Issue : 169 Gibbs Road, Nowergup

1.         In relation to the SAT matter DR95 2013, which was listed for a final hearing on 10 and 11 March, Lime Industries withdrew their application for review.  Could Administration please provide an explanation?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

The Full Hearing on 10 March 2015 was for the SAT to review two matters arising from the conditions of Planning Approval granted by Council from its decision made at its 14 October 2014 Meeting. The two matters were for a review of:

·         The dates specified in Conditions (b) and (c);

·         Condition (kk) as resolved by Council.

The issue relating to the dates referred to in Conditions (b) and (c) were resolved during the Hearing, in a manner as sought by the applicant. The discussion surrounding Condition (kk) concluded with the applicant advising the SAT that it would not proceed with the review of Condition (kk) but may seek further Planning Approval for blending and manufacturing activities on Lot 52 sometime in the future.

Given that an outcome was reached on the matters subject to the Full Hearing, the applicant was given leave by the SAT to withdraw the application for review with respect to Condition (kk).

2.         The SAT member expressed his concerns about a threshold issue.  Could Administration please explain?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Judge David Parry (the SAT Deputy Presiding Member that heard the matter) expressed concerns about a threshold issue in the Hearing. In the context which Judge Parry used it, Administration understands the phrase ‘threshold issue’ to be a reference to a preliminary question, the answer to which has the potential to determine, or influence in a significant way, the substance of the proceedings before the SAT.

In the context of this, Judge Parry was concerned that the development application subject to the Hearing did not cover the proposal to blend and manufacture limestone. Judge Parry suggested that the Applicant may need to seek leave to amend the application for approval before proceeding (which the Applicant declined to do).

3.         Did the City’s lawyers, Castledine Gregory provide advice to the City of Wanneroo about whether SAT actually had jurisdiction to be hearing this matter?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Administration did not seek advice as to whether or not the particular matters the subject of the review were within or outside the SAT’s jurisdiction.

The applicant sought the Full Hearing at the SAT to contest conditions of Planning Approval as resolved by Council at its meeting of 14 October 2014.

Applications for review of decisions made by a responsible authority (in this case, Council) can be heard at the SAT pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

4.         If yes, could you please provide details?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Refer to the answer provided for Question (3) above.

5.         If no, does Administration have confidence in the advice provided by Castledine Gregory given the withdrawal of their application for review and why?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Not applicable. Administration also notes that the Applicant could have sought leave to amend the application on 10 March 2015, but chose not to.

6.         Could Administration please provide details of the cost to the City of defending this matter of conditions that formed part of the approval made by the City on 17 December 2013?  Could this cost include Administrative time as well as the cost of Castledine Gregory and all experts and preparations for the final hearing from 17 December 2013 until 10 March 2015 inclusive?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

The City’s Administration does not record the administrative time spent on responding to SAT matters. However, the costs that the City has incurred from assistance from external experts, including experts in planning, karst and subterranean ecology, environmental impact assessment, noise, geotechnical engineering and environment and planning law are $280,400.72.  These costs were incurred between July 2013 and April 2015.

7.         Given that the matter was withdrawn because Lime Industries had never made a development application for lime manufacturing, will the City seek to get the money it has spent defending this matter back from the lawyers?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

No. The application for review at the SAT was originally sought by the applicant in response to the ‘deemed refusal’ of the application. The application was deemed refused, as the City had not made a determination of the application within 90 days of its receipt.

The SAT matter progressed to a Full Hearing that occurred on 10 March 2015, as the applicant was contesting the two matters referred to in the answer to Question (1) above. These were residual issues that arose out of the decision of Council to approve the application subject to conditions at its meeting of 14 October 2014.

On 10 March 2015, the Applicant decided to withdraw its application for review of Condition (kk). As a consequence, the SAT did not determine whether the development application sought approval of lime manufacturing, or whether such a use is permissible within the Rural Resource zone. In the Proceedings, the City contended that it was not a permissible use, and even if it was, it should not be approved having regard to the impacts on the environment and the amenity of the locality.

The outcome achieved on 10 March 2015 was favourable to the City, as the proposal to blend and manufacture limestone was not approved and the City did not have to incur the full costs of the hearing (noting that each party generally bears their own costs regardless of the outcome in the SAT).

8.         The approval for the extractive industry on Lot 50 Nowergup Road, Nowergup includes the condition not to bring any materials etc on to the site.  Could the City of Wanneroo explain under what circumstances Lime Industries would be able to undertake lime manufacturing?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

For the City to consider granting approval, the applicant would be required to lodge either a new application to carry out this activity on the site, or an application to amend their current planning approval.

Should an application for manufacturing be lodged, Administration would consider the proposal against the provisions of DPS 2, having regard to any legal advice that it may seek or receive.

9.         Could Lime Industries make an application to include lime manufacturing or blending on their existing approval for the extractive approval for the extractive industry? If yes could you explain the circumstances?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

As outlined in the answer to Question (8) above, an application would need to be lodged by the applicant should they again seek to carry out blending or manufacturing on the site.

10.      Could Lime Industries make a new application for lime manufacturing or blending on this site? If yes could you explain the circumstances?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Yes, as outlined in the answers to Questions (8) and (9) above.

11.      If Lime Industries make an application for lime manufacturing or blending or if Lime Industries seek to add to the existing extractive industry development approval for lime manufacturing or blending will the application be advised to the public to make submissions?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

The City’s Administration would advertise such a proposal for public comment should it be received.

Questions were intended for 31 March 2015 Council meeting.  Regrettably I was not informed that the meeting was to be held at Two Rocks instead of the Wanneroo Shire Offices on 31 March 2015.  I searched the website and the only place I could find notice of the change of venue is at the top of the Agenda for the meeting.

I suggest that on the page that documents the dates of the Council meetings that the venue for the meetings is also included.  The assumption is that the meetings will be at the Council offices.

