Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 26 May, 2015

Gumblossom Community Centre

Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks


 

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 Gumblossom Community Centre, Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks on Tuesday 26 May, 2015

commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

21 May, 2015

 

 

 

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

OC01-05/15     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2015  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

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

Policies and Studies  2

PS01-05/15      Draft Revised Local Planning Policy: 4.14 Compliance  2

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  12

PS02-05/15      Initiation of Advertising for Amendment No. 140 - Rezoning of Lot 4 & 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup  12

PS03-05/15      Consideration of WAPC Modifications - Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80  25

PS04-05/15      Adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Butler Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan No. 39  42

PS05-05/15      Re-advertising Amendment No. 102 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - East Wanneroo Cell 9 - East Landsdale  59

PS06-05/15      Reconsideration of Amendment No. 2 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80  116

Development Applications  164

PS07-05/15      Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room) DA2014/2441 at Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle Clarkson  164

PS08-05/15      Single House Additions (Garage, Retaining Wall and Front Fence)  DA2015/448 at Lot 204 (85) High Road Wanneroo  173

Regulatory Services  184

PS09-05/15      Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement 2015-2020  184

PS10-05/15      Donation of Building Licence Fee for 2015 HIA Charitable Foundation at Lot 1022 Celeste Street, Eglinton  197

Infrastructure  199

Infrastructure Projects  199

IN01-05/15       Yanchep Active Open Space - Marmion Avenue Extension  Costs  199

IN02-05/15       Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Update  202

Tenders  208

IN03-05/15       Tender No. 01511 Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms Upgrade  208

IN04-05/15       Tender No. 01512 Community Centres Swipe Card, Security and Fire Detection Systems  215

Traffic Management  221

IN05-05/15       Clarkson High School Bus Embayment  221

IN06-05/15       Deletion of Pathway Project PR-2586 Speranza Parkway, Sinagra  227

IN07-05/15       Parking Prohibitions Extension - Neerabup Primary School, Banksia Grove  231

IN08-05/15       Marathon Loop / Gnangara Road, Madeley - Review of Vehicular Access Arrangements  237

Waste Services  243

IN09-05/15       PT02-02/15 Request for Additional Bins Quinns Dog Beach  243

Community Development  247

Capacity Building  247

CD01-05/15     Community Funding Program March 2015 Round  247

Program Services  275

CD02-05/15     Transition of Community Aged Care Packages  275

Corporate Strategy & Performance  285

Finance  285

CS01-05/15     Warrant of Payment for the Period to 30 April 2015  285

CS02-05/15     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 March 2015  364

CS03-05/15     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 April 2015  377

CS04-05/15     Petition PT01-04/15 Community Facility - Quinns Mindarie Surf Lifesaving Club  390


 

Governance and Legal  392

CS05-05/15     Review of the Council Members' Fees, Allowances, Reimbursements & Benefits Policy  392

CS06-05/15     Donations to be Considered by Council - May 2015  408

Chief Executive Office  411

Office of the CEO Reports  411

CE01-05/15     Sponsorship Agreement Wanneroo Agricultural Society  411

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 414

MN01-05/15    Mayor Tracey Roberts – Feasibility Study - the Installation of Shark Barriers at  City's Beaches  414

MN02-05/15    Cr Linda Aitken – Yanchep Secondary School  416

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 418

Item  11____ Confidential_ 418

CR01-05/15     Resolution of Contractual Matter  418

CR02-05/15     Drainage Agreement - Willespie Park (Reserve 45977) and Lot 3 (15) Goundrey Drive, Pearsall  418

CR03-05/15     Offer to Purchase Lot 501 (94) Hampton Road Darch  418

CR04-05/15     Coastal Infastructure Update - Confidential  419

CR05-05/15     Yanchep Active Open Space - Oval Groundworks Costs  419

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 419

Item  13____ Closure_ 419

 


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 Smithson                                                    (Leave of Absence 18.05.15-08.06.15)

Cr Zappa                                                         (Leave of Absence 18.05.15-08.06.15)

Cr Nguyen                                                      (Leave of Absence 18.05.15-08.06.15)

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-05/15       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2015

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 April 2015 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

PT01-04/15       Community Facility - Quinns Mindarie Surf Lifesaving Club

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.

 

Update

 

A report will be presented to the Ordinary Council meeting of 26 May 2015.

 

 

 

  

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

PS01-05/15       Draft Revised Local Planning Policy: 4.14 Compliance

File Ref:                                              8222 – 15/144465

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider advertising of draft revised Local Planning Policy 4.14: Compliance (LPP4.14) included as Attachment 1.

 

Background

On 5 March 2013 Council adopted Local Planning Policy 4.14: Planning Compliance (LPP 4.14) (Attachment 2) following public consultation.  Administration has reviewed the Policy in light of the experiences operating under the current policy provisions over the past 2 years.

Detail

LPP 4.14 sets out the manner in which the City will investigate and take action against any alleged breach of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), including any planning approval granted by the City under DPS 2. The Policy does not apply to the enforcement of other legislation or approvals, whether administered by the City or not.

 

Administration has reviewed LPP 4.14 primarily to guide integration and consistency in addressing building and town planning non-compliance matters. Currently, planning and building process matters of non-compliance independently which results in duplication of service and confusion for Administration and the community. Secondly, the review aims to address a number of key areas to give greater clarity, consistency and efficiency in the way Administration handles non-compliant matters.

Consultation

It is proposed to advertise draft LPP 4.11 for public comment for a period of 21 days.  This meets the minimum requirement specified by DPS 2. It is proposed to advertise the draft Policy in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of DPS 2:

 

1.       Advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks; and

2.       Display on the City’s website.

Comment

A revised Policy that integrates planning and building compliance approaches would not only provide greater clarity and less confusion for the community but would see Administration more effectively managing matters of non-compliance in the district.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

The revision of LPP 4.14, if adopted by Council, will supersede the current version of LPP 4.14.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADVERTISES draft revised Local Planning Policy 4.14: Compliance, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of 21 days, by way of:

a)       Advertisements in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks; and

b)       Display on the City’s website.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Draft Revised LPP4.14: Compliance Policy

15/145273

Minuted

2.

LPP4.14 Planning Compliance

15/145292

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                      4


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                      7


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                        12

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

PS02-05/15       Initiation of Advertising for Amendment No. 140 - Rezoning of Lot 4 & 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup

File Ref:                                              11222 – 15/34209

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) which proposes a ‘Restricted Use’ – Lifestyle Village at Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup.

 

Applicant

Rowe Group

Owner

National Lifestyle Villages Pty Ltd

Location

Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup

Site Area

16.58ha

MRS Zoning

Rural

DPS 2 Zoning

Rural Resource

 

 

Background

The subject site is located south east of the intersection of Mornington Drive and Coogee Road and comprises Lot 4 (a former turf farm that ceased operation in 2007) and Lot 5 (which is uncleared, and contains some 8ha of Banksia woodland) which are a combined area of approximately 16.5ha. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

On 8 February 2011, an application was lodged by NLV to amend DPS 2 proposing to rezone the subject sites to a Restricted Use - Lifestyle Village (Amendment No. 111). 

At its meeting of 20 September 2011, Council resolved that it was not prepared to initiate Amendment No. 111 to DPS 2 for the following reasons;

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

On 26 August 2013, Amendment No. 140 to DPS 2 was lodged by The Rowe Group on behalf of NLV to amend DPS 2 similarly to Amendment No. 111, but with additional restrictions and conditions to address Council’s previous concerns.

At its meeting on 16 September 2014, Council considered proposed Amendment No. 140 but no decision was made in relation to the proposal (PS04-09/14), nor was an alternative recommendation put forward. However, it was noted that the main concerns expressed by Elected Members related to the provision of utilities/services, developer contributions arrangements and the future planning for the area.

Since this report, the applicant has amended the proposal in an attempt to address the concerns of Council. The reconsideration of Amendment No. 140 with the additional information provided is the subject of this report.

Detail

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

 

NO

STREET/ LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

RESTRICTED USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

2-4

11 and 39 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup

Lots 4 and 5

Park Home Park (Lifestyle Village)

 

Conditions:

I.   The number of dwelling units (park homes) shall not exceed 400.

II.  Freehold or strata subdivision is not permitted.

III. Notification, as appropriate, to prospective purchasers of the potential impact of the surrounding land uses contemplated by the ‘Rural Resource’ zone including but not limited to the impacts of odours, noise, light and/or dust.

IV.  A viable conservation area shall be retained on Lot 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to the City’s satisfaction.

V. The following management plans must accompany any development application for the site;

a)      Traffic Impact Assessment

b)      Flora and Fauna Management Plan

c)      Bush Fire Management Plan

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Since the 16 September 2014 Council Meeting, the applicant has provided additional detail on the following:

 

·    Servicing of the lot (specifically related to the on-site waste water treatment);

·    Offered to enter into a deed of agreement to pay developer contributions for the purpose of funding future infrastructure once a developer contributions plan for East Wanneroo has been adopted; and

·    Agreed to participate in the structure planning process for the East Wanneroo area.

 

These matters are discussed further below.

Consultation

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

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

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

Comment

East Wanneroo Structure Plan

 

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

 

Local Planning Policy 5.3 – East Wanneroo

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It is considered by Administration that a “lifestyle village” does not fit within the Rural zoning of the land, as it is not an agricultural, extractive or conservation use. The Minister for Planning has previously provided comment on the proposal stating that the proposal is of an urban/residential nature and therefore should not be considered on the subject lots until an MRS amendment has been considered.

 

As a result, an MRS amendment is required for the rezoning of the subject lots based on the view of the Minister and the WAPC.

Therefore, an application for such an MRS amendment should precede the current planning proposal for the purposes of orderly and proper planning. The written correspondence from the Minister for Planning is included in Attachment 4.

 

Whilst Administration previously held the view that the proposal could be progressed as it would not involve undertaking a step in the table of LPP 5.3, in light of the above and upon review, Administration now considers that the proposal does not comply with Clause 2.2.2 of LPP 5.3.

 

It is important to note that in accordance with Clause 8.11.2.2 of DPS 2, a Local Planning Policy does not form part of the Scheme and shall not bind the Council in its determination of a planning application, but the Council is required to give due regard to any Policy prior to making any decision.

 

Section 76 Request to the Minister for Planning

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Draft Perth and Peel@3.5 Million

 

The WAPC’s ‘Draft North-West Sub-Regional Planning Framework – Towards Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million’ (PP3.5) was made available for advertising and public comment in May 2015.

 

 

 

 

Administration will be reviewing PP3.5 in detail and prepare a submission for Councils consideration at a future meeting. In a preliminary review of PP3.5, Administrations notes that the subject sites are located within an area identified as ‘Urban Expansion’ which reflects the ‘Potential Urban’ designation of the land under the WAPC’s EWSP. Clause 4.1 – Implementation Mechanisms and Actions of PP3.5 states the following (emphasis added):

 

“The framework is not a statutory zoning plan and therefore does not change the existing zonings and/or reservations of land or allow for new uses on any land. Changes to zoning can only occur after an amendment to the relevant statutory region and local planning schemes.”  

 

The purpose of PP3.5 is for strategic future planning of the Perth/Peel area, and therefore, draft PP3.5 does not preclude the need for due process to be followed.

 

Response to Council Meeting of 16 September 2014

 

Subsequent to Council’s meeting of 16 September 2014, the proponent has indicated a willingness to address a number of concerns raised by Elected Members. These modifications relate to servicing (sewerage), developer contributions and structure planning.

 

Utilities/Services (Sewerage)

 

To alleviate concerns regarding the limited sewerage capacity in the surrounding area the proponents have indicated that waste water can be collected and treated on-site. While the details of the waste water treatment will be determined at the development application stage, it is intended to utilise an underground system to receive and treat all wastewater. The treated wastewater will be used for irrigation of onsite landscaping with some waste requiring disposal from site. Any waste water treatment would be required to meet all Local and State Government regulations. This could be included as a condition of the amendment incorporated within DPS 2.

 

Developer Contributions

 

Should the amendment be initiated by Council there may be the opportunity to require payment of contributions which the landowner has indicated that they would be willing to do either of the following to give Council certainty that contributions would be paid:

 

1.       Enter into a legal agreement with the City to pay contributions in the future once the contribution amounts have been established; or,

2.       Pay a pro rata contribution based on a reasonable cost towards development of the area.

 

This could be arranged prior to the determination of the amendment, or could be included as a condition within DPS 2 stating that development shall not occur until such time as payment is received by the City.

 

Structure Planning

 

It has been previously raised by Administration and Elected Members that development within the East Wanneroo area needs to be carefully considered to ensure it does not prejudice the future structure planning of the locality.

 

The proponents have indicated that development of the site would not obviate their requirements to participate in the future planning for the area, however, there are no legal mechanisms the City could incorporate as part of the amendment which would ensure the subject lots are included in any future structure planning process.

 

Irrespective of the above, a structure plan could still include the subject lots and identify the future road network and public open space within this landholding. Such infrastructure could only be required by the City should the landowner decide to subdivide the land, at which point, the subdivision would only be supported should the proposed road reserves and any public open space (identified on the land) be ceded and constructed at the landowners/applicants cost. `

 

Conclusion

 

Administration considers that the proposal to rezone Lots 4 and 5 Mornington Drive, Mariginiup to a Restricted Use - Lifestyle Village needs to be undertaken in an orderly and proper manner following due process having regard to EWSP, LPP 5.3 and an MRS amendment.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended by Administration that the amendment not be initiated by Council. It is noted that the applicant does not have any appeal rights should Council resolve not to initiate the amendment.

Statutory Compliance

The Scheme Amendment No. 140 will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 determines NOT to initiate proposed Amendment No. 140 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the following reasons:

1.       The proposal is considered urban in nature and therefore is inconsistent with the objectives and intent of the rural zoning of the land under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2. Such a proposal occurring in an area that is still largely used for rural purposes may lead to potential for land use conflicts;

 

2.       The proposal is premature in that a Metropolitan Region Scheme amendment is required prior to the rezoning of the subject sites under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2;

 

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

 

4.       The proposal is premature in that comprehensive structure planning is required for the area to ensure orderly and proper planning; and

 

5.       Approval of the amendment would set a precedent for other more intensive non-rural developments in the rural zone.  This could have a cumulative adverse effect on the intention of the rural zoning of the locality.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan

11/95904

 

2.

Amendment Plan

14/216211

 

3.

Concept Plan

14/217679

 

4.

Letter from Minister for Planning

14/217670

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                       20

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    21

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                       22

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    23

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                        25

PS03-05/15       Consideration of WAPC Modifications - Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80

File Ref:                                              2957-03 – 15/114182

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To reconsider Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (ASP 80), in response to modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

Applicant

Turner Master Planners Australia

Owner

Goldrange Pty Ltd and 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

ASP 80 Zoning

Special Use

 

 

Background

On 4 April 2014, Turner Master Planners Australia (the applicant) lodged Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80, which affected Lot 810 (1397) and Lot 811 (1387), Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo. Lot 810 and Lot 811 are situated within the 'Central Precinct' of ASP 80, which also includes Lot 1 (1369) and Lot 132 (1351) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo. ASP 80 prescribes land use permissibility for the Central Precinct, which ASP 80 currently zones as 'Special Use'. A plan showing the location of the Central Precinct of ASP 80 is provided as Attachment 1.

 

Council at its 14 October 2014 Council Meeting (PS05-10/14) resolved to adopt Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80. Amendment No. 3 was adopted subject to the adoption of Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80, another amendment affecting Lot 810 and Lot 811. Amendment No. 4 was adopted in the same Council resolution first in turn, as this amendment proposed a revised Statement of Intent that facilitated the consideration and adoption of Amendment No. 3.

 

Following Council’s decision on Amendment No. 3 and No. 4, the Department of Planning advised that its consideration of Amendment No. 3 was pending the receipt of Amendment No. 4 documents, given how Amendment No. 3 was adopted subject to Amendment No. 4. Administration was unable to provide Amendment No. 4 documents to the Department of Planning, as the items contained in that Amendment proposal were subject to proceedings at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

 

Following out-of-session discussions with the landowner which occurred in January 2015, Administration was invited under Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 to consider a revised Amendment No. 3 proposal. That revised proposal incorporated the Statement of Intent adopted under Amendment No. 4, and was prepared so that Amendment No. 3 could be further considered by Council without it being subject to Amendment No. 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council at its meeting of 3 February 2015 (PS07-02/15) resolved to adopt the revised Amendment No. 3, and for the amendment documentation to be forwarded to the WAPC. On 7 April 2015, the WAPC advised Administration that it had adopted Amendment No. 3 subject to modifications outlined in the ‘Detail’ section of this Report. It is those modifications that are subject to consideration through this Report.

 

In accordance with the provisions of Clause 9.6.3 (c) of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2), if the WAPC requires modifications to a structure plan proposal, the applicant shall make the modifications and resubmit the structure plan proposal for consideration under Clause 9.4 of DPS 2.

Detail

Amendment No. 3 as adopted by Council at its meeting of 3 February 2015 (PS07-02/15) had proposed the following:

 

1.       Deleting the text incorporated in Section 1.1 of Table C, and replacing it with the following:

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

2.       Adding in Section 2.1 in Table C the following additional uses to the list of discretionary ‘D' uses:

 

·        Medical Centre (Lots 810 and 811 only)

·        Pharmacy (Lots 810 and 811 only)

 

3.       Replacing the map as shown in Attachment 2 in this Report.

 

In the context of the above amendment proposal, Special Use Zone ‘A’ refers to Lot 1 and Lot 132, whereas Special Use Zone ‘B’ refers to Lot 810 and Lot 811. The WAPC considered the proposal, and issued its own adoption of the amendment subject to modifications outlined in Attachment 3. The implications of the WAPC decision on Amendment No. 3 require the amendment proposal to be modified as follows:

 

a)      Replacing the Statement of Intent incorporated in Section 1.1 of Table C – Planning Requirements for the Central Precinct, with the following:

 

 

 

 

 

1.1     The intent of the Central Precinct is to accommodate warehouses, showrooms, trade and professional services and small scale complementary and incidental retailing uses, as well as providing for retail and commercial businesses which require large areas such as bulky goods and category/theme-based retail outlets that provide for the needs of the community but which due to their nature are generally not appropriate to or cannot be accommodated in a commercial area.

 

1.2     Development within the Central Precinct should provide a built form that respects and recognises the environment of Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

b)      Adding ‘Pharmacy’ in Section 2.1 in Table C as a discretionary (or ‘D’) use for the Central Precinct; and

 

c)      Adding ‘Medical Centre’ in Section 2.1 in Table C as a permitted (or ‘P’) use in the Central Precinct.

 

The applicant has provided Administration with a revised Amendment No. 3 proposal (included as Attachment 4) that incorporates the modifications required by the WAPC.

Consultation

Prior to Council’s initial adoption of Amendment No. 3 at its 14 October 2014 Meeting, the amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, display on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. At that time, Administration received four submissions, which were summarised and responded to by Administration in the report presented to the 14 October 2014 Council Meeting (PS05-10/14).

 

Should a revised structure planning proposal be prepared following modifications required by the WAPC, (further) public notification of a Structure Plan may only be waived where Council is satisfied of the following, in accordance with Part 3.8 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2):

 

a)      The modification(s) does not significantly or materially depart from the version of the Structure Plan that was advertised for public comment;

b)      The modification is in response to a submission(s) received during the advertising period; and

c)      Readvertising of the modified structure plan would be unlikely to cause the modifications(s) to be reconsidered.

 

In light of the above, Administration has not undertaken further consultation on the WAPC modifications for reasons outlined in the ‘Comment’ section below.

Comment

As outlined above, the WAPC adoption of Amendment No. 3 varies Council’s decision on the Statement of Intent and land use permissibility for Medical Centre and Pharmacy within the ASP 80 Central Precinct. Administration’s comment on the WAPC decision of Amendment No. 3 is provided for below:

 

Changes to the Statement of Intent

 

The Statement of Intent previously adopted by Council refers to two Special Use Zone ‘sub-precincts’, as identified on the map included as Attachment 2.

 

 

 

The Statement of Intent for Special Use Zone ‘A’ (Lot 1 and Lot 132) retained the wording from the existing Statement of Intent for the ASP 80 Central Precinct, as Amendment No. 3 did not initially propose to change land use permissibility on the land parcels in this sub-precinct. The Statement of Intent for Special Use Zone ‘B’ was derived from the ‘out-of-centre’ development policy statement outlined in Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres (LPP 3.2).

 

The Statement of Intent adopted by WAPC refers to one cohesive Central Precinct, and does not refer to two Special Use Zone sub-precincts. Rather than drawing from the policy statement for ‘out-of-centre’ development as outlined in LPP 3.2, it draws from the language used in the intent for the Business Zone as outlined in Clause 3.6.1 of DPS 2. The intent for the Business Zone as outlined in Clause 3.6.1 of DPS 2 is as follows:

 

3.6.1    The Business Zone is intended to accommodate warehouses, showrooms, trade and professional services and small scale complementary and incidental retailing uses, as well as providing for retail and commercial businesses which require large areas such as bulky goods and category/theme-based retail outlets that provide for the needs of the community but which due to their nature are generally not appropriate to or cannot be accommodated in a commercial area.

 

The rewording of the Statement of Intent required by the WAPC is to coincide with its request for the City to rezone the ASP 80 Central Precinct to ‘Business’ under DPS 2. Administration will prepare a further report for Council’s consideration to rezone the Central Precinct following the final adoption of the ASP 80 amendments.

 

The Statement of Intent required by the WAPC is supported by Administration without the need for further advertising of the amendment proposal for the following reasons:

 

·        A Statement of Intent affecting the Central Precinct holistically and which does not contemplate two sub-precincts has previously been adopted by Council in its consideration of Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80 at its 31 March 2015 Council Meeting (PS11-03/15). Amendment No. 5 was advertised from 16 December 2014 to 4 February 2015, prior to Council’s adoption;

 

·        The modification to the Statement of Intent required by the WAPC does not materially depart from the version of the Statement of Intent previously adopted by Council when it considered Amendment No. 3 at the 3 February 2015 Council Meeting. The Statement of Intent adopted by the WAPC is considered by Administration to generally accommodate for similar land use and development outcomes that the Statement of Intent previously adopted by Council would provide for;

 

·        The provisions of SPP 4.2 encourage the establishment of ‘out-of-centre’ development in ‘mixed business’ or equivalent zones. The equivalent zone in the case of DPS 2 is considered by Administration as the Business zone – or a Special Use zone that has similar land use permissibility to the Business Zone, as is the case with the zoning of the Central Precinct. Administration considers it acceptable and consistent with SPP 4.2 for the Statement of Intent for this ‘out-of-centre’ development area (being the Central Precinct of ASP 80) to employ the language of the Business zone of DPS 2;

 

·        Administration intends for the zoning of the site to remain ‘Special Use’ under ASP 80 for the purpose of considering this amendment, reserving its consideration of the long term zoning of the site as outlined above. The change to the Statement of Intent required by the WAPC will coincide with any rezoning of the Central Precinct to Business under DPS 2 in the future, should the City consider the WAPC’s request to rezone the land; and

 

 

·        Readvertising of the Statement of Intent required by the WAPC in its decision is considered unlikely by Administration to generate any new or different submissions than those previously received from members of the community.

 

Land Use Permissibility Changes – Medical Centre and Pharmacy

 

At the 3 February 2015 Council Meeting, Council adopted Amendment No. 3 which proposed (at that time) to change the land use permissibility of ‘Medical Centre’ and ‘Pharmacy’ from prohibited (or ‘X’) to discretionary (or ‘D’) on Lot 810 and Lot 811 only. The WAPC decision on Amendment No. 3 contemplates Medical Centre and Pharmacy being permissible within the entire Central Precinct, not just on Lot 810 and Lot 811.

 

As outlined in Part 3.8 of LPP 4.2 (and in the ‘Consultation’ section above), public notification of a structure plan proposal can be waived where (among other criteria) a modification required by the WAPC is in response to a submission received during the advertising period. In its public notification of the Amendment No. 3 proposal, Administration received a submission that expressed the view that Medical Centre and Pharmacy should be permissible uses on all lots within the Central Precinct.

