Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 02 February, 2016

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 2 February, 2016 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

29 January, 2016

 

 

 

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

OC01-02/16     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 8 December 2015  1

SOC02-02/16 Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 15 December 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

UP01-01/16     Reduce Motor Vehicle Traffic in Vicinity of Badgerup Road, Gnangara (PT01-12/15) 1

UP02-01/16     Replace Colourbond Fencing with Limestone as Noise Buffer for properties backing onto Ocean Reef Road, Pearsall (the Terraces Estate) (PT02-12/15) 2

UP03-01/16     Request to Relocate the entrance point of Dewars Track Away from Residential Homes on Damepattie and Sovereign Drives, Two Rocks (PT03-12/15) 2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

City Growth  2

PS01-01/16      Alkimos Beach Foreshore Management Plan  2

PS02-01/16      Petition PT04-11/15:  Rezoning of the Gnangara Special Rural Area to Urban  16

PS03-01/16      Proposed Amendment 1304/57 to Metropolitan Region Scheme: Lots 28 and 29 Belgrade Road and Lots 10 and 11 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo  21

Approval Services  31

PS04-01/16      Additions to existing Intensive Agriculture (Lion Mushrooms) at 69 Rousset Road, Mariginiup  31

PS05-01/16      Consideration of a Management Strategy - Pedestrian Accessway between The Avenue and Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights  59

Assets  110

Asset Operations & Services  110

AS01-01/16      Parin Road, Marangaroo - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation Results  110

AS02-01/16      Heathfield Drive, Landsdale - Traffic Management Scheme - 130

AS03-01/16      Gnangara Road/Marathon Loop, Madeley - Accessiblity Issues and Options  142

Strategic Asset Management  160

AS04-01/16      Equestrian Use within Lake Badgerup Reserve, Wanneroo  160

Infrastructure Capital Works  167

AS05-01/16      Tender No. 01559 - Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication  167

AS06-01/16      Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works. 179

AS07-01/16      Tender No 01571 for the Construction of the Fishermans Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep  186

Assets Maintenance  191

AS08-01/16      Quinns Beach Shark Barrier - Update and Community Survey Results  191

Community & Place  223

Community Facilities  223

CP01-01/16     Tender No. 01554 Supply, Install and Maintenance of CCTV and Emergency Beacon for Clayton's Beach  223

CP02-01/16     Houghton Park Informal BMX Track Concept Design  231

CP03-01/16     Mary Lindsay Public Open Space Concept Design  242

CP04-01/16     Mary Lindsay Homestead Re-development Concept Plan  284

Community Services  295

CP05-01/16     Youth Futures COMET Agreement 2016  295

CP06-01/16     Edmund Rice Partnership Agreement 2016  303

Place Strengthening  311

CP07-01/16     Partnership Agreement between CoW and i60 Church  311

Corporate Strategy & Performance  318

Transactional Finance  318

CS01-01/16     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 November 2015  318

CS02-01/16     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 December 2015  336

Property Services  397

CS03-01/16     Proposed Lease to the Minister for Health Over a Portion of Lot 1385 (16) Jenolan Way, Merriwa and Proposed Future Delegated Authority Over Leases between the City and the Minister for Health  397

Council & Corporate Support  408

CS04-01/16     Donations to be Considered by Council - February 2016  408

Governance  418

CS05-01/16     Proposed City of Wanneroo Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2015  418

CS06-01/16     Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law - Delegation of Authority  475

Chief Executive Office  485

Office of the CEO Reports  485

CE01-01/16     Advocacy Plan - Future Strategic Needs Assessment - Strategic Industries & Clusters Project - Agribusiness  485

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 494

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 494

Item  11____ Confidential_ 494

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 494

Item  13____ Closure_ 494

 

 

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 8 December 2015 be confirmed.

That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 15 December 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  

UP01-01/16       Reduce Motor Vehicle Traffic in Vicinity of Badgerup Road, Gnangara (PT01-12/15)

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 115 signatories requesting that Badgerup Road and adjoining roads such as Moondyne Trail, Lakelands Drive, Tuscan Way, Jambanis Road and Ashby Street be designated for local traffic only and that the speed limit on Badgerup Road be reduced to 70kph with adjoining roads to be 60kph.   Update   The petition organiser has been contacted to arrange a site meeting with residents along with traffic counts being collected to ensure traffic data is current for the roads identified in the petition.  A report with the outcomes will be presented to the 26 April Council Meeting.

 

UP02-01/16       Replace Colourbond Fencing with Limestone as Noise Buffer for properties backing onto Ocean Reef Road, Pearsall (the Terraces Estate) (PT02-12/15)

Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 27 signatories requesting that Council allocate funds in the 2016/17 budget to replace the colourbond boundary fencing for properties backing onto Ocean Reef Road, being numbers 48-58 Goundrey Drive and 2-16 Popolo Place that form part of the Terrace Estate in Pearsall with a limestone product of a suitable depth and height to act as a road noise buffer.   Update   Report scheduled for March Council meeting

 

UP03-01/16       Request to Relocate the entrance point of Dewars Track Away from Residential Homes on Damepattie and Sovereign Drives, Two Rocks (PT03-12/15)

Cr Sangalli presented a petition of 15 signatories requesting that Council relocate the entrance point of Dewars Track away from residential homes on Damepattie and Sovereign Drives, Two Rocks in order to decrease the incidences of antisocial behaviour in that area.   Update   Since the petition was received, Administration’s efforts have mainly focussed on implementing  Council’s resolution made at the Special Council Meeting held on 15 December 2015 (item SCR01-12/15) to close the existing Dewars Beach Access Track. A review of potential alternative access points will be further considered by Administration and a report will be prepared for the April Council meeting.

Item  8      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

City Growth

File Ref:                                              2442 – 15/524094

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the draft Alkimos Beach Foreshore Management Plan (FMP).

 

Background

The South Alkimos Local Structure Plan (LSP 72) was adopted by Council at its meeting on 29 May 2012. LSP 72 requires a FMP to be prepared and approved by the City prior to development commencing within the foreshore reserve.

 

The proponent (Lend Lease) will be required to submit development applications following Council approval of the FMP, which will be considered by the City and determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for all works carried out within the foreshore reserve.

 

The FMP therefore provides the planning concept against which future development applications within the area will be assessed. against the FMP. A copy of the Alkimos Beach FMP has been circulated to Elected Members under separate cover and is available to members of the public on the City’s website – Council Meetings Minutes and Agenda page. The executive summary of the Alkimos Beach FMP is included at Attachment 1.

Detail                                                                                                                            

The Alkimos foreshore has been separated into the following two management areas:

 

·    Area 1 (is the subject of this FMP and delineated in black in the Alkimos Beach FMP master plan in Attachment 2): Southern portion of the Alkimos Beach foreshore. This area is identified in the Perth Coastal Planning Strategy completed by the WAPC in 2007 as a conservation and passive recreation area. A map showing the location of the Alkimos Beach foreshore relative to the Wanneroo coastline is illustrated in Attachment 3.

 

·    Area 2 (will be subject to a separate FMP and is referred to as ‘Stage 2’ in Attachment 2): Northern portion of the Alkimos foreshore identified in the Perth Coastal Planning Strategy as a key coastal node and regional beach location. A permanent Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) facility is proposed by Land Corp, Lend Lease and SLSWA. Area 2 will be subject to a future FMP and detailed design of the coastal node.

 

RPS Group, on behalf of Lend Lease has submitted the Alkimos Beach Foreshore Management Plan (FMP) for Council’s approval, in accordance with the requirements of LSP 72.

 

The proposed development has a coastal frontage of approximately 700 metres. The FMP has been prepared to guide the planning, development, rehabilitation and long term management of the Alkimos Beach foreshore which is a local beach. The WAPC approved the subdivision area to the east of the foreshore in January 2014. The closest residents to the Alkimos Beach foreshore are approximately 1 kilometre to the east.

 

The Alkimos Beach foreshore reserve forms part of Bush Forever Site 397 and is zoned “Parks and Recreation” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). This portion of foreshore is also identified as a conservation and passive recreation area in the Alkimos Eglinton Coastal Planning Strategy prepared by RPS in 2006 and the Perth Coastal Planning Strategy prepared by the WAPC in 2007.

 

The FMP contains information addressing the following:

 

·    Environmental characteristics of the management plan area;

·    Coastal management guidance relevant to the site;

·    Proposed foreshore development plans;

·    Managerial actions; and

·    Implementation roles and responsibilities.

 

Proposed development

 

Approval of this FMP relates only to the ‘Alkimos Beach Foreshore Area’, as delineated in black in the concept master plan (Attachment 2). The FMP proposes the following structural elements within the foreshore reserve, as illustrated in Attachment 2:

 

·    One activity, including:

-     Pedestrian and vehicle access;

-     Car park – approximately 30 standard bays;

-     SLSWA interim facility for mobile beach patrols;

-     One lookout

 

·    Two pedestrian beach access ways;

·    One dual use path along the edge of the foreshore running north/south for the length of the development; and

·    One emergency vehicle beach access way.

 

Beach safety and interim Surf Life Saving Facility

 

SLSWA has completed a Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment (CARA) to determine beach safety risk along the Amberton coastline. The risk rating for Alkimos Beach is ‘Moderately Hazardous’ which is replicated along the majority of the Wanneroo coastline.

 

In advance of permanent Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) facilities at the planned regional beach to the north of the area covered by this FMP, the City and SLSWA have identified the need for an interim facility for mobile beach patrols by SLSWA near the primary beach access point. The primary purpose of this facility will be to store SLSWA equipment. The provision of restricted surf club vehicle access at this location will enable SLSWA to access the beach to set up patrols, without the need to construct permanent club facilities in this portion of the foreshore. A letter from SLSWA to the City in support of the proposed foreshore access and facilities is provided in Attachment 4.

 

Car Park

 

The car park is proposed to be located behind the 50 year coastal processes line. Administration’s approach in assessment of this FMP is that more expensive assets such as car parks should be located in areas where they are not going to be potentially impacted by coastal erosion and inundation before the end of the asset’s natural lifespan. For example, a car park has an estimated lifespan of 50 years and therefore the car park has been located behind the 50 year coastal processes setback line to allow for the full lifespan of this asset. This approach is consistent with the local planning policy currently being prepared for coastal assets. The car park location is situated behind the primary dune and the car park and associated facilities are designed to have a limited impact on the natural landscape of the area.

 

The car park will consist of approximately 30 bays with a single bus parking site which can be utilised by SLSWA vehicles and trailers. The bus parking site can also be used by local schools that may use the beach. Supporting facilities such as outdoor showers and bike racks will be located as part of the car park design. Shade trees and landscaping will be provided throughout the development area. A replacement car park site has been identified outside of the 100 year coastal processes line and illustrated in Attachment 2. This replacement site will only be utilised in the next 50 years if the current location for the car park is impacted by coastal processes during this timeframe. Should the car park fulfil its structural lifespan, then the replacement site will be considered in 50 years as a new car park for Alkimos Beach based on the coastal erosion data available at this time.

Lookout

 

A lookout has been proposed approximately 25 metres west of the car park and adjacent to the dual use pathway. The lookout will be constructed in accordance with the City’s specifications and subject to approved construction drawings. The lookout is estimated to have a structural lifespan of approximately 15 – 20 years in a coastal setting. It is considered that this location will not be impacted by coastal processes for 30-40 years.

 

Drainage

 

Drainage retention will occur in accordance with State Coastal Planning Policy No. 2.6 (SPP 2.6). The stormwater drainage along the access road, car park and around the interim facility will be managed to the City’s satisfaction. These designs will be in accordance with the FMP and will be finalised for the City’s approval as part of a future development application.

 

Karli Spring

 

Karli Spring is a small wetland approximately 175 metres east of the coast. The site is of Aboriginal significance located in the southern part of the Alkimos Beach foreshore as illustrated in Attachment 2. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) site register identifies Karli Spring as a listed ethnographic site of cultural significance to Indigenous people.

 

The South Alkimos Local Structure Plan No.72 (LSP 72) included the following key recommendations in relation to Karli Spring made by Ethnosciences Consulting on behalf of the proponent:

 

·    That all impacts on Karli Spring and the surrounding vegetation and associated features be avoided and that the site continues to be protected inside Regional Open Space;

·    That an Aboriginal Heritage Management and Interpretation Plan be prepared to ensure the long term protection and interpretation of Karli Spring; and

·    That the development of the LSP area be allowed to proceed.

 

Representatives from the City’s Administration, Lend Lease and the Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) Group met in September 2015 to discuss the intentions of the draft Alkimos Beach FMP and the implementation of the above recommendations. All parties recognised that the process to implement the above recommendations is ongoing and that Lend Lease will continue to facilitate the development of an Aboriginal Heritage Management and Interpretation Plan for Karli Spring through engagement with the area’s Traditional Owners, the City and the RAP Group in this process.

 

In accordance with LSP 72 the FMP proposes rehabilitation for paths that currently exist close to Karli Spring. The closest proposed dual use pathway is located approximately 100 metres to the east of Karli Spring and the proposed new pedestrian and vehicle emergency access track is located approximately 130 metres to the north. Both of these pathways will not impact on the integrity of the Aboriginal heritage site.

 

Given that there is no proposed access or recreation works within the Karli Spring listed site as part of the FMP, any possible future works in the vicinity of the listed site (i.e. interpretive signage and formal access for Indigenous people to the site) will be subject to further engagement with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Traditional Owners and the RAP Group and will be included in the Aboriginal Heritage Management and Interpretation Plan.

 

Once the management for Karli Spring has been agreed (in consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the RAP Group and the Traditional Owners), the FMP will be updated to include the management requirements. This will ensure the integrity of the site is maintained into the future.

Condition of Management

 

All foreshore access and community infrastructure works will be undertaken by the proponent, and then maintained for a period of 5 years after practical completion, before being handed over to the City to manage. Handover requirements with regard to asset standard and the transfer of as-constructed drawings and assets management data will also apply.

 

Implementation Plan

 

The Implementation Schedule in Table 1 of the FMP details issues and actions required to deliver the FMP, along with their frequency and the responsible authority.

 

The Implementation Schedule does not require the City to undertake any works. However, following a minimum 5-year maintenance period by the proponent, the City may be requested to accept handover of assets to maintain and manage subject to the requirements of handover.

Consultation

 

Lend Lease has conducted extensive community consultation in preparation of the Alkimos Beach development and Foreshore Management Plan (FMP). In 2013, Lend Lease undertook a survey of the Alkimos Beach community to establish the community’s preferred beach uses and to commence a community based discussion on the broad location of future beach access paths. Lend Lease has used this community feedback in preparation of the FMP and in consultation with SLSWA to develop the BeachSAFE suite of programs. This program is now being offered to residents of Alkimos Beach and the wider community within the City. Details of the BeachSAFE programs are outlined in Appendix 5 of the Alkimos Beach FMP.

Comment

 

Under the State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6 (SPP 2.6), a local beach is defined as the following:

 

“Local beaches are those that are used by people living close by and are often accessed by foot or bicycle, as well as by car. Local beaches usually have very few facilities and infrastructure, and generally record relatively low rates of use.”

 

Administration has worked collaboratively with the Department of Planning, RPS and Lend Lease to ensure that the amenity and infrastructure proposed within the Alkimos Beach foreshore corresponds with SPP 2.6. Administration is also cognisant of the projected impact coastal erosion and inundation may have on the Wanneroo coastline and specifically the assets proposed within the Alkimos Beach foreshore.

Administration’s approach in discussions with RPS in the assessment of the FMP is that more expensive assets such as car parks should be located in areas where they are not going to be potentially impacted by coastal processes before the end of the asset’s natural lifespan.  For example, a car park has an estimated lifespan of 50 years and therefore the car park has been located behind the 50 year coastal processes setback line to allow for the full lifespan of this asset. 

 

The provision of a SLSWA facility has been included in the FMP as indicated in Attachment 2 based on the following factors:

 

·    It provides a strategic location for SLSWA to maintain a presence of critical surf lifesaving equipment;

·    The facility will reduce response times to identified emergencies where SLSWA may be required to provide a lifesaving response;

·    A permanent SLSWA facility is intended to be provided at the regional beach/coastal node in northern area (within the Stage 2 area as identified in Attachment 2). This permanent facility is not likely to commence construction until at least 2019 so an interim facility is required; and

·    A proposed interim facility has the support of Administration, SLSWA and Lend Lease.

The temporary SLSWA facility is required only until the permanent SLSWA facility is constructed at the planned Alkimos regional beach to the north of Alkimos Beach foreshore. It is envisaged that once the permanent regional facility is created, the temporary facility will be removed or Council may consider other community uses for the temporary structure. Given the temporary facility is located behind the 50 year coastal vulnerability line, it is envisaged that the structure will come to the end of its design life prior to the possible impact of coastal erosion and inundation. This allows Council an opportunity to explore alternative uses for the facility once the permanent regional SLSWA facility is operational in approximately 5-10 years. The specific construction materials will be determined at the detailed planning stage.

The majority of the foreshore has been retained for conservation and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation works will be focussed on priority areas including the road and path batters, dune blow outs and four-wheel drive paths. The foreshore is planned to operate as a low intensity, passive recreation area providing local beach access for current and future residents. Higher intensity coastal development is planned to be provided further north within the future coastal node/regional beach site, subject to a separate FMP.

Statutory Compliance

Approval of the FMP by Council is required to satisfy the approval requirements of LSP 72. Once endorsed by Council, the Alkimos Beach FMP will be forwarded to the WAPC for approval. All future development applications for the Alkimos Beach foreshore will be assessed against the approved FMP.

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

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Climate change	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Manager City Growth	Manage

In accordance with SPP 2.6, a sea level rise of 0.9 metres is predicted by the year 2110. The risk to coastal infrastructure and assets is a key consideration of the Alkimos Beach FMP. Acknowledging these risks, Administration has requested that Lend Lease locates assets in areas that should not be impacted by coastal processes prior to the conclusion of the asset’s structural lifespan. RPS on behalf of Lend Lease has identified adaptation options for all proposed assets.

Policy Implications

Administration is in the process of preparing a Foreshore Assets Policy to guide the preparation and assessment of Foreshore Management Plans and in particular the location of assets within the foreshore. The general approach taken by Administration is that foreshore assets should be located in areas that are not likely to be impacted by coastal erosion or inundation prior to the conclusion of the asset’s structural lifespan. The location of the lookout, car park and interim SLSWA facility reflects this approach.

 

The broader considerations of the FMP are in accordance with the State Coastal Planning Policy 2.6 (SPP 2.6).