At the end of 2014 WAPC and CoW were collaborating to outline a zoning strategy to provide for a co-ordinated approach to land development in East Wanneroo and to prepare a report for the Commission meeting to be held March 2015.

The report was tabled at the first Briefing meeting in 2015 but within 2 days of being released the report was withdrawn from the Council meeting agenda.  The reason given for this was, “a need for further research”.

Sue Burrows informed me that she was due to present information regarding East Wanneroo to the WAPC Tuesday 31 March 2015.  I expect her feedback from that meeting today.  She did inform me however that a joint report was not being presented but that further work with CoW would be undertaken.

1.         What action has been undertaken by CoW since the joint report was withdrawn?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Further research has been undertaken regarding criteria for lifting of Urban Deferment (to change land from Urban Deferred to Urban zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme).

Also, written advice is being sought from the various infrastructure agencies (including Water Corporation, Western Power, Telstra and Main Roads Western Australia) regarding the timeframe within which they will be able to provide their respective infrastructure to enable urban development of the East Wanneroo area to proceed.

2.         Has the ‘further research’ deemed necessary commenced?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Yes.

3.         Who is undertaking the ‘further research’?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

CoW Administration, in consultation with the Department of Planning (DoP) as well as the various infrastructure agencies.

4.         What are the expected outcomes of the ‘further research’?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Criteria for lifting of Urban Deferment which can be considered for inclusion in Local Planning Policy (LPP) 5.3: East Wanneroo.

Also, confirmation that the various infrastructure agencies will be able to provide their infrastructure in a timeframe which aligns with the anticipated timeframe for completion of the planning of the area.

5.         When is it expected that the ‘further research’ will be completed?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

A specific time for this cannot be provided as it is dependent upon progress of the ongoing discussions with the DoP, and how soon the City receives the written advice sought from the infrastructure agencies, and the content of that advice.

6.         Is there any intention by CoW planners and designers to become actively involved with landowners, or their representatives, in the formation of a district structure plan to identify location and type of land use, including housing densities, location of major access roads, and location of commercial centres, public open space and community facilities.

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

LPP 5.3 proposes that the proposed two District Structure Plans (DSP) for East Wanneroo be prepared by landowners/developers/consultants.  However, they will be required to be prepared in close consultation with the City, as well as the various other agencies involved.  The two District Structure Plans are required to be approved by the City and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

7.         Isn’t it in the CoW’s, and its ratepayers, best interest that a plan or design of how the City evolves is developed with input of CoW so that Wanneroo becomes a vital, exciting and state of the art environment aimed at attracting people, businesses and tourists to its precinct?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Yes (see 6 above)

8.         Do the CoW administrators and councillors recognise that the land masses identified as East Wanneroo (north of Dundebar and south of Dundebar Road totalling almost 20 sq km - CoW reply to a previous question -) entail many ‘differences’ with regard to infrastructure, water, transport etc. etc. and therefore ‘readiness’ for development, scoping or rezoning is very different from one place to another within that 20 sq km?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

See answer to question 9 below.

9.         Is it the intention of CoW administrators and councillors to enforce a policy that ALL East Wanneroo (that north of Dundebar Road for example, shown as potential Urban under the East Wanneroo Structure Plan) should proceed  to an MRS amendment jointly by the various landowners, or their representatives – despite the vast ‘differences’ that exist within that area? (see previous question)

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

It is recognised that some parts of East Wanneroo will be more ‘ready’ for urban development  than other parts in terms of provision of infrastructure.  Notwithstanding this, LPP 5.3 proposes that all of the EWSP potential urban area be rezoned to Urban  through two MRS amendments.  The Urban zoning is intended to provide the incentive for landowners and developers to prepare the two DSPs required under LPP 5.3.

The main reason the total potential urban area is proposed to be rezoned, rather than just the areas which are most ‘ready’ in terms of infrastructure provision, is that the preparation of the DSPs will involve a substantial number of technical studies at a substantial cost.  The proposed extent of the future urban area will be an important factor  in the preparation of the studies (eg transport modelling and forecasting of future community infrastructure requirements).  It is therefore desirable that there is a reasonably high degree of confidence in the assumed extent of the future urban area.  This high degree of confidence can best be provided by Urban zoning.

A further advantage in the total area being rezoned is that this would provide an incentive for more landowners and developers to  collaborate in the preparation of the DSPs. 

Such collaboration should facilitate the preparation and processing of DSPs in a more timely manner as compared to their preparation by a more limited number of landowners and developers.

10.      Do CoW administrators and councillors agree that landowners close to amenities and existing infrastructure should be identified by CoW as ready to proceed to an MRS amendment, rather than requiring  them to ‘mark time’ while other outlying areas catch up?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

See answer to question 9 above.  It is also unclear what is meant by outlying areas ‘catching up’.  If this is intended to mean landowners and developers  in outlying areas having to be parties to preparation of the MRS amendment applications, then this is not the case.  The applications can be prepared by just the landowners and developers near to existing infrastructure and amenities, but will need to include the EWSP total potential urban area (north or south of Dundebar Road).

It should also be noted that under LPP 5.3, it is intended that the MRS amendment applications would only be expected to be prepared at a ‘desk top’ level, and not involve the sort of detailed technical studies which will subsequently be required in preparation of the DSPs.

11.      Do CoW Administrators and Councillors recognise that smaller, identified land pockets could proceed to an MRS in a staged approach by dividing the 20 sq kms into 2, 3 or 4 smaller cells, according to the degree of ‘readiness’, and progressing each cell stage by stage; thereby maintaining the LPP 5.3 aims to ‘establish a comprehensive planning framework to develop East Wanneroo in an orderly and proper manner’?  If it is ‘control’ the CoW wants to maintain it would be easier with smaller areas of land.

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

See answers to questions 9 and 10 above.  It should also be noted that LPP 5.3 already divides the total area into two smaller areas (the north and south ‘districts’).