 

The WAPC in its decision of the amendment seeks to add Medical Centre as a permitted (or ‘P’) use in the Central Precinct. The version of Amendment No. 3 previously adopted by Council only sought for this land use to be a discretionary (or ‘D’) use. The WAPC decision on the land use permissibility for Medical Centre in the Central Precinct aligns with their long-term intention for this land to be rezoned to Business under DPS 2; as the Zoning Table (Table 1) of DPS 2 identifies Medical Centre as a permitted (or ‘P’) use in the Business Zone. Objections received during the advertising of Amendment No. 3 raised concerns of the Medical Centre land use being permissible in the Central Precinct of ASP 80 generally; and therefore, this change would unlikely generate submissions that are substantially different than those already received by members of the community.

 

Administration supports the land use permissibilities as adopted by the WAPC, without the need for further advertising of the amendment proposal. Support for the land use permissibility changes is given for the following reasons:

 

·        Medical Centre and Pharmacy being permissible land uses in the Central Precinct has already been considered by Administration (and adopted by Council at its 31 March 2015 Council Meeting) as part of Amendment No. 5 to ASP 80; and

 

·        Modifying the land use permissibility from discretionary (or ‘D’) to permitted (or ‘P’) is not considered to have adverse planning implications, should applications for Planning Approval be received for Medical Centre on the Central Precinct land parcels.

 

Administration considers that readvertising land use permissibilities required by the WAPC in its decision is considered unlikely by Administration to generate any substantially different submissions than those previously received from members of the community.

 

Changes to the Structure Plan Map

 

The version of Amendment No. 3 that was adopted by Council had proposed a change to the ASP 80 map, to identify two sub-precincts within the Drovers Place Central Precinct. The change to the map that was proposed is depicted in Attachment 2.

 

The two sub-precincts were identified on the proposed map as Special Use Zone ‘A’ which referred to Lot 1 and Lot 132, and Special Use Zone ‘B’, which referred to Lot 810 and Lot 811.

 

 

A change to the ASP 80 map to identify two sub-precincts was necessary at the time Council previously adopted Amendment No. 3, as Council had also adopted Statements of Intent affecting each sub-precinct.

 

The Statement of Intent adopted by WAPC refers to one cohesive Central Precinct, and does not refer to two Special Use Zone sub-precincts. As a result, the WAPC in its decision does not contemplate any change to the ASP 80 map. Therefore, should Council resolve to adopt the revised Amendment No. 3 prepared in light of the WAPC modifications, Council would not be adopting any change to the ASP 80 map.

 

Waiving Further Public Notification of the Amendment

 

As outlined in the ‘Consultation’ section and in accordance with Policy Clause 3.8 of LPP 4.2, public notification of a structure plan proposal (prepared as a requirement of modifications by the WAPC) will only be waived where Council is satisfied of the following:

 

a)      The modification(s) does not significantly or materially depart from the version of the Structure Plan that was advertised for public comment;

 

b)      The modification is in response to a submission(s) received during the advertising period; and

 

c)      Readvertising of the modified structure plan would be unlikely to cause the modifications(s) to be reconsidered.

 

In light of Policy Clause 3.8 of LPP 4.2 and the discussions provided for above, Administration recommends that further advertising of the Amendment No. 3 proposal – prepared as a result of the modifications required by the WAPC – is not required for the following reasons:

 

·        The modifications to the Statement of Intent and the land use permissibilities of Medical Centre and Pharmacy do not significantly or materially depart from amendment proposals that have already been advertised for public comment;

 

·        As outlined above, a submission received during the initial consultation process sought consideration of the Medical Centre and Pharmacy land uses being permissible on all lots in the ASP 80 Central Precinct. Consistent with what is sought in this submission, the WAPC decision adopts the amendment proposal subject to the ‘Medical Centre’ and ‘Pharmacy’ land uses being permissible on all lots in the entire Central Precinct, whilst revising the Statement of Intent to facilitate this land use permissibility change; and

 

·        Readvertising the amendment proposal prepared in light of the modifications required by the WAPC would unlikely result in any substantially different submissions than those previously received from members of the community.

Conclusion

Administration considers the modifications required by the WAPC do not significantly or materially alter the version of the amendment previously adopted by Council. It is therefore recommended that Council determine the duly modified Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80 proposal to be satisfactory and to forward the amendment documents to the WAPC for its adoption and certification.

 

 

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Part 9 of DPS 2.

 

Clause 9.6.3 (c) of DPS 2 stipulates that if the WAPC requires modifications to a structure planning proposal, the applicant shall make the modifications and resubmit the structure plan documents for consideration in accordance with Clause 9.4 of DPS 2.

 

Once structure planning documents are submitted as required under Clause 9.4 (whether submissions are in response to required modifications or not), Clause 9.4.1 (a) of DPS 2 stipulates that Council may waive public notification under Clause 9.5, when it considers that adequate publicity of the proposal has already been undertaken. Administration considers that public notification under Clause 9.5 is not required, as outlined in the ‘Comment’ section above (under the sub-heading ‘Waiving Further Public Notification of the Amendment’).

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

The WAPC modifications sought for the Amendment No. 3 proposal 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.       DETERMINES that the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission to Amendment No. 3 of the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 included in Attachment 3, are SATISFACTORY, pursuant to Clause 9.7.3, 9.6.3 (c) and 9.4.1 (a) 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 3, on the basis that adequate publicity of the proposal has already been undertaken;

 

3.       DETERMINES that the revised Amendment No. 3 proposal included in Attachment 4, prepared by Turner Master Planners Australia to incorporate the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission outlined in Attachment 3 is SATISFACTORY pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (b) of District Planning Scheme No. 2, and SUBMITS three copies to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

 

4.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 included in Attachment 4 and AUTHORISES the Director Planning and Sustainability to SIGN the amendment documents once adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

 

5.       NOTES that Administration will provide an update in due course regarding a request from the Western Australian Planning Commission dated 8 April 2015 to rezone the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (Central Precinct) to ‘Business’ under District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

15/138777

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Proposed Change to ASP 80 Map from 3 February 2015 Council Decision

15/133903

 

3.

Attachment 3 - WAPC Decision on Amendment 3 to the Drovers Place Precinct Structure Plan No. 80

15/133854

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Amendment No. 3 to ASP 80 - Received following WAPC Adoption Subject to Modifications

15/133897

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                       33


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    34


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    36


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    37


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                        42

PS04-05/15       Adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Butler Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan No. 39

File Ref:                                              5975-01 – 15/120525

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 1 to the Butler Jindalee District Structure Plan No. 39 (DSP 39) and adoption of Amendment No. 1.

 

Applicant

Gray and Lewis Landuse Planners

Owner

Northern Corridor Developments Ltd

Location

Lot 9029 (92K) Santorini Promenade, Alkimos

Site Area

644,187m2

MRS Zoning

Urban Development

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development, Primary Regional Roads, Other Regional Roads

 

 

Background

On 22 September 2014, Gray and Lewis Landuse Planners, on behalf of Northern Corridor Developments Ltd submitted Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39.  On 10 November 2014, the Manager Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise. No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39 commenced on 25 November 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DSP 2).

 

A copy of the DSP 39 map showing the location of the Amendment No. 1 area is provided as Attachment 1.

Detail

DSP 39 provides for the overall district context for planning of the area and has formed the basis for development of more detailed Local Structure Plans in Butler and Alkimos, primarily the Butler-Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 (ASP 27) and the Lots 1001 and 1002 Marmion Avenue, Alkimos Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 60 (ASP 60).  Amendment No. 1 was submitted to address the following:

 

1.       Reflect changes that have occurred relative to ASP 27, ASP 60 and the Alkimos-Eglinton District Structure Plan No. 18 (DSP 18) since DSP 39 was originally endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission in 2006.

2.       Modify DSP 39 to facilitate a future amendment to ASP 60, primarily relating to the current areas annotated as ‘Subject to Further Planning’.

 

To facilitate the above actions, the following modifications to the DSP 39 map are proposed by Amendment No. 1:

 

·        Removing reference to the Romeo Road Station consistent with advice from the Public Transport Authority;

·        Replacing a portion of land zoned Service Industrial in the eastern portion of Lot 1001 with Urban Development;

·        Inserting a new western and north-eastern Business zone on Lot 1001;

 

·        Replacing the Other (Local) Centre in the northern portion of Lot 1001 with Urban Development and Business zones

·        Relocating the western and eastern Other (Local) Centre to reflect the locations approved under ASP 60;

·        Relocating the Civic and Cultural (Government Primary School and Government High School) and District Open Space (DOS) to reflect the locations approved under ASP. 27 and ASP 60;

·        Updating the location of transport and movement networks (including neighbourhood connectors) to reflect ASP 60; and

·        Relocating the alignment of Romeo Road consistent with the alignment depicted by the Metropolitan Region Scheme map.

 

In addition, Amendment No. 1 proposes to modify the text of the Part 1 Statutory Provisions to reference updated lot numbers for former Lot 3, Alkimos and the primary school/high school with DOS located on former Lot 8, Butler.

 

A map showing the existing DSP 39 map and changes to the DSP 39 map proposed by Amendment No. 1 is provided as Attachment 2.

Consultation

Amendment No. 1 was advertised for public comment from 25 November 2014 to 13 January 2015 by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. Five submissions were received during this period. A summary of submissions received and Administration responses are shown in Attachment 3.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period and Administration’s assessment of Amendment No. 1 relate to:

 

·        Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) submission; and

·        Impact on employment land as a result of the proposal.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of Amendment No. 1 is provided below.

Comment

Main Roads Western Australia Submission

 

MRWA raised several issues in their submission including:

 

·        Differences in the modelled traffic volumes for the north-west corridor;

·        Future designation of Marmion Avenue;

·        Road reservation widths and intersection truncations; and

·        Access to/from Business zoned land from Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road.

 

The above comments relate to issues which are outside the scope of Amendment No. 1.  Issues such as the width of road reservations, intersection truncations and access to/from regional roads are detailed design issues which are addressed at later stages of the planning process, specifically at the local structure planning and subdivision approval and/or development approval stages when detailed designs are known.  Nevertheless, Administration has provided some further information relating to traffic modelling for the north-west corridor and the future designation of Marmion Avenue below.

 

 

Modelled Traffic Volumes for the North-West Corridor

 

MRWA commented on differences in the modelled traffic volumes provided for ASP 60 and DSP 18.  These comments do not relate to Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39 given they relate to a local structure plan and a different district structure plan.  Notwithstanding this, Administration provides the following information.

 

The traffic modelling for DSP 18 was undertaken in 2006/07 and was based on the MRWA ROM model.  The traffic modelling for ASP 60 was based on a model developed by Bruce Aulabaugh (Traffic Engineer) who was engaged by the City in 2011 to address deficiencies evident in the MRWA ROM model used for DSP 18.  Given the timeframe elapsed between modelling for DSP 18 and development of the model used for ASP 60, it is accepted that there are differences between the traffic volumes.  Differences in the traffic modelling can also be attributed to the fact that the MRWA ROM model is a high level model that estimates vehicle movements on regional roads such as Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road where Bruce Aulabaugh’s model is more detailed and estimates vehicle movements on both the regional roads and the local road network.   Administration considers Bruce Aulabaugh’s model to be more accurate due to its greater level of detail and therefore a more appropriate modelling tool for the north-west corridor.

 

Designation of Marmion Avenue

 

MRWA considers that it would be prudent to plan for Marmion Avenue to be a six lane divided road (central median) and for Romeo Road to be a four lane divided road in the future.  In addition, they have suggested that detailed traffic assessments and designs for Marmion Avenue should be based on Marmion Avenue becoming a primary freight route in the future.  Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road are designated as other regional roads under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).  Future planning for both roads should be based on this designation and widths reserved under the MRS.  It is noted that the reserve width for Romeo Road under the MRS is sufficient to accommodate a four lane divided road.

 

Furthermore, the designation and future design of Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road are outside the scope of matters which should be addressed at the district structure planning stage.  An amendment to the designation and/or widths reserved under the MRS should be facilitated through an MRS amendment.  In the event that MRWA want to review future planning for Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road they should, in the first instance, enter into discussions with the Western Australian Planning Commission. It is not appropriate to use a district structure plan amendment as a platform to seek a review on future planning for Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road.

 

Employment Land

 

Presently, DSP 39 depicts 11.61 hectares of Service Industrial land on the eastern boundary of the DSP 39 area.  A 1.88 hectare portion of this land is required for public open space, drainage and a pump station leaving a developable Service Industrial area of 9.28 hectares.  Amendment No. 1 proposes to reduce the amount of Service Industrial land in this area to 1.35 hectares, and introduce three portions of Business zoned land totalling 10.28 hectares.  Therefore, the total area of employment land in the Amendment No. 1 area is 11.63 hectares.

 

Employment densities for land zoned Business are higher than for land zoned Service Industrial, being 70m2 per employee in a Business zone compared with 102m2 per employee in a Service Industrial zone.  Based on this, it is estimated that proposed Amendment No. 1 will generate approximately an additional 257 jobs compared with the current DSP 39 zoning.  Based on the estimated number of additional jobs generated by Amendment No. 1, the employment self-sufficiency will increase from 43% to 55% for the DSP 39 area.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39 has been prepared to reflect changes which have occurred relative to ASP 27, ASP 60 and DSP 18, and to facilitate a future amendment to ASP 60 relating to land identified in ASP 60 as subject to further planning.  The issues raised by MRWA primarily relate to detailed design issues which are dealt with at later stages in the planning process and therefore do not need to be addressed prior to progression of Amendment No. 1.  Amendment No. 1 provides the ability to increase employment self-sufficiency within the DSP 39 area and therefore will have a positive impact on employment generation in the north-west corridor.  In light of this, Administration considers Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39 to be acceptable.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan amendment, Council may refuse to adopt the amendment or resolve that the amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that Amendment No. 1 to DSP 39 be approved without 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.

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Local Planning Policy 4.2 Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority


 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 1 to the Butler-Jindalee District Structure Plan No. 39 submitted by Gray and Lewis Landuse Planners on behalf of Northern Corridor Developments Ltd included as Attachment 2 is SATISFACTORY without modifications and SUBMITS three (3) copies of the structure plan amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 1 to the Butler-Jindalee District Structure Plan No. 39 documents and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

3.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions included in Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission, and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location of Amendment area

15/130504

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Existing DSP 39 map and proposed changes

15/130446

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions

15/26271

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    47

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    48

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                       49

CITY OF WANNEROO

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE BUTLER-JINDALEE DISTRICT STRUCTURE PLAN NO. 39

  SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Closed 13 January 2015)

 

No.

Summary of Submission

Administration Response

Recommended Modification

1.

Western Power

1.1

Western Power has no comment to make.

Noted.

No modification required.

2.

Department of Education

2.1

The Department agrees with the proposed changes and therefore has no objection.

Noted.

No modification required.

3.

Water Corporation

3.1

The Water Corporation has no objections of comments to make regarding the modifications.

 

It is noted that the proposed changes to the DSP are essentially to reflect changes that have already been adopted through Local Structure Plans within the DSP area.  These changes are mostly minor in nature and should not compromise the Corporation’s planning.

Noted.

No modification required.

4.

Main Roads Western Australia

4.1

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) has no objection to rezoning portions to Urban Development, Business and Service Industrial adjacent to the Mitchell Freeway and Marmion Avenue.

Noted.

No modification required.

4.2

As previously advised in our Structure Plan No 60 letter to the City dated 20 August 2008, structure plans still do not depict the ultimate Mitchell Freeway reservation in the vicinity of the Northeast corner of Lot 1001 proposed for Urban Development.

 

Drafting of Land Protection plans that support the Ultimate Planning Design Concept for the Mitchell freeway in the vicinity of the north-eastern corner of Lot 1001 will need to be undertaken prior to an MRS amendment.  Information on the proposed amendments can be obtained from the Department for Planning – Urban Transport Systems.  However, MRWA understands responsibility for the drafting and initiating the amendment now resides with MRWA and this can be undertaken in the new year.  A copy of Department of Planning Carriageway Pattern drawing 1.5576 is attached for information.  Highlighted in yellow is the ultimate land requirement at the NE corner of Lot 1001 that will be required for road purposes, to be ceded free of cost to MRWA as a condition of subdivision.  Statutory Report Figure 9 – bottom plan depicts the ultimate requirement line.  This requirement needs to be reflected in all Structure plans.

 

MRWA is of the view the MRS amendment will need to be undertaken prior to rezoning for Urban Development.

Dismissed.  The alignment of the Mitchell Freeway reservation in the vicinity of the north-east corner of Lot 1001 depicted on DSP 39 is consistent with the alignment depicted on the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).  It is considered premature to depict an ultimate reservation ahead of any future amendments to the MRS.

 

The land is zoned Urban under the MRS and therefore an MRS amendment is not necessary prior to the land being rezoned from Service Industrial to Urban Development.

 

 

No modification required.

4.3

A Structure Plan Noise Assessment recommended that a noise barrier wall adjacent to the Mitchell Freeway was not considered practical.  It cannot be ascertained from the noise report why a noise wall is not practical.  MRWA reserves the right to further review noise issues at the subdivision stage.  All noise treatments shall be the responsibility of the developer.

 

Note: To control external noise levels at the ground floor of future residences so as not to exceed the SPP limit, Main Roads expects a continuous Estate noise wall to reduce façade noise levels to below the State Planning Policy 5.4 noise limit.  This should be implemented in accordance with the intent of the policy along the western boundary of the Mitchell Freeway reservation.  The developer should be allowed to limit the wall to a modest height of 2.2 metres.  MRWA’s request for a noise wall may cause a review of noise levels which may reduce or eliminate the need to residence treatments at ground floor level, but probably not for any upper storey rooms.

Noted.  Proposed Amendment 1 to DSP 39 is a high level amendment which relates to zoning of land, locations of centres and roads and removal of reference to the Romeo Road railway station.  The requirement for a noise barrier wall will be addressed during future stages of planning.

No modification required.

4.4

MRWA disagrees with the Statutory report which suggests a business zone should have good direct access to regional roads whilst quoting the City’s Planning Policy 3.8.  Business zone lot access to Regional Roads such as Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road shall be gained from easements in gross which connect to the local road network neighbourhood connector roads.

 

Full control of access shall be enforced along the boundary of Marmion Avenue, Romeo Road and the Mitchell Freeway. No vehicle access shall be permitted to or from the Marmion Avenue, Romeo Road or Mitchell Freeway reservation from adjacent structure plan lots.  This shall be noted on the deposited plan in accordance with s150 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 as a restrictive covenant for the benefit of MRWA and the City at the applicant’s expense.

 

It should be noted that the City’s Planning Policy 3.8 (LPP 3.8) is as yet unsupported by Main Roads.

Noted.  MRWA’s disagreement with comments included in the statutory report is noted.  Matters related to access to/from primary roads (including easements) are detailed design matters which are dealt with at the subdivision stage of the planning process.

 

In respect to MRWA’s comments regarding LPP 3.8, there is no statutory requirement for MRWA to endorse a local planning policy.

 

No modification required.

4.5

As with the adjacent South Alkimos Agreed Structure Plan No. 72 and the proposed draft Alkimos City Centre Structure Plan No. 89 (LSP 89), MRWA notes significant major differences between Lots 1001 and 1002 Marmion Avenue Alkimos Agreed Structure Plan No. 60 (ASP 60) NW corridor modelled traffic volumes and independently reviewed 2031 traffic modelling undertaken for the Alkimos – Eglinton District Structure Plan No. 18 (DSP 18) in 2006/2007.  ASP 60 and DSP 18 modelled volume differences are significant, particularly on Marmion Avenue (-45%) and Romeo Road (-40%) adjacent to Marmion Avenue.

 

The applicant should be advised that future intersection and signalisation traffic analysis at subdivision stage should be based on modelled traffic volumes to be agreed with MRWA.  Modelled traffic volumes as shown in the ASP 60 Traffic and Movement report are not endorsed by MRWA at this time.

Noted.  MRWA’s comments in relation to differences in modelled traffic volumes provided for ASP 60 and DSP 18 do not relate to Amendment No. 1 given they relate to a local structure plan and a different district structure plan.  Notwithstanding this, the following information is provided regarding the traffic models used in the north-west corridor.

 

The traffic modelling for DSP 18 was undertaken in 2006/07 and was based on the MRWA ROM model.  The traffic modelling for ASP 60 was based on a model developed by Bruce Aulabaugh (Traffic Engineer) in who was engaged by the City to address deficiencies evident in the MRWA ROM model used for DSP 18.  Given the timeframe elapsed between modelling for DSP 18 and development of the model used for ASP 60, it is accepted that there are differences between the traffic volumes.  Differences in the traffic modelling can also be attributed to the fact that the MRWA ROM model is a high level model that estimates vehicle movements on regional roads such as Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road where Bruce Aulabaugh’s model is more detailed and estimates vehicle movements on both the regional roads and the local road network.   Administration considers Bruce Aulabaugh’s model to be more accurate due to its greater level of detail and therefore a more appropriate modelling tool for the north-west corridor.

No modification required.

4.6

DSP modelled traffic volumes for Marmion Avenue adjacent to the LSP 60 Business zone are in the vicinity of 40,000 vpd.  MRWA is of the view this section of Marmion Avenue will ultimately be near midblock capacity and will be at signal capacity for a 4 land road.  Therefore, for traffic safety and transport demand related reasons, it would be prudent to plan for future additional intersection lanes onto Marmion Avenue (i.e. six lane divided on Marmion Avenue and 4 lanes divided on Romeo Road with additional appropriately designed intersection left and right turn pockets within the road reservation).  Main Roads is aware that additional carrying capacity on Romeo Road may be required closer to the Mitchell Freeway interchange.

Noted.  See response for 4.5 above.  The design of Marmion Avenue is outside the scope of Amendment No. 1.

 

Marmion Avenue and Romeo Road are designated as other regional roads under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).  Future planning for both roads should be based on this designation and reserve widths reserved under the MRS.  It is noted that the reserve width for Romeo Road under the MRS is sufficient to accommodate a four lane divided road.

 

Furthermore, the designation and future design of Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road are outside the scope of matters which should be addressed at the district structure planning stage.  An amendment to the designation and/or widths reserved under the MRS should be facilitated through an MRS amendment.  In the event that MRWA want to review future planning for Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road they should, in the first instance enter into discussions with the Western Australian Planning Commission. It is not appropriate to use a district structure plan amendment as a platform to seek a review on future planning for Marmion Avenue and/or Romeo Road.

No modification required

4.7

As it is highly likely Marmion Avenue will become a primary freight route, all detailed traffic assessments and designs will need to allow for ‘as of right’ freight vehicle requirements.

Dismissed.  See response for 4.6 above.   

No modification required.

4.8

Neighbourhood Connector roads, where they intersect with Marmion Ave and Romeo Road do not appear to show road reservation truncations to accommodate the ultimate signalised layouts.  In addition, planning of truncations for interim treatments will need to be determined in conjunction with Main Roads Road Network Services Branch. If signalisation is not warranted at this point in time, there may be larger land requirements associated with interim treatments such as roundabouts.

Noted.  Matters such as planning for road reservation truncations and interim treatments are detailed design matters which will be addressed during the subdivision stage of the planning process.

 

 

No modification required.

4.9

The Benenden Avenue road reservation width between Howden Parade and Romeo Road appears inadequate to cater for business zone development and signalisation requirements.

 

Note:  In response to LSP Amendment 2, MRWA previously noted the Transport Assessment has not provided SIDRA analysis results for Romeo Road/Benenden Avenue intersection.  MRWA request this information be provided by the applicant prior to further structure planning and/or subdivision.

Noted.  See response to 4.8 above.

 

MRWA’s comment in relation to their request for a SIDRA analysis to be provided in response to Amendment 2 to LSP 60 is noted.  DSP 39 is a high level planning document and as such, it is not appropriate to require SIDRA analysis results to be provided at this stage of the planning process.  The requirement for a SIDRA analysis for Romeo Road/Benenden Avenue will be considered at a later stage in the planning process such as the local structure planning and/or development application stage.

No modification required.

4.10

Awnings, arcades and galleries shall not encroach within the Marmion Avenue or Romeo Road reservation.

Noted.  Not relevant to this stage of the planning process.  These matters will be addressed at the development application stage of the planning process.

No modification required.

5.

Department of Planning

 

 

5.1

The proposed modifications specifically relate to the realignment of Marmion Avenue; the boundary reconfiguration of the adjoining high school and public open space site; and the realignment of the north-west neighbourhood connector located to the east of the DSP 39 area are consistent with the WAPC adopted modifications to the Trinity ASP and DSP 18.

Noted.

No modification required.

