BlackSpot and $130,000 Municipal funding to enable the survey, design and documentation and land acquisition to proceed (ie: Stage 1 works).

Detail

The detailed design for Old Yanchep Road project is progressing and although not yet finalised, has revealed issues regarding service authorities relocations, cost of proposed works, timelines and environmental approvals.

 

The design to date has highlighted that road realignment and substantial widening of the carriageway and batters are required to meet current geometric road standards, resulting in the need for extensive earthworks and road reconstruction, as well as road rehabilitation. The extent of these road works is far greater than anticipated as part of the original application for Blackspot funding in 2012. Significant costs have been identified with the relocation and removal of power infrastructure by Western Power, deemed to require intervention within the vehicle crash zone. Western Power has provided a desktop estimate of $1.5M to remove/underground the non-frangible power poles from within the clear zone. Therefore, the preliminary estimate based on design work to date indicates that the project is unable to be completed within the approved budget of $2.1M in order to comply with current geometric standards.

 

It is noted that required realignment of the road impacts on a geomorphic wetland (Lake Pinjar, which is a Conservation category wetland) and a contaminated site (the former Pinjar Landfill now known as Pinjar Park), with both sites generating significant design constraints. In addition, various other issues have been identified that are expected to compromise the timeline conditions imposed by Main Roads WA as part of the agreement to fund this State BlackSpot project.

 

The issues that need to be resolved prior to commencement of construction work include the following:

 

·    Land acquisition of four parcels of land impacted by the proposed realignment of bends is still to be finalised;

·    Western Power removal of existing power poles within the clear zone (generally requires a 12-month lead time);

·    Clearing permit and associated issues incorporating Priority Ecological Community (can only be advanced on completion of the land acquisition process);

·    BushForever sites and any associated Development Application (this also only able to be advanced on completion of the land acquisition process); and

·    Impact of Acid Sulphate Soils, with further on-ground investigations required.

 

Acquisition of the four properties impacted by the proposed realignment of bends is anticipated to take a further six months to complete before the acquired land is able to be transferred to road reserve. Two sites are located in Crown Land under the management of the City and the other two sites are registered in the ownership of Department of Planning in freehold title that may also require payment for these two land holdings.

 

It is noted that the land acquisition for Old Yanchep Road is the subject of a separate report on this Council Agenda.

 

The above issues, either individually or in combination, are expected to compromise the timelines for the project. For example, land transfer needs to be completed prior to submission of a specific Clearing Permit and Development Application(s) as applicable.

Consultation

Administration has met with Main Roads WA (MRWA) personnel to discuss the issues and concerns with achieving the requirements of the current BlackSpot submission, and how best to improve the safety of this section of Old Yanchep Road.

 

Separate discussion has also been held with MRWA in relation to the planning for a future major north-south road that is proposed to extend northwards from Tonkin Highway in the south and traverse through the eastern part of the City's jurisdiction.

Comment

The purpose of the road upgrade is to create a safer road environment that meets Australian Standards and addresses crash concerns. In advancement of the detailed design work completed to date, it is evident that the construction of this project is unable to be achieved within the current timeline and financial constraints. It is therefore proposed that the balance of approved State BlackSpot funding be returned, and a revised BlackSpot submission made by the City reflecting a more realistic timeline and budget. However, it is proposed that the design and approvals process continues for this section of Old Yanchep Road, with all detailed design plans and estimates, inclusive of Western Power requirements together with land acquisition and environmental/development approvals to be completed utilising carry forward funding for Stage 1 works as allocated in the 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget.

 

Following a re-evaluation of this project and due to time restraints, Administration has resubmitted this project to Main Roads WA as two independent submissions for consideration in the 2015/2016 Australian and/or State BlackSpot Program as follows:

 

Road Section

Estimated Cost

BCR

Old Yanchep Road (Pederick to Trandos)

$2.67M

2.01

Old Yanchep Road (Trandos to Wattle)

$1.85M

1.01

 

While both submissions are not guaranteed to be successful, there is a high likelihood that at least one of the submissions will receive funding, either in totality from the Australian BlackSpot Government Program or on the standard two-thirds contribution from the State Government BlackSpot Program. The higher Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) shown for the section of Old Yanchep Road from Pederick Road to Trandos Road would therefore be more likely to secure funding associated with its higher crash statistics.

 

Timing for either project presupposes approvals and design completion by June 2015, with construction occurring within the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

MRWA has requested the City to ensure that any proposals by the City involving improvements to Old Yanchep Road, as part of proposed BlackSpot works, have regard for MRWA planning. Subsequent advice received from MRWA indicates that the current likely alignment of the major north-south road and/or the anticipated timing for construction of the major road,  will be such that this major road proposal should not impede the City's proposals for improvements to Old Yanchep Road.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Currently this project is funded as a two-stage State BlackSpot project, with funding in accordance with the grant contribution guidelines summarised as follows: -

 

Description

Funding Allocation

Project Budget for 2013/2014 Stage 1 – Design:

Municipal funding

State BlackSpot Grants – Claimed

State BlackSpot Grants – Unclaimed

 

$130,000

$104,000

$156,000

 

Project Budget for 2014/2015 Stage 2 – Construction:

Municipal funding

State BlackSpot Grants - Unclaimed

 

$570,000

$1,140,000

TOTALS

$2,100,000

 

Due to issues arising from the design process to date, budget allocations for 2014/2015 were reassigned by Administration to 2015/2016 (Year 2) as this was considered to be a more realistic timeframe for construction given the design constraints, with only carry forward funding from 2013/2014 being utilised during 2014/2015.

 

The City has already claimed and received the first 40% ($104,000) relating to Stage 1 funding from Main Roads WA. Subject to Council's consideration of this report, a portion of this funding will need to be returned to Main Roads WA to maintain the two third/one third funding split based on total expenditure incurred. The quantum of this portion will be subject to completion of detailed design, with costs such as the Design Application fee for Western Power to undertake its power infrastructure relocation design along the full length of Old Yanchep Road to be upgrade/realigned, Acid Sulphate Soils on-ground investigations, etc., are still to be committed.  On completion, the remaining unexpended balance for Stage1 based on the two thirds/one third grant funding split will then be able to be released for reallocation by Main Roads WA.  The remaining grant funding allocated for Stage 1 works (ie: $156,000) together with the Stage 2 funding (ie: $1,140,000) will need to be released from future claims by the City. Advice will need to be forwarded to Main Roads WA immediately following Council's decision in order to allow reallocation of this funding to other reserve State BlackSpot projects.

 

It is strongly recommended that the design, land acquisition and approvals processes are completed in anticipation of future BlackSpot funding approval for the upgrade/realignment of Old Yanchep Road linked potential source of funds.  If the City's 2015/2016 submissions for the revised BlackSpot projects are successful, then the future funding scenario is likely to be as follows:

 

Description

Funding

Old Yanchep Road (Pederick Road to Trandos Road)

Municipal funding

Grants – State Government (ie: 2/3 funded)

 

$890,000

$1,780,000

Old Yanchep Road (Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue)

Either;

Municipal funding

Grants – Federal Government (ie: 100% funded)

Or;

Municipal funding

Grants – State Government (ie: 2/3 funded)

 

 

$0

$1,851,000

 

$617,000

$1,234,000

 

Subject to Council approval, subsequent adjustments will need to be made to the City's 10 Year Capital Works Program to reflect the approved grant funding allocations.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.    AGREES to not proceed with construction of the Old Yanchep Road State BlackSpot project (PR-2598) between Ziatas Road and Wattle Avenue for which grant funding is spread over the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 financial years due to cost implications and timeline constraints associated with required service authority relocations, land acquisition and, environmental and development approvals;

2.    ADVISES Main Roads WA that the City of Wanneroo will not be proceeding with the construction of Old Yanchep Road State BlackSpot project during 2014/2015 (Stage 2) and that:

a)    The unspent portion of the Stage 1 first 40% claim of $104,000 is to be retained by the City in support of completion of design related activities, with any balance of this amount to be adjusted as part of the 2014/2015 Mid Year Budget Review when final costs will be known; and

b)    The balance of Stage 1 funding unclaimed (ie: $156,000) and all of Stage 2 funding unclaimed (ie: $1,140,000) be released from future claim by the City of Wanneroo;

3.    NOTES that design and documentation is to be completed during 2014/2015  (PR-2598) to enable Western Power to commence its detailed design relating to its services impacted by the proposed works, land acquisition to be finalised and, environmental and development approvals to be sought;

4.    NOTES that funding submissions have been made for both the 2015/2016 Australian Government and State BlackSpot Grant programs on the basis of two sections of Old Yanchep Road, namely;

a)    Old Yanchep Road (Pederick Road to Trandos Road) at a project value of $2.67M; and

b)    Old Yanchep Road (Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue) at a project value of $1.851M; and

5.    NOTES that an adjustment will be required to the City of Wanneroo 10 Year Roadworks Program to reflect the outcomes of the funding submissions outlined in Item 4.