12.      Finally, do CoW administrators and councillors consider that’ individual differences’ are of no account and that a “one size fits all” approach is the best policy?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

See answers to questions 9 and 10 above.

Item: Maintenance of the Ficus trees in Russell Road Madeley

Statement:  Thank you for the regular maintenance of the Ficus trees in Russell Road Madeley and for the pruning of the trees on Thursday, 2 April 2015. The current situation is much better than it was this time last year. A branch fell again later that week on 2 April and was removed promptly and we therefore do not have a photo this time.  Again the trees are fruiting, dropping on the footpath and road creating risk to locals.

1.       We have not yet sighted copies of the Arborists reports from January 2014 to March      2105?

          Statement:  Value for Money, Sustainable Procurement, Probity and Accountability to the ratepayer is not achieved by continuous spending on maintenance; please review against the Governments State Supply Commission Policies located http://www.finance.wa.gov.au/cms/State_Supply_Commission/Procurement_Policy

Response by A/Director, Infrastructure

The City has now received the approval from the external Arborist to release the reports to rate payers. Copies of two such reports have been posted out on 29 April 2015 to Ms McMurdo who requested these on behalf of a number of residents of Russell Road.

2.       A public authority must ensure that its procurement of goods and services achieves the best value for money outcome; we would like feedback of the assessments of the maintenance of these trees and local infrastructure please?

Response by A/Director, Infrastructure

Council resolved previously to retain the trees and also endorsed a management strategy to undertake annual tree maintenance works and infrastructure repairs as required.

Item: Issues regarding speed bumps and the Women’s Shed Merriwa

1.       Did a survey last year for a petition which had 300 signatories to get rid of speed bumps. Will Council be removing the speed bumps from Aldersea Crescent as the accident rate is up 250%?

Response by A/Director, Infrastructure

Community consultation on this particular topic is currently being undertaken and will report to Council in June.

2.       Merriwa’s Women’s shed – 1yr old today. Visited and noticed 4inch poles on top on           benches/cupboards about 10m long 4inch thick. If they roll off would Council pay   compensation if they were to hit someone?

Response by Chief Executive Officer

Propose that a Property Officer inspect the Merriwa’s Women’s Shed to check all elements of the shed are safe.

Response by Manager Community Services

The Community Facilities team will investigate and ensure that either the items are removed or stored securely.

3.       Can the Merriwa’s Women’s Shed get a cupboard for their sewing machines?

Response by Mayor Roberts

It is believed that the ladies of the Women’s Shed in Butler are in contact with City officers and if they require any additional equipment that they would advise the City.

Further Response by Director Community Development

The Community Facilities team have been working with the Merriwa Women’s Shed to resolve issues in relation to storage. Additional storage has recently been provided and Administration is continuing to work with the group and other users of the facility to free up additional storage for the group.

4.       Is there any chance of a disability shed for the disabled?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Question taken on notice.

Further Response by Director Community Development

The Community Development Directorate is more than happy to work with any group who may wish to pursue this idea.

Item: Kingsway Baseball Clubrooms

1.         When questions are taken on notice and responses are sent out, who are the responses checked by before they are sent out?

Response by Chief Executive Officer

The Director in charge of the area.

2.         The questions taken on Notice on 3 February, question 10 regarding which clubs would be using Kingsway Baseball Club rooms, in writing Wanneroo Giants Baseball, Viking softball Club, Jaguar Softball Club and Wanneroo Softball Club. I’m the President of Jaguar Softball Club and I know nothing about it?

Response by Manager Program Services

The Club rooms are available to number of groups who are small ball groups who may have use of that facility, so in regards to that response the City has also included the Jaguars as a potential user of that facility.

3.         Just for the record Jaguars have their own home ground, same as Wanneroo, so there would be no use for us to use those Club rooms as too many of the same type of sport would be using the one club room.

Response by Mayor Roberts

Director of Community and Development to further investigate the response provided.

Further Response by Director Community Development

The response to the initial question was reflecting the fact that the Jaguars Softball Club currently uses the diamonds and batting cages at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex for training purposes during the winter and summer season.

The statement made in the initial response that the facilities would accommodate the club, was simply reflecting the fact that facilities such as change rooms, toilets etc. would be able to accommodate the club’s needs while they were using the facilities. It was not the intention of the response to infer that the club would be re-locating to the Kingsway facility. The South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning process has clearly identified John Maloney Reserve as the preferred location for the club and the recommendations of the Active Reserve Master Planning process reflect this position.

Item: PS06-04/15 Child Care Centre at 20 Celestine Street, Wanneroo

What was the conclusion of the child care centre at 20 Celestine Street?

Response by Director,  Planning and Sustainability

It is an item on tonight’s Agenda, so will be determined in tonight’s meeting.

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Guise

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 31 March 2015 be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

It is with a sigh of relief that our three staff members who were at the first base camp at Everest when the avalanche hit are safe. They still have a journey in front of them as it will take quite a while for them to get to a safe place, however we have been advised that they are safe. Also our thoughts are with Mr Michael Penson, whose son Blake is safe, but still awaiting additional information.

Mr Penson’s phone has been running hot as you can imagine and I have advised that he can leave his mobile phone on during the Council meeting. It is a relief that everybody is safe, but bearing in mind they still have a journey in front of them and our thoughts and prayers are with them and that they do remain safe.

Flynn Drive traffic lights, have they been put back by Main Roads until Neerabup Road links up with this junction? Also will the duelling of Wanneroo road from Joondalup Drive to Halls Road be completed at the same time or before?

Response by A/Director, Infrastructure

The City is currently negotiating with the Contractor for a work order re-commencement program. A meeting this Friday if successful will establish a recommencement date for that portion of work on Flynn Drive. In regards to the second question of the duelling of Wanneroo Road, advice is needed from Main Roads and will be provided in minutes.