5.2

The removal of Romeo Road Train Station is consistent with advice received from the Public Transport Authority.

Noted.

No modification required.

5.3

The replacement of ‘Service Industrial’ with ‘Urban Development’ zoned land; the inclusion of ‘Business’ zoned land; and the removal of the northern ‘Other Local Centre’ will need to be supported by an economic and employment impact study.  Further, the interface between the ‘Service Industrial’ zoned land located south of DSP 39, and the proposed ‘Urban Development’ zoned land under Amendment 1, will need to be appropriately addressed.

Noted.  An Employment Assessment was not provided with the original documentation to the City and as such, not provided to the Department of Planning.  The proponent has since provided an Employment Assessment for the proposed Amendment.  The Department of Planning has advised they will consider this assessment when Amendment 1 is forwarded to them for their consideration.

 

Administration has reviewed the Employment Assessment and notes that proposed Amendment No. 1 will generate approximately an additional 257 jobs compared with the current DSP 39 zoning. 

No modification required.

5.4

The area identified in the Trinity ASP as subject to further planning, is to be considered once an economic and employment study has been prepared and submitted.  The Department would consider concurrently assessing Amendment 1 and the future modification to the Trinity ASP.

Noted.  See response to 5.3 above.

No modification required.

5.5

 The WAPC will formally consider Amendment 1 to DSP 39 after the City of Wanneroo has made its determination and forwarded the proposal to the WAPC for determination.  A comprehensive assessment of all the issues will be undertaken should the proposal be referred to the WAPC for endorsement.

Noted.

No modification required.

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                        58

PS05-05/15       Re-advertising Amendment No. 102 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - East Wanneroo Cell 9 - East Landsdale

File Ref:                                              2965 – 15/119540

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To re-advertise Amendment No.102 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to include additional provisions applicable to East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale along with a schedule of estimated costs of all infrastructure items.

 

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 30 April 2013 considered Amendment No. 102 and resolved to adopt the amendment, subject to modifications, as per the following (Item PS06-04/13):

 

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the summary of submissions received and included as Attachment 1 to this report;

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17(2)(a) ADOPTS, with modification, Amendment No. 102 to District Planning Scheme No.2 by inserting the word 'the' between the words 'In' and 'case' in item 1(e) for the purpose of amending the Scheme as follows:

Part 10

a)      subclause 9.12.7 be amended to replace the integer ‘8’ with ‘9’;

b)      subclause 10.5.2(a) be amended as follows:

          Public Open Space shall include:

a)      all community purpose sites except in Cell 9;

c)      second sentence of sub clause 10.6.2 be reworded as follows:

 

“This will be calculated by determining the number of hectares in the Area of a Cell and multiplying that area by 9 in the case of Cells 1 to 6 and multiplying that area by 13 in the case of Cell 9.”

 

d)      subclause 10.6.3 be amended to redefine variables ‘B(1’) and ‘D’ of the formulae to calculate the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot as follows:

“B(1) = in the case of Cells 1 to 6 the lots produced at the rate of 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner, and in the case of Cell 9 at the rate of 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner; and

D =    in the case of Cells 1 to 6 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of a Cell, and in the case of Cell 9 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of that Cell.”; and

 

e)      the last sentence of subclause 10.6.4(a) be deleted and replaced with the following sentences:

            “This shall be calculated by Council by dividing the total area of the lot by 450m2 to derive a lot potential for the lot in Cells 1 – 6. In the case of Cell 9 this shall be calculated by dividing the total area of the lot by 500m2 to derive a lot potential for the lots in that Cell.”

Schedule 9

f)       Subclause 2.6 to be re-worded as follows:

 

In the case of Cell 9, the development of public open space areas to a basic standard as proposed in the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 57;

 

g)      To include the following provisions in Clause 3 under Cell 9:

The cost of acquiring 100% of the designated wetland core of the ‘Conservation Category Wetland’ located on Lots 72, 73 and 74 Queensway and of the ‘Resource Enhancement Wetland’ located on Lots 55 and 56 Alexander Drive, at the rate of 20% of the englobo land value for the contribution area, as determined under the provisions of Part 10 of the Scheme.

 

The cost of acquisition of the land for buffer and landscaping of the buffer along the eastern boundary abutting Alexander Drive.

Community Purpose Site:

·        The acquisition of land for the 5000m2 Community Purpose site;

·        Design and construction of a Community Centre on the Community Purpose site.

3.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 (a) (g) AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the amendment documentation;

4.       FORWARDS the Amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning grant final approval to the Amendment, listed in 1. above; and

5.       ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommended modifications contained in Attachment 1 of this report regarding the submissions received on Amendment No. 102 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

Detail

The amendment, which applies to East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale relates to the following matters:

 

1.       Determination of potential lots based on the average lot size of 500m2;

2.       Calculating the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot (ICPL) at the rate of 13 lots per hectare

3.       Defining the basic standard of public open space (POS) development;

4.       Compensating landowners for wetland cores;

 

 

5.       The land acquisition cost of the Community Purpose site and the cost of design and construction of a Community centre on the proposed Community Purpose site; and

6.       Some textual changes to the scheme.

 

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in its correspondence of 17 February 2015 advised that the Minister for Planning has directed the City to re-advertise the amendment for a period of 42 days with a schedule of estimated costs for the infrastructure items.

 

The WAPC further advised that,

 

·        Estimated costs for infrastructure and administrative items in the Cell 9 development contribution plan have not been prepared or publically advertised as required under the WAPC’s State Planning Policy 3.6; Developer Contribution for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6); and

 

·        Although there is no objection to the proposed textual changes or modification to the Cell 9 Infrastructure Cost per Lot methodology, the proposed infrastructure items require further explanation to demonstrate compliance with the key principles of SPP 3.6, particularly the need and nexus between the new development and the proposed infrastructure items. 

 

In relation to the dot point one, the estimated costs for the cell works defined in DPS No. 2 (current cell works) have not previously been advertised. The proposed schedule of costs includes both the cost estimates for all cell works and defines both the overall costs of the cell works and the additional cost of the infrastructure associated with proposed Amendment 102.

 

In relation to dot point two, the proposed infrastructure items (cell works not already included in DPS No. 2) include the following,

 

1.         Compensation to the landowners for land containing wetland cores;

2.         The cost of acquiring land for the buffer abutting Alexander Drive and landscaping the buffer; and

3.         The cost of acquiring a Community Purpose Site and the design and construction of a Community Centre.

Consultation

The Minister has directed the City to re-advertise the amendment proposal under Regulation 20(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and therefore there is no requirement to refer the amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) prior to re-advertising the amendment.

 

The amendment will be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper;

·        Placement of signs giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

Comment

Cost Sharing Arrangements

 

The Minister has directed the City to prepare a schedule of estimated costs for all items. Officers of the Department of Planning have clarified that a Cost Sharing Arrangement (CSA) be prepared for Cell 9 containing a schedule of estimated costs.

 

Creative Design + Planning, consultants in Town Planning (the consultant), was engaged by Administration to prepare the CSA. Attachment 1 contains the CSA which includes the details of the cost estimates, the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan map and the Community Facility Study.

 

The Cost Sharing Arrangements,

 

·        Provide costings (actual or estimates) for all cell works currently allowed for by DPS 2;

 

·        Provide estimated costings of the additional cell works proposed by the amendment; and

 

·        Determine the Infrastructure cost per lot in Cell 9.

 

In consultation with the City, the consultant has determined the costs of the above matters as follows:

 

Existing Cell Works

 

The following works are currently classified as General Cell Works in Item 2 of Schedule 9 of DPS 2.

 

Roads

 

Existing Cell Works under the provisions of Schedule 9 of DPS 2 encompass land acquisition and construction of Gnangara Road, Alexander Drive and Hepburn Avenue (including drainage). The total cost of these road works has been estimated at $9, 079,078.00. 

 

POS land acquisition

 

The total estimated cost of acquiring 20.17581 hectares of the POS area as proposed in the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 (LSP 57) is $44,386,760.00.

 

Basic Standard of POS areas

 

The basic standard of POS areas is determined as per the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space (LPP 4.3). This policy classifies the POS areas as Pocket Parks, Local Park, Neighbourhood Recreation Park, Neighbourhood Sports Park and Conservation Park. LSP 57 proposes 14 POS areas comprising of four Pocket Parks, four Local Parks, three Neighbourhood Recreation Parks, one Neighbourhood Sports Park and two Conservation Parks (Appendix 2 of Attachment 1). The estimated cost of developing these parks areas is $12,737,660.00.

 

It is noted that where the parks are developed to a higher standard by developers, the CSA has only costed and will only compensate up to the basic standard.

 

 

Further, any compensation or credit that a developer may be entitled requires that the works within the POS are completed (as a minimum) to the ‘basic standard’, as defined by LPP 4.3.

 

All costs associated with the preparation of LSP 57

 

Stockland WA Development Pty Ltd who is a major landowner and developer in Cell 9 area, engaged the services of Development Planning Strategies and recently Creative Design + Planning to prepare LSP 57 and the supporting reports including the preparation of the CSA. The cost of preparing these documents amounts to $862,776.00.

 

Administration cost and Interest on loans

 

The administration cost and interest on loans is estimated to be $500,000 over a period of 10 years ($50,000 per year) by which time Cell 9 is expected to be fully developed. It is noted that more than 50% of Cell 9 has already been developed since 2010. The City does not anticipate any requirement for borrowing and therefore no amount has been included.

The total estimated cost of all the above existing Cell Works under the current DPS 2 provisions equates to $67,566,274.00

 

Additional Cell works proposed in the Amendment

 

In addition to the existing cell works, the following represents the costs associated with works proposed by Amendment No. 102, as previously adopted by Council on 30 April 2013.

 

Wetland Core

 

Cell 9 contains two wetlands a Conservation Category Wetland and a Resource Enhancement Wetland. Additional Cell 9 Works proposed through Amendment 102 include acquisition of the wetland core (at 20% of the englobo land value). The estimated cost of acquiring the wetland cores is $492,800.00.

 

Landscaped buffer along Alexander Drive

 

Cell 9 is located adjacent to the Perth International Telecommunications Centre (PITC). One of the key measures to mitigate the impact of development through radio-frequency interference on PITC was the requirement to provide a landscaped bund as a buffer abutting Alexander Drive. The cost of acquisition of the land for buffer and landscaping the bund has been identified as an additional ‘Specific Cell Work’ in the amendment.

 

The total area of the buffer is 1.33 hectares. The total cost of land and landscaping of the buffer is estimated at $3,449,160.00.

 

Community Purpose site

 

Appendix 5 to Attachment 1 contains the Community Facility Study prepared by Creating Communities Pty Ltd. Acquisition of a Community Purpose site of 5,000m2 and the design and construction of the Community Centre has been identified as a Specific Cell Work in the amendment. These items are estimated to cost $3,740,000.00.

 

The total estimated cost for the additional Cell Works proposed by Amendment No. 102 equates to $7,681,960.00

 

The combined total cost of the existing and proposed cell works is $75,248,234.00. Based on a density of 13 lots per hectare as proposed in Amendment No. 102, the Estimated Lot Yield in Cell 9 is 2,361 lots. Therefore the Infrastructure Cost per Lot in Cell 9 is calculated as $31,871.34.

 

Subclause 2.6 of Schedule 9 of DPS 2

 

Council at its meeting of 30 April 2013 resolved as follows:

 

f)       Subclause 2.6 to be re-worded as follows:

 

In the case of Cell 9, the development of public open space areas to a basic standard as proposed in the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 57;

 

The intent of this provision was to amend LSP 57 to incorporate the basic standards of the POS areas once Amendment 102 to DPS 2 is gazetted. Now that the CSA contains the cost of developing the POS areas to the basic standards as prescribed in the LPP 4.3: Public Open Space, it is recommended that the above provision be deleted from the amendment proposals.

 

Interim Developer Contribution Scheme Arrangements

 

Amendment No. 102 relates to East Wanneroo Cell 9 Structure Plan Area, which has existing developer contribution scheme obligations under Part 10 of DPS 2. Despite the existing developer contribution provisions, the City has delayed its consideration of the cell costs, pending the finalisation of Amendment No. 102, which (amongst other things) proposes to increase the estimated lot yield (ELY) for this cell from 9 lots per ha to 13 lots per ha. The higher ELY is considered to be a more accurate reflection of contemporary land development patterns and lots sizes. The higher ELY will result in an ICPL of $31,871.34 as calculated above. (It is noted that at the current rate of 9 lots per ha, the ICPL would be significantly higher i.e., closer to $40,000 per lot).

 

Administration has for some time been entering into interim arrangements with all subdividers in Cell 9  based on an original estimate of $30,000 per lot, plus a 30% contingency to allow for any increases to the contribution scheme rate (i.e. should the higher ELY not be endorsed). Upon finalisation of Amendment No. 102 and endorsement of the cost estimates, the City will reconcile payments and security held against the adopted contribution costs for this cell.

 

Conclusion

 

Council at its meeting of 30 April 2013 considered Amendment 102 to DPS 2, which introduced some additional cell works applicable to East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale and resolved to adopt it and forward to the WAPC with a request to seek the Minister for Planning’s final approval.

 

The Minister directed that the amendment be re-advertised along with a schedule of estimated cost of all items. The following summary of costs represents the total cost of the cell works and results in a cost contribution that is generally consistent with the ‘interim’ contribution arrangements.

 

TOTAL ESTIMATED CELL COSTS AND ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURE COST PER LOT

 

Cell Works

Cell Cost

 

 

Existing (Schedule 9 of DPS 2)

 

Roads

9,079,078

POS Land

44,386,760

POS Development

12,737,660

LSP Preparation

862,776

Administration

500,000

 

 

SUB TOTAL

67,566,274

Estimated Lot Yield (13 lots/ha)

2,361

Estimated Infrastructure Cost Per Lot

28,618

 

 

Proposed (Amendment 102)

 

Wetland Core

492,800

Alexander Drive Buffer

3,449,160

Community Site and Building

3,740,000

 

 

SUB TOTAL

7,681,960

TOTAL

75,248,234

Estimated Lot Yield (13 lots/ha)

2,361

Estimated Infrastructure Cost Per Lot

31,871

 

It is recommended that Amendment No. 102 be re-advertised along with the Cost Sharing Arrangements for Cell 9.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

 “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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority


 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council, as directed, by the Minister for Planning pursuant to regulation 20 (1) of the Town Planning Regulation 1967, RE-ADVERTISES Amendment No. 102 to amend Part 10 and Schedule 9 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows and the Cost Sharing Arrangements contained in Attachment 1 to this report:

Part 10

a)      subclause 9.12.7 be amended to replace the integer ‘8’ with ‘9’;

b)      subclause 10.5.2(a) be amended as follows:

          Public Open Space shall include:

a)      all community purpose sites except in Cell 9;

c)      second sentence of sub clause 10.6.2 be reworded as follows:

 

“This will be calculated by determining the number of hectares in the Area of a Cell and multiplying that area by 9 in the case of Cells 1 to 6 and multiplying that area by 13 in the case of Cell 9.”

 

d)      subclause 10.6.3 be amended to redefine variables ‘B(1’) and ‘D’ of the formulae to calculate the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot as follows:

“B(1) = in the case of Cells 1 to 6 the lots produced at the rate of 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner, and in the case of Cell 9 at the rate of 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner; and

D =    in the case of Cells 1 to 6 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of a Cell, and in the case of Cell 9 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of that Cell.”; and

e)      the last sentence of subclause 10.6.4(a) be deleted and replaced with the following sentences:

            “This shall be calculated by Council by dividing the total area of the lot by 450m2 to derive a lot potential for the lot in Cells 1 – 6. In the case of Cell 9 this shall be calculated by dividing the total area of the lot by 500m2 to derive a lot potential for the lots in that Cell.”

Schedule 9

f)       To include the following provisions in Clause 3 under Cell 9:

 

The cost of acquiring 100% of the designated wetland core of the ‘Conservation Category Wetland’ located on Lots 72, 73 and 74 Queensway and of the ‘Resource Enhancement Wetland’ located on Lots 55 and 56 Alexander Drive, at the rate of 20% of the englobo land value for the contribution area, as determined under the provisions of Part 10 of the Scheme.

 

 

 

The cost of acquisition of the land for buffer and landscaping of the buffer along the eastern boundary abutting Alexander Drive.

Community Purpose Site:

·        The acquisition of land for the 5000m2 Community Purpose site;

·        Design and construction of a Community Centre on the Community Purpose site.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Amendment No. 102 to DSP 2 - Attachment 1

15/134201

Minuted

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                    67

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      115

PS06-05/15       Reconsideration of Amendment No. 2 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80

File Ref:                                              2957-02 – 15/121749

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To reconsider the adoption of Amendment No. 2 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan (ASP 80); following receipt of further environmental advice.

 

Applicant

Roberts Day

Owner

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth

Location

Lot 6 (43) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Lot 7 (53) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Site Area

Lot 6 – 2.9270 hectares

Lot 7 – 3.2959 hectares

Lot 8 – 3.0740 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

ASP 80 Zoning

Special Use

 

 

Background

On 25 March 2014, Roberts Day Group, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth, lodged a request with the City to rezone Lot 6 (43), Lot 7 (53) and Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo from Special Use zone to Residential zone. The subject lots are located in the Western Precinct of ASP 80. A plan showing the location of Lots 6, 7 and 8 is provided as Attachment 1.

 

Currently, Table B of ASP 80 prescribes only the following land uses as discretionary (or 'D') uses on Lots 6, 7 and 8:

 

·        Educational Establishment; and

·        Low scale tourism-related uses, as determined by Council, including tea rooms, local arts and crafts, art galleries and restaurants/café.

 

On 8 April 2014, the Manager Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing Elected Members with an opportunity to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise. No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 commenced on 13 May 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

Council considered this amendment proposal at its 3 February 2015 Council Meeting. At that Meeting, Council resolved to carry a Procedural Motion for the matter to be deferred pending receipt of further environmental advice. That advice has since been received and discussed further in this Report.

Detail

Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 proposes to rezone Lot 6 (43), Lot 7 (53) and Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo from Special Use zone to Residential zone.

 

 

To coincide with the proposed residential zoning, the amendment also proposes to modify various parts of the ASP 80 text and Plan 1.

 

The amendment document is included as Attachment 2. The key elements of proposed Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 are as follows:

 

·        The rezoning of the amendment area to Residential, to accommodate up to 450 dwellings with a range of housing densities from R20 to R60;

 

·        Modification to the Statement of Intent of the Western Precinct of ASP 80, to emphasise the intent for residential development to occur in this Precinct;

 

·        Modification to the proposed location of traffic signals required for the Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection, and modification to the responsibility for the subdivider/developer to construct those traffic signals; and

 

·        The removal of a requirement for the subdivider/developer of the land comprising the amendment area to construct an emergency vehicle access from Joondalup Drive to the existing fire station on Drovers Place.

Consultation

The amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, display on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. The submission period closed on 24 June 2014, with 10 submissions received.

 

Of the submissions received, two were of no objection, four objected to the proposal and four provided general comment in respect to the proposed amendment. The key issues raised in the objections received relate to traffic and environmental impacts resulting from the proposed amendment. These issues are discussed in detail in the Comment section of this report. A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 3.

 

Subsequent to Council's consideration of the amendment proposal at its 3 February 2015 Council Meeting, Administration sought further advice from the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) on the proposal. Administration was also advised at a meeting of the Yellagonga Regional Park Community Advisory Committee (CAC) held on 19 February 2015, that the Committee intended to provide a submission on the amendment proposal.

 

Administration has now obtained submissions from DPaW and the CAC; as well as an additional submission from the Committee of the Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park (FoY). A summary of the submissions (and Administration’s response) is provided in Attachment 4.

Comment

Traffic Concerns

 

Location of Traffic Signals

 

To understand the traffic implications resulting from (then) draft ASP 80, a traffic study was commissioned by the City in 2010 by GHD Consultants. This traffic study identified the need for a signalised intersection on Joondalup Drive, to support vehicular access onto Drovers Place. The most reasonable location for the traffic signals identified in this study was adjacent to the existing western Drovers Place cul-de-sac head, as shown on the plan included as Attachment 5.

 

The traffic study prepared in 2010 highlighted that Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) provided 'in-principle' support for the traffic signals adjacent to the existing western Drovers Place cul-de-sac head where shown in Attachment 5. However, support for traffic signals in this location was subject to the existing Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection being removed. The location of the existing Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection is shown in Attachment 5.

 

The existing ASP 80 map identifies the requirement to provide traffic signals adjacent to the existing western Drovers Place cul-de-sac head (refer to Existing Plan 1 as shown in Attachment 2 and the plan included as Attachment 5). However, Amendment No. 2 proposes to modify the ASP 80 map, by relocating the proposed location of the required traffic signals eastward, to the current Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection (refer to the 'Proposed Plan' as shown in Attachment 2 and the plan included as Attachment 5).

 

MRWA objects to the existing Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection being signalised for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposed traffic signals would be within close proximity to the existing signals at Joondalup Drive and Wanneroo Road, which is currently heavily congested with traffic queuing back through the intersection at Drovers Place; and 

 

·        Traffic signals at the proposed location could impact upon the future grade separation plans MRWA has for the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Wanneroo Road.

 

Although the applicant's traffic report provides a sound analysis of traffic volumes that could potentially be generated as a result of the amendment proposal, it does not provide for an argument to address concerns from MRWA. Therefore, the location of the traffic signals at the existing Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection (as proposed in this amendment) cannot be supported by Administration. A modification to this effect is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included in Attachment 6.

 

Contribution toward Traffic Signals

 

Currently Table F – Section 5.2 of ASP 80 contains the following provision:

 

The subdivider/developer of Lots 6, 7 and 8 in the western precinct shall, in consultation with MRWA, design and construct a three-way signal controlled intersection linking Drovers Place to Joondalup Drive, as indicated on Plan 1 and construct an emergency vehicle access to the existing fire station on Lot 12462 to the specification and satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo.

 

This amendment proposes to modify this provision, so that the landowner of Lots 6, 7 and 8 would be responsible in only contributing to the design and construction of traffic signals. This is opposed to the current ASP 80 provision, which requires the subdivider/developer of Lots 6, 7 and 8 fully funding the design and construction of the traffic signals. Administration does not accept this proposed aspect of the amendment proposal, for the following reasons:

 

·        The applicant's traffic report concludes that traffic from residential development situated in the amendment area would represent up to 66% of traffic on Drovers Place in the 2016 AM peak hour, and up to 50% in the PM peak hour;

 

·        As outlined in the applicant's traffic report, residential development in the amendment area would generate a level of traffic through the Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection that warrant the need for traffic signals to be required.

 

 

 

 

Similarly, if the amendment was not proposed and an Education Establishment was developed on Lots 6, 7 and 8; that development would also have generated a level of traffic through the Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection that would have warranted the need for traffic signals; and

 

·        The proposed amendment does not specify to what extent (such as a percentage or other value) that the landowner should contribute to the design and construction of traffic signals. In the absence of the applicant outlining who would fund the remaining costs, responsibility for the design and construction of the traffic signals could inequitably fall on the City.

 

In light of the above, this Administration recommends that this aspect of the amendment proposal not be supported. A modification to this effect is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included in Attachment 6.

 

Emergency Vehicle Access to the Fire Station

 

As outlined above, Table F – Section 5.2 of ASP 80 contains a provision, which in part requires the subdivider/developer of Lots 6, 7 and 8 to construct an emergency vehicle access to the existing fire station on Lot 12462. It was previously agreed in ASP 80 to include a separate DFES access road onto Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive with appropriate treatments to overcome impacts of likely congestion resulting from development of a High School in the amendment area. The amendment proposes to remove the requirement for the landowners of Lots 6, 7 and 8 to provide the separate DFES access road.

 

The current zoning of Special Use on Lots 6, 7 and 8 permits the development of an Education Establishment. Rezoning this land to Residential would result in an Education Establishment being a prohibited (or 'X') use on Lots 6, 7 and 8. Although an Education Establishment will no longer be developed in the amendment area, traffic is still expected to queue on approach to the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection. However, as outlined in the applicant's traffic report, traffic generated from the residential development would be considerably less in peak periods than the traffic generated from an Education Establishment. Traffic generated by residential development in the amendment area would be up to 2,700 vehicles per day, with 270 vehicles per hour in peak periods. This compares to the estimated 1,500 vehicles per hour in peak periods generated from an Education Establishment in the amendment area, as stipulated in the traffic study prepared by GHD in 2010.