Financial Implications

In accordance with SPP 2.6 ‘the proponent is responsible for the implementation of the FMP as well as funding, maintenance, monitoring and management of the foreshore works for a period not less than 5 years, commencing from the completion of all foreshore works’. After such time, following practical completion, the City may be requested to accept handover of the foreshore reserve in accordance with the City’s maintenance standards and approved detailed drawings.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the draft Alkimos Beach Foreshore Management Plan; and

2.       FORWARDS a copy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its approval.

 

Attachments:

1.	Alkimos Beach Executive Summary REV 4	15/548684
2.	Alkimos Beach FMP master plan REV 4	15/548674
3.	Location plan	16/24656
4.	SLSWA Letter Alkimos Beach	16/5411

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              6607 – 15/549548

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition presented at the Council Meeting of 10 November 2015 regarding a proposal to designate land in the south part of Gnangara as possible future urban land.

 

Background

At its Meeting of 21 July 2015 (Item PS09-07/15), Council endorsed submissions to be made to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on the draft Perth-Peel@3.5 million strategy and the associated draft North-West Sub-regional Planning Framework (NWSRPF).

 

The NWSRPF included a proposal to designate an area of approximately 400ha in the south Gnangara area shown on Attachment 1 as Urban Expansion.  The City’s submission on this proposal stated:

 

“The proposal is provisionally supported, subject to Council being satisfied that it will not present a serious impediment to progression of planning of the broader East Wanneroo area, and to further consideration being given as part of rezoning of the land under the MRS”.

 

At its Meeting of 15 September 2015 (item MN03-09/15), Council considered a Motion on Notice report which resulted in a resolution that Council:

 

“1.     NOTES that Councillors Newton, Guise, Cvitan, Treby and Mayor Roberts support a motion to revoke a decision of Council;

 

2.       REVOKES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, the decision of Council made at the Ordinary Council meeting of 21 July 2015 to endorse the comment included in Attachment 11 of Administration report PS09-07/15, due to lack of State Government consultation and being Item 5.1 in the table included in that attachment, which states:

 

“This proposal is provisionally supported, subject to Council being satisfied that it will not present a serious impediment to progression of planning to the broader East Wanneroo area, and to further consideration being given as part of rezoning of the land under the MRS”;

 

3.       ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission of the resolution in 2. above, and that:

 

                   a)      It needs to properly consult with residents in the area subject to the proposal referred to in 1 above, to obtain a clear understanding of their views on the matter of the future use of that area, prior to making any decision regarding how this area may be designated under the proposed North-West Sub-regional Structure Plan;

 

                   b)      It should give consideration to the North-West Sub-regional Structure Plan being released as a draft for public comment, rather than as a final plan as currently intended. 

 

This will allow further opportunity to be provided for public comment, and also to enable more effective integration with the Strategic Assessment of the Perth-Peel Region project which currently appears to be lacking.”

Detail

At its Meeting of 10 November 2015 (item PT04-11/15), a petition was presented which requested Council’s consideration of the following:

 

“Rezoning of the Gnangara Special Rural area to Urban as per the Peel 3.5 million draft.  Residents personal views”.

 

The petition document has attached to it 78 questionnaires.  Each questionnaire commences:

 

“To the City of Wanneroo

I am a resident of Gnangara in the Special Rural Zone and wish to express my personal view on the rezoning of Gnangara land to Urban”.

 

The resident then indicates whether they support or do not support the rezoning of Gnangara land to residential (urban) use, and if they do support it, what their preference is for time to develop (with three choices given:  1-3 years; 4-7 years; 8 or more years).

 

While the petition appears to be mainly intended to indicate the views of residents who live in the Special Rural zoned areas in south Gnangara which are subject to the ‘Urban Expansion’ proposal of the draft NWSRPF, it should be noted that 63 of the 78 petitioners are actually from that area.  Of the 63 residents, 41 (65%) have indicated they support rezoning of their area to urban, and 22 (35%) do not support rezoning.  The 63 petitioners represent 24% of the 259 properties in this area.

 

Of the 15 petitioners that are not in the area subject to ‘Urban Expansion’:

 

·    Twelve of the petitioners are from the Pinecrest Way area in Gnangara (see Attachment 1), which is zoned General Rural under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), and is proposed to remain rural under both the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP) and the draft NWSRPF.  All of these petitioners support rezoning of their area to urban.

 

·    Two of the petitioners are from the Special Rural zoned area which comprises Special Rural Zone Nos. 14 and 15 and which is on the north east corner of Gnangara Road and Sydney Road (see Attachment 1).  This area is proposed to remain rural under the EWSP and the draft NWSRPF.  Both of these petitioners support urban rezoning of their area.

 

·    One petitioner is from Ross Street, Jandabup, in an area which is zoned Rural Resource under DPS 2 and is designated as potential urban under the EWSP and as urban expansion under the draft NWSRPF.  This petitioner supports urban rezoning of that area.

Consultation

Council’s resolution from its Meeting of 15 September 2015 (referred to earlier) included the WAPC being advised that it needed to properly consult with residents in this area.  While this advice has been conveyed to the WAPC, the Department of Planning (DoP) has advised that to date it has taken no steps to actually do this consultation.  In the meantime, it is recommended that a copy of this petition be provided to the WAPC for its consideration. 

 

 

It should be noted that should an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) be initiated to rezone this area to an urban type of zone, the WAPC’s normal practice will be to write to all affected landowners at the time of advertising for public comment.  It is recommended that if this were to occur, the City will also write to all landowners in the EWSP area at that time, inviting them to advise the City of their views on the proposal, so Elected Members can be informed of these views and take them into consideration in determining its position on any MRS rezoning proposal for this area.

Comment

While it is of considerable interest for the City to be aware of the residents views provided through this petition, it is more important that the WAPC and the DoP are aware of this information, so they can take this into consideration in their finalisation of the NWSRPF and subsequent preparation of the final North-West Sub-regional Structure Plan (NWSRSP) and subsequent MRS Amendments.  This is consistent with the intent of Council’s resolution at its Meeting of 15 September 2015.

 

In this regard, it is important to note that the Minister for Planning and the WAPC are the decision making authorities in respect to the finalisation of the NWSRSP and the rezoning of the area under the MRS, with the City only having a commenting role, along with the rest of the community. It is therefore recommended that Council forward a copy of the petition to the WAPC.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

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

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Stakeholder relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
CEO	Manage

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       FORWARDS a copy of the petition to the Western Australian Planning Commission;

2.       ADVISES the Commission that the information is provided further to Council’s resolution of 15 September 2015 concerning the need for the Commission to properly consult with residents in the subject area; and

3.       ADVISES the petitioners regarding 1 and 2 above.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Designated area map

15/591934

  

File Ref:                                              2080 – 15/595413

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the City’s submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on proposed Amendment 1304/57 to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS), to rezone four properties on Belgrade Road and Dundebar Road, Wanneroo from Rural to Urban Deferred.

 

Applicant	Burgess Design Group
Owner	D & M Manners, T & K Coughlan, M Grubisin & Estate of Late N Grubisin, N Vulin & Estate of Late P Vulin
Location	Lots 28 & 29 Belgrade Road and Lots 10 & 11 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo
Site Area	9.34 ha
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

 

Background

In April 2015, the WAPC invited preliminary comment from the City on a proposal it had received to rezone four properties on Belgrade Road and Dundebar Road, Wanneroo from Rural to Urban under the MRS.

 

The location of the subject land is shown on Attachment 1.  It involves an area of 9.34 ha.

 

Administration advised the WAPC in writing on 15 May 2015 that it did not support the proposed MRS Amendment as it was contrary to Local Planning Policy (LPP) 5.3: East Wanneroo, in that it involved rezoning a small part of the land south of Dundebar Road which the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP) designates as potential urban.  A copy of Administration’s letter is included as Attachment 2.  Step 1 of the planning process included in LPP 5.3 involves rezoning to Urban of all of the EWSP potential Urban land through two MRS amendments, one for land north of Dundebar Road and one for land south of that road.

Detail

The WAPC has resolved to amend the MRS to rezone the subject land to Urban Deferred (not Urban as requested by the applicant), and is now advertising the proposal seeking public submissions.  This advertising period closes on 12 February 2016. 

 

The Amendment Report (dated December 2015) notes that the Amendment will facilitate further planning to enable the future development of the amendment area for urban purposes.  This further planning will include undertaking of district and local structure planning and preparation of Development Contribution Plans.

 

The Amendment Report also advises that the proposed MRS Amendment involves rezoning of the subject land to Urban Deferred, as opposed to Urban, as the following requirements are to be addressed prior to the lifting of Urban Deferment:

 

 

·        A District Structure Plan (DSP) being prepared for the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP) area (including associated Developer Contribution Plan and District Water Management Strategy) or staging plan/policy position adopted by the WAPC;

·        Confirmation on the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure; and

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

Consultation

The WAPC undertook preliminary consultation with relevant State government agencies in April 2015, and is now undertaking a formal public submission period on the proposed Amendment by means of notices placed in newspapers, on its website, and at the offices of the Department of Planning and this City.

Comment

Council adopted LPP 5.3 at its Meeting on 27 May 2014 (item PS01-05/14).  LPP 5.3 sets out an 8 step planning process to guide the further planning of the East Wanneroo area. 

 

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

 

Proposed MRS Amendment 1304/57 is proposing to rezone only a small part of the potential urban land south of Dundebar Road to Urban Deferred.  It is therefore contrary to LPP 5.3 in the following ways:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

1.       It may set a precedent for further ad hoc, piecemeal planning rather than the East Wanneroo area being subject to a comprehensive planning approach as proposed under LPP 5.3.  Assessment and processing of such piecemeal applications will be time consuming and resource intensive for the City, State Government and other agencies.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

3.       The Amendment Report refers to three requirements needing to be addressed for the WAPC to then lift Urban Deferment (details of the three requirements are referred to earlier).  This infers that WAPC would then consider approving subdivision applications in that area.

 

          The planning framework to be established through the LPP 5.3 planning process includes a requirement for Local Structure Plans (LSP) to also be in place prior to subdivision stage.  It is concerning that the WAPC may be contemplating subdivision in the absence of such important mechanisms being in place.

 

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

 

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

 

Relationship to Recent Submissions on other East Wanneroo MRS Proposals

 

The above comments and the following recommendation on this current proposal are generally consistent with the comments and recommendations which were made on proposed MRS Amendment 1263/57 (Dundebar Road), which was considered at Council's Meeting of 16 September 2014 (Item PS05-09/14) and MRS Amendment 1276/57 (Caporn Street), which was considered at Council’s Meeting of 3 February 2015 (item PS06-02/15).  Despite Council’s objections to those proposals, those pockets of land have subsequently been rezoned to Urban Deferred under the MRS, with the requirements to be addressed prior to lifting of Urban Deferment being the same as those now proposed for this current proposed MRS Amendment (as detailed earlier).

 

Environmental Issues

 

The MRS Amendment Report includes advice on a number of significant environmental issues:

 

1.       It advises that the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority has advised that as the remnant vegetation located within the amendment area may have potential habitat for Carnaby’s Cockatoo, it recommends that the amendment is referred to the Federal Department of the Environment in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 

          It is recommended that confirmation be sought from the WAPC that it has made this referral.

 

2.       While the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has determined that the proposal does not need to be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 (EP Act), it has provided advice and recommendations under Section 48A (1)(a) of the EP Act (see Attachment 3).

 

          This advice notes that there are environmental issues associated with the amendment area which are affected by the current Strategic Assessment of the Perth-Peel Region (SAPPR).  It proposes that these issues be managed through the future local scheme amendment and structure planning for the area, and that DoP should liaise with the City on this matter.

 

          The draft SAPPR proposals were released for comment on 17 December 2015 and are currently being assessed with a view to a report on the matter being presented to Council. 

 

          That report will aim to include identification of the environmental issues referred to above (which are currently unclear), and will need to address the possible implications of these issues, and the approaches suggested in this EPA advice, for the East Wanneroo area.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City’s existing risk registers that relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

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

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       OBJECTS to Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1304/57 relating to Lots 28 and 29 Belgrade Road and Lots 10 and 11 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on the following grounds:

a)      It is contrary to Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo;

b)      It may set a precedent for further ad hoc, piecemeal planning rather than the East Wanneroo area being subject to a comprehensive planning approach as proposed under LPP 5.3;

 

c)      Through requiring that MRS rezoning to an urban type of zoning occur through only a limited number of amendments covering the total potential urban area, LPP 5.3 aims to facilitate a collaborative approach being taken by the various landowner groups and their respective consultants who are active in that area.  Piecemeal MRS Amendments discourages such collaboration occurring between the landowner groups;

d)      The Amendment Report does not include the requirement for Local Structure Plans (LSP) to be prepared as per the LPP 5.3, prior to subdivision stage; and

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

2.       FORWARDS a copy of this Administration report to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) as the City's formal response to proposed Metropolitan Region Amendment 1304/57;

3.       ADVISES the WAPC and the Department of Planning that while Council is objecting to this current MRS Amendment for this land on Belgrade Road and Dundebar Road, it would support this land being included in an MRS Amendment which involved rezoning to an urban type of zoning of all of the East Wanneroo Structure Plan potential urban land;

4.       SEEKS confirmation from the WAPC that it has referred the amendment to the Federal Department of the Environment in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

5.       ADVISES the WAPC and the Department of Planning (DoP) that Council notes the advice provided by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 48A(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, and SEEKS discussions with DoP officers on the matters raised in that advice, as recommended by the EPA.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Map proposed amendment	15/595952
2.	WAPC	16/9484
3.	EPA Act Section 48A(1)(a)	15/595954

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              DA2015/512 – 15/186795

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5  

Previous Items:                                   PS09-06/12 Agenda   PS09-06/12 Resolution

                                                            Lot 20 (69) Rousset Road, Mariginiup - Consideration of DA2011/1119 (Amendments to Intensive Agriculture Land Use) and DA2012/33 (Change of Use to Industry - Rural)

                                                            CR01-11/12 Resolution - Legal Report - Lot 20 (69) Rousset Road, Mariginiup - Reconsideration      

 

Issue

To consider a development application for additions to an existing Intensive Agriculture (Lion Mushrooms) at 69 Rousset Road, Mariginiup.

 

Applicant	TV Doan and CT Duong
Owner	Tiep Van Doan, Chinh Thi Duong, Phu Van Doan
Location	Lot 20 (69) Rousset Road, Mariginiup
Site Area	79,330m2
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

 

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 13 November 2012, reconsidered its approval of 26 June 2012 for an application for an Intensive Agriculture (mushroom growing) and a Rural Industry on the subject land as a result of an application for a review to the State Administrative Tribunal made by the applicants. Council resolved to substitute its 26 June 2012 decision with an approval subject to conditions. This approval superseded all previous approvals on the land and imposed conditions relating to the term of approval, hours of operation and delivery of compost. 

 

On 20 March 2015, the landowner submitted an application for additions to the existing Intensive Agriculture comprising two buildings to be used for mushroom growing, cooling and storage. In a memorandum dated 3 June 2015, Elected Members were notified of Administration’s intent to determine the application under delegated authority and were provided with a five day period in which to request that the proposal be presented to Council for determination.  During this five day period, it was identified that one of the proposed buildings and several other structures had already been constructed without approval and therefore it was considered appropriate to refer the proposal to Council for its consideration.

 

Following Council Briefing Session on 8 September 2015 the proposal was advertised to surrounding landowners within a 500-metre radius of the subject land from 14 September 2015 to 6 October 2015 inviting public comment.

 

A location plan of the subject land is provided as Attachment 1 and a copy of the current planning approval is provided as Attachment 2.

Detail

Approval is sought for the following as shown on Attachment 3:

 

·    Retrospective approval for:

o  one building (14 metres x 7 metres with a height of 4 metres) for mushroom cooling;

o  one carport (12 metres x 6 metres);

o  four patios (14 metres x 5.8 metres, 3 metres x 3 metres, 6 metres x 3 metres and 9 metres x 3 metres respectively); and

·    Approval for one building (22 metres x 43 metres with height of 4 metres) consisting of six rooms to be used interchangeably for mushroom growing, cooling and storage.

 

The additional rooms will facilitate an increase in the quantity of mushrooms grown from between 8 – 10 tonnes per week to 12 – 15 tonnes per week.  To cater for this additional production, the operation will require one additional delivery of compost per week (currently deliveries are on a Monday and Friday, the additional delivery will be on a Wednesday) and between five to eight additional staff (the operation currently employees 10 – 15 staff at any one time). Spent or surplus compost is to be stored on a hardstand within a building on the site and removed offsite within 48 hours. The applicant has advised that once the compost is removed from the site, it will be taken to a soil blending facility where it will be used for potting mix.

Consultation

Under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) Intensive Agriculture in the Rural Resource zoned is a ‘Permitted’ use and does not require consultation with adjoining landowners. However, at the request of Council, the proposal was advertised by way of letters to landowners within a 500-metre radius of the subject land.  The consultation period commenced on 14 September 2015 and concluded on 6 October 2015.  A total of seven submissions were received, all objecting to the proposal. The main issue raised in the submissions is the perception that any expansion of the operation will affect the future rezoning and subdivision potential of surrounding land. A schedule of submissions including Administration’s response to the issues identified is provided as Attachment 4.

Comment

Council’s existing approval imposes a finite term of approval and strict conditions relating to hours of operation and the requirement for all compost to be delivered to site in sealed packages.     The applicant does not propose to vary any of these conditions and has confirmed that they intend to operate in accordance with the existing approval.

 

Administration provides the following comments:

 

East Wanneroo Structure Plan Final Report 2011 (EWSP) – impact of mushroom farm on rezoning of land

 

Currently the subject land is zoned Rural Resource in DPS 2 and Rural in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). In the EWSP this land is identified as Potential Urban. Prior to rezoning the land to Urban, the land will need to be rezoned to Urban Deferred in the MRS.

 

In this regard the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) “Guideline for the Lifting of Urban Deferment” states as follows:

 

 

 

“Land may be included in the Urban Deferred zone under a regional planning scheme. This zone provides a strong indication that the land is physically and locationally suitable for Urban purposes, although certain requirements have to be met before the WAPC will agree to the land being transferred to the Urban zone.”

 

Thus, it is clear that land would be rezoned to Urban Deferred in the first instance rather than straight to Urban.

 

Please see Attachment 5 containing the map “Agricultural Sites and their Buffers” appended to EWSP. The map indicates a 500-metre buffer around the mushroom farms. Since the EWSP identifies the subject site and land surrounding it as Potential Urban the mushroom farm will not prevent the rezoning from Rural Resource to Urban Deferred under the MRS.