Further Response by A/Director, Infrastructure

Main Roads WA has advised that Wanneroo Road will be upgraded as part of the current Mitchell Freeway Extension project to dual carriageway standard from where Wanneroo Road ends as a dual carriageway near Hall Road, through the new ultimate 4 way signalised Flynn Drive/Neerabup Road/Wanneroo Road intersection.  Wanneroo Road will then taper down to single carriageway just north of the existing Flynn Drive/Wanneroo Road
T intersection.

Main Roads WA has also indicated that further information regarding the rest of Wanneroo Road south to Joondalup Drive will be provided in the future.

Cr Winton presented a petition of 211 signatories requesting COW honour the promise to its residents and apply the funds from the sale of property in Fowey Loop, Mindarie to provide a community facility on top of Quinns Mindarie Surf Lifesaving Club from Lisa Wallis in Clarkson.

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

Cr Winton presented a petition of 30 signatories requesting Council’s consideration on imposing a differential rating system on properties within the Settlers Ridgewood Rise Village as part of the City’s Budget 2015/2016 process.

Update

A report to be submitted to Council Meeting to be held on 28 April 2015.

Cr Winton presented a petition of 94 signatories requesting Council’s consideration to install airconditioning or industrial fans at the Gumblossom Community Sports Hall due to exercise programs being run in the hall which is stifling hot in the summer months.

Update

The City will investigate the suitability of options and provide an update to Council in May.

File Ref:                                              3446 – 15/118997

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADVERTISES draft Local Planning Policy 4.17: State Administrative Tribunal, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of 21 days, by way of:

1.       Advertisements in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

2.       Display on the City’s website; and

3.       Letters to relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              11474-02 – 15/66800

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5

Previous Items:                                   PS03-02/15 - Adoption of Amendment No. 32 to the East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 and Amendment No. 2 to the Hocking Neighbourhood Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 - Ordinary Council - 03 Feb 2015 7.00pm       

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.         Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 32 to East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (Hocking and Pearsall), included as Attachment 2, and Amendment No. 2 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 – Hocking Neighbourhood Centre, included as Attachment 2, as submitted by Planning Solutions on behalf of Wyatt Grove Development Pty Ltd, are SATISFACTORY, subject to the following modification:

a)      The following text is inserted in Clause 3 Schedule 1 of East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (Hocking and Pearsall) and Clause 5 of Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 – Hocking Neighbourhood Centre:

“No additional retail tenancies where they exceed the 4,250m² permitted retail floorspace shall be occupied until the carpark has been modified to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo.”;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, SUBMITS three copies of Amendment No. 32 to East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (Hocking and Pearsall) and Amendment No. 2 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 – Hocking Neighbourhood Centre, to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

3.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability, on behalf of the City. to SIGN Amendment No. 32 to East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (Hocking and Pearsall), included as Attachment 2, and Amendment No. 2 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 – Hocking Neighbourhood Centre, included as Attachment 2, once adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

4.      NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 32 to East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (Hocking and Pearsall), and Amendment No. 2 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 – Hocking Neighbourhood Centre, included as Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3394-02 – 15/24103

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 2 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64, as submitted by John Chapman Town Planning Consultant on behalf of Maria Catena Waterman and Paul Conti and as outlined on Attachment 2 to this report is satisfactory subject to the following modifications:

          Part 1 – Statutory Section

a)      Deleting clause 5.17 and inserting the following:

          5.17  Noise Study

          To submit a noise report prepared to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission along with a subdivision application and the recommendations of the noise report to be included as conditions of subdivision approval;

b)      Removing the proposed lot boundaries shown on the proposed amendment map;

c)      Including the following additional provision:

          5.18  Emergency Traffic Management Plan

          To submit an Emergency Traffic Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo and Main Roads WA along with an application for the subdivision of Lot 35 Wanneroo Road, Woodvale; and

         Part 2 – Explanatory Report

d)      Inserting the word ‘Indicative’ to the title of Figure 5 in Clause 5.5 of the explanatory report;

and SUBMITS three copies of the modified amendment document to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

2.    Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No.2 ADOPTS the modified Amendment No. 2 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64 and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN the amendment document once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission;

3.       ENDORSES the comments made in the schedule of submissions contained in Attachment No. 3 to this report and FORWARDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

4.       ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2947 – 15/107918

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       DETERMINES that the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission to the draft North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 73, included in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, are SATISFACTORY, pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2;

2.       Pursuant to subclause 9.4.1 a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2, WAIVES public advertising of the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission included in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, on the basis that the modifications do not significantly or materially depart from the version of the draft North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 73 that was advertised for public comment and readvertising of the modified Structure Plan would be unlikely to cause the modifications to be reconsidered;

3.       DETERMINES that the draft North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 73, included as Attachment 4, modified in accordance with the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission, is satisfactory, pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2;

4.       REQUESTS that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer SIGN and SEAL the draft North Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 73 document, included as Attachment 4, pursuant to Council Resolution No. 3 for Item PS07-05/11 in accordance with the Council’s Execution of Documents Policy; and

5.       FORWARDS 3 copies of the signed Part 1, included as Attachment 4, to the Western Australian Planning Commission for certification.

Carried Unanimously

Executive Summary

1.

Paragraph relating to the Transit Precinct to be modified to reflect that a separate detailed structure plan will be required for this Precinct.

Modification no longer applicable.

The WAPC no longer request the transit precinct be deleted and replaced with a centre zone as per SPC resolution 24 June 2014.

Objectives

2.

Objective ix) relating to the Transit Precinct to either be modified to reflect that a separate detailed structure plan will be required for this Precinct or this objective to  be deleted.

Modification no longer applicable.

As per Modification 1 above.

Part 1 – Statutory Section

Table 1 (General Planning Requirements for the LSP Area)

3.

Clause 2.5 to be deleted.

Modification Accepted.

This modification, along with modification 11 below, removes the R-Code Variations from the structure plan and places the requirement for these into Detailed Area Plans (DAP). This modification only consolidates the existing requirements and does not alter what would usually be dealt with through a DAP.

4.