 

In light of the above, Administration considers that the emergency vehicle access is no longer required, and therefore supports this aspect of the amendment proposal.

 

Provision of Traffic Report for Subdivision/Development

 

Table E of the ASP 80 text outlines the general planning framework for the entire structure plan area, not just the land subject to this amendment. In particular, this table specifies that a traffic report be provided prior to the subdivision or development of land in the ASP 80 area, including lots situated outside the amendment area.

 

The amendment proposes to amend Table E of the structure plan text, by removing any requirement for a traffic report to be provided prior to any subdivision or development. Administration considers this aspect of the amendment proposal would inadvertently remove the requirement for traffic reports being provided prior to the subdivision or development of land anywhere in the ASP 80 area.

 

 

 

 

In light of the above, Administration recommends that this aspect of the amendment proposal not be supported. A modification to this effect is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included in Attachment 6.

 

Environmental Impacts

 

Preserving Natural Environment

 

The submissions received have highlighted concern regarding the potential loss of the environmental value on the three lots subject to the amendment, such as the loss of established trees. In response, Administration provides the following comment:

 

·        The amendment only proposes to rezone land to Residential. The amendment does not propose to alter the natural environment; and

 

·        Consideration of the natural environment (including the retention of significant vegetation and trees) will be made when a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) is lodged with the City. A DAP is typically required to be lodged prior to any subdivision or development, unless the City is satisfied that:

 

Subdivision is for the amalgamation of lots or part lots, or is for the consolidation of land for "superlot" purposes to facilitate land assembly for development.

 

The development proposed is of a scale and permanence that will not prejudice the design of the DAP, the timely provision of infrastructure and services to the area; or other development in the Structure Plan area.

 

Water Management

 

In a submission, the Department of Water has suggested that a Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) should be compiled for Lots 6, 7 and 8. The Department of Water have outlined that the LWMS should contain a level of information that reflects the site constraints, risk to water resources and a commitment for an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to be prepared.

 

In 2009, the City prepared a Water Management Framework (WMF) to provide guidance for water management objectives and requirements for future development within the ASP 80 area. The WMF provides for information on site constraints, risk to water resources and when an UWMP should be prepared. The WMF outlines that an UWMP shall be provided at either the detailed area planning, subdivision or development planning stages. As discussed later in this Report, Administration considers it appropriate for an UWMP to be provided at the detailed area plan stage.  

 

Therefore, Administration does not consider a LWMS to be necessary, as the WMF previously prepared by the City is considered to be a satisfactory equivalent.

 

Submissions from Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) and Environmental Committees

 

Detailed summaries of the submissions (with Administration’s response) received from the DPaW, Committee of the Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park (FoY) and Yellagonga Regional Park Community Advisory Committee (CAC) are included in Attachment 4. From the submissions, Administration has identified the following as key issues:

 


 

 

Interface between the Amendment Area and Yellagonga Regional Park – The amendment proposes to modify Table B (Section 7) of ASP 80 by removing provision that prescribes that development in the amendment area is to be screened from the Yellagonga Regional Park by way of local native vegetation.

 

The submissions argue that local native vegetation should be provided to act as an interface between development in the amendment area and Yellagonga Regional Park. Comment was made for the following reasons:

 

·        To provide a barrier for midge plagues from Yellagonga Regional Park entering the amendment area; and

 

·        To reduce the visual impact of development as seen from other locations within the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

For the reasons outlined below, Administration does not support the ASP 80 text being modified to delete the requirements for development in the amendment area to be screened from the Yellagonga Regional Park by way of local native vegetation:

 

·        The provision ensures that development in the amendment area does not become visually intrusive, as viewed from the adjoining Yellagonga Regional Park; and

 

·        Further vegetation screening in proximity to development in the amendment area may further assist in mitigating the effects of midge and mosquito plagues.

 

In light of the above, Administration recommends Table B (Section 7) of ASP 80 retain a requirement for development in the amendment area to be screened from the Yellagonga Regional Park by way of local native vegetation. A modification to this effect is tabled in the Schedule of Modifications included in Attachment 6.

 

Notifications on Title – Midge and Mosquito NuisancesAll three submissions recommended that notification be placed on the Certificates of Title of the properties within the application area warning of potential nuisances from midge and mosquito plagues. This is similar to what is prescribed in the City’s Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64. Therefore, Administration recommends that an additional condition be included in Table C (Section 7) of ASP 80, as follows:

 

As a condition of subdivision approval, the subdivider will be required to place notifications on Certificates of Title to warn prospective buyers of potential midge and mosquito nuisance.

 

The above recommendation is included in the Schedule of Modifications included in Attachment 6.

 

Detailed Area Planning Modifications (Vegetation and Tree Surveying)The submissions raised concern regarding the extent of vegetation clearing that would occur in the amendment area. The provisions of ASP 80 (Table A, Section 1.4 (a)) already specify that a detailed area plan is to incorporate the following:

 

(a) Detailed site analysis including topography, vegetation, tree survey, view corridors, and microclimate.

 

However, ASP 80 does not specify that a detailed area plan is to identify the extent that existing vegetation on the subject land is to be retained or managed, or justify the extent of vegetation that a developer/subdivider proposes to remove or retain.

 

 

Therefore, Administration is recommending a modification to ASP 80, by adding an additional sentence to Table A (Section 1.4 (a)), as follows:

 

The vegetation analysis and tree survey shall clearly identify and justify the extent of:

Any clearing that is proposed during the subdivision and/or development stages; and

Vegetation that will be retained and managed at the subdivision and development stages.

 

This recommended modification has been tabled in the Schedule of Modifications, included as Attachment 6.

 

Detailed Area Planning Modifications (Management Plans) – Further issues raised in the submissions relate predominantly to the following points:

 

·        How the remnant vegetation within the amendment area and in the adjoining parts of Yellagonga Regional Park would be managed;

·        Fire management;

·        Integration of development with Yellagonga Regional Park;

·        Urban water and nutrient management;

·        Midge and mosquito management; and

·        Control from diseases and pests.

 

These issues are currently intended to be addressed under ASP 80 by the provision of the following plans as a condition of future subdivision:

 

·        Fire Management Plan;

·        Urban Water Management Plan;

·        Dieback Management Plan;

·        Landscaping Plan; and

·        Midge Management Plan.

 

However, noting the submissions and the provisions of ASP 80, Administration considers that each matter listed above should be addressed prior to the lodgement of subdivision. The provisions already imposed in ASP 80 typically require a DAP to be certified prior to the submission of an application for subdivision or development, so that a DAP can be used to facilitate and inform subdivision design and/or development. Administration considers subdivision within the ASP 80 area would be better informed should the lodgement of the DAP be accompanied by these management plans, which can be agreed to on certification of a DAP.

 

Table E of ASP 80 currently outlines the stage of the planning process in which the management plans are to be provided to the City. Under Table E, the lodgement of the management plans is required either during development or following the imposition of a subdivision or development approval condition – with the exception of the Urban Water Management Plan which is required at the time of lodging a subdivision or development application.

 

Administration is recommending that Table E be modified to the extent that it prescribes that the management plans be provided with the submission of a DAP for the City’s certification. This recommended modification has been tabled in the Schedule of Modifications, included as Attachment 6.

 


 

 

Residential Development Considerations

 

Residential Density Code Plan

 

The amendment proposes to impose a residential density code range of between R20 to R60. The amendment does not propose any mechanism for R-Codings to be assigned to certain lots, following subdivision of land in the amendment area.

 

Other structure plans adopted by the City that propose a residential density code range require the submission of a Residential Density Code Plan to be provided at the time of subdivision. The subdivision proposal (which would incorporate the Residential Density Code Plan) would then be assessed by Administration, and a response provided to the Western Australian Planning Commission accordingly.

 

Therefore, a modification has been tabled in the Schedule of Modifications (included as Attachment 6) requiring an additional section (Section 9) of Table B of ASP 80, which prescribes provisions in relation to the provision of a Residential Density Code Plan. These provisions would read as follows:

 

9.1     A Residential Density Code Plan is to be submitted at the time of subdivision to the WAPC and shall indicate the Residential Density Coding applicable to each lot within the subdivision and shall be consistent with the Structure Plan, and the Residential Density Ranges identified in Section 3.2 of this Table. 

 

9.2     The Residential Density Code Plan is to include the proposed dwelling yield of the subdivision.

 

9.3     Approval of the Residential Density Code Plan shall be undertaken at the time of determination of the subdivision application by the WAPC. The approved Residential Density Code Plan shall then form part of the Structure Plan and shall be used for the determination of future development applications. Variations to the Residential Density Code Plan will require further approval of the WAPC.

 

9.4     Residential Density Code Plans are not required if the WAPC considers that the subdivision is for one or more of the following:-

 

i)          The amalgamation of lots;

ii)         Consolidation of land for “superlot” purposes to facilitate land assembly for future development; or

iii)         The purposes of facilitating the provision of access, services or infrastructure.

 

Conclusion

 

Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 relates to Lot 6 (43), Lot 7 (53) and Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo; located in the Western Precinct as identified on the Structure Plan Map. The amendment proposes to rezone these land parcels to Residential, with a density coding of R20 to R60. The amendment also proposes additional changes to the Structure Plan text and map, particularly in relation to traffic provisions.

 

In light of the comments made previously in this Report, Administration considers the proposed amendment to be acceptable and therefore recommends that the amendment be adopted by Council subject to recommended modifications outlined in Attachment 6


 

 

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan amendment, Council may refuse to adopt the amendment or resolve that the amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that Amendment No. 2 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 be adopted subject to modifications, and forwarded to the WAPC for its adoption and certification.

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 City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning and Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clauses 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 2 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2, submitted by Roberts Day Group on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth is SATISFACTORY, subject to the recommended modifications listed in the Schedule of Modifications included as Attachment 6 being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability;

 

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, SUBMITS three copies of Amendment No. 2 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 1. above;

 

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

 

4.       NOTE the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 2 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 included as Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, ENDORSE 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.

Revised Attachment 1 - Location plan

15/12810

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Amendment Documentation - Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80

14/394227

Minuted

3.

NEW Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions for Report - Amendment 2 to ASP80

15/148852

Minuted

4.

NEW Attachment 4 - Summary of Environmental Submissions - Amendment 2 to ASP 80

15/148854

Minuted

5.

Attachment 5 - Existing and Proposed Location for Traffic Signals

15/17806

 

6.

NEW Attachment 6 - Schedule of Modifications - Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80

15/148855

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     125


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  126


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     132


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     144

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     156


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     157

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      163

 

Development Applications

PS07-05/15       Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room) DA2014/2441 at Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle Clarkson

File Ref:                                              DA2014/2441 – 15/114328

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for proposed Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room) to an existing Single House at Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle, Clarkson.

 

Applicant

Alison Mason

Owner

Alison Mason

Location

Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle, Clarkson

Site Area

720m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

 

 

Background

The City received a development application for Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room) for Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle, Clarkson (subject site). The subject site is 720m2 in area and is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). A location plan of the subject lot is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

The plans depicting the proposal are included as Attachment 2. The application proposes the following:

Games Room

The proposal incorporates enclosing the existing carport to convert to a habitable room (games room). The existing carport is 4.5m in length and 3.0m in width.

 

Although the carport will be enclosed and no longer used for vehicle parking, the property has sufficient space to cater for two car parking bays within the front setback area of the subject site, and therefore, meets the requirements of Clause 5.3.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) for the provision of vehicle parking on-site.

 

As this portion of the development is compliant with the relevant Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes, advertising was not undertaken and Administration recommends approval for this aspect of the proposal.

 

Outbuilding

 

The proposed outbuilding has a wall height of 2.7m, a ridge height of 3.3m and is 4.6m in length and 6.2m in width with a total area of 25.5m2. The proposed outbuilding incorporates a nil side setback on the southern side boundary of the subject site. Under Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes, the development requires a 1.0m lot boundary setback. Due to the variation to the lot boundary setback, the proposal was advertised to the adjoining landowners.

 

Consultation

Pursuant to Part 4.2 of the R-Codes, neighbour consultation was undertaken by the City in writing to the affected landowners. The advertising period was for 14 days commencing on 9 January 2015 and concluding on 23 January 2015. One submission raising objections to the proposal was received from the adjoining landowner. The summary of submission and Administration comments are included as Attachment 3. Administration’s assessment and consideration of the proposal is included in the Comment section.

Comment

Delegation to Determine Application

Pursuant to Part 8.3 (b) of the City’s Delegation of Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegated authority if, it is the view of the Manager, Planning Implementation that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modification of the proposal, or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.  In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to the impacts of building bulk.

Assessment of Outbuilding

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provision, the City is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant Design Principles. As the proposed outbuilding does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes, it has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principles as detailed in the table below.

 

Design Principles – Clause 5.1.3 P3.1

Administration Comments

Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.

The impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered minimal as the outbuilding wall is 2.7m in height, which is a similar height to a typical house wall.  The dividing fence which is 1.7m in height and is proposed to be retained will result in 1.0m of the outbuilding’s wall protruding above the fence. As a result, a 1.0m section (equating to 4.6m²) of the outbuilding will be visible to the adjoining landowner, which is not directly adjacent to the neighbours outdoor living area.

 

It is also noted, Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes permits one boundary wall for a R20 lot. Therefore, the R-Codes contemplate boundary walls and deems them appropriate within the context of this area.

 

With this in mind the impact of the proposed outbuilding in terms of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered minimal. 

Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open space on the site and adjoining properties.

The existing dividing fence casts a shadow of 83.7m2 onto the adjoining property on 21 June. The proposed outbuilding would only result in an additional 6m2 of overshadowing. Attachment 4 illustrates the overshadowing onto the adjoining property. It is considered that an additional 6m2 of overshadowing within adjoining property’s side setback area and the adjacent wall will not compromise direct sun and ventilation to the site.

Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

The proposed finished floor level of the outbuilding will remain the same as the existing natural ground level which will not increase the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. The proposed outbuilding is non-habitable and does not have any windows therefore, no overlooking will result from the outbuilding. 

In light of the above, the proposed outbuilding meets the provisions of the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes. The proposed outbuilding also satisfies all other relevant Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes. Therefore, Administration recommends that Council approve the proposed outbuilding at Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle, Clarkson.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room) at Lot 1246 (114) Aldersea Circle, Clarkson, as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 6.9.1 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 Additions (Outbuilding and Games Room), as highlighted on the approved plan. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

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

c)      The proposed outbuilding must not be used for commercial and/or industrial purposes or for human habitation.

2.       ADVISES the submitter of this decision.

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

15/139086

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Site Plan and Elevations

15/121456

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission DA2014/2441 - 114 Aldersea Circle, Clarkson

15/114644

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Overshadowing Plan

15/121421

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     166

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  167

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                    170

 

No.

Summary of Issues

Administration Response/Comment

Modification Required

1.0

 Owner Details Concealed for Privacy

1.1

Potential damage to the fence as a result of constructing the outbuilding.

This is not a valid planning consideration. This is a civil matter that can be dealt with under the Dividing Fences Act 1961.

No modification required.

1.2

Security of dog may be compromised.

This is not a valid planning consideration.

No modification required.

1.3

Building size/height will block the northern sun from my property

Discussed in comments section in the body of the report.

No modification required.

1.4

Power tools/ workshop will be in close proximity to bedrooms in my home.

This is not a valid planning consideration, however the applicant will need to ensure compliance with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

No modification required.

1.5

Roof spray and water run-off falling directly over the fence.

Noted. This is a relevant planning consideration however, can be dealt with through the imposition of a planning condition on any planning approval issued which requires that all stormwater shall be collected and retained on site.

No modification required.

Imposition of planning approval condition.

Attachment 2: Summary of Submission and Administration Comments

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  171

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      172

PS08-05/15       Single House Additions (Garage, Retaining Wall and Front Fence)  DA2015/448 at Lot 204 (85) High Road Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              DA2015/448 – 15/116506

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application seeking retrospective planning approval for Garage, Retaining Wall and Front Fence additions to an existing Single House at Lot 204 (85) High Road, Wanneroo.

 

Applicant

Korda Design Group

Owner

Nicola Scricca and Rachel Jo-Anne Skeels

Location

Lot 204 (85) High Road, Wanneroo

Site Area

1,000m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

ASP 5 Zoning

Residential

 

Background

On 5 February 2014, the City received a Building application for a garage, gate house, front fence, swimming pool and safety fence (BA2014/612). On 19 August 2014, the building application was refused as planning approval was required to be obtained prior to the issuing of a building permit for the garage, retaining wall and front fence in accordance with the City District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

On 16 February 2015, the City received a development application for already existing garage, retaining wall and front fence for Lot 204 (85) High Road, Wanneroo (subject site). The structures were built without obtaining the relevant approval from the City and the applicant is now seeking retrospective approval. The subject site is 1,000m2 in area and is zoned Residential under DPS 2. The site is subject to Agreed Structure Plan No. 5 – East Wanneroo Cell 3 (ASP 5) and under ASP 5 it is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20. A location plan is included as Attachment 1

 

Detail

 

The plans depicting the development are included as Attachment 2. The application proposes the following:

 

Front Fence

 

The front fence is located on the front boundary of the subject site and is solid to a height of 0.6m with visually permeable slats to a maximum height of 1.8m above natural ground level. As this portion of the development is compliant with the relevant Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), advertising was not undertaken and Administration recommends approval for this aspect of the proposal.

 

Garage

 

The garage is setback approximately 13m from the primary street and is located to the rear of the property which abuts a battleaxe lot. The garage has a maximum wall height of 2.5m and a ridge height of 4.1m and has a total area of 63.9m2.

 

 

The garage has been constructed with two nil boundary setbacks to the northern side (rear) and to the western side (abutting battleaxe access leg).

 

In accordance with the R-Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development (LPP 2.1), more than one boundary wall is not permitted unless the affected landowner does not object to the proposal. Furthermore, in accordance with Clause 5.4.3 of the R-Codes, the garage (outbuilding) cannot exceed 60m2. In light of the variations to the R-Codes and LPP 2.1, the proposal was advertised to the adjoining landowner.

 

Retaining Wall

 

The retaining wall is located on the western boundary (abutting the battleaxe access leg), and is 1.2m high and 4.9m in length.

 

The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Established Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development (LPP 2.4) permits retaining walls on lot boundaries to a height of 1m above natural ground level (NGL) without the need for neighbour consultation. As the retaining wall is 1.2m in height, the proposal was advertised to the adjoining landowners.

 

Consultation

 

Pursuant to Part 4.2 of the R-Codes, neighbour consultation was undertaken by the City in writing to the affected landowners. The advertising period was for 14 days commencing on 30 March 2015 and concluding on 13 April 2015. One submission raising objections to the proposal was received from the landowners at Lot 203 (83) High Road, Wanneroo. The summary of submission and Administration comments are included in Attachment 3. Administration assessment and consideration of the proposal is included in the Comment section.

Comment

Delegation to Determine Application

 

Pursuant to Part 8.3 (b) of the City’s Delegation of Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegated authority if, it is the view of the Manager, Planning Implementation that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modification of the proposal, or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.

 

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to the additional boundary wall, setback of the retaining wall and size of the outbuilding.

 

Assessment of Garage

 

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions, the City is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant Design Principles.

 

The northern boundary wall is as-of-right, and meets the requirements in terms of length and height under the R-Codes. The western boundary wall is considered a variation and as such, it has been assessed against the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.3 and Clause 5.4.3 of the R-Codes below.

 

 

 

Design Principles Clause

5.1.3 P3.2

Administration Comments

 

Makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living areas;

The western boundary wall abuts the battleaxe access leg and is adjoining the existing boundary fence. The wall will act as a screening wall between the two properties and enhance the privacy of the adjoining landowner. The garage wall does not have any windows or openings and as such will not impact on the privacy of the adjoining landowners.

 

Does not compromise the design principle contained in clause 5.1.3 P3.1;

 

Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.

The boundary wall abuts the battleaxe access leg which leads to the garage of the adjoining property. The boundary wall has a height of 2.5m which is 0.7m above the height of a dividing fence which would otherwise be located on the boundary. With this in mind the impact of the boundary wall in terms of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered minimal. 

 

Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and adjoining properties.

Both the subject site and the adjoining property have their outdoor living areas located on the northern aspect of the property. As such, the western wall in no way impacts the availability of sun and ventilation.

 

Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

The garage is non-habitable and does not have any windows therefore, no overlooking will result from the outbuilding.

 

Does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

The western boundary wall is considered to have minimal impact on the adjoining landowner as it is abutting the battleaxe access leg. The wall will protrude 0.7m above the existing fence line. As such, this wall will not have any impact on the outdoor living area or habitable rooms of the adjoining property. Therefore, the development will not compromise the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

Ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for adjoining properties is not restricted; and

Direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for the adjoining property will not be compromised as the garage casts its shadow on the subject site and not onto the adjoining property.

 

Positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The garage is located to the rear of the subject property and is not readily visible from the primary street . As such, the garage will not impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, the garage has matching materials to the existing dwelling on the property and garages are a common structure within a residential setting. 

 

Design Principles – Clause 5.4.3 P3

Administration Comments

Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

The garage has an area of 63.9m2 in lieu of the permitted 60m2 under the R-Codes. The garage is not readily visible from the primary street and as such will not detract from the streetscape.

The garage wall on the western lot boundary ranges in height from 2.5m – 2.8m in lieu of the permitted 2.4m under the R-Codes. The wall is facing the battleaxe access leg and does not front any habitable room or outdoor living areas. Furthermore, the wall will be 0.7m – 1m above the height of a dividing fence which would otherwise be located on the boundary. In light of this, it is the position of Administration that the garage will not impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining residents.

 

Assessment of Retaining Wall

In accordance with LPP 2.4, if the proposal varies the development provisions of the policy, the application can be varied under the Design Principles of the relevant clause of the R-Codes. As such, the proposed retaining wall has been assessed against the Design Principle of Clause 5.3.8 of the R-Codes.

Design Principles – Clause 5.3.8 P8

Administration Comments

Retaining walls that result in land which can be effectively used for the benefit of residents and do not detrimentally affect adjoining properties and designed, engineered and landscaped having due regard to clauses 5.3.7 and 5.4.1

The natural ground level of the subject site is approximately 1.2m lower than that of the adjoining lot. The applicant is not proposing to raise the natural ground level of the site, but to stabilise and retain along the western boundary of the adjoining lot. As such, the adjoining landowner will not be impacted by the height of the retaining wall.

 

In light of the above, the garage and retaining wall are considered to meet the relevant Design Principles and satisfies all other relevant Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes. Therefore, Administration recommends that Council approve the garage and retaining wall at Lot 204 (85) High Road, Wanneroo.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, the City of Wanneroo’s Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Residential Development and the City of Wanneroo’s Local Planning Policy 2.4 – Established Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Single House Additions (Garage, Retaining Wall and Front Screening Wall) at Lot 204 (85) High Road, Wanneroo, as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 6.9.1 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 Additions (Garage, Retaining Wall and Front Screening Wall), as shown on the approved plan. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

b)      This approval is only valid from the date of this decision and does not retrospectively authorise any previous unapproved development on the subject site.

c)      The garage shall be used for purposes that are ancillary to the residential use of the property, and shall not be used for commercial/industrial purposes or for human habitation.

d)      All stormwater shall be collected and retained on site.

2.       ADVISES the submitter of this decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

FINAL Attachment 1 85 High Road, Wanneroo Location Plan

15/142702

 

2.

FINAL Attachment 2 Site Plan and Elevations

15/142700

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 Summary of Submission - DA2015/448 - 85 High Road Wanneroo

15/119461

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     177

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     178

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     181

Attachment 3: Summary of Submission and Administration Comments

No.

Summary of Issues

Administration Response/Comment

Modification Required

1.0

Jason Magditsch and Lee-Anne Chappell-Magditsch – 83 High Road, Wanneroo

1.1

We believe that this structure is not a garage as the house already has a 3 car garage and should be classed as an outbuilding. This building is fitted out with its own toilet, shower and kitchenette unit effective making it a workshop or granny flat.

Noted. The applicant has confirmed that there is a toilet and wash basin in the garage and will be utilised as a workshop. As the garage is detached from the dwelling on the subject property, Administration has assessed this structure as an outbuilding in accordance with the definition under the R-Codes.

 

The garage will not be utilised as an ancillary accommodation and the following condition will be included in any approval issued “the garage shall be used for purposes that are ancillary to the residential use of the property, and shall not be used for commercial/industrial purposes or for human habitation”.

