Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 10 November, 2015

Council Chambers, Civic Centre,

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 10 November, 2015 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

5 November, 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

OC01-11/15     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 October 2015  1

SOC02-11/15 Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 27 October 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

UP01-11/15     Requesting development of Policy to include shade sails as a standard part of any new playgrounds built in the North Coast Ward (PT01-10/15) 1

UP02-11/15     Requesting erection of a permanent solid wall along the newly realigned Lenore Road (PT02-10/15) 2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

Policies and Studies  2

PS01-11/15      Proposed Amendment No.148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Liquor Store and Tavern Land Use Permissibility and Draft Licensed Premises Policy  2

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  14

PS02-11/15      Reconsideration of Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80  14

PS03-11/15      Adoption of Woodland Vista, Carramar Local Structure Plan No. 92  40

Development Applications  80

PS04-11/15      Proposed Child Care Centre - Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre - 100 Gungurru Avenue, Hocking  80

Regulatory Services  100

PS05-11/15      Proposed Instant Start Building Applications  100

PS06-11/15      Bulk Earthworks & Sand Drift Policy  112

Other Matters  120

PS07-11/15      Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committees  120

PS08-11/15      Close of Advertising - Revised Land Valuations for the East Wanneroo Cells 1 to 8  131

Assets  136

Infrastructure Projects  136

IN01-11/15       2015/2016 Capital Works Program - Budget Variations  136

IN02-11/15       Warradale Park Nature Play Update  143

Tenders  148

IN03-11/15       Tender No 01540 Construction of Fisherman's Hollow Toilet Change Block and Associated Civil Works  148

IN04-11/15       Tender No 01548 - Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Jindalee and Banksia Grove for a Period of 24 Months  154

Traffic Management  160

IN05-11/15       Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation Results  160

IN06-11/15       Mercy College, Koondoola - Traffic Flow and Road Safety Improvement Works - Community Consultation Results  170

IN07-11/15       Gnangara Road - Speed Limit Review   185

Community Development  189

Capacity Building  189

CD01-11/15     Draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2016-2019  189

Program Services  197

CD02-11/15     Passive Park Upgrade - Salitage Park Concept Plan  197

Other Matters  206

CD03-11/15     Outcomes of Community Consultation for Butler North District Open Space  206

CD04-11/15     Central Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes  219

CD05-11/15     Financial Counselling Services Update  231

Corporate Strategy & Performance  235

Finance  235

CS01-11/15     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 September 2015  235

CS02-11/15     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 October 2015  252

Governance and Legal  314

CS03-11/15     Donations to be Considered by Council - November 2015  314

CS04-11/15     Bush Fire Brigades Local Law 2008 - Delegated Authority  327

Property  330

CS05-11/15     Wanneroo Trotting & Training Club Inc - Request for a New Lease  330

CS06-11/15     Proposed Road Closure - Portion of Higgins Road, Pinjar  335

Chief Executive Office  341

Office of the CEO Reports  341

CE01-11/15     National Growth Areas Alliance - Fund Our Future Campaign  341

CE02-11/15     National Growth Areas Alliance - Fund Our Future Campaign  347

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 375

MN01-11/15    Cr Domenic Zappa – Installation of a Bus Shelter at Bus Stop No 27095 Marangaroo Drive, Girrawheen  375

MN02-11/15    Cr Domenic Zappa – 40km/h School Zone on Queensway Road, Landsdale  377

MN03-11/15    Cr Hugh Nguyen – Lack of Local Specialist Stroke, Trauma and Mental Health Rehabilitative Service Availability  379

MN04-11/15    Cr Sabine Winton – Request to form a North Coast Community Reference and Sport User Group  384

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 386

Item  11____ Confidential_ 386

CR01-11/15     Request for Permanent Memorial Plaque at Claytons Beach  386

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 386

Item  13____ Closure_ 386

 

 

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

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 October 2015 be confirmed.

That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 27 October 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  

UP01-11/15       Requesting development of Policy to include shade sails as a standard part of any new playgrounds built in the North Coast Ward (PT01-10/15)

Cr Winton presented a petition of 232 signatories requesting development of Policy to include shade sails as a standard part of any new playgrounds built in the North Coast Ward. Furthermore that the City prioritises the fixing of shade sales to all existing playgrounds in our Ward.   Update   A report will be presented to the Council Meeting scheduled for 8 December 2015 to consider the petition subject.

 

UP02-11/15       Requesting erection of a permanent solid wall along the newly realigned Lenore Road (PT02-10/15)

Cr Newton presented a petition of 104 signatories requesting erection of a permanent solid wall along the newly realigned Lenore Road that runs from East Road, Hocking to Nicholas Road, Hocking, to serve as a safety barrier and traffic noise buffer.   Update   A report will be presented to the Council Meeting scheduled for 8 December 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

File Ref:                                              21033 – 15/118459

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider:

 

1.       Initiating Amendment No.148 to the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) for the purpose of amending the land use permissibility of the use classes ‘Liquor Store’ and ‘Tavern’; and

 

2.       A draft Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Licensed Premises (refer Attachment 1) for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

 

 

Background

A motion was raised at the City’s Annual General Meeting on 4 December 2014 for Administration to investigate and report back to Council on the permissibility of liquor stores in DPS 2 and adopted structure plans, with a view to changing the permissibility of a Liquor Store from Permitted (“P”) to Discretionary (“D”).

The motion pre-empted the release of the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) ‘Local Government Town Planning Guideline for Alcohol Outlets’ in February 2015. The guidelines provide specific guidance for local governments on its role in planning for alcohol outlets, and its role in the liquor licensing process.

 

The guidelines have encouraged many other local governments to undertake scheme amendments and develop local planning policies for the purpose of gaining more control over the location of liquor stores in their districts.

Administration met with Elected Members at Council Forum on a number of occasions to discuss a proposed amendment to DPS 2 to change the land use permissibility for a liquor store in a commercial zone from a ‘P’ to a ‘D’ use, and to discuss a proposed policy that would outline how Council would deal with applications for liquor stores and taverns; and the extent Council should get involved in the liquor licensing process. A draft LPP 2.8 was presented to the Council Forum on 11 August 2015.

Detail

Proposed Amendment No.148

Proposed Amendment No.148 includes the modification of the permissibility for a tavern in addition to a liquor store given the similarity of issues that arise in the assessment of development applications for those uses and the often contentious nature of these land uses.

 

The current permissibility for ‘Liquor Store’ in Table 1 – Zoning table in DPS 2 is ‘D’ in a Business Zone, ‘P’ in a Commercial Zone and ‘X’ in all other zones. ‘Tavern’ is a ‘D’ use in the Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones. A ‘P’ use means Council may not refuse an application for the use where that use is permitted within a zone. A ‘D’ use means the use is not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion in granting approval. Council may also consult with adjoining property owners or the public generally when determining an application for a ‘D’ use. An ‘A’ use is a use requiring advertising prior to Council using its discretion to determine the application. An ‘X’ use is not permitted under DPS 2.

It is proposed that the current permissibility for ‘Liquor Store’ in Commercial and Business Zones and for ‘Tavern’ in Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones is amended to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’). The proposed permissibility would require all applications for a liquor store or a tavern in zones where they are designated ‘A’ to be advertised for public comment. Following the public advertising period, Council would have the discretion to determine whether to approve or refuse the application based on its assessment of the proposal and consideration of any submissions received. This provides Council with greater control to determine the appropriate location for liquor stores and taverns than what is currently allowed under DPS 2. 

 

Following final approval of Amendment No.148 by the Minister for Planning, Administration will undertake a review of agreed structure plans with a view to ensuring they align with the permissibility of Liquor Store and Tavern designated in DPS 2.

 

Proposed Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises

A draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises has been prepared to guide discretionary planning decisions for liquor store and tavern applications and to outline the City’s role and responsibilities in the liquor licensing process under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

The Policy provides guidance for the following matters in response to a new application for a liquor store or tavern that is lodged with the City for development approval:

·        Scope of planning assessments and basis for interventions or objections to applications for liquor licences;

·        Information requirements for development applications;

·        Advertising of applications;

·        Assessment criteria for applications; and

·        Involvement in liquor licensing.

 

A number of key issues were raised by Elected Members at Council Forum relating to the draft Policy. The following section outlines how Administration has addressed these issues and the adjustments that have been made and reflected in the draft Policy.

 

Signage

 

It was suggested that the Policy should include guidance on the location of advertising and signage of liquor stores and taverns with respect to the proximity of schools. This is considered a valid planning consideration and in response to this, Administration has included the location of signage and advertising materials as a criterion for the assessment of applications at Clause 4.2 of the proposed draft Policy.

 

Drive-through liquor stores

 

It was suggested that the Policy separately consider drive-through liquor stores. Under DPS 2, a drive-through liquor store is not listed as a separate use class. The DPS 2 definition for a ‘liquor store’ means any land or buildings the subject of a liquor store licence granted under the Liquor Licensing Act 1988. The interpretation by Administration of this definition is that a drive-through attached to a liquor store is considered as part of the liquor store. Therefore the proposed Policy provisions would apply to the drive-through as part of the liquor store. It is proposed that Administration investigate any issues associated with drive-throughs as a separate matter.

 

Large format liquor stores

 

It was suggested that the Policy restrict the location of large format liquor stores to higher order centres that serve a larger catchment, based on the rationale that the scale and size of large format liquor stores would be more appropriate for those higher order centres. In response to this, Clause 4.1 of draft LPP 2.8 has been included to restrict the location of a ‘liquor store – large’, to district centres or higher. The size and scale of those liquor stores is considered inappropriate for a neighbourhood or local centre.

 

The Policy defines a ‘liquor store – large’ as premises the subject of a liquor store licence granted under the Liquor Control Act 1988 with a net lettable area of more than 300m². This definition is consistent with the model provisions for local planning schemes contained in Schedule 1 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

State Administrative Tribunal

 

Concern was raised as to whether a decision made under the draft LPP 2.8 would be upheld if challenged at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). A review of past SAT decisions involving liquor stores and taverns by Administration has informed the preparation of draft LPP 2.8 and in particular, clause 1.1 of the proposed draft Policy that sets out the relevant considerations for planning and the liquor licensing process.

 

The key issues identified in past SAT decisions are around amenity and what is considered orderly and proper planning. For decisions to be upheld, SAT requires factual evidence that the amenity of the existing area will be impacted by a proposed liquor store or tavern, and that any decision made is in the interest of orderly and proper planning. Given the difficulty of evidencing an impact on future amenity, clause 1.1 of draft LPP 2.8 identifies a more appropriate course of action for those amenity related considerations such as ‘number and density of stores’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ is that they be dealt with by the City through an intervention or objection to a liquor licence. 

Since the Policy was presented to Council Forum, a number of minor changes have been made by Administration to improve the operation of the Policy. A summary of those changes are outlined below:

 

Definitions

 

A number of key terms have been defined in draft LPP 2.8 to provide clarity and ensure the provisions of the Policy are interpreted and applied consistently.

 

Development approval conditions

 

Clause 5.1 has been included to ensure that development approval conditions relating to trading hours or maximum occupancy are forwarded to the Licensing Authority to be applied as a condition on the liquor licence. This will ensure consistency between the two approvals.

 

Process for lodgement of interventions or objections

 

The process for an intervention or objection that was agreed with Elected Members at Council Forum required a resolution from Council in order to initiate the preparation of a submission to the Licensing Authority to intervene or object to a liquor licence. Administration has since been informed that this may not always be practicable given the short timeframe with which the City has to lodge an intervention or objection (28 day period during advertising of a liquor store or tavern).

 

To provide the City with an opportunity to intervene or object to a liquor licence, clause 6.1 and 6.2 of draft LPP 2.8 have been revised to provide flexibility in allowing the responsible director to make a without prejudice intervention or objection in accordance with clause 6.1 and 6.2. This would be followed by a report to Council as soon as is practicable. Following a decision by Council, the objection or intervention may then be confirmed to the Licensing Authority or withdrawn by Administration.

 

For interventions or objections that are based on planning, building or environmental health grounds, the responsible director is the Director Planning and Sustainability. For interventions or objections based on public health grounds, the responsible director is the Director Community and Place.

Consultation

In accordance with Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the Amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to no objection being received from the EPA, the Amendment will be advertised for public comment in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Regulation 35(1) requires a scheme amendment to be classed as basic, standard or complex by a local government to determine the advertising requirements. In accordance with Regulation 34, Amendment No.148 is deemed by Administration to be a standard amendment due to its compliance with point (a) of the definition of a standard amendment in that it is an amendment that proposes to amend the permissibility of a use in zones that is consistent with objectives under DPS 2 for those zones.

 

 

Prior to advertising of Amendment No.148, notification must be provided to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) of Council’s intention to advertise the amendment in accordance with Regulation 47(1). On completion of that notification, advertising is proposed to occur in the following manner for a period of 42 days, consistent with the requirements of 47(2)-(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015:

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices and on the City’s website;  and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

With regard to the advertising of draft LPP 2.8, clause 4(2) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 requires a draft Local Planning Policy to be advertised for a minimum of 21 days. Administration proposes to advertise draft LPP 2.8 concurrently with Amendment No.148 for a period of 42 days which will satisfy the advertising requirements of DPS 2.

 

Following the 42 day advertising period, a summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to those submissions will be included in a report to Council to consider final adoption of the Amendment No.148 and draft LPP 2.8.

Comment

Amendment No.148 has been prepared in response to a request from the community to provide Council with the discretion to determine all applications for liquor stores. The amendment includes the modification of the permissibility for the use class ‘Tavern’ due to the similarity of issues associated with the two land uses. Administration recommends Council initiate Amendment No.148 as it will provide Council with greater control over the assessment and location of liquor stores and taverns in the City.

 

Draft LPP 2.8 has been prepared to provide a framework for the assessment of planning applications and outlines when and how the City would involve itself in the liquor licensing process. This will provide greater clarity and less confusion for the community on both the planning approval and liquor licensing process.

 

It is noted that the final approval for a Scheme Amendment by the Minister for Planning may take longer than the final adoption of a Local Planning Policy by Council. Should draft LPP 4.8 be adopted prior to Amendment No.148, the assessment criteria for development applications would not apply to a proposed liquor store in a commercial zone as Council does not currently have any discretion to assess those applications. The remainder of the Policy could however be applied prior to the final approval of Amendment No.148.

Statutory Compliance

Council is required to prepare a resolution for a scheme amendment in accordance with Regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which requires that the resolution be in a form approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The Department of Planning (DoP) has published a Form 2A for this purpose, and this report’s recommendation is consistent with this form.

 

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:

 “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

There is no existing Strategic or Corporate Risk within the City’s existing risk registers which relates to the issue contained within this report however Administration acknowledges that responding to applications for liquor stores and taverns has been identified as a risk area, needing transparent and consistent decision making.  The proposed policy provides the first step in developing the appropriate framework to mitigate such risk.

Policy Implications

The development and adoption of a policy for this matter would complement the suite of policies adopted by Council and provide guidance on how to respond to applications for liquor stores and taverns.

Financial Implications

The cost of advertising Amendment No.148 and draft LPP 2.8 will be met through the Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No.148 to City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 to amend  “Table 1 (Clause 3.2) – The Zoning table” by modifying the use class ‘Liquor Store’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Commercial and Business Zones, and modifying the use class ‘Tavern’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones;

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No.148 is a standard amendment, as the amended permissibility’s in the zoning table are consistent with the objectives of the relevant zones;

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, REFERS Amendment No.148 to the Environmental Protection Authority;

 

4.       Subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority and pursuant to Regulation 47(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 NOTIFIES the Western Australian Planning Commission of its intention to advertise Amendment No.148 and ADVERTISES Amendment No.148 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

5.       Pursuant to clause 4(1) of the deemed provisions of City of Wanneroo District       Planning    Scheme          No. 2 ADOPTS the draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed          Premises, as contained in Attachment 1 for the purpose of advertising, and          ADVERTISES it for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Draft Local Planning Policy - Licensed Premises

15/440948

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

File Ref:                                              2957-04V02 – 15/510667

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To reconsider Amendment No. 4 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (ASP 80).