5.                     

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           303

 

Traffic Management

IN03-10/14         State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs 2015/2016 Submissions

File Ref:                                              6923 – 14/149550

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       18         

 

Issue

To consider projects submitted for funding through the 2015/2016 State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs.

 

Background

The State and Federal Governments have both committed to reductions in casualty crashes on Australian roads through BlackSpot Programs.  These programs are primarily reactive and target road locations where crashes have occurred, although some allowance is made for proactive applications supported by a formal Road Safety Audit (RSA).

 

An invitation for submissions for the 2015/2016 State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs was issued by Main Roads WA (MRWA) in April 2014, with an initial closing date of 11 July 2014.  Changes to Federal funding and selection criteria were announced in June 2014 and the submission date was subsequently extended to 29 August 2014. In addition the name of the program was changed from Nation Building to Australian Government BlackSpot Program. The resulting submissions will be evaluated by MRWA against criteria set out in the BlackSpot Program Development and Management Guidelines. To assist with the preparation of submissions, MRWA provided access to the Crash Analysis Reporting System and the crash data for the five-year period 2009 to 2013.  The crash data is provided to MRWA by the WA Police and the Insurance Council of Australia.

 

The BlackSpot Program Development and Management Guidelines require BlackSpot projects based on crash data to meet a minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to ensure the proposed remedial works are cost effective.  The BCR is the ratio of the benefit to the community of the expected reduction in crashes versus the cost of the proposed remedial treatment.

 

Successful State Government BlackSpot projects are funded two-thirds by the Program and one-third by Council and are based on all recorded crashes, fatalities, casualties and property damage.  The criteria for the program are as follows:

·    For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is five crashes over a five-year period.

·    For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is average of two crashes per kilometre per five-year period.

·    Value of works between $2,000 and $3,000,000.

·    Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 1.0.

 

Successful Australian Government BlackSpot projects are fully funded by the Program and are based on casualty crashes, fatalities or personal injury.  Additional Federal funding was made available for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 programs and corresponding changes were made to the program eligibility criteria.  The criteria for the program are as follows:

·    For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is two casualty crashes over a five-year period.

·    For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is 0.65 casualty crashes per kilometre per five years period.

·    Value of works between $2,000 and $2,000,000.

·    Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 1.0.

Detail

Administration has investigated the qualifying crash locations for both programs to determine the appropriate remedial treatments and associated costs.  Where the qualifying crash location involved a distributor road already listed for major upgrade and where the BlackSpot treatment would have a life of less than five years then expenditure of municipal funds on these BlackSpots was not considered justified.

 

Dependent on the proposed treatment, cost and the resultant BCR, projects are nominated for either or both the State and Australian Government BlackSpot programs. However in past years, the Australian Government BlackSpot projects have required a BCR of 3.3 or greater to be successful for Federal Government funding.  It is anticipated that extra funding allocated to the Federal program this financial year will result in a lower BCR being required for successful projects.

 

Funding for proactive projects, where potential hazards exist, supported by a Road Safety Audit is also available.

 

It is anticipated that the Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) will assess nominations by October 2014 and that the Minister for Transport will announce the approved projects in May 2015 to allow Council sufficient time to finalise the 2015/16 budget.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The projects submitted to Main Roads WA for funding consideration by the 29 August 2014 deadline, including their traffic/road safety issues and the proposed remedial treatments are as follows:

 

1.    Mirrabooka Avenue/Montrose Avenue/Koondoola Avenue Intersection, Girrawheen/Koondoola (refer Attachments 1 and 2)

Concern

Mirrabooka Avenue is a District Distributor Road A in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a 4-lane dual carriageway. Montrose Avenue and Koondoola Avenue are both Local Distributor Roads constructed as 2-lane pavements with a narrow median. The intersection of Mirrabooka Avenue and Montrose Avenue/Koondoola Avenue is controlled by a 2 lane roundabout.

 

The five year crash data highlights an over-representation of night crashes on the Montrose Avenue and Koondoola Avenue approaches and a significant over-representation of rear-end crashes on all approaches. There have been a total of 30 crashes over five years of which seven resulted in casualties.  This application is supported by a Road Safety Audit.

 

 

Treatment

Install a skid resistant treatment on all approaches to the intersection and install two additional single outreach streetlights, one on each of the Montrose Avenue and Koondoola Avenue approaches.

 

2.    Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive Intersection, Carramar (refer Attachments 3 and 4)

Concern

Joondalup Drive is District Distributor A Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a 4-lane dual carriageway, while Cheriton Drive is a Local Distributor Road constructed as 2-lane pavements with a narrow median  and additional turning pockets at Joondalup Drive.  Joondalup Drive has a posted speed limit of 70km/h and Cheriton Drive operates under the default urban speed limit of 50km/h.  The Joondalup Drive/ Cheriton Drive intersection is controlled by T-intersection.

 

In response to Motion on Notice MN01-06/14 to bring forward the installation of traffic signals at the Joondalup Drive/ Cheriton Drive intersection, it was agreed that Council:

 

"1.  APPROVES the allocation of $30,000 from Project PR-2656 in the 2014/2015 traffic treatments program for design, documentation and approvals to take place now; and

2.   APPROVES the expenditure of the estimated cost of $240,000 in the 2015/2016 financial year for the installation of traffic signals at the Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection (PR-2927); and

3.   NOTES Administration will submit a BlackSpot funding application to the next round."

 

The five year crash data indicates an over representation of right turn thru crashes at this intersection.  There have been a total of 27 crashes over five years of which eight resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install traffic signals at the Joondalup Drive/ Cheriton Drive intersection.

 

3.    Marmion Avenue/ Rochester Drive, Mindarie (refer Attachments 5 and 6)

Concern

Marmion Avenue is a District Distributor Road A in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a 4-lane dual carriageway.  Rochester Drive is a local access road constructed as 2-lane single carriageway. Marmion Avenue has a posted speed limit of 80 km/h and Rochester Drive operates under the default built up area speed limit of 50Km/hr. The Marmion Avenue/ Rochester Drive intersection is a give way controlled T-intersection.

 

This application has been supported by a Road Safety Audit which identified a significant sight distance issue for vehicles turning right from Rochester Drive and recommended that an acceleration lane be constructed in the Marmion Avenue median to address this issue.  There have been a total of 17 crashes over five years, of which four are casualty crashes.

Treatment

Construct an acceleration lane in Marmion Avenue median for right turning vehicles to merge with southbound traffic.

 


 

4.    Ocean Keys Boulevard/ Key Largo Drive, Clarkson (refer Attachments 7 and 8)

Concern

Ocean Keys Boulevard and Key Largo Drive are both Local Distributor roads in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and constructed as 2-lane pavements with narrow medians. Both roads operate under default built up area speed limit of 50Km/hr. The Ocean Keys Boulevard/Key Largo Drive intersection is controlled by a single lane roundabout.

The roundabout has streetlights but the number of night time crashes is significantly over-represented.  There have been 16 crashes over five years, of which five are night crashes.

Treatment

Upgrade existing street lighting to Australian Standard AS 1158.

 

5.    Ocean Keys Boulevard/Pensacola Terrace, Clarkson (refer Attachments 9 and 10)

Concern

Ocean Keys Boulevard and Pensacola Terrace are both Local Distributor roads in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and constructed as 2-lane pavements with narrow medians. Both roads operate under the default built up area speed limit of 50Km/hr. The Ocean Keys Boulevard/ Pensacola Terrace intersection is controlled by a single lane roundabout.

 

The roundabout has streetlights but the number of night time crashes is significantly over-represented.  There have been 13 crashes over five years of which three are night crashes.

Treatment

Upgrade existing street lighting to Australian Standard AS 1158.

 

6.    Waldburg Drive/Clarkson Avenue/Yandella Promenade, Tapping (refer Attachments 11 and 12)

Concern

Waldburg Drive, Clarkson Avenue and Yandella Promenade are all classified as Local Distributor Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy.  Waldburg Drive is constructed as 2-lane carriageway with a narrow median and Clarkson Avenue and Yandella Promenade are 2-lane single carriageway roads. The intersection of Waldburg Drive/ Clarkson Avenue/Yandella Promenade is a dog-leg staggered T-intersection.

