B&WLogo_circle&text

 

 

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR ELECTED MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Council Chambers

Civic Centre

on 17 May, 2016 commencing at 6.00pm


PROCEDURE FOR FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING

PRINCIPLES

A Council Briefing occurs a week prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting and provides an opportunity for Elected Members to ask questions and clarify issues relevant to the specific agenda items before council.  The briefing is not a decision-making forum and the Council has no power to make decisions.  The briefing session will not be used, except in an emergency, as a venue or forum through which to invoke the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and call a special meeting of Council.

 

In order to ensure full transparency the meetings will be open to the public to observe the process.  Where matters are of a confidential nature, they will be deferred to the conclusion of the briefing and at that point, the briefing session closed to the public.  The reports provided are the Officers’ professional opinions.  While it is acknowledged that Elected Members may raise issues that have not been considered in the formulation of the report and recommendation, it is a basic principle that as part of the briefing sessions Elected Members cannot direct Officers to change their reports or recommendations.

 

PROCESS

The briefing session will commence at 6.00 pm and will be chaired by the Mayor or in his/her absence the Deputy Mayor.  In the absence of both, Councillors will elect a chairperson from amongst those present.  In general, Standing Orders will apply, EXCEPT THAT Elected Members may speak more than once on any item, there is no moving or seconding items, Officers will address the Elected Members and the order of business will be as follows:-

 

Members of the public present may observe the process and there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the briefing for a public question time where members of the public may ask questions (no statements) relating only to the business on the agenda.   The agenda will take the form of:

Ø  Attendance and Apologies

Ø  Declarations of Interest

Ø  Reports for discussion

Ø  Tabled Items

Ø  Public Question Time

Ø  Closure

 

Where an interest is involved in relation to an item, the same procedure which applies to Ordinary Council meetings will apply.  It is a breach of the City’s Code of Conduct for an interest to not be declared.  The briefing session will consider items on the agenda only and proceed to deal with each item as they appear.  The process will be for the Mayor to call each item number in sequence and ask for questions.  Where there are no questions regarding the item, the briefing will proceed to the next item.

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

While every endeavour is made to ensure that all items to be presented to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting are included in the briefing papers, it should be noted that there will be occasions when, due to necessity, items will not be ready in time for the briefing session and will go straight to the Full Council agenda as a matter for decision.  Further, there will be occasions when items are TABLED at the briefing rather than the full report being provided in advance.  In these instances, staff will endeavour to include the item on the agenda as a late item, noting that a report will be tabled at the agenda briefing session.

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

The Council Briefing agenda will be distributed to Elected Members on the FRIDAY prior to the Council Briefing session.  Copies will be made available to the libraries and the Internet for interested members of the public.  Spare briefing papers will be available at the briefing session for interested members of the public.

 

DEPUTATIONS

Deputations will generally not be heard prior to the Council Briefing session and are reserved for prior to the Ordinary Council meeting.

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

The formal record of the Council Briefing session will be limited to notes regarding any agreed action to be taken by staff or Elected Members.  No recommendations will be included and the notes will be retained for reference and are not distributed to Elected Members or the public. 

 

LOCATION

The Council Briefing session will take place in the Council Chamber in the Civic Centre.


 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 17 May, 2016

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Reports_ 1

Planning & Sustainability  1

City Growth  1

3.1                         Consideration of Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  1

3.2                         PT02-11/15 - Petition to Create a Second Exit for Mary Street, Wanneroo  11

3.3                         Basic Scheme Amendment No. 158 to re-code additional properties in Girrawheen, Marangaroo and Wanneroo  16

3.4                         Draft LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas for Advertising  23

3.5                         Response to Petition PT02-02/16 Quinns Dog Beach Extension  43

Approval Services  56

3.6                         Application for Development Approval - Retaining Walls and Stairs at 17 Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks (DA2015/924) 56

3.7                         Consideration of the Draft Central Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 95  71

Land Development  113

3.8                         Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 4.0 Metres in Height - Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep WAPC 152589  113

3.9                         Subdivisional Retaining Walls over 4.0 Metres in Height - Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way Sinagra WAPC 150612  126

Assets  132

Asset Operations & Services  132

3.10                      PT01-01/16 Request for Cul-de-Sac for Parin Road, Marangaroo  132

3.11                      Contribution towards Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Intersection  137

3.12                      Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive Intersection, Carramar - Agreement In Principle For Installation Of Traffic Signals  142

3.13                      Kingsway, Madeley/Darch - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation Results  159

Infrastructure Capital Works  180

3.14                      Budget Variation - Caporn Street Streetlighting  180

3.15                      Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Intersection Upgrade  183

3.16                      Tender No 01625 Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade  192

3.17                      Tender No 01623 Fabrication and Installation of Garrison style perimeter fencing to part of Marangaroo Golf Course  198

Parks & Conservation Management  204

3.18                      Tender No 01627 Supply and Application of Fertiliser and Wetting Agents for a Period of 36 months  204

Community & Place  209

Community Facilities  209

3.19                      City of Wanneroo Surf Life Saving Club Funding Proposal  209

3.20                      Request for Additonal Funding - Hudson Park Master Plan  217

3.21                      Jimbub Reserve Changerooms and Floodlighting - Concept Design  247

3.22                      PT01-04/16 Development of a Skate Park facility in Yanchep  261

3.23                      PT05-04/16 Update of Petition for Bowood Park, Darch  263

3.24                      Yanchep Lagoon Trails and Pathways Masterplan  269

3.25                      Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex – AFL Ground Cricket Wicket Re-location  279

Place Strengthening  285

3.26                      Community Funding Policy Review 2015  285

3.27                      Community Funding Program March 2016 Round Applications  301

Corporate Strategy & Performance  359

Transactional Finance  359

3.28                      Warrant of Payment for the Period to 30 April 2016  359

Property Services  425

3.29                      Additional Funding for the Acquisition of  Environmental Offset Land for the Neerabup Industrial Area  425

3.30                      Dedication of Lot 3 (57L) Gnangara Road, Madeley  433

Council & Corporate Support  440

3.31                      Donations to be Considered by Council - May 2016  440

Chief Executive Office  446

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 446

Item  5_____ Confidential Late Report (to be circulated under separate cover) 446

5.1                         Tender No. 01609 for the Provision of Services for the Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Building located at 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo  446

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 446

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 446

7.1                         Access Issues Relating to Moorpark Avenue, Yanchep  446

7.2                         Financial Counselling Services  446

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 446

Item  9_____ Closure_ 446

 


Agenda

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Whadjuk people.  We would like to pay respect to the Elders of the Nyoongar nation, past and present, who have walked and cared for the land and we acknowledge and respect their continuing culture and the contributions made to the life of this city and this region and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

 

Lord, We ask for your blessing upon our City, our community and our Council.  Guide us in our decision making to act fairly, without fear or favour and with compassion, integrity and honesty.  May we show true leadership, be inclusive of all, and guide the City of Wanneroo to a prosperous future that all may share.  We ask this in your name. Amen

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      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 & Sustainability

City Growth

3.1    Consideration of Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 

File Ref:                                              24859 – 16/118447

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2).

Background

Council at its meeting of 10 November 2015 considered proposed Amendment No. 148 to DPS 2 and a draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises (LPP 2.8) and resolved (refer Item PS01-11/15):

“That Council:-

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s 10 November 2015 resolution, Amendment No. 148 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for environmental assessment. The EPA advised the City that Amendment No. 148 did not warrant formal environmental assessment. Following receipt of the EPA advice, Administration notified the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) of its intention to advertise Amendment No.148. Amendment No. 148 and draft LPP 2.8 were subsequently advertised for public comment.

Detail

 

Amendment No. 148 to DPS 2

 

Amendment No. 148 to DPS 2 was prepared in response to a request from the community to provide Council with the discretion to determine all applications for liquor stores on merit. The preparation of the Amendment coincided with the release of Western Australian Local Government Associations (WALGA)’s Local Government Town Planning Guideline for Alcohol Outlets, which included recommendations to tighten controls over the permissibility of alcohol related land uses in local planning scheme zoning tables.

 

Amendment No.148 proposes to amend DPS 2 by modifying the use class ‘Liquor Store’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Commercial and Business Zones, and modifying the use class ‘Tavern’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones.

 

The current permissibility for ‘Liquor Store’ in DPS 2 is ‘D’ in a Business Zone, ‘P’ in a Commercial Zone and ‘X’ in all other zones. ‘Tavern’ is a ‘D’ use in the Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones.

 

The proposed permissibility would require all applications for a liquor store or a tavern in zones where they are designated ‘A’ to be advertised for public comment.

Following the public advertising period, Council would have the discretion to determine whether to approve or refuse the application based on its assessment of the proposal and consideration of any submissions received. This provides Council with greater control to determine the appropriate location for liquor stores and taverns than what is currently provided for under DPS 2.

 

Draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises

 

Draft LPP 2.8 was prepared to guide discretionary planning decisions for liquor store and tavern applications and to outline the City’s role and responsibilities in the liquor licensing process under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

Draft LPP 2.8 provides guidance for the following matters in response to a new application for a liquor store or tavern that is lodged with the City for development approval:

 

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

·        Information requirements for development applications;

·        Advertising of applications;

·        Assessment criteria for applications; and

·        Involvement in liquor licensing.

Consultation

In accordance with Council’s 10 November 2015 resolution, Amendment No. 148 and draft LPP 2.8 were advertised for public comment for 42 days between 16 February 2016 and 29 March 2016, by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News for two consecutive editions;

·        A notice in the Council Civic Centre office and on the City’s website; and

·        Written notification to relevant State agencies and stakeholders.

 

A total of six submissions were received on Amendment No. 148 and draft LPP 2.8 during the advertising period and one late submission was received. All seven submissions provided comments on draft LPP 2.8 and only four provided comments on Amendment No. 148.

 

A summary of the comments made in the submissions and Administration’s response to those comments is contained in the comment section below.

Comment

Amendment No. 148 to DPS 2

 

All submitters, with the exception of the submission received from Planning Solutions, on behalf of Woolworths Limited, either had no objection to the Amendment or no comment to make. Planning Solutions, on behalf of Woolworths Limited raised the following objections to the Amendment No. 148:

 

1.   Object to the modification of the permissibility of ‘Liquor Store’ from a ‘P’ use to an ‘A’ use on the basis that ‘Liquor Store’ is considered consistent with the purpose and intent of the Commercial Zone as outlined in DPS 2.

 

Administration acknowledges that ‘Liquor Store’ may be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Commercial Zone. However, modifying ‘Liquor Store’ to an ‘A’ use will ensure that proposals will undergo the scrutiny of public advertising.

Additionally, discretionary classifications give the Council the opportunity to consider the proposal on its merits and exercise discretion in determining the proposal. Ultimately, this will ensure that the potential impacts of a ‘Liquor Store’ can be considered in the decision making process, which is not the case if ‘Liquor Store’ is a ‘P’ use. On the basis of the above, Administration is not proposing to modify the Amendment.

2.   Object to the Amendment on the basis that Woolworths Limited was not formally notified of the Amendment during the advertising period.

 

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 in the manner outlined in the Consultation section of this report. Notwithstanding the above, following receipt of the submission, Administration met with the submitter to discuss their concerns with a view to finalising the Amendment. On the basis of the above, Administration is proposing to proceed with the Amendment.

 

3.   There is concern over the permissibility of a Liquor Store or Tavern under a structure plan where the use is not specified, or where the zones outlined in a structure plan do not correspond to DPS 2.

 

A review of approved structure plans in the City of Wanneroo was undertaken as part of the preparation of Amendment No. 148, to ensure the compatibility of existing structure plans with the proposed Amendment. Structure plans either determine the permissibility of a use within the structure plan area, or contain text that applies the zoning table contained in DPS 2. In the few cases where a structure plan does not apply the zones identified in DPS 2, there is sufficient wording contained in the structure plan to ensure the land use permissibility of a comparable zone would apply. On the basis of the above, Administration is not proposing to modify the Amendment.

 

A summary of all comments made in the submissions and Administrations response to these comments is included as Attachment 1.

 

Draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises

 

Four of the seven submitters objected to elements of the Policy. The submitters have raised valid and fairly complex issues that require further consideration. On that basis, Administration recommends that Council delay consideration of the submissions on draft LPP 2.8 to provide sufficient time for Administration to further consult with submitters and resolve, where practicable, any outstanding issues prior to presenting a final Policy to Council for adoption. 

 

Administration is required to report to Council at this Meeting to progress Amendment No. 148, as Council is bound by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to consider Amendment No. 148 within 60 days from the close of the advertising period which was the 29 March 2016. There is no prescribed timeframe for Council to consider and finalise LPP 2.8.

 

Should Amendment No. 148 be finally approved by the Minister for Planning prior to the adoption of a final LPP 2.8 by Council, there is sufficient planning control in DPS 2 to guide the interim assessment of planning applications for liquor stores and taverns.   

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 148 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

In accordance with Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Council is required to consider submissions received in response to Amendment No. 148 and resolve to proceed with, or not proceed with the Amendment within 60 days from the close of advertising period. Advertising for the Amendment closed on the 29 March 2016; therefore Council will meet this requirement.

 

Further, pursuant to Regulation 53(3)(a), within 21 days of the passing of that resolution, the City must provide the WAPC with (among other things) a schedule of submissions and Council's recommendation and response to the submissions, together with particulars of any modifications recommended to the amendment.

 

Administration recommends that Council adopts Amendment No. 148 in accordance with Regulation 50(3)(a), without modification.

 

With respect to draft LPP 2.8, in accordance with clause 4(3) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, Council must formally consider the submissions received and resolve to adopt the draft Policy, with or without modifications, or not to proceed with the revised draft Policy. A subsequent report will be presented to a future Council meeting to satisfy this requirement.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

There 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

The finalisation of draft LPP 2.8 will complement the suite of policies adopted by Council and provide guidance on how to respond to applications for liquor stores and taverns.

Financial Implications

Nil

 

Voting Requirements

 

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(2)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, CONSIDERS the Schedule of Submissions contained as Attachment 1 and ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions;

 

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 SUPPORTS, without modification, Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to amend “Table 1 (Clause 3.2) – The Zoning table” by modifying the use class ‘Liquor Store’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Commercial and Business Zones, and modifying the use class ‘Tavern’ to a discretionary use requiring advertising (‘A’) in the Business, Commercial and Private Clubs/Recreation Zones;

3.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Director Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL the Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documentation;

4.       Pursuant to Regulation 53(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 and subject to Item 3. above, PROVIDES Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with a copy of Council’s resolution and all attachments to this report, for its consideration;

5.       ADVISES the submitters to Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 of its decision and the status of draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises; and

6.       NOTES that Administration will undertake further consultation with the submitters of draft Local Planning Policy 2.8: Licensed Premises to consider the issues raised and will report back to Council at a future Meeting to present a final draft Policy for Councils consideration.     

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Schedule of Submissions - Amendment No. 148 to District Planning Scheme No. 2

16/141246

Minuted

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                        7

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      11

3.2    PT02-11/15 - Petition to Create a Second Exit for Mary Street, Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              20525 – 16/137266

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting that a second exit for Mary Street, Wanneroo be created, by joining Mary Street to Benmuni Road, Wanneroo.

Background

At its meeting of 10 November 2015 (item PT02-11/15), Council received a seven signature petition which sought the following:

 

“We the undersigned petition the City of Wanneroo by joining Mary Street, Wanneroo to Benmuni Road, Wanneroo.

 

We are concerned for safety as Mary Street’s only exist is via Lenore Road.  In peak hour this intersection becomes congested and if a bush fire or accident were to occur we would be boxed in.

 

We understand there is a second entrance gazetted joining Benmuni Road with Mary Street extension.

 

The immediate advancement of the above would be appreciated.”

Detail

Mary Street is a sealed road running for approximately 900m east of its intersection with Lenore Road.  It is then gated at its eastern end.

 

Benmuni Road is a sealed road, terminating at a gate just to the south of its intersection with Shillington Way.

 

The road link which is sought by the petition to link the east end of Mary Street to the south end of Benmuni Road is shown on Attachment No. 1 (as a dashed red line).

 

It involves a length of approximately 750m. The southern part of the link would involve existing road reserve, while the northern part would involve having to pass through Reserve 43821, which is a reserve managed by the City for the purpose of Conservation and Passive Recreation.

 

Assessment of Reasons Given in the Petition

 

The petition presents a number of reasons why the proposed road link is seen to be required.  These reasons have been assessed as follows:

 

1.       Traffic congestion at intersection of Mary Street and Lenore Road

 

          Queuing of traffic on Lenore Road in this vicinity occurs in the morning peak hour on the southbound lane, leading up to the traffic lights at Ocean Reef Road.

 

         

          The City’s Traffic Services Team undertook observations of queue length and intersection movements during the morning peak time (7.00am to 8.30am) on a weekday in March 2016 to determine the extent, if any, to which queuing may cause difficulties for vehicles needing to exit Mary Street.  Maximum queue length was recorded for each 15 minute period along with wait times of all vehicles exiting Mary Street.

 

          The finding was that while the queue on Lenore Road did go through the Mary Street intersection at times, it cleared every time the signals changed.  Also, vehicles in the queue tended to leave gaps through the intersection for vehicles to exit out of Mary Street.

 

          During the particular observation period, there was never more than one vehicle waiting to exit at Mary Street and the maximum wait time was approximately 15 seconds.

 

          Based on those observations it is considered that there is not a problem for vehicles exiting and entering Mary Street as suggested in the petition.

 

2.       Fire risk

 

          City fire officers have assessed the area around Mary Street and consider that there is no significant fire risk in this area which warrants provision of a second access route, considering:

 

·    The large amount of irrigated market garden areas present which limit fire prone areas, and provide refuge areas in event of bushfire; and

 

·    Much of the bushland in the area has been subject to mitigation burns, and future mitigation burns are intended.