 

Applicant	Wakefield Planning
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

Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 affects Lot 810 (1397) and Lot 811 (1387), Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.  A plan showing the location of Lot 810 and Lot 811 is provided as Attachment 1.

 

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

 

Administration also received a revised Amendment No. 5, following a determination made by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Amendment No. 5 proposed substantial changes to the zoning (and subsequently land use permissibility) of the Central Precinct. Council resolved to adopt the revisions to the Amendment No. 5 proposal at the 13 October 2015 Council Meeting (PS01-10/15). Amendment No. 4 has been prepared to provide additional modifications to ASP 80 not contemplated for in the revised Amendment No. 5 proposal, relating to Lot 810 and Lot 811 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo.

 

Council's Previous Decision and SAT Proceedings

 

Council at its 14 October 2014 meeting (PS05-10/14) resolved to adopt Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 (subject to modifications). However, after Council's decision, the applicant exercised their rights to seek a review of Council's decision on Amendment No. 4 at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

 

Initially, the applicant had sought to have the matter reviewed through Mediation, which was arranged by the SAT and attended by the City’s officers in October and November 2014. Although the SAT issued Orders inviting the City to reconsider its decision at the 9 December 2014 Council Meeting, the applicant then requested this invitation be withdrawn, so that the matter could proceed to a Full Hearing.

 

In preparing for the Full Hearing earlier this year, the City’s officers (and legal representative) made further arrangements with the applicant for the matter to be considered further at Mediation.

 

The matter was subsequently heard at a Mediation conference held over three days on 21 and 22 April and 14 May 2015. At the end of Mediation, it was agreed between the parties that:

 

·        The modified Amendment No. 4 being prepared in a form that assumes adoption of the revised Amendment No. 5 proposal, and proposes modifications to ASP 80 beyond those contemplated in Amendment No. 5;

 

·        In relation to the proposed permissibility of ‘Shop’ (refer to the Detail section below), the landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 will provide to the City supporting retail modelling, which will make the assumption that large format retailing in the Central Precinct will be permissible through the adoption of Amendment No. 5 (refer to the Report on Amendment No. 5 included on the 13 October 2015 Council Meeting Agenda – PS01-10/15). That submission will attempt to justify how that arrangement will not adversely impact on planned or existing centres even with an additional 3000m² of shop retail net lettable area on Lot 810 and Lot 811 (subject to a minimum retail net lettable area of 200m² per tenancy and a maximum retail net lettable area of 1500m² per tenancy);

 

·        A revised version of Amendment No. 4 would modify the provisions of ASP 80 to require the landowners of Lots 810 and 811 to make a contribution to the costs of signalising intersections required for the ASP 80 area. Modifications to the provisions would apply the principle that such a contribution would be proportional to the traffic which development on Lot 810 and Lot 811 would generate through the required signalised intersections; and

 

·        The City, at officer level, being prepared to recommend to Elected Members a 28-day advertising period be undertaken, rather than 42 days as prescribed in the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2).

 

Following on from Mediation, Council had an invitation – pursuant to section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 – to reconsider the amendment proposal by no later than 13 October 2015. In response to that invitation, Council considered the matter at the 13 October 2015 Council Meeting (PS02-10/15), and resolved the following:

 

That the Motion be deferred for clarification and further information.

 

Administration understands that the matter was deferred, so that Council could have more time to understand the implications of Administration’s recommendation, as well as understanding the implications of any alternative recommendations that may presented to Council.

 

Following on from Council’s decision made at the 13 October 2015 Meeting, a Directions Hearing was held at the SAT on 23 October 2015. At the Directions Hearing, it was noted by the SAT that:

 

·        The new Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) came into effect on 19 October 2015; and

 

 

 

·         Council could consider Amendment No. 4 at its 10 November 2015 Council Meeting, and resolve to forward a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) pursuant to the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS 2). The SAT considered that an invitation under section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 was not required to be issued for Council to resolve this recommendation.

 

Further discussion on Council’s abilities under the new Regulations is provided for in the ‘Comment’ section of this Report (under the sub-heading ‘Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015’).

Detail

Council’s previous decision on Amendment No. 4 (made at its 14 October 2014 Council meeting) was to adopt the amendment, and to modify the ASP 80 text and map to:

 

1.       Amend the general objectives included in Clause 7.0 of the structure plan to better respond to the ongoing planning of the structure plan area;

 

2.       Amend the Statement of Intent relating to Lot 810 and Lot 811 to accord with State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel (SPP 4.2) – in particular to accord with the provisions of SPP 4.2 pertaining to 'out-of-centre development';

 

3.       Create two distinct 'Special Use' zones within the Central Precinct. Special Use Zone 'A' had proposed to encompass Lot 1 and Lot 132, and Special Use Zone 'B' Lot 810 and Lot 811;

 

4.       Increase the range of land uses capable of being approved on Lot 810 and Lot 811;

 

5.       Modify the parameters associated with the permissibility of the ‘Storage Yard’, ‘Hairdresser’ and ‘Liquor Store’ land uses;

 

6.       Introduce a definition for the ‘Costume Hire’ land use, and to modify the definition of the ‘Growers Mart’ land use; and

 

7.       Insert a new provision pertaining to ‘Ancillary and Subordinate Uses’ within the Central Precinct.

 

Following the Mediation conferences that had occurred at the SAT, Administration received (and advertised) a revised version of Amendment No. 4 that now proposes the following changes to the ASP 80 text:

 

1.       Minor changes to the wording of the Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct;

 

2.       Modifying the Growers Mart definition, to the same as was adopted by Council in its previous deliberations of the amendment;

 

3.       Adding the following land uses as discretionary (‘D’) uses on  Lot 810 and Lot 811:

 

·        Hire Service;

·        Market (Retail);

·        Motor Vehicle Repairs;

·        Self-Storage Units; and

·        Shop (the parameters proposed for this use prescribe a minimum retail net lettable area (NLA) per tenancy of 200m², a maximum retail NLA per tenancy of 1500m² and a maximum overall NLA of 3000m²).

4.       Inserting a provision on ‘Ancillary and Subordinate Uses’ in the Central Precinct, the same as was adopted by Council in its previous deliberations of the amendment.

 

The revised amendment proposal for Council's consideration, submitted by the applicant following the SAT Mediation conference, is included as Attachment 2.

Consultation

Prior to Council’s initial adoption of Amendment No. 4 at its 14 October 2014 meeting, the amendment was advertised for public comment by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, display on the City’s website and letters to adjoining landowners. At that time, Administration received six submissions, which were summarised and responded to by Administration in the report presented to the 14 October 2014 Council Meeting (PS05-10/14).

 

Clause 9.5 of DPS 2 requires adequate publicity of a structure plan proposal, prior to it being considered by Council. Although advertising was undertaken for the version of the amendment previously considered by Council, Administration considered that the revised version of Amendment No. 4 required advertising for the following reasons:

 

·        Amendment No. 4 as previously advertised (from 15 July 2014 to 26 August 2014) proposed ‘Shop’ as a discretionary (or ‘D’) use on Lot 810 and Lot 811. The advertised version of Amendment No. 4 proposed the permissibility of this land use subject to ‘Shop’ occupying a minimum retail net lettable area of 200m² per tenancy, and for such tenancies to not sell food or groceries. The parameters for ‘Shop’ that are now being sought have changed significantly – in particular to remove the restrictions on selling food and groceries. A floor space limit for individual shops and an overall cap is also being proposed, which was not proposed in the previous version of the amendment that was advertised; and

 

·        Retail Impact Assessments that have been provided by the applicant (or commissioned by Administration) have not been advertised.

 

Administration subsequently advertised the amendment proposal (and supplementary retail impact assessment documents) for a period of 28 days from 21 July to 18 August 2015. Advertising was undertaken 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. During the advertising period, Administration received eight submissions.  The key issues of the submissions are as follows:

 

·        The land use ‘Shop’ is not appropriate to be permissible on Lot 810 and Lot 811, which is identified as an ‘out-of-centre’ development, and

 

·        Opposition to the proposed change to the Statement of Intent of the Central Precinct.

 

A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 3. It is noted that three submissions were made by the same submitter representing three landowners and listing the same issues. Therefore these three submissions have been combined as one submission in the schedule.

Comment

Amendment No. 4 proposes changes to the ASP 80 text, as outlined in the ‘Detail’ section above.  The comments below expand and further discuss the key matters associated with the amendment proposal:

 

Changes to the Statement of Intent

 

As outlined in the ‘Detail’ section, the amendment proposes minor modifications to the Statement of Intent for the Central Precinct. The proposed Statement of Intent (with emphasis on the proposed change) is as follows:

 

“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 readily be accommodated in a commercial area.”

 

The Statement of Intent currently within ASP 80 (without the word ‘readily’) was adopted by Council and the WAPC in deliberations of Amendment No. 3. As outlined in a previous Council Report regarding the adoption of Amendment No. 3 (PS03-05/15), the Statement of Intent draws from the language used in the intent for the Business Zone as outlined in Clause 3.6.1 of DPS 2. Also as outlined in that previous Report, the Statement of Intent is to coincide with a request from the WAPC for the City to normalise the zoning in the ASP 80 area under DPS 2, and in particular to rezone the ASP 80 Central Precinct to ‘Business’ under DPS 2. As outlined in the Amendment No. 5 Report included in the 13 October 2015 Council Meeting Agenda (PS01-10/15), a draft DPS 2 amendment will be presented to Council once the assessment of Amendment No. 4 and No. 5 are finalised.

 

The application of the word ‘readily’ into the Statement of Intent is inconsistent with the anticipated rezoning of the ASP 80 Central Precinct to Business under DPS 2. Inserting the word would result in a misalignment of the Statement of Intent for the ASP 80 Central Precinct and the Intent for the Business Zone as outlined in DPS 2. Therefore, the proposed change to the Statement of Intent is not supported.

 

Growers Mart Definition

 

Council in its previous deliberations of Amendment No. 4 made at the 14 October 2014 Council meeting adopted the following definition for the Growers Mart land use:

 

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

 

The definition required by the WAPC through its modifications to Amendment No. 5 resolved to retain the current ASP 80 definition for this land use, which is as follows:

 

“Growers Mart – means any land or buildings used for the wholesale distribution and retail sale of primary products including fruit and vegetables, meat, fish, bread.”   

 

Administration liaised with the officers at the Department of Planning regarding the definition for Growers Mart adopted by the WAPC. In its response, the Department advised that the WAPC decision retained the definition as was adopted through a previous amendment to ASP 80 (Amendment No. 1, adopted in August 2013). However, the Department also advised that it did not have a strong view on the definition pursued by the applicant and would accept it if Council were to recommend its adoption.

 

To be consistent with the previous Council decision on this matter, Administration recommends that the definition of Growers Mart as proposed by the applicant be adopted by Council through this consideration of the amendment proposal.

 

Proposed Permissibility of the ‘Shop’ Land Use

 

City’s Pursuit for Retail Potential Analysis

 

During the SAT Mediation conferences attended by the City’s officers in October and November 2014, the SAT issued Orders inviting the applicant to provide the City with a retail impact assessment that investigated the development of an additional 5,000sqm of Planning Land Use Category No. 5 (PLUC 5) floorspace on Lot 810 and Lot 811, and likely impacts of this floorspace on designated activity centres. PLUC 5 land uses are ‘shop-retail’ uses prescribed in the Department of Planning’s publication ‘Commercial Land Use Survey 1997’, and include uses listed in DPS 2 such as Shop, Hairdresser, Restaurant, some Showroom development, Liquor Store, Take-Away Food Outlet as well as the ‘Growers Mart’ land use as defined in ASP 80.

 

It was identified by Administration at that time that there was approximately 3,000sqm of PLUC 5 floorspace occupying (or approved to occupy) the development on Lot 810 and Lot 811. That floorspace is occupied by the existing Growers Mart, restaurant, Pet City showroom, and will later also be occupied by an approved liquor store and another restaurant.

 

The applicant’s retail impact assessment at that time accompanied a revised amendment proposal. Although a retail impact assessment and revised amendment proposal were received by Administration at the time, the applicant nominated for the matter to proceed to Full Hearing before Administration could consider the impacts and report to Council. In preparation for such a Hearing (which was later vacated for further Mediation, as outlined in the ‘Background’ section above), Administration commissioned the assistance of an external retail expert to identify the amount of PLUC 5 floorspace that could occupy the ASP 80 Central Precinct, without a significant detriment on other centres.

 

The response received concludes that 13,000sqm of PLUC 5 land uses could be tolerable within the ASP 80 Central Precinct, without a significant detrimental economic impact on nearby existing or planned activity centres.

 

The conclusions from Administration’s appointed retail expert was based on a mathematical model, on how centres draw customers based on household expenditure, size of activity centres (particularly the attraction that the size has on drawing customers), population and travel time. The mathematical model has not been derived from provisions of State Planning Policy, but rather is based on how trade in other activity centres would be impacted should 13,000sqm of PLUC 5 land uses be established in the ASP 80 Central Precinct.

 

Further to the modelling provided, Administration’s appointed retail expert provides the following statements in relation to the provisions of SPP 4.2:

 

·        The Drovers Central Precinct is not an ideal site for expansion, with its traffic access and circulation problems, and poor design (lack of a main street and public spaces). Access and amenity are core aspects of the criteria contained in SPP 4.2 and should be considered in conjunction with the potential trade impacts of a proposed retail expansion;

 

·        Given the proposed scale of the Drovers Central Precinct, a traffic impact assessment should potentially be prepared to support the amendment (this was completed as outlined later in the Report); and

·        There is a limited residential catchment surrounding the Drovers Central Precinct. Wanneroo Road also presents as a barrier for pedestrians from neighbourhoods to the east (Carramar and Tapping), particularly at peak traffic times. The implementation of new retail floor space should ideally occur in locations providing safe and convenient access, encouraging bicycle and pedestrian access.

 

The version of the advertised amendment now subject to consideration contemplates an additional use of ‘Shop’ (as listed in Table 1 of DPS 2), occupying a maximum floor area of 3,000sqm across Lot 810 and Lot 811. It does not contemplate a prescribed maximum addition to PLUC 5 uses generally, as was modelled by Administration’s appointed retail expert. There is an inconsistency between the retail modelling previously commissioned by Administration, as Amendment No. 4 now only proposes a maximum floorspace for the ‘Shop’ land use, and not a maximum floorspace for PLUC 5 uses generally.

 

Applicants Retail Impact Assessment

 

On review of the applicant’s most recent retail impact assessment (dated May 2015); Administration has identified the following key points:

 

·        The assessment assumes no PLUC 5 will be permitted on the adjoining Lot 1 and Lot 132. However, the WAPC’s adoption of Amendment No. 5 requires the ASP 80 Central Precinct (including Lot 1 and Lot 132) to be rezoned to ‘Business’. Although the Business zone does not permit the establishment of the ‘Shop’ land use, it does allow for the establishment of other PLUC 5 uses; such as Hairdressers, Restaurants, Liquor Stores and Take-Away Food Outlets;

 

·        The applicant’s retail impact assessment concludes with a statement that outlines that ‘anchor uses’ such as full line supermarkets should not be located in ‘out-of-centre’ locations, such as in the amendment area. The applicant has made it clear of their intention to attract the Aldi supermarket to Lot 810 or Lot 811, which would occupy up to 1,500sqm; and

 

Although the applicant has argued that Aldi is not a full line supermarket (for example, Aldi only has a limited number of lines available for sale at one time), the proposed ‘Shop’ use does not provide conditions that would limit the amount of line sold in a ‘Shop’ of 1,500sqm. The amendment proposal would not restrict the establishment of full line supermarkets occupying up to 1,500sqm on the site (such as a Farmer Jacks or Supa IGA).