No modification required.

Imposition of condition on Planning Approval.

1.2

This building does not meet Clause 6.3.2 – buildings on boundary of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.1

Discussed in Comments section in the body of the report.

No modification required. 

1.3

This building does not meet Clause 6.3.3 – setbacks of retaining walls of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.1.

Discussed in Comments section in the body of the report.

No modification required.

1.4

Whilst not being able to view the plans you have been submitted, I know that a retaining wall of at least 1.2m has been constructed which should be set at least 1m off the boundary.

Noted. The adjoining landowner was notified of the proposal in writing however, plans were not made available at this time. Subsequently, the submitter was invited to view the plans at the Civic Centre.


The variation to the setback of the retaining wall is discussed in the Comments section in the body of the report.

No modification required

1.5

Garage wall and roof height exceed 2.4m and 4.2m respectively.

Noted. A site inspection was carried out and the wall height of the western wall is 2.5m. This has been addressed in the Comments section in the body of the report.  

No modification required.

1.6

 This building does not meet Clause 6.10.1 – outbuildings of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.1

Discussed in Comments section in the body of the report. 

No modification required.

1.7

We are not confident that any of the building techniques and engineers advice have been followed.

This is not a relevant planning consideration. The City’s Regulatory Services will assess the structure once an application for a Building Approval Certificate for Existing Structures is lodged to the City.

No modification required.

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      184

 

Regulatory Services

PS09-05/15       Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement 2015-2020

File Ref:                                              3601 – 15/123975

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider renewal of the partnership between the City of Wanneroo, the City of Joondalup and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) in relation to midge management. The current agreement expires in June 2015.

 

A copy of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement and Midge Management Strategy Action Plan (2015–2020) is attached as Appendix 1 and 2 respectively.

 

Background

In 1998, City of Wanneroo residents predominantly on the northeastern side of Lake Joondalup suffered a plague of midge that was unprecedented.  The swarming occurred from August through to the following March, which forced the residents to take their concerns to the City of Joondalup, the local member of parliament, the media and the then Minister of Conservation and Land Management (CALM).

 

The City of Wanneroo and the City of Joondalup along with the former CALM had a vested interest in Lake Joondalup and formed the Midge Management Steering Committee to assist in the ongoing management of the above.  Negotiations commenced in areas such as; what was required to be done to reduce the adult midge problem, the costing of the strategy and who was going to pay.  As a result of the discussions, The Water and Rivers Commission liaised with the then CALM and put together an Action Plan that was subsequently agreed to by all parties and adopted by both the City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup.  This is referred to as the Midge Management Strategy Action Plan

 

Regarding the current agreement, at its Meeting on 29 June, 2010 Council resolved the following (CB06-06/10):

 

1.     SUPPORTS the addition of Lake Goollelal into the Midge Management Strategy Partnership; and

 

2.       AGREES to the City participating as a member of the Midge Management Steering Committee, proposed for a further five (5) years subject to a commitment from the other financial members of this committee agreeing to participating and providing the necessary funding for an equivalent term.

 

Lake Goollelal was added as part of a formal agreement between all three agencies in 2010, although an informal arrangement for managing midge at Lake Goollelal had existed since 2007. The rational for this change was since midge bred in water bodies of the Yellagonga wetland system and not just Lake Joondalup, a holistic approach was required to ensure better treatment results.  Although Lake Goollelal is inside the City of Joondalup boundaries, midge affects City residents to the east of the Lake.

 

Detail

The current Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement is now in its final year and there have been ongoing negotiations for a continuation of the strategy by all members of the Midge Management Steering Committee. 

 

At present, there is a cost sharing arrangement between the City of Wanneroo and City of Joondalup, who both contribute 25% each and the DEC 50%.

 

The proposed annual budget consists of an annual total of $246,000 with the State Government contributing $123,000 per annum and the Local Government partners each contributing $61,500 per annum.  The following areas are included in the Agreement:

 

Monitoring:

Funding to support a larval monitoring program to provide quantitative data. This will determine when treatments are required and ensure optimum effectiveness. This program will also involve a water-monitoring program to provide information on the physical and chemical characteristics of the lake water, to determine the lake’s nutrient status and habitat factors influencing the midge population. Sampling of surface water for nutrient analysis will be in consideration of the activities undertaken in association with the Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan 2015-2019.

 

Monitoring also includes equipment costs and watercraft maintenance/repair.

 

Nuisance Reduction:

Funding for chemical treatment of the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park. Lake Joondalup to have a maximum of four (4) treatments per year. Lake Goollelal to have a maximum of two (2) treatments per year. Any additional treatments will require approval from the Director General, Department of Parks and Wildlife.

 

Nuisance reduction can also involve other intervention strategies to reduce the reliance on chemical treatment.

 

Lake Goollelal will be subject to the trial treatment of Methoprene as described within the Action Plan. Methoprene is perceived as being less toxic to non-target organisms than Temephos and assists in reducing the likelihood of chemical resistance.

 

Research:

Funding for research projects to facilitate a better understanding of the factors contributing to seasonal midge plagues within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park, evaluating alternate intervention strategies for control of midge and an understanding of the nutrient contributors within the catchment.

 

Public Information and Education:

Funding public information and education to assist the community with the management of nuisance midge. This may include responses to midge nuisance complaints, maintaining an information package and conducting public education programs.

Consultation

There have been ongoing negotiations for a continuation of the strategy by all members of the Midge Management Steering Committee. 

 

Comment

Nuisance midge swarms are attributed to poor water quality in the wetland system of Yellagonga Regional Park and monitoring, nuisance reduction, education and research is required on an ongoing basis.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City of Wanneroo, as stipulated by the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement is responsible for coordinating the invoicing of expenditures incurred in the implementation of the strategy.  The remaining partners are invoiced on all expenditures by the City of Wanneroo.  Accordingly, a City of Wanneroo budget total of $246,000 per annum is required to fund the project, of this amount however, the City of Wanneroo will receive from other members, funds totaling $184,500 per annum should the full amount be expended each year.  The actual cost to the City of Wanneroo, in the event all funds are expended, is $61,500 per annum.

 

For the 2015/16 financial year, a budgeted amount of $246,000 has been allocated, however this amount would only be expended if all treatments were required. Last year no chemical treatments were required and only $13,338 was utilized from the budget to cover monitoring and sampling costs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council AGREES to the City participating as a member of the Midge Management Steering Committee, proposed for a further five (5) years (2015-2020) subject to a commitment from the other financial members of this committee agreeing to participating and providing the necessary funding for an equivalent term.

 

Attachments:

1.

MIDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT –2015 - 2020 - Final

15/135376

 

2.

Action Plan MMS 2015 - 2020 - Final

15/135347

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                    187

MIDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT –2015 - 2020

 

1.0     BACKGROUND

 

The Yellagonga Regional Park contains a wetland system that includes Lake Goollelal, Walluburnup Swamp, Beenyup Swamp and Lake Joondalup.

 

In 1999, residents living in the vicinity of Lake Joondalup suffered plague proportions of adult midge. This event led to the establishment of a formal agreement between the City of Joondalup, the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Environment and Conservation (now known as the Department of Parks and Wildlife) for the management of midge.

 

Lake Goollelal was added as part of a formal agreement between all three agencies in 2010, although an informal arrangement for managing midge at Lake Goollelal had existed since 2007.

 

Nuisance midge swarms are attributed to poor water quality in the wetland system of Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

The overall health of the wetlands within the Yellagonga Regional Park is dependent on the nature and state of the surrounding catchment as well as historic and changing land use. The surface water catchment area for the wetlands extends into large areas of the City of Wanneroo as well as the City of Joondalup.

 

Ground water is likely to also have a significant impact on the water quality within the wetlands of the Yellagonga Regional Park. Ground water flows from East to West and surface water flows through the wetlands within the park in a Northerly direction. Previous land uses such as market gardens to the East, inappropriate fertiliser use and the Wangara industrial area which is non-sewered in part, are likely to impact overall water quality of the wetland system.

 

The partnership was established as it is considered that the midge issue emanates from the surrounding catchment areas, including historical and current land use, and requires the expertise and resources of the three agencies to be integrated.

 

2.0     STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

 

A partnership agreement (2015-2020) for the management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

3.0     PARTNERS

 

The partners of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement 2015-2020 are:

 

Ø Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW)

Ø City of Wanneroo (CoW)

Ø City of Joondalup (CoJ)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0     OBJECTIVES

 

The Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement (the Midge Agreement) is designed to encourage an effective and sustainable partnership, for the purpose of managing nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

The Midge Agreement objectives are:

 

4.1       For control and management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park, through funding midge larvae and water monitoring, nuisance reduction using pesticide application when required, other intervention strategies, research projects in an effort to better understand the factors contributing to the seasonal midge plagues and public information and education.

 

4.2       To arrange for the allocation, management and administration of funds for the strategy.

 

5.0     ACTION PLAN

 

Please refer to the Midge Management Strategy Action Plan (2015-2020) (the Action Plan) attached, which incorporates Actions, Responsible Bodies, Timing and Funding Arrangements.

 

6.0     PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES

 

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE

A commitment to improving cooperation, communication and collaboration between the local and state government agencies, to enhance sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A commitment to:

 

Partnerships

·    Recognise that partnerships are essential to achieve sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the control and management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

·    Be flexible and open to new approaches in implementing the Midge Agreement.

 

·    Be sensitive and responsive to the needs and constraints of all partners.

 

Roles and Responsibilities

·    Identify and understand the roles and responsibilities of both spheres of government as detailed in Part 8 of this agreement.

 

·    Ensure that these roles and responsibilities are considered and respected in all decisions.

 

·    Recognise and respect the role that each plays in enhancing sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes for the control and management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

Communication

·    Open and timely communication on issues of relevance to the Midge Agreement.

 

·    Recognise the need for confidentiality of discussions until a mutually agreed time.

 

·    Recognise that State and Local Governments may use different processes to communicate with constituent groups.

 

Consultation

·    Purposeful consultation at mutually agreed stages to facilitate understanding and agreement.

 

·    Recognise and account for the different decision making processes of both spheres of government.

 

Service Delivery

·    Continual improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness and appropriateness of the Midge Agreement.

 

Outcomes

·    Agreed actions and responsibilities as stated in the Action Plan.

 

·    Promote a realistic approach to funding and resource issues.

 

·    Contribute resources and expertise to the Midge Agreement.

 

Accountability

§ A transparent approach where changes to roles, responsibilities and budgets are negotiated and mutually agreed and resources necessary to implement change are identified.

 

·    Undertake open assessments of the effectiveness of the Midge Agreement.

 

·    Have clearly defined reporting, dispute resolution and review mechanisms.

 

 

7.0     SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT

 

7.1     Responsibilities:

The Department of Parks and Wildlife and the City of Wanneroo together with the City of Joondalup have shared responsibilities for the management of nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

7.2       Commitment:

The partners of the strategy have agreed to commit to a further period of five (5) years under the Midge Agreement, with all partners maintaining the existing shared cost agreement.

 

7.3     Funding Percentage:

The City of Joondalup and the City of Wanneroo will each contribute 25 percent of the funding. The Department of Parks and Wildlife, on behalf of the State Government, will contribute the remaining 50 percent of the funding.

 

 

 

7.4       Budget:

The budget consists of an annual total of $246,000 with the State Government contributing $123,000 per annum and the Local Government partners each contributing $61,500 per annum, comprising of the following:

 

7.4.1         Monitoring:

Funding to support a larval monitoring program to provide quantitative data. This will determine when treatments are required and ensure optimum effectiveness. This program will also involve a water-monitoring program to provide information on the physical and chemical characteristics of the lake water, to determine the lake’s nutrient status and habitat factors influencing the midge population. Sampling of surface water for nutrient analysis will be in consideration of the activities undertaken in association with the Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan 2015-2019.

 

Monitoring also includes equipment costs and watercraft maintenance/repair.

 

7.4.2         Nuisance Reduction:

Funding for chemical treatment of the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park. Lake Joondalup to have a maximum of four (4) treatments per year. Lake Goollelal to have a maximum of two (2) treatments per year. Any additional treatments will require approval from the Director General, Department of Parks and Wildlife.

 

Nuisance reduction can also involve other intervention strategies to reduce the reliance on chemical treatment.

 

Lake Goollelal will be subject to the trial treatment of Methoprene as described within the Action Plan.

 

7.4.3         Research:

Funding for research projects to facilitate a better understanding of the factors contributing to seasonal midge plagues within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park, evaluating alternate intervention strategies for control of midge and an understanding of the nutrient contributors within the catchment.

 

7.4.4. Public Information and Education:

Funding public information and education to assist the community with the management of nuisance midge. This may include responses to midge nuisance complaints, maintaining an information package and conducting public education programs.

 

8.0     MANAGEMENT

 

8.1     General Management:

 

8.1.1    A Midge Steering Group is established between the Department of Parks and Wildlife, the City of Wanneroo and the City of Joondalup.  The purpose of the Midge Steering Group is to discuss and make recommendations on any issues pertaining to the Midge Agreement.  Meetings will be held as required, to discuss the management process of the Midge Agreement.

 

 

 

 

8.1.2    The Manager of Regional Parks Unit of Department of Parks and Wildlife,
Coordinator Health Services of City of Wanneroo and Principal Environmental Health Officer of City of Joondalup are the representatives of each of the partner agencies and are responsible for exercising any decision making powers.

 

8.2     Financial Management:

 

8.2.1    On signing the Midge Agreement, the partners will ensure the availability of the required funds for the duration of the Midge Agreement.

 

8.2.2    For the purpose of transparency in process and accountability, the City of Wanneroo will be responsible for coordinating the invoicing of expenditures incurred in implementation of the Midge Agreement.  The remaining partners will ensure that funds are available and will be invoiced on all expenditures in accordance with the Action Plan, as outlined in the Midge Agreement.

 

8.2.3    All funds are to be acquitted on an annual basis and not carried over.

 

9.0     REVIEW

 

9.1       Initiate a meeting inviting all partners of the Midge Agreement to discuss and make recommendations to the details regarding the Midge Agreement and accompanying Action Plan.

Review date:  Annually

 

9.2       An annual audit is to be undertaken by all partners identifying all actions outlined in the Action Plan and related outcomes of each midge season. The audit will provide feedback on the effectiveness of the Midge Agreement and also assist with the required ongoing annual review of the Midge Agreement and Action Plan.

            Review date:  Annually

 

9.3       An annual financial report is to be produced by the City of Wanneroo and presented to all partners following each midge season, capturing all expenditures of the Midge Agreement. The report will assist in reviewing the financial management of the Midge Agreement and consider any funding arrangement increases for future budgets.

            Review date:  Annually

 

9.4       When the current five (5) year strategy expires on 30 June 2020, it will be required to initiate a meeting inviting all partners to review the possible renewal of the Midge Agreement for a further five (5) year period.

            Review date:  October 2019

 

10.0   DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

 

Should a dispute arise between any of the partners of the Midge Agreement on a particular issue, the following resolution process should be followed:

 

10.1     The partners are required to meet to discuss the issue and will use their best endeavours to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution.

 

10.2     Where such a resolution is not successful, the Chief Executive Officers (Local Government parties) and the Director General (State Government party) or a nominee of each of these parties will meet to consider the areas of disagreement and seek a resolution.

 

11.0   BREAK CLAUSE

 

11.1     The Midge Agreement will operate from the date of signing to 30 June 2020.

 

11.2     Prior to this date the partners may elect to:

 

            11.2.1       Modify the Midge Agreement; or

 

            11.2.2       Terminate the Midge Agreement;

 

by written mutual agreement.

 

11.3     Any amendments/modifications or request for termination must be proposed in writing and addressed to all partners of the Midge Agreement for review and possible adoption.  The decision will need to be a unanimous vote amongst all the partners.

 

 

12.0     AGREEMENT IN GOOD FAITH

 

The partners of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement 2015-2020, will commit to an effective and sustainable partnership for the purpose of managing nuisance midge within the wetland system of the Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature: ____________________        Date:                   ____________________

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

City of Joondalup

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature: ____________________        Date:                   ____________________

 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

City of Wanneroo

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature: ____________________        Date:                   ____________________

 

DIRECTOR GENERAL

Department of Parks and Wildlife


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     193

 

Actions

Action Item

Responsible Parties

Timing

Midge Steering Group

A Midge Steering Group is established between the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW), City of Wanneroo (COW) and City of Joondalup (COJ). The purpose of the Midge Steering Group is to discuss and make recommendations on any issues pertaining to the Midge Agreement.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

Upon implementation of the Midge Management Strategy Partnership Agreement 2015-2020.

Midge Larvae Monitoring

Undertake a midge larval monitoring program to better monitor trends and to predict when treatments will be necessary and most effective. The monitoring program will be consistent with other programs on the Swan Coastal Plain.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

Larvae monitoring is seasonal typically between August and January. Larvae monitoring to occur weekly during this period, alternating between Lake Joondalup and Lake Goollelal, with an increase in frequency as required.

Water Monitoring

Water monitoring will provide information to better understand the lake’s nutrient status and habitat factors influencing the midge population.

Water monitoring will include temperature, pH, conductivity and water level on each midge larvae monitoring occasion.

Water sampling to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of the lake will be undertaken where required. No water monitoring will be necessary where existing monitoring is being carried out through projects of the Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan (YICMP) that captures the required information.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

Temperature, water level, pH and conductivity will be recorded at each larvae monitoring occasion (typically weekly).

Water sampling for analysis of chemical parameters to only occur where YICMP does not capture required information. This would form part of a research project.

 

 

Treatment

Lake Joondalup will receive up to a maximum four (4) treatments per season using Gray Bate to reduce midge larvae populations. Lake Goollelal will receive up to a maximum of two (2) Gray Bate treatments.  The use of Gray Bate at Lake Goollelal will be dependent upon the potential use of Methoprene in lieu of Gray Bate. To this regard, a Methoprene trial is to take place during 2015/16, subject to the midge larvae numbers requiring chemical intervention and approval by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Where Methoprene is able to be applied, no Gray Bate treatments are scheduled to occur.

Determining factors for treatment shall include high numbers of midge larvae and a verified adult midge nuisance.

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

 

Treatments arranged as required.

 

Watercraft Maintenance

Servicing/repair of watercraft used for midge larvae monitoring.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

 

As required.

Research

Midge related research projects may include;

Ø The review of existing data to determine correlations between water quality, temperature, weather and other factors, with midge larvae numbers.

Ø Evaluating the feasibility for alternate intervention strategies.

Ø Further research into the influence of water quality, habitat, or other factors on the midge life cycle.

Ø Research relating to predictive capabilities for midge emergence that could enable better control.

Ø Research relating to the nutrient budget of the wetlands and linkage with nutrient contributors within the catchment.

Ø Trial of Methoprene to control midge larvae within Lake Goollelal.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

 

Midge research projects will typically be annually or in stages over consecutive financial years. The trial or use of Methoprene may be in lieu of any additional research project occurring for a particular financial year.

 

Public Education

Public education will include;

Ø The development and/or distribution of midge related information.

Ø Providing electronic access to information including websites.

Ø Responding to and maintaining records of resident enquiries and concerns on adult midge numbers.

Ø Encourage/educate residents to focus on the overall care of the catchment.

Ø DPaW representative to attend the Yellagonga Regional Park Community Advisory Committee Meetings.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

 

As required.

Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan

Support implementation of the Yellagonga Integrated Catchment Management Plan (YICMP) for the Yellagonga Regional Park.

Research projects to be in consideration of existing or future projects associated with the YICMP.

Funding can be utilised in support of YICMP projects that have midge related synergies, where appropriate.

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

 

As required.

Reporting

Maintain an annual report of midge related activities.

Produce an annual report to capture all expenditures.

 

 

 

DPaW, CoW, CoJ

CoW

 

Annually

Budget Allocation

Funding Arrangements

State and Local Governments have agreed to providing, allocating and managing funding for the Midge Agreement.

 

Funding allocation is based on a 50% contribution from DPaW on behalf of the State Government and 25% contribution each from the City of Wanneroo and the City of Joondalup.

 

Funding Arrangements consider a Methoprene trial for Lake Goollelal and the potential continuing use of Methoprene in subsequent seasons (Funding Model A).

 

An alternate funding model is provided should Methoprene treatment be unable to occur or is determined to be unsuccessful for the treatment of midge (Funding Model B).

 

Other intervention strategies may be considered as part of the budget allocation for treatment.

 

Note that the overall budget reflects the worst case scenario with maximum treatments. It is unlikely that Lake Joondalup requires 4 treatments in a season. Also assumes highest application rate relative to water levels.

 

 

Funding Model A

Gray Bate

(4 treatments of Lake Joondalup)

 

Methoprene

(1 treatment of Lake Goollelal)

 

Treatment Application

(eg helicopter usage – considers 4 treatments of Lake Joondalup and 1 treatment of Lake Goollelal)

 

Monitoring/Equipment/Water Craft Maintenance

(includes equipment for midge and water sampling, and water testing)

 

Public Education

 

 

TOTAL

$131,000

 

 

$51,000

 

 

 

$53,000

 

 

$6,000

 

 

$5,000

 

 

$246,000

Funding Model B

Gray Bate

(4 treatments of Lake Joondalup)

 

Gray Bate

(2 treatments of Lake Goollelal)

 

Treatment Application

(eg helicopter usage – considers 4 treatments of Lake Joondalup and 2 treatments of Lake Goollelal)

 

Research Projects

 

Monitoring/Equipment/Water Craft Maintenance

(includes equipment for midge and water sampling, and water testing)

 

Public Education

 

TOTAL

$131,000

 

 

$11,000

 

 

 

$60,000

 

 

$33,000

 

$6,000

 

 

$5,000

 

$246,000


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      197

PS10-05/15       Donation of Building Licence Fee for 2015 HIA Charitable Foundation at Lot 1022 Celeste Street, Eglinton

File Ref:                                              3330 – 15/101561

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider a donation of the building licence fee for the HIA Charitable Foundation at Lot 1022 Celeste Street, Eglinton.

 

Background

HIA Charitable Foundation has formed a partnership with Beyond Blue and would like to build a home to raise funds to assist with mental health issues within the building industry.

The ABN Group have been selected to build the home for the foundation which will be built through Dale Alcock Homes.

The home will be built at Lot 1022 Celeste Street, Eglinton on land kindly donated by Stocklands.

Detail

The ABN Group has been selected to construct the HIA Charitable Foundation Home and has requested an exemption on the payment of the building licence fees. The proposed construction site for the home is Lot 1022 (20) Celeste Street, Eglinton with the land being donated by Stocklands.

 

The building licence fee for this project is $1,289.38.

Consultation

No consultation is required.

Comment

The HIA Charitable Foundation was introduced in 2012 to provide assistance to a wide range of initiatives across a broad spectrum of worthy causes. The Foundation (HIACF) has partnered with Beyond blue to support a new initiative to tackle a nation-wide condition that affects one in four people in the residential construction industry: depression, anxiety and substance abuse.

An independent, not-for-profit organisation, beyondblue aims to increase awareness and understanding of anxiety and depression in Australia and to reduce the associated stigma. It is a bipartisan initiative of the federal, state and territory governments and is supported by the generosity of individuals, corporate Australia and Movember, including now also the HIA Charitable Foundation (HIACF). With residential construction workers six times more likely to die by suicide than through a workplace accident, the beyondblue/HIACF partnership is a very welcome initiative.

The proceeds from the sale of the 2015 HIA Charitable home will be donated to Beyond Blue to assist with mental issues within the building industry.

 

 

Statutory Compliance

The building licence applications will comply with all relevant legislative requirements.

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

There is no current policy regarding Donations.  The City has set a precedent with approving previous donations for Charity Homes eg: Telethon

Financial Implications

The cost to the City of this donation is $1,289.38, which will be sourced from the Governance Donations Account (717143-1207-316).

 

If the recommendation is endorsed, the funds remaining in the account for the current financial year will be $18,847.10.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES a donation of the building licence fee of $1,289.38 from the Award Governance Donations Account 717633-1207-316 for the construction of the 2015 HIA Charitable Home at Lot 1022 (20) Celeste Street, Eglinton.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      199

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Projects

IN01-05/15         Yanchep Active Open Space - Marmion Avenue Extension  Costs

File Ref:                                              4504 – 15/45769

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the costs associated with the Marmion Avenue Extension in relation to the Deed of Agreement for the Yanchep Active Open Space (YAOS).