Clause 2.6 to be modified as follows:

(i)         (a), (b), (d) and (g) to be deleted.

(ii)        Remove reference to Centre 4 from 2.6 (f) given that a separate structure plan and not a DAP will need to be prepared for the Transit Precinct.

(iii)       Inclusion of an additional item into this Clause which deals with built form transition where differences between densities exist.

Modifications Accepted.

i)   The deletion of these requirements for DAP’s will not fetter the City to require DAP’s for other purposes as covered by clause 9.14.1 of the District Planning Scheme No 2.

ii)  As per Modification 1 above.

iii) The inclusion of a requirement for a DAP where lots of substantially different densities (i.e. low, medium, high) abut one another is encouraged and will reduce potential impacts from incompatible density.

5.

Clause 2.7 reference to 2.6 (a) to (f) to be modified accordingly.

Modification Accepted.

Minor administrative adjustments are not considered to impact the intent of the structure plan or impact the surrounding owners, only ensure that the structure plan is correctly interpreted.

6.

Clause 2.8 to be deleted.

Modification Accepted.

The modification is covered by 7 (iii) below which only moves the paragraph discussing transition between density codes to the requirements in the DAP.

Minor administrative adjustments are not considered to impact the intent of the structure plan or impact the surrounding owners, only ensure that the structure plan is correctly interpreted.

7.

Clause 2.9 to be modified as follows:

(i)         Reference to Tables 3 – 7 to be modified to reflect the removal of Table 6 given that the Transit Precinct is required to be included within the Centre zone requiring a separate detailed structure plan to be prepared.

(ii)        2.9(d) relating to POS to be deleted.

(iii)       Inclusion of an additional item into this clause which deals with built form transition where differences between the densities exist.

Modifications Accepted.

i)   As per Modification 1 above.

ii)  The exact location of POS should be undertaken at subdivision stage and not at DAP stage.

iii) The inclusion of a requirement for a DAP where lots of substantially different densities (i.e. low, medium, high) abut one another is encouraged and will reduce potential impacts form incompatible density.

8.

Clause 2.10 remove reference to Centre 4 given that a separate structure plan and not a DAP will need to be prepared for the Transit Precinct and update referencing to table numbering accordingly.

Modification no longer applicable.

As per Modification 1 above.

9.

Clause 3.1 reference to Tables 3 -7 to  be modified to reflect the removal of Table 6 given that the Transit Precinct is required to be included within the Centre 

Modification no longer applicable.

As per Modification 1 above.

10.

Clause 4.1 – second sentence which refers to “The information included in Table 8 shall be lodged at this stage specified in Table 8” to be deleted.

Modification Accepted.

The modification is removing the duplication as the Part 1 text repeats itself relating to timing of when information is required. The modification is only deleting superfluous information and therefore not affecting the intent of the SP or adjoining land owners.

Tables 2A, 2B and 2C (Variations to ‘Acceptable Development’ Requirements of the R-Codes

11.

Tables 2A, 2B and 2C (including related references to these Tables elsewhere within Part 1 of the LSP) to be removed.

Modification Accepted.

As per Modification 3 above.

Table 3 (Coastal Village Precinct)

12.

Locational Criteria (Clause 2.1) to be modified to read as follows:

             “The allocation of residential densities on the Residential Density Code Plan in this Precinct shall be in accordance with the following locational criteria:

a)   R20-R60

i)          Medium densities of R30 to R60 in areas of high amenity including within 400 metres of Centre 1, around public open space and adjacent to public transport or neighbourhood connector routes.

ii)         Low density of R20 in areas that respond to and protect the parabolic dunal system and elsewhere within the precinct.

b)   R40-100

i)          High density of R100 for the iconic building sites identified on Plan 3 and within Centre 1.

ii)         Medium to high densities of R40 to R100 within 200 metres of Centre 1.

iii)         Medium densities of R40 to R60 are to be provided elsewhere as appropriate.

Modification Accepted.

The revised wording for the locational criteria is changing the wording to a format which has been used in other structure plans (I.e. ASP 82)

Modifications were also made to the density coding of the costal precinct from R20 – R40 to R20 – R60 and R40 – R80 to R40 to R100

This was to create only two bands of R-Coding (Medium and High) which allows greater flexibility at subdivision stage to ensure a mixture of housing types and styles without providing incompatible density’s adjacent to one another.

Modifications for the wording/layout associated with the locational criteria is administrative and will not impact on the intent of the SP.

This was to create only two bands of R-Coding (Medium and High) which allows greater flexibility at subdivision stage to ensure a mixture of housing types and styles without providing incompatible density’s adjacent to one another.

13.

Clause 3.3 all wording after ‘State Coastal Planning’ to be deleted so that this Clause states: ‘Coastal Foreshore setbacks and maximum building heights are to be consistent with State Planning Policy 2.6 – State Coastal Planning Policy.

Modification Accepted.

The requirement to comply with specific provisions of State Planning Policy 2.6 are still the responsibility of the developer even if they are not directly stated in the SP.

The modification is only deleting superfluous information and therefore not affecting the intent of the SP or adjoining land owners.

14.

Clause 3.4 and the related notation on LSP plan to be modified to reflect the Alkimos-Eglinton DSP which state: ‘The north-south road on the western side of the WWTP which traverses the ‘Parks and Recreation’ reserve is supported in principle and is subject to further approval from the Environmental Protection Authority.

Modification Accepted.

The modification is only changing the words to be consistent with the District Structure Plan. As per the previous statement further works for the exact location of the north-south road is subject to further planning.

Minor administrative adjustments are not considered to impact the intent of the structure plan or impact the surrounding owners, only ensure that the structure plan is correctly interpreted.

Table 4 (Central Precinct)

15.

Locational criteria (2.1) to be modified to read as follows:

‘The allocation of residential densities on the Residential Density Code Plan in this Precinct shall  be in accordance with the following locational criteria:

a)   R20-R60

i)          Medium densities of R30 to R60 in areas of high amenity including around public open space, within 400 metres of Centre 2 and 3 and adjacent to the Primary School.

ii)         Low density of R20 elsewhere within the precinct.’