 

The abovementioned WAPC guidelines provide the mechanism to lift the Urban Deferment zoning and to transfer the land to the Urban zone.

 

By way of example, there are pockets of land on Dundebar Road and Caporn Street have been approved by the WAPC to be rezoned to Urban Deferred. The WAPC has advised that to lift the Urban Deferment, the landowner/developer would be required to prepare (and have approved),

 

·    A District Structure Plan which includes a Developer Contribution Plan and District Water Management Strategy (or alternatively satisfy a yet to be agreed staging plan/policy position adopted by the WAPC);

 

·    A bushfire hazard assessment; and

 

·    Demonstrate that water and wastewater infrastructure could be adequately provided.

 

Condition 2 of Council’s 2012 approval imposed a time restriction on the operation and stated the following:

 

          “This planning approval shall expire:

 

A.     Within 3 years of the date that :

 

i.          Land immediately adjacent to a 500 metre radius of the central point of 69 Rousset Road Mariginiup (the Land) is gazetted ‘Urban’ under the MRS, or

ii.          The Land is gazetted ‘Urban’ under the MRS,

 

whichever occurs first in time: or

 

          B.      within 7 years of the date of this planning approval,

 

whichever is the later;”

 

As indicated above,

 

·    If the land immediately adjacent to the 500-metre buffer zone is rezoned to Urban from Urban Deferred, then the abovementioned planning approval will expire within 3 years of the rezoning to Urban and the mushroom farm shall cease operation.

 

·    In regards to 2Aii above, Council at its meeting on 26 June 2012 noted as follows (refer to item PS09-06/12):-

 

“the whole buffer area would be rezoned to Urban under the MRS and Residential under DPS 2, however, no residential subdivision or development would be permitted until the offending land use had ceased or appropriate mitigation measure has been put in place.” In this event the mushroom farm shall cease operation within 3 years.

 

·    The 7 year period commenced on 17 December 2012 and will expire on 17 December 2019. It is recommended that, should this application be approved by Council, it be subject to a time limitation consistent with 2B above which will mean that the mushroom farm shall cease operation on 17 December 2019.

 

Draft State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning Policy

 

The WAPC recently released the draft State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning Policy for public comment, which closed on 19 January 2016. This draft policy applies to land zoned for rural or agricultural purposes in a local planning scheme. The objectives of the draft policy are as follows:

 

·    To support existing or future primary production through the protection of rural land, particularly agricultural land;

 

·    To provide investment security for existing and future primary production; and

 

·    To promote economic growth and regional development on rural land for rural land uses.

 

The proposal will allow for an increase in mushroom production from the site while it remains as Rural zoned land. Therefore, the subject proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the draft State Planning Policy 2.5.

 

Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo

 

Part 2.3 of Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) requires Council to have regard for the possibility of any future urban use of the area and consider the imposition of conditions of approval for permitted rural uses (such as Intensive Agriculture and Industry-Rural) to minimise the impact of that use on the possible future urban use of the land.  Council is reminded that whilst the current application proposes to construct additional growing rooms, it does not propose to alter the approved timeframe for the development, hours of operation or method of compost delivery.  Condition 2 of Council’s existing planning approval provides an assurance that the permitted rural uses on the site can only continue for a limited timeframe post gazettal of the land in the area being rezoned to Urban under the MRS.  Therefore, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of LPP 5.3.

 

Retrospective additions

 

A review of aerial photographs of the subject lot shows that one of the buildings proposed as part of the Intensive Agriculture land-use on the site was constructed during November/December 2014. The proponent advises it was necessary to construct the new building due to a mechanical failure in the air-conditioning unit of an existing building which was used to cool mushrooms. The proponent advises that they chose to construct the new building instead of repairing the existing air-conditioning unit as the part required would have taken 10 – 14 days to arrive and they would have also been required to wait additional time whilst the new part was fitted. It was quicker to construct the new building as all the necessary materials were on site and the building (complete with a new air-conditioning unit) was able to be fully constructed and operational within 5 days.

 

The proponent advises they would have experienced significant financial loss had they not constructed the new building.

 

Nearmaps aerial imagery shows that the patio used for shade in front of an existing storage area was constructed in early 2012, and the patios used for the lunch area were constructed between June and December 2012, and July and October 2013. The carport was constructed between June and August 2014.  The applicant claims that they did not realise that approval was required for these structures and was only made aware that approval was required during Administration’s assessment of their application for the two additional buildings. These structures were constructed to provide amenities for employees and not to increase the quantity of mushrooms grown on the site.

 

Whilst it is disappointing that the proponent has unlawfully constructed some buildings without approval, determination of the application should be based purely on planning grounds and not on the retrospective nature of the application.

 

It is noted that a retrospective development application incurs a fee of three times that of a standard development application. This increased fee is considered to encompass the processing fee of the development application and a penalty for developing without the required approvals first being obtained from the City. The proponent has paid this higher fee.

 

Allegations on Breaches of Planning Approval Conditions

 

A search of the City’s records indicates that prior to advertising of the subject proposal four claims of non-compliance since 2012 have been lodged for investigation which raised concern that the subject site was operating outside of its permitted hours. These claims came from Elected Members who have been approached by surrounding landowners. All of the claims were investigated by Administration and it was found that the subject site was not in breach of any of the planning approval conditions at that time.

 

It is noted that through the advertising of this proposal Administration received submissions alleging trucks have been entering and exiting the premises outside the approved hours of operation. Administration acknowledges these alleged breaches and will investigate the matter further in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.14 – Planning Compliance and take any necessary actions.

 

Increased quantity of compost

 

Condition 9 of the existing approval requires all compost to be delivered in sealed packages or in a manner which prevents odour emission. Currently, compost is delivered in sealed containers and there are no recorded complaints relating to odours emitting from the site.  The additional compost delivery each week will result in an additional two vehicle movements per week (one movement into the site, one movement exiting the site), which is not considered to adversely impact the surrounding area. The additional compost will be stored within the existing storage area in sealed containers until it is used in the mushroom growing process.

 

In order to ascertain whether an increased quantity of compost being stored and used on the site would emanate an odour, Administration undertook a site visit to the premises. During this visit, Administration witnessed the storage of compost on delivery, the compost being prepared for mushroom growing, the mushroom growing process and the storage of spent compost prior to being removed from the site.  At no stage did Administration experience any odour.  Administration does not consider that the increased quantity of compost on the site will be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

 

Parking

 

Currently the applicant has approval for 15 parking bays on the site. Given that the subject development will need to employ up to an additional eight employees, a total of 23 parking bays will be required. There is sufficient space within the existing hardstand area to accommodate this additional parking requirement.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed additions to the mushroom farm will facilitate an increase in the production of mushrooms from between 8 – 10 tonnes per week to 12 – 15 tonnes per week which will require one additional compost delivery and between five to eight additional staff. The proponent does not propose to alter the existing hours of approval.  All conditions contained within the current approval will still be valid, excepting for more parking bays to cater for the additional employees. The timeframe limitations imposed will ensure that the mushroom farm ceases operations within 3 years of the subject site or land adjacent to the buffer area being rezoned to Urban under the MRS, or on 17 December 2019.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Local Planning Policy 5.3.

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.

3.1    Local Jobs - You can choose to work locally and reduce the impact of travel time on you and your family.”

Risk Management Considerations

There are no strategic or corporate risks identified in the City’s Corporate Risk Register that relate to the matters outlined in this report.

Policy Implications

In accordance with the current Compliance Policy, the City may take various actions to deal with a non-compliant development.  The initial steps seek to bring the matter into compliance.  Where the landowner does not act to bring the matter into compliance, the City can take further action such as issuing a Directions Notice and/or Prosecution.  In this case, the landowner has agreed to address the non-compliance by seeking retrospective approval.  If the application is approved by Council, it is not proposed to take any further action. 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning     Scheme No. 2 APPROVES the development application for additions to the         existing Intensive Agriculture (Lion Mushrooms) at Lot 20 (69) Rousset Road,    Mariginiup, as shown in Attachment 3, subject to compliance with the following       conditions:        

         

a)      This application is only in relation to the Additions to Intensive Agriculture as indicated in red on the approved plans. It does not relate to any other development on the lot;

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

c)      This planning approval shall expire:

i.       within 3 years of the date that:

a.       land immediately adjacent to a 500 metre radius of the central point of 69 Rousset Road Mariginiup (the Land) is gazetted 'urban' under the MRS; or

b.      the Land is gazetted 'urban' under the MRS,

whichever occurs first in time; or

ii.      on 17 December 2019

whichever is the later;

d)      The use of areas marked as “A” on the approved plan shall conform to the District Planning Scheme 2 definition of ‘Intensive Agriculture’ which states:

          “Intensive Agriculture : means any land or buildings used for trade or                     commercial purposes for the following:

            (a)     the production of grapes, vegetables, flowers, exotic and native    plants, fruits and nuts (including market gardens); or

            (b)     the establishment of and operation of plant and fruit nurseries; or

            (c)     the development of land for irrigated fodder product and irrigated         pasture (including turf farms).”;

e)      The use of areas marked as “B” on the approved plan shall conform to the District Planning Scheme 2 definition of ‘Rural Industry’ which states:

“Industry – rural: means an industry handling, treating, processing or   packaging primary products grown, reared or produced in the locality, and a workshop used for the servicing of plant or equipment used for rural purposes in the locality.”;

f)       The use of areas marked as “C” on the approved plan shall be used for storage purposes;

g)      The use of areas marked as “D” on the approved plan shall conform to the District Planning Scheme 2 definition of ‘Rural Use’ which states:

“Rural use: means agriculture, horticulture, and may include aquaculture, and includes the raising of livestock and the retail sale of the produce of the property where satisfactory access and parking can          be provided, and provided that any processing of the produce prior to sale can take place on site.”;

A change of use from the uses approved under conditions d), e), f) and g) above will require the approval of the City;

h)      Subject to condition j):

i.       the hours of operation during the months of July and January inclusive shall be:

a.       box folding equipment between the hours of 7am and 8pm seven days a week; and

b.      all approved land uses, except the operation of box folding equipment, between the hours of 7am and 10pm seven days a week; and

ii.      the hours of operation during the months of February and June inclusive shall be:

a.       box folding equipment between the hours of 7am and 6pm seven days a week; and

b.      all approval land uses, except the operation of box folding equipment, between the hours of 7am and 9pm seven days a week; and

c.       only one box folding machine shall be operated at any one time during the hours of operations as set out in condition  h) i and ii herein;

i)       All compost is delivered in sealed packages or in a manner that prevents odour emission to the satisfaction of the City’s Health Services;

j)       The hours of operation of box operating equipment on Sundays and Public Holidays shall be between the hours of 7am and 6pm;  and

k)      8 additional parking bays are to be provided on site.

2.       ENDORSES Administration’s responses to the submissions received as provided          in Attachment 4 and ADVISES the submitters of this decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	15/208089
2.	Attachment 2 - 2012 Approval	13/10482	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations	15/424829	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions	16/11678	Minuted
5.	Attachment 5 - Map of EWSP area	15/599382

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              8755 – 15/166546

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider a management strategy prepared for a pedestrian accessway (PAW) situated between Feathertop Rise and The Avenue, Alexander Heights.

 

Background

The PAW consists of a land parcel formally known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights.

 

The PAW was created in the late 1980's as part of the subdivision of the locality. The PAW was intended to provide a pedestrian connection to and from the cul-de-sac of Feathertop Rise and The Avenue. A plan that identifies the location of the PAW is included as Attachment 1.

 

The physical characteristics of the PAW are as follows:

 

·      The subject PAW is four metres wide and approximately 64 metres long.

·      The footpath within the PAW is two metres in width, with one metre landscape strips on both sides. The landscaping strips have no vegetation, with the exception of some small weeds.

·      The path slopes gently from The Avenue toward Feathertop Rise and is relatively straight. 

·      There is no lighting in the PAW; however, street lights exist at both ends of the PAW.

·      Access into the PAW is controlled by three ‘u-rails’ and wooden bollards at either end.

·      The PAW contains signage at either end prompting users to clean up after their dogs.

·      Previous incidences of graffiti on fences, street lighting and the footpath are evident, as parts of these structures have sporadically been painted over.

 

Administration received a request on 29 April 2014 to consider closing the PAW. This request was made by the landowners adjoining this PAW, citing frustration with anti-social behaviour, vandalism, theft, graffiti and the PAW being used as a thoroughfare for motorcycles.

 

As part of consideration of this request, Administration advertised the proposed PAW closure between 22 July 2014 and 16 September 2014. In that time, Administration received 27 submissions; and of those submissions, 18 objected to the proposed closure of the PAW, and nine supported the PAW closure. The matter was then presented by Administration to Council at its 3 February 2015 Meeting (Council Agenda item reference PS09-02/15). At that Meeting, Council resolved to adopt Administration’s recommendation, which was as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 3 in respect to the proposed closure of the pedestrian accessway formally known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights, and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

 

 

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the closure of the pedestrian accessway formally known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights, between Feathertop Rise and The Avenue, Alexander Heights, where identified on the plan included as Attachment 1;

 

3.       ADVISES the adjoining landowners, Department of Lands, Department of Planning, and the submitters of its decision; and

 

4.       REQUESTS Administration prepare a management strategy that may assist in reducing anti-social behaviour within the pedestrian accessway formally known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights within three months for consideration of Council and to provide a further update to Council by December 2015.”

 

In light of Item 4 of Council’s resolution above, a draft management strategy has been prepared for Council’s endorsement, and is the subject of this Report.

 

A draft management strategy was initially presented to the Council Briefing Session on 14 July 2015, but was withdrawn by Administration from the 21 July 2015 Council Meeting Agenda. The reason that Administration withdrew this matter from the Council Agenda was to undertake consultation of the draft management strategy with affected landowners and occupiers.

Detail

The draft management strategy for Council’s endorsement is included as Attachment 2. The management strategy prescribes the following:

 

·    The purpose of the management strategy; and how it was prepared in response to a previous resolution of Council (refer to the ‘Background’ section above);

 

·    Description and detail of the subject PAW (location, design and detail on existing infrastructure);

 

·    A conclusion of investigations that Administration has undertaken to ascertain whether the existing infrastructure within the PAW as well as maintenance of that infrastructure was adequate. These investigations are discussed further in the ‘Comment’ section of the Report; and

 

·    Strategies and recommendations to be considered by the City.

Consultation

A draft management strategy was advertised for public comment by means of letters written to all landowners within 200 metres of the subject PAW. Administration advertised the draft management strategy for a period of 21 days from 21 July 2015 to 11 August 2015, with three submissions received. A summary of submissions received and Administration's responses to each is provided in Attachment 3.

 

The draft management strategy that was advertised incorporated the following detail:

 

·    Information and analysis applied in the preparation of the management strategy, which is included as Attachment 4 for Council’s information. Further discussion regarding this information and analysis is provided in the ‘Comment’ section of the Report;

 

·    The Department of Planning publication ‘Reducing Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Pedestrian Accessways: Planning Guidelines’ (Department of Planning Guidelines) was initially an appendix to the management strategy. For Council’s information, these guidelines are included as Attachment 5 of this Report;

 

·    A conclusion of investigations that Administration has undertaken to ascertain whether the existing infrastructure within the PAW as well as maintenance of that infrastructure was adequate. These investigations are discussed further in the ‘Comment’ section of the Report; and

 

·    Strategies and recommendations to be considered by the City.

Comment

In preparing the management strategy, Administration undertook an analysis and investigation which considered the following:

 

·    The statistics indicating the instances that the City has undertaken maintenance works and graffiti removal in the PAW – in comparison to what is being undertaken in the locality;

 

·    How the PAW is currently being maintained by the City – and whether the existing maintenance regime was reasonable;

 

·    What the City could reasonably consider in relation to upgrading the existing infrastructure in the PAW to respond to incidences of crime and anti-social behaviour; and

 

·    What the City could reasonably consider in adopting community safety initiatives specifically within the PAW to respond to incidences of crime and anti-social behaviour.

 

By undertaking the analysis and investigations, Administration concluded that:

 

·    There has been no additional demand to undertake maintenance works in the subject PAW, in comparison to the demand for maintenance works being undertaken in other PAW’s in the locality;

 

·    There is a decreasing trend of graffiti occurrences in the locality generally since 2011, including within the PAW;

 

·    The existing maintenance regime is suitable and consistent with the maintenance the City undertakes in other PAW’s. It was identified that the City maintains this PAW as follows:

o  Administration undertakes routine inspections three times every year as well as when enquiries received by members of the public. In instances where Administration identifies the need to perform maintenance (either through a routine inspection or an enquiry from a member of the public), Administration endeavours to complete the necessary works within 14 days. If the works are considered necessary to address what Administration considers is a valid public safety concern, Administration endeavours to complete the required maintenance works within 24 hours.

o  Upon receiving a report of graffiti, Administration endeavours to remove graffiti within 48 hours; or within four hours if the graffiti is reported to be offensive.

 

·    There are no identified flaws in the design or provision of infrastructure in and adjoining the PAW, which encourages anti-social behaviour to occur in the subject PAW rather than in other PAW’s in the locality;

 

·    Crime and anti-social behaviour is not known to be more prevalent in the PAW, compared to other locations where the City is actively undertaking community safety initiatives; and

 

·    The City’s Rangers or Community Safety Officers do not have the authority to arrest persons, or to issue ‘move-on’ notices, as do WA Police Officers. Therefore, the response to anti-social behaviour and criminal activity should remain the responsibility of WA Police.

 

More comprehensive detail on the points above is provided for in Attachment 4.

 

Department of Planning Guidelines

 

The management strategy has been prepared noting the designing out crime guidance provided in the Department of Planning publication ‘Reducing Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Pedestrian Access Ways: Planning Guidelines’ (Department of Planning Guidelines). The Department of Planning Guidelines are provided in Attachment 5 of this Report. The Department of Planning Guidelines in designing out crime provides strategies or principles that could be applied in pedestrian accessways to control access, set rules for usage and to improve surveillance as a means to reduce the prospect of ant-social behaviour.

 

The management strategy was prepared examining each of the designing out crime principles provided in the Department of Planning Guidelines, and considers whether applying the principles would be practical in reducing the prospect of anti-social behaviour in the PAW.