 

State Planning Policy Considerations

 

The WAPC’s SPP 4.2 states as follows:

 

“The responsible authority should not support activity centre structure plans or development proposals that are likely to undermine the established and planned activity centre hierarchy.”

 

Elsewhere in SPP 4.2, the following is also stated:

 

“The responsible authority should not support activity centre or other structure plans, scheme amendments or development proposals that are likely to:

 

·        Undermine the activity centre hierarchy or the policy objectives;

 

·        Result in deterioration in the level of service to the local community or undermine public investments in infrastructure and services; or

·        Unreasonably affect the amenity of the locality through traffic or other impacts.

 

The amendment proposal would facilitate the approval of development proposals for ‘shop’ types that are likely to undermine the established and planned activity centre hierarchy. Should the amendment proposal be adopted, it would give a ‘shop’ type (such as a 1,500sqm supermarket chain) an option to locate on Lot 810 or Lot 811 rather than in an activity centre. Should a shop then choose to locate on Lot 810 or Lot 811 if such an option is available, it could delay the establishment of shop uses being established in existing or planned activity centres.

 

Administration considers that development of existing and planned centres should be encouraged, as these centres are located adjacent to residential development, and provide a greater focus for pedestrian amenity than the development situated on Lot 810 and Lot 811.

                                                                                    

What also needs to be considered is should Council recommend that the ‘shop’ land use be permissible on Lot 810 and Lot 811 as proposed, it is fair and reasonable to expect that Council would support the same land use permissibility on Lot 1 and Lot 132. Should that landowner pursue what the landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 is pursuing in Amendment No. 4 – and should up to 6,000sqm of ‘Shop’ in the ASP 80 Central Precinct then become permissible – this would exacerbate the undermining of other nearby existing and planned activity centres.

 

Considering the above it is recommended that the Shop use class be considered as ‘not permissible’ (X) in Drovers Place.

 

Other matters

 

Traffic – Infrastructure Upgrades

 

A traffic study was commissioned by Administration to consider whether the existing ASP 80 provisions relating to the provision of traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road/Clarkson Avenue and the Joondalup Drive/Drovers Place intersections were equitable on the landowners of Lot 810, Lot 811, Lot 1 & Lot 132 Wanneroo Road as well as the landowner of Lots 6, 7 and 8 Drovers Place. The study prepared assumes that residential development would be undertaken on Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8, as was proposed in Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80. Although Council made a resolution to not adopt Amendment No. 2 at its 26 May 2015 Council Meeting (PS06-05/15), the traffic study was requested prior to Council making that decision.

 

What both Administration and the traffic study have identified is that the provisions of ASP 80 do not prescribe an obligation on the landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 to contribute to the signalisation of either of the above-mentioned intersections. What the traffic study concluded is that there should be an onus on the landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 to contribute to the design and construction of traffic signals at the subject intersections, as development on these lots could generate a significant proportion of traffic that would use the proposed signalised intersections. Administration agrees that any such contribution should be proportionate to the traffic that this development generates through the intersections, which could be identified at the time a development proposal is lodged with the City

 

Changes to Section 5.1 of Table F (relating to the signalisation of the Wanneroo Road/Clarkson Avenue intersection) were also considered in Amendment No. 5, as further discussed in that Report (PS01-10/15). It is noted that this change proposed through Amendment No. 5 is not inconsistent with the findings of the traffic study.

 

In regard to Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection – and the provisions of Clause 5.2 of Table F – the current provision is as follows:

 

5.2     The subdivider/developer of Lots 6, 7, & 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.

 

The traffic study notes that under the change in traffic generation resulting from the amendments to ASP 80 (which included Amendment No. 2), approximately 20-30% of generated traffic using the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection was forecast to originate from Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 during the AM & PM peak period, with a significant balance coming from Lot 810 & Lot 811. Based on these proportions, the traffic study concluded that it is not equitable on the land owner of Lot 6, Lot 7 and Lot 8 to incur the full cost and responsibility of providing the new signalised intersection as required under ASP 80, should Amendments No. 4 and No. 5 be adopted by the WAPC. It is therefore recommended that Section 5.2 of Table F be modified as follows:

 

5.2     It shall be a condition of any subdivision or development approval for Lots 6, 7 and 8 that the subdivider/developer 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, to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo.  Appropriate cost sharing arrangements with the owners of Lots 810 and 811, and Lots 1 and 132 Wanneroo Road, based on their respective contribution to traffic using the intersection, shall be the subject of a separate agreement.

 

An additional provision stipulating how a financial contribution (or an agreement relating to financial contribution) should be obtained from the relevant landowners for the cost of the signalised intersections is provided in a proposed additional clause (Clause 5.3) to Table F. That proposed additional clause is provided for below:

 

5.3     The City may with respect to Lots 810 and 811, and Lots 1 and 132 Wanneroo Rd,:

 

·        Apply a condition of development approval, or recommend a condition of subdivision approval, which requires the owner to make an appropriate contribution to the cost of constructing the intersection referred to in clause 5.2; or

 

·        Refuse to approve any development application unless and until an appropriate cost sharing arrangement has been made for the cost of constructing the intersection referred to in clause 5.2.  

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) took effect on 19 October 2015.

 

At the 13 October 2015 Council Meeting, Council was requested to reconsider the amendment, and resolve to adopt the amendment subject to modifications. This was possible under Part 9 of DPS 2, as the provisions of the Regulations did not have effect at that time.

 

Under the Regulations which now have effect, Council cannot ‘adopt’ an amendment proposal, but rather can only provide a ‘recommendation’ to the WAPC on whether the amendment should be approved.

 

The City should be notified of the WAPC’s decision in relation to Amendment No. 4 within 120 days of referral of the proposal, pursuant to Clause 22 (5) of the Regulations.

 

Conclusion

 

Council at its Meeting of 14 October 2014 resolved to adopt Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 subject to modifications.

 

Administration supports (subject to modifications) the revised amendment proposal received by the applicant through SAT Mediation. In particular, modifications are recommended so that:

 

·        The Statement of Intent for the ASP 80 Central Precinct remains unchanged from that previously adopted by Council in its deliberations of Amendment No. 3;

 

·        The land use ‘Shop’ remains a prohibited use on Lot 810 and Lot 811; and

 

·        The landowner of Lot 810 and Lot 811 contributes toward the design and construction of traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road/Clarkson Avenue and the Joondalup Drive/Drovers Place intersections. Contribution would be dependent on the proportion of traffic using the intersections, generated from the development on Lot 810 and Lot 811.

 

It is recommended that the amendment proposal (subject to the modifications included in Attachment 4) be supported and forwarded to the WAPC for its adoption.

Statutory Compliance

This structure plan amendment will now follow the statutory process outlined in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

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

Consideration of this amendment proposal has been made with regard to the following policies:

 

·        The City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning;

 

·        Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres;

 

·        Local Planning Policy 4.17: State Administrative Tribunal; and

 

·        State Planning Policy 4.2: Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

Financial Implications

As Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 is still subject to review at the State Administrative Tribunal, the financial implications of Council providing a recommendation to the WAPC on this amendment would be dependent on the applicant’s further action arising there from.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.   RESOLVES that the proposed Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2 and dated 29 June 2015, submitted by Wakefield Planning on behalf of Goldrange Pty Ltd and Greenpark Asset Pty Ltd is NOT SUPPORTED in its current form;

 

2.   Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, RECOMMENDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Amendment No. 4 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2 and dated 29 June 2015, submitted by Wakefield Planning on behalf of Goldrange Pty Ltd & Greenpark Asset Pty Ltd be approved subject to the modifications as included in Attachment 4;

 

3.   Pursuant to subclause 20 (1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, PROVIDES the Western Australian Planning Commission a copy of the report on the proposed structure plan amendment; and

 

4.   ADVISES the applicant, the State Administrative Tribunal and the submitters of its recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission, pursuant to Item 2. above.

 

5.                     

 

Attachments:

1.	NEW Attachment 1 - Lots 810 & 811 (1397 & 1387) Wanneroo Road	14/280083
2.	Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80 - Attachment 2	15/464190	Minuted
3.	NEW Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions for the Amendment No. 4 Report	15/511153
4.	Attachment 4 - Administration s Recommended ~ Amendment No. 4 to ASP 80	15/489752	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              7535 – 15/122668

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions on the proposed Woodland Vista, Carramar Local Structure Plan No. 92 (LSP 92) and to recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission the approval of LSP 92 subject to modifications.

 

Applicant	Burgess Design Group
Owner	Woodland Consortium Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 51 Flynn Drive, Carramar
Site Area	3.03ha
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development

 

 

Background

Proposed LSP 92 was originally submitted on 22 May 2012, but as the structure plan area was subject to a pending Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) amendment to rezone the site from Rural to Urban at the time, consideration of the structure plan prior to the finalisation of the MRS amendment was considered premature.

 

The structure plan area was rezoned from Rural to Urban under the MRS upon gazettal on 1 October 2013. Concurrently, the site was rezoned from Special Rural to Urban Development under the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). The Urban Development zone requires the preparation of a structure plan to guide the subdivision and development of the land, in accordance with Clause 3.13.3 of DPS 2, and as such it was appropriate to consider the lodged structure plan at this time. Advertising of LSP 92 commenced on 15 July 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District DPS 2 and closed on 26 August 2014.

 

The item and the submissions received were considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 3 February 2015, but the resolution for approval of the item proposed by Administration lapsed for want of a mover, and there was no alternate recommendation put forward.

 

The item was reconsidered at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 3 March 2015, where an alternative recommendation of deferral was resolved to allow for the following: 

 

1.       The applicant to submit a revised Bushfire Management Plan to address the requirements of the City of Wanneroo and Department of Fire and Emergency Services; and

 

2.       Administration to write to the landowners of the subject site and lots subject to Structure Plan No. 61 advising them that it considers the planning outcomes could be significantly enhanced by a greater degree of integration of the structure plan proposals on each site and inviting them to collaboratively undertake structure planning for these sites.

 

The deferral requirements have been addressed, and are discussed in more detail in the ‘Comment’ section below.

 

Detail

 

Site

 

The structure plan covers Lot 51 (575) Flynn Drive, Carramar, a triangular shaped lot encompassing a total area of approximately 3 hectares. The site is bound by Wanneroo Road to the west, Flynn Drive (in its existing alignment) to the north, and Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive to the east, which are subject to Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 (ASP 61). The subject land is zoned Urban under the MRS and Urban Development under DPS 2. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

Wanneroo Road is reserved as Primary Regional Roads Reserve in the MRS and DPS 2. Flynn Drive including the realignment is reserved as Other Regional Roads Reserve in the MRS and DPS 2. The future realignment of Flynn Drive will result in a signalised intersection with Wanneroo Road approximately 600 metres to the north of the site. The existing Flynn Drive where it abuts the site, is proposed to be converted into a cul-de-sac at the Wanneroo Road end.

Proposal

The draft LSP 92, as shown in Attachment 2, has been prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DPS 2. The site is proposed to be zoned Residential, with a density code range of R20 to R30.

 

LSP 92 will guide the subdivision and development of the land, by providing the framework for the creation of the following:

 

·        Residential zoned lots at R20 and R30 densities;

·        Proposed public open space (POS), equating to 10% or greater of the subdivisible area; and

·        Drainage area proposed at the southernmost point of the site.

Consultation

The draft LSP was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, a notice on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners.  The submission period closed on 26 August 2014, with seven submissions being received.  A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to these is included in Attachment 3.

Comment

Fire Management Plan

 

A Fire Management Plan (FMP) (Issue 1 - April 2014) was included as Appendix 5 to Part 3 Technical Appendices of LSP 92, and provided supporting documentation for the statutory provisions contained within Part 1 of the LSP. As a result of the requirements of the item’s deferral at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 3 March 2015, a revised FMP (Issue 2 – April 2015) was submitted. The revised FMP was referred to the City’s Chief Fire Officer also representing Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for comments. The Chief Fire Officer assessed it and deemed the revised FMP was acceptable. The main changes to the FMP are as follows:

 

 

 

·        The FMP contains a revised assessment of the vegetation and fuel classifications on the site and adjoining sites in order to provide an indicative Bushfire Hazard Assessment (BHA).

 

·        The FMP depicts a temporary emergency access way to Wanneroo Road, which is proposed to be removed once the strategic firebreak is constructed in the adjoining Lot 2 Flynn Drive (Attachment 4). Administration requested Roberts Day Town Planners representing the developers of Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar to comment on this matter. In response the following advice was provided:

 

“The ‘future strategic firebreak’, as depicted in the Bush Fire Hazard Lot 51 plan prepared by Burgess, is not consistent with WAPC subdivision Approval 147201.  Specifically, the FESA Approved bush fire plan for Lots 1&2 Flynn Drive Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 was prepared on the proviso that a significant amount of vegetation will be retained and enhanced along the boundary abutting Lot 51.  As outlined in the bush fire plan, proposed dwellings within Lot 2 will achieve the fire requirements by way of adequate separation through the provision of larger (2,000sqm) lots that allow for a building protection zone (BPZ) or ‘Fuel Free Zone’.  Further, it is not intended that internal firebreaks will be installed on individual lots, as building compliance and the use of BPZs removes this requirement.

 

As such, the plan provided by Burgess is not acceptable and cannot be achieved, given its fatal reliance on modifying the already approved subdivision 147201 within the adjoining Lot 2 to allow for the non-existent ‘strategic firebreak’ the Burgess plan alludes to.” 

 

In view of the above advice from Roberts Day Town Planners, the applicant requested Main Roads WA (MRWA) whether a separate emergency access way to Wanneroo Road was acceptable. MRWA advised, “When the opportunity to connect the fire emergency access to ASP61 is not available, Main Roads has no objection to the proposed emergency fire access point on Wanneroo Road.”

 

Considering the advice from MRWA, it is recommended that the applicant be requested to modify Figure 4 of the FMP (Attachment 4) by deleting the notation to the emergency access way and to denote as ‘Emergency Access Way to Wanneroo Road’.

 

·        The FMP now includes an Acceptable Criteria Checklist. This is a compliance checklist for performance criteria and acceptable solutions for bushfire prone areas, and was required by DFES to be included in the FMP prior to endorsement.

 

Given that Administration and DFES are now satisfied with the revised FMP as currently proposed, it is considered appropriate to replace the original BMP with the revised version as part of Administration’s Recommended Modifications (Attachment 5).

Coordination with Adjoining Land

As per the Council Resolution on 3 March 2015, Administration wrote to the owners of Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar (Man O War Resources Pty Ltd) and Lot 51 Flynn Drive, Carramar (Woodland Consortium Pty Ltd).  The letter outlined the City’s request to facilitate a meeting between the adjoining landowners to discuss coordination between the two adjoining land parcels and structure plan areas. This meeting did not eventuate as the developers of Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive were not willing to attend the meeting due to the advanced status of the structure planning and subdivision over Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive.

 

 

 

In order to provide a connection to Lot 2 Flynn Drive, the draft LSP 92 depicts a road terminating at the eastern boundary of Lot 51. This provides an opportunity for the developers of Lot 2 to extend this road into Lot 2.

 

However, it should be noted that on 24 December 2013 the Western Australian Planning Commission granted approval to subdivide Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive to create Residential and Special Residential Lots. Attachment 6 contains a copy of the subdivision plan. This approval is valid for a period of four years ending 24 December 2017. The developers of Lots 1 and 2 have advised the City that subdivision of the land is underway. In the event the subdivision of land adjoining Lot 51 is not undertaken prior to 24 December 2017, should any further application for subdivision be made, the City will have an opportunity to request a road connection with Lot 51.

Conclusion

Considering the above comments, the draft LSP 92 is considered to be acceptable, subject to modifications contained in Attachments 3 and 5, as the proposal provides the broad planning framework to facilitate future development and subdivision of the structure plan area.

Statutory Compliance

This structure plan has been processed in accordance with the requirements of deemed provisions of DPS 2.  It is recommended that LSP 92 be approved with modifications contained in Attachment 3 and 5 of this report.

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

No risks are associated with the adoption of draft LSP 92.