 

Background

The Deed of Agreement between the City and Yanchep Beach Joint Venture (YBJV), states that the Marmion Avenue Extension Costs are the aggregate costs directly incurred by the YBJV and the City in the design and construction of the Marmion Ave Extension works and each party will be liable for 50% of the overall costs incurred for these works. Clause 4.2(b) of the Deed of Agreement states that the intention of the parties is that the Marmion Avenue Extension Costs will not be more than $1.70M.

Detail

As per the requirements of the Deed of Agreement, the construction of the Marmion Avenue Extension and Oval Groundworks is subject to certain conditions as summarised below;

 

·    Clause 2 - Prior to gazettal of Amendment 122, both parties agree to undertake a technical peer review of the design, scope of works and tender documentation in relation to the YBJV works. Gazettal of Amendment 122 was completed on 9 September 2014 and the technical peer review was completed on 17 November 2014, thus filling this condition.

 

·    Clause 4.3 – YBJV must provide the City with full details of the plans specifications and scope of works for the Marmion Avenue Extension Works, which the City is to approve or reject. The City approved YBJV scoping documentation for the Marmion Avenue Extension and Oval Groundworks on 28 January 2015, thus filling this condition.

 

·    Clause 4.2(b)(i) - Both parties intend that the Marmion Avenue Extension costs will not be more than $1.70M. YBJV's tender for the Marmion Avenue Extension and Oval Groundworks closed on 5 February 2015 with six submissions received. A joint evaluation of the tender submissions was undertaken by the City and YBJV, and completed on 26 February 2015, with the preferred Tenderer being agreed as RJ Vincent & Co. Tender evaluation conducted between the City and YBJV, considered that RJ Vincent & Co tender submission was the most competitive tender for the Oval Groundworks and Marmion Avenue Extension works. Costs attributed to the Marmion Avenue Extension works were initially above the Deed of Agreements $1.70M limit however, after further consideration the City and YBJV were able to review components of the Marmion Avenue Extension Costs, such that the total cost, including YBJV’s and the City’s design costs, was reduced to $1,650,592.05, thus filling this condition.

·    As per Clause 5.1(b) of the Deed of Agreement, the estimated Oval Groundworks Costs are to be treated as “commercial in confidence” by the City and consequently, have been scheduled in a separate “confidential report” to Council included in this Agenda.

 

·    Prior to the commencement of construction of the Marmion Avenue Extension and Oval Groundworks, clause 3.1(c) of the Deed of Agreement requires Council to finalise the Development Contribution Plan (DCP) for Yanchep-Two Rocks and the Community Facilities Plan (CFP). Council at its meeting of 28 April 2015 (PS07-04/15 refers) adopted the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule, which will then be finalised after the 28 day review period.

Consultation

YBJV and City have regularly consulted with each other to finalise the scope of works and undertaken tender evaluation jointly for the Marmion Avenue Extension.

Comment

Under clause 3.1(c) of the Deed of Agreement both the Marmion Avenue Extension and the Oval Groundworks, are subject to Council finalisation of the DCP for Yanchep-Two Rocks and the CFP. Following the finalisation of the DCP after the 28 day review period, this condition can be considered fulfilled, and the City can formally advise YBJV to commence construction for the Marmion Avenue Extension & Oval Groundworks, and proceed to advertise the tenders for the design of the City’s Sports Amenities Building and Oval Works.

Statutory Compliance

In development of the Marmion Avenue Extension and Oval Groundworks, YBJV has obtained the required development and planning approvals.

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City’s Contribution to the Marmion Avenue Extension works is calculated as $825,296.

 

The 2014/2015 approved budget makes provision of $850,000 for an Access Road to Yanchep Active Open Space (PR-2547), and given the 50/50 cost share arrangement as per the Deed of Agreement, there is sufficient funding available in RP-2547 to comply with the City’s contribution to the Marmion Avenue Extension Costs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council accepts the agreed total Marmion Avenue Extension Costs of $1,650,592.05, therefore complying with the requirements of Clause 4.2(b) of the Deed of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo and the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture, subject to satisfactory completion of the Developer Contribution Plan for Yanchep-Two Rocks.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      202

 

IN02-05/15         Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Update

File Ref:                                              19008 – 15/143114

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the scope of work proposed for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension.

 

Background

At its meeting of 4 March 2014, Council resolved (Item IN02-03/14 refers) to:

 

“1.        ENDORSES the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Concept Plan, City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2836-1-0, on the basis that the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension straddles Lot 505 and Reserve 46538 and as detailed in Attachment 1;

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

3.         APPROVES the purchase of Reserve 46538, Servite Terrace, Wanneroo, for $1,000 plus GST and associated fees;

4.         AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a Transfer of Land, Contract of Sale and any other associated documentation to facilitate 4. above;

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

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

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

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

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

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;

7.         ENDORSES the preparation of tender documentation for advertising the appointment of an Architectural Design Consultant to provide design and construction services for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and report the tender outcome to Council;

8.         ENDORSES the reallocation of funding assigned to project PR-2332 in the City's 10-Year Capital Works Programme to reflect the design and construction timeframe for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension as follows:

·      2012/2013 - $101,990 (Actual Expenditure)

·      2013/2014 - $1,098,610 (2013/2014 Mid-Year Review)

·      2014/2015 - $2.8M (Includes $800,000 released as part of the 2013/2014 Mid-Year Review)

·      2015/2016 - $20M

·      2016/2017 - $3M;

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

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

11.       NOTES that a further report will be presented to Council on the excision of an area of 1,600m2 from the south-east corner of Lot 505 (i.e. located on the corner of the Dundebar Road/Senario Drive intersection) as a commercial lot for potential sale.”

Detail

This report deals primarily with Resolution 1, as action has been taken in regards to the other Resolutions.  Although in regards to Resolution 11, Council at its meeting of
3 March 2015, (Item CB02-03/15 refers) resolved to support the creation of a Commercial Development Site through the excision of an approximate area of 1035m2 from the south-eastern corner of Lot 555 with the following specific resolutions that concern the WCC Extension or required further referral to Council:

“3.     NOTES that all costs involved in relation to the proposed excision of portion of Lot 555 is to be funded by the City's 10-Year Capital Works Program for the Civic Centre Extension Project (PR-2332);

6.       NOTES that a further report will be presented to Council regarding any future disposal of the proposed excised portion of Lot 555 (23) Dundebar Road, Wanneroo, subject to the granting of all statutory approvals for the proposed subdivision”.

The original concept endorsed by Council on 3 March 2014 was the construction of a two storey building with provision to extend it to a total of six storeys in future.  In consultation with the architects, Bollig Design Group (BDG), it was proposed to review this concept and CBRE - Global Corporate Services (CBRE) were engaged to provide advice on:

·    the financial aspects of external leasing versus construction of the WCC Extension, and

·    commercial returns for office space in the Wanneroo Town Centre

CBRE as a professional panel member that prepares similar business cases for the State Government and has extensive experience and qualification in dealings with Perth’s real estate addressed the overall WCC Extension development within a City of Wanneroo future accommodation Options Analysis report; which in summary firstly addressed the short and long term leasing potential for leasing the WCC Extension surplus to City requirements areas, and secondly addressed the financial commitments for or against external leasing versus the construction of the WCC Extension.

The CBRE outcome report aligns with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, which identifies Wanneroo as a Secondary Centre in the State Planning Policy, and is given the same classification as Alkimos and Clarkson (Ocean Keys).  Joondalup and Yanchep are identified as Strategic Metropolitan Centres, which are the higher order centres in the retail hierarchy; and potential commercial tenants are likely to locate in established higher order centres which are well serviced by existing infrastructure.

CBRE concluded that:

·    When considering the key risk of future office availability and the ability to positively add to the cash-flows by seeking lease income on surplus space, the City of Wanneroo may consider further the proposal to construct an extension to the Civic Centre, to be the most cost effective and operationally suited option to pursue.

·    While commercial buildings within the Joondalup Town Centre are able to be constructed to a maximum height level of six stories, as initially proposed for the WCC Extension, given the secondary centre classification for the Wanneroo town site the scope of the WCC Extension should be reduced in total to half that applicable to Joondalup with development of an initial two office levels with the option of adding a further light weight floor over the roof top garden.

Environmental Considerations:

The Bollig Design Group was commissioned to design the WCC extension on the basis of:

·    “Energy Management - To reflect best practice in energy management and conservation with the objective of achieving a "5 Star" NABERS Energy rating.  The design Team, as part of the cost planning process, will be required to fully document the projected energy consumption with costs based on optimum building occupation.

·    Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) - To target a "6 Star" Green Star Office Design rating and at Practical Completion provide supporting documentation stating the actual rating achieved.” 

Further to discussions held on 12 May 2015 at Council Forum the energy management and environmental criteria suitable for the WCC extension will be a minimum State Government standard “4.5 Star” NABERS, but aiming for at a "5 Star" NABERS energy rating and for a “5 Star”, version 2, Green Star Office Design ratings; which will benefit by the deletion of the addition of a further four storeys and the subsequent reduction in the structural and services requirements that would apply to the WCC Extension. 

Of equal significance is the re-evaluation of the need to achieve the level of sustainability outcomes in the original brief and to more sensibly apply the best guide to the built form but where implementation is considered and measured within a Value Management (VM) framework.  This approach is seen to be the most appropriate response to the sustainability initiatives of Council, potential tenant requirements and capital expenditure value for money outcomes.

Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with the internal stakeholders that led to CBRE providing a Future Accommodation Options Analysis, based upon the Bollig Design Group concept plans.

No further consultation external to the City of Wanneroo was undertaken in relation to the concept plans or scope of work for the WCC Extension project.

Comment

Number of Additional Floors and Environmental Ratings:

Given that Wanneroo is identified as a Secondary Centre within the State Planning Policy, it would seem prudent to align with this standing and proceed with the construction of the WCC Extension on the basis that its foundations and internal planning allow only for the addition of one future, light weight construction, floor to the building and that the environmental ratings employed by the State Government in its building projects be applied in this instance.  Attachment 1 refers.

 

There is a $2,827,000 reduction in the base building cost between the construction of a two storey office building to which only one additional floor can be added and which also has environmental ratings in line with State Government constructed buildings, when compared to the original proposal which was for a two storey office building to which four additional floors could be added.

Administration recommendation is to proceed with the design and construction of the WCC Extension on the basis of two office floors to which one additional lightweight office floor can be added.

Works Programme:

The WCC Extension Works Programme based upon Council’s acceptance of the adjustments to the scope of the building works is outlined as follows:

Report to Council – WCC Extension Update

Tues 26 May 2015

Advertise the Spatial Design Consultancy Tender

Sat 6 June 2015

CEO Spatial Design Consultancy Approval and Contract Execution

Thurs 2 July 2015

Spatial Design Consultancy Contract Start Date

Wed 8 July 2015

Report to Council – Status and Pre-tender Cost Estimate

Tues 8 December 2015

Advertise WCC Extension Tender

Sat 9 January 2016

Close WCC Extension Tender

Tues 9 February 2016

Report to Council - Construction Tender Outcome

Tues 1 March 2016

Construction Commencement (75 weeks)

Mon 28 March 2016

Commence Internal Staff Relocation

Mon 24 July 2017

Complete On Site Construction

Fri 29 September 2017

Complete External Staff Relocation & Project Close

Fri 6 October 2017

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.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Funding is listed for the WCC Extension (PR-2332) in the current 10-Year Capital Works Program.  The cost revisions that have been initiated with a reduction in the scope of works will be incorporated into the City's 10-Year Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the revised Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Concept Plan, City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2836-1-1, and as detailed in Attachment 1, noting that:

 

1.       the plan is to be constructed with two storey office building with ability for an additional floor to be added in future; and

2.       the environmental and energy ratings applied to the design will align with State Government standard “4.5 Star” NABERS, but aiming for at a "5 Star" NABERS energy rating and for a “5 Star” (version 2) Green Star Office Design ratings.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Proposed Extension

15/142776

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     207

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      208

 

Tenders

IN03-05/15         Tender No. 01511 Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms Upgrade

File Ref:                                              4381 – 15/125256

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01511 for the Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms Upgrade.

 

Background

In 2013/2014, as part of Capital Works Program, a comprehensive compliance audit and detailed design was commissioned by City and carried out by the consultant (GHD) to identify the essential works required in order to make the Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms building compliant with:

 

·    National Construction Code (NCC) and Building Code of Australia (BCA);

·    Relevant Australian Standards in regards to universal accessibility; and

·    Disabled Discrimination Act.

The objective of the Tender is to select a suitably capable contractor to implement the recommended works whilst preserving the existing facility with the ultimate purpose to provide a safe and hazardous free building for clubs and community use.

Detail

Tender No. 01511 for the Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubroom Upgrades was advertised on Saturday 28 March 2015 and closed on Thursday 23 April 2015.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

·    CPD Group Pty Ltd;

·    M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd;

·    McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd;

·    Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd;

·    BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd;

·    Access without Barriers Pty Ltd; and,

·    R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

The Tender Evaluation Team, comprising of the Project Officer Building, Coordinator Building Projects, Facility Development & Planning Officer, and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Selection Criteria

Weighting

Price for the services offered

40%

Organisation and Key Personnel

20%

Understanding of Tender and Methodology

20%

OSH, Quality, and Risk

20%

 

 

The tender submission from Access without Barriers Pty Ltd (AWP) was for a lump sum price of $552,223.65. AWP did not submit a completed breakdown for the Schedule 1C, Price Schedule for Stage 2 Works as required in Addendum 3. Therefore the submission was found non-conforming and excluded from the evaluation process.

 

Price for the services offered (40%)

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

 

Tenderer

Lump Sum Amount

Ranking

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd

$422,802.05

1

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

$478,280.00

2

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd

$489,987.30

3

CPD Group Pty Ltd

$491,430.00

4

R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

$502,589.71

5

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd

$549,079.00

6

 

The lowest five tenders fall below the estimate provided by the Consultant that was appointed by the City to undertake the design and cost estimation for the project, which is considered to be an excellent outcome, indicating very competitive tendering.

 

Demonstrated Organisational and Key Personnel (20%)

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

 

CPD Group Pty Ltd (CPD) demonstrated experience in a wide array of projects including new construction, Design and Construct contracts, and significant experience in renovation works for some of the government organisations, namely: City of Canning, Shire of Serpentine, Department of Housing, and City of Swan. The submission clearly communicates each past project objectives, services provided, and approach taken by the tenderer.  CPD nominated key roles of staff allocated for the project, included expertise and background project experiences.

 

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd (MCon) project portfolio consists of relevant experiences ranging from residential, apartments, medium density, fit outs, and renovations. MCon is currently performing similar works for the City of Stirling, City of Canning, and private sector companies. For each key personnel, the submission included a detailed list of past project experiences.

 

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd (MCK) submission identified the clear requirements of this tender and provided a relevant list of project experiences that includes a wide diversity work from new construction, renovation, and upgrades for both private and local government sector, namely: Department of Finance, City of Swan, and City of Armadale. The submission included detailed description of demonstrated projects, Project challenges, and resolution outcomes. MCK included a detailed description of expertise and background project experiences for its WA team relevant for the delivery of the required works. The key personnel experiences and resourcing was clear and the percentage of project allocation was clearly stated for each member of the team.

 

 

 

 

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd (PH) has completed renovation and refurbishments of clubrooms with the Town of Bassendean, City of South Perth, City of Belmont, and Town of Vincent. PH nominated a team for the project, explained each responsibility and briefly stated the years of experience for each member. No further details on previous experience, type of projects and involvement were provided.

 

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd (BEP) and R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd (REAL) provided a list of similar projects that are relevant but did not expand on delivery, challenges, and resolution experienced in these project. Both respondents nominated staff and briefly expanded on key roles allocated for the project. The respondents did not mention the commitment level of key personnel towards the project, demonstrating inadequate capability under this criterion.

 

The top three tenderers, McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd, Group Pty Ltd and M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd as ranked under this criterion, outperformed the remaining tenderers.  These three tenderers provided good offers as demonstrated by the relevant completed projects presented and the capabilities of the nominated key personnel.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

1

CPD Group Pty Ltd

1

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd

1

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd

2

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd

3

R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

4

 

Demonstrated understanding of the Tender and methodology (20%)

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

 

CPD provided adequate methodology statement demonstrating breakdowns of the relevant tasks, stages and sequencing. CPD described site construction, structural works, architectural fit-out, commissioning, handover, and close out processes. The construction program included in its submission demonstrates intended project delivery but failed to reflect the correct possession of site date indicated in the Tender.

 

MCon’s methodology was well detailed addressing the requirement of the criterion. MCon’s submission included an adequately described project timeline, management plans, meeting requirements, site inductions, delivery of the scope of work, and included a construction program which validated a well thought process plotting out deliverables according to the requirements of the Tender.

 

MCK submitted a detailed methodology statement. MCK’s submission covered a wide range of identified pre-commencement tasks, site establishment actions, demolition details, itemised the main construction works, and, addressed commissioning and handover processes. MCK’s construction program was descriptive and demonstrated a well thought process which plotted out deliverables according to the requirements of the Tender.

 

 

 

PH provided a methodology statement briefly describing the involvement of a Senior Project Manager with experience in meeting regulatory requirements, communication as required to promote values and services, site safety procedures, noise management, cleanliness, and the associated work required for the implementation of the project. PH also briefly described office procedures, management, and reporting methods but did not provide a construction program.

 

BE and REAL both submitted construction programs with a short brief on the methodology to be implemented for the delivery of the works. However, the Tender Evaluation Panel concluded that these two submissions did not demonstrate adequate attention to this criterion.

 

The tender submission presented by M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd was evaluated and ranked first through demonstration of clear and detailed approach to delivery works under Tender.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd

1

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

2

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd

3

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd

3

CPD Group Pty Ltd

4

R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

4

 

Demonstrated OHS, Quality, and Risk (20%)

The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policy documentation, working documentation, and responses to the Tender’s OHS Management System Questionnaire.

 

CPD sufficiently answered the questionnaire, provided comprehensive policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports, and toolbox records. CPD also included a Project Quality Management Plan, Health & Safety Manual that makes reference to the AS/NZS 4801: OHS Management System, along with supporting documentation to its OHS systems.

 

MCon does not have an OHS Management System but has adequately answered the entire questionnaire and mentioned working towards accreditation for its OHS systems. The tenderer included relevant documentation consisting of OHS Plan, comprehensive policies, and procedures with emphasis on risk management.

 

MCK satisfactorily answered the questionnaire, provided comprehensive policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports, and toolbox records. MCK included OHS Policy & Management, Safe Work Practices & Procedures, OHA Training, Safe & Health Workplace Inspections and Safe & Health Consultation documentation as supporting information. MCK also provided a certificate of registration for OHS Management System AS/NZS4801:2001. MCK last national audit was successfully completed in September 2014. MCK’s Quality Assurance system is self-administered, protocol based and in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001:2004 quality management systems standards.

 

PH adequately answered the questionnaire and provided a proposed OHS Plan, comprehensive policies and procedures but did not include demonstration of its working documentation such as sample risk assessments, hazard reports, work injury/incident reports, and site inspections. PH submission did not include an OHS Management System.

 

BE adequately answered the questionnaire and provided comprehensive policies and procedures and included a demonstration of its working documentation such as sample risk assessments, hazard reports, work injury/incident reports, and site inspections. However, BE does not include an accredited Safety Management system.

 

REAL satisfactorily answered the questionnaire, provided policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports, and toolbox records.

 

All respondents were found to have acceptable administration systems in place in relation to risk and quality management hence, satisfying the criterion. However, the tender submission from CPD Group Pty Ltd and McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd satisfied the criterion best through demonstration of comprehensive attention to safety and quality control.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

1

CPD Group Pty Ltd

1

R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

2

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd

3

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd

4

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd

5

 

Overall Weighted Score

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

Tenderer

Ranking

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

1

Palace Homes and Construction Pty Ltd

2

M Construction (WA) Pty Ltd

3

CPD Group Pty Ltd

4

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd

5

R.E Asset Logistics Pty Ltd

6

 

McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd was assessed as having achieved the highest weighted overall ranking and is therefore recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer.

Key characteristics of McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd are:

·    Substantial relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Suitably qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully;

·    Strong financial status; and

·    Strongly recommended through reference checks.

Works Program

Should Tender Award as recommended be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program shall be implemented:

 

Tender Award

27 May 2015

Construction Commencement

1 October 2015

Practical Completion

Three months after possession of site

Consultation

During procurement stage, consultation was undertaken with clubs through City’s Community Programs & Services in order to ascertain a coordinated and suitable construction commencement date and timeframe. This resulted in that 1 October 2015 was confirmed for commencement of construction.

 

The tender documents provided to tenderers reflected 1 October 2015 as the Possession of Site date and required that prior to the possession of site, the awarded tenderer is required to allow for a 2.5 weeks programme review process to fine-tune, identify potential issues and minimise the shutdown period.

Comment

The evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Panel resulted in tender submission from McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd achieving the highest score in accordance with the Selection Criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document.

 

A financial assessment of McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd was undertaken previously on November 2014 and deemed suitable for use for this tender evaluation. Corporate Score Card assessment verified that McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd has a “Strong” financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract.

 

As a matter of course bank guarantees are to be provided by the appointed contractor prior to granting possession of site. In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the project site. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The project cost, based on the recommended tenderer’s price is summarised below.

 

Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms Upgrade (PR-2823)

Estimated Expenditure

Budget

Capital Works Program 2014/15

 

$560,436

Total expended and committed to date

$4252

 

Construction Cost

Tender: McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

$478,280

Construction Contingency

$60,000

 

Building Approval Fees (estimate)

$1,824

 

Project Management Charges

$14,000

 

Total Estimated Expenditure

$558,356

Total Budget

 

$560,436

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by McCorkell Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01511 for the Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms Upgrade for its tendered fixed lump sum price of $478,280 as per the General Condition of Tendering; and

2.       NOTES that construction is scheduled to commence from 1 October 2015 to accommodate current sports club usage of the Kingsway Olympic Sports Clubrooms facility.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      215

 

IN04-05/15         Tender No. 01512 Community Centres Swipe Card, Security and Fire Detection Systems

File Ref:                                              21174 – 15/133660

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         NIL

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01512 for the Community Centres Swipe Card, Security, and Fire Detection Systems.

 

Background

As part of 2014/2015 Capital Works Program, the City has completed the design and documentation for the installations and upgrades of Swipe Card, Security TV, and Fire Detection Systems for the following City community buildings:

 

·    Alexander Heights Care Centre

·    Alexander Heights Drop-In Centre

·    Alexander Heights Community Centre

·    Banksia Grove Community Centre

·    Butler Community Centre

·    Carramar Community Centre

·    Clarkson Youth Centre

·    Girrawheen Koondoola Senior Citizen Centre

·    Gumblossom Community Centre

·    Hainsworth Community Centre

·    Jenolan Way Community Centre

·    Phil Renkin Community Centre

·    Warradale Community Centre

·    Wanneroo Community Centre

·    Wanneroo Recreation Centre

·    Yanchep Community Centre

 

The objective for the Tender is to appoint a suitable contractor to implement and complete the required installations and upgrades with minimal disruption to the daily activities of communities with the ultimate purpose as to provide safe and secured buildings for community use.

Detail

Tender No. 01512 for the Community Centres Swipe Card, Security, and Fire Detection Systems was advertised on Saturday 28 March 2015 and closed on Tuesday 28 April 2015. 

 

Tenders were received from the following contractors:

 

·    Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

·    Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

·    Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

 

The Tender Evaluation Team, comprising of the Project Officer Building, Coordinator Building Projects, Facility Development & Planning Officer, and Contracts Officer, evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria and weightings:

 

Item No

Description

Score

1

Price for the services offered

40%

2

Organisation and Key Personnel Experience

20%

3

Understanding of Tender and Methodology

20%

4

OSH, Quality, and Risk

20%

 

Price of services offered (40%)

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

 

Tenderer

Lump Sum

Ranking

Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

$756,061

1

Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

$796,870

2

Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

$1,053,574

3

 

The lowest two tenders fall below the estimate provided by the Consultant that was appointed by the City to undertake the design and cost estimation for the project, which is considered to be an excellent outcome, indicating very competitive tendering.