 

Discussion on Public Submissions

 

Of the three submissions received, only one submission (Submission 3 as summarised in Attachment 3) was received from a landowner adjoining the PAW. This submission expressed the need for Council to consider upgrades to the PAW; particularly by installing CCTV, additional lighting and gates. Administration’s response regarding the provision of such facilities in the PAW is as follows:

 

Additional Lighting

 

On preparation of the draft management strategy, Administration did not consider that additional lighting within the PAW was justified, as discussed within the information and analysis provided in Attachment 4 (Section 2.2.3). In preparing the draft management strategy, Administration noted that:

 

·    Street lighting on The Avenue and Feathertop Rise illuminates the PAW, given that light poles are located adjoining both entrances to the PAW; and

 

·    The PAW does not record graffiti incidences or maintenance requests at a level that exceeds other PAW’s in the Alexander Heights locality.

 

As such, it is not considered that the subject PAW requires lighting that is in addition to what is provided for in other PAW’s in the locality.

 

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

 

There is no existing infrastructure or landscaping within and surrounding the subject PAW capable of supporting the installation of covert (hidden) CCTV cameras, or permanent overt (visible) cameras.

 

 

Therefore, if CCTV cameras were to be considered, the cameras would need to be overt and mobile. Mobile CCTV (such as the mobile CCTV trailer used by Administration) would need to be positioned so that:

 

·    It does not impede on pedestrian movements within the PAW; and

 

·    Existing lighting maximises (rather than reduces) the quality of the images that can be captured at night. For example, lighting can illuminate a space to improve the quality of CCTV images; but if inconveniently located, lighting could also cause glare that would reduce the quality of an image.

 

It would be impractical for a mobile CCTV trailer to be positioned inside the PAW, as it would restrict pedestrian movement. It would also be impractical for a mobile CCTV trailer to be positioned outside the PAW, as light spillage from the light poles at the entrances of the PAW would reduce the prospect of obtaining images of people and objects in the PAW at night that are of a reasonable quality.

 

A mobile CCTV trailer would only assist in reducing anti-social behaviour in the time periods that it is available to capture footage of the PAW. The mobile CCTV trailer would not act to deter anti-social behaviour in the times that it is not present onsite.

 

On preparation of the draft management strategy, Administration did not consider that CCTV was a practical measure in reducing the prospect of anti-social behaviour in the PAW. A more detailed justification is included in the information and analysis provided in Attachment 4 (Section 3.2.1).

 

Gates at PAW Entrances

 

The information and analysis provided in Attachment 4 (Section 3.2.2) provides discussion on the prospect of imposing a restriction on access to the PAW during vulnerable times (e.g. from sunset to sunrise) to deter incidences of anti-social behaviour. This would occur through the installation of gates at either end of the PAW, which would be opened and closed every morning and night.

 

As outlined in the draft management strategy, Administration does not consider the installation of gates to be practical for the following reasons:

 

·    Having closing gates would inhibit access through the PAW to all members of the public during the times in which the gates are closed, not just for users whom commit anti-social behaviour; and

 

·    Closed gates may invite (rather than deter) anti-social behaviour, as closed gates would reduce surveillance of the PAW from the adjoining streets.

 

Through their submission, the landowner adjoining the PAW argued that some PAW’s in the City of Bayswater have gates, which are effective in reducing anti-social behaviour. A depiction of a PAW with gates was provided through photographs included with the submission. Administration disputes these comments made by the submitters for the following reasons:

 

·    The PAW in the photographs provided by the submitter is situated between Widgee Road and Kirkpatrick Crescent, Noranda. The City’s Officers have inspected this PAW, and identified evidence of anti-social behaviour within the PAW (past instances of graffiti on the fences and gates, rubbish etc), similar to what is found in the PAW subject to the management strategy; and

 

 

·    The City’s Officers contacted the City of Bayswater and were advised by the City of Bayswater that gates at the entrances to pedestrian accessways have not been effective in deterring anti-social behaviour.

 

In light of the above, Administration maintains its position that the installation of gates at the entrances of this PAW would not be effective in deterring anti-social behaviour.

 

Modifications to the Draft Management Strategy Following Advertising

 

Administration has simplified the draft management strategy following it being advertised, by removing content on Administration’s analysis and investigation of the PAW. The inclusion of analysis and investigation content in the advertised version of the draft management strategy was intended to be informative to submitters during the advertising process. Administration has not included this content within the final draft as it only informs (rather than prescribes) the recommendations and strategies, as was the purpose of the management strategy. The analysis and investigation that was initially included in the draft management strategy is now included as Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 of this Report.

 

The comments received from advertising of the draft management strategy did not warrant the need to considerably change the management strategy recommendations that were prescribed. However, the draft management strategy for Council’s endorsement now includes an additional recommendation which prescribes that Administration continues to monitor and record instances where maintenance and graffiti removal is undertaken in the PAW. This was included to more accurately reflect the actions that Administration is already undertaking.

 

Draft Management Strategy Findings and Recommendations

 

On reviewing the principles prescribed in the Department of Planning Guidelines (in reference to the outcome of the analysis and investigation of the PAW), Administration does not consider that the PAW does not require additional maintenance, infrastructure upgrades or additional community safety measures than what is already provided. Rather, the management strategy recommends that Administration should:

 

1.   Continue to inspect and maintain the PAW as it already doing, by undertaking the following:

 

a)   Inspecting the subject PAW three times each calendar year, and when complaints or enquiries are received on the PAW’s condition from members of the public;

 

b)   Performing maintenance works within 14 days, should an inspection of the PAW conclude that such maintenance works are required. Maintenance works required to be undertaken to address valid public safety concerns should be completed within 24 hours; and

 

c)   Endeavour to remove graffiti within 48 hours of an enquiry or complaint being received, or within four hours should the graffiti be deemed offensive; and

 

2.   Continue to record instances that maintenance works or graffiti removal is undertaken in the PAW.

 

3.   Encourage landowners and residents adjoining the PAW to familiarise themselves with the WA Police local policing team responsible for the Alexander Heights locality, and engage in ongoing discussions with WA Police on the behaviour of persons using the PAW.

 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relates to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

The draft management strategy was prepared having regard to the Department of Planning publication ‘Reducing Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Pedestrian Accessways: Planning Guidelines’, which is provided as Attachment 5.

Financial Implications

Addressing the recommendations of the management strategy can be met by utilising Administration’s operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the management strategy (included as Attachment 2) prepared for the pedestrian accessway known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights; and

2.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 3 in respect to the management strategy (included as Attachment 2) prepared for the pedestrian accessway known as Portion Lot 1055 (20P) Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights; and

3.       ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions, and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	New Attachment 1 - Location Plan - PAW Feathertop Rise & The Avenue	15/189233
2.	Attachment 2 - Management Strategy - PAW Between Feathertop Rise and The Avenue, Alexander Heights	16/18519	Minuted
3.	NEW Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions Management Strategy for PAW Between Feathertop Rise and The Avenue, Alexander Heights	16/18654	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Analysis and Investigations in the Preparation of the Management Strategy	16/18503
5.	Attachment 5 - DoP Publication - Reducing Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Pedestrian Access Ways	15/177956

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 15/234803

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       9         

 

Issue

To consider the results of community consultation for the proposed implementation of a Traffic Management Scheme along Parin Road, Marangaroo.

Background

In response to a number of concerns raised by residents along Parin Road, Marangaroo regarding issues of speeding and hoon activity, Parin Road was assessed as an eligible site, in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation & Intervention Policy, for the installation of traffic treatments.

 

A location map of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1.

Detail

Parin Road is classified in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy as a Local Distributor Road. The road is 430m long and extends between Wanneroo Road and Giralt Road. It has a 10m wide pavement with a 2m wide central median.  A 1.2m wide footpath is located on the south side of Parin Road to cater for pedestrians and extends for the full length of the road.

 

As a Local Distributor Road, this road has the capacity to accommodate traffic volumes up to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Average Weekday Traffic counts recorded for this road have been in the region of 3,000 vehicles per day which indicates that Parin Road is functioning well within its capacity. The road operates under the default Built-Up-Area speed limit of 50Km/hr. Parin Road is not part of the Public Transport Authority (PTA) bus network.

 

The central median along Parin Road consists of a painted median with intermittently spaced raised median islands and median trees encompassed within flush kerbing. The road has six intersections spaced at approximately 150m all of which are standard t-intersection configurations. The majority of the properties along this road have 20m frontages with 6m typical crossovers.

 

Thirty three of the 34 properties abutting Parin Road are residential with direct property accesses. A child care centre is located at the western end of Parin Road which understandably attributes to the generated traffic volumes in the morning and afternoon peak periods.

 

Residents of Parin Road raised concern that motorists use this road to cut through from Wanneroo Road to Hepburn Avenue via Giralt Road to avoid the traffic signals at the Wanneroo Road / Hepburn Avenue intersection. This rat running has in turn resulted in an increase in the incidences of vehicles speeding along Parin Road.

 

In developing a cost effective traffic management plan for community consultation, Administration considered the following aspects:

·    Road function and configuration;

·    Intersections;

·    Crossovers;

·    Pathways;

·    Lighting;

·    Traffic treatment spacing; and

·    Bus routes

 

Option 1: Additional raised median islands and street trees.

A proposal to install additional raised median islands and street trees was initially considered as a suitable option for addressing speeding issues along Parin Road. This option would enable the City to install a treatment whereby once the trees in the median had matured, would create a ‘closed in’ road environment without the need to construct expensive vertical or horizontal deflection type traffic treatments infrastructure. It was considered however that this treatment option would, in the short term, have little effect due to the time it would take for the trees to mature and was therefore not further considered.

 

Option 2: Median widening, additional raised median islands and street trees.

A proposal to widen the median width and decrease the available lane widths was also considered for addressing speeding issues along Parin Road. This option would enable the City to effectively reduce the traffic lane widths by having Main Roads WA install linemarking on a different alignment which would see the median width increased from 2m to either 3.5m or 3.8m wide. This option will involve the widening of existing raised median islands including the installation of additional street trees as detailed in Option 1 for this treatment to work effectively and was considered to be a more effective treatment in comparison to Option 1. However, as the effectiveness was again heavily reliant on the street trees needing to be mature to create the ‘closed in’ road environment and considering also the higher costs associated with the modification to the median islands, this option was not considered viable.

 

Option 3: Horizontal Deflection Design; similar to San Rosa Road, Wanneroo.

City Drawing No 3191-1-0 (Attachment 2 refers) details a proposal to delineate the through path of motorists along Parin Road and provide on-street parking was another option considered for addressing speeding along Parin Road. This option would require the complete redesign of the entire length of Parin Road involving the removal and replacement of existing street trees, raised medians and linemarking on the new road alignment and configuration. This treatment would also require the installation of additional street lighting in accordance with AS1158 to provide adequate lighting at the approaches to the traffic treatment devices. This option would adversely impact on adjoining residences during construction and the overall cost to the City would be much higher than all the options considered. This option although effective in addressing the speeding issues, was not selected due to cost and requiring significant streetlight modification work, the option was however considered to be a viable alternate option should the preferred treatment option not be accepted by the community.

 

Option 4: Bicycle Lane Design

City Drawing No 3192-1-0 (Attachment 3 refers) details a proposal to reduce the available traffic lane widths by installing red asphalt shoulders on either side of the road was also considered as a treatment for addressing the speeding issues along Parin Road. This option would require the removal of a 1m wide strip of black asphalt from either side of the road and replacement with red asphalt and white linemarking as appropriate. This option would allow existing street lighting to be retained as is, due to the vehicle travel path not being delineated horizontally or vertically.

This option would adversely impact on adjoining residences during construction however the overall cost to the City would be covered by the listed amount for the project. This option although cost appropriate was not selected as the most beneficial treatment, the option was however considered to be a viable alternate option should the preferred treatment option not be accepted by the community.

 

Option 5: Three sets of 1.6m wide rubber speed cushions including additional raised median islands and street trees.

City Drawing No. 3073-1-0 (Attachment 4 refers) details the installation of three sets of 1.6m wide speed cushions including additional raised median islands, street trees and minor streetlight installation works. This option was considered to be the most appropriate option overall as it would be effective in addressing the speed and volume of traffic along Parin Road, and would be the most cost effective solution. In addition, the use of 1.6m wide rubber speed cushions in 4m wide traffic lanes are within the allowable constraints stipulated by Main Roads WA. Rubber bollards are also proposed to be installed adjacent to kerbs to prevent motorists mounting the verge areas to avoid the speed cushions. The existing median and the presence of good sized gaps between property driveways enabled the installation of additional raised median islands including street trees. Verge street trees have also been included which in time will also assist with reducing through vehicle speeds and could ultimately be effective in isolation in encouraging lower traffic speeds along Parin Road.

 

For all speed cushion installations, Main Roads WA require that street lighting to be provided to AS1158 Section 3.2.6.1 to ensure that they are observable at night. Wherever possible, the speed cushions were located to take advantage of existing street lighting to ensure that the project was cost effective. Where there was no opportunity for this to occur, additional street lighting was proposed.

 

In addition, to ensure that the desired effect of installing traffic management is achieved, it is important that the relative distance between devices is kept constant. The proposed rubber speed cushions on Parin Road have been placed between 110m - 130m apart. In accordance with Main Roads WA standards, speed cushions should ideally be spaced between 80m and 100m apart with a maximum of 250m to achieve the best results. It is considered that as Parin Road is listed as a Local Distributor Road, having speed cushions located too close could result in motorists seeking alternate routes and ‘rat-running’ through other roads in the area. The proposed spacing of the speed cushions for this option is considered a suitable compromise that should address the speeding issues while still ensuring the traffic does not divert onto other surrounding streets.

 

As such, the traffic management scheme detailed in Option 5 was selected for consideration by the community. A letter together with a drawing of the proposed scheme was sent to properties abutting Parin Road to ascertain the level of community support for the proposal.

 

Consultation was undertaken in May 2015 with the 34 properties abutting Parin Road.  A total of 47 letters were sent to property owners and occupiers of Parin Road. The community consultation survey extended for a period of three weeks, giving residents the opportunity to respond to the City either via an online ‘survey monkey’ link or by returning a hard copy questionnaire by reply paid envelope.

 

The City received responses from 18 of the 34 properties surveyed (i.e. properties directly abutting Parin Road). From the 18 respondents, 10 were in favour (56%, ‘Yes’) of the TMS while eight opposed (44%, ‘No’) the TMS.

 

From the eight responses opposing the TMS, six opposed to the installation of speed cushions, while two indicated opposition to additional street trees. The comments made by the residents on Parin Road opposing the proposal had concerns relating to the following issues:

·    To avoid the speed cushions, motorist may take alternative routes affecting other local streets.

·    The speed cushions are not good for cars.

·    The speed cushions would create additional noise pollution generated from vehicles.

·    The speed cushions would be ineffective due to the existing mountable kerb edges and also detract from the value of the street.

·    Additional trees on their verges would impact on the opportunity for parking of vehicles in the verge.

·    Additional trees means more nuisance leaves that get blown into driveways and onto the adjacent property.

 

There were also seven additional responses received from residents outside the survey area, from other streets in the vicinity of Parin Road, also opposing the proposed traffic management scheme. The main concern raised in their objection was that the TMS proposal will result in traffic choosing alternate route through adjoining streets. 

 

A summary of comments provided by residents together with Administrations comments is provided in Attachment 6.

 

With consideration of the above and the relatively even percentage split of support to non-support, Administration considered it appropriate to review the options and again consult the community. Option 3 and Option 4, as listed above, were selected for further consultation.

 

Further consultation was undertaken in November 2015 and included a letter, hard copy questionnaire and A3 copies of City Drawing No.’s 3191-1-0 (Option 3 and 3192-1-0 (Option 4). Letters were sent to owners and occupiers of properties abutting Parin Road and also to those residents who responded as part of the initial community consultation. The community consultation survey was for a period of three weeks and residents were given the opportunity to respond to the City either via an online ‘survey monkey’ link or by returning a hard copy questionnaire by reply paid envelope. A copy of the survey letter and questionnaire is provided as Attachment 7.

 

The City received responses from 16 of the 34 properties directly abutting Parin Road. The questionnaire asked residents to advise their level of support for either one or the two options, and was presented as follows:

 

Option 3 Do you support the traffic management scheme proposal shown in City Drawing No. 3191-1-0?

or

Option 4 Do you support the traffic management scheme proposal shown in City Drawing No. 3192-1-0?

 

Residents were required to tick a check box under one of the two questions only. From the 16 respondents, 10 were in favour of the proposal shown in Drawing No 3191-1-0 (63%), four were in favour of the proposal shown in Drawing No 3192-1-0 (25%) and two did not support either option (12%).

 

There were an additional five response received from residents from properties on other streets in the vicinity of Parin Road. One was in favour of the proposal shown in Drawing No 3191-1-0, one was in favour of the proposal shown on Drawing No 3192-1-0 and three did not support either option. While the City is considerate of the opinions of residents on roads other than those subject to modification, it needs to be more focussed on the perspective of those residents which access directly from those roads in question. As this is the case, the responses received from properties abutting Parin Road only have been used for the purpose of results in this report.

 

A summary of comments provided by residents, together with Administrations comments, is provided in Attachment 8.

Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken as detailed previously in the report.

Comment

In developing the traffic management scheme options for Parin Road for community consultation, consideration was given to all existing infrastructure, including road configuration and geometry. The presence of the central median on Parin Road meant that due thought could be given to either utilising the existing median, raised median islands and street trees and installing additional treatment devices or the central median could be reinstated on an alternate alignment which better assisted in addressing the issues being faced.

 

Option 5 which formed part of the initial community consultation utilised the existing central median and included minor modifications by proposing to install rubber speed cushions. However, this option did not receive overwhelming support from the community (56% support to 44% objection). By reference to the comments made, this objection was mainly due to the majority of respondents not being in support of the use of speed cushions as they tend to generate a great deal of noise when traversed and were considered a hazard. Administration therefore decided to undertake further community consultation to ascertain the community’s view on two of the remaining four treatment options drafted for consideration.

 

Option 3 and Option 4 were used as part of the subsequent consultation with the community in November 2015. The response was much more encouraging with 88% of responses supporting the need to do one of the two options presented. Option 3, (being the ‘San Rosa Road’ design) received more support than the proposal presented in Option 4. Similarly, the show of support for a treatment which requires motorists to deflect horizontally instead of vertically supports the comments made by residents as part of the initial community consultation.

 

Both Option 3 and Option 4 include verge street trees as part of their designs, which when mature will assist in creating a ‘closed in’ road environment encouraging slower traffic speeds.

 

Administration supports implementing Option 3 (San Rosa Road design) as it has proven to be an effective treatment option in the past and is more likely to address the existing rat running issues. As a reference, traffic count results for San Rosa Road before and after the traffic treatment scheme was implemented were recorded as follows;

 

Traffic Count Results

	Location	Volume	85% Speed*
Before	San Rosa Road, east of Nyunda Drive	1249vpd	64km/h
After	San Rosa Road, east of Nyunda Drive	1004vpd	50km/h

*Note: 85% Speed refers to the speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling.