Policy Implications

Administration's assessment of draft LSP 92 has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the City's Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space, Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy and Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RECOMMENDS that the proposed Woodland Vista, Carramar Local Structure Plan No. 92 dated April 2014 submitted by Burgess Design Group on behalf of Woodland Consortium Pty Ltd included as Attachment 2 be APPROVED by the Western Australian Planning Commission subject to the recommended modifications contained within Attachments 3 and 5;

2.       Pursuant to clause 20(2) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 FORWARDS a copy of the subject report on the proposed Woodland Vista, Carramar Local Structure Plan No. 92 containing a list of submissions, comments on the submissions and modification to address the issues on the submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information; and

3.       ADVISES the submitters of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s decision on the proposed Woodland Vista, Carramar Local Structure Plan No. 92 dated April 2014 when available.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan (LSP 92)	15/2720
2.	Attachment 2 - LSP 92 Part 1 Statutory Section (as Advertised)	15/2722	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - LSP 92	15/521516	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Revised Bushfire Hazard Assessment	15/163169
5.	Attachment 5 - LSP 92	15/521519	Minuted
6.	Attachment 6 - LSP 92	15/519931
7.	Attachment 7 - LSP 92	15/519932

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Applications

File Ref:                                              DA2015/449 – 15/490462

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4  

Previous Items:                                   PS08-09/15 Council Agenda

                                                            Proposed Child Care Centre - Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre - 100 Gungurru Avenue, Hocking

                                                            PS07-07/15 Council Agenda

                                                            Proposed Child Care Centre - Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre - 100 Gungurru Avenue, Hocking      

Issue

To consider a development application for a Child Care Centre at 100 Gungurru Avenue, Hocking in response to an invitation made by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

 

Applicant	Planning Solutions
Owner	Wyatt Grove Development Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 20 (100) Gungurru Avenue, Hocking
Site Area	1.98 hectares
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 6 Zoning	Centre
ASP 42 Zoning	Commercial

 

 

Background

Planning Solutions, on behalf of Wyatt Grove Developments Pty Ltd (the owner), submitted a development application for a Child Care Centre at Lot 20 (100) Gungurru Avenue, Hocking, commonly known as Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre (WGSC).

The subject site is bound by Gungurru Avenue to the north, Wyatt Road to the east, Nicholas Road to the south, and residential properties along Verteramo Way to the west. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The site is zoned Centre under the East Wanneroo Cell 4 Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (ASP 6) and Commercial under the Hocking Neighbourhood Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 42 (ASP 42).

 

There have been a number of development approvals issued for the site, specifically being four stages of development which are outlined below.

 

·        Stage 1 of WGSC (DA2012/1371) was approved by the City on 9 April 2013, incorporating the following:

 

·                15 tenancies (retail and non-retail land uses);

·                Liquor store;

·                Supermarket (Woolworths);

·                Landscaping; and

·                Car parking and vehicle/pedestrian access ways.

 

·        Stage 2 (DA2013/706) was approved by the City on 26 July 2013, incorporating the addition of a Medical Centre and an Office.

 

·        Stage 3 (DA2013/823) was approved by the City on 6 August 2013, incorporating the addition of a Recreation Centre and a Medical Centre.

 

·        Stage 4 (DA2014/894) was approved by the City on 19 September 2014, incorporating four additional commercial tenancies (retail and non-retail land uses) and underground car parking.

 

On 7 January 2015, the Western Australian Planning Commission also granted conditional subdivision approval (refer WAPC 147797) over the subject site for the creation of 11 individual lots. The lots have not yet been created and the applicant is still in the process of clearing the conditions of the subdivision approval. 

 

Council’s Previous Decisions

 

Council has previously considered two applications for the proposed Child Care Centre at its meetings held on 21 July 2015 (item PS07-07/15) and 15 September 2015 (item PS08-09/15).

 

The application considered at the Council Meeting held on 21 July 2015 proposed 23 additional car parking bays on the subject site. Council’s resolution for this application was as follows:

 

“That the item be referred back to Council to complete a safety audit on the laneway.”

 

The application considered at the Council Meeting held on 15 September 2015 proposed no additional car parking bays. Council’s resolution for this application was as follows:

 

“REFUSE the development application for the Child Care Centre at Lot 20 (100) Gungurru Avenue, Hocking as the proposal does not provide sufficient car parking to comply with the car parking requirements in Table 2 – Car Parking Requirements of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2.”

 

Attachments 2 and 3 include the plans for the Child Care Centre that were considered by Council at its meetings held on 21 July 2015 and 15 September 2015 respectively.

 

SAT Proceedings

 

Prior to the Council Meeting on 21 July 2015, the applicant submitted an application to the SAT for review of the application on the basis of a deemed refusal. A directions hearing was held on 3 July 2015 where stemming from this, the SAT deferred the matter until the Council Meeting on 21 July 2015 and if the applicant was aggrieved by the decision made by Council at this meeting, they were invited to continue the matter at a mediation session.

 

Further to the Council’s decision of 21 July 2015, the applicant elected to have the matter continue to mediation, which was subsequently held on 19 August 2015. At this mediation, the applicant put forward a new plan for the proposed Child Care Centre which deleted the 23 car parking bays which were originally proposed directly to the east of the Child Care Centre.

 

 

The SAT orders from this mediation set out the following:

 

1.       By 24 August 2015 the applicant must provide to the respondent for consideration an amended plan it would want considered together with supporting explanation of how safety is addressed, how parking is addressed and any alternative conditions that might be considered.

 

2.       Pursuant to Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 15 September 2015 having regard to the further submissions of the applicant.

 

Following Council’s refusal of the proposal on 15 September 2015, the matter was heard at a further directions hearing held on 18 September 2015. At this directions hearing, the applicant put forward a new plan for the proposed Child Care Centre which includes an additional 16 car parking bays directly to the east of the Child Care Centre with vehicular access gained from Nicholas Road.

The SAT orders from this directions hearing set out the following:

 

1.       By 4pm on 18 September 2015 the applicant is to provide to the respondent a scalable set of amended plans incorporating 16 car bays.

 

2.       Pursuant to Section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 13 October 2015 if possible, and if not possible then at its meeting on 10 November 2015.

 

It was not possible for the application to be considered at the Council Meeting held on 13 October 2015 as the agenda was full and there was insufficient time to prepare the report. Therefore the application is presented to the Council Meeting held on 10 November 2015, consistent with SAT order 2 of the directions hearing held on 18 September 2015.

Detail

The details of the proposed development application are as follows: 

 

·        A Child Care Centre fronting Nicholas Road to cater for a maximum of 62 children from zero to five years old and a maximum of 14 staff at any one time;

 

·        An additional 16 car parking bays directly adjacent to the east of the proposed Child Care Centre with access gained from Nicholas Road; and

 

·        The operating hours of the Child Care Centre are to be from 6:30am to 6:30pm, Monday to Friday and not including public holidays.

 

The proposed Child Care Centre is designated as a ‘D’ (discretionary) use within the Commercial zone, as per Table 1 – Zoning Table of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

The site plan and elevation plans for the amended proposal are included as Attachment 4.

Consultation

Under Clause 6.7 of DPS 2, public notification of an application for planning approval involving a ‘D’ use may be undertaken if the City considers it appropriate.

 

In this instance, consultation was not considered necessary as the proposed use of Child Care Centre is considered an appropriate use within the WGSC site and the Commercial zone.

 

Furthermore, Clause 1.2 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3: Child Care Centres (LPP 2.3), encourages Child Care Centres to be located adjacent to uses such as shopping centres, medical centres/consulting rooms, schools, parks and community purpose buildings.

 

It is noted that as part of the original application for the Child Care Centre that was considered by Council its meeting held on 21 July 2015, a submission was received by a member of the community who became aware of the proposed development, although it was not advertised. This submission made objections to the proposal for the following reasons:

 

·        Potential safety and traffic issues in regard to the location of the access points to the proposed car parking areas; and

 

·        The potential safety risks that may be caused in the event of a fire on-site and how this may affect the ease of access and egress to the proposed car parking areas.

 

Issues of safety are further discussed in the Comment section of this report.

Comment

An assessment of the amended proposal has been carried out against the provisions of DPS 2, LPP 2.3, ASP 6 and ASP 42. The proposal generally complies with the relevant provisions, with the exception of the number of car parking bays required to be provided on-site. Discussion on the amended proposal is provided below.

 

Car Parking

 

LPP 2.3 requires Child Care Centres that cater for between 57 and 64 children to provide eight car parking bays, plus one additional bay required for each staff member.

 

The proposed Child Care Centre will cater for a maximum of 62 children with a maximum of 14 staff at any one time. As such, the proposal requires a total of 22 car parking bays to be provided.

 

The proposal provides 16 additional car parking bays, however the proposal would also result in the removal of three on-street car parking bays to cater for the proposed crossover to Nicholas Road. The applicant provided a car parking analysis conducted by Uloth and Associates (dated 22 April 2015) with the original application and has since provided a car parking analysis conducted by Transcore (dated 24 August 2015) to justify the shortfall in car parking bays that would have been created as part of the previous proposal.

 

In accordance with Table 2 – Car Parking Requirements of DPS 2, the total number of car parking bays required to be provided on the WGSC site based on the existing approved uses is 416 car parking bays. With the addition of the proposed Child Care Centre, the total number of car parking bays required on-site will be 438 car parking bays. It is noted that this car parking requirement includes the Stage 4 approval for four commercial tenancies (DA2014/894) in the south east corner of the subject site which proposed an additional 22 car parking bays that have not yet been constructed. 

 

There are currently 248 car parking bays provided on-site plus an additional 36 on-street car parking bays, which creates a total of 284 car parking bays provided for the WGSC site.

 

Including the four commercial tenancies and 22 associated car parking bays which have not yet been constructed, the total number of car parking bays provided for the WGSC site will be 306 car parking bays. With the addition of the subject proposal on-site, the total number of car parking bays provided for the WGSC site will be 319 car parking bays.

 

With the addition of the proposed Child Care Centre, the total shortfall of car parking bays on-site will be 119 car parking bays. It is noted that a car parking shortfall has previously been considered and approved in preceding development applications, however this should not influence the determination of the subject application. Any car parking shortfall over the subject site should be considered on a case by case basis, having regard to the extent of the shortfall and the nature and operational needs of the proposed use.

 

It is Administration’s view that the subject proposal providing 16 car parking bays directly adjoining the eastern side of the Child Care Centre should be supported for the following reasons:

 

1.       As part of the Uloth and Associates car parking analysis that was submitted with the original application, data was modelled from a Child Care Centre in South Lake, Western Australia with a maximum capacity of 72 children. This data showed there to be a peak morning car parking demand of 18 vehicles parked (both patrons and employees) at 8:00am and peak afternoon car parking demand of 14 vehicles parked at 3:30pm, 3:45pm and 4:45pm. Although the data obtained is not specific to the proposed Child Care Centre, it does indicate that the drop-off and pick-up times of children to and from the Child Care Centre will be staggered at different times throughout the day, which will reduce the demand for car parking bays at any one time.  

 

2.       The data modelled for the Child Care Centre in South Lake identified a peak car parking demand of 18 vehicles at 8:00am in the morning. The proposed Child Care Centre will be providing an additional 13 car parking bays (taking into account the removal of the three on-street car parking bays). It is important to highlight a number of differences between the two Child Care Centres which will result in a reduced car parking demand for the proposed Child Care Centre as opposed to the Child Care Centre that the data was modelled off as follows:

 

a.       The data obtained from the South Lake Child Care Centre has a maximum capacity of 72 children as opposed to the proposed Child Care Centre which has a maximum capacity of 62 children. As such, it is assumed that the proposed Child Care Centre will have a lesser car parking demand to that of the South Lake Child Care Centre.

 

b.       The proposed Child Care Centre is located within an existing shopping centre site with a reciprocal car parking agreement. As such, at the peak morning time of 8:00am when car parking demand is expected to be at its highest for the proposed Child Care Centre, over half of the businesses currently operating within the WGSC site will not yet be open for trade. Therefore, it is expected that there will be a sufficient amount of car parking bays on the WGSC site that will be available to cater for any overflow car parking demand generated by the proposed Child Care Centre during the morning peak time.

 

In regard to the car parking demand generated during the afternoon peak times, the data obtained identified that the demand for car parking is reduced in the afternoon in comparison to the morning, with a maximum car parking demand of 14 car parking bays. It is considered that the 16 proposed car parking bays adjacent to the proposed Child Care Centre will be sufficient to cater for the afternoon car parking demand.

 

3.       Given the variety of land uses with different peak parking demands operating on the WGSC site and the potential for multiple purpose trips from patrons, it is anticipated that a degree of reciprocal car parking will occur. This will subsequently reduce the car parking demand for the WGSC site. The car parking requirements identified in LPP 2.3 assume the maximum amount of car parking bays required for a Child Care Centre when it is a stand-alone land use that is in isolation and is operating at full capacity. This requirement does not take into account instances where Child Care Centres are co-located with other land uses with the potential for reciprocal car parking.

 

For these reasons, Administration supports the provision of 13 additional car parking bays and a shortfall of nine car parking bays for the proposed Child Care Centre, however this will further compound the existing car parking shortfall on the WGSC site.

 

Given the incremental and compounding shortfall of car parking bays that has occurred over the WGSC site through the approval of previous applications and the subject application should it be approved, it is recommended that a detailed car parking strategy and plan be prepared for the entire WGSC site to reasonably predict car parking demand that will be generated by the site when operating at full capacity and at full build out. This analysis should be based on both the current and future likely land uses on the subject site and should take into account the extent of reciprocity and peak demands for car parking based on the land use mix, the nature of the land uses and their trading hours and how this will reduce the car parking demand from that required under DPS 2. The applicant has previously submitted car parking analyses for the subject site, however these do not take into account how the level of reciprocity over the subject site will reduce the car parking demand as required under DPS 2, having regard to the peak parking demand of the current and future expected land uses on the site.

 

Safety

 

As noted in the Background section of this report, Council previously considered the application for the Child Care Centre at its Meeting held on 21 July 2015, with the following resolution being made:

 

“That the item be referred back to Council to complete a safety audit on the laneway.”

 

The current proposal for the Child Care Centre has been amended to provide access from Nicholas Road and has deleted access and egress from the service lane located to the rear of the proposed Child Care Centre site. As such, there are no longer any safety issues or risks associated with car parking access and egress gained from the service laneway to the Child Care Centre site. A fence is proposed along the boundary separating the proposed Child Care Centre car parking area and the rear laneway to restrict pedestrian access to and from the service lane to the proposed Child Care Centre. Rather, patrons would need to use the footpath located adjacent to Nicholas Road to go to and from the proposed car parking area to the entry of the proposed Child Care Centre.

 

The applicant has advised that the existing on-street parking bays along Nicholas Road and the existing car parking bays to the west of the proposed Child Care Centre can be utilised for pick-up and drop-off by parents of children attending the proposed Child Care Centre. These car parking bays are not for the exclusive use of patrons of the proposed Child Care Centre, and are available for use by visitors of the residential development located within the area and also by patrons of other tenancies of the WGSC site. As such, these car parking areas may not be available at pick-up and drop-off times of the proposed Child Care Centre and parents may be forced to park elsewhere on the WGSC site or along adjoining streets.

 

This may result in safety risks for parents and their children as they would be required to potentially navigate their way through the WGSC car park and along adjoining streets to the proposed Child Care Centre site. As such, there remains a potential safety risk to patrons of the proposed Child Care Centre.

 

To address this safety risk, it is recommended by Administration that the land comprising the proposed Child Care Centre and associated 16 car parking bays is subdivided and created as one lot separate to the balance of the WGSC site. This will ensure that the proposed car parking bays are available exclusively for the use of patrons of the proposed Child Care Centre which will mean that the number of parents and children who would otherwise need to park in the available on-street bays, or elsewhere on the WGSC site is reduced.