 

The number of right angle crashes at the Clarkson avenue intersection is significantly over-represented.  There have been eight crashes at the Clarkson Avenue intersection over five years of which seven were right angle crashes.  This application is supported by a Road Safety Audit which has recommended minor adjustments to median islands and additional improvements to pedestrian facilities.

Treatment

Extend intersection approach island nose on Clarkson Avenue towards Waldburg Drive.

Extend median island on Waldburg Drive towards the Clarkson Drive intersection.

Adjust pram ramps at the Waldburg Drive/Clarkson Avenue/Yandella Promenade intersection.

Install Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSIs) at pedestrian crossings.

Reinstate faded linemarking.

 


 

7.    Hainsworth Avenue/ Montrose Avenue, Girrawheen (refer Attachments 13 and 14)

Concern

Hainsworth Avenue and Montrose Avenue are Local Distributor Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy.  They are constructed as 2-lane carriageways with narrow medians.  The intersection of Hainsworth Avenue and Montrose Avenue is a single lane roundabout.

 

This application is supported by a Road Safety Audit which recommends undertaking a treatment to reduce vehicle approach speeds.  There have been five crashes over five years of which none resulted in casualties. This project therefore does not qualify for the Australian Government BlackSpot Program.

Treatment

Install pre-deflections on all approaches to the roundabout.

 

8.    Old Yanchep Road (Pederick Road to Trandos Road), Pinjar (refer Attachment 15 and 16)

Concern

This 1.47km section of Old Yanchep Road is constructed with substandard curves controlled by speed advisory signs, elevated road pavement with steep batters and limited shoulders with edge drop-offs.

 

The findings of seven Crash Location Reports into fatalities within the City, including two on Old Yanchep Road were considered by Council at its meeting of 30 January 2007, at which time Council resolved in part as follows (IN09-01/07 refers):

 

“2.   NOTES that Administration will:

a.    report back to Council within nine months with proposals for corrective actions to be taken to reduce the number and severity of crashes on Old Yanchep Road in the vicinity of the crash site.”

 

Subsequently, a successful submission was made for funding through the 2008/09 BlackSpot Program (IN05-07/07 refers) but due to increased project costs and difficulties with land acquisition the City withdrew its proposal in 2010.

 

Another successful submission for a 2.87 km section of Old Yanchep Road was made through the 2013/14 State BlackSpot Program.  During the first stage of this project, Western Power undertook a desktop assessment for power line work providing the City with an initial estimate of $1,500,000 ±50%.  At this stage, it was determined that the initial $2,100,000 estimate would not be sufficient to complete the project and it is recommended in another report on this agenda that the City does not proceed with this project and supports applications for funding as part of the 2015/2016 BlackSpot programs.

 

This project still remains a priority but as the cost of a single project was outside the scope of the BlackSpot Program, it was determined that the best course of action would be to split the project into two projects for submission in the 2015/16 BlackSpot Program. 

 

The section of Old Yanchep Road between Pederick Road and Trandos Road has been nominated as a project with 16 recorded crashes for the last five years of which nine were casualty crashes.

Treatment

Realign bends to cater for 90km/hr posted speed limit.  Construct batters, seal road shoulders, install edgelines and separation line with raised pavement markers.

 

9.    Old Yanchep Road (Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue), Pinjar (refer Attachment 17 and 18)

Concern

This 0.87km section of Old Yanchep Road is constructed with substandard curves controlled by speed advisory signs, elevated road pavement with severe batters and limited shoulders with edge drop-offs.

 

This section of Old Yanchep Road suffers the same issues with substandard curves controlled by speed advising signs, elevated road pavement with severe batters and limited shoulders with edge drop-offs. 

 

Five crashes were reported in the last five years of which three were casualty crashes.

Treatment

Realign bends to cater for 90km/hr posted speed limit.  Construct batters, seal road shoulders, install edge and separation lines with raised pavement markers.

Statutory Compliance

 

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.

Risk Management Considerations

The State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs represent a low risk source of additional funding to address road safety concerns within the City.  The City is under no obligation to proceed with a project once it has been awarded so in the case where municipal funding cannot be justified, the project may be withdrawn from the Program without penalty.

 

The main risk for the City is in the potential for project cost overruns which can reduce the BCR and cause a project to be withdrawn from the Program (where the BCR falls below 1.0).  This requires that funding for that project be returned to the Program by the City.  To minimise this risk, preliminary cost estimates have been undertaken and detailed design and associated construction cost estimates will be undertaken prior to construction.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A summary of the estimated costs of the proposed BlackSpot treatments is tabled below.  It should be noted that the full cost of the project is reflected under ‘Federal Cost’ on the assumption that it will be approved.  Further information is provided under the table as it is not likely, based on previous years, that projects with a BCR less that 3.30 will be approved for Federal funding. 

 

 

PROJECT

BCR

Project
Cost

CoW
Cost

State
Cost

Federal
Cost

1.   Mirrabooka Avenue/ Montrose Avenue/ Koondoola Avenue roundabout, Koondoola/ Girrawheen

RSA

$80,000

$26,666

$53,333

$80,000

2.   Joondalup Drive/ Cheriton Drive, Carramar

2.08

$240,000

$80,000

$160,000

$240,000

3.   Marmion Avenue/ Rochester Drive, Mindarie

RSA

$200,000

$66,667

$133,333

$200,000

4.   Ocean Keys Boulevard/Key Largo Drive roundabout, Clarkson

2.64

$25,000

$8,333

$16,667

$25,000

5.   Ocean Keys Boulevard/ Pensacola Terrace roundabout, Clarkson

1.32

$25,000

$8,333

$16,667

N/A

6.   Waldburg Drive/ Clarkson Avenue/ Yandalla Promenade intersection, Tapping

RSA

$50,000

$16,667

$33,333

$50,000

7.   Hainsworth Avenue/ Montrose Avenue, Girrawheen

RSA

$225,000

$75,000

$150,000

N/A

8.   Old Yanchep Road between Pederick Road and Trandos Road, Pinjar

2.01

$2,670,000

$890,000

$1,780,000

N/A

9.   Old Yanchep Road between Trandos Road and Wattle Avenue, Pinjar

1.01

$1,851,000

$617,000

$1,234,000

$1,851,000

TOTAL:

$5,366,000

$1,789,000

$3,577,000

$2,446,000

CWP 2015/16

$480,000

$160,000

$320,000

 

Projects approved under the Australian Government BlackSpot Program are fully funded by the program, however, those projects that miss out on Federal Government funding may be successful for State BlackSpot funding.  Successful project nominations in the 2015/2016 State BlackSpot Program are required to be funded one-third by the Council.

 

Should Council be successful with all its applications through the State BlackSpot Program, then the City will be required to contribute an amount of $1,789,000 towards the total cost of $5,336,000 in 2015/2016.  This is outside the current funding allocation for BlackSpot projects listed in the 10-Year Capital Works Program 2014/15 - 2023/24 which lists a total amount of $480,000 for 2015/2016 with $160,000 from municipal funds.  In addition to this, $860,000 of municipal funds was allocated to the previous Old Yanchep Road BlackSpot Submission for Stage 2 Construction in 2015/2016.  A further $250,000 of municipal funds has been allocated to the installation of traffic signals at the Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection in 2015/16.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 


 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the submission of the following City of Wanneroo projects for funding consideration as part of the 2015/2016 State and Australian Government BlackSpot Programs:

Project - Proposed Treatment

1)   Mirrabooka Avenue/ Montrose Avenue/ Koondoola Avenue roundabout, Koondoola/ Girrawheen

-    Install a skid resistant treatment to all approaches to the intersection.

-    Upgrade streetlights on Montrose Avenue and Koondoola Avenue.

2)   Joondalup Drive/ Cheriton Drive Intersection, Carramar

-    Install traffic signals.

3)   Marmion Avenue/ Rochester Drive intersection, Mindarie

-    Install acceleration lane in Marmion Avenue median.

4)   Ocean Keys Boulevard/ Key Largo Drive, Clarkson

-    Upgrading existing road lighting to AS 1158.

5)   Ocean Keys Boulevard/ Pensacola Terrace, Clarkson

-    Upgrading existing road lighting to AS 1158.

6)   Hester Waldburg Drive/ Clarkson Avenue/ Yandalla Promenade Intersection, Tapping

-    Improve intersection geometry.

-    Improve pedestrian facilities.

7)   Hainsworth Avenue/ Montrose Avenue, Girrawheen

-    Install predeflection on all approaches to the roundabout.

8)   Old Yanchep Road  (Ziatus Road to Wattle Avenue), Pinjar – Stage 2

-    Realign bends to cater for 80km/h design speed.  Construct batters, seal road shoulders, install edgelines and separation line with raised pavement markers.