Modification Accepted.

As per Modification 12 above.

16.

Clause 3.2 is to be deleted.

Modification Accepted.

The modification is based on the requirement for Retail Sustainability Assessment which already exists under State Planning Policy 4.2

17.

Clause 4.1(b) reference to ‘the vicinity’ to be deleted given that Plan 1 already shows the location of the Primary School. Replace with appropriate wording to provide that can be a ‘P’ use in the location of the Primary School as identified on Plan 1.

Modification Accepted.

This modification aims to remove the vague nature of ‘the vicinity’ which could allow the developers to place the school a large distance away and argue that it is in ‘the vicinity’. The amended wording will still allow for flexibility should it be required through subdivision stage however provides more clarity on the exact location of the school.

The intent of the clause does not change however there is greater clarity provided to potential landowners (in the SP and surrounding areas) of where the location of the school will be.

Table 5 (Eastern Precinct)

18.

Locational criteria (2.1) to be modified to read as follows:

‘The allocation of residential densities on the Residential Density Code Plan in this Precinct shall be in accordance with the following locational criteria:

a)   R20-R80

i)          High density of R80 within 400 metres of the possible future railway station.

ii)         Medium densities of R30 to R60 in areas of high amenity including around public open space and within 800 metres of possible future railway station.

iii)         Low density of R20 elsewhere with the precinct.’

Modification Accepted.

Unlike modification 12 and 15 there is no change in density code and therefore the modification is entirely administrative.

Table 6 (Transit Precinct)

19.

Table 6 is not applicable given that this entire Precinct is required to be included within the Centre Zone requiring a separate detailed structure plan to be prepared. All referencing to this Table within Part 1 is to be updated accordingly.

Modification no longer applicable.

As per Modification 1 above.

Table 8 (Subdivision and Development Requirements)

20.

A modified Table 8 is to be inserted.

Modification Accepted.

The revised table 7 (previously table 8) was created through negotiation between the City, DoP and developers and provide a clearer list of requirements for subdivision and post subdivision stages.

Plans

21.

Plans 1 and 2 to be modified as follows:

(i)         Transit Precinct (Precinct 4) to be included within the Centre Zone in accordance with WAPC modification 38(i) to ensure that a detailed structure plan is prepared for this area.

(ii)        Removed references to ‘Mixed Use’ and ‘Business’ zones from the Legend given that these zonings are not applicable.

(iii)       ‘Groundwater Treatment Plan Chlorine Hazard Buffer Zone’ can be removed.

Modifications Accepted.

i)   As per Modification 1 above.

ii)  As per Modification 1 above.

iii) Further correspondence has been received from the Department of Water identifying that there is no need for the limitation of land uses surrounding the Groundwater Treatment Plan. As such the buffer can be removed from the plan.

22.

Approved physical processes setback to be added to Plan 1.

Modification Accepted.

The inclusion of the physical processes setback will only provide greater clarity for development abutting the coast.

The setback would have been enforced through State Planning Policy 2.6 even if this modification was not included and therefore it does not impact the intent of the SP.

23.

Plan 3 to be modified to:

(i)         Reflect the R-Code ranges specified in the modified locational criteria for each respective Precinct.

(ii)        Remove the R-Coding for the Transit Precinct given that this Precinct is to be included within the Centre Zone

Modifications Accepted.

i)   As per modifications 12, 15 and 18 above the revised densities are supported and should be matched on the structure plan.

ii)  As per Modification 1 above.

Part 2 – Explanatory Section

24.

Part 2 to be modified accordingly to reflect the inclusion of Precinct 4 (Transit Precinct) within the Centre Zone requiring the preparation of a separate structure plan for the Precinct.

Modification no longer applicable.

As per Modification 1 above.

No.

Western Australian Planning Commission’s SPC Resolution

Officer Comment

1.

Advise the applicant that it is prepared to delete Modification 38(i) subject to Local Structure Plan 73 being modified to insert a Special Control Area over the proposed Mixed Use Zone (in its entirety) and additional statutory provisions being included to ensure that subdivision within the Special Control Area creates lots of a size which are capable of accommodating the Mixed Use Walk Up product adjacent to the distributor roads, high employment generators and the future service commercial area to the north.

Modification Accepted.

Council at its meeting of 31 March 2011 resolved that the modification to require a centre zone was not acceptable and that a DAP would be sufficient. This modification fulfils the same function by requiring criteria within the SP part 1 text.

It is therefore not considered to depart from the previous decision of Council.

2.

To advise the applicant that it may be prepared to reconsider the requirements to provide lots capable of accommodating the “Mixed Use Walk Up” product adjacent to the future service commercial area to the north upon the submissions of further information which demonstrates a satisfactory interface between these lots and the future service commercial area. The applicant is advised to liaise with the adjoining developer in this regard.

Modification Accepted

This is provided for advice to the applicant only and does not impact the structure plan.

File Ref:                                              DA2015/240 – 15/92423

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Guise

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Single House Addition (Patio) at Lot 1078 (17) Seaspray Crescent, Jindalee, as shown in Attachment 1, pursuant to Clause 6.9.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 and subject to compliance with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation:-

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Single House Addition (Patio), as shown on the attached plans. It does not relate to any other development on the lot;

b)      All stormwater shall be collected and retained on site; and

2.       ADVISES the submitter of this decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              DA2014/1510 – 15/98199

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Guise

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Child Care Centre at Lot 111 (20) Celestine Street, Wanneroo as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 6.9.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 and subject to compliance with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation:-

a)      This approval relates only to the proposed Child Care Centre and car parking areas. It does not relate to any other development on the site.

b)      The use of the building/s is to be a Child Care Centre as defined in the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

          Child Care Centre: means premises used for the daily or occasional care of children in accordance with the Community Services (Child Care) Regulations 1988.