 

Demonstrated Organisation and Key Personnel Experience (20%)

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

 

Downer’s submission ranked first under this criterion as it provided clear examples of projects relevant to the nature of work required. Works completed include security upgrades for the City of Rockingham, City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Town of Port Hedland, Fremantle Port Authority, and the City of Cockburn. Examples provided included further explanatory information towards the nature of services, issues, and resolutions.

 

Cerberus provided adequate references of relevant experience but did not include key personnel experience.

 

Prestige presents itself as a monitoring and maintenance company by providing a list of existing contracts but failing to explain relevance to the scope of works. Prestige’s submitted a list of key personnel with accreditations but did not mention or demonstrate past experience and applicability to the tendered works.

 

As a result, the tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

1

Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

2

Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

3

 

 

 

 

Understanding of Tender and Methodology (20%)

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

 

Downer’s methodology was well detailed addressing the requirements of the Tender. Downer’s submission included information on methodology principles, Safety, Quality assurances, environmental sustainability practices, equipment provided, Commissioning & Testing, and adequately described project timeline. This was supported by a construction program addressing delivery of the scope of work which, validated a well thought process plotting out deliverables according to the requirements of the tender.

 

Cerberus’ methodology demonstrates only a marginal understanding of the requirements of the evaluation criterion. Though a work program Gantt chart was provided, there was a shortage of proper method specifically for this project.

 

Prestige’s methodology demonstrated more maintenance works and indicated the lack of relevant approach and management system to deliver new works.

 

As a result, the tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

1

Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

2

Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

3

 

OSH, Quality and Risk (20%)

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

 

Downer satisfactorily answered the questionnaire, provided comprehensive policies, procedural documentation, and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports, and toolbox records. Downer has achieved the following accreditations in regards to quality control and risk management:

 

·    AS/ NZS ISO 9001 Quality Management System - Bureau Veritas

·    AS/ NZS 4801 Occupational Health and Safety Management System - Bureau Veritas

·    AS/ NZS ISO 14001 Environmental Management System - Bureau Veritas

·    Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme - Office of the Federal Safety Commission

 

Cerberus adequately answered the questionnaire and included policies, procedures and incorporated a demonstration of its working documentation such as sample hazard reports, work injury/incident reports, and JSA Worksheet.

 

Prestige did not provide work systems examples but is found to have acceptable administration systems in place in relation to risk and quality management hence, satisfying the criterion.

 

As a result, the tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

1

Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

2

Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

3

 

Overall Weighted Score

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

1

Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd

2

Prestige Alarms & Security Pty Ltd

3

 

Downer was assessed as having achieved the highest weighted overall ranking and is therefore recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer.

Key characteristics of Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd are:

·    Substantial relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Substantial qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully;

·    Strong financial status; and

·    Strongly recommended through reference checks.

Works Program

Should Tender Award as recommended be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program shall be implemented:

 

Tender Award

27 May 2015

Construction Commencement

2 June 2015

Practical Completion

2 November 2015

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The tender submission from Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document.

 

Corporate Score Card Pty Ltd undertook both financial and performance assessments on Downer EDI Electrical Pty Ltd, which indicated that it has a “Very Strong” financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract. As a matter of course bank guarantees are to be provided be the appointed contractor prior to granting possession of site. In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the project sites. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

 

As the community centres are occupied by regular user groups, regular ongoing monitoring of the project schedule will also be undertaken.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Work covered by Tender No.01512 is budgeted across two projects, namely Community Centres Swipe Cards & Security TV (PR-2457) and Community Centres Fire Detection Systems (PR-2458) and as a consequence, the overall costs associated with this project will be proportioned accordingly.

The project cost, based on the recommended tenderer’s price is summarised below: 

Community Centres Swipe Card Access & Security TV (PR-2457)

Estimated Expenditure

Budget

PR-2457 (2014/15)

 

$577,000

PR-2458 (2014/15)

 

$230,000

Total expended and committed to date

$ 54,703

 

Construction Cost

Tender:  Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd

$796,870

Construction Contingency

$50,000

 

Other Infrastructure works in conjunction with the contract works

$160,000

 

Project Management Charges

$24,000

 

Total Estimated Expenditure

$1,085,573

Total Budget

 

$807,000

Further funding provision required in FY15/16

 

$278,573

Say $280,000

 

At present the approved 2014/15 10-Year Capital Work Program lists $695,000 in PR-2457 for these works. The revised funding of $280,000 required in 2015/16 will be listed accordingly in the 2015/16 draft 10-Year Capital Works Program.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01512 for the Community Centres Swipe Card, Security and Fire Detection Systems for its tendered fixed lump sum price of $796,870 as per General Condition of Tendering.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      221

 

Traffic Management

IN05-05/15         Clarkson High School Bus Embayment

File Ref:                                              2129 – 14/233433

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider modifications to the existing bus embayment on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard adjacent to Clarkson Community High School.

 

Background

Clarkson Community High School (the School) engaged Kirton Durack consultants in 2006 to review traffic management and parking arrangements within the school precinct.  In May 2007, the School Principal requested the City’s assistance in developing strategies to address road safety concerns identified in the review.

 

One of Kirton Durack report findings was the substandard layout and configuration of the existing bus embayment on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard adjacent the School. The length including the narrow width of the bus embayment is restrictive to fully accommodate buses resulting in the rear of the buses protruding onto the main carriageway, which in turn obstructs through traffic and contributes to congestion.

 

Council, at its meeting in October 2007, considered a report addressing the traffic management and parking arrangements within the School precinct and resolved in part as follows:

“2.   APPROVES the modifications to the existing bus embayments on Walyunga Boulevard being Stage 1 Works as shown on Drawing 2305-1-0 (Attachment 1) at an estimated cost of $30,000, with 50% funding from Project No PR – 1436 – Implement Traffic Management Works – Unspecified and 50% contribution from the Department of Education and Training”

The works detailed in Council’s resolution have only been partially completed by the City as explained later in the report. In May 2014, the Principal of Clarkson Community High School requested the City to investigate the adequacy of the bus embayment on the southern side of Walyunga Boulevard as it appeared to be too narrow to fully accommodate buses without obstructing through traffic.

Detail

Clarkson Community High School is situated on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard, Clarkson and provides for approximately 570 students. The section of Walyunga Boulevard between Connolly Drive and Hannaford Avenue has been constructed as a two lane 7.5m wide undivided road. The north side has a 3.0 metre wide embayment for cars and buses. The south side has a non-standard 2.0 metre wide bus embayment to fit four buses with limited approach and exit tapers. A location map of the subject area is included as Attachment 1.

 

This section of Walyunga Boulevard carries a high volume of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic and operates under the default built up area speed limit of 50 km/h. Transperth provides an extensive bus service including school based and public bus service operations.  The bus embayment on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard is used by three school services and one regular Transperth service.

 

The proposed modification to the existing bus embayment includes increasing the width of the embayment to 3m and reconstructing the approach and exit tapers to the embayment to meet PTA standards. The widening of the bus embayment will also result in the reconstruction of the adjacent concrete path. The final configuration of the bus embayment will safely accommodate three buses.

Consultation

The City has consulted with the Public Transport Authority (PTA) and Clarkson Community High School regarding the widening of the bus embayment on the south side. Both PTA and Clarkson Community High School have given their support to the proposed modifications to this bus embayment.

 

As part of the consultation with the PTA and Clarkson Community High School, both parties  have agreed to reconfigure the existing bus embayment on the south side to adequately accommodate three buses as opposed to current ad-hoc, non-standard configuration to fit four buses as shown in Drawing No 2305-3-1 (Attachment 3 refers). PTA’s letter of support to the proposal is included as Attachment 2.

Comment

The City agreed with the Principal of Clarkson Community High School to review the current bus embayment configuration on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard. A number of options were investigated to resolve the issue including the relocation of the bus stops, adjustments to the line marking and widening of the existing bus embayment.

 

The option of just undertaking adjustments to line marking was not possible as there was insufficient pavement width on Walyunga Boulevard to safely provide for a bus embayment and through traffic lanes. The option of relocating the bus embayment was also not considered viable as the only alternative locations would require students to cross Connolly Drive which the City did not support for safety reasons. The only other option available to the City is to modify and widen the existing bus embayment to safely accommodate buses off road.

 

A review of Council’s resolution from 2007 has identified that the embayment on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard was originally designed for cars as parking embayment for parents pick up and drop off for students at the Clarkson Community High School. Council’s resolution in 2007 approved the modification to widen the embayment to accommodate buses. The widening of the embayment however was not completed as planned potentially due to insufficient funds available to accommodate the reconstruction of the adjacent concrete pathway. The only modification that was made at the time was the removal of a kerb nib that was located in the centre of the embayment as an ad-hoc solution providing for a longer embayment to accommodate buses. The removal of the kerb nib may have been considered sufficient at the time, however the widening of the bus embayment is now required as there is insufficient space for two vehicles to pass safely as well as buses, affecting the flow of through traffic.

 

In order to complete the actions as per Council's resolution in 2007, it is proposed that complete the modifications to the bus embayment at an estimated cost of $130,000 which will include the reconstruction of the adjacent concrete pathway. A revised detailed design for the bus embayment modifications is as shown in City’s Drawing No 2305-3-0 (refer Attachment 3).

 

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

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

This project is not currently listed in the City's 10 Year Capital Works Program for the widening of the existing bus embayment on the south side of Walyunga Boulevard, Clarkson.

 

The estimated cost to complete the modifications to the bus embayment on Walyunga Boulevard and associated works is $130,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       LISTS a project for consideration and prioritisation in the future 20 Year Capital Works Program for the modifications to the existing bus embayment on south side of Walyunga Boulevard adjacent to Clarkson Community High School as shown in Drawing 2305-3-1 (Attachment 3 refers); and

2.       ADVISES the Principal of Clarkson High School and the Public Transport Authority of Councils decision;

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map - Bus embayment in  Walyunga Boulevard, Clarkson Community High School, Clarkson

15/5311[v2]

 

2.

PTA Correspondence - Bus embayment on Walyunga Boulevard adjacent to Clarkson Community High School, Clarkson

15/115144

 

3.

Drawing No. 2305-3-1: Walyunga Boulevard Bus Embayment Wideining - Construction Plan (PTA  Approved)

15/131757

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     224

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  225

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     226

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      227

IN06-05/15         Deletion of Pathway Project PR-2586 Speranza Parkway, Sinagra

File Ref:                                              8706V02 – 15/95357

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the deletion of Project PR-2586 currently listed in the Capital Works Program for the construction of a pathway in Speranza Parkway, Sinagra from San Teodoro Avenue to No. 7 Speranza Parkway.

 

Background

A project for the construction of a 50m X 2.4m shared path on the north side of Speranza Parkway, Sinagra was listed in the 2013/2014 Pathways Capital Works Program. An amount $12,500 was allocated to the project in 2013/14. Following community consultation and based on the information available at the time, it was determined that the construction of the path was not warranted. The project did not proceed in 2013/14, however it was decided to carry forward the remaining amount of $12,119 for the project to 2014/15 with a view to further investigate the timing for the future extension of Speranza Parkway to the east.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for an aerial map of Speranza Parkway, Sinagra.

Detail

Speranza Parkway, Sinagra is classified as an Access Street in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy. Speranza Parkway is currently 175m in length and runs east-west from San Teodoro Avenue and terminates in a dead end adjacent to a 4 hectare rural property (Lot 7 Caporn Street). San Teodoro Park borders the south side of Speranza Parkway with 13 residential properties fronting this road on the northern side.

 

The future and potential timing for the extension of Speranza Parkway was not known at the end of the 2013/2014 financial year. Although it was considered that the construction of the path was not warranted at the time, it was decided to carry forward the project to 2014/2015 to better understand when the future potential extension of this road may occur.

 

The current zoning of the properties to the east of Speranza Parkway is classed as ‘Rural’. It is unlikely that there will be further development to east of Speranza Parkway in the short to medium term or at least until the area is rezoned to ‘Urban’.

Consultation

In July 2013, the City consulted with the residences along Speranza Parkway regarding the proposal to install the pathway. The City received two responses as part of the consultation with one response supporting the pathway installation and the other one objecting to the pathway installation. The main concern of the resident objecting to the installation of the pathway was that there is and will be minimal pedestrian use on Speranza Parkway as this road is only a short section of road and terminates at a dead end.

Comment

The initial proposal to construct the pathway for Speranza Parkway in 2013/14 did not occur because it was deemed not warranted at the time.

 

 

The City made the decision to carry forward the project to 2014/2015 to await a decision from the state government regarding the future development of the land east of the current urban development and the development of a structure plan for the area. To date, no decision has been made and development is not likely to occur in the near future.

 

The installation of this pathway section provides no connectivity to any pedestrian attractors at this point in time and the number of properties that will generate pedestrians is limited to those on the northern side of Speranza Parkway. It is considered that until such time subdivision development occurs further east of the existing road, there will be little to no pedestrian demand to warrant the installation of this pathway.

 

It is therefore recommended that the City does not proceed with the construction of this section of pathway at this stage. The City can reconsider the provision of this pathway once further development occurs and Speranza Parkway is extended to the east. As there is no timeframe as to when urban development may occur, it is suggested that this project be deleted from the Capital Works Program until such time further development occurs in the area.

 

It is also recommended that the funding associated with this project be reallocated to Project PR-2707 Minor Pathways Projects to accommodate shortfalls in funding for the completion of the remaining 2014/15 pathway projects.

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

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The funding for PR-2586 in 2014/2015 totalling $12,119 was carried forward from the 2013/2014 financial year.

 

The following budget variation is recommended to enable the completion of the remainder of the projects listed in the 2014/15 pathways program. 


 

 

Project

Description

From

To

PR-2586

Speranza Parkway, Singara - Construct 50m x 2.4m shared path north. San Teodora Ave to Lot 7.

$ 12,119

 

PR-2707

Minor Pathway Projects – Various

 

$  12,119

Total

$ 12,119

$  12,119

 

This is in line with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) which states:

 

          “Circumstances:

           …the budget allocation for a capital work project is insufficient

 

          Action:

          In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 by way of a report and recommendation to the Council seeking authorisation of the expenditures and to endorse the necessary budget variation.”

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the deletion of the Pathway Project, PR-2586 Speranza Parkway, Sinagra – construction of pathway from San Teodoro Avenue to No. 7 Speranza Parkway from the Capital Works Program; and

2.       APPROVES the following budget variation to reallocate the funds of $12,119 allocated to PR-2586 in accordance with Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 as follows:-

Project

Description

From

To

PR-2586

Speranza Parkway, Singara - Construct 50m x 2.4m shared path north. San Teodora Ave to Lot 7

$ 12,119

 

PR-2707

Minor Pathway Projects – Various

 

$ 12,119

Total

$ 12,119

$ 12,119

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map - Proposed PR 2586 :Speranza Parkway Pathway

15/140917

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     230

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      231

IN07-05/15         Parking Prohibitions Extension - Neerabup Primary School, Banksia Grove

File Ref:                                              5597 – 15/111785

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider an extension to the existing parking prohibition limits adjacent to Neerabup Primary School, Banksia Grove.

 

Background

The City has received a request to extend the existing parking prohibition limits along Turquoise Loop adjacent the northern boundary of Neerabup Primary School to address issues relating to parents parking their vehicles on the road, footpath and nature strip. The parked vehicles obstruct sightlines for pedestrians and motorists leaving the school and generating safety issues for children at the pedestrian crossing point on Turquoise Loop.

Parking prohibitions already exist on Viridian Drive along the western boundary of the school and were first implemented in April 2009 (IN03-04/09 refers).

Detail

Neerabup Primary School is located at the corner of Viridian Drive and Turquoise Loop, Banksia Grove (refer to Attachment 1 for a location map). The existing parking prohibitions at the school are as shown on Drawing No 2424-1-2 (Attachment 2 refers)

The school has two car parks, with one located off Viridian Drive and the other off Turquoise Loop, both with direct access to the school. A pedestrian crossing is located on Turquoise Loop approximately 80 metres east of the roundabout at Viridian Drive.

Currently, parking prohibitions exist mainly on Viridian Drive in the vicinity of the school. The existing parking prohibitions have been implemented to prevent parents parking their cars on the paved nature strip outside the main entrance to school and on the nature strip opposite the school, adjacent to Celadon Park.

Parents have been observed parking their cars on the paved verge of Turquoise Loop near both the driveway accesses to the car park restricting visibility for cars exiting from the school and causing a safety hazard for school children in the immediate vicinity. This also has the impact on children safety when crossing Turquoise Loop at the pedestrian crossing point.

During an on-site visit, it was noted that while parking was occurring along Turquoise Loop, not all of the on-site car parking spaces were fully utilised. This may be due to some parents having the perception of wanting to park as close as possible to the entrance of the school.

There are currently no parking prohibitions in place on Turquoise Loop and car parking in the area surrounding the school is unable to be controlled and/or enforced by the City’s Community Safety and Emergency Management Officers.

Consultation

It was considered that the proposed extension of parking prohibitions only affects Turquoise Loop along the southern side adjacent the School. Therefore the City consulted with the Principal of the Neerabup Primary School with respect to the proposal. The Principal has confirmed the school’s support for the proposed extension of parking prohibitions.

 

Comment

The proposed parking prohibition extension along Turquoise Loop east of the Viridian Drive is as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2424-1-3 (Attachment 3 refers). The parking prohibition is required to prohibit vehicles parking at the kerb or on the verge and improve traffic and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the school car park egress point and pedestrian crossing point along Turquoise Loop.

It should be noted that the proposed parking prohibitions will add additional work commitment to the City’s Parking Compliance Officers with limited capacity to ensure effective compliance throughout the City. As a consequence, enforcement will only be undertaken on an infrequent basis.

Statutory Compliance

The installation of parking prohibition signage will allow the enforcement of Part 4 Clause 38 of the City’s Parking and Facilities Local Law 2003 (as amended).

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The provision of parking prohibitions incurs not only the initial cost of materials and installation of the signs but also the ongoing cost of maintenance due to vandalism and graffiti. The estimated cost of materials and labour to implement these parking prohibitions is in the order of $1,000 which can be funded from Project PR-2657, Parking Scheme Signage and Line Marking for 2014/2015.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the revised parking prohibition for Viridian Drive and Turquoise Loop adjacent to the Neerabup Primary School, Banksia Grove as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing 2424-1-3 (Attachment 3 refers) incorporating the following:-


 

 

a)   removal of "NO STOPPING ROAD OR NATURE STRIP" (R5-35(R)) sign on the south/east corner of the Viridian Drive/Turquoise Loop intersection; and

b)   the installation of "NO STOPPING ROAD OR NATURE STRIP" (R5-35) signs along the south side of Turquoise Loop east of Viridian Drive.

2.       ADVISES the Principal of Neerabup Primary School of the Council’s decision with a request to circulate the information to the school community.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map - Neerabup Primary School, Banksia Grove.

15/118920

 

2.

Neerabup Primary School - Drawing No 2424-1-2 : Existing Parking Prohibitions

15/119054

 

3.

Neerabup Primary School - Drawing No 2424-1-3: Proposed Parking Prohibitions Extension

15/88103

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     235

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     236

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     237

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      238

IN08-05/15         Marathon Loop / Gnangara Road, Madeley - Review of Vehicular Access Arrangements

File Ref:                                              2128V02 – 15/139163

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the opening of Marathon Loop (the eastern cul de sac end) onto Gnangara Road to improve access for residents of north Madeley area.

 

Background

In 2007, a mix of R20 and R40 zoned residential area bound by Wanneroo Road to the east, the future realignment of Gnangara Road to the north and existing Gnangara Road to the south was developed and constructed and given a single access onto the arterial road network via Buffalo Avenue onto existing Gnangara Road. This access was one of two intersections constructed to connect with Gnangara Road.

 

More recently, further development occurred within this area which has now resulted in increased traffic accessing into and out of the area via this same single intersection. This increased traffic is now causing the Buffalo Avenue / Gnangara Road intersection to become congested and creating frustration for residents who are forced to utilise this intersection when entering or exiting the area.

 

A location map of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1.

Detail

In accordance with the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Structure Plan, Gnangara Road is planned to ultimately be realigned northwards to intersect Wanneroo Road at the Whitfords Avenue intersection. An additional access point is also planned for the northern end of Buffalo Avenue to connect to the realigned Gnangara Road. This intersection is planned to be a right-out, left-in and left-out movement only intersection configuration. Once the realignment of Gnangara Road is completed, the remaining section of Gnangara Road (between Wanneroo Road and the eastern end of Marathon loop) would be modified to become a local access road with no direct vehicular connection to the new Gnangara Road alignment.

 

As part of the development of Stage 6 Madeley Rise, a condition was put in place to restrict access at the western end of Marathon Loop onto Gnangara Road intersection. This access restriction was applied as it was considered that there were sightline issues at this intersection with the current traffic environment on Gnangara Road. It was therefore decided that the opening of the intersection would be best left until after Gnangara Road was realigned.

 

Recent development in the residential precinct and increased home occupancy has resulted in residents becoming frustrated with the limited access to the area and requesting the City take action and improve access by addressing the way in which the precinct connects onto the road network.

 

The design and subsequent construction of the Gnangara Road realignment is listed in the City’s 10 Year Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

The City has been in consultation with Main Roads WA with respect to the realignment and the new intersection configuration at Whitfords Avenue. However in April 2015, the City received advice from Main Roads WA on the realignment of Gnangara Road into Whitfords Avenue stating the following;

 

“Main Roads acknowledged that the long term plan has been to realign Gnangara Road to create a four way interchange with Whitfords Avenue and Wanneroo Road. The key distinction between your current proposal and the planned proposal is that your proposal is to create an at grade intersection and the long term plan is for a grade separated urban interchange. As previously discussed, there are significant staging constraints which do not easily facilitate the creation of a four way at grade solution on the same alignment as the proposed grade separated alignment – which is planned to have Gnangara Road rise of Wanneroo Road to join with Whitfords Ave, The existing intersection arrangement of two staggered T intersection allows for a relatively seamless transition to the longer term configuration.

 

As you are aware, Main Roads have been reviewing the plans for a number of the major intersections along Wanneroo Road with a particular interest in reviewing the proposed grade separated locations. This work shows that any intersection along Wanneroo Road area already at a level of practical saturation and warrant improvements. The current intersections of Whitfords Ave ad Gnangara Road with Wanneroo road are no exception.

 

A comparison has been conducted to assess the potential benefits of introducing the at grade four way intersection as you have proposed against the current staggered T configuration. This comparison (refer attached results) shows that there is no tangible benefit in creating the proposed four way intersection. In fact the existing configuration has greater flexibility to be further enhanced until such a time as the more significant grade separation is implemented. As mentioned above, it will also coordinate much better with that future implementation.”

 

In view of the above advice, the construction of the Gnangara Road realignment as planned is unable to be considered at this stage.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

As a result of the increased development of the remaining land parcels within the precinct, the current limited access to the arterial road network and the response from Main Roads WA regarding the Whitfords Avenue/Gnangara Road connection, an alternative access to the pocket of residential properties in this precinct needs to be considered. This is required to alleviate the frustration being experienced by residents when exiting/entering the precinct. One option is to consider an intersection opening from the eastern end (cul-de-sac end) of Marathon Loop onto Gnangara Road.

 

In order to open the eastern end of Marathon Loop onto Gnangara Road, additional infrastructure works will be required to create this intersection to ensure that it is able to operate safely with the through traffic volumes currently on Gnangara Road. There is sufficient sight distance at this location for the intersection to cater for all traffic manoeuvres.

 

 

 

The alternative of having the additional access onto Gnangara Road from the western end of Marathon Loop was also investigated. However, it was considered that there was insufficient sight distance available at this intersection to safely enable a right-out manoeuvre with the current road environment. This intersection could however operate as a Left-In/Left-Out only intersection configuration.

 

Therefore, the recommended access arrangement onto Gnangara Road and the required intersection modifications is as shown in the Concept Plan detailed on Drawing 3128-1-0 (Refer Attachment 2). The concept plan proposes to execute the planned works in two stages as follows:

 

Stage 1 :  Construction of a raised median island along Gnangara Road opposite the existing Marathon Loop (western end) intersection creating a Left-In/Left-Out intersection configuration.

 

Stage 2 :  Construction of a full intersection configuration for the eastern end of Marathon Loop (cul-de-sac end) onto Gnangara Road which will include substantial infrastructure works.