9)   Old Yanchep Road  (Ziatus Road to Wattle Avenue), Pinjar – Stage 2

-    Realign bends to cater for 80km/h design speed.  Construct batters, seal road shoulders, install edgelines and separation line with raised pavement markers.

 

2.  NOTES the draft 2015/2016 Traffic Treatments Program will require amendment to reflect the funding of projects approved through the 2015/2016 State and Australian Government BlackSpot programs.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

MirrabookaAve_MontroseAve_LocalityPlan

14/270168

 

2.

Mirrabooka/Montrose Drawing

14/270170

 

3.

Joondalup Cheriton Location Map

14/270181

 

4.

Joondalup Cheriton Traffic Signal Design

14/270197

 

5.

Location Map Marmion Rochester

14/270204

 

6.

Marmion Rochester Drawing

14/270210

 

7.

Location Map of the roundabout of Ocean Keys Boulevard and Key Largo Drive

14/270219

 

8.

Upgrading streetlighting at the intersection of Ocean Keys Boulevard and Key Largo Drive

14/270220

 

9.

Location Map of the roundabout of Ocean Keys Boulevard and Pensacola Terrace

14/270222

 

10.

Upgrading streetlighting at the intersection of Ocean Keys Boulevard and Pensacola Terrace

14/270224

 

11.

LocalityPlan_WaldburgDrClarksonYandellaProm

14/270238

 

12.

Waldburg Clarkson Drawing

14/270242

 

13.

HainsworthAve_MontroseAve_LocalityPlan

14/270255

 

14.

Montrose Hainsworth Layout1

14/270264

 

15.

Location Map Old Yanchep Pederick to Trandos

14/270270

 

16.

Old Yanchep Road Pederick to Trandos Drawing

14/270272

 

17.

Location Map Old Yanchep Trandos to Wattle

14/270276

 

18.

Old Yanchep Road Trandos to Wattle Drawing

14/270277

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       311


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           312


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       313


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       314


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       315


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           316


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       317


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       318


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       319


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       320


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       321


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           322


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       323


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           324


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       325


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           326


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       327


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           328


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           329

IN04-10/14         Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grants Program 2014/2015 - Outcomes

File Ref:                                              11277 – 14/266469

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the outcome of submissions for part funding of bicycle projects from the 2014/2015 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program (PBN Program)

 

Background

The PBN Program is a State Government funding program offering financial assistance through grants to metropolitan local governments to develop bicycle network infrastructure. In 2014/2015, an amount of $1.33M is available, with 31 metropolitan local governments, including the City of Mandurah, being eligible to apply.

 

The Department of Transport (DoT) sought applications from local governments for funding of cycling related projects in September 2013 through the 2014/2015 PBN Program with a closing date for applications of 15 November 2013. Administration submitted four projects for consideration, including the preparation of a new Cycle Plan for the City of Wanneroo.

Detail

Council endorsed submitting the following bicycle network projects for funding from the 2014/2015 PBN Program (Item No IN04-11/13 refers).

 

Category 1 – Network Planning

 

City of Wanneroo Cycle Plan 2014/15 – Prepare a new cycling plan for the City of Wanneroo. The development of the new plan will include:

 

-      A review of the 2008 COW bike Plan;

-      A review of relevant national, state and local strategies and policies;

-      A review of establish best practice in cycling planning and infrastructure;

-      Desktop review of the existing cycling network;

-      Extensive community consultation and key stakeholder consultation;

-      Identification of Network Gaps including missing links;

-      Identification of the need or otherwise for new larger links or routes to be included in the plan;

-      Development of a prioritised future program of works for the next 5 years;

-      Provision of guidance on including best practice cycle infrastructure into existing cycle network and future land use planning;

-      Consideration of deficiencies related to signage, line marking and kerb ramps; and

 

-      Integration with neighbouring Local Government Authorities.

Specific focus areas in the Cycle Plan will include:

-      Improving access to activity centres outlined in Directions 2031;

-      Improving access to major public transport stations including, but not limited to: Clarkson Train Station, Butler Train Station and Mirrabooka Bus Station;

-      Improving safe routes to schools including safe off road cycling facilities and locations of safe crossing points; and

-      End of trip facilities.

Project Cost - $100,000

 

Category 3 – Path Infrastructure

 

1.       Hartman Drive, Madeley – Construct 1225m x 2.5m concrete shared path on the western side of Hartman Drive from Kingsway to Gnangara Road.

Council Funding (Municipal)

Grant Requested

Total

$132,000

$88,000

$220,000

 

Construction of this link will improve access to Kingsway Christian College and Ashdale College as well as the Wangara Industrial Area.

 

2.       Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo - Construct 246m x 2.5m wide concrete shared path on the southern side of Hepburn Avenue from Giralt Road to Kingsway Shopping Centre entrance.

Council Funding (Municipal)

Grant Requested

Total

$30,000

$23,000

$53,000

 

The proposed project will improve access to Kingsway Shopping centre and complete a continuous shared path on the south side of Hepburn Avenue.

 

3.       Marmion Avenue, Quinns Rocks - Construct 555m x 2.5m concrete shared path west side Marmion Avenue from Lukin Drive to Hampshire Drive.

Council Funding (Municipal)

Grant Requested

Total

$65,000

$53,000

$118,000

 

Construction of this link will improve access to Butler College, Irene McCormack College, Brighton Catholic Primary School and Brighton Shopping Centre.

 

Allowance was made in the 2014/2105 year of the 10 Year Pathways and Trails Program for the implementation of these projects based on the funding included in the grant submissions

Consultation

Community consultation for Perth Bicycle Network submissions was undertaken as part of the development of the Wanneroo Bike Plan 2008.

 

Comment

The City received correspondence from DoT on 18 July 2014 advising of the outcomes of the City's applications for grant funding as part of the 2014/2015 PBN Program.  The City was successful in receiving $50,000 of funding for the completion of a new Bike Plan, however the three applications for path infrastructure were unsuccessful. Considering the lack of grant funding for these three path infrastructure projects (listed above), the City is not able to complete these projects as part of the 2014/2015 Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program.

 

Administration recommends deferring Project PR-2492 - Hartman Drive shared path to the 2015/2016 Pathways and Trails Budget for re-submission to the PBN Program. The $132,000 of municipal funds budgeted for this shared path project could be reallocated to Project PR-2490 – Hepburn Avenue ($23,000) and Project PR-2491 - Marmion Avenue Shared path ($53,000) to cover the shortfall in grant funding for each of these projects. This will enable these two important shared pathways to be constructed in 2014/2015. Should this recommendation be approved an additional $56,000 will be available in the 2014/2015 Pathways and Trails Budget for  further reallocation.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.

Risk Management Considerations

The proposed shared pathways are important links in improving the connectivity and safety of the City's pathway network. Should the City not install these pathway sections pedestrian and cyclist safety in these area will remain compromised. In addition, the City will need to consider funding these projects in future years from municipal funds.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost of the development of a new Cycle Plan for the City was considered prior to the PBN applications and the cost of $100,000 was allocated accordingly in the 2014/2015 budget.

 

The estimated additional costs to construct the Hepburn Avenue and Marmion Avenue pathway projects can be accommodated by the following budget reallocation:

 

 

 

 

Project

Description

From

To

PR-2492

Hartman Drive, Madeley - Shared path west side from Kingsway to Gnangara Road

$76,000

 

PR-2491

Marmion Avenue, Jindalee- Shared path west side, Lukin Drive to south of Hampshire Drive

 

$53,000

PR-2490

Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo- Shared path south side, Giralt Road to Kingsway Shopping Centre car park entrance

 

$23,000

Total

$76,000

$76,000

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the only project approved by the Department of Transport as part of the 2014/2015 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program was the preparation of a new Cycle Plan for the City of Wanneroo;

2.       NOTES Administration will appoint a consultant to project manage the development of the new Cycle Plan for the City, with a report to be presented in April/May 2015 on the draft City of Wanneroo Cycle Plan;

3.       DOES NOT PROCEED with the construction of the Hartman Drive Shared Pathway on the western side from Kingsway to Gnangara Road and RESUBMITS this project for consideration as part of the 2015/2016 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program;

4.       PROCEEDS with the construction of the following shared pathway projects, noting that they will need to be fully funded from municipal funds:

 

·     Marmion Avenue, Jindalee – west side from Lukin Drive to south of Hampshire Drive.

 

·     Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo – south side from Giralt Road to Kingsway Shopping Centre car park entrance.