          A change of use from that outlined above will require the approval of the City.

c)      The proposed car parking bays within the Road Reserve of Ruthin Way are to be constructed, drained, marked and thereafter maintained at the cost of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the City prior to occupation of the development.

d)      A maximum of 15 children and 3 staff are permitted within the Child Care Centre premises at any one time.

e)      The hours of operation of the Child Care Centre are to be between the hours of 8.00am to 4.00pm on weekdays and shall not operate on weekends and public holidays.

f)       No signage is approved as part of this development application. All signage shall accord with the City of Wanneroo's Signs Local Planning Policy. In the event that a variation to the Signs Local Planning Policy is proposed, a signage strategy for the development shall be submitted to the City in a separate development application for planning approval.

g)      Parking areas, driveways, crossovers and points of ingress and egress shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Off-street Carparking (AS2890) as amended and the City of Wanneroo Technical Standards, and shall be drained, sealed and marked.

h)      The parking areas and associated access indicated on the approved plans shall not be used for the purpose of storage or obstructed in any way at any time, without the prior approval of the City.

2.       ADVISES the submitters of this decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              7018 – 15/79455

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Hewer

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the summary of submissions received in respect of the Yanchep-Two Rocks and Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plans contained in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively, and ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommendations contained therein;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 10.1 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule contained in Attachment 3;

3.       NOTES that the cost contribution for the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan is based on a developer dwelling projection of 10,603 and an estimated proportionate cost of $21.9 million;

4.       Pursuant to Clause 10.1 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule contained in Attachment 4;

5.       NOTES that the cost contribution for the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan is based on a developable area of 631ha and an estimated cost of $70.06 million that excludes a contribution shortfall of $2.45 million to be made up by interest earnings;

6.       NOTES that the Yanchep-Two Rocks and Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule will be subject to an annual review process pursuant to Clause 11.0 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme No. 2;

7.       REQUESTS Administration to establish a Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Advisory Committee and Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Advisory Committee to meet a minimum of three times per year to inform the implementation of the Development Contribution Plans and REQUESTS that a further report be presented to Council to consider the Terms of Reference and membership of these Advisory Committees;

8.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.4(b) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESCINDS Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions and PUBLISHES notice of this rescission in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times Community newspapers once a week for two consecutive weeks; and

9.       ADVISES submitters of Council’s decision and INFORMS affected landowners of the costs that will apply through the Yanchep-Two Rocks and Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plans.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2323V04 – 15/98306

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Hewer, Seconded Cr Truong

That Council:-

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

18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo;

30 Dressler Way, Girrawheen;

54 Mangrove Circuit, Banksia Grove;

80 Sundowner Meander, Banksia Grove;

3 Beaumarks Court, Mindaire;

3 Cassatt Street, Ashby;

25 Myrlea Trail, Alkimos; and

64 Rangeview Road, Landsdale

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              5316 – 14/148290

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Driver, Seconded Cr Winton

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the lease of a portion of Lot 211, Quinns Road, Mindarie (Attachment 1 refers) to the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club (Inc.) for a term of five (5) years commencing 1 May 2015;

2.       AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a lease between the City and the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club (Inc.) in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              19914 – 15/92487

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

This item was withdrawn at the meeting.

File Ref:                                              4170 – 15/91891

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Winton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.      APPROVES in principle, a commercial lease of an approximate 83m² portion (Tenancy 4) of Reserve 47718, Lot 511, Clarkson Library, Ocean       Keys Boulevard, Clarkson (Attachment 1 refers) to Raymond Parker and Lloyd Parker for a term of five (5) years with a five (5) year option commencing within twelve (12) weeks of the lease being signed subject to the requirements of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Act 1985 and         the Minister for Lands approval;

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

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

4.      In the event there are no submissions,

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

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

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8697 – 15/95994

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOT SUPPORT the installation of bollards at the intersection of Mirrabooka Avenue and Southmead Drive, Landsdale; and

2.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Councils decision.

LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:-

1.         REQUESTS administration to install guardrails at the north east section of Mirrabooka Avenue and Southmead Drive, Landsdale; and lists the project for inclusion in the 10-Year Capital Works Program (2015/16 to 2024/25); and

2.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Councils decision.

CARRIED Unanimously

Reason for Alternative Motion

As noted in the report bollards are considered to be an unnecessary hazard with in the road reserve and guardrails would generally be the used treatment.

The mover considers that this part of the intersection poses a higher risk to pedestrians and property due to the proximity of the footpath and the limited nature strip, hence requiring guardrails.

File Ref:                                              3125V02 – 15/88720

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Zappa

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT any infrastructure upgrade works or traffic treatment works along Sandison Way, Landsdale; and

2.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision and suggest to residents to consider the planting of verge trees.

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Zappa

That the Motion be referred back to Council for a thorough investigation of the road network and traffic movements in the area and report back to Council.

CARRIED Unanimously

File Ref:                                              14905 – 15/99773

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the completion of the South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning process by the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group to an Interim Report stage, subject to the completion of demand forecasting and analysis with State Sporting Associations and City of Wanneroo Clubs within the South Ward;

2.       NOTES that a further report will be presented to Council by December 2015 to table the final report for the City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan, inclusive of the outcomes from the Master Planning process for the South, Central and Coastal Wards;

3.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s recommended prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Hudson Park as follows:

“That the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group:-

a)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Hudson Park for the 2014/15 financial year, as identified from the Reference Group at its meeting held on 13 August 2014 and to be funded from PR-2960 Hudson Park Infrastructure Upgrades ($250,000), as follows:

b)      NOTES Administration will commence the development of the required Design Briefs to commence the projects identified in the above recommendation in the current financial year; and

c)      ENDORSES Administration's list of infrastructure upgrades for Hudson Park to be listed for consideration as part of the City's Active Master Plan – South Zone Report and for consideration within the 2015/16 10 Year Capital Works Budget; 

4.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s recommended prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Girrawheen Active Reserves as follows:

“That the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group:-

a)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Liddell Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows:

b)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Blackmore Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows:

c)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Ferrara Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows;

d)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Hainsworth Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows;

e)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Montrose Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows;

f)       ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for the Liddell, Blackmore, Ferrara, Hainsworth and Montrose Parks to be included in the City's Sports Fields Master Plan – South Zone draft report.”