 

          They also advise that it would be inadvisable to direct people to the east in the event of bushfire as that is where most of the bushland is.

 

3.       Other emergency access issues

 

          Advice has been sought from the Officer-in-Charge at the Wanneroo Police Station regarding whether in his view, any other emergency access issues may be present in the subject area, and compounded by Mary Street only having access to Lenore Road.  The Officer-in-Charge does not consider this area to present any other emergency access issues considering:

 

·    The types of uses in the area (eg: none involve any significant use of hazardous materials);

 

·    There are only a limited number of residents in the area and it should therefore be manageable to move these residents in the event of emergency, through emergency traffic control measures (if needed); and

 

·    Mary Street has an ample reserve width.

 

It is considered from the above that there is currently no justification for providing the road link between Mary Street and Benmuni Road as sought by the petition.

 

Consultation

In assessing this issue, consultation has been undertaken with the Officer-in-Charge at the Wanneroo Police Station.

Comment

While it has been concluded that there is currently no justification for provision of the subject road link, it should be noted that Mary Street is included within the area affected by Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1308/41, which proposes to rezone a large portion of East Wanneroo from ‘Rural’ to ‘Urban Deferred’.

 

Should this Amendment be approved, a likely condition of any future lifting of Urban Deferment would be the preparation of district structure planning for this area.  Road network issues will need to be addressed through this process (and subsequent Local Structure Planning) and this will need to address the matter of future road connections from the Mary Street area to the surrounding road network.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

                   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 construction cost of the road link concerned is approximately $750,000.  This assumes that all road reserves and clearing has been undertaken.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 


 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Does NOT SUPPORT the provision of a road link between the eastern end of Mary Street, Wanneroo and the southern end of Benmuni Road, Wanneroo, because:

         a)       Observations made by City traffic engineers have found that queuing of traffic on Lenore Road during the morning peak hour does not significantly impede vehicles exiting and entering Mary Street.

         b)      City fire officers do not consider the area to present any significant fire risk.

         c)       Local police do not consider there to be any other emergency access issues associated with this area which would warrant provision of the proposed road link.

2.      NOTES that the subject area is affected by Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1308/41 which proposes to rezone the area from ‘Rural’ to ‘Urban Deferred’, and that if this Amendment is approved, the subsequent preparation of district and local structure plans will address the matter of future road connections from the Mary Street area to the surrounding road network.

3.      ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.   

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Mary Street map

16/140239

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      15

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      16

3.3    Basic Scheme Amendment No. 158 to re-code additional properties in Girrawheen, Marangaroo and Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              5755 – 16/148996

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 158 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) for the purpose of:

·    Re-coding a total of three properties in Girrawheen (1), Marangaroo (1) and Wanneroo (1) from R20 to R20/R40 to match the density coding with the surrounding land; and

·    Amending the scheme text to provide for an additional vehicle access point on corner lots in split coded areas.

Background

At its 3 February 2015 meeting, Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 119 to DPS 2 to increase the residential density coding of the Wanneroo and Girrawheen-Koondoola housing precincts for the purpose of public advertising.

 

At its 15 September 2015 meeting, Council considered the submissions received during public advertising and resolved to adopt Amendment No. 119 and forward the amendment documentation to the WA Planning Commission for assessment.

 

On the 24 March 2016, the Minister for Planning gave final approval to Amendment No. 119 and it was published in the Government Gazette on the 29 April 2016.

 

During the final stages of the approval process for Amendment No. 119, Administration identified two issues:

 

·    Amendment No. 119 incorporates two scheme maps that identify the land that would be affected by the scheme amendment proposal. During the preparation of these maps, a mapping error occurred, which resulted in 3 properties being inadvertently excluded from the maps. This error was not identified until after the Minister for Planning had given final approval to Amendment No. 119, and was therefore not able to be rectified as part of Amendment No. 119.

 

·    In the process of approving Amendment No. 119, The Minister for Planning directed the City to make a number of modifications to the Scheme text. Administration applied the schedule of modifications as directed, however, noted at a later date that the Minister’s requested modifications did not include Council’s recommended modifications relating to vehicle access for each street frontage, as endorsed on 15 September 2016. As a result, the adopted scheme text does not include provision for an additional vehicle access point to be provided on corner lots.

 

Administration consulted with the Department of Planning with regard to the above matters. The Department advised that a basic amendment to DPS 2 under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (LPS Regulations) would be required.

 

 

 

Detail

The proposed basic amendment to DPS 2 comprises the following components:

 

Recode three properties in Girrawheen, Marangaroo and Wanneroo from R20 to R20/R40

 

The three affected properties in question are as follows:

 

·    11 Hawley Place, in Marangaroo;

·    71 Mirrabooka Ave, in Girrawheen; and

·    14 Dallas Crescent, in Wanneroo.

 

It is proposed that the basic scheme amendment increase the residential properties from R20 to R20/R40, in order to align them with the new residential densities of surrounding properties, consistent with the intent and purpose of Amendment No. 119. Attachment 1 details the proposed R-Code changes to the Scheme map.

 

Amend the Scheme text to permit vehicular access to each street frontage in split coded areas

 

Clause 4.5.4 b), as introduced by Amendment No. 119 reads as follows:

 

‘The development has one consolidated vehicular access point with reciprocal access right to serve all dwellings, and restricted vehicular access to other areas of road frontage.’

 

It is proposed to amend this clause to reflect Council’s recommended modification from its 15 September 2015 meeting as follows:

 

The development has a maximum of one consolidated vehicle access point for each street frontage of the lot, with reciprocal access rights to serve all dwellings.

 

The intent of this amendment is to respond to submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 119 and provide for an additional vehicle access point on corner lots in split coded areas to support redevelopment at a higher coding. In addition, the modification proposed will not detract from the streetscape objectives and will support draft LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas, which is currently being prepared.

Consultation

Administration is not required to advertise a basic scheme amendment for public comment unless the Minister for Planning or an authorised person directs the City to advertise the basic amendment pursuant to Regulation 61 (1) of the LPS Regulations.

 

Administration has advised the affected landowners of the administrative error and the action that is being taken by the City of rectify the issue as quickly as possible. Administration will continue to update the affected land owners accordingly as this process moves forward.

 

If supported by Council, the Amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority for comment, prior to forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination.

Comment

The proposed scheme amendment is considered to be a basic amendment under Regulation 34(a) of the LPS Regulations, which provides for an amendment to correct an administrative error without public comment.

 

Administration considers it a basic amendment because the exclusion of the three properties from the Scheme Maps was due to a technical error with the City’s mapping system.

Administration considers the recoding of these three lots necessary to align the R-Codes of these properties with the surrounding land, which will allow for cohesive and consistent infill development to occur in these areas. Furthermore, the Local Housing Strategy and adopted Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation included these lots within the housing precincts identified for increased densities. This indicates that the recoding of these lots was within the original intent of Amendment No. 119 and that their exclusion was the result of an administrative error.

The inclusion of the proposed change to Clause 4.5.4 b) is also considered to be a ‘basic’ amendment, as the Minister’s schedule of modifications did not provide comment or an explanation for why the final scheme text approved through Amendment No. 119 did not provide for a single vehicle access point per street frontage.

The proposed change to clause 4.5.4(b) will address Council’s recommended modification to permit an additional vehicle access point for corner lots. Although the Minister’s decision in relation to Amendment No. 119 is final, Administration understands that the WAPC’s Statutory Planning Committee was supportive of the Council recommendation for an additional vehicle access point on corner lots and considers that an administrative error must have occurred for it to not be approved by the Minister.

Statutory Compliance

Pursuant to Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, Regulation 34(a) provides for an amendment to correct an administrative error to be processed without a public comment period.

 

Should Council resolve to initiate this scheme amendment, Administration will have 21 days refer to proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment, prepare all necessary documentation and forward the proposed scheme amendment to the WAPC to determine a decision.

Once the amendment documentation is provided to the WAPC for assessment, the Department of Planning will have 42 days to present a report, including a recommended decision, to the Minister for Planning for determination with or without modification. Unfortunately, there is no statutory timeframe for Ministerial signoff; however, at this time there is no reason to expect that the Amendment would be unnecessarily delayed.

The WAPC may determine the Amendment to be a ‘standard’ or ‘complex’ amendment, in which case the proposal would require additional steps including advertising for public comment. However, this is unlikely given the City has received preliminary advice from Department of Planning officers that it is a ‘basic’ amendment.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 158 to City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 to:

 

a)      MODIFY the scheme maps to recode three properties in Girrawheen, Marangaroo and Wanneroo from R20 to R20/R40 in accordance with the scheme amendment maps included at Attachment 1;

 

b)      AMEND clause 4.5.4 b) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 to read as follows:

 

       “The development has a maximum of one consolidated vehicle access point for each street frontage of the lot, with reciprocal access rights to     serve all dwellings.

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 34(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 158 is a basic amendment, as the Amendment is to correct an administrative error;

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, REFERS Amendment No. 158 to the Environmental Protection Authority;

4.       Pursuant to Regulation 58 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, PROVIDES Amendment No. 158 to the Western Australian Planning Commission within 21 days; and

5.       Pursuant to Regulation 62(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to and endorses the signing of the Amendment documentation.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Amendment No. 158 Scheme Amendment Maps

16/150912

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                  20

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      23

3.4    Draft LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas for Advertising

File Ref:                                              26112 – 16/150728

Responsible Officer:                           Operations Manager Planning & Development Services

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider adopting LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas (LPP 4.20) for the purpose of public advertising.

Background

On 3 February 2015, Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 119 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purpose of increasing the residential density coding of the Wanneroo and Girrawheen-Koondoola housing precincts.

 

On 15 September 2015, Council considered the submissions received following 42 days of public consultation and resolved to adopt Amendment No. 119 subject to modifications and forward the documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration.

 

On 24 March 2016, the Minister for Planning approved Amendment No. 119 and notice of this approval was published in the Government Gazette on 29 April 2016.

 

As part of its adoption of Amendment No. 119, Council also resolved to request Administration prepare a local planning policy to address consolidated vehicle access, design and streetscape development requirements for split coded areas, and to give consideration to sustainability measures that may be applied through this process.

 

The Draft LPP 4.20 was presented to Council Forum on the 3 May 2016 following which some minor amendments were made to the policy.

 

Draft LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas is now being presented to Council for consideration to advertise it for public comment.

Detail

Under the new DPS 2 provisions introduced by Amendment No. 119, all proposals for development must be assessed against the lower density code unless the applicant provides evidence from utility providers stating that their existing capacity is sufficient to accommodate the proposed increase in density. Furthermore, applicants must also demonstrate that all proposed dwellings can be serviced by a single vehicle access point.

 

Draft LPP 4.20 as provided in Attachment 1, articulates the City’s expectations with regard to the garage design, street surveillance, landscaping and the design of crossovers, with the aim of achieving the following outcomes:

 

·    To minimise the number of additional vehicle crossovers in recoded areas;

·    To encourage attractive streetscapes and enhance neighbourhood amenity by reducing the amount of hardstand and paving that occupies road verges;

·    To ensure safe vehicle access to and from residential properties;

·    To ensure safety and amenity for cyclists and pedestrians in the public realm;

 

·    To minimise the impact of vehicle access on existing street trees and verge infrastructure; and

·    To maximise on street parking opportunities.

Detail on specific elements of draft LPP 4.20 are outlined below:

 

Utilities

 

Infill development will place additional demand on existing service utility infrastructure. During the preparation of Amendment No. 119, utility service agencies advised that there should be capacity to meet this demand, however, the infrastructure may be required to be upgraded by the relevant utility provider at some point in the future. It is important that this is effectively managed during infill development and therefore, a provision has been included in DPS 2 to require developers to demonstrate that existing infrastructure is sufficient to service all of the proposed new dwellings. 

 

The City will not grant approval to any development application at the higher density coding unless the applicant has provided evidence by way of written advice from service agencies that the proposed increase in density can be serviced by existing service utility infrastructure.

 

Vehicle Access

 

As infill development areas are vulnerable to significant additional hardstand and vehicle access points, DPS 2 includes new provisions to require that all new development be serviced by one vehicle access point per street frontage.

 

Accordingly, the City will not grant approval to any development application proposing more than one vehicle access point per street frontage.

 

Furthermore, the City will not support any subdivision application referral from the WAPC that does not demonstrate how the proposed lot(s) will be serviced by one vehicle access point per street frontage.

 

Draft LPP 4.20 provides guidance on this issue by identifying likely development and subdivision scenarios and conceptual examples of how consolidated vehicle access can be achieved.  In particular, consideration has been afforded to the following:

 

·    Green title battle-axe proposals currently typically occur by providing a vehicle access leg for the rear lot, and a separate crossover for the front lot. In split coded areas, this type of development must be achieved using a single vehicle access point. Shared vehicle access will be achieved by requiring subdivision applicants to establish a right of carriageway easement between the lots and a restrictive covenant over the remainder of the lot(s).

 

·    Grouped dwelling developments on subdivided lots, such as survey-strata, will be serviced by a single vehicle access point over identified areas of common property; the City will not support applications that comprise more than one vehicle access point per street frontage.

 

·    The City will not support multiple dwelling development proposals that propose more than one vehicle access point per street frontage.

 

Draft LPP 4.20 also requires that additional vehicle access points do not conflict with existing street trees or infrastructure in the adjoining road verge and that sufficient verge space be retained for bin collection and on street parking.

 

 

Garage Design

 

Administration considers that appropriate garage design will ensure a higher quality streetscape outcome is achieved and facilitate effective surveillance of the streetscape (as required by Clause 5.2.3: Street Surveillance of the R-Codes).

 

Accordingly, draft LPP 4.20 requires garages to be setback 0.5m behind the alignment of any dwelling that has street frontage, as defined in the R-Codes.

 

This will better enable architects and applicants to leverage opportunities for new development to address the street and provide passive surveillance by providing additional space in the front elevation to locate clearly definable entry points and major openings from habitable rooms.

 

In circumstances where an existing dwelling is to be retained with new development at the rear of the property, there may be a requirement to demolish parts of a dwelling (such as garage or carport areas) to provide vehicle access to the rear lot(s). In this circumstance, the City will not permit a garage to be constructed unless it is located behind the alignment of the existing dwelling.


To increase the flexibility of this scenario, draft LPP 4.20 may permit a carport within the front setback area, providing relevant provisions of the R-Codes are met, and the appearance of the structure matches that of the accompanying dwelling.

 

Administration considers that a carport, when appropriately designed, will soften the impact of vehicle storage in front of the dwelling and deliver a more aesthetically appealing streetscape outcome while minimising the impact of new developments on the existing character of the streetscape.

 

Street Surveillance

 

Administration considers it important that street surveillance be maintained as development occurs in recoded areas. Therefore, draft LPP 4.20 provides additional requirements for development proposals to demonstrate that the design principle of Clause 5.2.3 of the R-Codes (Street Surveillance) has been satisfied.

 

Currently, the design principles can be satisfied by providing one major opening to a habitable room facing the street. Draft LPP 4.20 proposes to require at least one major opening to a habitable room, balcony or veranda to provide uninterrupted views of all access points to the dwelling(s), including the primary street, secondary street, pedestrian access point and vehicle access legs.

 

Landscaping

 

Administration considers that there is an opportunity for new development in recoded areas to contribute to the greenery of the streetscape by appropriately landscaping front setback areas. This is accomplished by limiting the amount of hard stand area permitted in front setback areas to 50%, with the remaining 50% to comprise soft landscaping defined as turf, planting and/or trees. This aims to create a more attractive streetscape outcome, soften the impact of new development on existing character of the street and provide a higher quality movement network for pedestrians and cyclists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crossover Design

 

Administration considers that the width of vehicle access points at the crossover should be minimised in order to provide additional space for verge landscaping, street trees and on street parking opportunities.

 

For smaller scale developments, draft LPP 4.20 proposes to limit new crossovers to 3 metres in width at the lot boundary. 

 

If a proposal comprises 5 or more dwellings, or if it must take vehicle access from a district distributor road, a larger crossover may be permitted, however, it cannot exceed a total width of 6m at the lot boundary.

 

Crossovers will not be permitted to conflict with existing street trees.

 

Noise Management

 

Any development occurring along Wanneroo Road or Mirrabooka Avenue is likely to be exposed to excessive noise pollution either now or in the near future. Consequently, it is important that this is addressed during the subdivision and/or development assessment process.

 

Provision for this has been provided for in DPS 2 as part of Amendment No. 119. Where an applicant seeks to subdivide or develop a parcel of land that directly abuts Wanneroo Road or Mirrabooka Avenue, they will be required to submit a Noise Management plan to address the potential for road transport noise and recommend noise mitigation measures.

 

The City’s planning approvals team will assess applications against the recommended noise mitigation measures and ensure they are appropriately integrated into the design of the proposal.

 

Conditions of Approval

 

Draft LPP 4.20 identifies a number of conditions of approval that are likely to be imposed either through the subdivision process (recommendation to the WAPC only) or development assessment process. Any one or more of the conditions may be applied at the discretion of the assessing officer, based on the individual circumstances of each proposal.

 

Appendices

 

LPP 4.20 includes a series of concept drawings for the purpose of providing guidance on the way in which grouped dwelling developments may be serviced by a single vehicle access point. These drawings are conceptual only, for the purpose of public advertising and Administration may engage professional assistance to finalise the drawings prior to adoption.

 

Sustainability Measures

 

Administration investigated the application of sustainability measures in split coded areas, reviewed other local government policies on this issue and made contact with other local government officers to gain feedback on the concept.