Conclusion

The development application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of DPS 2, LPP 2.3, ASP 6 and ASP 42. The proposal is considered to generally meet these requirements with the exception of the car parking requirements identified in Table 2 – Car Parking Requirements of DPS 2 which require 22 car parking bays to be provided for the proposed Child Care Centre.

 

Based on Administration’s assessment, the proposed 16 car parking bays that will be provided for the Child Care Centre in addition to the existing car parking bays on the WGSC site and the available on-street car parking bays are considered to be sufficient to cater for the expected car parking demand that will be generated by the proposed Child Care Centre. 

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with DPS 2, LPP 2.3, ASP 6 and ASP 42.

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, pursuant to Section 31(2)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 considers the amended plans included as Attachment 4 and RESOLVES to:-

1.       APPROVE the development application for the Child Care Centre at Lot 20 (100) Gungurru Avenue, Hocking as shown in Attachment 4, pursuant to Clause 68 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 and subject to compliance with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Implementation:-

a.       This approval relates only to the proposed Child Care Centre and car park with 16 car parking bays as denoted on the attached site plan (Refer Attachment 1). It does not relate to any other development on the site.

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

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

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

c.       A maximum of 62 children and 14 staff are permitted within the Child Care Centre premises at any one time.

d.      The hours of operation of the Child Care Centre are to be between the hours of 6:30am and 6:30pm on weekdays and shall not operate on weekends or public holidays.

e.       The land comprising the proposed Child Care Centre and associated 16 car parking bays is subdivided and created as one lot separate to the balance of the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre site prior to occupancy of the development (Refer Attachment 1).

f.       The parking areas, driveways and points of ingress and egress shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standard for Offstreet Carparking (AS2890) as amended and the City of Wanneroo Technical Standards, and shall be drained, sealed and marked.

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

h.      Detailed landscaping and reticulation plans, for the subject site shall be lodged for approval by the City prior to commencement of the development to the satisfaction of the Manager, Land Development. Planting and installation of landscaping and reticulation shall be provided in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plans prior to occupancy of the development and thereafter maintained.

i.        An on-site stormwater drainage system, sufficient to contain a 1:100 year storm even (over 24 hours) must be provided. Plans illustrating the system proposed shall be submitted for approval when application is made for a building license and the system shall be installed during the construction of the development.

j.        The applicant shall undertake adequate measures to minimise any impacts of dust and sand drift from the site.

k.       All refuse shall be stored within the designated bin store and shall be collected from the site by a private contractor at the cost of the applicant/owner.

2.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision; 

 

3.   ADVISES the State Administrative Tribunal of its decision; and

 

4.   ADVISES the applicant that Council will not consider further variations to the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 car parking standards which compound the car parking shortfall on the Wyatt Grove Shopping Centre site without a car parking strategy and plan first being prepared in consultation with and submitted and approved by the City which reasonably predicts car parking demand that will be generated by the site when operating at full capacity and at full build out.

5.                     

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan (DA2015-449)	15/443503	Minuted
2.	Attachment 2: Plans Previously Considered by Council - PS07-07/15 - (DA2015/449)	15/443510
3.	Attachment 3: Plans Previously considered by Council - PS08-09-15 - (DA2015/449)	15/443512
4.	Attachment 4 - Proposed Development Plans (DA2015/449)	15/506076	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regulatory Services

File Ref:                                              3601 – 15/514874

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To provide Council with information relating to the proposed changes to the current Building Act 2011.

 

Background

The Building Commission through the Department of Commerce are proposing to make a significant change to the current Building Act 2011. Currently the Act states that a Building Application has to be submitted and approved prior to any work commencing.

 

The Instant Start project proposes that once an application has been submitted work can then start, however this will only be available for a proposal for a single house, as defined by the Residential Design Codes (the R-Codes), and which is the subject of a compliant certified building permit application under the Building Act 2011.

 

A Ministerial Order made under the Building Act and published in the Government Gazette will permit this exemption from the normal requirement to obtain a building permit prior to starting building work.

 

It is envisaged that the Instant Start initiative will be available towards the end of 2015.

 

Administration was made aware of this proposal earlier this year and drafted a letter for the Mayor’s signature. This was submitted to six (6) of our local MLA and four (4) MLC who represent the North Metropolitan Region in May this year expressing our concerns with this project and highlighted a number of issues the City had with this project. The City received two (2) responses indicating that the letter was forwarded to the relevant Ministers.

Detail

The City currently receives and approves around 7,000 Building Applications per year, which is the highest in the state. Our timeframes are one of the lowest in the state as our Building Approvals team turn round Certified and Uncertified applications in 4.5 days which is well within the time frame of 10 working days for Certified and 25 working days for Uncertified.

The initiative involves that once a Certified Application and only a Certified Application has been lodged then the Builder can start work immediately without waiting for the application to be processed. As you can imagine this could have a major impact on our resources, especially in Compliance. If Building Approvals identify an application that fails to meet the Planning requirements (R-Codes) then Compliance would need to follow up on site to ensure that the work failing to comply had not started.

 

Currently the City receives around 3,600 Certified Building Applications per year. Approximately 40% of these have non-compliance issues. This equates to over 1,400 applications that could start without approval and would be subject to requiring an inspection to verify.

 

If the Instant Start project does commence by the end of this year then the City could have a resourcing issue depending on the amount of applications that we receive. The City’s reputation with its customers could be eroded by the impact of receiving a Building Order with a stop work notice as a result of non-compliance due to Planning requirements not being addressed by the Private Certifier. This could be construed as Council taking a hard line with the owner or applicant.

Consultation

The Building Commission are seeking comments from the Local Governments prior to 4 November. WALGA have asked for comments and details especially from the council’s that receive large volumes of applications as they are producing an overall response from all the Local Governments, this will contain examples and details of current and potentially future issues. Administration have made a submission on this matter and this report is proposed to endorse this response.

Comment

There is a significant concern about the impact of this proposal on both the customers and processes of the City.  By enabling the commencement of building works prior to the issue of a licence there is a reasonable possibility a proper assessment of the R-codes will not be undertaken.  This could leave our customers in the situation where they unwittingly have their buildings commenced in a non-compliant manner and from the City’s perspective this could considerably increase compliance responsibilities and issues.  It is considered that the currently proposed arrangements do not allow an adequate safeguard to ensure fully compliant building work prior to commencement.

Statutory Compliance

Not applicable at this time

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

There is no existing Strategic or Corporate Risk within the City’s existing risk registers which relates to the issue contained within this report however if the proposal is implemented there is the potential of increased work load and resourcing would need to be reassessed.

Policy Implications

Not applicable at this time

Financial Implications

These changes have the potential to impact on the City’s compliance responsibilities the implications cannot be quantified at this time.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSE the Administration submission to the Building Commission opposing   the proposed Instant start changes on the basis that;

a)      the proposed changes are likely to have a determinate impact on the City’s building customers in terms of the certainty and compliance on their buildings commenced under this process;

b)      the proposed changes are likely generate a significant increase in compliance responsibilities for Local Government; and

2.       ADVISE the Building Commission that the Council is supportive of reform of the building approval processes but considers that further consultation occur with Local Government as part of this process.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Instant Start - Outline for consultation	15/515382
2.	Letter to Local Members Instant Start Building Approval	15/136212
3.	Instant Start Concerns	15/165550
4.	John Quigley Letter - Instant Start Concerns	15/524301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              23916 – 15/528279

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider advertising of draft Local Planning Policy 4.18: Bulk Earthworks and Sand Drift included as Attachment 1.

 

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on the 31 March, 2015 the Council resolved (MN07-03/15) that:-

“1.     REQUESTS Administration to undertake a review of the Sand Drift Control Policy and SUBMITS a draft revised policy to Council no later than September 2015;

2.       REQUESTS Administration to undertake research into best industry practice when drafting this policy.”

Most of the land being cleared and earth worked for development is in the northern coastal growth corridor. The Coastal corridor comprises the Quindalup Dunes. These dunal formations are usually young, infertile and overlay a strata of older Tamala Limestone. Soils in the Quindalup dunes are free draining and easily eroded by wind. This means that while the coastal strip continues to be developed for subdivision there is a high risk that sand drift and dust will be an on-going issue and needs to be addressed.

 

The Council’s current “Sand Drift Control Policy”, adopted in July 1999, contains limited provisions and is out dated.

Detail

Attached is a copy of a draft Local Planning Policy for the consideration of the Council.

Consultation

In accordance with the provision of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), the Policy will need to be approved for public consultation.

Comment

The attached draft Policy has been prepared to address the potential sand drift and dust nuisance associated with bulk earthworks undertaken as part of the land development process.

 

The Policy is based on the Department of Environmental Regulation – “A guideline for managing the impacts of dust and associated contaminants from land development sites, contaminated sites, remediation and other related activities”.

 

The draft Policy applies to conditional subdivision approvals issued by the WAPC and planning approvals granted by the Council for bulk earthworks to be undertaken before subdivisional approval has been issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

 

Administration is undertaking an audit of all the existing approved subdivisions within the City which require bulk earthworks in order to determine their location, level of risk and the method to be used by the landowner/contractor to manage potential sand drift and dust nuisance caused by the re-contouring, filling and draining of the land. This is being undertaken to quantify the extent of any problems that may arise before the on-set of the 2015/16 summer period.

Statutory Compliance

Currently, the preparation, advertising and adoption of a Local Planning Policy is guided by Clause 8.11 of the DPS 2.  From 19 October 2015, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 take effect and the preparation, advertising and adoption of Local Planning Policies will then be guided by Clauses 3 and 4 of the deemed provisions of the regulations.

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

There is no existing Strategic or Corporate Risk within the City’s existing risk registers which relates to the issue contained within this report.

Policy Implications

There are no implications for other policies of the City.

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council, pursuant to Clauses 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (LPS) Regulations 2015, ADVERTISES Draft Local Planning Policy 4.18:  Bulk Earthworks and Sand Drift Policy as contained in Attachment 1 for public comment for a period of 21 days by way of:

1.       Advertisement in a local newspaper for two (2) consecutive weeks;

2.       Display at the City’s Administration Centre; and

3.       Written notification to relevant stakeholders, (including residents associations) as determined by the Director, Planning and Sustainability.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Bulk Earthworks and Sand Drift Policy

15/531960

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                              23156 – 15/499655

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the establishment of two new Technical Advisory Committees to provide input and advice on the implementation of the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plans.

 

Background

The Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plans (DCPs) were approved by the Minister for Planning on 19 August 2014 and introduced to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) on gazettal of Amendment No. 122 on 9 September 2014.

 

Council subsequently adopted the DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedules for the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs at its meeting on 28 April 2015 (PS07-04/15) following a formal period of landowner consultation.  As part of that decision, it was resolved that Council:

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, Administration has prepared draft Terms of Reference for the Alkimos-Eglinton and the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committees (Committees).  This report outlines the details of the proposed Committees and seeks Council’s consideration of their membership.

Detail

The main objective of these Committees is to provide advice to the City on matters relating to the implementation of the respective DCPs.  Primarily this will involve tracking the progress of the DCPs on a regular basis relative to the assumptions that underpin the calculation of the cost contribution amounts (e.g. actual vs. estimated dwelling creation).

 

This tracking function would then extend to the Committees participating in the annual DCP review process by providing specific advice and input on dwelling/developable area estimates, facility scope and construction cost estimates, and the anticipated timing for the delivery of facilities.

 

In the process of preparing the draft Terms of Reference, it has been necessary to discretely define the purpose and role of these Committees.  In doing so, it is clear that the main purpose of these Committees is to provide technical advice and input into operational matters relating to the DCPs, as outlined above. 

 

Accordingly the draft Terms of Reference have been prepared in the form of a Technical Advisory Committee to reflect the operational and technical focus of these Committees. 

 

The draft Terms of Reference for the Committees are included at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively.

 

It is recommended through the Terms of Reference that the membership of these Committees comprise the following:

 

Alkimos-Eglinton DCP Advisory Committee	Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Advisory Committee
Representatives from the following landowners in the Development Contribution Area: ·    Landcorp (Alkimos) ·    Peet ·    Eglinton Estates ·    Landcorp (Eglinton)	Representatives from the following landowners in the Development Contribution Area: ·    Frasers Property Australia ·    Peet ·    Yanchep Beach Joint Venture ·    Landcorp ·    Primewest ·    Capricorn Village Joint Venture ·    Fini Group ·    Pindan Capital Two Rocks
Landowners’ district level project manager (non-voting member)	A nominee of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Wanneroo (non-voting member)
A nominee of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Wanneroo (non-voting member)

 

Membership for each Committee is proposed from major landowners active in each Development Contribution Area, which is consistent with the attendance at the informal working groups that operated through the preparation of each DCP.  Nominations for landowner representatives would be invited following Council’s endorsement of the Terms of Reference.  Should additional landowners from within the Development Contribution Area wish to attend the Committee’s meetings they would be welcome to attend and participate in discussion but would not have voting rights on any recommendations.  Any major changes to land ownership in the future would require amendment of the relevant Terms of Reference.

 

In determining the membership of these Committees, Administration considers it inappropriate for Elected Members to be included as the Committees will be developing proposals and advising Council in respect of the DCPs.  As this advice will guide decisions by Council, it is imperative that there is no risk for Elected Members:

 

·        in respect of their impartiality;

 

·        to be subjected to undue influence; and/or

 

·        to breach the requirements of the City’s Elected Members Code of Conduct

 

in any decision of Council in relation to the DCP’s.

 

Officers of Administration would attend the Committee’s meetings to provide advice and comments but would not form part of the Committees and would not participate in voting on recommendations.

 

The Committees do not have any delegated power and have no authority to implement their recommendations without approval of Council.  As the Committees will only be dealing with matters relating to the operation and review of the DCPs, any recommendations of the Committees will either be reported to Council Forum for information or to Council as part of the annual review of the DCPs.

 

The annual DCP reviews consider the actual and estimated construction costs of the DCP facilities, land valuations and estimated development rates (both lot yields and developable area) to ensure that they are still as accurate as possible given any further planning work or development that has occurred within the Development Contribution Area over the previous 12 months.  Consideration of the DCP review process for 2015/16 will be first order of business for the Committees once established.

Consultation

Administration met with the Yanchep-Two Rocks landowner group on 20 May 2015 and the Alkimos-Eglinton landowner representative on 21 May 2015 to discuss the purpose of the Committees and to seek their input on their function.  Feedback received from the landowners has been incorporated into the draft Terms of Reference.  Administration provided landowners with the final draft Terms of Reference on 29 October 2015 for their information as well as the opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns at a meeting on 2 November 2015.

Comment

The establishment of the proposed Committees will ensure that landowners have the opportunity to provide input into the implementation of the DCPs and formalises the consultative approach to preparing the DCPs taken by Administration to date.  

The Committees will maintain open and accountable governance around the DCPs that ensures continuity of stakeholder involvement and consultation irrespective of which individual officers or landowner representatives are involved at any one time.

 

They will play an important role in tracking the progress of the DCPs, particularly in relation to the number of new dwellings being created and predictions for future growth over the life of the DCPs.  The expertise within the Committees’ membership will directly inform the annual review of the DCPs and make recommendations to the City for consideration when reporting to Council on matters concerning the DCP such as facility timing, construction cost estimates and the cost contribution amount.

 

The proposed Committees are only a representative group of landowners and as such their operation will not be the only form of consultation undertaken as part of the ongoing operation of the DCPs.  All affected landowners will continue to be engaged as part of the annual review of the DCPs as required by District Planning Scheme No. 2.

Statutory Compliance

The requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 are as follows:

 

"Establishment of committees:

5.8     A local government may establish* committees of 3 or more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees.

* Absolute majority required.”

The term ‘persons’ is defined in the Interpretation Act 1984 as including “…a public body, company, or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporated”.

 

The draft Terms of Reference propose that Committees’ membership to consist of representatives from landowners in the Development Contribution Area, and absolute majority approval of Council is required to appoint the landowners as a member of the respective Committee. 