5.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s recommended prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Koondoola Active Reserves as follows;

“That the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group:-

a)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Koondoola Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows:

b)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Butterworth Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows:

c)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Shelvock Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 10 September 2014, as follows;

d)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for the Koondoola Park, Butterworth Park and Shelvock Park to be included in the City's Sports Fields Master Plan – South Zone draft report;”

6.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s recommended prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Alexander Heights Active Reserves as follows;

“That the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group:-

a)    ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Alexander Heights Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 8 October 2014, as follows:

b)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Highview Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 8 October 2014, as follows:

c)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for the Alexander Heights Park and Highview Park to be included in the City's Sports Fields Master Plan – South Zone draft report;”

7.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s recommended prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Marangaroo Active Reserves as follows:

a)      “ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Cabrini Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 8 October 2014, as follows;

b)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for John Maloney Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 8 October 2014, as follows:

c)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for Paloma Park, as identified from the Reference Group meeting held on 8 October 2014, as follows;

d)      ENDORSES Administration's prioritisation of infrastructure upgrades for the Cabrini Park, John Maloney Park and Paloma Park to be included in the City's Sports Fields Master Plan – South Zone draft report;” and

8.       NOTES the prioritisation outcomes for the infrastructure upgrade projects identified as per Attachment 8 of this report.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

File Ref:                                              8939 – 15/96427

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Driver, Seconded Cr Smithson

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSE the Butler District Open Space Master Plan Review, inclusive of the following key infrastructure development recommendations:

a)      Playing Fields:

i)       Provision of two floodlight senior sized multipurpose active reserves;

ii)      Provision of one shared open space for informal physical activity; and

iii)     Provision of Little athletics facilities including a jump pit that can be used for beach volleyball.

b)      Hard Courts:

i)       Provision of 16 multi-purpose hard courts semi covered area (Tennis, Basketball, Netball, Volleyball).

c)      Built Infrastructure:

i)       Consideration of co-located multipurpose sporting pavilion/community building;

ii)      Consideration of co-located performing arts and resource centre; and

iii)     Community Art: including a suggested ping pong tables, chess/checkers tables and sets and quiz finder.

d)      Lighting:

i)       Provision of eight centralised floodlighting towers to Australian Standard (AS 2560) for large ball sport training.

e)      Passive Parks and Associated Infrastructure:

i)       Interpretive path network around perimeter;

ii)      Passive use amenities: pathways, landscaping, picnic facilities and conservation interpretive signage;

iii)     Seating and ‘hang out spaces’;

iv)     Accessible toilets (automatic);

v)      Shaded areas;

vi)     Linear-linking intergenerational play space;

vii)    Bin and storage area; and

viii)    Car parking.

2.       APPROVES the release of the revised Butler District Open Space Master Plan for public comment, with a further report to be tabled to Council by September 2015 reporting on the outcomes of the public comment process;

3.       NOTES the revised budget estimate and proposed project schedule as follows, subject to further discussion with the developers LWP and the Satterley Property Group, and the Department of Education, in relation to the final capital funding model, development responsibilities and subsequent schedule for the project:

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1580 – 15/81564

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the Petition PT-03/15 tabled at its meeting held on 3 March 2015;

2.       NOT SUPPORT the installation of rubber softfall at Lenham Park; and

3.       ADVISES the petition organisers of the outcomes of this report.

LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Treby

That Council:-

1.            NOTES the Petition PT-03/15 tabled at its meeting held on 3 March 2015.

2.            SUPPORT the installation of rubber softfall at the playground at Lenham Park, with the exception of the area around the existing swings, which are to remain sand softfall.

3.            LIST the part installation of rubber softfall at Lenham Park in the draft 2015/16 10 Year Capital Works Budget – Parks Furniture Program.

4.         ADVISES the petition organisers of the outcomes of this report.

CARRIED Unanimously

Reason for Alternative Motion

The mover is of the view that the recent incident increases the rating given to the OSH criteria in the decision making matrix, therefore making rubber softfall the preferred softfall.

File Ref:                                              14839 – 15/96856

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Aitken

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the City of Wanneroo's Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) application for the 2014 funding round resulting in the budget shortfall as follows:

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the over expenditure of $25,000 for PR-2824 Warradale Reserve in accordance with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) as pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

3.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the over expenditure of $98,334 for PR-3023 Oldham Park – Multi Purpose Room in accordance with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) as pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 from Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve.

4.       REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Sport and Recreation seeking an increase in the allocation by Treasury next year towards the CSRFF fund.

Carried Absolute majority

12/0

File Ref:                                              3370V02 – 15/105368

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Treby

That Council pursuant to Section 6.12(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 WRITES OFF BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the outstanding amount of $9,416.12 for ATI Martial Arts the facility debtor, as detailed below.

Carried by Absolute Majority

12/0

File Ref:                                              19967 – 15/104467

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Winton, Seconded Cr Zappa

That Council:-

1.   APPROVES the extension of the free use tennis court trial, to all City managed tennis courts within the City, with the exception of courts containing established tennis clubs based at: Gumblossom Park, Quinns Rocks; Elliot Road, Wanneroo; and Montrose Park, Girrawheen; and

2.   APPROVES by ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the waiver of fees and charges as per the adopted 2014/15 and proposed 2015/16 Schedule of Fees and Charges for the use of the City's tennis courts as per 1) above, for the extended free use trial of tennis courts.

Carried by Absolute Majority

12/0

File Ref:                                              1859 – 15/104779

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Aitken

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of March 2015, as summarised below:-