 

While the Policy seeks to achieve sustainable development outcomes by promoting increased density adjacent to existing facilities and services, increasing the retention of street trees, nature strips and landscaped front setbacks, the inclusion of more specific sustainability measures specific to building design is complex and requires further research and investigation. Administration presented a report on this matter to Council Forum on 15 March 2016 and is currently progressing work on this matter separately.

 

LPP 4.20 is required to be operational in the near future due to the recent gazettal of Amendment No. 119. To ensure that LPP 4.20 is not unduly delayed, no specific sustainability requirements have been included in the draft Policy.

Consultation

Clause 4(2) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 requires a draft Local Planning Policy to be advertised for a minimum of 21 days. If agreed by Council, it is proposed to advertise draft LPP 4.20 for a period of 21 days in the following manner:

 

1.   Advertisement in a local newspaper;

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

3.   Referral in writing to affected persons or agencies as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.

 

Following the 21 day advertising period, a summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to those submissions will be included in a report to Council to consider final adoption of draft LPP 4.20.

Comment

Administration considers that draft LPP 4.20: Split Coded Areas will provide appropriate guidance on the implementation of restricted vehicle access provisions in DPS 2 for applicants and assessing officers, and will enable infill development to occur in a coherent manner. Furthermore, draft LPP 4.20 provides additional guidance on the design of garages, street surveillance, landscaping and crossovers in recoding areas.

 

Given the fragmented nature of development in infill areas, poorly executed development may result in undesirable streetscape outcomes characterised by poor vehicle access, poor walkability, poor urban design, lack of available space for street trees and limited on street parking opportunities.

 

Draft LPP 4.20 aims to minimise the impact of future development by providing a series of clear provisions to address key components of residential design and vehicle access.

 

Administration considers that the implementation of sustainability measures in new development be addressed through a separate initiative to ensure its appropriate consideration and application.  This will ensure that draft LPP 4.20 is not unduly delayed where possible.  Additionally, further scheme amendments may be required to provide the necessary head of power to implement any sustainability measures considered necessary. 

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with clause 3 (1) of the deemed provision of DPS 2, Council may resolve to prepare and adopt a local planning policy to apply to any matter related to planning and development of the scheme area. A draft policy must be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 21 days after which time it is to be reviewed in the context of any submissions received and either adopted with or without modifications or not proceeded with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Draft LPP 4.20 only applies to land that is subject to a split density code. Administration acknowledges that some of the provisions contained in draft LPP 4.20 may be appropriate to be applied more broadly across the City of Wanneroo. 

 

Given the recent approval and subsequent gazettal of Amendment No. 119, it is considered important that draft LPP 4.20 be progressed as quickly and efficiently as possible, in order to provide guidance to landowners wishing to prepare development proposals in the new split coded areas.

 

Administration considers a review of LPP 2.1: Residential Development would be best placed to capture any provisions included in this policy for the purpose of broad application in the City of Wanneroo. This would also be relevant for any sustainability measures that should be considered in all areas, rather than just those subject to a split density code.

 

Furthermore, it is important to clarify the relationship between draft LPP 4.20 and the work currently being undertaken by Administration to prepare draft LPP 4.10: Streetscapes (LPP 4.10).

 

While these two policies do share some characteristics, LPP 4.10 is primarily concerned with land contained with the road reserve in new development areas. LPP 4.20 deals with established areas where roads are already constructed and contains provisions that manipulate the way in which new infill developments interact with land in the road reserve. 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council pursuant to clauses 4(1) and 4(2) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the draft Local Planning Policy 4.20 contained in Attachment 1 for the purpose of advertising and ADVERTISES draft Local Planning Policy 4.20: Split Coded Areas, for public comment for a period of 21 days, by way of the following:

 

1.       Advertisement in the Wanneroo Times, Sun City News and the North Coast Times newspapers;

 

2.       Notice of the proposal displayed in Council offices and on the City’s website; and

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Draft LPP 4.20 Split Coded Areas April 2016

16/142824

Minuted

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                  30

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      43

3.5    Response to Petition PT02-02/16 Quinns Dog Beach Extension

File Ref:                                              5523 – 16/150523

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a petition to extend Quinn’s dog beach 150m north to the existing beach access point, 60m south of Chippy’s Café, Jindalee.

Background

On 24 July 2012 (item PS04-07/12), Council endorsed the final Coastal Management Plan Part 1 (CMP Part 1). The final CMP Part 1 included a recommendation to extend the existing Quinn’s dog beach south 700m to the northern most access of the existing car park at Fred Stubbs Memorial Grove within the next five years.

 

On 4 February 2014 (item PS05-02/14) Council resolved to give 28 days notice of its intention to extend the Quinn’s dog beach, in accordance with the Dog Act 1976.  Due to the existing erosion issues at Fred Stubbs Memorial Grove, it was proposed to only extend the existing Quinn’s dog beach south 320 metres, as shown in Attachment 1.  The proposal generated a significant amount of public interest, particularly from residents of Quinn’s Rocks, with community feedback indicating that there was not strong support for the proposal.

 

As a consequence, on 29 April 2014 (item PS08-04/14), Council resolved not to extend Quinn’s Dog Beach.  As part of this resolution, it was also resolved that Council:

 

“Gives NO FURTHER consideration to extending the dog beach at Quinns…and REQUIRES Administration to investigate the opportunity for additional dog beach locations along the City's foreshore as part of the preparation of the Coastal Management Plan (Part 2).”

 

Council also resolved to:

         

“REQUEST Administration implement recommendation 3 (the City liaises with PEET to finalise location and timing of a dog beach in North Alkimos) from the Coastal Management Plan Part 1 immediately and report back to Council by 22nd July on the progress made.”

 

Administration reported back to Council on the 22 July 2014 and confirmed that meetings with PEET and Stockland had occurred, to discuss future coastal planning and use options for the section of beach near the boundary between PEET's Shorehaven estate and Stockland's Amberton estate.

 

The general location of the Alkimos dog beach has since been identified as the section of beach between PEET’s Shorehaven estate and Stockland’s Amberton estate, approximately 6km north of Quinn’s dog beach.  While the section of dog beach within the Shorehaven development was confirmed through Council’s adoption of the North Alkimos Foreshore Management Plan (December 2011), Administration has been unable to progress the formalisation of the Alkimos dog beach until such time as the Amberton Foreshore Management Plan (December 2015) was also endorsed. 

 

 

Following Council’s adoption of the Amberton Foreshore Management Plan, Administration has completed further discussions with the landowners at Alkimos and Amberton, to determine the process and timing for establishing the Alkimos dog beach, which will provide dog owners with an alternative to the Quinn’s dog beach within the City. 

 

Administration has commenced determination of the exact proximity of the beach and the timing of necessary supporting infrastructure is dependent on the staging of the individual land developments.  It is intended that the dog beach be designated as soon as possible, prior to the majority of residents living in the adjacent properties.  It is important to note that while Council can designate an area of beach as a dog exercise area, access to it is dependent on land developers providing the supporting infrastructure (access ways, bins, paths etc.) as per the approved Foreshore Management Plans.  The landowners have advised that the infrastructure is not planned within the next two years.

 

Following further engagement with the landowners and the resolution of issues around access, management and supporting infrastructure it is intended that a report will be presented to Council recommending that Council resolves to give public notice of its intention to designate the relevant section of the North Alkimos beach as a dog exercise area. 

 

At the 5 April 2016 Council Meeting, Council deferred a decision on the extension of the Quinn’s dog beach as a result of a deputation from the petitioner of PT02-02/16, and requested that the matter be presented to the next available Council Forum for discussion.  The item was presented for information and discussion at the 3 May 2016 Council Forum and is now being presented to Council for reconsideration.

Detail

On 22 January 2016, a petition (PT02-02/16) of 1976 signatures was received by the City and subsequently presented at the 2 Feb 2016 Council Meeting.  The petition requests an extension to the current Quinn’s dog beach, approximately 150m north of the current northern boundary, to the stairs adjacent to Chippy’s Café, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

In the letter, attached to the petition, the following issues are raised in support of the proposed extension:

 

1.   Structural access

 

The petition states that there is currently no structural access to the dog beach at its northernmost limit and that when users want to exit to the north of the beach they have to do so by climbing a dune to access a stairway near Chippy’s café, 150m north of the boundary of the dog beach.

 

2.   Dog owner representation

The petition states that 40% of households in the City own at least one dog and hence an equitable amount of coastline to support their use of the beach amounts to 13km. 

 

3.   Beach use

The petition states that observations of the Quinn’s dog beach during a four week period (mid December 2015 – mid January 2016) demonstrates that dog beach users outnumber general public beach users, in the area being requested for extension to the dog beach.  No specific statistics on these observations were provided.

 

 

 

 

The petition claims that the area between the current northern boundary of the Quinn’s dog beach and the proposed extension to Chippy’s café is not a good swimming beach, consisting mostly of reef and would be more appropriately used for dog exercise.

Consultation

Section 31(3A) of the Dog Act states:

 

"A local government may, by absolute majority as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 Section 1.4, specify a public place, or class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area."

 

While no consultation has been undertaken in response to this petition, comprehensive community consultation was completed in 2014, essentially on the same issue, with community feedback received during the public notice period.  The key issues raised in the submissions are summarised below:

 

1.   Incompatibility of dogs with other beach users - The proposal to extend the dog beach south of the existing area was strongly objected to on the basis that dogs are not compatible with other beach uses.   

 

2.   Dog Management - Submitters reported that the dog beach, pedestrian access ways and surrounding areas are frequently impacted by dog faeces and the smell of dog urine.  A number of reports were also made of uncontrolled dogs coming into conflict with other beach users (both dog and non-dog owners), thus discouraging some users from the area. 

 

3.   Carparking - Submitters were concerned that the lack of car parking would be exacerbated by the extension of the dog beach to the south.  

Comment

An extension to the Quinn’s dog beach has been subject to a number of previous petitions and consultation exercises, most recently in response to the City’s CMP Part 1 which identified a gap in dog beach provision to the south of the existing Quinn’s dog beach, with the next closest dog beach being at Whitfords in the City of Joondalup.  On that occasion, a southern extension was preferable over an extension to the north, because the beach north of the existing dog beach is narrow and characterised by the presence of rocky cliffs and submerged rocks.  The beach area to the south of the existing dog beach is much wider and characterised by sand dunes with vegetation and is more amenable to public access.

 

At the time the CMP Part 1 was advertised for public comment (October 2011 to January 2012), the majority community view was in favour of a southern extension to the Quinn’s dog beach.  However, this was met with strong community opposition in the 2014 public consultation.   Previous public feedback raised valid concerns in relation to incompatibility with other beach users, management of the dog beach and car parking. 

 

In response to the January 2016 petition (PT02-02/16), and as a result of historical community feedback and planned future developments, Administration advises the following:

 

1.   Structural access

 

The petition states that there is no structural access from the dog beach in its northernmost limit and that dog beach users are using the access way approximately 60m north to obtain access to the dog beach. 

 

 

Administration has inspected the various access points to the Quinn’s dog beach.  Figures 1 – 10 of Attachment 2 illustrates these various access ways.  The Quinn’s dog beach is approximately one kilometre in length with three main access points located along the length of the beach.  Each access way consists of a concrete path leading down to the beach with nearby car park bays available. 

 

The southernmost access point is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the dog beach (Figure 1).  The central access point is located approximately half way along the length of the dog beach, adjacent to Queenscliff Parade (Figure 2 - 4).  The concrete path access way leads from the carpark down to a stairway landing consisting of a sturdy grid mesh.  This grid mesh enables smaller dogs to walk on this landing but is large enough to permit windblown sand to fall through the mesh to maintain a clear pedestrian path.  The northernmost access point is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the dog beach.  Whilst the concrete path leading to the beach is in good condition, the landing from the path to the beach is steep and has no stairway or similar structure (Figures 5 – 6).  This makes access to the dog beach more difficult for dog beach users such as young children and the elderly. 

 

The access way 60m north of the dog beach is adjacent to the Chippy’s Café, carpark and lookout balcony (Figures 7 – 10).  The stairway landing, leading to the public beach below, can be seen looking south, from the balcony, adjacent to this carpark (Figure 7) and is adequately signed to educate beach users that dogs are not permitted on the beach below (Figure 8).  The car park adjacent to Chippy’s Café is equipped with a dog waste bag facility and bin (Figure 10).  The concrete path leading south from the carpark and lookout to this stairway, continues south to the northernmost access way and northern boundary of the dog beach.  Hence the northernmost boundary of the dog beach is accessible from the Chippy’s café carpark.

 

2.   Dog owner representation

 

The applicant expressed that 40% of households in the City own at least one dog and hence an equitable amount of coastline to support their use of the beach amounts to 13km.

 

Data analysed as part of the Coastal Management Plan Part 1 (2011), found that the City of Wanneroo has 9.75 registered dogs per metre of existing allocated dog beach.  To date, this has increased to 10.39 registered dogs per metre of existing allocated dog beach.  This is significantly lower in density in comparison to the City of Joondalup (25.2 dogs/m of allocated beach) or Stirling (21.79 dogs/m of allocated beach) and only marginally higher than the City of Cockburn (8.16 dogs/m of allocated beach).  

 

This indicates that the current number of dog beaches within the City is still adequate to cater for dog exercise.  In any event, Administration does not support 13km (approximately one third) of the City’s coastline to be dedicated to dog exercise.  There are a number of alternative dog exercise areas, such as all public reserves in Quinn’s Rocks, vested in or under the care, control and management of the City of Wanneroo, excluding Frederick J Stubbs Grove, Quinn’s Rocks.  Dog owners will also have the option of using the proposed Alkimos dog beach in the future.

 

3.   Beach use

 

The petition states that observations during a four week period from mid December 2015 – mid January 2016 demonstrates that dog beach users outnumber general public beach users, in the area being requested for extension to the dog beach.  This is to be expected, given that the primary swimming beach is located at Quinn’s Beach to the south. 

 

 

 

The petition also states that the area of beach proposed for extension, is not a good swimming beach, constructed mostly of reef.  This is consistent with Administration’s previous assessment of the area.

 

It has been previously acknowledged, in the 2014 public consultation, that incompatibility is already evident at the southern extent of the existing dog beach where dog users interact with other users of the beach.   Considering the access point to this proposed northern boundary is adjacent to Chippy’s Café, an extension to the north of the current dog beach may cause further unwanted interactions.

 

Summary

 

On the basis of historical public feedback and the Council’s April 2014 decision to not consider any future proposed extension to Quinn’s dog beach, Administration does not recommend extending the Quinn’s Dog Beach to the north by 150 metres. 

 

Alkimos dog beach is proposed to be located approximately 6km north of Quinn’s dog beach and will provide dog owners with an alternative to the Quinn’s dog beach within the City.   The provision of alternative dog beaches will also be further addressed in the CMP Part 2.

   

Density data (dogs per metre of allocated beach) in comparison to nearby councils, demonstrates that the current dog beach resources in the City are currently adequate.  It is also planned that any increase in future dog population increase will be alleviated with the proposed Alkimos dog beach, approximately 6km north of Quinn’s dog beach. 

 

Furthermore, Administration does not support the interaction of public beach users and dog owners to the north, as the facilities adjacent to Chippy’s Café are a public gathering area. 

 

Although the current access way at Chippy’s Café may be sufficient to cater for an extension to the dog beach to the north, the frequency of unwanted interactions of incompatible beach users (dogs, public beach users and café patrons) would likely increase. 

 

It is recommended that improvements of the pedestrian access landing to the northern boundary of the dog beach be undertaken by Administration, to ensure that the safe and controlled access to the Quinn’s dog beach can be maintained in the future.  A site inspection of the area, performed by Administration on the 13 April 2016, confirmed that the current access did not require any immediate works.  In the future, emergency remedial work may require a vegetation permit to widen the access area, sand replenishment and an increase in the overall slope of the area.  This may lead to further erosion of the access way and adjacent dune, which may exacerbate the problem.  In the short term, Administration will continue to monitor and action the access way, as required. 

 

The City appointed consultants AECOM in 2015 to assess various types of coastal infrastructure assets throughout its coastal zone.  This report included the assessment of the northern access way and concluded that the main components of the northern access way (pathway and fencing) were noted to be in a reasonable condition.  Relative to other beach access infrastructure requirements, the site was listed as Priority 15 of 21, with the current infrastructure having a remaining useful life of 13 years.  However, the degree to which the access way is fit for purpose was not considered as part of this report and therefore not factored into generating the priority list. 

 

In addition, Administration is intending to undertake an assessment of all access ways along the City’s coastline to determine if all existing access points are still required.  Where there are multiple access points duplicated in short distances from one another, it will be determined if some access ways can be removed and the other access points upgraded to meet the community’s needs. This will assist the City by alleviating the pressures of maintaining the large amount of current access way structures.                                  

 

The long term upgrade of Quinn’s dog beach infrastructure is also dependent on the works required as part of the Quinn’s Coastal Management Study.  Two preferred coastal management options have been shortlisted and presented to the public:

·    Option 1 – Extension of groynes 2 and 3, new northern groyne (groyne 4) and beach renourishment; and

·    Option 2 – Relocation of the Quinn’s Beach carpark, new northern groyne (groyne 4) and beach renourishment.

 

A decision on the preferred option is currently pending community feedback and is intended to be considered at the 21 June 2016 Council Meeting. 

 

Independent of which coastal option is selected, an upgrade to one of the Quinn’s coastal access ways will be required to enable large machinery to access the beach and undertake coastal protection works (eg. Groyne development/ extension works, coastal sand replenishment).  If this particular access way is selected for machinery beach access, the current access way will need to be significantly altered and require further investigations, including the assessment of required geotechnical materials and beach seasonality studies.  This current uncertainty makes it difficult to identify a clear option for dog beach access in the short term.