5.       NOTES the following budget variations to remove the 2014/2015 Perth Bicycle Network Grant allocation to reflect the three unsuccessful submissions for grant funding:

          INCOME

Cost Code

Present Budget

Reduced Amount

Revised Budget

Perth Bicycle Network Plan Grant

$214,000

$164,000

$50,000

 


 

 

EXPENDITURE

Project No

Project Description

Reduced Grant Amount

Revised Grant Budget

PR-2490

Hepburn Avenue Shared Pathway

$23,000

0

PR-2491

Marmion Avenue Shared Pathway

$53,000

0

PR-2492

Hartman Drive Shared Pathway

$88,000

0

6.       NOTES the following budget variations to accommodate the shortfall in municipal funding for the Marmion Avenue and Hepburn Avenue Shared Pathway Projects:

Project No

From

To

Description

PR-2492

$76,000

 

Hartman Drive, Madeley - shared path west side from Kingsway to Gnangara Road

PR-2491

 

$53,000

Marmion Avenue, Jindalee- shared path west side, Lukin Drive to south of Hampshire Drive

PR-2490

 

$23,000

Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo- shared path south side, Giralt Road to Kingsway Shopping Centre car park entrance

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           334

IN05-10/14         Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2015/2016

File Ref:                                              11277 – 14/231551

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

 Issue

To consider projects to be submitted for part funding from the 2015/2016 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grants Program (PBN Program).

 

Background

The Department of Transport (DoT) has sought applications from Local Governments for funding of cycling related projects through the 2015/2016 PBN Program . The closing date for applications is 24 October 2014 and Administration proposes to submit four projects, three projects to construct new pathways and one project to install end of trip facilities within the City.

Detail

The PBN Program is a State funding initiative to assist local governments in the Perth metropolitan area for the planning and implementation of the metropolitan component of the Western Australian Bicycle Network (WABN). In 2015/2016, $1.33M is available with 31 metropolitan local authorities being eligible to apply, this includes the City of Mandurah.

 

The intention of the PBN Program is to fund projects that deliver the greatest increase in participation of cycling for transport purposes, thereby reducing congestion and enhancing the efficiency of Perth’s transport system.

 

The PBN Program has three program categories:

 

Ÿ Category 1: Local Cycle Plans ($230k allocation)

Ÿ Category 2: Path and On-Road Projects ($1 million allocation)

Ÿ Category 3: End of Trip and Innovative Projects ($100k allocation)

 

The DOT has outlined the following priorities for all projects submitted for funding under Category 2 of the 2015/2016 PBN Program:

 

-    Connections to Train Stations: Projects that improve the integration between cycling and public transport.

-    Connections to Schools: Projects that encourage students to cycle to school or tertiary education institutions.

-    Connections to Activity Centres: Projects that encourage connect to strategic Activity Centres identified in State Government’s Directions 2031.

 

Projects that do not demonstrate compliance with the above priorities are unlikely to receive funding through the grants program.

 

In addition to the priorities outlined above for Category 2, the DoT also outlined the following conditions:


 

 

-     50% of the project cost can be requested (other funding sources can be contributed towards the project, however the combined State Government funding cannot exceed 50%);

-     Projects must be completed and acquitted by 20 May 2016 in order to receive grant funding (unless two year option is established);

-     A $20,000 minimum cap for path and on road infrastructure; and

-     Mandatory promotional signage.

 

The 2015/2016 PBN Program also allows for larger projects to be funded over two years. Applicants can apply for two-year funding, however applicants must indicate the accurate amount required for design and documentation in Year 1 (2015/2016), and an indicative amount for construction/delivery in Year 2 (2016/2017). If the indicative amount and project scope are retained, DoT guarantees funding in Year 2. Applicants will need to submit the project again in Year 2, with a final design and costing.

Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken as part of the development of the Wanneroo Cycle Plan 2008. Further consultation will be conducted as part of the development of the City's new Cycle Plan with approved funding from the 2014/2015 PBN Program.

Comment

The changes to the PBN Program detailed above provides the City with the opportunity to submit three projects in Category 2 – Path and On-road projects and one project in Category 3. As the City received funding in the past five years for the development of a new Cycle Plan in the 2014/2015 PBN  Program, it is ineligible to receive any further funding in this category in the 2015/2016 funding round.

 

Under the new arrangements for the PBN Program, Administration proposes to submit one project for construction in the 2015/16 financial year and a further two projects for design and documentation in 2015/16 financial year with construction in the 2016/17 financial year. Administration recommends to Council the submission of the following bicycle network construction project for funding from the PBN Program in the 2015/2016 financial year:

 

Project

Justification

Hartman Drive, Madeley: Construct Concrete Shared Path (2.5m) WEST side from Kingsway to Gnangara Road (1225m). Alignment to allow for the future dualling of Hartman Drive (Attachment 1 Refers)

Improved connectivity with Kingsway Christian College, Ashdale Secondary College, Ashdale Primary School, Wangara Industrial Estate and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.

 

Administration also recommends the submission of the following bicycle network projects for funding from the PBN Local Government Grant Scheme for design and documentation in the 2015/2016 financial year and construction in the 2016/17 financial year.

 


 

 

 

Project

Justification

Ocean Reef Road, Woodvale: Design and Documentation - SOUTH side of Ocean Reef road from Wanneroo Road to existing pathway east of Trappers Drive (1170m) (Attachment 2 Refers). The pathway will be constructed as Red Asphalt Shared Path with flush kerbing on both sides (2.5m) of the path.

Improve connectivity to Edgewater Train Station, Wangara Industrial Area and Yellagonga Regional Park. This project will require approval from the City of Joondalup and the Department of Parks and Wildlife which will take some time to complete. The two year staging of this project will allow Council to get agreement from all parties.

Mirrabooka Avenue, Girrawheen: Design and Documentation – removing existing 1.2m footpath from east side of Mirrabooka Avenue between Marangaroo Drive and Beach Road (1395m) (Attachment 3 Refers) and installing 2.5m concrete Shared Path at the same location.

Improve connectivity to Mercy College, Roseworth Primary School and Mirrabooka Bus Station. This project is proposed outside a number of residential properties on Mirrabooka Avenue. The two year staging of this project will allow Council to consult with property owners.

 

As part of the review of possible projects for grant submissions it was determined that a project currently listed in 2015/2016 of the Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program with proposed funding allocated from potential PBN grants does not meet the criteria outlined in the new application form.  The construction of 1035m of 2.1m shared path on the west side of Hartman Drive from Ocean Reef Road to Motivation Drive cannot be constructed to meet the minimum requirements of the PBN Program. The main concerns with the project are the provision of safe crossing points at the intersections of:

-     Hartman Drive and Prindiville Drive;

-     Hartman Drive and Buckingham Drive; and

-     Hartman Drive and Ocean Reef Road.

 

Hartman Drive is a District Distributor Road within the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and should therefore have a shared path on both sides of the road. Due to the constraints of these intersections a longer term view will need to be taken to provide the required crossing points at these intersections. The City will need to consider the redesign of these intersections to allow for pedestrian and cyclist crossing points which will take some time to develop due to a number of constraints at the site. These include a lack of road reserve, alignment issues of the intersections and the location of other services within the road reserve.

 

Taking into consideration the removal of PR-2692 - Hartman Drive from the 2015/16 financial year, the following variations to the existing Pathways and Trails Capital works program will need to occur to enable the City to submit the projects above for the PBN Program in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017:

 

Project

Current Year

Proposed Year

PR- 2496- Hartman Drive, Madeley

2014/2015

2015/2016

PR- 2692 - Hartman Drive, Wangara

2015/2016

2025/2026

PR- 2492- Ocean Reef Road, Woodvale

2015/2016

2016/2017

PR-2509-Mirrabooka Avenue, Girrawheen

2016/2017

2016/2017

 

In addition to the three projects being submitted under the path and or road infrastructure category, Administration proposes to submit one project to install end of trip facilities across the City.  As the PBN Program specifically looks at cycling for transport the following locations have been identified as priorities:

 

-     High patronage public transport sites;

-     Locations within activity centres; and

-     Schools.

-    

The locations of all end of trip facilities to be installed will be determined in accordance with the above priority. 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.

Risk Management Considerations

Should Council not submit any projects for the 2015/16 PBN  Program, Council will need to fully fund the construction of these projects from municipal funds. By submitting applications, the City has the opportunity to obtain part funding for the projects and reduce the demand on the City's 10 year Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program.

 

The proposed pathway links are important links in improving the connectivity and safety of the City's pathway network. Should council not install these pathway sections pedestrian and cyclist safety in these area will remain compromised.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Projects approved for funding as part of the PBN Local Government Grant Program 2014/2015 will require a minimum of 50% contribution from the City towards the overall cost of each project.