 

The above data indicates that the chicane treatment on San Rosa Road was effective in reducing through vehicles speeds to the default built up area speed limit of 50km/h and assisted in reducing the daily traffic volumes.

 

 

In addition, a number of comments were raised by residents regarding the proposed verge street trees and their impact on sightlines. A review of the street trees has indicated that the trees located on the south side of Parin Road between the kerb and the existing footpath could create potential sightline issues depending on where residents stopped before exiting their driveways. As such, the verge street trees have been removed as relocating them behind the footpath will create a conflict with overhead power lines once mature. In the cases where verge street trees were proposed on the north side of Parin Road these trees have been relocated back away from the traffic lanes so as to not create sightlines issue as previously explained. With these points considered, Drawing No. 3191-1-0 has been revised to reflect the changes and includes minor modifications to the central median to accommodate individual access requirements accordingly.

 

Given the strong support from the community, Administration supports the traffic treatment proposal as presented in Option 3 as revised with minor street tree removal changes as shown on Drawing No. 3191-1-1 (Attachment 9 refers). The estimated cost to implement the revised Traffic Management Scheme is $180,000.

 

Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations made in this report, the design of the proposed TMS can be undertaken by March 2016. The construction schedule is dependent on the installation of street lighting by Western Power which may occur in late June 2016, subject to Western Power providing a timely quote and scheduling these works. The civil construction works will be programmed immediately following the installation of street lighting, more than likely from July 2016.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications                                       

The City’s Traffic Management Investigation & Intervention Policy applies to the assessment of traffic management needs in Parin Road.

Financial Implications

A project for the implementation of a traffic management scheme along Parin Road is currently listed in 2015/2016 of the City’s Capital Works Program, with a budget allocation of $90,000. The higher estimated cost of $180,000 for the proposed TMS in Parin Road is attributed to:

 

·    Significant additional street lighting required;

·    Significant additional linemarking spotting;

·    New raised island nibs; and

·    New red asphalt median.

 

As noted earlier, the civil works for this project are likely to occur after the installation of street lighting from July 2016, it is therefore proposed that the additional $90,000 required to fully complete this project be listed in 2016/2107 Capital Works Program. The 2015/2016 funding will be utilised to finalise the design and documentation, install street lighting and other works which can be undertaken ahead of the main civil works.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the revised Traffic Management Scheme – Option 3 (horizontal deflections similar to San Rosa Road), for Parin Road, Marangaroo, as detailed in City Drawing No. 3191-1-1 (Attachment 9 refers) at an estimated cost of $180,000;

2.       NOTES that the additional $90,000 funding is required to be allocated in 2016/2017 Capital Works Program to fully complete the works for  PR-2982 – Parin Road Traffic Management Scheme; and

3.       ADVISES the residents of Parin Road of Council’s decision.

 

Attachments:

1.	Locality Plan - Parin Road TMS	15/234805
2.	3191-1-0 - Parin Road TMS - Revised Concept Plan - Option C	15/520532
3.	3192-1-0 - Parin Road TMS - Revised Concept Plan - Option D	15/520537
4.	3073-1-0 - Parin Road TMS Original Concept - Option E	15/234808
5.	Parin Road, Marangaroo - Letter and Survey to Residents	15/234810
6.	Parin Road - Community Consultation Comments & Response	15/300601
7.	Parin Road, Marangaroo - Letter and Survey Form to Residents - Reconsultation	15/586558
8.	Parin Road CC Comments&Response No. 2 - Re-consultation	15/587023
9.	3191-1-1 Parin Road TMS - Final Concept Plan - Option C	16/10161	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              19484 – 15/550340

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Parks and Reserves Maintenance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the results of community consultation for the proposed Traffic Management Scheme (TMS) along Heathfield Drive from Mirrabooka Avenue to The Broadview in Landsdale. Attachment 1 shows a locality plan of the area.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting on 11 November 2014, considered a Motion on Notice requesting traffic treatments be installed on Heathfield Drive Landsdale (MN01-11/14 refers) and resolved as follows:

1.    REQUESTS Administration to prepare a community engagement process to inform on a traffic management plan for Heathfield Drive, Landsdale;

 

2.    REPORTS to Council by June 2015 for consideration and funding allocations as part of the 2015/2016 budget process; and

 

3.    REQUESTS Administration to investigate alternative funding sources such as Black Spot grants which may be applicable to these works.

A Traffic Management Scheme (TMS) for Heathfield Drive was developed taking into consideration its road transport function and configuration including residential requirements, number and proximity of crossovers and accommodating the passage of public utility vehicles, i.e. rubbish trucks and fire tenders.

Community consultation was undertaken with the residents of Heathfield Drive in December 2014, refer Attachment 2. The response to this consultation did not support the scheme and as a result, further consultation with residents, based on a modified TMS, was undertaken in June 2015. This report now considers the outcome of this community consultation, refer Attachment 5.

Detail

Heathfield Drive extends from Mirrabooka Avenue to The Broadview in Landsdale, a length of 425m. Heathfield Drive is classified as a Local Distributor in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy with a 50kmh speed limit and has a road reserve width of 20m. The carriageway width varies from 7.5m to 13m with existing median islands extending approximately one third of its length from the Mirrabooka Avenue intersection. It is neither a Transperth bus route nor a school bus route.

 

The properties fronting Heathfield Drive are residential with no schools, shops or sporting facilities in the immediate vicinity. A 2m wide pedestrian pathway is located on the south side and extends the full length of Heathfield Drive.

 

As a Local Distributor Road, it is expected to accommodate traffic volumes up to 6,000 vehicles a day (vpd). As can be seen from the following traffic count data, it currently handles 4072vpd, indicating that Heathfield Drive is operating well within its capacity.  

 

 

 

A Motion on Notice, Item No MN01-11/14, was considered by Council’s at its meeting on 11 November 2014, and it was resolved to develop a traffic management scheme (TMS) for Heathfield Drive, taking into consideration its road transport function, number and proximity of intersections and crossovers.

 

In developing a cost effective traffic management scheme for community consultation, Administration considered the following aspects:

·    Road function and configuration;

·    Intersections;

·    Crossovers;

·    Pathways;

·    Lighting; and

·    Traffic treatment spacing.

 

Option 1: Median Treatment - Road widening and provision of a median island.

Existing median treatments on Heathfield Drive extend for 180m from the Mirrabooka Avenue intersection, however past this point the road pavement width narrows to 7.2m, and is only sufficient to accommodate the minimum median width of 1.2m. By itself, median treatments only marginally reduce traffic speeds and are best used in combination with other measures or treatments.   

 

Option 2: Horizontal Deflection Devices, slow points, chicanes or blister islands.

Residential properties along Heathfield Drive have property frontages typically 18m to 20m wide, most with 6m wide crossovers, resulting in the crossovers being in close proximity to each other; coupled with this, there are three intersecting roads. Each of the horizontal deflection devices requires approach and departure tapers and transitional treatments which will invariably block access to residential crossovers when located adjacent to the devices. As a result of these restrictions along the stretch of road, the ability to strategically locate horizontal deflection devices is limited in achieving satisfactory outcomes.

As this option would adversely impact on adjoining residences, it was not considered favourable or viable.

 

Option 3: Vertical Displacement Devices, such as Speed Cushions.

This option involves the installation of one set of 1.6m wide speed cushions to be located on the east bound lane near the Mirrabooka Avenue intersection, verge trees and a raised intersection plateau at the intersection with Dorneywood Way. It also includes the installation of a narrow median from The Broadview intersection to the existing median which ends adjacent to house number 24, refer Attachment 3.

The proposed single set of speed cushions was located so that traffic entering Heathfield Drive from Mirrabooka Avenue, a District Distributor with a 70kmh posted speed limit, do not carry its speed through into a 50kmh built-up residential road. Rubber bollards are also proposed to be strategically installed on the kerbs adjacent to the cushions to prevent motorists mounting and traversing the verge area in order to avoid the speed cushions.

Although these devices will increase general vehicle noise, they have proven to be most effective in facilitating speed reduction and to deter hoon behaviour. They are also acceptable for large emergency vehicles and buses, as the wheel bases of these vehicles are wide enough to straddle the individual cushions.

The second part for this TMS is a raised intersection plateau proposed at the Dorneywood Way intersection. It is anticipated that the proposed works will encourage motorists to be compliant with the default area speed limit of 50km/hr along Heathfield Drive.

This proposed TMS also includes new and modified road medians. The new narrow median will extend from the intersection of The Broadview along Heathfield Drive, tying into a slightly modified variation of the existing raised medians near the Everglades Parade intersection. The proposed median will be flush with the road for the most part, with raised median islands installed at regular intervals. All raised median islands will be located to ensure driveway accesses are not restricted. The existing median and islands outside house numbers 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 will be widened and raised islands relocated to allow full movement access to properties.

 

The installation of any traffic treatment device requires street lighting to be provided in accordance with Australian Standards (AS1158, Section 3.2.6.1) to ensure that these treatments are clearly visible at night. In order to ensure the project is cost effective, the treatments were located, wherever possible, to take advantage of any existing street lighting. However two additional street lights will be required for the raised intersection plateau. These lights were of concern to adjoining residents.

Consultation

In June 2015, the City presented the modified TMS (Option 3) for community consultation in accordane with the City’s Community Engagement Policy.  Letters were sent to 48 residents and owners of properties directly abutting Heathfield Drive, Landsdale and notification on the City’s web site.

 

Consultation began on 17 June 2015 and closed on 6 July 2015 and attracted a total of 16 responses (33% response rate).  As shown in the table below, the response rate of 33% compares favourably to the average response rate of 29% from community consultation conducted in 2015 for similar traffic treatment projects.  Administration notes that the 43% response rate for Aldersea Circle represents only those properties on Aldersea Circle, rather than the wider consultation area which had an overall response rate of 19%.

 

Report	Traffic Management Scheme	Response Rate
IN04-03/15	Rangeview Road, Landsdale	14%
IN05-06/15	Anchorage Drive, Mindarie	34%
IN09-07/15	Aldersea Circle, Clarkson	43%
IN03-10/15	Gnangara Road,	20%
IN05-11/15	Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen	21%
IN07-12/15	Landsdale Road, Darch	40%
Average Response Rate		29%

 

Of the 16 responses received, 6 (37%) were in agreement with the proposal and 10 (63%) were opposed to it. All replies came from properties abutting Heathfield Drive.   There is a clear majority of respondents 63% against the proposed TMS. Eight of these responses were received on the consultation forms provided, the remaining eight were in the form of a signed request for further information and a list of five queries identifying concerns with the TMS. These requests were circulated amongst resident, refer Attachment 4. Following the conclusion of the consultation, the City’s Traffic Engineers met with residents on site to discuss the list of five queries. 

 

Survey respondents were also given the option to provide additional comments for consideration by the City. The comments relevant to Heathfield Drive have been reviewed and considered by Administration and are listed below.

 

 

Respondents Comments	Administrations Response
Concern with the speed cushion treatment in the proposed TMS prefers the horizontal displacement type slow points.	Horizontal displacement devices, such as chicanes and blister islands, require a longer distance between driveways for installation. With the proximity of driveways on Heathfield Drive, there is little or no opportunity to install such devises along Heathfield Drive.
Concern that the proposed TMS will reduce vehicle access to driveway.	The proposed TMS will not reduce vehicle access to any of the existing driveways.
Concern over the removal of the established median trees in front of house number 28.	The proposed TMS will retain these two trees.
Concern over the height of the speed humps causing scraping off cars.	All the humps proposed in this TMS are standard height and should not scrap the bottom of standard cars.
Concern over noise impact of the raised intersection plateau will have on adjacent properties.	The gradients of the rises to the raised intersection plateau will be reduced to the same as that used on bus routes. Although less effective, the lower gradient will have a low noise impact.
Light spillage in to adjacent residence from proposed lights installed to facilitate traffic management devices such as the proposed raised intersection plateau.	This is a safety requirement to ensure the correct amount of light at the approach of a traffic control device. The light spillage can be minimised by effective light location and the use of light shades.
Concerns for proposed trees, near the intersection of Heathfield Drive and Dorneywood Way, causing extra maintenance for residents and obscure sight lines.	The City maintains verge trees and a review of the tree location has resulted in modifications to the proposed TMS.
Concerns with the raised intersection plateau causing stormwater flooding.	The detailed design of the plateau will consider the management of the stormwater.
Concern regarding the proposed raised intersection plateau on the Dorneywood Way Intersection but not on other intersections and what alternatives are possible.	The Dorneywood Way intersection was chosen for the raised plateau as it presented the best spacing of treatments along Heathfield Drive with minimal impact on vehicle access to properties. This intersection has a higher traffic flow than Gilpin Close.

Comment

Following consideration of the community consultation outcomes and more recent discussions with residents, consideration was given to revise the proposed Traffic Management Scheme which considered the concerns voiced by the residents, such as increase in noise, light spillage and reduced access to driveways. The resulting proposed treatment scheme addressing all concerns consisted of only modifying the existing central median islands with no speed cushions, speed plateau and verge trees. Although this modified scheme would be acceptable to residents, its effect on traffic would be minimal and would not justify the expense of installation, refer Attachment 5.

 

Given that the community does not support the proposed traffic management scheme and any further modification will render it ineffective, Administration does not recommend implementing a traffic management scheme on Heathfield Drive, Lansdale.

 

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

Consultation has been conducted in accordance with the City’s Community Engagement Policy and associated Community Engagement Management Procedure.  The level of engagement for the proposed traffic management scheme was Consult as set out in Attachment B of the Policy.

 

The City’s TMIIP applies to the assessment of the traffic management scheme in Heathfield Drive which has indicated a low score of 32. 

 

In order to validate this recommendation, the traffic count data for Heathfield Drive was analysed and an assessment as per the City’s TMIIP was undertaken. The traffic data and assessment as per the TMIIP is summarised below. The low TMIIP score indicates that Heathfield Drive does not qualify for traffic treatments.

 

Date of count: 23/10/2014 to 31/10/2014

Traffic Volume = 4071.7vpd

85^th percentile (speed at or below 85% of drivers are travelling) – 57.2km/h

Mean Speed = 49.1 km/hr

TMIIP Score = 32

 

The TMIIP has been designed as evidence based tool by which to objectively rank traffic management projects.  This ensures that limited funding is allocated to projects which maximise overall benefits to the community.  By approving traffic management treatments outside of this policy, the City risks the misallocation of resources and decisions may be called into question by the community. The low score indicates that the implementation of a traffic management scheme in Heathfield Drive should not be supported.

Financial Implications

The proposed traffic management scheme, for which community consultation (Option 3) was undertaken, is estimated to cost $150,000. As Administration is not recommending the implementation of this scheme, there are no further financial implications.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of a Traffic Management Scheme along Heathfield Drive, Landsdale; and

2.       ADVISES the respondents of Councils decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Heathfield Dr, Landsdale - Traffic Management Scheme - Locality Plan	15/473252
2.	Heathfield Drive, Landsdale - Letter to residents	16/11580
3.	Heathfield Drive, Landsdale - Traffic Management Scheme - Traffic Management Treatment Plan	15/549940
4.	Heathfield Drive, Landsdale - Traffic Management Scheme - Request for Additional Information	15/590369
5.	Heathfield Drive, Landsdale - Traffic Management Scheme - Concept Plan 3091-1-1	15/590299

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              7891 – 16/14923

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To provide a progress update on the outcomes of a previous community consultation, Community Information Sessions and the undertaking of a further Community Consultation in regards to the provision of a second vehicular access to the Madeley North Precinct (refer Attachment 1 for location map).

Background

Council at its meeting of the 13 October 2015 considered a report (IN03-10/15 refers) investigating the possible opening of the eastern end of Marathon Loop (cul-de-sac end) onto Gnangara Road and to consider the results of the associated Community Consultation (refer Attachment 2) and a number of recommendations made in this report. In view of the questions from the community members during the Public Question Time, Council did not consider the recommendations and adopted the following procedural motion;

“That the Motion be deferred to the next Council meeting to allow for a public on-site meeting with local residents prior to a decision being made.”

 

In accordance with the Council decision, a Community Information Session was conducted with the local residents on the 22 October 2015 in the Council Chambers to discuss the provision of a second vehicular access by constructing a new intersection at Gnangara Road/Marathon Loop east. It was decided at this Session that Administration will investigate a number of other options as requested by the community and prepare a separate report to Council on ‘Gnangara Road – Speed Limit Review’ for consideration at December Council meeting. It was also decided to hold a further Community Information Session with attendance from Main Roads WA and presentation of further options on alternative accesses.  

 

Following this Session, Administration undertook an investigation into a number of other options as requested by the community and prepared a separate report to Council on Gnangara Road – Speed Limit Review (IN07-11/15 refers) and restrictions of Heavy Haulage route; which was considered by Council at its meeting on 10 November 2015 and the following resolutions were made;

          “1.     ENDORSES the speed limit reduction on Gnangara Road between Wanneroo Road and 250m west of Klaraborg Drive as approved by Main Roads WA from 70km/h to 60km/h;

2.       ADVISES Main Roads WA of Council’s decision; and

 

3.       NOTES that Administration has written to Main Roads WA to undertake regular

compliance checks to ensure that the heavy haulage truck are not using Gnangara Road from Wanneroo Road to Rigali Way, in compliance with the amended heavy haulage route.”

A further Community Information Session was held on the 7 December 2015 at the Kingsway Indoor Stadium and this report provides an update on the outcome of the Session and associated matters.  

 

Detail

Madeley North Precinct is a residential area bounded by Wanneroo Road, Gnangara Road, Windsor Road and the proposed Gnangara Road re-alignment. A location map of the subject site is shown in Attachment 1.

 

At the community information session held on 7 December 2015, information on the status of Gnangara Road realignment and a number of actions undertaken by the City to assess the accessibility issues for the residents of Madeley North precinct was presented and discussed as summarised below:

·    Investigation of full Intersection at Marathon Loop East and Gnangara Road and Left-In to Marathon Loop West;

·    Investigation of connection to Windsor Road through Lot 100 (360) Wanneroo Road, Madeley;

·    Investigation of roundabout at Marathon Loop West and Gnangara Road Intersection;

·    Investigation of Traffic Signal at Buffalo Avenue and Gnangara Road intersection;

·    Investigation of roundabout at Buffalo Avenue and Gnangara Road Intersection;

·    Installation of 60Km/hr Speed Limit Signs on Gnangara Road;

·    Request to Main Roads WA for increased enforcement of Heavy Haulage removal from Gnangara Road; and

·    Risk Assessment by independent third party, LGIS and Investigation of Left-In to Marathon Loop West with Emergency access to Marathon Loop East.