 

If Council decides to formally extend the existing Quinn’s dog beach, a number of additional works and initiatives will need to be considered, including:

 

·    Public notice required under Section 31(3C)(b) of the Dog Act 1976; and

·    Relocating the existing dog beach boundary sign to reflect the new (northern) dog beach boundary.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, public notice will be required if Council's approve the Quinn’s dog beach extension. 

 

Under Section 31(3C)(b) of that Act, in order to formally extend the dog beach, Council must resolve to do so by absolute majority.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

If Council resolves to extend the dog beach, the following costs would need to be covered through the City's existing operational budget:

 

·    The cost of public advertising in the North Coast Times and Wanneroo Times Community newspapers – approximately $640; and

·    Relocation and installation of additional dog beach signs – approximately $1000.  This cost will vary depending upon whether signs will need to be relocated ($200 each) or completely replaced (additional $200).  Changes may also be required to existing signs on the northern and southern boundaries to reflect the increased length of dog beach.

 

There will be no additional cost to install appropriate bins and bag dispensers for the adjacent dog beach as these facilities already exist in the adjacent carpark, south of Chippy’s Café (Figure 10 in Attachment 2).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the petition received in respect of the proposed northern extension of the Quinn’s dog beach, included in Attachment 1;

2.       DOES NOT EXTEND the Quinn’s dog beach 150 metres immediately north of the existing Quinn’s dog beach;

3.       REQUESTS Administration to improve the existing pedestrian access landing to the northern boundary of the Quinn’s dog beach; and

4.       NOTIFIES the petition convener of Council's decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Proposed Extension 150m North of Quinns Dog Beach

16/84985

Minuted

2.

Quinn's Dog Beach Access Point Photos

16/81228

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                  50

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                     51

Figure 1: Southernmost access point to the dog beach

Figure 2: Central access point to the dog beach, with stairs onto beach

Figure 3: Central access point to the dog beach, with stairs onto beach.

Figure 4: Central access point to the dog beach - concrete path.

 

Figure 5: Northernmost access point to the dog beach, looking towards the beach.

Figure 6: Northernmost access point to the dog beach, looking towards the path.

 

Figure 7: View from balcony adjacent to Chippy’s café, looking south onto the dog beach.  The stairs that descend onto the public beach can be seen in the left of the photo.

Figure 8: View of adjacent stairway access to the south of Chippy’s café, looking west towards the dog beach.

 

Figure 9: View of adjacent stairway access to the south of Chippy’s café, looking west towards the dog beach

Figure 10: Bins and dog waste bag facilities located in car park adjacent to stairway access, south of Chippy’s café.


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      56

 

Approval Services

3.6    Application for Development Approval - Retaining Walls and Stairs at 17 Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks (DA2015/924)

File Ref:                                              DA2015/924 – 15/518221

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for retaining walls and stairs at Lot 10 (17) Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks.

 

Applicant

Turquoise Developments

Owner

Smartdevelop Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 10 (17) Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks

Site Area

3,033m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential (R40)

 

 

Background

Lot 10 (17) Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks (the subject site) is located as indicated on the plan included as Attachment 1.

 

On 15 January 2015, Administration approved an application for development approval (DA2014/2245) for 23 multiple dwellings at the subject site.  As part of the assessment of that proposal, Administration did not consult with nearby residents on the (then) proposed development as it was considered to fully comply with the relevant provisions of DPS 2 and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Nearby residents became aware of the proposal to develop the lot and made enquiries and raised concerns with the City. Having regard to the issues raised, the City considered it appropriate to engage an independent planning consultant to review the planning approval process. Elected Members may recall that the Planning Report prepared by the consultant was circulated on 20 November 2015. Having regard to issues raised the City also met with residents on 2 December 2015 to discuss the Planning Report and address any concerns raised by residents into the planning approval process. Following the meeting, Administration provided information to residents who requested clarification and further details. Administration invited residents to contact Administration to enable any further concerns raised by residents to be addressed. 

 

Administration issued a building permit on 14 May 2015 (BA2015/2190), to undertake preliminary site works (retaining walls and earthworks) to facilitate the development of the multiple dwellings. This building permit also proposed a design for stairs adjacent to the western boundary of the subject site that varied the design as prescribed in the development approval. The building permit approved the construction of retaining walls and stairs which facilitated earthworks; but did not approve the construction works for the multiple dwellings.

 

A further application for a building permit for the multiple dwellings was later received (BA2015/5112) and superseded the previous building permit (BA2015/2190). BA2015/5112 was approved by Administration on 2 November 2015. A site plan that was approved at the time that building permit BA2015/5112 was issued is included as Attachment 2, and is provided in the Elected Members’ Reading Room. The building permit was issued to facilitate the development of the approved planning application (DA2014/2245).

 

The planning approval (DA2014/2245) details the approved ground levels throughout the site, but did not specifically indicate the height of the retaining walls. The building permit was issued on the basis that the retaining would be required to facilitate the levels approved in the development approval.

 

The retaining walls and stair design approved in the building permits are now inconsistent with the development approval that was issued for the multiple dwellings. The purpose of this Report is for Council to issue an application for (partly) retrospective development approval (DA2015/924) for retaining walls and stairs on the subject lot, so that the development approvals and building permits are consistent with one another. The reason that the application is ‘partly’ retrospective is because – as outlined further in the ‘Detail’ section below – it seeks approval for existing development as well as for development not yet constructed. Specifically, works to construct the retaining wall in accordance with the building permit (BA2015/5112) have mostly been completed; the stairs adjacent to the western boundary are yet to be constructed.

 

Administration has received numerous enquiries from local residents about the multiple dwelling development that is currently under construction at 17 Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks. Administration is continuing to investigate any concerns as they arise. Administration does not consider that the application, subject to this Report, will alleviate all concerns raised by residents, but rather it is intended to address the inconsistencies that currently exist between the building permits and development approval.

Detail

 

Detail of the development subject to this Report is outlined below. A plan that highlights the extent of the works subject to this application is included as Attachment 3. This plan has also been provided in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

The existing and proposed developments subject to this Report require development approval. The reason why development approval is required is because:

 

·    The works described below were either not included in the initial development approval for the 23 multiple dwellings (DA2014/2245) or constructed in a manner inconsistent with this approval; and

·    Such works are not exempt from approval under the deemed provisions contained within Schedule A of DPS 2.

 

The acceptance and assessment of the application subject to this Report forms a part of Administration’s ongoing measures to ensure that compliance for the works that have occurred (or are occurring) on the site is achieved.

 

Existing Development Requiring Retrospective Development Approval

 

Existing Retaining Walls and Stairs in Proximity to the Front Boundary

 

Existing retaining walls situated in the front setback of the subject lot are located where identified in yellow on the plan included as Attachment 3 and a photo of the development is shown in Attachment 5 (A). Stairs have also been built into this retaining wall.

 

The existing retaining walls and stairs were included in the plans issued as part of the building permit for the multiple dwellings (BA2015/5112). However, the initial development approval for the multiple dwellings (DA2014/2245) did not contemplate retaining walls or stairs being constructed within or adjacent to the front setback area.

 

 

The retaining walls and stairs were constructed as a result of excavation; and as such, the top of the retaining wall and stairs are at a level consistent with that of the adjoining Royal James Court road reserve. The building permit plans depicted retaining walls to a height of up to 1.2 metres, as measured from the bottom of the excavation that has occurred to the level of the road reserve.

 

Existing Retaining Walls Adjoining the Central Car Parking Area

 

Existing retaining walls situated in proximity to future car parking, approved as part of the 23 multiple dwelling development are located on the lot where identified in blue on the plan included as Attachment 3 and a photo of the development is shown in Attachment 5 (B).

 

The retaining walls were included in the plans issued as part of the building permit for the multiple dwellings (BA2015/5112). The initial development approval for the multiple dwellings (DA2014/2245) prescribed that a retaining wall of 0.5 metres in height would be constructed adjoining the carpark. However, the retaining wall heights on the building permit plans prescribe a varying retaining wall height of up to 1.1 metres.

 

Construction of this retaining wall is completed except for one section where indicated in Attachment 3. The applicant has advised Administration that the wall has not been completed, as completing the wall would restrict access through the site for heavy vehicles. Under the building permit, it is possible for the applicant to complete the construction of this section of the retaining wall at a later date.

 

Existing Retaining Walls for Sunken Planter Feature

 

Existing retaining walls set back 1.5 metres from the western boundary are shown in green on the plan included as Attachment 3 and photos of the development is shown in Attachment 5 (C). These retaining walls are intended to form part of a sunken planter feature to be developed adjoining the western boundary of the lot.

 

The existing retaining walls for the planter feature have been constructed at a height of between 0.5 metres to 0.6 metres, and parallel to the entire length of the western boundary (except for the section where stairs are provided). The existing retaining walls are included in the plans issued as part of the building permit for the multiple dwellings (BA2015/5112).

 

The initial development approval for the 23 multiple dwelling development however, included a planter feature which would be provided at a height of 1.2 metres adjoining a portion (but not the entire length) of the western side boundary.  The applicant is seeking development approval for this retaining wall so that it will be consistent with that included in the approved building permit.

 

Existing Retaining Walls on Southern Boundary

 

An existing retaining wall situated adjoining the southern boundary is shown in pink on the plan included as Attachment 3 and a photo of the development is shown in Attachment 5 (D). This existing retaining wall has been constructed adjoining another retaining wall constructed at the time subdivision of the area was undertaken.

 

The existing retaining wall has been built up to a maximum height of 0.43 metres over the previously approved subdivision retaining wall. Retaining walls less than 0.5 metre in height do not require building permit approval under the Building Regulations, but require planning approval where the land use is a multiple dwelling in accordance with the provisions of DPS 2. The subject retaining wall is intended to retain the levels required for an adjoining drying yard and bin store. Detail of this existing retaining wall was included in the plans issued as part of the building permit for the multiple dwellings (BA2015/5112).

 

Although the initial development approval for the 23 multiple dwelling development showed a drying yard and bin store, the approval did not contemplate or show sufficient details of an additional retaining wall block that is required to maintain the levels of these facilities. The applicant is seeking development approval for this retaining wall so that it will be consistent with that included in the approved building permit.

 

Proposed Development Requiring Development Approval

 

In addition to the existing retaining walls described above, this applicant is also seeking approval for stairs situated on the western portion of the subject lot, as identified in red on the plan included as Attachment 3. The stairs have not yet been constructed.

 

Stairs at this location were approved as part of the initial approval for 23 multiple dwellings (DA2014/2245). The initial approval shows wide stairs that follow the angle of the retaining walls. The current application reduces the width of the stairs and leads directly to the access to Waterland Point as shown in Attachment 4. A photo of the location of the stairs is shown in Attachment 5 (E). The stair design proposed as part of this development application is consistent with the plans issued as part of the building permit for the multiple dwellings (BA2015/5112).

Consultation

Administration acknowledges that the site works to establish the levels approved for the multiple dwelling development is a subject of concern for nearby landowners. However, the retaining walls and stairs are required to facilitate levels that have already been approved and are not considered to warrant advertising, with exception of the retaining walls in the front setback area as indicated in yellow on the plan included as Attachment 3.

 

On 29 October 2015, Administration notified the affected adjoining landowner to the southeast (Lot 386, 15 Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks) requesting comment on the existing retaining wall and stairs situated in the front setback area by 12 November 2015. No response has been received by Administration.

Comment

As outlined in the ‘Consultation’ section above, Administration did not receive a comment from the adjoining landowner which it consulted with as part of the assessment of the application. Pursuant to the City’s Delegated Authority Register, Administration is typically not required to present an application for development approval for Council’s determination if no objections for the proposal have been received.

 

Administration has been engaging in ongoing dialogue with nearby landowners that have raised concerns about the multiple dwelling development that is currently under construction. As part of that dialogue, Administration has been responding to concerns about the broader issues of the development that is occurring on the site, and in particular the site works that have previously been undertaken to support the approved development.  Whilst Administration continues to monitor the development and remains in dialogue with surrounding landowners, Administration considered it appropriate for this application to be presented to Council for its determination.

 

Administration has undertaken an assessment of the application against the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) as well as the City’s “Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy” (LPP 2.4). That assessment is provided for below:

 

 

 

Existing Retaining Walls and Stairs in Proximity to the Front Boundary

 

LPP 2.4 outlines that the principles of terracing are to be followed when filling within the front setback, as a way of meeting the performance criteria (design principles) of the R-Codes. As the retaining and site works that have occurred in the front setback area is excavation and not fill, then the principles of terracing do not apply. However, there is still a requirement for the proposal to satisfy the provisions of the R-Codes.

 

The deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes prescribe that excavation or filling within 3.0 metres of the front boundary shall not exceed 0.5 metres, except where necessary to provide for pedestrian and vehicle access. The application however, seeks development approval for excavation works and retaining walls that are not required to provide for pedestrian or vehicle access. 

 

Where the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes have not been met, the proposal is to be considered against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. An assessment of the retaining wall has been undertaken against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes, as provided in the table below:

 

Design Principles 

6.3.6 Site Works

Administration Comments

Development that con-siders and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill.

The retaining wall responds to the natural features of the site as the natural contours of the land falls from the street level (Royal James Court) to the western (or rear) boundary.

 

The design of the multiple dwelling development and car parking does not warrant the need for retaining within the front setback, except for where indicated in yellow on the plan included as Attachment 3. Administration considers that the design of the multiple dwelling development on the site confines retaining and excavation to a minimal area of the front setback.

 

Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and the adjoining properties and as viewed from the street.

The retaining walls and site works are necessary to facilitate the grading of the visitor bay in the front setback, and access in consideration of the natural ground levels at the front boundary and the adjoining street.

 

The retaining wall integrates well with the levels of adjoining properties. When viewed from the western boundary of the subject property there is a gradual rise to the street which is consistent with the finished levels established when the street was designed. When viewed from the street, the retaining walls are necessary to facilitate vehicle entry to the lot, which lessens the impact of the retaining wall and is considered appropriate when considering the natural ground levels of the adjoining properties.

 

Considering that no objection was received from the adjoining landowner for the retaining wall within the front setback, and that it is demonstrated above that the proposal satisfies the design principles of the R-Codes, it is recommended that Council grants retrospective approval for the retaining wall.

 

Existing Retaining Walls (Adjoining the Central Car Parking Area & Planter Feature)

 

LPP 2.4 does not specifically prescribe requirements for retaining walls that are not located within 1.0 metre of boundaries or within front setbacks.

However, retaining walls not within the front setback and 1.0 metre from boundaries are subject to building height and setback requirements of the R-Codes. The existing retaining walls satisfy the requirements of the R-Codes, as the retaining walls:

 

·    Do not exceed a height of 1.1 metres, which is less than the maximum wall height of 6.0 metres prescribed under the R-Codes; and

 

·    Are setback at or greater than 1.5 metres from the boundary of the property, which is the minimum setback requirement prescribed under the R-Codes.

 

Existing Retaining Walls (Adjoining Southern Boundary)

 

The retaining walls adjoining the southern boundary have been constructed to a height of 0.43 metres above the natural ground level (the level adjoining the southern boundary before the site works on the site occurred), and therefore complies with the relevant deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes as well as the provisions of LPP 2.4.

 

Proposed Stairs

 

The proposed stairs are a building within a residential zoned property and is therefore required to meet the requirements of the R-Codes. The stairs are proposed on the side boundaries with adjoining Lot 4 (14) and Lot 5 (16) Waterland Point and do not satisfy the minimum setback of 1.0 metre required under deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. Where the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes have not been met, the proposal is to be considered against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. An assessment of the proposed stairs has been undertaken against the relevant design principles of the R-Codes, as provided in the table below:

 

Design Principles 

6.1.4 Lot Boundary Setbacks

Administration Comments

Buildings set back from boundaries or adjacent buildings so as to:

·    Ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated with them;

·    Moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property;

·    Ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and

·    Assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.

 

The setback of the stairs will not prohibit sun and ventilation into the buildings situated on the adjoining lots (such as Lot 4 and Lot 5 Waterland Point). The proposed stairs are sufficiently setback from the lots to the southern boundary and will not prohibit sun or ventilation to the adjoining property.

 

The portion of stairs adjoining the side boundary is less than 1.0 metre in height above the natural ground level, and therefore will not have a significant effect of building bulk on the subject site or the adjoining lots;

 

The modified design of the stairs will not impede further on privacy, access to sunlight or ventilation on adjoining landowners, in comparison to the design of the stairs initially approved with the multiple dwelling development.

 

Administration considers that the proposal satisfies the design principles of the R-Codes, and therefore it is recommended that Council grants development approval for the stairs.

 

Conclusion

 

This application for development approval complies with the applicable requirements of the R-Codes, and the City’s “Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy” (LPP 2.4). It is therefore recommended that Council approves the (partly) retrospective application for development approval for retaining walls and stairs at Lot 10 (17) Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

In accordance with the current Compliance Policy, the City may take various actions to deal with development that is constructed without approval. 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 unapproved components of the development by seeking retrospective approval. If the application is approved by Council, no further action will be required.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the application for development approval for retaining walls and stairs at Lot 10 (17) Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks where highlighted on the plan included as Attachment 3, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 and subject to compliance with the following conditions:

 

a)      This approval is only valid from the date of Council's decision and does not retrospectively authorise any previous unapproved development of the subject land.