 

It is proposed to undertake community consultation to gauge the level of support from the residents of the precinct before progressing it further. Subject to the results of community consultation, the project can be implemented in two stages. As Stage 2 requires a significant time to prepare the detailed design and documentation for the intersection, Stage 1 has the potential to be implemented quite quickly as an interim measure to provide some relief to residents in the precinct.    

 

It is noted that in the interim, Main Roads WA has been requested to consider lowering the speed limit on Gnangara Road from 70 km/hr to 60 km/hr for the section between Wanneroo Road and 150m east of the Marathon Loop intersection.

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

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City does not have a project listed in the 10-year Capital Works Program for the implementation of the proposed opening of intersections along Gnangara Road.

 

Subject to the detailed design, the order of cost estimates associated with the recommended works are as follows:

 

Stage 1

Left-In/Left-Out Intersection at western end of Marathon Loop and Gnangara Road 

$   20,000

Stage 2

Full intersection at Marathon Loop (cul-de-sac end) and Gnangara Road

$ 180,000

 

TOTAL

$ 200,000

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES for community consultation purpose, the concept plan as shown in City of Wanneroo Drawing No 3128-1-0 (Attachment 2) with the following details:

a)      opening the existing Marathon Loop (western end) intersection onto Gnangara Road as a Left-In/Left-Out Only intersection, and

b)      opening of Marathon Loop (cul-de-sac end) onto Gnangara Road as a full intersection.

2.       NOTES that a report will be presented to Council following the conclusion of the community feedback process.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Marathon Loop / Gnangara Road - Locality Map

15/139271

 

2.

Marathon Loop / Gnangara Road - Concept Plan

15/142098

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  242

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                                                     243

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      244

 

Waste Services

IN09-05/15         PT02-02/15 Request for Additional Bins Quinns Dog Beach

File Ref:                                              6543 – 15/138011

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition relating to insufficient bins at the entrance to the Quinns Dog Beach and the absence of bins on the beach (beachside).

 

Background

Council received petition PT01-02/15 at its meeting on 3 February 2015 consisting of 105 signatures requesting additional bins at the entrances to Quinns Dog Beach and also to provide bins beachside.

 

At present there are 28 bins located along the Quinns foreshore including 8 at the dog beach entrances. These bins are serviced each Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Additional services are provided during peak usage times such as Christmas and New Year. There are 10 dog poop dispensers at the entrances to the dog beach with 2 at the main entrance and dog poop bags are replaced during bin servicing. Currently 200,000 bags are supplied annually at a cost of $7,000.

Detail

There are ten entrances to the beach along the Quinns foreshore, 4 of these lead directly on to the dog beach. The entrances are unsuitable for vehicle access to the beach as shown on Attachment 1. The walkways vary in length from 25m to 250m, some have steps with limited hardstand.

 

Servicing of the bins at beach areas with trucks is not possible as the trucks are not designed to service such areas. Therefore bins placed on the beach would need to be manually pulled back through sand or up the steps to the service vehicle, which presents a significant Occupational Safety and Health issue.

 

An option to consider the use of a beach cleaning trailer with dedicated tractor to empty bins on the beach and also provide a general clean-up has been considered. However, beach access for any vehicle would be limited to certain times of the year due to shifting sand and tidal ranges. Due to the amount of erosion, particularly at the dog beach, it is considered that the bin posts are likely to become unstable and/or bins covered with drifting sand causing potential hazard for the beach users.

Consultation

Consultation with two adjoining local authorities being the Cities of Joondalup and Stirling has been undertaken and the advice is summarised below:

 

City of Joondalup

City of Joondalup provides 58 bins (80ltr capacity) on the beach from October through to March and the bins are serviced by a beach cleaning machine operator six days per week. Bins are not allowed on the beach during winter months. During the winter the 80ltr bins are removed and 240ltr bins are placed part way down walkways and serviced from the roadside. It is also noted that City of Joondalup’s beachside is far more accessible due to the smoother topographical terrain leading to the beaches.

 

City of Stirling

City of Stirling provides approximately 400 bins (120ltr capacity) along the coastal area including car parks, reserves and beaches. An 8 person crew is provides the collection service on a 7 day roster using a range of equipment including a tractor with sand rake trailer, 4 x 4 Ute with Hi-Lift and a small Polaris 4 x 4 (quad style vehicle). In addition to beachside cleaning, this crew also services car parking, parks and venues along the Stirling foreshore area.

 

Following three options have therefore been examined:

 

Option 1 – To provide a service similar to the City of Joondalup – estimated set up costs of $158,000 and ongoing annual operating costs in the order of $65,000.

 

Option 2 - To provide a service similar to the City of Stirling is not possible because of the access to the Quinns Beachside. Additionally the service covers the Car Parks, Parks, Venues and the foreshore areas which do not apply to the Quinns Dog Beach. 

 

Option 3 – To increase the existing service (by installing 4 additional bins and dispensers where sufficient hardstand exists) at the entrance of the Dog Beach and not provide bins along the beach itself – $1,000 initial set up costs and an additional ongoing annual operating costs in the order of $1,000 would be required.

Comment

Based on the information collected following concern have been noted in relation to the provision of rubbish bins along Quinns Dog Beach:

 

·    Lack of suitable equipment:

·    Unstable sand conditions and manoeuvrability is likely to lead to vehicles getting bogged resulting in complex recovery operations;

·    Potential dangerous situations due to a very high chance of loaded vehicles becoming unstable while manoeuvring;

·    Conflict with the beach users and animals on the beach during the bin emptying operations.

 

It is therefore considered that the City is unable to support the request to provide bins along Quinns Dog Beach. However, the request to provide additional bins part way down the dog beach entrance can be supported. In addition, an education flyer reminding dog owners of their responsibilities in relation to cleaning up their dog waste together with details of facilities and location of dispensers and bags supported by additional signage is likely to assist in addressing the issue.

 

Due to issues noted above, it is recommended that Option 3 as outlined earlier in the report be implemented.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil 

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Waste Services operating budget has sufficient allocation to implement Option 3 comprising the provision of 4 additional bins and dispensers at the entrance to Quinns Dog Beach.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the Petitioner’s request to supply bins at Quinns Dog Beach;

2.       SUPPORTS Option 3 comprising the provision of 4 additional bins and dispensers at the entrance to Quinns Dog Beach where sufficient hardstand exists; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Access to Quinns Beach                      

15/100103

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  247

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      248

 

Community Development

Capacity Building

CD01-05/15       Community Funding Program March 2015 Round

File Ref:                                              19964 – 15/127375

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider applications from community groups requesting funding through the City's Community Funding Program March 2015 round for specified projects, activities or events.

 

Background

There are two funding rounds per financial year, in March and October.  This funding round represents the second round for the 2014/2015 financial year.  Assessment criteria and eligibility requirements are detailed in the City's Community Funding Policy.

 

The Community Funding Working Group met on Tuesday 21 April 2015 to discuss and make recommendations for the Community Funding March 2015 round 2014 as follows:

 

1.     APPROVES $1,000.00 to Quinns Beach Primary School Parents and Citizens Assoc Inc via Community Event Funding for the Quinns Beach Primary School Community Carols Night on 10 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

2.       APPROVES $3,000.00 to Bambara Primary School and Westcoast Songfest via Community Event Funding for Westcoast Songfest from 4 November 2015 to 6 March 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

3.       APPROVES $2,644.28 to the Menswork Project Inc via Community Development Funding for the Wanneroo Mens Group (WMG) from 25 June 2015 to 26 May 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

4.       APPROVES $1,500.00 to the Two Rocks Independent Public Primary School Board via Community Development Funding for Drumbeat at Two Rocks on 23 June 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a satisfactory quotation for the Drumbeat Incursion;

 

5.       APPROVES $2,439.70 to the North Coastal Women’s Shed Inc via Community Development Funding for the Community Drum Circle – Drum it up from 27 July 2015 to 27 June 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of satisfactory quotes to support Community Funding expenditure, clarification of public liability insurance details and receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

6.       APPROVES $2,361.35 to Burbridge School for children with multiple disabilities via Community Development Funding for a Sensory Garden and Sensory Work Area from 20 July 2015 to 17 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

7.       APPROVES $3,000.00 to Atlantis Productions Inc for the stage performance of Oliver Twist via Community Event Funding from 4 November 2015 to 9 November 2015 SUBJECT to arrangement of adequate public liability insurance, satisfactory Certificate of Incorporation, confirmation of satisfactory local venue and approved funding support from other sources totalling $5,000.00;

 

8.       APPROVES $785.96 to Two Rocks Yanchep Assisted Cancer Travels Inc (TRYACT Inc) via Community Development Funding for On the Buses from 1 June 2015 to 31 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed public liability insurance certificate and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round;

 

9.       APPROVES $3,000.00 to Spring in the Grove Inc via Community Event Funding for the 8th Annual Spring in the Grove on 1 November 2015 subject to receipt of renewed public liability insurance certificate;

 

10.     APPROVES $1,640.00 to Smart Centre of Excellence Inc via Community Development Funding for Ladies and Senior Citizen Self Defence SUBJECT to receipt of renewed public liability insurance certificate, satisfactory quotes for Community Funding expenditure and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round outcome; and

 

11.     APPROVES $2,700.00 to BJL Connecting Communities via Community Development Funding for a Community Garden from 1 May 2015 to 31 December        2015 SUBJECT to receipt of satisfactory quotes to support expenditure items for Community Funding, supporting information for organisation contribution and other funding sources, agreement by organisation to work with the City’s Community Development Officer and in accordance with the City’s Community Gardens Policy where applicable and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round outcome.”

Detail

Eleven (11) applications were received by the closing date of 31 March 2015.  Seven (7) applications are for community development funding and four (4) are for community event funding.  The table below identifies the number of applications received from each ward:

 

Ward

Community Event

Funding

Community

Development Funding

Central

1

 

Coastal

1

1

North

1

2

South

 

2

Outside of the City

(but project/event is taking place within the City).

2

Outside of the City

(and project/event is taking place outside of the City)

1

 

 

A complete compilation of applications and relevant attachments, as well as a summary report of applications with Administration recommendations was provided to each member of the working group and the deputy delegates.  A copy was also made available in the Elected Members' Reading Room.  A summary report of applications is provided (Attachment 1).

 

 

Consultation

Community Funding briefing sessions were provided to Community Development Teams.  These sessions commenced a whole-of-team approach to promotion and delivery of the Community Funding Program but ensured staff referred to the Community Development Officer (Community Funding) so that assistance to groups was provided from a more informed position. 

 

This whole-of-team approach has resulted in an increase of Community Funding applications in the category of Community Development projects from one (1) application in the previous round (October 2014) to seven (7) in this round (March 2015).

Comment

The Community Funding Program March 2015 round promotion included three advertisements in the City’s Wanneroo Link on 17 February, 3 March and 17 March 2015 as well as an article in the City’s What’s Happening Publication March 2015 Edition.  Emailed notification was sent to all eligible organisations on the Community Links Community Asset Data Base.  Community Development Directorate teams distributed the information throughout their networks and databases.

 

A total of 33 telephone and email enquiries were received regarding applications for the March 2015 round. Of these enquiries, nine (9) projects/events were identified as ineligible for Community Funding and were supported to explore other external funding options including;  Six (6) organisations were provided with information about the City’s Donation Request Program.  Others were assisted to identify further project/event planning required before application readiness or, the project timeframe did not comply with timeframe for delivery of projects/events supported by the Community Funding Program March 2015 round. 

 

Of the enquiries received, three (3) were from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) groups, two (2) from disability groups, two (2) from men’s groups, two (2) from women’s groups, four (4) from culture and the arts groups and four (4) from school groups.   

 

Community Funding on-line application process workshops were offered with a lack of response.  However, Community Development Officers provided one-to-one support in person and by telephone to each applicant group when identified as required or when requested.  A team approach to building community capacity was also embraced by the City’s Youth Services and Healthy Communities teams who supported potential applicant groups in their networks. 

 

Since the October 2014 round and leading up to the March 2015 round, Community Development teams have received Community Funding Program briefings.  These also served as opportunities to discuss team responsibilities regarding Community Funding.  Delivery of these briefings will continue between funding rounds as the Community Funding Program model is reviewed for efficiency, maximised community capacity building and performance in meeting the City’s strategic community Plan.

 

During this round, the need for discussion with community groups regarding project/event eligibility was identified as far greater than learning the on-line application process.  Of particular note was the inability of several applicant groups to self-assess their project/event against the community funding eligibility criteria and requirements.  This has provided further rationale for delivery of the proposed series of development workshops for community groups commencing later in 2015, as well as a review of the current community funding application and acquittal documentation.

 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

2.2    Healthy and Active People – We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

 

2.3     Safe Communities – We feel at home in our local area.

         

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

Administration has assessed the applications against the Community Funding Policy and provided recommendations for each application to the Community Funding Working Group.

 

Two (2) submissions did not satisfy the Community Funding Policy criteria because neither applicant was incorporated and both applications were from State Government Entities.  The applicant organisations do not meet the Community Funding Policy definition for an eligible organisation.  Therefore the submissions from Burbridge School for Children with Multiple Disabilities and Bambara Primary School and Songfest were not approved by Administration. 

 

At the Working Group meeting and further discussion, the Community Funding Working Group voted and carried unanimously to recommend to Council that these submissions are approved.

 

The City’s Community Funding Policy is scheduled for review in December 2015.

Financial Implications

It is noted that a total amount of $28,494.29 was requested from eleven (11) community funding applications.  The average request for this funding round is $2,590.39.

 

Of the eleven community funding applications received, four (4) were for community events totalling $10,133.00 (35.5% of the total community funding requested in the March 2015 round) and seven (7) were for community development projects totalling $18,361.29 (64.5% of the total community funding request in the March 2015 round).

 

The Community Funding Program March 2015 round is funded through the 2014/2015 adopted budget for Community Funding. The current GL account is 717253-1205-316.

 

Annual Community Funding Budget 2014/15

$80,000.00

Payments and commitments for March 2014 round, October 2014 round, 2014/15 Hallmark Events, and 2014 Community Christmas Celebration Events to 30 June 2015.

$54,493.98

Balance available for March 2015 round

$25,506.02

Value of recommendations for March 2015 round

$24,071.29

EXPECTED BALANCE OF FUNDS AS AT 30 JUNE 2015

$1,434.73

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the allocation of $1,000.00 to Quinns Beach Primary School Parents and Citizens Assoc Inc via Community Event Funding for the Quinns Beach Primary School Community Carols Night on 10 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

2.       APPROVES the allocation of $3,000.00 to Bambara Primary School and Westcoast Songfest via Community Event Funding for Westcoast Songfest from 4 November 2015 to 6 March 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

3.       APPROVES the allocation of $2,644.28 to the Menswork Project Inc via Community Development Funding for the Wanneroo Mens Group (WMG) from 25 June 2015 to 26 May 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

4.       APPROVES the allocation of $1,500.00 to the Two Rocks Independent Public Primary School Board via Community Development Funding for Drumbeat at Two Rocks on 23 June 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a satisfactory quotation for the Drumbeat Incursion;

 

5.       APPROVES the allocation of $2,439.70 to the North Coastal Women’s Shed Inc via Community Development Funding for the Community Drum Circle – Drum it up from 27 July 2015 to 27 June 2016 SUBJECT to receipt of satisfactory quotes to support Community Funding expenditure, clarification of public liability insurance details and receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

6.       APPROVES the allocation of $2,361.35 to Burbridge School for children with multiple disabilities via Community Development Funding for a Sensory Garden and Sensory Work Area from 20 July 2015 to 17 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

 

7.       APPROVES the allocation of $3,000.00 to Atlantis Productions Inc for the stage performance of Oliver Twist via Community Event Funding from 4 November 2015 to 9 November 2015 SUBJECT to arrangement of adequate public liability insurance, satisfactory Certificate of Incorporation, confirmation of satisfactory local venue and approved funding support from other sources totalling $5,000.00;

 


 

8.       APPROVES the allocation of $785.96 to Two Rocks Yanchep Assisted Cancer Travels Inc (TRYACT Inc) via Community Development Funding for On the Buses from 1 June 2015 to 31 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of a renewed public liability insurance certificate and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round;

 

9.       APPROVES the allocation of $3,000.00 to Spring in the Grove Inc via Community Event Funding for the 8th Annual Spring in the Grove on 1 November 2015 subject to receipt of renewed public liability insurance certificate;

 

10.     APPROVES the allocation of $1,640.00 to Smart Centre of Excellence Inc via Community Development Funding for Ladies and Senior Citizen Self Defence SUBJECT to receipt of renewed public liability insurance certificate, satisfactory quotes for Community Funding expenditure and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round outcome; and

 

11.     APPROVES the allocation of $2,700.00 to BJL Connecting Communities via Community Development Funding for a Community Garden from 1 May 2015 to 31 December 2015 SUBJECT to receipt of satisfactory quotes to support expenditure items for Community Funding, supporting information for organisation contribution and other funding sources, agreement by organisation to work with the City’s Community Development Officer and in accordance with the City’s Community Gardens Policy where applicable and change of project start date to within a reasonable timeframe after Council announcement of the March 2015 round outcome.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Summary Report of 11 Application received for the Community Funding Program March 2015 round

15/127353

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  254


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      276

 

Program Services

CD02-05/15       Transition of Community Aged Care Packages

File Ref:                                              19152 – 15/137095

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To signal a proposed future change in an agreement with the Department of Social Services bought about by aged care sector reform that would be in place by 1 July 2015.

 

Background

The City has, over the last 20 years, had an agreement with the Federal Department of Social Services to provide high level care for up to 22 ageing residents. This service allowed for the transition of clients of the City’s Home and Community Care Program to a higher level of care including medication and allied health services.

 

Over the past 4 years the referrals for these services have declined steadily and currently only 7 clients receive this service. The City works through specialised providers to provide the care namely Hendercare (4 clients) and White Oak (3 clients) who are able to provide a broader range of services.

 

The funding for the service currently is not a grant but based on submitting actual costs to the Department within an agreed limit. As at 13/14 the actual expenditure was $246,244 with $218,825 being claimed back from the Department under the terms of the agreement and the residual amount being covered by the City.

 

It is expected with the increasing degree of sophistication required for customised care that these costs will increase overall and that the City may be expected to increase their contribution.

Detail

With the move by the Federal Government to customised care due to start 1 July 2015, the current service delivery for Community Aged Care Packages is changing with each person now having a flexible care plan with services designed to meet their individual needs. These can be varied and will include a range of activities not currently offered by the City under their current arrangements.

 

The changes will have the following impacts:

 

·        The funding model operates on a fixed admin fee per client allowing less flexibility and likely to lead to greater costs for the City

·        The City will be required to provide a broader range of services which are not currently provided (ie. gardening, allied health services) requiring a greater administrative role

·        The City will be required to monitor monthly budgets with clients and readily respond to requests for change which will require a different skill set from staff and a change in financial management practices.

Given the specialisation involved it is proposed that all 22 care packages are formally transferred by the Department to alternative service providers who are better equipped to meet the needs of our residents.

 

With the changes being introduced by 1 July 2015, the Department of Social Services requires confirmation by the 30 April 2015 which will allow for the transfer to be undertaken in a timely fashion and reduced impact on clients.

Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken with the staff directly responsible for the delivery of the packages. There is clear indication that the changes to service delivery impacts on the City’s capacity to deliver the quality of service required without major changes to policy and procedures. In addition, it is clear that there is an increase of service providers within the City boundaries and with recently funding rounds this number continues to grow.

Discussions have been held with Karen Murray, Departmental Officer, Home Care Programmes, Department of Social Services in regard to the transfer process. The department is supportive of the proposed change and will provide guidance through the process if a decision is made to transition to another provider. To ensure the process is undertaken efficiently, the department has advised a decision is required by the end of April to facilitate the process.

 

The City has consulted with a representative of the Aged & Community Services WA (ACSWA), who is monitoring the upcoming changes and is well informed on what is required to undertake the move to consumer directed care. While there is an expected benefit to clients, a number of large service providers are still working through the detail and facing challenges in the financial aspects of the change.

 

The City has been in communication with both service providers that are currently under contract with the City to deliver in home services to our existing clients. Both Hendercare and White Oak Home Care Services expressed interest in taking over the case management of the City’s Home Care Packages. Both service providers operate in the northern metropolitan area and are considered to be well placed to provide the level of quality care required therefore an evaluation process was undertaken to guide selection (Attachment I).

 

On 16 April, the OMR Community Advisory Group met to discuss the proposed transition and as the proposal would not have any impact on the Home and Community Care Program and would provide a better level of care for the seven existing clients, transitioning the clients to Whiteoak Home Care Services be supported (Attachment 2).

Comment

The service has been evaluated in accordance with the Operational Management Review – Guiding Principles for the model of delivery for external services (Attachment 3). It is considered timely to transfer the packages from the City to the agencies that currently provide services to the City’s clients ensuring continuity of care and the least disruption for the clients. This change will have no impact on the City’s Home and Community Care Program clients.

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.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

Risk Management Considerations

Reputational risk

All clients currently receive care through the agreed third party delivery agencies and therefore there should be no direct impact on the quality of care. The City will continue to maintain contact with the 7 existing clients to ensure continuity of a high quality of service and to advocate on their behalf if necessary. The City will maintain a relationship with the agencies as preferred service providers for other clients as their needs increase.

 

Financial risks

It is assumed that as customised care packages start 1/7/2015 costs may increase as well and that the financial contribution of the City would also be expected to increase. With an aging population it is also expected that the City may have pressure to start using all 22 packages thus increasing its financial liability for the future. Clients will benefit from being cared for by specialised organisation who can offer a full suite of services given that they offer services to a larger number of people.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City is reimbursed by the Australian Commonwealth Government for services provided however the City covers all surpluses in expenditure. For the 2013/14 financial year, the City contributed $28,419 towards the total expenditure of $246,244. The transfer of packages to a third party will therefore result in a saving for the City.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the transition of the 22 Community Aged Care Packages to Whiteoak Home Care Services Pty Ltd as of 1 July 2015.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Evaluation of Service Provider for Aged Care Packages

15/156907

 

2.

Minutes Operating Model Review Community Advisory Group 16/04/2015

15/131644

 

3.

OMR Guiding Principles for the delivery mode of external services

15/116300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  279


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  280


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                                  284

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 May, 2015                                                      286

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Finance

CS01-05/15       Warrant of Payment for the Period to 30 April 2015

File Ref:                                              1859 – 15/135652

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         NIl

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

Presentation to consider the list of accounts paid for the month of April 2015, including a statement as to the total amounts outstanding at the end of the month.

 

Background

Local Governments are required each month to prepare a list of accounts paid for that month and submit the list to the next Ordinary Meeting of the Council.

 

In addition, it must record all other outstanding accounts and include that amount with the list to be presented.  The list of accounts paid and the total of outstanding accounts must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Detail

The following is the Summary of Accounts paid in April 2015:

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – April 2015

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

101639 - 102083

2208 - 2231

 

 

$1,849,583.36

$13,739,689.57

$15,589,272.93

 

($2,778.92)

($100,731,78)

$15,485,762.23)

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – April 2015

Municipal Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$15,485,762.23

$86,797.10

$3,260,834.23

$18,833,393.56

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – April 2015

                           Cell 1

                           Cell 4

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 8

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$50,454.55

$30,034.61

$10,121.31

$10,121.31

$100,731.78

 

At the close of April 2015 outstanding creditors amounted to $428,948.66.

 


 

Consultation

 

Nil

 

Comment

The list of payments (cheques and electronic transfers) and the end of month total of outstanding creditors for the month of April 2015 is presented to the Council for information and recording in the minutes of the meeting, as required by the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Statutory Compliance

Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to list the accounts paid each month and total all outstanding creditors at the month end and present such information to the Council at its next Ordinary Meeting after each preparation.  A further requirement of this Section is that the prepared list must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

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

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – April 2015

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

101639 - 102083

2208 - 2231

 

 

$1,849,583.36

$13,739,689.57

$15,589,272.93

 

($2,778.92)

($100,731,78)

$15,485,762.23)

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – April 2015

Municipal Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$15,485,762.23

$86,797.10

$3,260,834.23

$18,833,393.56

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – April 2015

                           Cell 1

                           Cell 4

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 8

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$50,454.55

$30,034.61

$10,121.31

$10,121.31

$100,731.78

 

WARRANT OF PAYMENTS APRIL 2015