Main Roads WA representative also made a presentation on the connection of the proposed realigned Gnangara Road with Wanneroo Road/Whitfords Avenue intersection. Notes of the community information sessions held on the 22 October and 7 December 2015 are shown in Attachments 3 and 4.

At the community information session held on 07 December 2015, it was advised that a report will be presented to Council at its meeting of 02 February 2016 recommending the implementation of an option involving “Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and Emergency Access Driveway at Marathon Loop East”.

Since then, some residents have expressed concern about the overall community support for this option and requested further community consultation.

In addition, more recently the City has undertaken further research in order to provide a secondary access from the north of Buffalo Avenue. This was to investigate another option which is based on the construction of an access road from the North of Buffalo Avenue to Gavranich Way which then provides connection to Windsor Road. This option is similar to that discussed at the Community Information Sessions, involving a connection to Windsor Road from the northern end of Buffalo Avenue.  

After considering the concerns expressed by community members regarding the Emergency Access Driveway option and that a further option is feasible, further feedback from the community has been sought on the following three options that are now considered suitable for further consideration:

 

 

Option description	Option provision
Option A - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and Full Intersection at Marathon Loop East as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-1-1 (refer Attachment 5).	Provides a full second access to the area which will cover emergency vehicle access.
Option B - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and Emergency Access Driveway at Marathon Loop East as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-6-0 (refer Attachment 6).	Provides partial second access to the area and a dedicated full movement, Emergency Vehicle Access.
Option C - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and construction of an access road from the north end of Buffalo Avenue, north to Gavranich Way, as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-9-0 (refer Attachment 7).	Provides a full second access to the area which will cover emergency vehicle access.

 

The drawings listed in the above options are also available on the City’s website and view the information available under the ‘Marathon Loop Gnangara Road Intersection Accessibility’ link in the ‘Your Say Community Engagement’ section. 

Due to undertaking of this further community consultation, the report to Council will now be presented at its meeting of 1 March 2016 for considering the community feedback and determining funding and timeframe for the construction of the preferred option. The community has been advised of this change noting that a progress update report on this matter is being presented to Council at its meeting on 2 February 2016.

While the report to Council on the choice of an option is being deferred by a month, the overall timeframe of the delivery of an option remains the same. Subject to Council decision on the choice of a suitable option and allocation of funds, Options A or C can be designed as priority during the current financial year and constructed during the first half of the next financial year; and Option B can be designed and constructed by May 2016.

In accordance with Delegation 2.5:  Authority to Make Decisions on Behalf of the City during Council Recess, the Acting Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor authorised this further community consultation to be undertaken from 18 January 2016 and closing on 8 February 2016.

It is also noted that the following actions have also been undertaken in relation to the speed reduction and heavy haulage vehicles in Gnangara Road:

·    60kph speed signs were installed in Gnangara Road on 14 December 2015 by MRWA, in accordance with the City’s request to MRWA to reduce speed in Gnangara Road between Wanneroo Road and 250m west of Klaraborg Drive as approved by MRWA from 70km/h to 60km/h;

·    MRWA has been requested to undertake compliance checks to ensure for increased enforcement of Heavy Haulage removal from Gnangara Road;

·    MRWA has also been requested to install Truck Noise signage in Gnangara Road;

 

 

·    MRWA requested to arrange the removal of “Landsdale Industrial Sign’ located in Wanneroo Road at Gnangara Road; and

·    Signage installation and maintenance works as discussed at the Community Information Session of 22 October 2015 have been completed. These works include the installation of “No through Road’ signs in Buffalo Avenue at the Owen Link intersection, installation of “Local Access Only” signs in Buffalo Avenue (near Gnangara Road) and the installation of colorbond fence at the northern end of Buffalo Avenue

 Consultations

The first community consultation was undertaken in June 2015. Two Community Information Sessions have also been held in relation to the matters relating to the accessibility to the Madeley Residential Precinct.

In relation to the further community consultation as outlined in the Details Section of this report, consultation is being undertaken by sending letters to 238 property owners and residents of the Precinct. The community has been requested to provide feedback to the City by no later than Monday 8 February 2016 on the proposed options by either of these two methods;

·        Online at access https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/marathonloopaccess or

·        By completing the survey questionnaire and returning it to the City in the reply-paid envelope.

It is noted that the City’s Traffic Engineers will also be on site (Northern end of Buffalo Avenue) on 1 February 2016 from 3.00pm to 6.00pm to discuss the options with the interested community members and answer any questions that they may have in relation to these options which may assist them in forming their opinion.

Comment

After considering a number of options including those suggested by the community such as connection to Windsor Road from the northern end, installation of roundabout at Gnangara Road either at Buffalo Avenue or Marathon Loop West, installation of traffic signals at Gnangara Road/Buffalo Avenue; Administration has identified three options, as described in the Details Section of this report, which are considered to be suitable.

 

Even though some external approvals will be necessary for these three options such as service authorities’ approval, MRWA approval for pavement markings and signage; Administration considers that these are able to be obtained as part of the detailed design of the endorsed option. Subject to allocation of funds in the Capital Works Budget and finalising necessary approvals, any of these options are able to be constructed within the shortest possible timeframes as advised earlier.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

 

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The estimated costs for the design and construction of the three options are summarised below:

 

·    Option A - $250,000

·    Option B - $40,000; and

·    Option C - $150,000

 

It is noted that no funding is currently allocated in the approved Capital Works Budget for 2015/2016 for works associated with any of these three options. Similarly, no funding has been listed in the draft Long-term Capital Works Budget for these works.

 

Subject to Council’s decision on the choice of an option for implementation, funding would need to be identified and allocated in the Capital Works Budget. This will be further addressed in the report on this matter scheduled to be presented at the Council meeting on 1 March 2016.   

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the Acting Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor, In accordance with Delegation 2.5.:  Authority to Make Decisions on Behalf of the City during Council Recess, authorised the undertaking of a further community consultation (from 18 January 2016 to 8 February 2016) to seek the community’s feedback on the following three accessibility options for the Madeley Residential Precinct:

a)      Options A - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and Full Intersection at Marathon Loop East as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-1-1;

b)      Option B - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and Emergency Access Driveway at Marathon Loop East as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-6-0; and

c)      Option C - Left-In at Marathon Loop West/Gnangara Road intersection and construction of an access road from the north end of Buffalo Avenue, north to Gavranich Way, as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3128-9-0;

 

 

 

2.       NOTES that a report on the outcome of the further community consultation is scheduled to be presented at the next Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 1 March 2016.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Locality Map	15/139271
2.	Concept Plan	15/142098
3.	Accessibility Community Information Session 1 - Notes	16/7422
4.	Accessibility Community Information Session 2 - Notes.	16/7426
5.	Concept Plan Option 1 - Number 3128-1-0	16/9343
6.	Concept Plan Option 2- Number 3128-6-0	16/8337
7.	Concept Plan Option 3 - Number 3128-9-0	16/15312

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Asset Management

File Ref:                                              1717 – 15/509728

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Parks and Reserves Maintenance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the restrictions and changes to horse access within Lake Badgerup Reserve, Wanneroo.

 

Background

Throughout 2009 and 2010 Clearing Permits were applied for by the City of Wanneroo for the purpose of facilitating various major road projects, including CPS 2963/1 (Ocean Reef Road), CPS 1964/2 (Ocean Reef Road), 2184/1 (Brazier Road) and CPS 3731/1 (Wesco Road, Flynn Drive, Old Yanchep Road and Lenore/Franklin Roads). These permits all contained environmental offset conditions relating to the rehabilitation and revegetation of degraded areas within the City that were required to be met prior to clearing and roadworks occurring.

 

In order to meet the above requirements, the City presented a 15 hectare environmental offset site proposal at Lake Badgerup Reserve which included the transfer and reclassification of numerous land parcels within Lake Badgerup Reserve that were under the ownership and management of the Western Australian Planning Commission totalling 56.6 hectares. Amalgamation of the parcels of land within and around Lake Badgerup Reserve resulted in the creation of one Conservation Reserve under the management of the City. This enabled the City to present the rehabilitation and revegetation of the 15 hectares of degraded areas within the reserve as the environmental offset proposal. This proposal was endorsed at Council’s meeting on 17 November 2009 (IN02-11/09 refers). This outcome followed  significant planning and liaisons with the following  State and Federal Governments:

·    Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC),

·    Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) now Department of Environment Regulation (DER), and,

·    Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) now the Department of the Environment (DE).

 

The environmental offset proposal was eventually accepted by DE in May 2010 and DER in November 2010, thus satisfying the offset conditions listed in the above clearing permits.

 

Historically, the parcels of land within Lake Badgerup Reserve while under the management of WAPC were unfenced, with frequent unauthorised access in the form of off road vehicle access, including off-road motorbikes, quad bikes and four-wheel drive vehicles that lead to further degradation of the remnant bushland areas. Additionally, as the reserve was unfenced and not formally managed, persons were also able to access the reserve at multiple locations and undertake equestrian recreation activity.

 

Following the ‘MRS Amendment 1082/33 - Bush Forever and Related Lands’ which changed Lake Badgerup Reserve to a Bush Forever area (in September 2010) and its reclassification to ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’ Management Order (May 2012), equestrian recreation activities within the reserve are no longer considered acceptable and cannot be supported.

 

Detail

The conditions of the State and Federal Governments’ Clearing Permit approvals required that the following actions be undertaken in relation to the land transfer components;

·    56.6 hectares of land within the reserve transferred to the City for conservation protection in perpetuity;

·    The land to be transferred to the City’s management with the purpose of the management order being ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’;

·    Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS) amendment to change the zoning to ‘Parks and Recreation’; and

·    A 10 Year Management Plan for Lake Badgerup to be developed.

 

Prior to the formal land transfer process being affected, the City in late 2010, accepted in principle the management of the 56.6 hectares of land parcels previously managed by the WAPC for the purpose of ‘Parks and Recreation’. The early acceptance of the management of the reserve enabled on ground offset rehabilitation activities to commence in accordance with State and Federal Government environmental conditions and to meet seasonal timeframes.

 

In September 2010, Parliament approved ‘MRS Amendment 1082/33 – Bush Forever and Related Lands’ which changed Lake Badgerup Reserve to a Bush Forever area and provided Regional Reserve zoning under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS). The formal transfer of land, including the change in the management order purpose from ‘Parks and Recreation’ to ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’, was completed in May 2012. The management order purpose of ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’ achieves both the State and Federal Government offset requirements. The changed management order purpose is supportive of the 15 hectare on ground rehabilitation efforts to bare and degraded areas within the reserve and also supports the conservation of existing remnant vegetation within Lake Badgerup Reserve which contains Carnaby Cockatoo foraging habitat and potential breeding habitat.  Additionally, the Regional Reserve status under the MRS and the Bush Forever status secure the long-term protection of biodiversity and associated environmental values within Lake Badgerup Reserve.

 

From mid to late 2011, prior to the formal land transfer being completed, the City with agreement from the WAPC, commenced initial works with the installation of fencing and gated access points around the reserve to restrict further unauthorised access by off road vehicles and assist in the preservation and enhancement of the remnant vegetation areas as well as the protection of the City’s 15 hectare environmental offset rehabilitation site. As the management order for ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’ had not yet been received at the time the fencing occurred, it was agreed that gated equestrian access points would remain in the interim.

 

Over recent years, further infrastructure has been installed throughout the reserve, including fencing and formalised limestone vehicle tracks. The installation of limestone tracks enables Contractor and City maintenance vehicle access to the 15 hectare offset rehabilitation site and also emergency service vehicle access to the reserve, including fire vehicles. The installation of limestone tracks has been highly beneficial for the local community due to the limited POS areas within this rural area and these tracks have provided extensive routes for passive recreation activities like walking, running and bike riding. Local residents are regularly observed throughout the reserve walking their dogs and exercising in groups.

 

Equestrian recreation activity within the reserve has continued, however the formalised limestone tracks are now being extensively damaged by equestrian users despite the City taking efforts in the form of signage and letter mail outs to encourage equestrian users to utilise sand tracks only within the reserve. Equestrian users have also created a circuit of horse ‘jumps’ within the recently planted (June 2015) offset rehabilitation area.

The City has had to install additional fencing around the planting area, however equestrian users appear to seek out ‘unfenced’ areas to continually gain access to the circuit of horse ‘jumps’ causing further damage to the rehabilitation efforts. The damage to limestone tracks and offset planting areas has caused unnecessary and ongoing costs to the City to remediate. In addition to the damage to infrastructure, equestrian recreation activity within environmental areas is known to contribute to the spread of weeds, increase in soil nutrient loads, increase erosion and decrease natural regeneration This activity is considered to be in conflict with the primary purpose of the reserve, being ‘Conservation’.

 

To determine the legitimacy of equestrian use within the reserve, the City sought advice from the Department of Planning (DoP) in regards to whether equestrian recreation activity within Lake Badgerup reserve is in conflict with the Reserve’s Bush Forever status (Bush Forever Site # 327). The DoP advised that passive recreation pursuits such as bush walking (on designated paths) and dog walking (on leashes) are acceptable activities within a Bush Forever area. However the use of Bush Forever areas for equestrian recreation activity is not supported and is also inconsistent with the ‘Conservation and Passive Recreation’ Management Order and State Planning Policy 2.8 – ‘Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region’ (SPP 2.8) for the reasons that the horses within conservation areas have the potential to trample vegetation, spread weeds/diseases throughout an environmental area and that equestrian use is deemed to be an ‘active recreation’ activity and not a ‘passive recreation’ activity.

 

In addition to this, permitting equestrian recreation activity within Lake Badgerup Reserve is also in conflict with Section 26(2) of the City of Wanneroo’s Animals Local Law 1999, which states that,

‘a person shall not ride, drive or bring a horse onto any reserve or foreshore or any part thereof that has not been set aside for that purpose’.

 

Currently anyone found within Lake Badgerup Reserve undertaking equestrian recreation activity could be fined, with the infringement value being $100.00. The City’s Animals Local Law 1999 is currently under review (specifically sections relating to dogs, cats and bee-keeping), but is not yet gazetted. Equestrian recreation is not currently being reviewed and therefore is not impacted at this stage.

 

Further advice received from the City’s Lawyer, in relation to DoP’s advice, concurs that permitting equestrian recreation activity within the reserve is in conflict with the Bush Forever status and the reserve’s primary purpose of ‘Conservation’ and also the City’s Local Law.

 

It is acknowledged that equestrian recreation activity is favoured within the local area, with both the historical equestrian use within the reserve and also with many surrounding residents currently housing horses at their rural properties. There is also the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club located immediately north of the reserve in an adjoining property.

 

In order to maintain continued equestrian access from the Badgerup Road and Grisker Road gated entrances through to Benmuni Road, where the Horse and Pony Club is located, it is proposed to maintain the horse gate accesses at these locations (see Attachment 1). This will enable equestrian users to traverse the undeveloped road reserve linking these gated access points. However, to restrict and exclude future equestrian recreation within Lake Badgerup Reserve, it is proposed to install conservation-style fencing and vehicle and pedestrian gates in the locations proposed on Attachment 2.

 

Therefore, in conformance with the correspondence received from DoP, the restrictions under SPP 2.8 and the City’s Local Law, it is preferred to install relevant infrastructure following a four week notification period advising the community of the prohibition of equestrian activities within Lake Badgerup Reserve.

This will be in the form of letter mail outs, informative signage at the reserve access points and updates published on the City’s website/facebook page.

 

The exclusion of equestrian recreation activity within the reserve will fulfil SPP 2.8 and the City’s Local Law, and will complement the actions proposed within the 10 Year Lake Badgerup Management Plan and support the rehabilitation and revegetation efforts of the environmental offset areas. Additionally, cost savings will be experienced in rehabilitation efforts, as the ongoing damage caused by equestrian recreation use will cease.

Consultation

The community will be advised of the intended equestrian use exclusion within Lake Badgerup Reserve, following a four week notification period that will include a mail out to surrounding residents, the installation of signage at reserve access points and information provided on the City’s website and Facebook pages.

 

Administration has met with a representative of the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club to discuss the matters raised in this Report. The representative did not have any objections to the matters discussed within the Report, as access restrictions to Lake Badgerup Reserve  do not impact upon Club operations and/or activities.

Comment

The production and endorsement of the 10 year Lake Badgerup Reserve Management Plan is a requirement of the State Government’s environmental offset conditions. The draft management plan (the Plan) has been reviewed by Administration and following Council’s acknowledgement of the prohibition on equestrian recreation activity within Lake Badgerup Reserve, the Plan will progress through to final adoption.

 

There are areas within the City of Wanneroo where equestrian use is permitted. The following reserves state ‘Equestrian Purposes’ as its Reserve Purpose on the Management Orders;

·    Nanovich Park – Wanneroo Trotting and Training Club (Leased);

·    Estrel Park – Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club (Leased); and

·    Reserve 49061 - Riding for the Disabled Association of W.A (Leased).

 

Under the City of Wanneroo Local Law, equestrian use is not permitted in areas that have not been set aside for that particular purpose. It is noted equestrian users can be fined if found riding in parks or reserves that are not designated for ‘equestrian’ purposes.

 

Permitted locations for equestrian recreation are not currently provided on the City of Wanneroo website.

 Statutory Compliance

Exclusion of equestrian recreation activity within Lake Badgerup Reserve is to ensure compliance with the State Planning Policy 2.8 ‘Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region’ (SPP 2.8) and the City’s Local Law (Section 26(2) of the City of Wanneroo’s Animals Local Law 1999).

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 are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Equestrian use within Lake Badgerup Reserve directly affects the City achieving its State and Federal Government environmental offset requirements. The proposal to install infrastructure and restrict equestrian use in Lake Badgerup Conservation Reserve will mitigate the risk of the City not complying with the identified ‘Offset requirements’ risk, currently listed in the Asset Directorates’ risk register.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The installation of conservation-style fencing (TS 01-7-1) including vehicle and pedestrian gates to prevent the entry of equestrian users onto Lake Badgerup Reserve as shown in Attachment 2. The works are estimated to cost $40,000.00 and will form part of the scope of the works under PR 2088 – Badgerup Lake (Environmental Offset requirement).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACKNOWLEDGES that equestrian use is prohibited within the boundaries of Lake Badgerup Conservation Reserve and all City reserves and foreshores, unless specifically set aside for that purpose in accordance with the City’s Local Law (Section 26(2) of the City of Wanneroo’s Animals Local Law 1999);

2.       NOTES that the proposed installation of fencing and gates will be accommodated within the 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget, PR 2088 - Badgerup Lake (Environmental Offset requirement); and

3.       ADVISE the surrounding community and residents of the exclusion of equestrian use within the boundaries of Lake Badgerup Reserve accordingly.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	ATTACHMENT 1 - EQUESTRIAN ACCESS POINTS BOUNDING LAKE BADGERUP RESERVE, WANNEROO.docx	16/7149
2.	ATTACHMENT 2 - LAKE BADGERUP RESERVE FENCING CONCEPT PLAN, WANNEROO.docx	16/7113

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              22735 – 15/573299

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Parks and Reserves Maintenance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01559 for the Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive, Clarkson/Merriwa, inclusive of the outcome of the public notice and the public information session in relation to the alteration to the alignment and level of Connolly Drive.