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

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Development Contribution Schemes	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Manager Planning Implementation	Manage

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate Risk Register.  Action plans are in place to manage these risks to improve the existing management systems.

 

The proposed Committees will play an important role in managing the above risk by ensuring ongoing stakeholder communication and review of the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs.

Policy Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

The costs associated with meetings and administration of this Group will be accommodated from within the City's operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ADOPTS the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee Terms of Reference as detailed in Attachment 1;

 

 

2.       ADOPTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the membership for the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee to be:

 

a)      Representatives of the following major landowners in the Development Contribution Area:

(i)      Landcorp (Western Australian Land Authority) – Alkimos.

(ii)     Peet Limited.

(iii)    Eglinton Estates Pty Ltd.

(iv)    Landcorp (Western Australian Land Authority) – Eglinton;

 

b)      Landowners’ district level project manager (non-voting member); and

 

c)      A nominee of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Wanneroo (non-voting member).

 

3.       ADOPTS the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee Terms of Reference as detailed in Attachment 2; and

 

4.       ADOPTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the membership for the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee to be:

 

a)      Representatives of the following major landowners in the Development Contribution Area:

(i)      Frasers Property Australia.

(ii)     Peet Limited.

(iii)    Yanchep Beach Joint Venture (St Andrews Private Estate Pty Ltd and New Orion Investments Pty Ltd).

(iv)    Landcorp (Western Australian Land Authority).

(v)     Primewest (Yanchep Beach Road) Pty Ltd.

(vi)    Capricorn Village Joint Venture (Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd and Capricorn Investment Group Pty Ltd).

(vii)   Fini Group Pty Ltd.

(viii)  Pindan Pty Ltd; and

 

b)      A nominee of the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Wanneroo (non-voting member).

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Draft Terms of Reference - Alkimos Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Advisory Committee	15/176798
2.	Attachment 2 - Draft Terms of Reference - Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Advisory Committee	15/176805

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              5734 – 15/502885

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

To consider adopting revised land values for the East Wanneroo Cells 1 to 8, in accordance with Clause 10.14.3 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

Background

Part 10 of DPS 2 sets out the developer contribution arrangements for each of the nine (9) East Wanneroo Cells. East Wanneroo Cell 9 land values were recently adopted by Council (October 2015) and therefore do not form part of this report (Cells 1 to 8 only).

 

In accordance with Clause 10.11.1 of the DPS 2, the City is required to review its Cell Costs. Administration’s records indicate that the last adopted rates and values for Cells 1 to 8 occurred on 29 August 2006 (PD11-08/06). An integral part of reviewing the cell costs is to establish revised land values to reflect ‘fair market’ value for compensating affected landowners for cell works (land).

 

In accordance with Clause 10.14.3 of DPS 2, if it is necessary for any reason or any purpose to ascertain the value of any land within a contribution scheme area, then the following process applies;

 

Clause 10.14.3 of DPS 2 (summarised);

 

a)         Appointment of a Valuation panel to arrive at a consensus value (proposed value).

 

b)         Advertise as soon as possible after the proposed value has been ascertained at least once in each a newspaper circulating within the State a newspaper circulating locally (28 days) and a written notification to any owner of land within the relevant cell who, at the time of advertising, has received approval to subdivide land within the Cell but who has not made a contribution to Cell Costs on that subdivision.

 

c)      Refer any submission to the Valuation Panel for comment and having considered the submissions and any comment from the Valuation Panel, the Council shall fix upon the value to be applied under this clause (“the Assessed Value”).

In accordance with the above, Administration appointed a valuation panel and the proposed values were subsequently advertised for a period of 28 days between 8 September 2015 and 6 October 2015.

Detail

In accordance with Clause 10.14.5 of DPS 2, an additional 10% is required to be paid for land acquisitions, excluding community purpose land, historic public open space and compulsory takings. Refer Clause below;

 

 

 

“Where land is acquired in the circumstances contemplated in Clause 10.14.3(e), the Council shall pay to the owner an additional amount not more than 10% of the amount calculated under that clause. This provision does not apply to public open space referred to in Clause 9.5.2(b)”.

 

The additional amount payable (up to 10%) is referred to as ‘solatium’ and has been added to the proposed values as a separate column in the following table. The solatium provides for payment of compensation to the landowner, in lieu of being able to develop that portion of their landholding and is offered above the ‘assessed’ or average value of the particular cell when compulsory taking is not required (i.e. if the ‘land’ is provided voluntarily by the owner as part of subdivision).

 

Approved Land Values and Contribution Rates 29 August 2006  (Report PD11-08/06)			Proposed Land Values (2015) - East Wanneroo  Cells 1 To 8
CELL	DATE	AVERAGE PER Ha	CONSENSUS  VALUE	AVERAGE PER Ha
No.	ADOPTED	LAND VALUE	PER HA	LAND VALUE
	BY COUNCIL	( INCLUDING		( INCLUDING
	ADOPTED	SOLATIUM)		SOLATIUM)
1	29.08.06	$           1,250,000	$      1,875,000	$   2,062,500
2	29.08.06	$           1,125,000	$      1,875,000	$    2,062,500
3	29.08.06	$              350,000	$       1,800,000	$     1,980,000
4	29.08.06	$            1,300,000	$      1,950,000	$    2,145,000
5	29.08.06	$            1,300,000	$     2,000,000	$    2,200,000
6	29.08.06	$            1,450,000	$      2,100,000	$    2,310,000
7	29.08.06	$            1,100,000	$     2,500,000	$    2,750,000
8	29.08.06	$            1,000,000	$     2,050,000	$    2,255,000

 

At the close of advertising on 6 October 2015, one (1) submission was received, objecting to the proposed land valuation in relation to the East Wanneroo Cell 7 Agreed Structure Plan (ASP 9). The landowner objected to the valuation on the basis that the estimate was too low. The following represents the salient issues of the objection, along with a comment by Administration and the City’s valuation panel;

 

1.       You have not provided information on the basis or methodology for calculating the land to be valued at $2.5m per hectare.

 

Refer Point 3.

 

2.       Our Licensed Valuer has advised the land is valued at a significantly higher value than $2.5m per hectare.

 

The proposed value of $2.5 million per hectare was independently established by two qualified valuers (McGees and Zucal), which formed the valuation panel under DPS 2. In accordance with Clause 10.14.3 (c) of DPS 2, Administration referred the objection to the valuation panel for consideration. The advice provided by the valuation panel included the following comments;

 

“Firstly we confirm our valuation date in this matter is October 2014. Our valuation was assessed on a hypothetical, AVERAGE valued lot of notionally 2 Hectares in area located in cell 7. Our adopted valuation was based on englobo sales in Cell 7 which very clearly in our view supported our adopted value of $2,500,000 Ha net of GST. As to Mr Alvarez's email we respond as follows:

 

 

 

·        As at the date of valuation it would be helpful if the Landowners Valuer could provide sales evidence supporting his opinion on value (such evidence being preferably in Cell 7, however evidence in other Cells would be acceptable).

 

·        The basis of our valuation was comparison with englobo sales in Cell 7.

 

The objector was requested to provide additional evidence in relation to their claim, however, no information was provided to support the objection.

 

3.       In order to make an informed view of your proposal please provide the methodology used for calculating the value of the land in Cell 7 for our review.

 

The objector was subsequently provided with a copy of the methodology defined of DPS  2, as per the following;

 

“10.14.4 In ascertaining the Assessed Value under Clause 10.14.3, all land shall be valued in its broad acre form as depicted on 1 January 1989, ignoring any services or infrastructure provided in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Local Structure Plan and applying the following principles:

 

a.       regard is to be had to the land classifications and zonings existing at the date of valuation;

b.       the date of valuation is to be the date on which the Council requests the Valuation Panel to provide the relevant Assessed Value;

c.       ignoring any improvements or works on the land;

d.       ignoring any condition of the land which might require rectification or remediation;

e.       in selecting relevant sales evidence, regard should be had first to values derived from land in the same Cell, and if that is not adequate evidence, from nearby or similar Cells in the East Wanneroo area, in priority to any other sales evidence;

f.        the method of valuation shall otherwise be in accordance with normal fair market valuation principles.”

 

The objector did not provide the City with any further comment in relation to the methodology provided. On this basis and with regard to the valuation panel’s comments, Administration is satisfied that the values being proposed are acceptable and reflect fair market value in accordance with Clause 10.14.3 of DPS 2.

Consultation

In accordance with Clause 10.14.3 of DPS 2, Administration advertised the proposed land values for the cells for a period of 28 days between 8 September 2015 and 6 October 2015. Advertising was carried out by means of advertisements in the West Australian and Wanneroo Times, 144 letters to landowners (those yet to subdivide) and the City of Wanneroo website.

Comment

The adoption of new values for the East Wanneroo Cells will enable the City to satisfy its statutory obligations under DPS No. 2 and ensure the City is compensating landowners at a current ‘fair’ market value.

 

The City for some time has been experiencing difficulties in acquiring land under the current values, which has resulted in the delay of acquisitions from those landowners seeking compensation or has resulted in the compulsory taking of land under the Land Administration Act 1997, requiring a high level of expenditure from both the contribution scheme accounts and landowners associated with legal and professional advice.

 

In addition, the taking process makes it difficult to estimate the final cost of acquisition, which is determined through negotiation, the State Administrative Tribunal or the Supreme Court, which can have significant implications on the cost estimates for a particular cell.

 

It should be noted that acquisition under DPS 2 using the proposed valuations is not guaranteed and compulsory taking may still be required, however, the revised values will provide the City and landowner’s greater opportunity to progress acquisitions.

 

Having considered the submission received and the comments of the valuation panel, no modification is recommended to the proposed valuations.

Statutory Compliance

The revision of land values has occurred in accordance with Part 10 of DPS 2, with particular reference to Clause 10.14.3;

 

“The City shall as soon as possible consider all submissions made on the Proposed Value and may refer any submission to the Valuation panel for comment, but where a submission is accompanied by expert valuation advice based on the valuation principles contained in this Part, it shall be referred by the City to the Valuation Panel for comment. Having considered the submissions and any comment from the Valuation Panel, the Council shall fix upon the value to be applied under this clause (“the Assessed Value”) until the next Assessed Value has been determined.”

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

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Developer Contribution Schemes	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director, Planning and Sustainability	Manage

 

The above risks relating the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

 

In addition, the operational risk register for Planning and Sustainability has identified Developer Contribution Schemes as a risk that is capable of being managed by the Directorate.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The review of the land valuations for the East Wanneroo Cells 1-8 contribution schemes will enable the City to progress with the acquisition of land required for cell works, at a fair market value. In accordance with Clause 10.9.3 of DPS 2, the City may acquire land based on the level of priority determined by the City with consideration for the availability of funds within the cell accounts. 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendation provided in relation to the submission received; and

2.       APPROVES the revised land values for the East Wanneroo Cells 1 to 8, as per the following;

·        Cell 1  - $1,875,000

·        Cell 2  - $1,875,000

·        Cell 3  - $1,800,000

·        Cell 4  - $1,950,000

·        Cell 5  - $2,000,000

·        Cell 6  - $2,100,000

·        Cell 7  - $2,500,000

·        Cell 8  - $2,050,000

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

   

 

Assets

Infrastructure Projects

File Ref:                                              19610 – 15/441647

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider budget variations due to variances between estimated grant funding within the adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Program and actual grant funding agreements received by the City during the financial year.

 

 

Background

The adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Program was formed based on a number of applications submitted for grant funding. Projects were listed on the basis that applications would be successful and receive funding at the applied for value.

 

Subsequent to the approval of the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program, several grant agreements have been formalised. In some instances, the value of grant funding awarded to the City of Wanneroo (the “City”) varies to the estimated value adopted in the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program.

 

A summary of variances between adopted and formalised grant funding has been tabled below for ease of consideration.

 

Grant Description	Adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Program		Formalised 2015/2016 Grant Funding
Roads to Recovery Programme	$	1,514,286	$	3,355,002
Main Roads WA Direct Grant	$	470,000	$	448,600
Main Roads WA Road Rehabilitation	$	446,376	$	109,760

 

Results of applications for grant funding have been provided in the detail section of this report.  Further, impacts of actual grant funding and requested adjustments to municipal fund allocations have been outlined herewith at a project level.

Detail

Roads to Recovery Programme and Direct Grant Allocation

An increase to the Roads to Recovery (“R2R”) 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 funding allocations was announced by the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development on 23 June 2015. The City has received an increased allocation of $3,355,002 in year two (2015/16) of the five year programme that can be allocated to road projects in the 2015/2016 financial year.

 

Additionally, the City received a lower than estimated allocation from Main Roads Direct Grant in 2015/2016.

Each year the Direct Grant is entirely allocated to the City’s annual roads resurfacing program. It is proposed that the $21,400 decrease in Direct Grant is offset against the $1,840,716 increase in R2R funding by adjustment to the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program.

 

Additionally, as the City’s resources are already committed to deliver the projects approved in the adopted 2015/16 budget, no further new projects are proposed to be added to the Capital Works Program. This will allow for  $1,819,316 of the net grant funding available to be reallocated to the projects already approved in 2015/2016 Capital Works Program and  reallocate the available municipal funding to ‘coastal management reserve’ as detailed later in the report.

 

It is noted that in the adopted 2014/2015 Capital Works Program, a project for the construction of an access road to the Yanchep Active Open Space was approved for $850,000 in municipal funding. Due to re-scheduling of the project to 2015/2016, the budget was reduced at the mid-year budget review to $50,000 for 2014/2015, anticipating $800,000 to be adopted in the 2015/2016 budget. However, the delivery of this project was subject to the finalisation of the Developer Contribution Plan, which occurred in June 2015 after the adoption of the 2015/16 Budget. The required $800,000 was not requested in the 2015/2016 budget papers. Therefore, it is proposed that the budget for PR-2547 is increased by $799,768 in the 2015/2016 Capital Work Program, where $700,000 is recommended to be funded through the increased R2R funding available to the City.

 

The table below summarises the projects that received R2R and Direct Grant funding in 2015/16 Capital Works Program, the projects suggested to receive R2R and Direct Grant funding and the proposed amendments:

 

Project Number	Project Description	Adopted 2015/2016				Suggested 2015/2016				Proposed Adjustments
		MUNI	GRNT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL
PR-2978	Anchorage Drive, Mindarie	100,000	200,000	-	300,000	100,000	200,000	-	300,000	-	-	-	-
PR-2981	Kingsway Road, Darch	50,000	300,000	-	350,000	50,000	300,000	-	350,000	-	-	-	-
PR-4012	Wesco Road, Nowergup	285,714	714,286	-	1,000,000	285,714	714,286	-	1,000,000	-	-	-	-
PR-2549	Marmion Avenue, Lagoon Drive/Peony Boulevard, Yanchep	210,000	300,000	635,000	1,145,000	210,000	300,000	635,000	1,145,000	-	-	-	-
PR-2547	Access Road to Yanchep Active Open Space	-	-	39,232	39,232	99,768	700,000	39,232	839,000	99,768	700,000	-	799,768
PR-1087	Road Resurfacing Program (R2R Allocation)	1,998,000	-	-	1,998,000	878,684	1,140,716	-	2,019,400	(1,119,316)	1,140,716	-	21,400
PR-1087	Road Resurfacing Program (Direct Grant Allocation)	-	470,000	-	470,000	-	448,600	-	448,600	-	(21,400)	-	(21,400)
TOTAL		2,643,714	1,984,286	674,232	5,302,232	1,624,166	3,803,602	674,232	6,102,000	(1,019,548)**	1,819,316	-	799,768

 

Key: MUNI = Municipal Fund, GRNT = Grant Funded; CFWD = Reserve – Carry Forward – Capital Project

**Municipal funding to be reallocated to a Coastal Management Reserve.

 

The R2R program requires a listing of a works schedule to be provided to identify the projects that are funded by the R2R funding. The table below illustrates a list of roads included for resurfacing in the annual road resurfacing program (under PR-1087) that will receive this allocated grant funding.