 

b)      This approval only relates to the retaining walls and stairs as highlighted on the site plan included in Attachment 3. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

 

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

 

2.       ADVISES the applicant of Council’s decision; and

 

3.       ADVISES nearby landowners of Council’s decision as nominated by the Manager Approval Services.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - 17 Royal James Court, Quinns Rocks

16/4227

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Site Plan Included in Building Permit for BA2015 5112

16/50903

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Extent of Development Subject to Application

16/50904

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Stair Design Comparison

16/35948

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Royal James Court Multiple Dwellings - Council Report - Retrospective Planning Approval

16/149293

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      64

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      65

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      66

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                  67

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                  68

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                      71

3.7    Consideration of the Draft Central Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 95

File Ref:                                              8069 – 16/112338

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Central Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 95 (LSP 95) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability to forward to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

Roberts Day

Owner

Landcorp

Location

Lot 9501 (2K) Marmion Avenue

Site Area

255 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban, Parks and Recreation, Other Regional Roads and Railways

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development, Parks and Recreation and Railways

 

 

Background

The proposed LSP was submitted on 26 August 2013. On 9 October 2013, a memorandum was forwarded to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of LSP 95 commenced on 21 October 2013 in accordance with former Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and closed on 3 December 2013.

 

LSP 95 was advertised in conjunction with Draft Alkimos City Centre Structure Plan No. 89 (CSP 89) and Amendment No. 1 to Alkimos Eglinton District Structure Plan No. 18 (DSP 18). A plan showing the location of LSP 95 (green), CSP 89 (pink) and part of DSP 18 (outlined in blue) are included in Attachment 1. While Amendment No. 1 to DSP 18 was considered at its Council Meeting of 21 July 2015 (Item PS02-07/15) due to the number of submissions received regarding LSP 95 and CSP 89, Administration provided the proponent an opportunity to amend their proposals. Considerable review was undertaken including workshops with relevant state government stakeholders and on 2 November 2015 revised documentation for both LSP 95 and CSP 89 was provided to the City.

 

Due to the time lapse since advertising and the extent of changes to the proposal, LSP 95 and CSP 89 were referred back to the stakeholders who originally made submissions on the proposal. This resulted in further comments being made and in turn some further minor modifications were made by the applicant and on 18 April 2016 a final revision was submitted to the City. For clarity within this report this version will be identified as revised LSP 95 while the as lodged version from 26 August 2013 will be identified as the original LSP 95.

 

Following the consideration of LSP 95 together, with the submissions and resultant modifications Administration consider that LSP 95 is ready to be finalised. CSP 89, however, still has outstanding issues which are being worked through and it is the intent of Administration that it is presented to a Council Meeting later in the year.

 

Detail

Site

The LSP 95 area is bounded by the future Mitchell Freeway Reserve to the east, the foreshore reserve to the west, future residential development to the north, the Water Corporation's Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) and associated buffer to the south-west and the future Alkimos City Centre to the south-east.  LSP 95 encompasses a total area of approximately 255 hectares. 

Proposal

The original LSP, as shown in Attachment 2, was prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DPS 2. The structure plan area is predominantly zoned Urban under the MRS, with two areas reserved for Parks and Recreation, and an Other Regional Roads reservation (Marmion Avenue) and railway reservation bisecting the site north-south.

 

The structure plan area is predominantly zoned Urban Development under the City's DPS 2, which requires the preparation of a structure plan to guide the subdivision and development of the land, in accordance with Clause 3.14.3 of DPS 2.

 

The LSP 95 will enable the delivery of the following:

·    Primarily ‘Residential’-zoned land, with some areas of Regional & District Open Space, Education, Mixed Use and Business;

·    An estimated lot yield of 1700, with 1816 dwellings and an estimated population of 4177;

·    An estimated retail floor space of 1,300m²; and

·    A high school and primary school site.

 

It is noted that the structure plan was initially earmarked for the inclusion of the North Alkimos Rail Station, however, this was removed by the Department of Transport ‘Public Transport for Perth in 2031’ plan and LSP 95 has been revised accordingly.

 

On 2 November 2015 the proponent provided a revised LSP Part 1 plan and text which is included as Attachment 3. While the reasons behind the revised document is discussed in the comment section of this report and within the summary of submissions included as Attachment 4, the revised LSP includes the following modifications:

·    Part 1 text revision to be in line with the WAPC Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines;

·    Reconfiguration of the District Open Space (DOS);

·    Inclusion of a ‘Commercial’ zone in the area identified as Neighbourhood Centre under DSP 18;

·    Inclusion of conservation Public Open Space;

·    Relocation of the Primary School to the west of the railway reserve;

·    A slight reduction in the estimated lot yield to 1605; and

·    Minor realignment of the north-south District Distributor Road.

Consultation

The original LSP was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers, a notice on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. 

 

 

 

The submission period commenced on 21 October 2013 and closed on 3 December 2013, with nine submissions being received from State Government agencies and two submissions being received from adjoining land developers. 

 

On 23 December 2015, the revised LSP 95 was sent to the 11 stakeholders who made a submission during the initial public consultation period. These stakeholders were given 28 days to provide comment on the revised LSP 95. Six submitters (being the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Planning (DoP), Department of Education, Peet Limited, Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) and Public Transport Authority) provided additional submissions. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 4.

 

The main issues raised during both the initial and subsequent advertising period relate to:

 

·        The format of the Part 1 text and plan;

·        The traffic modelling used in the preparation of the traffic report;

·        Management of Regional Open Space (ROS); and

·        The interface between the proposed high school site and Marmion Avenue (including pedestrian connections to the Alkimos City Centre).

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 95 is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

Amended Part 1 Plan and Text

 

Through the consultation process and assessment of LSP 95, there were a number of changes to the LSP that were required. While it was deemed that none of these modifications impacted on the intent of LSP 95 the quantity of changes resulted in a document which looked substantially different from that originally lodged.

 

As such, and due to the legislative requirements, Administration is intending to recommend support to the proposal as submitted, subject to a modification to replace the document with that included in Attachment 3. This is deemed the simplest and most appropriate way to consider the structure plan.

 

The Part 1 text has also been modified to be in accordance with the WAPC's Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines including new provisions related to;

·    Staging – Identifying that the development will be heavily reliant on the construction of the Mitchell Freeway extension to Alkimos Drive;

·    Movement Network – Identifies the connection to major infrastructure will be generally as per the Part 1 Plan; and

·    Density Targeting – Identifying the objective is to provide a minimum of 1605 dwellings within LSP 95.

 

The changes to the Part 1 text to include the above are minor and the overall replacement of the Part 1 text and plan is supported by Administration.

 

Traffic Modelling (Main Roads Western Australia Comments)

 

During the public consultation period, MRWA and Department of Transport raised concerns regarding the traffic modelling which was used for the development of both LSP 95 and CSP 89. Bruce Aulabaugh Traffic Consultant was engaged by the City to develop a North West Corridor Model (NWCM) in 2011 which is more detailed than the MRWA Regional Operation

 

 

Model 24 (ROM) where some existing traffic volumes already exceeded the ROM forecasts for 2031.

 

MRWA has required that the LSP 95 and CSP 89 be developed in accordance with ROM rather than NWCM. Jacobs Engineering Group was appointed by the proponent to review both the NWCM and ROM and noted the following;

·    The road network in ROM does not include a number of important road links. This reduces the connectivity which concentrates too much traffic over too few roads; and

·    The traffic volumes used in ROM are generally less than those in NWCM.

 

When undertaking a review of the original structure plan, the proponent and consultant engineers met with MRWA to establish an agreed position. The matter was not able to be resolved with MRWA restating its requirements for ROM to be used. The City, through consultation of the revised LSP 95, wrote to MRWA to establish the reasoning behind this decision. In response MRWA stated that they still had fundamental issues with the modelling, however, were willing to proceed with the matter and deal with issues at more detailed stages of development.

 

The City’s Traffic engineers support the use of the NWCM as it has been utilised through other structure plans within the City.  Other comments raised by MRWA including intersection analysis can be dealt with through later stages of development. On this basis Administration supports the progression of LSP 95.

 

Location of the High School/Intersection of Marmion and Alkimos Drive

 

MRWA also raised issues with the location of the High School abutting Marmion Avenue as schools adjacent to regional roads are problematic due to access issues. MRWA also stated that this location creates concerns regarding pedestrian connectivity with the nearby ACSP 89 as well as vehicular access issues for parents dropping off and picking up students.

 

The proponent, through the Traffic Report submitted with LSP 95, has identified the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Alkimos Drive will be a four way signalised intersection. This is consistent with the Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access - LPP 3.8 and will cater for the eventual extension of the Mitchell Freeway and subsequent flow on traffic onto Alkimos Drive. Signals at this intersection will allow for east-west pedestrian movement along Alkimos Drive across Marmion Avenue. MRWA have advised that due to the ongoing cost of maintenance of signals, roundabouts will be required unless it can be demonstrated that signals are essential.

 

MRWA have also identified that a grade separated pedestrian overpass should be provided by the proponent to ensure pedestrian connectivity. Administration agrees that an alternative pedestrian arrangement should be considered should the intersection become a roundabout in lieu of signals. As the decision for the intersection treatment is not made until subdivision stage, it is recommended that the LSP 95 Part 2 supporting documentation be updated to include provision for alternative arrangements based on the final intersection treatment.

 

With regards to the vehicular access, the high school site is bounded by a Neighbourhood Connector Road to the south and Integrator B Road to the north. These roads will allow alternative access to Marmion Avenue as there will be an access restriction on the eastern boundary of the site. A traffic report will be required to be submitted with the development application for the High School which will identify the detail associated with access and car parking for the site. Preliminary discussions with the Department of Education has identified that due to the topography of the site, buildings will be located to the west of the site which should alleviate any traffic concerns associated with Marmion Avenue. This would also eliminate any need for Marmion Avenue to be reduced to a 40km/hour zone which is not supported by MRWA.

 

It is considered that the reservations expressed by MRWA is a matter which can be addressed further between MRWA and DoP at subdivisional stage together with the City’s input and as such Administration is supportive of the location of the High School subject to updating the Part 2 documentation to include provision for alternative arrangements (including grade separated pedestrian connection) based on the final intersection treatment.

 

Management of Regional Open Space (Land designated as Parks and Recreation)

 

During the consultation period, the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) identified the need for environmental management plans to manage the potential impacts from the development on the Regional Open Space (ROS) which covers 39.2% of the LSP. The ROS is differentiated from the District Open Space (DOS) as it is for conservation purposes while the DOS is for active playing fields.

 

A meeting was held with the DoP, DPaW, City Administration and the proponents to discuss the responsibility for preparation of an ROS Management Plan and who will be responsible for the ongoing management of the various portions of the ROS.  DoP officers identified that due to the size and significance of the ROS the development of the management plan is the responsibility of the WAPC and DoP, however, this is subject to funding which is not currently available. It was agreed that the management plan would ideally be prepared over the entire ROS area, from the coastal foreshore through to Wanneroo Road (including the WWTP conservation area). Due to the provisions within the Part 1 text this ROS Management Plan would be required before any works being undertaken.

 

In respect to the ongoing management of the various portions of the ROS, it was agreed that this would be dependent on the ultimate use and size of each portion. A plan was presented by the proponent (See Attachment 5) for the entire ROS (including lots outside of LSP 95) which split the various sites by function and management responsibility.

 

In addition to the environmental management plan, the Part 1 text also requires that conservation management plans are required to be submitted with any subdivision associated with any ROS lots to identify the remedial works required to be undertaken prior to being handed over to the final management body.

 

Administration is supportive of the use of environmental management plans and conservation management plans during later stages of development as this has worked in other similar circumstances (including Tamala Conservation Park Establishment Plan).

 

Reconfiguration of the District Open Space

 

In addition to discussions held regarding the management of the ROS, the location and configuration of the DOS was also discussed. While previously the DOS was located centrally within the ROS this created smaller ROS sites to the north and south which are not as good to manage. As such the DOS was relocated to the northern boundary abutting Alkimos Drive which allows the creation of one ROS site.

 

The proponent has provided a number of alternative designs which show the site is capable of being developed within the area designated including multiple use fields with a pavilion through to an Indoor Recreation Centre. The exact detail will be provided at later stages of development but the site is considered to be sufficient for the City’s needs as considered by the City’s Community Facility Planning service unit.

 

Inclusion of Commercial Zone

 

Amendment No. 1 to DSP 18 was submitted to the City on 26 August 2013 proposing modifications related to the area zoned Service Commercial, area for the secondary and

 

district centres, removal of reference to the PTA Park and Ride Station on Alkimos Drive and the relocation/removal of the Neighbourhood Centre associated with Alkimos Station. Amendment No. 1 to DSP 18 was considered at the Council Meeting of 21 July 2015 (Item PS02-07/15). Council resolved to support Amendment No. 1 to DSP subject to modifications and on 14 September 2015 the documentation was referred to the WAPC.

 

On 18 March 2016, the WAPC advised that it supported the Amendment No. 1 subject to a modification requiring the neighbourhood centre, situated at the crossing of Alkimos Drive over the northern suburbs railway, being retained as it currently exists on Plan 1. The previous version of LSP 95 only included ‘Business’ and ‘Mixed Use’ zones within this area which do not permit the uses of shop or supermarket. Due to the retention of the neighbourhood centre in DSP 18 the revised LSP 95 includes an area of 6,000m2 of ‘Commercial’ zoned land south of Alkimos Drive. The location was selected due to the topography as well as surrounding road network. The location of the ‘Commercial’ zone will allow for convenience sales for people commuting, but not wanting to go into the Alkimos City Centre, and will increase the Employment Self Sufficiency of LSP 95. On this basis Administration is supportive of the inclusion of the ‘Commercial’ zone.

 

Requirements for Residential Medium-Density Single House Development Provisions

 

The Residential Medium-Density single house development provisions (R-MD) are provisions released by the WAPC which outlines acceptable variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

 

Prior to consideration of LSP 95, Administration undertook discussion and consultation with the proponent and the DoP regarding the procedure associated with the inclusion of R-MD codes and provisions within the structure plan. The DoP has advised that due to the non-statutory nature of structure plans following the implementation of the Planning and Development Regulations 2015, a local planning policy (LPP) is required to be drafted by the City which contains these R-MD provisions. On 1 April 2016 DoP released a revised Planning Bulletin which includes these R-MD provisions. Administration is currently working on a draft LPP 4.15 Medium-density single house development standards (R-MD Codes) and is intended to be presented to a Council Meeting.

 

The revised Part 1 text identifies that development within this LSP is subject to the R-MD provisions. The R-MD provisions are supported within structure plans as it will standardise variations to the R-Codes and also reduce the proliferation of Local Development Plans.

 

Updates to Part 2

 

In addition to the recommended modification to consider the revised Part 1 text and plan, it is considered appropriate that a modification be required to update the Part 2 text in accordance with the revised Part 1. These modifications will ensure that the Part 2 documents are updated in accordance with items raised in this report and recommendations made in the schedule of submissions within Attachment 4.

Conclusion

Considering the above comments, the proposed LSP 95 is considered to be acceptable, subject to modifications to replace the lodged structure plan with that provided to the City upon further consultation (Attachment 3). In addition, it is recommended that further modifications are imposed requiring the update of Part 2 documentation in accordance with changes to the Part 1 plan and text.

 

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Administration's assessment of LSP 95 has been undertaken in accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RECOMMENDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Local Structure Plan No. 95 be approved subject to the following modifications:

a)      That the Part 1 text and plan be replaced by Attachment 3 to this report; and

b)      That Part 2 be modified in accordance with changes required under 1(a) of this resolution and the recommendation column of Attachment 4 to this report.

2.       FORWARDS a copy of the report on the proposed Local Structure Plan No. 95 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Locational Plans (including LSP 95, CSP 89 & DSP 18)

16/125566

 

2.

Attachment 2 - As lodged Structure Plan Part 1 (Text and Map)

16/125290

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Revised Structure Plan Part 1 (Text and Map)

16/125288

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions

16/148285

Minuted

5.

Attachment 5 - Regional Open Space Management Plan

16/148586

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      78

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      79

 

 

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      86

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                      95


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    112

 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    113

 

Land Development

3.8    Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 4.0 Metres in Height - Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep WAPC 152589

File Ref:                                              SD152589 – 16/92634

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider approval of a subdivisional development retaining wall within Lot 499 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep (WAPC 152589) on behalf of the applicant, the Building Development Group Pty Ltd.

 

The retaining wall over 4m in height, the subject of this report, is located in common property as shown on Attachment 1.

Background

Council’s Subdivisional Retaining Wall Local Planning Policy (LPP 4.5) states that:

 

1.       For proposed retaining walls abutting a road reserve, walls greater than 3.0m in height will be unacceptable unless the City is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

 

2.       For internal retaining walls on the common boundary, walls greater than 4.0m in height will be unacceptable unless the City is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

 

This report provides details of the exceptional circumstances for Council's consideration.

 

On 22 December 2015, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted subdivision approval of Lot 499 into 4 lots, Lots 886, 887, 889 and 888 (WAPC 152589). Subsequent subdivision application for Lot 886 has been lodged proposing a combination of single lots and survey strata lots. This subdivision is yet to be approved. A copy of this subdivision plan is shown on Attachment 2.

Detail

The topography of the site is such that extensive retaining is required. Refer to cross-sections and photographs included as Attachments 3 and 4.

 

The site slopes from the North West to South East corner. To address this difference in level, the applicant is proposing to construct a terraced retaining wall reaching a maximum height of 5.5m on the boundary between lots 887, 889 and 886 as shown on Attachment 1. An additional retaining wall will be required on the eastern boundary of Lot 886 where it abuts with the golf course (Lot 888). However, as this retaining wall is less than 4.0m in height, it is acceptable under the provision of LPP 4.5 and is therefore not being considered in this report.

 

The following rationale has been provided for the justification to the approval of the retaining wall on the northern boundary of Lot 886 shown in Attachment 1.

 

The design constraint includes tying-in of the existing sewer line to the proposed Lot 889 and the 8 metre fall between the St Andrews Drive verge, and the eastern boundary of Lot 886 (Attachment 1).