 

Background

Following the successful application for funding from the Metropolitan Regional Road Group and as part of the City of Wanneroo’s ongoing commitment to upgrade its major road network, it is intended to complete the construction of Connolly Drive Duplication Project from Neerabup Road to Hester Avenue (PR-2779) and Hester Avenue to Lukin Drive (PR-2775).

 

The proposed construction of Connolly Drive provides for the duplication of approximately 4.8km of the existing two-lane road on Connolly Drive from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive.

 

This report outlines the outcome of the tendering process for Tender No. 01559 and seeks Council’s approval to proceed with construction of the duplication by way of tender award, as well as noting the outcome of the public information session undertaken by the City in order to notify the community and road users of the proposed works and consider their requirements as appropriate.

 

Further, the City was approached by Main Roads WA to include a section of work associated with the Mitchell Freeway scope of works for changes at the Hester Avenue/Connolly Drive roundabout. This includes construction of a left turn slip lane, a right turn pocket and changes to the central roundabout island annulus. Documentation for Tender 01559 included these works, but was separated out in the Price Schedule for the purpose of direct cost recovery.

Detail

Tenders Received

Tender No. 01559 for the Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication was advertised on 07 November 2015 and closed at 3:00 pm on 08 December 2015.

 

Contract Type	Fixed Lump Sum Price
Contract Duration	26 weeks
Commencement Date (Subject to Tender Award)	22 February 2016
Date for Practical Completion	19 August 2016
Defects Liability Period	12 months
Extension Permitted	Yes
Rise And Fall Included	No

 

A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Tender submissions were received from the following companies (listed alphabetically):

–    All Earth Group

–    Brierty Limited

–    Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd

–    Ertech Pty Ltd

–    Georgiou Group Pty Ltd

–    Jaxon Civil

–    Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd

–    Ralmana Pty Ltd t/a RJ Vincent & Co

–    TRACC Civil Pty Ltd

–    Valmec Australia Pty Ltd

–    WBHO Civil Pty Ltd

 

Tender Evaluation

The Tender Evaluation Team (TET), consisting of the Project Manager Infrastructure Development, Project Manager Infrastructure Projects and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Item No	Description	Weighting
1	Price for the services offered	50%
2	Tenderer’s experience	10%
3	Tenderer’s resources and capacity	10%
4	Project Management	10%
5	Safety & Quality Management	20%

 

On initial review of the tender submissions by the TET, it was confirmed that all tender submissions were deemed to be conforming tenders.

Price for the Services Offered (50%)

It was noted in the detailed price comparison, that several tenderers required adjustment to their final tendered price. Both Georgiou Group Pty Ltd and Valmec Australia Pty Ltd did not include all the Provisional Sums and adjustments allowed in the tender within their tendered price, and Ertech Pty Ltd made an allowance in their tendered price for an extra Provisional Sum. In the interests of a direct and fair comparison, final tendered prices were adjusted and tenders have been ranked as following under this criterion:

 

Tender	Rank
All Earth Group	1
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	2
Jaxon Civil	3
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	4
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	5
Ertech Pty Ltd	6
RJ Vincent & Co	7
Brierty Limited	8
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	9
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	10
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	11

Tenderer’s Experience (10%)

Several of the tenders (Ertech, Georgiou, Leightons & RJ Vincent) provided a wide range of experience and presented a high standard of profiles for this type of work, and were therefore ranked the highest.

 

The other tenders provided less detailed portfolios of projects they had undertaken of similar scope to what was tendered and these were further subdivided into companies with road construction experience (Brierty, TRACC & WBHO) and those with more general engineering experience (Curnow, Jaxon & Valmec), and therefore ranked accordingly.

 

Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Ertech Pty Ltd	1
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	1
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Brierty Limited	5
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	5
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	5
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	8
Jaxon Civil	8
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	8
All Earth Group	11

Tenderer’s Resources & Capacity (10%)

The tenderer’s resources contained in the tender documentation were examined in order to evaluate their ability to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources, vehicles, plant/equipment and workshop support to manage the contract.

 

RJ Vincent & Co provided a submission clearly outlining specific resources, capability and ample capacity in a thorough and systematic manner. Brierty, Ertech & Georgiou also provided comprehensive submissions detailing resources; capability and capacity however, in the view of TET the nominated resources were slightly less experienced in a road project of this nature. The remaining tenderers, while capable of carrying out the works, provided information on resources and capability that was less detailed and comprehensive.

 

Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Brierty Limited	2
Ertech Pty Ltd	2
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	2
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	5
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	5
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	5
All Earth Group	8
Jaxon Civil	8
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	8
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	8

Project Management (10%)

Tenderers that supplied a detailed project plan and supporting methodology, rather than generic plans were assessed higher against this criterion and it followed that as tenderers provided more detail against this criterion, they demonstrated a greater understanding and capacity to manage the time, cost and quality elements of the project.  In particular, timing and the procurement of adequate resources are key elements of this project, as adjacent Freeway works will be running concurrently and the proposed works need to be concluded well before the Freeway extension opens to traffic.

On this basis, Ertech, Georgiou and RJ Vincent provided the required level of detail in support of their tender with the remaining tenderers submissions being less comprehensive.

 

Therefore based on the information provided, the tenders were ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Ertech Pty Ltd	1
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	4
Brierty Limited	5
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	5
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	5
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	5
Jaxon Civil	9
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	9
All Earth Group	9

Safety & Quality Management (20%)

Evidence of safety and quality management policies and practices was assessed from the tender submissions.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation, and their company’s systems and processes. Quality management was assessed on the demonstration of third party accreditation and examples of quality plans, inspection test plans and manuals.

Most tenderers had a differing focus on safety and quality management that is either specific or generic to the business, and as a consequence the quality of safety and quality management information supplied varied from a professional presentation and strong safety culture by several of the companies (Ertech, Georgiou, Leightons & RJ Vincent) to a less specific and more generic, but adequate presentation by the remaining tenderers.

Based on the information provided, the tenders were ranked as follows:

Tenderer	Rank
Ertech Pty Ltd	1
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	1
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	1
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	5
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	5
Brierty Limited	7
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	7
Jaxon Civil	7
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	7
All Earth Group	11

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the weighted score analysis process with the following observations being of significance:

·    the key component of the tender evaluation is price (50%); and

·    the tenderers’ bids were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, capability and safety and quality management systems to undertake the tender.

The overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer	Rank
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Ertech Pty Ltd	2
Georgiou Group Pty Ltd	3
WBHO Civil Pty Ltd	4
All Earth Group	5
Brierty Limited	6
TRACC Civil Pty Ltd	7
Curnow Group Hire Pty Ltd	8
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd	9
Jaxon Civil	10
Valmec Australia Pty Ltd	11

 

Even though the overall weighted score was based on the revised price for direct comparison, it should be noted that the initial price submission did not change the order of the highest ranking. Further, it should be noted that the highest ranked tenderer did not provide the lowest tendered lump sum price, but provided the TET with the confidence that they would provide a professional level of service and quality product, thereby providing the best value for money.

Consultation

Public Notice

In accordance with Sections 3.50(4) and 3.51 of the Local Government Act 1995 relating to level and alignment changes, inclusive of associated impact on affected property owners/occupiers and the general public, a public notice was placed in the 'Wanneroo Times" on 13 and 27 October 2015.

 

The public notice advised that a "Public Information Session" would be held on 04 November 2015 at the Gumblossom Community Centre. Property owners/occupiers located within the area deemed to be impacted by the proposed works were also notified by mail and submissions requested on the proposed alteration to Connolly Drive alignment and levels to be forwarded to the City by no later than 10 November 2015.

 

The public notice and the letter to property owners/occupiers included a sketch plan showing the location and extent of the proposed work on Connolly Drive.

 

Elected Members were also notified of the public notice and the letters to property owners/occupiers by way of a memorandum via email dated 29 October 2015, and were invited to attend the public information session.

 

Public Information Session

A public information session was held on 04 November 2015 at 6:30pm at the City's Gumblossom Community Centre, with 10 attendees registering their attendance. The City's officers in attendance (ie: Director Assets, Manager Infrastructure Projects and Project Manager Infrastructure Development) explained the project background along with a summary of the proposed works associated with the duplication of Connolly Drive from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive.

 

The presentation followed by questions indicated that there was no objection per se’ to the proposed works, although concerns were raised by the residents in relation to the impact of the proposed road construction including:

 

-      Possible structural damages to the adjacent buildings during construction;

 

-      Coordination with the Freeway extension works;

 

-      Increased noise level and reduced safety; and

 

-      Removal of vegetation due to proposed works.

 

All related issues were discussed in detail at the public information session, with all concerns addressed and resolved. Minutes of this session are recorded in Attachment 1.

 

Subsequent to the Public Information Session, letters were also sent to local schools adjoining the proposed works advising of intended works.

Comment

The City has undertaken an appropriate public information campaign to notify the community and the general public of its intention to duplicate Connolly Drive from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive. At the public information session held on 04 November 2015, the community, in general, supported the proposed duplication; however some concerns were raised about the impact of the road construction on the adjacent properties. These concerns were addressed and resolved at the same information session.

 

The tender submission from RJ Vincent & Co achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer. Reference checks have indicated that RJ Vincent & Co has previously provided a good service delivery to their customers, including the current project for the City known as the Lenore Road Realignment and Upgrade (Stage 2).

 

The TET recommends that the tender for the Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive, Clarkson/Merriwa be awarded to RJ Vincent & Co for its Tender Price of $6,488,062.63.

Statutory Compliance

Public Notice in relation to proposed change to the level and alignment of Connolly Drive, in accordance with Sections 3.50(4) and 3.51 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

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:

 “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

A financial risk assessment of RJ Vincent & Co was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd has verified that RJ Vincent & Co has a ‘very strong’ financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract.

Policy Implications

Tenders were invited and assessed in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy.

Notwithstanding the consideration for sustainable procurement in accordance with Section 15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the evaluation of this tender did not set out specific criteria to assess sustainability.

Financial Implications

The table below summarises the available funding for the project, current expenditures, the recommended tender price by RJ Vincent & Co for the construction of Connolly Drive Duplication and associated expenses:

 

PR-2775 & 2779 Connolly Drive Duplication (Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive)
Description	Expenditure	Budget
Budget:
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2014/15 (PR-2775)		$194,765
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 (PR-2775)		$1,895,235
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2014/15 (PR-2779)		$53,199
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 (PR-2779)		$2,261,801
Expenditure:
Expenditure incurred in 2014/2015	$247,964
Expenditure incurred to date (2015/2016)	$50,736
Commitment to date	$156,367
Project Management	$150,000
Tender Advertisements (Tender and Public Notices)	$6,000
Construction Activities
-     Contract No. 01559: Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication	$6,488,063
-     Contingency @10% on Contract 01559	$648,806
-     Street Lighting by Western Power	$300,000
-     Signs and Markings by MRWA	$100,000
-     Vegetation & Irrigation Reinstatement	$260,000
Total Expenditure	$8,407,936
Total Funding		$4,405,000
Funding Provision required in 2016/2017		$4,002,936

 

The funding requirement for 2016/2017 will be included in the 2016/2017 Capital Works Program as part of the 2016/2017 Budget Process. It is noted that 2/3 of the overall project cost is funded under the Metropolitan Regional Road Group, Major Road Improvement Program.

 

Also as indicated earlier, the City included with Tender 01559 the scope of work for changes to the Hester Avenue/Connolly Drive roundabout at the request of Main Roads WA. Tendered prices shown in this report include this provision. Administration has agreed with Main Roads WA on the direct recovery of these costs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Ralmana Pty Ltd T/A RJ Vincent & Co for Tender No. 01559 for the Construction of Connolly Drive Duplication – Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive, Clarkson/Merriwa, for its tendered Lump Sum of $6,488,062.63 as per the General Conditions of Tendering; and

2.       NOTES that funding of $4.003M in 2016/2017 for both projects (PR-2775 & PR-2779), will be listed in the draft long-term Capital Works Program to allow for completion of the project.

 

Attachments:

1.

Public Information Session at Gumblossom (Connolly Drive Duplication)

15/539232

  

MINUTES

 

MEETING	Community Information Session Connolly Drive Duplication
PARTICIPANTS	Harminder Singh, Jim Duff, Graeme Budge, Cr Natalie Sangalli, Karen Delves
APOLOGIES	Mayor, Councillors Linda Aitken, Russell Driver, Glynis Parker, Sabine Winton
CHAIR	Harminder Singh
MINUTE TAKER	Karen Delves
DATE & TIME	Wednesday 4 November 2015
MEETING VENUE	Gumblossom Community Centre, (Activity Room 2)

 

	1.  Welcome by Harminder Singh/Apologies of the Mayor and Councillors were noted; 2.  Presentation of Overview by City's Manager Projects Jim Duff 3.  Presentation of Technical Details Project Manager Graeme Budge 4.  Questions (6.45-8.00pm)
	Q: When is the dualling of Connolly Drive likely to occur? A:  Construction is envisaged to occur early 2016 and be completed by October 2016 (6 months); Q: Where does the project start – north end or south end of Connolly Drive; A:  It will be up to the Contractor to decide. Likely to work on two fronts from either end and finish in the middle; Q:  Are the roundabouts remaining the same? A:  Yes, but roundabouts are reducing in diameter: Q: Why does the roundabout need pre-deflection curves? A:  To reduce the speed of the approach to the roundabout by motorists: Q: Will the roundabout have pedestrians crossing points? A:  As part of the project the roundabout will have pedestrian crossing points as currently exists. Q:  Will the Emergency Lanes be affected by the dualling of Connolly Drive? A:  The emergency stopping lanes (actually cycle lanes) will not change: Comment: There are many roads within the City that do not have bus bays. A:  Bus Bays are intended to be installed as part of this project. Q: Will the dualling of Connolly Drive stop at Hester Avenue? A:  No, the dualling works are scheduled from Neerabup Road to Lukin Drive. The freeway extension finishes at Hester Avenue; Q: Will the City be keeping the existing trees in the median on Connolly Drive? A:  Many of them will not be retained as the widening for the second lane occurs within the median. The City will be re-landscaping the median in subsequent years. Q:  Will the construction works affect the solar panels on properties? A:  A building survey inspection of properties affected by the proposal will be conducted before and after the construction.
	Q: What will happen if my property is damaged due to the construction? A:  A survey construction inspection of properties affected be conducted before and after the construction. This will be arranged by the Contractor; Q:  Will the level of the road be altered? A:  The level of the road will not be altered significantly: Q: Will residents feel the vibration of the construction? A:  All noise and vibration will be kept to a minimum. There will be effects on residents but it will be in the Contractors interest to minimise it; Q:  Does the existing road get touched? A:  Dual Carriageway on east side or widening from the median, maintaining 1.5m on-road cycleway lane, shared paths, slight modifications to intersections, drainage extension upgrade, roundabout changes and pre-deflection approaches; Q: We did not get a letter notifying us of the proposal? A:  Letters were sent to residents immediately affected by the proposal (376 letters). It was also advertised and on the City’s website; Q:  How did you know of the proposal (Graeme Budge)? A:  Residents saw it on the City’s website and Community Newspaper; Q:  Is the construction works going to happen over the weekends and what times? A:  To be determined by the contractor for the project but confined to weekdays 7.00am to 5.30pm and Saturdays 7.30am to 5.00pm. Many Contractors choose not to work Saturdays unless they are falling behind schedule, traffic etc. If night works are planned because of traffic, residents will be notified; Q:  Is there going to be noise from trucks? A:  All noise will be kept to a minimum; Q:  Will the speed limit change, will it be still be 60km/hr? A:  No, the speed limit will not change. Comment: the residents felt it was hard to stick to the 60km/hr speed limit. Q:  Will there be continuous footpaths? A:  Yes, there will be a continuous footpath as part of the project; Q: Will the footpaths be upgraded and will it be a dual use path? A:  Yes, and it will be a dual use path for pedestrians and cyclists; Q:  Is Cambai Village going to be affected (reduced)? A:  There will be no change;
	Q: Are both lanes able to turn in Hester Avenue? A: Yes there is a proposal for two lanes (2 right, 2 through and 1 left); Q:  Is it going to be the same at the Neerabup roundabout? A:  No, there is not the same traffic volumes; Q   Is traffic able to exit at Neerabup Road from the freeway? A:  Yes east and west. It is likely to be a roundabout system; Q:  Will there be a roundabout or traffic signals on the intersection of Jenolan Way and Connolly Drive, pedestrian mainly children cross the road at this point: A:  There is no proposal to construct a roundabout or install traffic signals at this intersection. However  pedestrians will be able to cross in two distinct stages through the median; Q:  Will Baltimore Drive have traffic lights? A:  This is under consideration by MRWA. Q:  Is there a proposal for School Wardens crossings for Connolly Drive? A: Applications for School Warden crossings need to be applied for by the Principal or P & C of the schools and forwarded to the Children’s Crossings Road Safety Committee for assessment. Q:  Are the schools aware of this process? A:  The City’s Transport and Traffic Team can assist schools with this process.
	Q: Would the City consider an underpass? A:  The City would not consider an underpass due to security, and anti-social behaviour issues, and the City has closed a lot of underpasses due to these concerns. Q:  Will there be a new bus lane for Hester or Connolly as part of the Freeway extension? A:  There is no proposal. There may be some trial of special cycle lanes; Q: What is the City’s fascination with roundabouts? A:  They are cost effective, manage traffic well and MRWA is reluctant to install traffic signals; Q: The green man signal at the Lukin Drive traffic lights doesn’t work? A:  Residents need to report this concern to Main Roads WA; Q: The pedestrian crossing at Ocean Keys Boulevard needs to be upgraded to amber flashing lights? A:  The City will investigate this option; Q:  Is there a projection of how many vehicles will exit the freeway at Hester Avenue? A:  There would be but its accuracy can only be proven against actual traffic counts when construction has been completed. Projections have been used to determine how many lanes are required which has indicated the network should be able to handle the additional traffic; Q:  Is there concern that the works on Connolly Drive will coincide with the Freeway extension, creating a lot of disruption? A:  The City would like the project for Connolly to commence as soon as possible to eliminate the possibility of disruption. The freeway extension is due to be opened in March 2017;
	Q:  Where will the freeway extension terminate? A:  The freeway will terminate at Hester Avenue, where there will be two interchanges; Q:  Will the dualling of Connolly Drive have any road closures? A:  To be determined by the contractor for the project. Road closures will be considered if there are adequate route alternatives; Q:  Is the streetlighting going to change? A:  Yes there will be additional street lighting proposed as part of the project to the appropriate standards; Specific Resident Question:  20 Kolan Elbow, Merriwa Q:  Will moving the footpath right next to my back fence cause privacy issues.  My house is 20 Kolan Elbow Merriwa, near the roundabout at Grant Paradiso. Q:  Will the pre deflection and footpath be nearer to my property and will the level of the road reserve alter? A:  The level of the land will alter slightly and yes the footpath will be closer to your property. This will be investigated for alternatives;
	4.  The meeting was closed at 8.00pm.