Road Description	Estimated Resurfacing Cost		Proposed Roads to Recovery Allocation
Bendix Way, Girrawheen	$	171,142	$	140,000
Burnham Way, Girrawheen	$	233,701	$	200,000
Colne Way, Girrawheen	$	166,853	$	150,000
Pelham Way, Girrawheen	$	151,333	$	130,000
Rochford Way, Girrawheen	$	158,138	$	130,000
Salcott Road, Girrawheen	$	228,776	$	190,000
Ipswich Crescent, Girrawheen	$	235,027	$	179,316
TOTAL	$	1,344,970	$	1,119,316

 

Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Intersection and Main Roads WA Road Rehabilitation Program

 

In 2011/2012 the City agreed to partially fund a project delivered by the City of Swan for traffic signal installation at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent in Ballajura for $50,000. These funds were included in the City’s 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget. The project experienced delays in completion due to several factors and completion only occurred in 2015/2016. This project received National Black Spot Program funding ($330,000) in 2014/2015 and initially was removed from the City’s Capital Works Program as no municipal funding was anticipated to be required. Accordingly, the City did not retain this contribution on the adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget.

Late in May 2015, when the City 2015/2016 draft budget was finalised prior to adoption, the City of Swan advised that a review of the cost of this project had been completed, which has resulted in the project cost to be $551,531. The City of Swan has now requested a contribution totalling $110,000 from the City of Wanneroo in 2015/2016 to facilitate the finalisation of this project. Recent communication from the City of Swan has indicated that the cost escalation is due to significant expenses in relation to the adjustment of Telstra infrastructure which were not included in the original cost estimate. In order to fully understand the overall increase in the project costs, it is proposed to liaise with the City of Swan and undertake a review of the variances from the original project cost and report back to Council on the outcome.

It is proposed that the City allocates $110,000 in municipal funding for this project in the Capital Works Program, but at this stage makes a payment of $55,000 as its previously agreed contribution to the City of Swan with the further balance payment subject to the consideration of a separate report by Council on the review of the project cost variances and the benefit-cost-ratios.  

Three applications for Road Rehabilitation grant funding were submitted to Main Roads by the City for the 2015/2016 financial year. Two of these applications were not successful, being:

 

·        PR-3070 Buckingham Drive, Wangara – Roads Rehabilitation: Hartman Drive to Dobbin Street; and

·        PR-3071 Hartman Drive, Wangara – Roads Rehabilitation: Ocean Reef Road to Luisini Road (northbound lanes).

 

It is proposed that these projects are withdrawn from the 2015/2016 Program and re-submitted for Main Roads Road Rehabilitation funding in future financial years. Further, that some of the municipal funding adopted for these projects be re-allocated to the annual roads resurfacing program (PR-1087) and $110,000 be allocated to contribute to the installation of traffic signals at Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent by the City of Swan as summarised below:

Project Number	Project Description	Adopted 2015/2016				Suggested 2015/2016				Proposed Adjustments
		MUNI	GRNT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL
PR-3070	Buckingham Drive, Wangara	55,260	99,740	-	155,000	-	-	-	-	(55,260)	(99,740)	-	(155,000)
PR-3071	Hartman Drive, Wangara	123,124	236,876	-	360,000	-	-	-	-	(123,124)	(236,876)	-	(360,000)
PR-2474	Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent – Contribution for the installation of traffic signals	-	-	-	-	110,000	-	-	110,000	110,000	-	-	110,000
PR-1087	Road Resurfacing Program*	-	-	-	-	68,384	-	-	68,384	68,384	-	-	68,384
TOTAL		178,384	336,616	-	515,000	178,384	-	-	178,384	-	(336,616)	-	(336,616)

Key: MUNI = Municipal Fund, GRNT = Grant Funded; CFWD = Reserve – Carry Forward – Capital Project

*Road resurfacing program figures exclude amounts previously addressed in the previous R2R and Direct Grant details

 

Main Roads WA State Black Spot

Four projects were listed to receive State Black Spot funding in the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program. Of these four projects, Main Roads WA (“MRWA”) has advised that three projects have successfully received funding under the program. The fourth project, PR-3074 Old Yanchep Road (Trandos Rd to Wattle Ave), has been listed as a Reserve Project in the 2015/2016 State Black Spot program.

 

At this time, Administration is not requesting a change in budgeted funding sources for this project and is awaiting a further advice from MRWA regarding the potential for this Reserve Project to receive State Black Spot funding in 2015/2016.

 

Consultation

 

Nil

 

Comment

 

Given that the City has a number of projects approved in the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program, it is appropriate to not include any further projects, therefore Administration requests these budget variations in order to:

 

·        Enable scheduled projects to be completed;

·        Allocate additional grant funding that was not anticipated at the time of budget adoption;

·        Reconcile actual grant funding agreements with estimated funding; and

·        Fulfil the commitment to fund the installation of traffic signals at Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent.

Statutory Compliance

This budget variation request is in compliance with Local Government Act 1995, Part 6 - Financial Management and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Part 2 – General Financial Management.

 

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

A summary of financial implications has been provided below.

Description	Adopted 2015/2016				Suggested 2015/2016				Proposed Adjustments
	MUNI	GRNT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL	MUNI	GRANT	CFWD	TOTAL
Roads to Recovery funded projects	2,643,714	1,514,286	674,232	4,832,232	1,624,166	3,355,002	674,232	5,653,400	(1,019,548)	1,840,716	-	821,168
Road Resurfacing funded by Direct Grant	-	470,000	-	470,000	-	448,600	-	448,600	-	(21,400)	-	(21,400)
Main Roads Road Rehabilitation funded projects	178,384	336,616	-	515,000	-	-	-	-	(178,384)	(336,616)	-	(515,000)
Road Resurfacing funded by Road Rehabilitation reallocation	-	-	-	-	68,384	-	-	68,384	68,384	-	-	68,384
Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent – Contribution for the installation of traffic signals funded by Road Rehabilitation reallocation	-	-	-	-	110,000	-	-	110,000	110,000	-	-	110,000
Coastal Management Reserve allocation of municipal fund	-	-	-	-	1,019,548	-	-	1,019,548	1,019,548	-		1,019,548
TOTAL	2,822,098	2,320,902	674,232	5,817,232	2,822,098	3,803,602	674,232	6,280,384	-	1,482,700	-	1,482,700

 

The net financial implication is nil impact to municipal funding and an increase in grant funding totalling $1,482,700.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a budget amendment to reflect receipt of an additional funds from the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure for the Roads to Recovery Programme against the City’s annual roads resurfacing program and Yanchep Open Space Access Road, as follows:

 

FUNDING SOURCE

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Road Resurfacing Program Roads to Recovery increase funding allocation	PR-1087	$0	$1,140,716
Road Resurfacing Program Municipal Funding decreased requirement due to change in grant funding	PR-1087	$1,998,000	$878,684
Road Resurfacing Program State Grants Account decrease funding allocation	PR-1087	$470,000	$448,600
Yanchep Active Open Space Roads to Recovery increase funding allocation	PR-2547	$0	$700,000
Yanchep Active Open Space Municipal Funding increased requirement due to change in grant funding	PR-2547	$0	$99,768

EXPENDITURE

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Yanchep Active Open Space increase in budgeted expenditure	PR-2547	$39,232	$839,000

2.       APPROVES a budget amendment to reflect removal of two Road Rehabilitation projects from 2015/16 Capital Works Program and reallocation of the available municipal funding, as follows:

FUNDING SOURCE

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Buckingham Drive, Wangara  State Grants Account decrease funding allocation	PR-3070	$236,876	$0
Buckingham Drive, Wangara Municipal Funding decrease due to change in grant funding	PR-3070	$55,260	$0
Hartman Drive, Wangara State Grants Account decrease funding allocation	PR-3071	$99,740	$0
Hartman Drive, Wangara Municipal Funding decrease due to change in grant funding	PR-3071	$123,124	$0
Road Resurfacing Program Municipal Funding Increase funding allocation	PR-1087	$1,998,000	$2,066,384
Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Municipal Funding increase funding allocation	PR-2474	$0	$110,000

EXPENDITURE

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Buckingham Drive, Wangara decrease in budgeted  expenditure	PR-3070	$155,000	$0
Hartman Drive, Wangara decrease in budgeted  expenditure	PR-3071	$360,000	$0
Road Resurfacing Program increase in budgeted  expenditure	PR-1087	$2,468,000	$2,536,384

 

3.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure listed in the following table, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 for contribution towards the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent in Ballajura, as follows:

EXPENDITURE

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Traffic Signals	PR-2474	$0	$110,000

 

4.       NOTES that at this stage, a payment of $55,000 will be made to the City of Swan as contribution towards traffic signal installation at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent in Ballajura with the further payment subject to the consideration of a separate report by Council on the review of the project cost variances and the benefit-cost-ratios; and

5.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 to allocate surplus budgeted municipal funding of $1,019,548 to the newly created ‘Coastal Management Reserve’.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                              23224 – 15/515602

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the Warradale Park Nature Play project.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting on 3 March 2015, considered Item No MN 05-03/15 and resolved to:

 

1.       SUPPORTS the development of a suitable structure in the vicinity of Warradale Park Landsdale in commemoration of Sam Trott;

 

2.       LISTS for consideration in the draft 2015/16 budget an amount of $150,000 to recognise the role being undertaken by the City;

 

3.       APPROVES the establishment of the Landsdale Memorial Working Group in accordance with the Terms of Reference as detailed in Attachment 1; and

 

4.       APPOINTS the following members to the Working Group:

Members of the Trott Family;

Mayor Roberts;

Cr Treby; and

Chief Executive Officer.

 

To best honour Sam, the working group was given a project objective of providing a nature based playground at Warradale Park, ensuring that it will be a fun, vibrant, happy, secure and a stimulating environment. 

 Detail

Three locations were considered for the location of the park, refer Attachment 1. 

 

Location 1, although the most favourable due to its proximity to existing amenities, was deemed unsuitable due to its proximity to a significant Aboriginal Heritage site as discussed with South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council (SWALSC).

 

Location 2 was selected as it provides an open space for installation of the playground, it has good stands of existing trees that offer shaded play areas in the summer months, and is close to the footpath network and existing sports field. The only disadvantage of this site is some low lying areas to the east and south that form part of an existing drainage swale and may be prone to waterlogging in the winter months. The playground design will be reviewed to minimise any potential issues with extending into the existing drainage swales.

 

Location 3 has a clear open space with some existing trees for shade, however the play potential is not as high in this location as the trees are all a similar size and in a line. The site is also very close to the lake and quite tight in regards to space; the playground would need to be more lineal.

 

A concept design was subsequently prepared and agreed on by the Working Group, refer Attachment 2.

 

The current design potentially exceeds the available budget of $150,000, with the current estimate being in the order of $280,000.

Consultation

The community will be consulted on the agreed concept plan and preferred location. 

 

Due to the sensitive nature of the project, additional consideration will be given to the Trott family with regards to any potential memorial requirements.

Comment

Administration’s preferred site is Location 2 as it provides suitable open space for installation of the playground elements and the existing stand of trees offer excellent opportunities for shaded play areas in the summer months. Location 2 also provides good connectivity with the existing footpath network and sports field.

After discussions with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA), indications are that Location 2 is outside of Aboriginal Heritage Site DAA 16804 and no Section 18 approval is required. Section 18 states that:

Where land users conclude that impact to a Site is unavoidable, the consent of the Minister may be sought under section 18 of the Act to impact the Site by giving notice to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee accompanied by the information as to the intended use of the land and Sites on the land.

The Working Group has agreed in principle with the concept design, however the exact location will be the subject to the meeting with SWALSC scheduled on 25 November 2015.

 

The creation of the nature playground will provide an enduring legacy for the community and meet Council’s objective. In order to progress this project within the current financial year, it is proposed that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to:

·        approve any further design amendments in consultation with the Trott family;

·        to consult with the community;

·        call and award the tender for construction; and

·        approve additional expenditure from the Strategic Projects Reserve.

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.”

 

Policy Implications

The City’s Accounting Policy Section 2(c) states:

 

“Circumstances:

…Where the budget allocation for … or a capital works 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.”  

Financial Implications

An allocation of $150,000 is currently listed in PR-3062 in the approved 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget, however tender estimates indicate that the proposed park will cost in the vicinity of $280,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES Location 2 for the nature play park as shown on Attachment 1;

 

2.       ENDORSES the concept design for the nature playground as shown in Attachment 2;

 

3.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the increase to the budget by $130,000 as pursuant to Section 6.8 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, with funds to be sourced via the Mid-Year Budget Review and DELEGATES the Chief Executive Officer to:-

·        approve any further design amendments in consultation with the Trott family;

·        consult with the community; and

·        call and award tenders.

4.                     

 

Attachments:

1.	warradale park - location plan	15/534914
2.	concept plan	15/524702	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenders

File Ref:                                              22529 – 15/477151

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01540 for the Construction of Fisherman’s Hollow Toilet and Change Block and associated civil works.

Background

The existing Fisherman’s Hollow toilet block is located on Lot 506 Brazier Road and Lot 510 Wilkie Avenue, Yanchep, refer Attachment 1 for location plan. The existing facility has served the community for over 43 years and has reached the end of its serviceable life with potential safety and accessibility issues. Accordingly, a project to replace the existing building was included in the Capital Works Program.

 

Following Council’s endorsement of the project budget (PR-2459) in the Capital Works Budget 2014/2015, design consulting firm Lycopodium was engaged to prepare detailed design, technical specifications and tender documentations for public construction tender.

 

The scope of work included demolition of the existing toilet block; design and construction of a new building; removal and upgrade of the sewer system, modifications to stormwater drainage and associated landscape treatment.

Detail

Tender No. 01540 for the Construction of Fisherman’s Hollow Toilet and Change Block and associated civil works, was advertised on Saturday 11 July 2015 and closed on Tuesday 01 September 2015.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

Contract Terms	Detail
Contract Type	Fixed Lump Sum Price
Commencement Date	15 November 2015
Contract Duration	28 weeks from possession of site
Extension Permitted	No
Rise and Fall	No

 

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

·        Austpeak Constructions (Austpeak);

·        Quality Group Services Pty Ltd t/a Cercon Building (Cercon);

·        Vital Building Company (Vital);

·        Safeway Contracting Pty Ltd (Safeway);

·        Programmed Group (Programmed);

·        Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd (Devlyn);

·        CPD Group Pty Ltd (CPD);

·        Classic Contractors Pty Ltd (Classic); and

·        ACorp Constructions Pty Ltd. (ACorp).

 

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

 

 

Price for the services offered (40%)

Tenderers provided lump sum prices for the scope of works. The prices received range from $552,176.64 to $684,239.00.

 

The approved 2015/2016 Capital Works program includes $452,000 for the construction of this project, Project No PR-2459.

The prices received represent between 22% and 51% over the allocated budget.

 

Organisational Experience in similar works (15%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' experience in undertaking work of a similar nature.

 

Three tenderers demonstrated very good compliance to the requirements. The remaining six provided responses that ranged from poor to acceptable levels of understanding of this criterion.

 

Tenderer’s Key Personnel Experience in similar works (15%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' nominated personnel allocated for this project and their relevant experience in undertaking works of a similar nature.

 

All tenderers, other than one, nominated their key personnel for consideration. While the level of capability of tenderers under this criterion varies widely, three tenderers provided responses that the panel were satisfied that met the requirements.

 

Tenderer’s Understanding of the Tender and Methodology (15%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers’ understanding of the project works and the tenderers’ proposed methodology to utilise the resources to deliver the works.

 

One tenderer did not provide any information for assessment. The remaining eight tenderers provided information ranging from method statements, Gantt charts to construction trade breakdowns to describe their understanding of the construction requirements and ways to achieve the intended results.

 

Tenderer’s Occupational Health and Safety Management (15%)

The assessment was based on the tenderers’ submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) documentation and in response to the OHS Management System Questionnaire.