It should be noted that the total funding pool for all 31 councils in the Perth metropolitan area is $1.33M and the City is applying for $105,400 of grant funding in 2015/2016 financial year. The City is unlikely to get funding for all projects submitted, however the DoT priorities may differ from Council's priorities and by submitting multiple applications the City maximises its opportunity of receiving grant funding.

The following table provides a proposed breakdown of projects and cost allocations for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years to reflect the best case outcomes of the submissions:

 

 

 

Project

Project Cost

Proposed Council Contribution (Min)

Grant Requested

PR- 2496- Hartman Drive, Madeley - Construct 1225m x 2.5m concrete shared path on the western side of Hartman Drive from Kingsway to Gnangara Road

$176,000

$100,000

$76,000

PR-2492- Ocean Reef Road, Woodvale: Design and Documentation - SOUTH side of Ocean Reef road from Wanneroo Road to existing pathway east of Trappers Drive (1170m) (Attachment 2 Refers). The pathway will be constructed as Red Asphalt Shared Path with flush kerbing on both sides (2.5m) of the path.

2015/2016

$10,000

2016/2017

$183,000

2015/2016

$6,000

2016/2017

$100,000

2015/2016

$4,000

2016/2017

$83,000

PR-2509-Mirrabooka Avenue, Girrawheen: Design and Documentation – removing existing 1.2m footpath from east side of Mirrabooka Avenue between Marangaroo Drive and Beach Road (1395m) (Attachment 3 Refers) and installing 2.5m concrete Shared Path at the same location.

2015/2016

$20,000

2016/2017

$299,000

2015/2016

$12,000

2016/2017

$169,000

2015/2016

$8,000

2016/2017

$130,000

PR-2078- End of Trip Facilities- installation of End of Trip facilities at various locations within the City

$38,000

$20,600

$17,400

TOTAL 2015/2016

$244,000

$138,600

$105,400

TOTAL 2016/2017

$482,000

$269,000

$213,000

 

The estimated total cost of the submitted projects for the 2015/2016 financial year is $244,000, with potential funding of $138,600 to be approved by Council. Provision will need to be made in the draft 2015/2016 Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program to accommodate the two path infrastructure proposed projects, two design and documentation projects proposed and the end of trip facilities.

In addition, provision will also need to be made in the draft 2016/2017 Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program for the construction of the two projects listed for design and documentation in 2015/2016 PBN Grants Program. The estimated total cost of the submitted staged projects for the 2016/2017 financial year is $482,000, with potential funding of $269,000 to be approved by Council.

The following table provides a summary of cost allocations and comparisons with existing funding allocations in the 10 Year Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program: 

 

 

Total Cost

Proposed Council Contribution

Grant Requested

Proposed 2015/2016

$244,000

$138,600

$105,400

Existing 2015/2016

$402,600

$202,600

$200,000

Difference

-$158,600

-$64,000

-$94,600

Proposed 2016/2017

$482,000

$269,000

$213,000

Existing 2016/2017

$369,000

$199,000

$170,000

Difference

$113,000

$70,000

$43,000

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the following City of Wanneroo bicycle network projects being submitted for funding consideration from the 2015/2016 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grants Program :

Project

Project Cost

Proposed Council Contribution(Min)

PR- 2496- Hartman Drive, Madeley - Construct 1225m x 2.5m concrete shared path on the western side of Hartman Drive from Kingsway to Gnangara Road

 

$176,000

 

$100,000

PR- 2492- Ocean Reef Road, Woodvale: Design and Documentation - SOUTH side of Ocean Reef road from Wanneroo Road to existing pathway east of Trappers Drive (1170m) (Attachment 2 Refers). The pathway will be constructed as Red Asphalt Shared Path with flush kerbing on both sides (2.5m) of the path.

2015/2016

$10,000

2016/2017

$183,000

2015/2016

$6,000

2016/2017

$100,000

PR-2509-Mirrabooka Avenue, Girrawheen: Design and Documentation – removing existing 1.2m footpath from east side of Mirrabooka Avenue between Marangaroo Drive and Beach Road (1395m) (Attachment 3 Refers) and installing 2.5m concrete Shared Path at the same location.

2015/206

$20,000

2016/207

$299,000

2015/2016

$12,000

2016/2017

$169,000

PR-2078- End of Trip Facilities- installation of End of Trip facilities at various locations within the City

 

$38,000

 

$20,600

TOTAL

$244,000

$138,600

 


 

 

2.       NOTES that the figures for 2016/2017 in Recommendation 1 relate to the construction component of projects submitted for design and documentation in 2015/2016 and will be subject to grants being approved for the design and documentation;

 

3.       NOTES that the 10 Year Pathways and Trails Capital Works Program will need to be adjusted to reflect the outcomes of the submissions for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 PBN Local Government Grants Program.

 

Attachments:

1.

Hartman Drive, Madeley - Network Map

14/264646[v2]

 

2.

Ocean Reef Road Shared path - Wanneroo Road to City of Joondalup Boundary

14/264693[v2]

 

3.

Mirrabooka Avenue Shared Path - Beach Road to Marangaroo Drive

14/264703

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           341


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           342


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           343


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           344

IN06-10/14         Review Proposed Roundabouts along The Avenue, at Adora Street and Azelia Street, Alexander Heights

File Ref:                                              8053 – 14/265657

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7  

Previous Items:                                   IN03-07/12 ReportIN03-07/12 - Resolution- Alexander Heights Precinct - Traffic Management Study - Review and Status of Implementation - Ordinary Council - 24 Jul 2012 7.00pm      

Issue

To consider the installation of two proposed roundabouts along The Avenue at the Adora Street and Azelia Street (south) intersections, Alexander Heights.

 

Background

Council considered a review of the Alexander Heights Precinct – Traffic Management Study at its meeting of 24 July 2012 (IN03-07/12 refers) and resolved in part to:

 

          LISTS for consideration in the City’s Draft 10-Year Capital Works Program 2013/14 2022/23 Traffic Treatments:

a)      $40,000 for the construction of raised median islands and tree planting on Greenpark Road between Northumberland Avenue and Alexander Drive;

b)      $180,000 for the construction of a roundabout at The Avenue/Azelia Street (South) intersection;

c)      An additional $30,000 for the construction of a roundabout at The Avenue/Adora Street intersection from $150,000 to $180,000;

A location map of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1.

Detail

The installation of a roundabout at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection is a listed supplementary recommendation in the Alexander Heights Precinct – Traffic Management Study. Supplementary recommendations were listed for consideration of implementation should the primary traffic management recommendations not address the traffic issues along the roads within the Alexander Heights Precinct. Report IN03-07/12 revisited the recommendations of the traffic study and recommended that Council allocate an amount of $180,000 for the construction of a roundabout at the Azelia Street (south) / The Avenue roundabout. Administrations comments in relation to progressing with the roundabout installation at the Azelia Street (south) intersection were as follows;

 

Recommendation 18

The Avenue/Azelia Street (south) intersection

Proposed Treatment:

Roundabout – supplementary treatment to Recommendation 4

Status:

Not undertaken

Comments:

The Avenue, between Marangaroo Drive to Whitcombe Way, is a local distributor road, with a section of the road providing a bus route. A painted median with tree planting has been installed from Whitcombe Way and Marangaroo Drive in agreement with the TMS.

The high TMI&IP score of 72 between Marangaroo Drive and Cromwell Road indicates that the traffic management issues on this road have not been fully addressed and that this supplementary Recommendation is warranted.

Estimated cost $180,000

 

In addition, the installation of a roundabout at the Adora Street / The Avenue intersection was also listed as a supplementary recommendation in the Alexander Heights Precinct – Traffic Management Study. Report IN03-07/12 revisited the recommendations of the traffic study and recommended that Council allocate an additional $30,000 to the already listed $150,000 for the construction of a roundabout at the Adora Street / The Avenue intersection. Administrations comments in relation to progressing with the roundabout installation at the Adora Street intersection were as follows;

 

Recommendation 19

The Avenue / Adora Street Intersection

Proposed Treatment:

Roundabout – supplementary treatment to Recommendation 4

Status:

Not undertaken

Comments:

The Avenue, between Marangaroo Drive to Whitcombe Way, is a local distributor road, with a section of the road providing a bus route. A painted median with tree planting has been installed from Whitcombe Way to Marangaroo Drive in agreement with the TMS.

The high TMI&IP score of 72 between Marangaroo Drive and Cromwell Road indicates that the traffic management issues on this road have not been fully addressed and that this supplementary Recommendation is warranted.

This project in currently listed in Year 3 of the 10-Year Capital Works Program 2012/13 – 2021/22 Traffic Treatments with a allocation of $150,000.