 

AGREED ACTIONS ARISING…	RESP OFFICER	DATE DUE
February 2015
Infrastructure Projects to follow up with Transport and Traffic Team regarding pedestrian crossings.	KD
NOTE:         Meeting commenced 6.30pm and closed at 8.00pm.

 

File Ref:                                              4428 – 15/581920

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Parks and Reserves Maintenance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 10 November 2015 (IN01-10/15 refers), considered the order of cost estimate, the long term provision costs, and the whole of life costs for the 50 year design life of the of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility (YSLSC).

 

“1.     NOTES that the detailed design of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility has been completed;

 

2.       NOTES that based on the detailed design and the cost planner’s report, the overall total project budget for the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility has been estimated to be $7,791,000;

 

3.       NOTES that the whole of life costs based on the 50 year design life of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility has been estimated to be in the order of $13.5M;

 

4.       NOTES that the replacement cost at the end of the 50 year design life of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility has been estimated to be in the order of $32.5M, further NOTING that the renewal/replacement in future will form part of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan; and

 

5.       NOTES that the tenders for the construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility will be advertised during November 2015.”

Detail

Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works was advertised on 31 October 2015 and closed on 1 December 2015. A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type	Lump Sum
Contract Duration	40 weeks
Commencement Date	12 February 2016
Practical Completion	November 2016

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

·    Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd;

·    BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd;

·    Bistel Construction Pty Ltd;

 

·    Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd;

·    Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd;

·    Integria Construction;

·    Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd; and

·    Pindan Pty Ltd.

The Tender Evaluation Team, consisting of the Project Manager Yanchep Infrastructure, Project Manager Major Buildings, Project Officer Building and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Selection Criteria	Weighting
Price for the services offered	40%
Methodology	20%
Safety Management	20%
Tenderer’s experience and ability to do the work	10%
Tenderer’s resources	10%

All tender submissions were received as conforming tenders.

Price for the Services Offered (40%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the lump sum price provided with the tender documentation and based on the lump sum prices submitted, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	1
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	2
Integria Construction	3
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	4
Pindan Pty Ltd	5
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	6
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	7
Maintenance & Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	8

Methodology (20%)

BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd, Bistel Construction Pty Ltd, Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd and Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd provided adequate and acceptable methodology statements and conveyed a more detailed understanding of the works to be carried out. Gantt charts were included that clearly outline the timelines proposed for each phase of the works.

The remaining submissions had some shortcomings in fully demonstrating their understanding of the project requirements and their approach to ensure acceptable project delivery; therefore, based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer	Rank
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	1
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	1
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	1
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	5
Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	5
Integria Construction	5
Pindan Pty Ltd	5

Tenderer’s experience and ability to do the work (10%)

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd and Pindan Pty Ltd presented a very good standard of experience in relation to the delivery of similar projects. Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd and Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd provided a good standard of experience to local government projects. Remaining submissions provided an adequate response to this criterion; therefore, based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	1
Pindan Pty Ltd	1
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	3
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	5
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	5
Integria Construction	5
Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	5

Tenderer’s Resources & Capacity (10%)

The tenderer’s available resources contained in the tender submission were examined in order to evaluate their ability to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources to manage the contract. All Tenderers evidenced sufficient resource and capacity to complete the project and the scoring was close under this criteria. Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd and Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd provided a good submission clearly outlining specific resources and ample capacity. BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd, Bistel Construction Pty Ltd, Integria Construction, Pindan Pty Ltd, and Maintenance & Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd provided an adequate level of resources and capability. Whilst the Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd submission did evidence that they are capable of carrying out the works as specified, the evidence they provided in demonstration of resources and capability was more of generic nature rather than detailed specific to the project, this resulted in a slightly lower score.

 

Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer	Rank
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	1
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	3
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	3
Integria Construction	3
Pindan Pty Ltd	3
Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	3
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	8

Safety Management (20%)

Evidence of safety management policies and practices was assessed from the tender documents.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

 

 

 

Most of the submissions evidenced good OH&S Management Systems being in place; Integria Construction provided an adequate OH&S Management Systems but was ranked slightly lower in accordance with the level information included.

Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	1
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	1
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	1
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	1
Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	1
Pindan Pty Ltd	1
Integria Construction	8

Given the nature of the project and the level of information received in the initial tender submissions, the evaluation panel, as part of the Tender evaluation process, requested additional clarifications from the top four scoring Tenderers.  These clarifications were specifically relating to the work methodology of the contiguous piling requirements and the nominated piling sub-contractors experience and ability to complete the works.

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the weighted score analysis process with the following observations being of significance:

–    the key aspect of the tender evaluation is price

–    the companies’ tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, ability and safety management systems to undertake the tender.

The overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

 

Tenderer	Score
Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd	1
Bistel Construction Pty Ltd	2
Pindan Pty Ltd	3
Badge Construction (WA) Pty Ltd	4
Integria Construction	5
Devlyn Constructions Pty Ltd	6
BE Projects (WA) Pty Ltd	7
Maintenance and Construction Services (Australia) Pty Ltd	8

Consultation

The Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club (Club) has been involved with the planning for the new surf club since the development of the Coastal Management Services report in 2004. From 2010, the Club was involved in discussions to finalise the location of the new surf club to the Yanchep Lagoon. The Club was further involved in developing the room schedules that were provided to the designer, for development of the concept plan for the YSLSC.

 

During the design development of the YSLSC, the Club was invited to review the detailed design plans from the City’s designer with the comments being included in the detailed design plans. The Club has since endorsed the final detailed design plans, which were used for calling of tenders for the construction of the YSLSC.

 

 

Comment

The tender submission from Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria; they have provided evidence as to their approach, experience, resources and safety systems to be able to carry out the services in accordance with the contract requirements and are therefore recommended as the preferred tenderer.

 

Reference checks have indicated that this contractor has previously provided a satisfactory service delivery to their customers.

The proposed implementation program, subject to resolving to award tender, has been scheduled as follows:

Contract Award	12 February 2016
Construction	February 2016 – November 2016
Practical Completion	November 2016

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 City has obtained an approved clearing permit from the Department of Environment Regulation.

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

Assessment of Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard, indicating that it has a sound financial capacity to undertake the contract in question.

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

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

 

Notwithstanding the consideration for sustainable procurement in accordance with Section 15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the evaluation of this tender did not set out specific criteria to assess sustainability.

 

The City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) states:

 

          “Circumstances:

           …the budget allocation for a capital work project is insufficient.

 

          Action:

          In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 by way of a report and recommendation to the Council seeking authorisation of the expenditures and to endorse the necessary budget variation.”

Financial Implications

The table below summarises the available funding for the project, including current expenditures, for the recommended tender price by Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building, Civil Works and associated expenses:

 

Description	Expenditure	Budget
Budget:
Budget prior to 2015/2016		$932,323
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 (PR-1048)		$1,103,942
Total allocated Budget to date (PR-1048)		$2,036,265
Expenditure:
Expenditure incurred to date	$980,755
Commitments (2015/2016)	$160,622
Construction Activities
-     Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works – Based on Recommended Tenderer’s (Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd) price	$4,533,573
-     Based on Recommended Tenderer’s Price Contingency @10%	$453,357
Rehabilitation Works	$212,500
Construction and Project Management Costs	$150,000
Other works and provisions, including CHRMAP related works	$400,000
Contingency on non tender related works	$100,000
Total Expenditure (estimated)	$6,778,307
Balance:	-$4,742,042
Further funding required in 2015/2016 (brought forward)		$800,000
Funding required in 2016/2017		$3,942,042

 

To progress the project works, there is a requirement for an additional $4,742,042 to cover the construction and project management costs, noting that this project was intended to be undertaken over a number of financial years. Based on the project program schedule, a substantial component of work valued at $3,942,042 will be undertaken in 2016/17, therefore the additional funding is able to be spread over two financial years as summarised below:

 

Additional funding required in 2015/2016 -        $800,000

Additional funding required in 2016/2017           -        $3,942,042

 

It is proposed that to address this project funding shortfall in 2015/16, surplus funding is reallocated from other projects as noted below

 

·    $600,000 from PR-2598 – Old Yanchep Road Upgrade Stage 1; and

·    $200,000 from PR-3074 – Old Yanchep Road Upgrade Stage 2. 

 

 

It is noted that the works for both of these projects will be undertaken this year but have been delayed due to minor service modifications, additional risk assessment requirement and the requirement for Heritage Surveys. Revised cash flow projections have been made and it is confirmed that all funds budgeted for these projects in 2015/16 won’t be fully expended.  It is therefore proposed to reallocate municipal funds from these two projects to PR-1048 to facilitate the construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building now and re-budget equivalent funding in 2016/17 for two Old Yanchep Road projects.

 

Council will be required to approve funding of $3,942,042 as part of the 2016/17 budget process to complete the delivery of the project.

 

The 2016/2017 (remaining) funding requirement of $3,942,042 means the project will out-turn significantly less (-$1,012,715) than the Council endorsed project budget of $7,791,022.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

1.       That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Diploma Construction WA Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep for the fixed lump sum price of $4,533,573 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document;

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the over expenditure of $800,000 subject to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 and in accordance with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) and APPROVES the following budget amendment:

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Upgrade Old Yanchep Road – Pederick Road to Trandos Road	PR-2598	$2,670,000	$2,070,000
Upgrade Old Yanchep Road – Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue	PR-3074	$793,000	$593,000
Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works	PR-1048	$1,103,942	$1,903,942

 

3.       NOTES that a further $3,942,042 funding is required to be allocated in 2016/2017 Capital Works Budget to fully complete the works for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep.

 

1.                     

 

Attachments: Nil

File Ref:                                              19467 – 15/599857

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Parks and Reserves Maintenance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01571 for the Construction of the Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access, Yanchep. 

 

Background

Replacement of the existing Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access was considered in the 2014/2015 financial year budget allocation. The project has been identified as a result of the deteriorating condition of the existing brick and concrete stair access.

 

Design Development commenced in December 2014 and was completed in October 2015.

 

The site is within an ‘A’ Class Reserve; subsequently an approval for a Clearing Permit was submitted to the Department of Environment Regulation (DER), this was approved in June 2015.

 

As the site is also within the Aboriginal Heritage site DAA 17599 (Yanchep Beach), a Section 18 Notice was submitted to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; consent to proceed with the upgrade of the beach access at Fisherman’s Hollow was granted by the Minster for Aboriginal Affairs in September 2015. 

Detail

Tender No. 01571 for the Construction of the Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep, was advertised on 12 December 2015 and closed on 12 January 2016. A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type	Lump Sum
Contract Duration	14 weeks
Commencement Date	March 2016
Practical Completion	July 2016

 

Tenders Received

One tender submission was received, with this submission being from Landmark Products Pty Ltd.

The one tender submission was received as conforming.

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel, consisting of the Project Manager Yanchep Infrastructure, Project Manager Infrastructure Projects, Project Manager Major Roads and the Contracts Officer, have evaluated the tender submission in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

 

 

Item No	Description	Score
1	Price for the services offered	40%
2	Methodology	20%
3	Safety Management	20%
4	Tenderer’s experience and ability to do the work	10%
5	Tenderer’s resources	10%

Price for the Services Offered (40%)

As a consequence of only one tender being received, a market price comparison is not available; however, the Tender value ($255,280) is 12% lower than the City’s pre-tender estimate for the work ($288,780).

 

Following evaluation, the Panel is satisfied that the tender price is reasonable and represents value for money in this instance, particularly as site access is constrained due to access to the beach, environmental requirements and Aboriginal Heritage management.

Methodology (20%)

Landmark Products Pty Ltd have provided a very good methodology statement and conveyed a detailed understanding of the works to be carried out. A timeline was included that clearly outlines the proposed phases of the works.

Safety Management (20%)

Landmark Products Pty Ltd provided evidence of their safety management systems, policies and practices. The assessment for safety management also included Landmark Products Pty Ltd responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

Tenderer’s experience and ability to do the work (10%)

Landmark Products Pty Ltd was assessed as having a very good level experience in the supply and installation of similar aluminium structures/infrastructure with the City of Wanneroo and other Local Government authorities. 

Tenderer’s Resources (10%)

Landmark Products Pty Ltd resources were reviewed in order to evaluate their ability to meet the resource requirements of the contract. Assessment of this criterion provided satisfaction that staff resources, vehicles, plant/equipment and workshop support offered by Landmark was sufficient to manage the contract as detailed in the tender documents.

Overall Weighted Score

Landmark Products Pty Ltd tender submission was evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and was assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, ability and safety management systems to undertake the tender.

In summary the sole tenderer Landmark Products Pty Ltd, has provided a tender submission which has been evaluated and deemed satisfactorily to meet the City’s requirements in accordance with the terms of the tender document. Acceptance of Landmark Product Pty Ltd submission is recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel based on an overall combined assessment score of 80%.

Consultation

The community has been informed of the upcoming stair replacement via the Yanchep E-Newsletter. Given that the works are a replacement of the existing stair access, it was considered appropriate to inform the community rather than conduct a complete community engagement activity.

 

 

Prior to construction, a sign will be erected at the site and information posted on the City's website and Social Media informing the community of the upcoming works.

Comment

The site has some reasonably significant environmental and physical restrictions and as such, removal of the existing beach stair access will be difficult and require a slightly extended period of access closure to allow time to complete the works, this is mainly due to access and the increased need for manual handling, as opposed to using heavy plant and equipment.

 

The design for the new Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access project has been developed to be constructed as per the existing layout - with two (2) access staircases. The potential project cost as relates to this proposal will however, require additional funding of $131,455.

 

The evaluation process determined that the tender from Landmark products Pty Ltd is a conforming tender. Landmark Products Pty Ltd has worked for the City on various projects, providing good service that meets the City’s needs.

 

It is recommended that tender No 01571 from Landmark Products Pty Ltd be accepted in accordance with the tender evaluation undertaken as per the selection criteria included in the tender document. Reference checks have indicated that this contractor has previously provided a satisfactory service delivery to its customers.

The proposed implementation program, subject to resolving to award tender, has been scheduled as follows:

Contract Award	March 2016
Construction	March 2016 – July 2016
Practical Completion	July 2016

 

On completion of the Fishermans Hollow Beach Access, the City will need to undertake the rehabilitation of the works and surrounding area to ensure the dune management is maintained. Propagation, planting, installation of windbreak fencing and coir mesh matting will be undertaken in 2015/2016. Maintenance and infill planting is to be conducted in 2016/2017. Estimated total cost to carry out the rehabilitation and maintenance works is $33,000. 

Statutory Compliance

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. The tendering procedures and evaluation complied with the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

Assessment of Landmark Products Pty Ltd was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard, indicating that it has a strong financial capacity to undertake the contract.

 

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

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

 

Notwithstanding the consideration for sustainable procurement in accordance with Section 15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the evaluation of this tender did not set out specific criteria to assess sustainability.

 

The City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) states:

 

          “Circumstances:

           …the budget allocation for a capital work project is insufficient.

 

          Action:

          In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 by way of a report and recommendation to the Council seeking authorisation of the expenditures and to endorse the necessary budget variation.”

 Financial Implications

Although the pre-tender estimate was above the budget allocation for PR-2475, it was considered that the City should proceed to tender to ascertain current market values.

PR-2475 - Construction of the Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep
Description	Expenditure	Budget
Budget:
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2014/15 (PR-2475):		$32,390
Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 (PR-2475):		$212,610
Expenditure:
Expenditure incurred to date:	$45,647
Construction Activities
-     Tender No. 01571 for Provision of Services for the Construction of the Fishermans Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep - Based on Recommended Tenderer’s (LanmarkProducts Pty Ltd) price	$255,280
-     Contingency @10%	$25,528
Rehabilitation Costs (includes maintenance period)	$33,000
Construction and Project Management Costs	$20,000
Total Expenditure (estimated)	$379,455
Balance:	-$134,455 Rounded to $135,000

 

 

 

To progress the project works, there is a requirement for an additional $135,000 to cover the construction and project management costs. Based on the project program schedule, it is expected that some component of work valued around $50,000 will be undertaken in July 2016, therefore the additional funding is able to be spread over two financial years as summarised below:

 

Additional funding required in 2015/2016 -        $85,000

Additional funding required in 2016/2017           -        $50,000

 

It is proposed that to address this project funding shortfall in 2015/16, surplus funding is reallocated from the following PR-3073 Marmion Avenue Design and Documentation, noting that the overall design costs for this project are significantly less than the budgeted amount of $400,000.

 

Council will be required to approve funding of $50,000 as part of the 2016/17 budget process to complete the delivery of the project.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Landmark Products Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01571 for Provision of Services for the Construction of the Fishermans Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep for the fixed lump sum price of $255,280 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document;

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the over expenditure of $85,000 subject to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 and in accordance with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(g)(c) and APPROVES the following budget amendment:

Description	GL Account/ Capital Project	Current Budget	Adjusted Budget
Survey, Design and documentation Marmion Avenue – Lukin Drive to Butler Boulevard	PR-3073	$400,000	$315,000
Construction of the Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep	PR-2475	$212,610	$297,610

 

3.       NOTES that $50,000 additional funding is required to be allocated in 2016/2017 Capital Works Budget to fully complete the works for PR-2475 Construction of the Fisherman’s Hollow Beach Access at Lot 503 Brazier Road, Yanchep.

 

 

Attachments: Nil