All nine tenderers completed OSH questionnaire as the basic requirement. Six tenderers included details of their company OSH policies substantiated with sample proformas on crucial aspects such as incident reporting and safety inspections. Six of the nine submissions sufficiently demonstrated compliance to this criterion and reflected the high level of attention to OSH within the construction industry. 

Consultation

The City engaged Lycopodium as a consultant to design a new toilet/change block incorporating feedback from the City’s Community Development Directorate.

 

Lycopodium’s approved design formed the basis for the documentation requirements within Tender 01540.

 

No other community consultation was considered necessary for this project.

Comment

Given that all tender prices significantly exceed the available budget, it is recommended that Council declines all tenders and Administration review the scope of works, the construction estimate and then re-tender with a revised scope which may be based on the construction of a Modular Universal Access Toilet Block similar to the one shown in Attachment 2. In order to ensure that this project is delivered within the 2015/16 financial year, it is proposed that Administration will develop a new concept design and after consultation with the North Coast Ward Elected Members will commence the tender process.

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.

 

The following are project related approvals:

 

·        Development Approval has been confirmed to be exempted after consultation with the City's Planning and Sustainability Directorate.

 

·        Building Permit will be required to be obtained by the appointed contractor prior to commencement of construction.

 

·        Occupancy Permit will be required to be obtained by the contractor awarded the tender prior to Practical Completion.

 

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.”

Sustainability Implications

Nil

Risk Management Considerations

By not accepting this tender, the project delivery may be delayed and will be managed through a revised project scope and associated schedule within the current financial year.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Tender prices received exceed the $452,000 available budget. The tender prices also exclude several potential contingency items that have the potential to significantly influence the overall cost.

 

Any further financial implications will be addressed as part of the review of the scope of works and consideration of the re-tendering of works.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DECLINES all tenders for Tender No 01540 for the Construction of Fisherman’s Hollow Toilet and Change Block and associated civil works;

2.       AUTHORISES Administration to notify all tenderers of Council’s decision; 

3.       NOTES that Administration will review the scope of works, construction estimate, funding allocation and re-tender for the construction of the revised scope for the Fisherman’s Hollow Toilet and Change Block and;

4.       DELEGATES authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award or decline any tender resulting from the revised public tender process subject to meeting budgetary considerations.

 

Attachments:

1.	Fishermans Hollow Toilet Change Block Proposed Site Plan	15/478612
2.	typical example of modular universal access	15/523580

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              23424 – 15/510235

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01548 for the Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Jindalee and Banksia Grove for a period of 24 months commencing 24 November 2015 to 23 November 2017 with two 12 month options to extend at the City’s discretion.

 

Background

Park and streetscape maintenance services throughout Jindalee and Banksia Grove have previously been undertaken by the estate developers. These sites have now been handed over to the City to maintain. It is proposed to engage external contractors to provide maintenance services for these newly handed over areas.

Detail

Tender No. 01548 for the Provision of Streetscape Maintenance in Jindalee and Banksia Grove was advertised on 29 August 2015 and closed on 15 September 2015.

Essential details of the proposed contract are outlined below;

Contract Type	Fixed annual lump sum price and schedule of rates (unscheduled work, mulching, planting)
Contract Duration	24 months
Commencement Date	24 November 2015
Expiry Date	23 November 2017
Extension Permitted	Up to 24 months (2 x 12 month options)
Rise and Fall	Perth All Groups CPI increase upon extensions

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors

·        ADD Business Group;

·        Skyline Landscape Services(WA) Pty Ltd;

·        Interwork Incorporated;

·        Environmental Industries Pty Ltd;

·        Sanpoint Pty Ltd;

·        ELM (WA) Pty Ltd; and

·        Total Eden Pty Ltd.

The Tender Evaluation Team, comprising of the City’s Coordinator Parks Maintenance North, Coordinator Parks Maintenance South, Principal Technical Advisor, along with oversight and guidance from the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

 

Selection Criteria	Weighting
Price for the services offered	40%
Demonstrated relevant experience	20%
Demonstrated understanding of methodology	20%
Demonstrated compliance with OH&S requirements (safety management)	20%

 

Price for the services offered (40%)

This evaluation was based on the fixed annual lump sum prices submitted by the tenderers in the price schedule and has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer	Lump Sum Price for 24 months	Rank
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	$323,100.73	1
Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd	$360,642.03	2
Total Eden Pty Ltd	$422,773.82	3
Sanpoint Pty Ltd	$428,140.58	4
ELM (WA) Pty Ltd	$525,572.00	5
Interwork Incorporated	$595,339.66	6
ADD Business Group	$876,366.56	7

 

Demonstrated Relevant Experience (20%)

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

Both Sanpoint Pty Ltd and ELM (WA) Pty Ltd demonstrated extensive experience associated with parks and streetscapes maintenance, including relevant examples of similar local government services.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd also demonstrated extensive experience in parks and streetscape maintenance with relevant local government examples, however recent performance issues over the delivery of services to the City under Contract 01447 – Provisions of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale affected their overall rating for this evaluation criterion

Both Total Eden Pty Ltd and Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd demonstrated some experience associated with parks and streetscape maintenance within local government.

Interwork Incorporated demonstrated minimal experience associated with parks and streetscape maintenance works.

ADD Business Group did not provide details of relevant experience in parks and streetscape maintenance.

 

 

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Sanpoint Pty Ltd	1
ELM (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Total Eden Pty Ltd	3
Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	5
Interwork Incorporated	5
ADD Business Group	7

 

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

The evaluation of this criterion considered the tenderers’ staff, resources, plant and equipment, and a sound methodology to deliver the services required by the City.

Sanpoint Pty Ltd and Total Eden Pty Ltd demonstrated having significant resources, a sound methodology and provided detailed staff information. Both tenderers also provided a detailed list of plant and equipment.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd, ELM (WA) Pty Ltd and Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd provided adequate information on their methodology, limited information on staff and detailed lists of available plant and equipment.

Interwork Incorporated provided documentation on their availability of resources and capacity; however their methodology on staffing levels was deemed inadequate to service this contract.

ADD Business Group provided a maintenance plan and equipment list, but limited information on the required methodology to service the contract.

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Sanpoint Pty Ltd	1
Total Eden Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	3
ELM (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Interwork Incorporated	6
ADD Business Group	6

 

OH&S Quality and Risk (Safety Management) (20%):

The evaluation of 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. Evidence of completed examples of incident reports, near misses and hazard inspections were asked to be provided.

 

 

All tenderers adequately answered the questionnaire, however Sanpoint Pty Ltd provided a detailed submission which included comprehensive policy and procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd, Total Eden Pty Ltd, Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd and ELM (WA) Pty Ltd all provided detailed submissions; however, each had minor omissions such as few or no actual working documents.

ADD Business Groups submission was limited in information and did not contain any live documents. Interwork Incorporated’s submission was provided in a draft form and contained no actual working documents.

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Sanpoint Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	2
Total Eden Pty Ltd	2
Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd	2
ELM (WA) Pty Ltd	2
ADD Business Group	6
Interwork Incorporated	7

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderers’ submissions were evaluated in accordance with the weighted selection, resulting in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer	Ranking
Sanpoint Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	2
Skyline Landscape Services (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Total Eden Pty Ltd	4
ELM (WA) Pty Ltd	5
Interwork Incorporated	6
ADD Business Group	7

 

Sanpoint Pty Ltd was assessed as having the necessary experience, resources, capacity and safety management systems to fulfil the requirements of the contract.

The key characteristics of Sanpoint Pty Ltd’s tender are:

·        Relevant experience with similar park and streetscape maintenance operations including being a current service provider with the City; and

·        Qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully.

Consultation

Nil

 

Comment

The evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Panel resulted in the tender submission from Sanpoint Pty Ltd achieving the highest score in accordance with the selection criteria and weighting.

Sanpoint Pty Ltd currently performs similar works for the City through Contract No. 01340 – Provision of Streetscape Maintenance Central and South to a satisfactory standard.

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

Risk

The condition of the City’s parks and streetscapes can deteriorate quickly if not maintained to an acceptable level. The inability of a contractor to supply these services will have several impacts, those being the degradation of the City’s assets as well as the City not providing the required standard of service to its residents. It is imperative that the successful tenderer has the required experience, staff, equipment and financial capacity to meet the contract requirements.

Financial Risk

An independent financial assessment of Sanpoint Pty Ltd was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd as part of the tender evaluation process. Corporate Scorecard has advised that Sanpoint Pty Ltd has the capacity to meets its current commitments and that the proposed contract is well within the appropriate capacity and risk based thresholds.

Sustainability Implications

Nil

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The costs associated with the Provision of Parks and Streetscape Maintenance in Jindalee and Banksia Grove are included in the annual Parks Maintenance Operational Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Sanpoint Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01548 for the Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Jindalee and Banksia Grove for a period of 24 months from 24 November 2015 to 23 November 2017, at a fixed lump sum price of $428,140.58, and schedule of rates for unscheduled work, with an option to extend the contract for a further two 12 month periods with CPI increases applied at each extension of the contract.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Traffic Management

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 15/474722

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the results of community consultation for the proposed implementation of Traffic Management Scheme along Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 22 July 2014, considered a Motion on Notice (MN02-07/14 refers) requesting consideration for Traffic Calming Devices along the section of Templeton Crescent between Hudson Avenue and Marangaroo Drive, Girrawheen and resolved as follows:

“1.     REQUESTS Administration to prepare a traffic management plan for Templeton Crescent between Hudson Avenue and Marangaroo Drive and report to Council within the next six months for endorsement and funding considerations as part of the mid-year budget review;

2.       REQUESTS Administration to write to WA Police seeking enforcement of hooning and speeding behaviour in Templeton Crescent.”

In response to resolution item No. 1, Council at its meeting of 23 June 2015 considered a report (IN04-06/15 refers) regarding the recommended traffic management scheme as prepared by Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd. and resolved as follows:

          “1.     ACCEPTS the Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) report for Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen prepared in March 2015 by Cardno (WA) P/L (Attachment 7 refers);

          2.       ENDORSES the LATM Scheme for Templeton Crescent presented by Cardno, as shown in Attachment 6, for further development by the City in finalising the plan

          3.       NOTES that Cardno’s final LATM Scheme, as shown in Attachment 6, is based on a combination of LATM Options presented as part of the Community Consultation process;

          4.       NOTES that Administration will prepare and develop a final detailed concept plan for the Templeton Crescent LATM scheme and undertake further community consultation with the residents along Templeton Crescent;

          5.       NOTES that a report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation process; and

          6.       ADVISES the residents along Templeton Crescent, within the study area, of Council’s decision.”

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map showing the location of Templeton Crescent.

 

Detail

In accordance with Resolution 4 of IN04-06/15, Administration prepared a detailed concept plan based on the final recommended LATM scheme as proposed by Cardno (Attachment 2 refers). A simplified version of the proposed scheme was also prepared and sent to residents along Templeton Crescent for consultation (Attachment 3 refers) along with an “invitation to comment” (refer Attachment 4) and questionnaire (refer Attachment 5).

Consultation

There were 149 letters sent out in August 2015 to the owners and occupiers of 76 properties abutting Templeton Crescent.  A three week community consultation period allowed residents the opportunity to respond to the City by either completing an online survey link or by returning a hard copy questionnaire by reply paid envelope.

 

The City received responses from 16 of the 76 properties surveyed (21% response rate). From the 16 respondents 13 were in favour (81%, ‘Yes’) and three opposed (19%, ‘No’). The three residents who opposed the speed cushions had the following concerns; speed cushions being a hazard or creating too much noise.

 

From the responses received, four responses were received from residents who supported the TMS but opposed having the speed cushions adjacent to their properties. Of these four, one property was in the immediate vicinity of the set of speed cushions located approximately 40m south of the Hudson Avenue intersection. Of the remaining three properties, two were located adjacent to a set of speed cushions proposed to be installed 70m west of the Blackmore Avenue intersection. The other response was from a business owner from the Girrawheen Shopping Precinct. The road section adjacent to the business does not have a speed cushions set proposed in or nearby. As such, the request to not have a speed cushion set located adjacent to this business is noted.

 

A summary of comments provided by residents together with Administration’s response is provided in the table below.

 

Comment	Number of Respondents who raised the issue	Administrations Response
Why haven’t 50km/h speed signs been installed on Templeton Crescent in the past?	1	Main Roads WA (MRWA) is the only State authority that installs regulatory signage and has long held policy not to install 50km/h speed signage where the default built-up area speed limit applies.  Templeton Crescent meets the definition of a built-up area and therefore the default speed limit applies.
Concerns regarding the noise generated by Speed cushions.	2	Noise generated by vehicles traversing speed cushions is expected, however, the overall benefit of having a safer more speed compliant road environment is considered more beneficial overall. Proposed speed cushions have been placed at the recommended spacing in accordance with Main Roads WA guidelines and should alleviate issues relating to through vehicle speeds and should reduce the amount of rat running occurring on a daily basis.   Additionally, speed cushion was the most wanted treatment on Templeton Crescent as identified in the Cardno report.
Concerns regarding safety issues and visibility of speed cushions at night.	1	Speed cushions are required to be illuminated in accordance with Australian Standard, AS 1158 which requires that the travel lane for a 3m section on approach is illuminated to 3.5lux. As such, all proposed speed cushions sets are required to have street lighting upgraded to meet this standard.
Concerns about motorists utilising the McDonalds carpark as an alternative route to avoid speed cushions on Templeton Crescent.	1	A desktop review of the attractiveness of this movement has indicated that with consideration of the effort required to undertake the manoeuvre through the carpark in comparison to the inconvenience of traversing the speed cushions, there is no discernible advantage to motorists and is therefore considered not to be an attractive alternative.

Comment

While the response rate is low, the level of support from the respondents is high for the proposed TMS. From the community feedback the two sets of speed cushions that are of concern are located at the following locations;

-     45m south of the Hudson Avenue intersection; and

-     70m west of the Blackmore Avenue intersection

 

Administration has further investigated alternate locations for the two sets of speed cushions while considering existing locations of driveways, pedestrian crossings and intersecting roads, along with feedback from residents. This limited the alternate locations due to restrictive driveway access and residents opposing the installation of the speed cushions adjacent to their properties.

 

Administration also found that removing the speed cushions would leave approximately 460m section of Templeton Crescent without any traffic treatments, which is considered a long stretch of road enabling traffic to build up speed. Also considered was that as motorists will have travelled slowly on the other sections of Templeton Crescent, they may take this section as a recovery area for speeding up, increasing the potential crash risk.

 

The current traffic volume of 5,737 vehicles per day and a 85^th percentile speed of 57km/hr in this section of Templeton Crescent and a Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy score of 102, supports the need for the installation of speed reduction measures in this road environment.

 

Administration recommends that Council proceeds with the implementation of Traffic Management Scheme in Templeton Crescent as per the City’s Drawing No 3141-1-0, refer Attachment 2.

 

The estimated cost of the proposed works is in the order of $150,000, however this estimate is subject to any additional costs that may be necessary to upgrade street lighting.

 

Subject to Council’s decision, the detailed design is scheduled to be undertaken by February 2016, with the construction works scheduled for April-June 2016.

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

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy is applicable to this report.

Financial Implications

An amount of $300,000 has been allocated in the 2015/2016 budget for the implementation of project PR-2988; Templeton Crescent - Install Traffic Management Treatments. This funding is considered to be sufficient to install the proposed traffic treatments.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the results of the community consultation and PROCEEDS with the proposed Traffic Management Scheme along Templeton Crescent as shown in City Drawing No.3141-1-0 (Attachment 2 refers); and

2.       ADVISES the residents of Templeton Crescent who wished to be informed about Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	TempletonCres_LocalityMap	15/96360
2.	Templeton Crescent TMS - 3141-1-0	15/298846	Minuted
3.	Templeton Cres TMS CC Drawing	15/420374
4.	Templeton Crescent - Traffic Management - Invitation to Comment	15/489037
5.	Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen - TMS 3141-1-0 Survey Form	15/489042