 

The proposed retaining wall will allow a new access road to the subdivided lots within  Lot 886 to be constructed adjacent to St Andrews Drive. There would then be a further retaining wall at the boundary between those lots and the golf course. This is shown in Section B of Attachment 3.

 

The retaining wall is proposed as a “stepped” wall utilising precast concrete panels treated with a limestone style finish. The 2.5m separation between the two stepping panels will be landscaped with appropriate species that will in time fall over and cover, in part, the lower wall to reduce its visual impact. This is shown in Detail 1 of Attachment 3.

 

Approval to construct retaining wall exceeding 4m in height at the common boundary between Lot 887, 889 and Lot 886 is now requested.

Consultation

The LPP 4.5 requires consultation for walls greater than 2.5m and up to 4.0m in height which abuts land in separate private ownership. The eastern boundary in between Lot 886 and 888 requires a retaining wall greater than 2.5m and is under separate private ownership. The owner of the abutting Lot 888, has provided written confirmation that they do not object to the retaining wall (Attachment 5)

 

The retaining wall under this application is higher than 2.5m, however, as it is not abutting land in separate private ownership, in accordance with LPP 4.5, no consultation is required. 

Comment

Under LPP 4.5, the City may consider variations to the acceptable maximum heights for a retaining wall where in the City’s opinion, the wall is necessary to:

 

1.   Facilitate the minimum standard required to service the proposed Lots with sewer, power, water and other essential services; and

2.   Retain the visual impression of the natural landform  within the locality.

 

Administration has assessed and supports this variation to the acceptable maximum height based on the need to coordinate ground levels with the steep existing topography surrounding the subject development and to enable the creation of level lots that can be connected to existing sewer services and public roads.

 

It is therefore recommended that the proposed retaining wall up to 5.5m in height be approved.

Statutory Compliance

A Building Licence is necessary for all retaining walls before construction can commence.

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.

Policy Implications

Application for approval to construct retaining walls up to 5.5m in height abutting the road reserve and up to 5.5m in height on the common boundary of the subdivision, has been assessed in accordance with LPP 4.5.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls proposed for Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep (WAPC 152589), up to 5.5m retained height adjacent to the road reserve, between the common boundary of Lots 887, 889 and 886, as per the application drawings contained in Attachments 1 and 3.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Subdivisional Retaining Wall Over 4m Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep Attachment 1

16/110578

Minuted

2.

Subdivisional Retaining Wall Over 4m Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep Attachment 2

16/150850

 

3.

Subdivisional Retaining Wall Over 4m Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep Attachment 3

16/110571

Minuted

4.

Subdivisional Retaining Wall Over 4m Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep Attachment 4

16/110565

 

5.

Subdivisional Retaining Wall Over 4m Lot 499 St Andrews Drive Yanchep Attachment 5

16/150846

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    116

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                117

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    118

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                120

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                126

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    127

3.9    Subdivisional Retaining Walls over 4.0 Metres in Height - Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way Sinagra WAPC 150612

File Ref:                                              SD150612 – 16/65442

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider approval of subdivisional development retaining walls at Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way, Sinagra (WAPC 150612) on behalf of the applicants Marin and Judith Garbin.

Background

Council’s Subdivisional Retaining Wall Local Planning Policy 4.5 states that:

 

1.       For internal retaining walls on the common boundary, walls greater than 4.0m in height will be unacceptable unless the City is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

 

This report provides details of the exceptional circumstances for Council's consideration.

 

The subject land is located within East Wanneroo Cell 2 (Sinagra) ASP No. 4. On 1 December 2014, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted subdivisional approval for 9 lots, as shown in Attachment 1, ranging from 347m2 to 504m2 (WAPC 150612).

Detail

Engineering drawings have been submitted by the Engineering Consultant, Tadros Engineering, on behalf of the developer/owner depicting retaining wall heights up to 5.55m on the common boundary within the same subdivision area (Attachment 1 and 2).

 

The following rational has been provided for justification for the approval of the retaining wall on the north-east boundary of Lot 109 shown in Attachment 1.

 

The proposed level of Lot 109 is to be coordinated with existing levels of Floresta Street and the proposed level of Lot 104 which is to be coordinated with the existing Capri Leone Way, resulting in a significant level drop of approximately 5.6m between proposed level of Lots 104 and 109 (Attachment 2).

 

Proposed levels of Lots 107,108,114 and 115 are primarily driven by the proposed levels of Francina View Francina View design levels are driven by the natural topography of the site, and the requirement to match into existing levels of Floresta Street to the south and Torrenova Way/Capri Leone Way intersection to the north  (Attachment 2).

 

The proposed retaining wall between Lots 104, 107 and Lot 109 is an extension of an existing retaining wall at the boundary of existing Lot 351 (Attachments 2 and 3).

 

Approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 4m in height at common boundary between Lots 104, 107 and Lot 109 is now requested.

 

Consultation

The LPP 4.5 requires consultation for walls greater than 2.5m and up to 4.0m in height which abuts land in separate private ownership.

 

The retaining wall under this application is higher than 2.5m, however, as it is not abutting land in separate private ownership, in accordance with LPP 4.5, no consultation is required.

Comment

Under LPP 4.5, the City may consider variations to the acceptable maximum heights for a retaining wall where in the City’s opinion, the wall is necessary to:

 

1.       Maintain the character and consistency of other retaining walls within the subdivision area; and

2.       Retain the visual impression of the natural landform within the locality.

 

Administration has assessed and supports this variation to the acceptable maximum height based on the need to coordinate ground levels with the steep existing topography surrounding the subject development and to enable the creation of level lots that can be connected to existing public roads.

 

It is therefore recommended that proposed retaining walls up to 5.55m in height as shown in Attachment 2 be approved.

Statutory Compliance

A Building Licence is necessary for all retaining walls before construction can commence.

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.

Policy Implications

Application for approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 4m and up to 5.55m in height on common boundary within the same subdivision area, has been accessed in accordance with LPP 4.5.

Financial Implications

Nil

 

 

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining wall proposed for Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way, Sinagra (WAPC 150612), up to 5.55m in height on common boundary between Lots 104, 107 and Lot 109 as per the application drawing contained in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachmen 1 - Location Plan - Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way Sinagra WAPC 150612

16/84570

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Wall Heights - Lot 9001 (#30) Capri Leone Way Sinagra WAPC 150612

16/84575

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Retaining Wall Profiles - Lot 9001 Capri Leone Way Sinagra WAPC 150612

16/84578

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    130

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    131

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    132

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    133

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

3.10  PT01-01/16 Request for Cul-de-Sac for Parin Road, Marangaroo

File Ref:                                              3125V02 – 16/131882

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting closure of Parin Road at the intersection of Wanneroo Road to make it a Cul-de-Sac.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 2 February 2016 received a petition (PT01-01/16) with 34 signatories representing 22 properties and reads as follows:

          “We, the residents of Parin Road Marangaroo, propose the closing of its entrance/exit from Wanneroo Road – making this area into a cul de sac. We propose this is better traffic management, and more importantly, the safety for us as residents here. We also are considering safer surrounds for the child care center who are on the corner of Parin and Wanneroo Roads, making them a prime accident point.”

 

In addition, Council at the same meeting (2 February 2016) considered a report (Item AS01-01/16 refers) which considered the results of community consultation for the installation of a traffic management scheme along Parin Road and resolved as follows;

 

          “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.”

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location map of Parin Road, Marangaroo.

Detail

Parin Road is listed as a Local Distributor Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy. The purpose of such a road is to maintain movement of traffic within local areas and connect access roads to District and Primary Distributors such as Wanneroo Road, Hepburn Avenue and Marangaroo Drive. Parin Road serves as a direct access to 31 properties and provides connection to another 615 properties bound between Hepburn Avenue, Wanneroo Road, Marangaroo Drive and Aylesford Drive. 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.

A Childcare Centre is located 40m from Wanneroo Road on the south side of Parin Road at the corner of the Wanneroo Road intersection. It should be noted that the Childcare Centre did not sign the petition.

 

The part of Marangaroo, west of Marangaroo Golf Course is connected by two Local Distributor Roads Parin Road and Giralt Road which feed into other Distributor Roads such as Wanneroo Road, Hepburn Avenue and Marangaroo Drive. This area has the below three intersection connections to the Distributor network:

·    Intersection of Giralt Road and Hepburn Avenue;

·    Intersection of Parin Road and Wanneroo Road; and

·    Intersection of Giralt Road and Marangaroo Drive.

 

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. However, traffic count data collected shows that the 85th Percentile speed (operating speed) of Parin Road is 64Km/hr.

Consultation

Residents were recently consulted as part of the Traffic Management Scheme proposal for Parin Road. The process undertaken was as follows;

 

15 May 2015       Residents were consulted on a proposal to install a speed cushion treatment along Parin Road

 

1 June 2015        Consultation Closed.

-     56% Support to 44% Against.

 

2 Nov 2015          Re-consultation with residents on two alternative options;

-     Chicane Treatment, with minor modifications to the central median

-     Lane width restriction with 1m shoulder linemarking.

 

23 Nov 2015        Consultation Closed.

-     Chicane Treatment = 63%, Lane width restriction = 25% and Neither Option = 12%

 

2 Feb 2016          Council considered report on consultation results. Council resolved to proceed with the construction of the chicane treatment in 2016/2017 in Traffic Treatments in the Long Term Capital Works Program.

 

Therefore, no further consultation has been undertaken with residents regarding the modification of Parin Road to become a cul-de-sac at Wanneroo Road.

Comment

Parin Road and Giralt Road are the roads which provide connection for the 615 residents of Marangaroo (west of Marangaroo Golf Course) to the arterial road network. Local Distributor roads all work together to effectively distribute the traffic on to the network. The connection of a Local Distributor such as Parin Road to a Primary Distributor such as Wanneroo Road is common practice throughout the City.  Templeton Crescent in Girrawheen, Kingsway and Dalecross Avenue in Madeley, East Road in Pearsall, Kirkstall Drive and Gungurru Road in Hocking are examples of such connections in the same corridor.

 

The disconnection of Parin Road from Wanneroo Road would result in Giralt Road being the only road which services 615 properties in the area. The current traffic volume on Giralt Road adjacent to Parin Road is 4,310 vehicles per day (vpd). It’s expected that the disconnection of Parin Road from Wanneroo Road would force the traffic on Parin Road to travel on Giralt Road taking the traffic volume on Giralt Road to above 7,000 vpd which is more than the expected traffic volume for a Local Distributor Road (6,000 vpd). This would also result in increased congestion, increased queue lengths and decreased level of service on Giralt Road/Hepburn Avenue and Giralt Road/Marangaroo Drive intersection. The increased traffic volume and over-expected capacity will also have negative safety implications on the road network.

 

In response to the reference in the petition regarding the likelihood of an accident occurring near the Jellybeans Childcare Centre the following points need be considered. It should be noted that no crashes have occurred as a result of traffic entering or exiting the facility. The childcare centre is located on the corner of Parin Road and Wanneroo Road. Motorists heading west along Parin Road are already slowing on approach to the Wanneroo Road intersection and therefore reducing speed adjacent to the facility. Motorists heading east along Parin Road are able to pass around the outside of cars waiting to turn right into the childcare due to the presence of a painted right-turn lane. Cars exiting the childcare centre are choosing to do so when the road is clear of traffic. This entry and exit scenario combined with the fact that Parin Road operates under a 50km/hr speed environment should result in a low crash probability at this location.

 

The City is addressing issues of speeding and rat running along Parin Road by implementing a Traffic Management Scheme as endorsed by Council in February 2016 and by sending traffic data to WA Police for increased enforcement. These construction works are scheduled to commence in June 2016.

 

Considering the purpose of the road within the road network, the negative effect of increased traffic volume on other key roads & intersections and the planned construction of traffic treatments along Parin Road, the modification of Parin Road at its intersection with Wanneroo Road to a cul-de-sac is not supported by Administration.

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

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

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the modification of Parin Road to convert it into a cul-de-sac at its intersection with Wanneroo Road;

2.       NOTES that Administration will write to WA Police and provide traffic data for Parin Road requesting increased enforcement; and

3.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

localityPlan_ParinRd_TMS

15/234805

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                137

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    138

3.11  Contribution towards Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Intersection

File Ref:                                              19407 – 16/144691

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To receive an update on the project completion analysis and consider payment of the final contribution to City of Swan for the Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Intersection.

Background

Council considered a report (Item IN01-11/15 refers) at its meeting on 10 November 2015 to consider budget variations due to variances between estimated grant funding within the adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Program and actual grant funding agreements received by the City during the financial year. A number of recommendations were adopted including the following:

 

“That Council:

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

EXPENDITURE

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Adjusted Budget

Alexander Drive/ Illawarra Crescent Traffic Signals

PR-2474

$0

$110,000

 

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

 

In accordance with the Council’s decisions, a payment of $55,000 has been made to the City of Swan and this report now considers an analysis of the information received from the City of Swan on the project cost escalations and subsequent recommendation.

Detail

The installation of traffic signals at Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent was identified as a traffic treatment in response to issues experienced by residents of both Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent and the need to reduce speed on Alexander Drive between Marangaroo Drive and Hepburn Avenue. Alexander Drive is a boundary between the City of Swan and Wanneroo and accordingly it was agreed to jointly fund the municipal component of this project.

 

 

 

It was noted in the report (Item IN01-11/15 refers) considered by Council at its meeting on 10 November 2015 that in 2011/2012 the City agreed to partially fund a project delivered by the City of Swan for traffic signal installation at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Illawarra Crescent in Ballajura for $50,000. These funds were included in the City’s 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget. The project experienced delays in completion due to several factors and completion only occurred in 2015/2016. This project received National Black Spot Program funding ($330,000) in 2014/2015 and initially was removed from the City’s Capital Works Program as no municipal funding was anticipated to be required. Accordingly, the City did not retain this contribution on the adopted 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget.

Late in May 2015, when the City’s 2015/2016 draft budget was finalised prior to adoption, the City of Swan advised that a review of the cost of this project had been completed, which resulted in the project cost to be $551,531. The City of Swan requested a contribution totalling $110,000 from the City of Wanneroo in 2015/2016 to facilitate the finalisation of this project. The City of Swan indicated that the cost escalation resulted from significant expenses in relation to the adjustment of Telstra infrastructure which were not included in the original cost estimate.

It was also proposed to allocate $110,000 in municipal funding for this project in the City’s Capital Works Program and make a payment of $55,000 the City of Swan with the further balance payment subject to the consideration of a separate report by Council on the review of the project cost variances and the benefit-cost-ratios.  

The City of Swan has provided details of the original cost estimates (included in the project submission seeking the allocation of Black Spot Program funding), the final project expenditures and comments on variances as summarised below:

 

Item

Actual cost

Estimated Cost

Comments on variances

Traffic Signals

$195,138.58

$125,000

$125,000 was a preliminary cost estimate used at the time when the funding was applied for and was based on a desktop analysis of the site conditions by Main Roads WA.

 

Cost increases arose due to:

a)    compliance with ATCO gas requirements due to the presence of an existing high pressure (HP) gas running along Alexander Drive which resulted in:

·   the need to move the traffic signal pole locations so they were not installed directly on top of the HP gas main;

·   the crew on site needing to take additional safety precautions and therefore took longer to complete the job than originally anticipated;

·   additional costs associated with the attendance by an approved Locater for all activities/works.

 

b)    The need to install an unmetered supply pit by Western Power for the power supply of the traffic signals. Time restrictions to working on Alexander Drive due to high traffic volumes, resulted in an increase in the labour and traffic management costs.

 

Civil Works including Traffic management and landscaping

$155,965.11

$130,000

The cost of materials and labours increased as the original cost estimate was done nearly two years before the work was actually carried out.

Landscaping works including the installation of concrete stencil paving in the two median islands of Alexander Drive were also undertaken that were not included in the original cost estimate.

Signs and lines

$11,287.14

$10,000

Increase in materials and labours costs since the preparation of estimate nearly two years before the work was actually carried out.

New Street Lighting

$36,614.85

$15,000

Two new street lights and replacement of several existing luminaires on existing poles in Alexander Drive was required to comply with the current standards. This was identified during the detailed design stage of these works. The cost estimate only allowed for an upgrade of the existing lights.

 

Service pit relocations

$184,403.86

$50,000

A Telstra fibre optic pit had to be relocated to accommodate the road widening which was identified during the detailed designs. The cost estimate for this relocation was based on past projects of a similar nature noting that estimating utility relocation costs is particularly difficult as the exact nature and cost can only be determined by the utility.

 

The scope of work involved:

·      Telstra needed to install two new pits, one approx. 25m east of the existing pit and the other one 100m north of the existing pit and haul fibre optic cables (approx. 1400m), through the existing network;

·      Lowering of the existing conduits at the north east corner of Alexander Dr/Illawarra Crescent North to accommodate the road widening and encased them in concrete; and

·      Implementation of a traffic management on site for the above works.

 

Total cost

$583,409.53

$330,000

 

 

It has been noted from the information provided by the City of Swan that:

·    these cost escalations were identified prior to the construction works noting that the estimated cost of $330,000 was a preliminary estimate and used to apply for a Black Spot funding (i.e. no detailed design had been carried out at that stage);

·    The preliminary cost estimate was based on previous projects of a similar nature that the City has completed. However, it is likely that there would be some variance in the cost estimate especially where no detailed designs had been done and no quotes from third parties can be obtained;

·    The cost escalations came from works required by Main Roads WA, Telstra, and Western Power. It is always difficult to prepare accurate cost estimates for these because they vary greatly from project to project. The agencies responsible are the only ones who are permitted to work on their own infrastructure and generally local authorities do not have control over these costs; and

·    Time restrictions to working on Alexander Drive due to high traffic volumes, resulted in an increase in the labour and traffic management costs.