Estimated cost $180,000

 

Recommendation 4 (referenced in both the above recommendations) is shown below;

Recommendation 4

The Avenue - Marangaroo Drive to Azelia Street (north)

Proposed Treatment:

Part raised, part painted median incorporating landscaping

Status:

Complete

Comments:

The high TMI&IP score of 72 between Marangaroo Drive and Cromwell Road indicates that the traffic management issues on this road have not been fully addressed and that supplementary Recommendations 18 and 19 are warranted.

 

Consultation

To ascertain the opinion of the residents affected by the two roundabouts proposed along The Avenue at the Adora Street and Azelia Street (south) intersections, a letter was sent to the owners and occupiers of properties adjacent to the two intersections on 25 July 2014 (Attachments 2 and 3 refer).  The concept plans sent to residents are at Attachments 4 and 5 respectively.

 

In response to The Avenue/Azelia Street (south) roundabout proposal, there were no responses received from the seven abutting property owners and occupiers. The City's approach with regard to projects which have received no responses is to proceed as per the project proposal.

 

In response to The Avenue/Adora Street roundabout proposal, two responses were received from six abutting property owners and occupiers, with both responses opposing the roundabout proposal. The comments made by respondents are outlined in Attachment 6.

 

An on-site meeting was held on 7 August 2014 to determine whether the residents' objections were in relation to the concept design of the roundabout or the need for its installation. It was made clear at this meeting that residents' objections were in relation to the roundabout installation and not the design.

Comment

The City's Functional Road Hierarchy should be the primary reference for determining what intersections are likely to experience higher traffic volumes based on the hierarchy of the intersecting roads. A holistic review of the road network for Alexander Heights has indentified that the proposed installation of a roundabout at the Adora Street/The Avenue intersection is not in accord with the City's Functional Road Hierarchy. The implementation of a roundabout at an intersection which experiences low traffic volumes could potentially have a negative effect on network traffic movements within the road network.

 

With reference to the City's Functional Road Hierarchy, The Avenue is listed as a Local Distributor Road extending between Marangaroo Drive and Hepburn Avenue both of which are listed as District Distributor A roads. Azelia Street is listed as a Local Distributor Road which exists as a loop road starting and ending with T-intersection connections with The Avenue. Furthermore, Azelia Street connects with two other Local Distributor roads, being Errina Road and Hillcrest Road. Adora Street is listed as a local access road extending between Azelia Street and The Avenue. Adora Street is a short length of road servicing 20 properties, and one POS. An excerpt detailing the Alexander Heights Functional Road Hierarchy has been included in this report, see Attachment 7.

 

Main Roads WA Functional Road Hierarchy Criteria stipulates the following;

 

Road Types

Primary Distributor

District Distributor A

District Distributor B

Local Distributor

Access Road

Above 15,000 vehicles per day

Above 8,000 vehicles per day

Above 6,000 vehicles per day

Maximum desirable volume 6,000 vehicles per day

Maximum desirable volume 3,000 vehicles per day

 


 

 

Traffic Data collected for The Avenue, Azelia Street and Adora Street are listed below;

 

The Avenue – South of Azelia Street (south)

Average Weekday Traffic Volume – 5489 vehicles per day

85th percentile (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) – 62 Km/hr

 

Azelia Street – West of Cordelia Place

Average Weekday Traffic Volume – 2087 vehicles per day

85th percentile (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) – 61 Km/hr

 

Adora Street – West of The Avenue

Average Weekday Traffic Volume – 383 vehicles per day

85th percentile (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) – 35 Km/hr

 

With reference to the above Traffic Count data, a considerable amount of traffic would utilise The Avenue/Azelia Street (south) intersection as a result of the intersection existing along a high use route which connects Marangaroo Drive and Mirrabooka Avenue via Errina Road, Azelia Street and The Avenue. With consideration of this, together with the understanding of the advantages of roundabouts at high volume 3-way and 4-way intersections, it is recommended that the City progress with the installation of a roundabout at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection.

 

As is evident from the above Traffic Count data, the Adora Street/The Avenue intersection experiences significantly lower turning traffic volumes in comparison to the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection. The installation of a roundabout at this intersection would have no impact in regards to congestion and would have a low benefit cost ratio. This being the case, Administration recommends a roundabout at this location not be constructed as it is unable to justify the need for the expenditure.

 

Following construction of the roundabout at The Avenue/Azelia Street (south) intersection, Administration will monitor traffic volumes and speeds on The Avenue to determine the need for the installation of additional traffic treatments on this road.

 

The Transport and Traffic team has a significant workload which is evidenced by the number of reports being presented for Council consideration.  The appointment of an additional traffic engineer in the last 12 months has assisted the team to clear some of this work, however there is still a number of projects outstanding.  These projects include Butler Train Station Precinct Parking Prohibitions and Parking Permits, review of the City's Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy (TMI&IP) development of a Pathways Policy, Templeton Crescent Traffic Management Scheme, preparation of the City's Cycle Plan, issues around schools and a number of design and documentation projects listed in the Capital Works Program. The provision of a temporary resource will assist to progress and finalise these projects.  It is requested that part of the savings achieved by not proceeding with the construction of a roundabout at The Avenue/Adora Street intersection be used to fund the employment of an additional Traffic Engineer for a 12 month fixed term contract at an annual salary cost of approximately $82,000 plus on costs.

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

As the construction of the two roundabouts along The Avenue at the Adora Street and Azelia Street (south) intersections are already listed for consideration in the City's Capital Works Program, Council should consider that any changes in relation to progressing or removing either project from the program will have associated consequences and risks.

A table detailing the associated risks in relation to proceeding or removing each of the roundabout projects is shown below.

 


Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue Roundabout Proposal

Proceed to Construction

Removed from Program

·        Ongoing Maintenance of Infrastructure

·        Adjoining residents' verges are damaged/removed.

·        Generated verge parking issues.

·        Continuing Complaints

·        Speeding and Hooning Issues

·        Increased Crash risk along The Avenue

·        Pedestrian Safety Issues

·        Property Safety Issues

·        Increase wear and tear on existing infrastructure

Adora Street/The Avenue Roundabout Proposal

Proceed to Construction

Removed from Program

·        Ongoing Maintenance of Infrastructure

·        Continuing objections from residents

·        Residents' dissatisfaction with Council regarding over-spending of Council funds on excessive infrastructure.

·        Excessive generated noise due to acceleration and deceleration.

·        Adjoining residents' verges are damaged/removed.

·        Generated verge parking issues.

·        Resident Perspective is Satisfied

·        Road network is left uncompromised

·        Funding reallocation in Capital Works Program

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A project for the installation of the roundabouts along The Avenue at the Azelia Street (south) and Adora Street intersections is listed in year 2014/2015 of the City's Capital Works Program – Traffic Treatments (PR-2875 refers) which has a budget allocation of $400,000. Given the review conducted by Administration in regards to rationalising the number of roundabouts and the results of community consultation, it is considered that the City proceeds with the construction of the roundabout at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection only, and does not install a roundabout at the Adora Street/The Avenue intersection.

 

Funds left available as a result of this change will be relocated as part of the "Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Traffic Management Proposal - Community Feedback" report also tabled as part of this Council meeting.

 

The proposed employment of an additional Traffic Engineer for a 12 month fixed term contract will cost approximately $82,000 per annum salary plus on costs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       PROCEEDS with installation of the proposed roundabout at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection in accordance with City Drawing No. 3000-1-0 as listed for construction in year 204/2015 of the 10-year Traffic Treatments Capital Works Program;

2.       SUPPORTS the removal of the proposed roundabout at Adora Street/The Avenue intersection as listed for construction in year 2014/2015 of the 10-year Traffic Treatments Capital Works Program;

3.       NOTES that following construction of the roundabout at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection, Administration will monitor traffic volumes and speeds on The Avenue to determine the need for additional traffic treatments on its road;

4.       ADVISES the residents at the Adora Street/The Avenue intersection of Council's decision;

5.       ADVISES the residents at the Azelia Street (south)/The Avenue intersection of Council's decision;

6.       SUPPORTS the appointment of a Traffic Engineer on a 12 month contract to assist with the finalisation of a number of Transport and Traffic projects; and

7.       APPROVES the reallocation of $82,000 from Project PR – 2875  Traffic treatments – The Avenue, Alexander Heights to the Transport and Traffic Salary Account No 728412-9399-201 for the funding of a Traffic Engineer position on a 12 month contract basis.

 

Attachments:

1.

The Avenue - Azelia St _sth_ and Adora St - Locality Plan

14/265808

 

2.