Regarding the Benefit Cost Ratios, following summary of provided:

·    Black Spot submission 2014/2015: BCR (2.81) was calculated using the crash history (40 crashes with 9 Casualty and 31 Property Damage) between 2008 and 2012 using the estimated construction cost of $330k; and

·    Actual BCR: BCR (1.55) was calculated using the crash history (30 Crashes with 3 Casualty and 27 Property Damage) between 2010 and 2014 using the actual construction cost of $583k

It is noted that the Main Roads Crash database is updated yearly to add the latest year’s crash data while eliminating the oldest data to keep latest five years data. Crash data of 2015 will be available by the end of May 2016 which will give some insight regarding the effectiveness of the Traffic Signals in reducing crashes. However, it should be noted that one year post installation data is not sufficient to correctly analyse the impact of traffic signals installation. Additionally, Blackspot projects are targeted to eliminate an established pattern of crashes by implementing most appropriate and feasible mitigation treatment. While this is likely to address the most common pattern of crashes it is unlikely to eliminate all crashes. Given that the actual BCR is above 1.0, this project still provides overall benefit to the community and meets the Black Spot Program requirements.

Consultation

Consultations have occurred with the City of Swan staff involved with the development and delivery of this project.

Comment

The project expenditure analysis has indicated that the project cost escalations were as a direct result of unforeseen circumstances such as the need to relocate utility providers’ underground services and general cost increases since the development of the initial cost estimate.

 

The increased costs became known after the detailed design and due to dependency on external agencies, these costs were unavoidable. The City of Swan has confirmed that the Project Manager regularly monitored the project’s expenditure to ensure that the project did not incur any unnecessary variations/ expenses.   

 

Even though the project cost escalated significantly, due to a high number of crashes at this location, the installation of traffic signals provided the best traffic treatment solution and the final BCR of 1.55 confirms that the completed project provides a value for money to the community.

 

Following discussions amongst the relevant officers from both Cities, the City of Swan made a request to Main Roads WA for the provision of additional funding which was not supported as no extra funding was available within program budget to allocate to this project.

 

Based on the final project expenditure of $583,000 and grant funding of $330,000, the municipal funding contribution for this project is $253,000 and each City’s share on equal basis is $126,500. However, the City of Swan has sought a total contribution of $110,000 from the City.

 

As the City made a commitment to fund the installation of traffic signals at Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent with the both Cities intention to jointly share the costs over and above the grant funding, it is recommended that the City makes the balance contribution of $55,000.

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

$110,000 has been allocated in Project Number – PR-2474 Traffic Treatments - Alexander Dr & Illawarra Crescent (Installation of Traffic Signals) in the  2015/16 Capital Works Program. A payment of $55,000 has been made to the City of Swan and the remaining $55,000 is available in this project number for making further payment, subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations made in this report.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that Administration has reviewed the detail provided by the City of Swan in relation to the increase in the project Costs associated with the Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent; and

2.       APPROVES the balance payment of $55,000 to the City of Swan as the City’s contribution towards the Installation of Traffic Signals at Alexander Drive/Illawarra Crescent.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    143

3.12  Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive Intersection, Carramar - Agreement In Principle For Installation Of Traffic Signals

File Ref:                                              19441 – 15/550746

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To provide an update on Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) position on the proposed installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar.

Background

A petition requesting the installation of traffic control signals at the Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive Intersection was considered by Council at its meeting dated 30 June 2009 (IN07-06/09 refers), and resulted in the following resolution:

 

“That Council:-

 

3.       SUBMITS an application to Main Roads WA for the installation of traffic control signals at the Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection should the City be unsuccessful with its application for funding from the Metropolitan Regional Road Program for the construction of the Joondalup Drive dual carriageway between St Stephens Crescent and Tumbleweed Drive;”

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan.

 

In September 2010, a traffic analysis was undertaken by GHD Consulting Engineers with a view to determining the appropriate intersection treatment option at this intersection. Based on GHD’s recommendations, the City wrote to MRWA on 3 December 2010 with respect to the installation of traffic signals at Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive intersection. In response to the City’s request, MRWA issued an ‘Agreement in Principle’ (AIP) on 20 April 2011; this being  subject to a range of standard conditions, including the traffic signals being fully funded by the City or through submission to the State or Australian Government Black Spot Program (Attachment 2 refers).

Detail

The intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive is operating as a standard T-intersection with a Seagull Island in the median of Joondalup Drive.

Joondalup Drive is a District Distributor road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy, constructed as a dual carriageway with two lanes in each direction and right and left turn lanes provided at the Cheriton Drive intersection.  It has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h. The traffic data collected on 20 October 2015 shows that Joondalup Drive carries 29987 vehicles per day (vpd).

Cheriton Drive is a Local Distributor road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and also constructed as a dual carriageway with one lane in each direction plus a left turn lane on the Joondalup Drive approach. It operates under the default Built Up Area speed limit of 50 km/h. A roundabout at the intersection of Cheriton Drive & Innesvale Way provides access into the Carramar Village Shopping Centre on the northwest corner.

 

 

This roundabout is located approximately 63 m north of Joondalup Drive. The traffic data collected on 16 October 2014 shows that Cheriton Drive carries 8504 vpd.

The City has access to MRWA’s crash data for the intersection of Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive. The data is updated annually; the most recent update is for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014. MRWA has five categories for severe crashes; fatal; hospital, medical, property damage only (PDO) major and PDO minor. For clarification, PDO crashes are those crashes where no medical treatment is required by individuals involved in the crash. These crashes do not specifically refer to damage to a property, but include damage caused to vehicles and infrastructure as a result of a crash. A summary of the current five year crash data, 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014, is detailed in the table below:

Fatal

Hospital

Medical

PDO major

PDO minor

Total

0

1

7

15

6

29

 

In 2014, the City made a submission for funding of traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive under the 2015/16 Black Spot Program with a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.08.  At the time, it was indicated by MRWA that the original AIP was no longer considered valid due to increased traffic volume and change of traffic flow. It was recommended that the options be reviewed with MRWA using the latest traffic and crash data.

 

Subsequently, a further traffic analysis was undertaken by i3 Consulting Engineers in 2015, on behalf of the City. The report indicates that the current give-way control will soon reach capacity due to excessive delays for right turning traffic from Cheriton Drive at afternoon peak hour.

 

Further to MRWA requirements, on 16 April 2015 the City submitted another application with the i3 traffic report requesting to consider the new submission, with “Agreement in Principle” sought for traffic signals at the Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection. 

 

MRWA’s response of 1st July 2015 did not support the City’s submission for the ‘Agreement in Principle’. Refer to Attachment 3.  MRWA has assessed the City’s request using the criteria for traffic signal control set out in the latest MRWA Policy and Application Guidelines for Traffic Control Signals and states that:

 

“ traffic control signals shall be considered where an average of three or more casualty crashes per year have occurred over a recent five year period and where traffic signals would have been the most effective from of treatment to prevent these crashes from occurring. It was found that the intersection does not meet the warrant with regard to crash history as there have only been eight casualty crashes recorded at this intersection in the five year period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2014…..”

 

MRWA also indicated that, from a network operations point of view, the installation of signals would lead to a reduction in design performance and would be difficult to justify. As a result MRWA suggested that Council should consider investigating alternative treatments at this location; specifically, MRWA suggested the installation of a roundabout with the following assumptions and details:

 

·    18m radius for central carriageway.

·    10.5m total carriageway width.

·    B Double in LH lane through with car on inside lane through – Joondalup Drive.

·    19m Semi turning in and out of Cheriton Drive.

·    Width between edge of roundabout and tertiary road on southern side (Palmerston Cres) = 4.6m to road reserve and 6.5 kerb to kerb.

·    Tie in with the existing roundabout on Cheriton Drive would be tight with the new alignment tying in just before the roundabout <15m.

·    Adjustment would need to be made for the left hand turn into service road prior to entry into the roundabout eastbound (Rawlinna Parkway).

·    There would need to be provision for relocation of a bus stop which would be under the new alignment 17m past the entrance to Rawlinna Parkway.

 

Based on the above assumptions MRWA prepared a concept design and presented to the City. Refer to Attachment 4.

 

As part of this process, the City again wrote to MRWA on 11 September 2015, requesting MRWA reconsider its decision for the installation of traffic signals. The City highlighted the safety implications of a roundabout (Attachment 5 refers). MRWA’s response of 26 October 2015 did not support the City’s recommendation (Refer to Attachment 6) and states that:

 

“………..With what appears to be only minimal afternoon-peak period inefficiency, this alone is not justification to install traffic signals. Most importantly, Main Roads has an obligation to ensure the most effective operation of the road network is considered when reviewing applications for traffic signals. Joondalup Drive is classified as a Distributor A road and traffic signals will impede this movement of traffic. Therefore, while your request has been noted, we have reached the same conclusion as previously advised in that traffic signals are not supported at this location at this stage.”

 

Again, the Mayor wrote to the Minister for Transport on 11 December 2015 seeking support for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive. The Minister for Transport response dated 30 March 2016 reiterated previous position of MRWA in not supporting the installation of traffic signals at this location. (Refer to Attachment 7)

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

While a reduced size roundabout can be accommodated as per MRWA’s concept design at this intersection, Administration is concerned about the following safety implications and major infrastructure works associated with it:

 

·    A roundabout with an 18m radius for Central Island & 10.5m width circulating carriageway roundabout is the absolute minimum requirements (According to Austroads GUIDE TO ROAD DESIGN PART 4B: ROUBDABOUTS) for a dual lane roundabout in 70km/h speed arterial road. The desirable minimum central island radius of a two-lane roundabout is 20m. As per Austroads guidelines the desirable values should be used whenever possible as they generally produce lower overall crash rates than those produced by the absolute values. In this case land availability for 20m central radius island roundabout will be crucial;

·    Design problems in tying in the new roundabout with the existing roundabout at Cheriton Drive and Innesvale Way, which is less than 15m to the north;

·    A very high potential non-compliance and safety issue from Heavy Haulage Vehicles not staying in the left lane;

·    As there has been no underground utility surveys, potential Utility Service issues; and

·    Considering that traffic will travel lot closer to Palmerston Crescent, residents will experience increased noise which may result in community dissatisfaction. 

 

A preliminary roundabout design was undertaken at this location both by the City and a representative from MRWA. It was found that reduced size roundabout would not allow a B double vehicle to pass through the roundabout without cutting through both traffic lanes. Given the high traffic volumes on Joondalup Drive, Administration considers this option poses an unreasonable safety risk to vehicles. The other option available would be to increase the size of the roundabout to safely accommodate heavy vehicles but this option would not be possible without acquiring some land. Land to the south is not available as an adjacent subdivision road is running parallel to Joondalup Drive at this location. To acquire land on only one side of the road reserve (north) would mean quite a portion of Joondalup Drive would have to be realigned to achieve deflection through the roundabout also the queuing length along Cheriton Drive up to Innesvale Way would be reduced. Therefore due to the cost of acquiring some land, realigning Joondalup Drive and the shortening of the queuing length in Cheriton Drive this option was considered non-feasible.

 

The City has taken a proactive approach by proposing the installation of traffic signals at this intersection, however MRWA decision is based on the current traffic conditions which do not meet the warrant for the installation of traffic signals.

 

Administration considers that the installation of traffic signals is the best option at this location. As MRWA has consistently declined the City’s request to provide an  ‘Agreement in  Principle’ to install traffic signals at this location the City has a very limited option to await further change in traffic conditions and reapply to MRWA.

 

In the meantime, Administration recommends monitoring the intersection for future reconsideration for the installation of traffic signals.

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

Nil

Financial Implications

$240,000 (PR-2927) was allocated in the City’s 2015/16 Capital Works Program for installing traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive. Since traffic signals are not approved by MRWA and no other future infrastructure works are proposed, those funds will remain unexpended. While the roundabout is not recommended as a viable option, if considered, it is estimated to cost in the order of $1,200,000.

 

Voting Requirements

 Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that Main Roads WA (MRWA) does not support the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar;

2.       REQUESTS Administration to continue monitoring the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive for future reconsideration for traffic signals meeting the required Main Roads WA requirements; and

3.       NOTES that the funds ($240,000) allocated under PR-2927 will remain unexpended and will form part of the surplus at the end of the financial year.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive  Intersection, Carramar - Location Map

15/552024

 

2.

Main Rods WA approval of the Agreement in Principle

11/45076

 

3.

Main Roads WA first rejection of the application for the Agreement in Principle

15/238183

 

4.

Main Roads WA - Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive Roundabout concept design.

16/148033

 

5.

Response to MRWA rejection for AIP for Traffic Signals at the Intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive - PR 2927

15/467059

 

6.

Main Rods WA second rejection of the application for the Agreement in principle

15/528734

 

7.

Installation Traffic Signals - Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive Carramar

16/113457

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    148

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                149

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                151

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    153

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                154


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                156

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                158


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    160

3.13  Kingsway, Madeley/Darch - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Consultation Results

File Ref:                                              8053 – 16/72809

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       9         

 

Issue

To consider the results of a new community consultation exercise for the proposed implementation of the Stage 3 Traffic Management Scheme (TMS) for Kingsway between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard.

Background

Community consultation was undertaken in September 2014 with all residents of Kingsway for the section between Mirrabooka Avenue and Wanneroo Road for Stage 1, 2 & 3 of the Kingsway TMS. Stage 1 & 2 were supported by the community with minor changes, while Stage 3 was generally not supported and required major changes in order to address residents’ concerns.

 

Council at its meeting of 9 December 2014 considered a report (IN06-12/14 refers) investigating the results of the community consultation for the staged implementation of the Kingsway Traffic Management Scheme. In response, Council resolved in part as follows;

 

“That Council:-

          6.       NOTES that Administration will complete a review of the Stage 3 Kingsway Traffic Management Scheme for the section between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard for reconsideration by Council in 2015/16 and budget consideration in 2016/2017.”

          7.       LISTS for consideration an amount of $15,000 for the design and documentation of the Stage 3 Kingsway Traffic Management Scheme between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard for consideration in the 2015/16 Capital Works Program (Traffic Treatments).

          8.       LISTS for consideration an amount of $10,000 for the design and documentation for the upgrade of street lighting along Kingsway between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard for consideration in the 2015/16 Capital Works Program (Street lighting).

 

A Locality Plan of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1.

Detail

Kingsway is listed as a Local Distributor road in accordance with the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and has a posted speed limit of 60km/h. Traffic Count Data for Kingsway between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard has been collected with the results summarised as below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location

Traffic Volume (Volume Per Day)

Operating Speed

West of Kilchurn Promenade

5,227

61Km/h

West of Sporting Drive (650M west of Hartman Dr)

7,832

64km/h

East of Wanneroo Road

9,280

62km/h

 

Main Roads WA reported crash data for the 5-year period extending from Jan 2010 to December 2014 has been collected for Kingsway, between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard, with the following results;

 

-     Fatal Crashes: 0

-     Hospital Crashes: 4

-     Medical Crashes: 11

-     *Property Damage Only (PDO) Major Crashes: 30

-     **PDO Minor Crashes: 17

 

*PDO Major Crashes are crashes which incurred more than $3,000 worth of damage.

**PDO Minor Crashes are crashes which incurred less than $3,000 worth of damage.

 

Total No. of reported crashes = 62

 

With reference to the crash patterns report for this section (see Attachment 2) the following crash types were listed as being above the normal figures on this type of road;

 

-     Rear end crashes                                   (Significantly over-represented)

-     Crashes on slopes                                  (Significantly over-represented)

-     Night Crashes – streetlights on               (Over-represented)

 

The first round of consultation in September 2014 mainly highlighted the following concerns of the community:

-     Driving at night: Driving at night is considered dangerous and there are no considerations for upgrading the street lighting;

-     Pedestrian Connectivity: Concerns regarding the Kingsway/Hartman Drive roundabout and pedestrians crossing issues;

-     Movement to and from Kingsway Sporting Complex Netball carpark needs addressing; and

-     Existing bus stops create problems for through traffic, constant congestion issues, request to investigate possibility of constructing bus embayments.

 

Administration considered these comments together with other issues raised by residents and developed a revised Traffic Management Scheme for Kingsway Stage 3. The existing scenarios and the approach taken in developing the revised design for the Kingsway Stage 3 Traffic Management Scheme are detailed as follows;

 

Section A, Drawing 2950-1-1, Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue

 

Existing scenario:

Kingsway for this section exhibits a single carriageway with service road connections for residential properties on both sides of the road. The road pavement width is 7.4m and the primary road reserve width is 20m and extends to 26m where service roads are provided. Overhead power lines run along the south side of Kingsway for this section and exist on an alignment approximately 2-4.5m from the westbound traffic lane.

 

 

 

 

Traffic Management Scheme - Section design:

 

(Attachment 3 refers) Administration considered the installation of a 2.0m wide part flush part raised median along this section of Kingsway to provide better crossing opportunities for pedestrians and so that street trees could be installed in the median to close in the road environment; however, in order to do this significant road widening on the south side of the road would need to occur. As this road widening would subsequently result in the overhead power poles falling within the clear zone of the road it would subsequently require the undergrounding of the overhead power. A Caravan Park exists at the western end of this section near Wanneroo Road; however, as there were no major issues regarding access to and from the facility the proposed scheme does not propose changes to access for the facility.