Letter to Residents - The Avenue_Azelia Street - Roundabout Proposal

14/265815

 

3.

Letter to Residents - The Avenue_Adora Street - Roundabout Proposal

14/265857

 

4.

The Avenue_Azelia Street (sth) - Concept Plan

14/266011

 

5.

The Avenue_Adora Street - Concept Plan

14/266015

 

6.

The Avenue_Adora Street - Resident Comments

14/266017

 

7.

AlexanderHeights_FRH_Excerpt

14/268918

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       350


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       351


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       352


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           353


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           354


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                       355


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                                                                           358


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 14 October, 2014                                           359

IN07-10/14         Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Feedback

File Ref:                                              8053 – 14/264966

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the results of community consultation for the proposed implementation of a Traffic Management Scheme along Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen.

 

Background

In response to concerns raised by residents along Hudson Avenue an amount of $100,000 was approved in the 2014/2015 Traffic Treatments Program for the installation of traffic treatments along Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Girrawheen Avenue.

 

A location map of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1.

Detail

In developing a cost effective traffic management plan for community consultation, Administration considered the following:

 

·    Road function;

·    Intersections;

·    Crossovers;

·    Footpaths;

·    Lighting;

·    Traffic treatment spacing; and

·    Bus routes

 

Road function

Hudson Avenue is a local Distributor Road in accordance with the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and is contained within a road reserve width of 18 metres. Hudson Avenue has been constructed as a single carriageway for its entire length, however the pavement width varies. The western section of Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Koman Way is a standard 2-lane, bi-directional single carriageway, with a 7.4m pavement width. The eastern section of Hudson Avenue between Koman Way and Girrawheen Avenue widens to 10m and initially consists of a 2-lane, bi-directional single carriageway configuration with a wide painted median. Continuing east, the median then reduces to a single line, which, for this remaining section subsequently allows for parking embayments adjacent to Our Lady of Mercy Primary School.

 

The traffic treatments have been chosen with the requirement to reduce speed without displacing traffic onto local roads.

 

Intersections

In accordance with Main Roads standards, speed cushions should not be installed within 20m of an intersection. This control is put in place to ensure drivers entering the road have sufficient time to observe the treatment and take appropriate action.

 


 

 

Crossovers

The majority of the property frontages are less than 20 metres and the typical crossover width for each property is in the order 6 metres.  The proposed median treatment and isolated speed cushion treatments were chosen to avoid placement in front of crossovers.

Street Lighting

To ensure that speed cushions are observable at night the Australian Standard for street lighting (AS1158 Section 3.2.6.1) states the following (in part);

 

"The intention of the lighting associated with the device is to alert the driver approaching at a speed too high to safely pass through the device of both the presence and nature of the device so that the driver can adjust speed accordingly.

To achieve this each device shall be provided with an illumination of not less than 3.5 lux, in addition to the general road lighting, over the relevant design area.

 

Traffic Treatment Spacing

To ensure that the desired effect of traffic management devices is achieved it is important that the relative distance between devices is kept constant.  If the treatments are placed too close, drivers may become frustrated and seek alternative routes through local access streets or engage in anti-social behaviour. If the treatments are placed too far apart the overall effect will be lost and drivers will accelerate/decelerate at each device.

 

Bus routes

Hudson Avenue is not part of the Public Transport Authority Bus Route Network, however any traffic treatments along Hudson Avenue should allow passage for a small charter bus due to the location of Our Lady of Mercy Primary School.

 

The Hudson Avenue Traffic Management Scheme developed for community consultation, was unable to have a single treatment applied along its full length due to the changing road width. The proposed treatment of the section of Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Koman Way includes the installation of a painted median with eight raised median islands. The raised median islands have been located to ensure that property access is not restricted. The inclusion of a median through this section results in a reduced lane width of 3m in both directions which in turn will reduce vehicle speed. The reduction in lane width is designed to reduce the 85% speed (the speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) to be closer to the built up area speed limit of 50km/h for Hudson Avenue.

 

For the section of Hudson Avenue between Koman Way and Girrawheen Avenue, the road width is wider, creating a more open road environment. Due to the number of property access points, raised median islands are not an appropriate treatment and it is considered that the installation of speed cushions is the most effective treatment to reduce vehicle speeds.  This is also the most cost effective option due to minimal impact on the existing road infrastructure. The speed cushion treatments have been spaced in accordance with Main Roads WA requirements, which state that speed cushions should ideally be between 80m – 100m apart with a maximum spacing of 250m. In addition, the proposed speed cushions are located adjacent to existing street lighting.

Consultation

To ascertain the opinion of the residents affected by the proposal, a survey letter was sent out on 25 July 2014 to 69 owners and occupiers of properties abutting Hudson Avenue, with the specified final reply date of 18 August 2014 (Attachment 2 refers).

 

Sixteen responses were received, 15 in favour and 1 opposed. The comments made by respondents, along with Administration's responses, are outlined in Attachment 3.

 

Comment

The significant level of support for the installation of a Traffic Management Scheme along Hudson Avenue is a good indicator that residents are concerned about speeding vehicles and generally accept the proposed traffic treatments.

 

In general, residents are in favour with the proposal as outlined in City Drawing 3008-1-0 (refer Attachment 4); however there were a number of comments which indicated a need to control the speed of traffic heading east along Hudson Avenue on the approach to the Berwyn Road roundabout. An assessment on-site has identified a slight grade on the approach to the roundabout for eastbound vehicles, which results in the tendency for motorists to enter the roundabout at speed. The traffic management scheme has been amended to incorporate a pre-deflected approach along Hudson Avenue on the west leg approach to assist in reducing the approach speeds for eastbound vehicles at this location.

 

In addition, Our lady of Mercy Primary School made comment in regards to the car park exit crossover opposite House No. 62. The school requested that consideration be given to closing the median to restrict parents to exit left only when leaving the school car park. Due to the presence of the driveways for No. 60 and No. 62 at this location, a median island is unable to be considered. However, the City has proposed to extend the raised island located immediately east of the exit crossover to the west to encourage a left-turn exit for parents when exiting at this location. The inclusion of a left-turn arrow is also proposed to be put in place to help encourage this movement.

 

A revised traffic management proposal for Hudson Avenue has been completed and is referenced as City Drawing No. 3008-1-1 (refer Attachment 5).

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

This listing of Hudson Avenue as a project for consideration for the development of a Traffic Management Scheme indicates that Council is aware that Hudson Avenue has traffic related issues in regards to speeding and hoon activity. The risk considerations for Council are as outlined in the following table:

 

Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme

Proceed to Construction

Removed from Program

·        Ongoing Maintenance of Infrastructure

·        Continuing Complaints

·        Speeding and Hooning Issues

·        Safety Issues for Our Lady of Mercy Primary School

·        Increased Crash risk along Hudson Avenue

·        Pedestrian Safety Issues

·        Property Safety Issues

·        Increase wear and tear on existing infrastructure

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A project for the implementation of a traffic management scheme along Hudson Avenue is already listed in 2014/15 of the City's Capital Works Program, with a budget allocation of $100,000. Given the results of community consultation, amendments have been made to the concept proposal and the estimated cost to complete the full scope of works, including the additional items outlined below, is $160,000:

 

-     Construct pre-deflection on Hudson Avenue on western leg approach to the Berwyn Road roundabout; and

-     Extend existing raised island to encourage left turn movement for traffic exiting Our Lady of Mercy Primary School Car park.

 

It is considered that this $60,000 shortfall in funding can be accommodated from savings resulting from the removal of the Adora Street / The Avenue Roundabout Proposal listed for construction this year (2014/2015) as part of the Traffic Treatments Capital Works Program. This is subject to a separate report "Review Proposed Roundabouts - The Avenue PR-2875" on this agenda.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the revised Traffic Management Scheme for Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen, as detailed in City of Wanneroo Drawing No. 3008-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers) at an estimated cost of $160,000.

2.       NOTES the following budget variation to accommodate the shortfall in funding for the Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme as follows; and

Project No

From

To

Description

PR-2875

$60,000

 

The Avenue – Construct two roundabouts at the Azelia Street (south) and Adora Street intersections.

PR-2397

 

$60,000

Hudson Avenue – Traffic Management Scheme

3.       ADVISES the residents of Hudson Avenue of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme - Locality Plan

14/264967

 

2.

Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme - CC Letter to Residents

14/264975

 

3.

Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme - CC Results and Admin Comment

14/264976

 

4.

Hudson Avenue - C.C. TMS Concept Plan 3008-1-0

14/264971

 

5.

Hudson Avenue - Revised TMS Plan 3008-1-1

14/264980

Minuted