 

A review of traffic count data for this section indicated that average weekday traffic volumes were in the vicinity of 9200 vehicles per day (vpd) and that the road was operating with an 85%ile speed (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) of 62km/h. With the above considered, Administration has determined that the installation of a narrow median may better restrict the road environment and assist with decreasing through vehicle speeds. These works could be completed within the exiting road pavement width and would not require any modifications to existing kerbs and/or the overhead power. Treating the road this way would ensure that the scheme would in some way resemble the overall boulevard scheme approach for Kingsway whilst also being cost effective. As part of this section, Administration also considered it prudent to address a non-compliance issue caused by motorists using a service road to bypass buses stopping on the carriageway adjacent to No. 17 Kingsway. Residents in the properties between 17 & 33 Kingsway reported cars speeding along the service road to avoiding waiting behind buses and creating a dangerous environment on the service road. Administration considered that the installation of a speed cushion on the service road would likely be the best way to address this issue and reduce the attractiveness of the route so as to discourage motorists from doing the manoeuvre in future. This issue is further discussed in detail later in the report (2nd paragraph of consultation section refers).

 

Section B, Drawing 2950-2-1, Sovrano Avenue to Hartman Drive

 

Existing Scenario:

Kingsway for this section exhibits a single carriageway with service road connections on the north side of the road only. Kingsway Sporting Complex abuts Kingsway for the full length on the south side and the Brightwater Care Group village makes up approximately 50% of the frontage along the north side. The road pavement width is 7.4m and the primary road reserve width is 20m and extends to 26m where service roads are provided. Overhead power lines run along the south side of Kingsway for this section and exist on an alignment approximately 2-4.5m from the westbound traffic lane.

 

Traffic Management Scheme - Section design:

(Attachment 4 refers) Comments made by Kingsway residents and by staff at the Kingsway Sporting Complex (KSC) made mention to the fact that Kingsway (road) was regularly congested on weekends due to the volume of traffic generated by sports activities occurring at KSC. In addition, reports of speeding and pedestrian safety were also raised which Administration considered needed to be addressed as primary areas of concern. In order to address the congestion issues, it was considered necessary to provide a means of moving traffic off the through traffic path which was waiting to turn right to access the KSC by providing turning lanes. There are two locations along Kingsway between Sovrano Avenue and Hartman Drive where traffic can turn right into the KSC, Sporting Drive and the KSC carpark.

 

 

 

In order to facilitate the turning lanes significant widening would be required to accommodate the space in the road at each location and on the approaches so that sufficient lane storage lengths were able to be provided. Also, as a result of widening, the overhead power on Kingsway would need to be undergrounded as the required clear zones would not be achievable. In addition, the existing footpath on the south side of Kingsway, located behind the kerb, would also need to be relocated further back to create a new alignment away from the westbound traffic lane. As such, the footpath would be relocated back to reside adjacent to the KSC property boundary. A part raised / part flush median has been proposed which is suitably wide enough to include street trees to assist in closing in the road environment to address issues of speeding. Additionally, High Pressure Sodium lights (yellow colour) would be used in this section due to the width of the road. If traditional Compact Fluorescent Lights (White colour CFL) need to be installed, it will increase the cost significantly as it would require a number of additional poles. Due to the amount of work required to provide the infrastructure works and associated services works, the cost of constructing this section is estimated to be substantial; this would be a major consideration when deciding whether to proceed with allocating funding for construction.

 

Section C, Drawing 2950-3-1, Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard

 

Existing Scenario:

Kingsway for this section exhibits a single carriageway with service road connections for residential properties on the entire length of the south side of the road. The frontage percentage breakdown for the north side through this section is as follows; Kingsway Christian College 28%, Ashdale Secondary College 37%, Darch Plaza 20% and residential development 15%. The road pavement width varies along the length between 7.4m and 9.5m and the primary road reserve width is 20m and extends to 26m where service roads are provided. Street lighting is provided on both sides of the road via steel poles serviced by underground power.

 

Traffic Management Scheme - Section design:

(Attachment 5 refers) Primary focus on developing the traffic management scheme through this section was given to improving the pedestrian connectivity in the vicinity of Kingsway Christian College, Ashdale Secondary College and Darch Plaza. Peak pick-up/drop-off times have a major influence on traffic congestion on the roads bordering the schools and it was considered necessary to ensure that the proposed boulevard provide appropriate gaps for turning vehicles and allow sufficient opportunities for pedestrians and students to cross Kingsway. In addition, the Public Transport Authority was contacted and asked to give comment regarding the number of buses which stop for extended periods of time on Kingsway. PTA advised that the stops located along Kingsway outside Kingsway Christian College stop for extended periods of time in the peak pick-up/drop-off periods. A review of these stops indicated that the east-bound stop was embayed and allowed buses to stop off thru traffic, whereas the west-bound stop required buses to stop on road and was creating a major safety issue due to motorists driving around the buses on the opposite side of the road. It is considered necessary that the west-bound stop be relocated into an embayed area immediately east of the current location. Modifications to kerbing, drainage, street lighting and footpaths would be required. The newly installed bus shelter at the existing stop (Bus stop No 21905, adjacent to 162 Kingsway) will need to be reviewed for installation at the proposed embayment and be relocated subject to available space as part of detailed design. This space may be catered for by use of part of the drainage sump site adjacent to the proposed embayment. All other stops along Kingsway were considered for relocation into embayments; however, due to limited available verge space embayment relocations were not practical. A part-raised/part-flush median would therefore be proposed to be installed along the length of the section and has been made wide enough to accommodate street trees. This would subsequently result in road widening for 50% of the length of the section. Due to the amount of work required to provide the infrastructure works and associated services, it is estimated that the cost of constructing this section would be substantial.

 

This would be a major consideration when deciding whether to proceed with allocating funding for construction. The proposed TMS for this section not only addresses issues of speeding and pedestrian connectivity but also provides better access to the schools and improves the congestion issues which occur in the afternoons near the schools on a regular basis.

 

In order to assist Administration with determining the need for installing Traffic Management along Kingsway between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard it has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy (LATMP). The Policy provides information and guidance to allow officers to determine whether roads require infrastructure changes or increased policing. Any road assessed under this scoring system must receive a score greater than 60 in order to qualify. As per the sections stated above, Kingsway was assessed and scored as follows;

 

-     Section A: Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue       Score: 98

-     Section B: Sovrano Avenue to Hartman Drive         Score: 129

-     Section C: Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard      Score: 102

 

Furthermore it is noted that street lighting along the whole length of Kingsway Stage 2 does not meet current Australian Standards and would need a full upgrade as part of the TMS implementation.

Consultation

A letter and survey questionnaire was distributed on 22 January 2016 to 121 owners and occupiers of properties abutting Kingsway, which would be affected by the Stage 3 TMS proposal (Attachment 6 refers). In addition, A1 copies of the Traffic Management Scheme concept plans were erected at the Wanneroo Civic Centre foyer and Kingsway Sporting Complex for viewing by the general public, and "Have your say" signs were placed along Kingsway to give the general public an opportunity to provide comment.

The Community Consultation exercise (3 weeks duration) was originally proposed to close on Monday 15 February 2016; however, due to the size of the scheme the community consultation closing date was extended to Monday 29 February 2016 (allowing 5 weeks in total). At the close of the survey period, 58 responses were received, 44 in favour, 12 opposed and 2 responses were undefined (79% in favour to 21% opposed). Comments made by residents who were not in support of the proposal have been tabulated together with Administrations comments (see Attachment 7).

 

In addition to the above, a letter and survey questionnaire was distributed on 14 March 2016 to 9 owners and occupiers of properties which gain access from the service road for properties No. 17 to 33 (Attachment 8 refers). This consultation exercise was completed to ascertain residents’ level of support for the installation of a speed cushion along the service road to address issues of speeding by traffic using the service road to bypass buses stopping along Kingsway when heading east. Consultation closed on 28 March 2016. At the close of the survey period, 6 responses were received, 5 in favour, 1 opposed (83% in favour to 17% opposed). The comment made by the resident who was not in support of the proposal together with Administrations comment is provided at Attachment 9.

Comment

The Implementation of the Stage 3 TMS along Kingsway, between Wanneroo Road and Ashdale Boulevard, received strong support from the community. This is a good indicator that residents are in support of the scheme and concerned about the existing traffic issues along Kingsway.

 

 

 

Cost estimates have been prepared for each Section of the Stage 3 Traffic Management Scheme (A, B & C) to assist Council with determining the viability of implementing the Traffic Management Schemes in the sections proposed or decide to further break the remaining section into smaller sections to make the implementation more viable. The estimated costs for each section are as follows:

 

Project - Kingsway TMS Stage 3

Streetlight Upgrade Works

Infrastructure Works

Total Cost

Section Length

Cost per 100m

Section A - 2950-1-1 Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue

$20,000

$145,000

$165,000

630m

$26,984

Section B - 2950-2-1 Sovrano Avenue to Hartman Drive

$520,000

$730,000

$1.25M

800m

$156,250

Section C - 2950-3-1 Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard

$110,000

$490,000

$600,000

800m

$75,000

TOTAL

$650,000

$1,365,000

$2,015,000

2.23Km

$87,826

 

Costs associated with the construction of Stage 1 & 2 of the Kingsway Traffic Management Scheme (constructed in 2014/15 and 2015/16) were as follows;

 

-     Kingsway TMS Stage 1 (PR-2873) – Cost $390,000 – Length 440m

(cost per 100m = $88,636)

 

-     Kingsway TMS Stage 2 (PR-2981) – Cost $350,000 – Length 405m

(cost per 100m = $86,419)

The proposed stage 3 TMS has a unit cost of $87,826 per 100m across the whole section which is comparable to the unit cost of 100m in the already constructed sections.

 

Administration also considered the options of funding the works by external funding such as Blackspot funding.

 

The primary Criteria for Blackspot submission is as follows;

 

Criteria

Australian Government Black Spot State and Local Roads

(Federal Funding)

State Black Spot

Local Roads

(State Funding)

Crash Criteria

 

Intersection or

Mid-Block or

Short Road Section

(<3 kilometres)

3 casualty crashes over a five-year period

Metro

5 crashes over 5 years

Rural

3 crashes over 5 years

Funding Contribution

Usually 100%

2:1

2:1

 

A Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of greater than 1 is required in order for a project to be considered for State funding and greater than 2 is required for Federal funding. The BCR is a product of the crash cost savings in comparison to the project cost.

 

The full length of Kingsway Stage 3 TMS cannot be assessed for BCR due to different treatments being proposed in each section. Hence, the TMS is split into three sections as described previously and BCR calculations have been completed for each section as follows:

 

 

Section A             Total Cost = $165,000

                                      Crash Cost Savings = $448,423

 

BCR = 2.72 (Qualifies for State and Federal funding)

 

Section B             Total Cost = $1.25M

                                      Crash Cost Savings = $600,000

 

BCR = 0.48 (Does not qualify for funding)

 

Section C             Total Cost = $600,000

                                      Crash Cost Savings = $1.085m

 

BCR = 1.81 (Qualifies for State funding)

 

The Stage 3 TMS for Kingsway is 2.3km long and with consideration of the estimated cost of implementing the scheme being in the order of $2M; Administration recommends it to be broken down into smaller sections to enable phased funding by the City.

 

Considering the available external funding opportunity, Administration proposes to apply for Section A and Section C of the scheme for consideration as part of the next available Black Spot funding round for 2017/2018. Should the project receive funding under the Federal funding arrangement the cost will be 100% funded from the program. If the project receives funding as part of the State funding arrangement it will be funded on a 2:1 ratio, i.e. 2/3 of the cost covered by the program, and 1/3 of the cost to be covered by the City. However, if the projects are unsuccessful in securing Blackspot funding for 2017/18 Council can consider undertaking the works by Municipal funding.

 

The remaining section, Section B of the TMS is the most expensive ($1.25M) section and does not meet the requirements of Blackspot submission. A large part of it is due to the Streetlighting Upgrade. The section extends for 800m and borders residential properties on the north side and the Kingsway Sporting Complex on the south side. Comments made as part of the community consultation made mention that the majority of issues along this stretch were attributed to the congestion on the weekend as a result of motorists accessing the Kingsway Sporting Complex for recreation and sporting activities. The TMS is designed to improve this issue however to do this it requires significant infrastructure and streetlight upgrading at a substantial cost. Considering this section mainly addresses the concern of Kingsway Sporting complex which is experienced only two days of a week and it does not meet Blackspot submission requirements, Administration proposes to further review this section with a Traffic Study investigating different access options for KSC which will not require undertaking major infrastructure or Streetlighting upgrade.

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

The City’s Traffic Local Area Traffic Management Policy is applicable to this report.

Financial Implications

In accordance with the previous decisions made by Council, a project for the construction of the Kingsway Stage 3 TMS was to be listed in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program (LTCWP) in 2016/2017 for an amount of $350,000. However, in view of the details identified in this report it is recommended to rather to allocate $50,000 in 2016/17 for;

-     (a) A further review of Kingsway TMS Section B: Sovrano Avenue and Hartman Drive with a Traffic Study investigating different access options for Kingsway Sporting Complex which does not require undertaking major infrastructure or streetlight upgrades.

-     (b) Undertake detailed design of Kingsway TMS Section A: Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue; and

-     (c) Undertake detailed design of Kingsway TMS Section C: Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard.

 

Section A and Section C are recommended to be listed from 2017/18 in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program with allocation of $165,000 and $600,000. If the projects are successful in receiving funding as part of the Black Spot Program, the budget will need to be updated to reflect the funding arrangement accordingly.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the proposal to split Kingsway Stage 3 TMS into three sections due to significant infrastructure upgrades required to implement the revised Kingsway Stage 3 TMS noting that the sections are to be split as follows;

-     Section A: Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue;

-     Section B: Sovrano Avenue to Hartman Drive; and

-     Section C: Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard.

2.       ENDORSES for implementation Section A and Section C of the revised Kingsway Stage 3 TMS as detailed in City Drawing No.’s 2950-1-1 (Attachment 3 refers) & 2950-3-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

3.       REQUESTS Administration to seek Blackspot funding for Section A and Section C of the revised Kingsway Stage 3 TMS as part of the 2017/2018 Blackspot submission round;

4.       REQUESTS Administration to undertake community consultation with directly affected properties and report back to Council in 2016/17 on the outcome of the review of Section B Sovrano Avenue and Hartman Drive with a Traffic Study investigating different access options for Kingsway Sporting Complex which may not require undertaking major infrastructure or streetlight upgrades;

5.       NOTES that an amount of $50,000 has been listed in the City’s 2016/17 Capital Works Program for;

-     A further review of Kingsway TMS Section B: Sovrano Avenue and Hartman Drive with a Traffic Study investigating different access options for Kingsway Sporting Complex which does not require undertaking major infrastructure or streetlight upgrades;

-     Undertake detailed design of Kingsway TMS Section A: Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue; and

-     Undertake detailed design of Kingsway TMS Section C: Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard.

6.       LISTS an amount of $165,000 in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program from 2017/2018 for constructing Section A of the Kingsway Stage 3 Traffic Management Scheme proposal (Wanneroo Road to Sovrano Avenue) as shown in City Drawing No. 2950-1-1 (Attachment 3 refers) noting that the budget may require adjustment to reflect the outcome of Blackspot Submission 2017/18;

7.       LISTS an amount of $600,000 in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program from 2017/2018 for constructing Section C of the Kingsway Stage 3 Traffic Management Scheme proposal (Hartman Drive to Ashdale Boulevard) as shown in City Drawing No. 2950-3-1 (Attachment 5 refers) noting that the budget may require adjustment to reflect the outcome of Blackspot Submission 2017/18; and

8.       ADVISES the respondents of community consultation along Kingsway of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Kingsway TMS - Locality Plan - Stg3 - CC results

16/114195

 

2.

Kingsway_0.06_to_2.32SLK_CrashPatternsReport_April2016

16/114236

 

3.

2950-1-1 Kingsway Stg 3 TMS Concept Plan Section A

16/114622

Minuted

4.

2950-2-1 Kingsway Stg 3 TMS Concept Plan Section B

16/114628

 

5.

2950-3-1 Kingsway Stg 3 TMS Concept Plan Section C

16/114631

Minuted

6.

Kingsway, Landsdale - Stage 3 proposed traffic treatments - Community Consultation letter to residents

16/114684

 

7.

Kingsway Stg 3 - Community Consultation Residents Comments and Administrations Responses

16/123708

 

8.

Kingsway (Service Road) - Community Consultation - letter to residents

16/123740

 

9.

Kingsway (Service Road) - Community Consultation Residents Comments and Administrations Responses

16/125149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    169

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                170

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    172

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    173

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    174

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                175

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    176

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                178


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    180

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    181

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

3.14  Budget Variation - Caporn Street Streetlighting

File Ref:                                              19413 – 16/85556

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider an amendment to the approved 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget Street Lighting Program and associated budget variation.

Background

The City's 2014/2015 Capital Works Program included provision for upgrading of Caporn Street, Mariginiup, Street Lighting consisting of Western Power fee of $62,920 for the supply and installation of 35 x 250W HPS luminaires on existing poles.

 

The design was completed and settlement of the associated $1,500 invoice occurred in 2014/2015. A substantial portion of the work was also completed in the 2014/2015 financial year. However Western Power had concerns over the condition of several poles which they replaced at their cost prior to the new luminaires being installed. Then further delay ensued due to Western Power concerns over safety and the location of one pole which was not addressed until shortly before Western Power submitted its final account on 5 February 2016 with a request for settlement of the account by 6 March 2016.

Although it was intended that the committed budget was carried forward into the 2015/2016 financial year, it was not included in the 2015/2016 approved budget.

This report considers the transfer of $62,920 project savings from one project to fund the shortfall for the completion of street lighting works undertaken on Caporn Street, Mariginiup.

Detail

Western Power has extended the $62,920 account settlement deadline to accommodate Council’s consideration of this request for funding reallocation to pay for the delayed works and associated invoice.

 

The savings achieved on the Wesco Road Stage 4 upgrade and widening project are available for transfer to address the Caporn Street, Mariginiup, Street Lighting project funding shortfall. That project was completed with savings principally because the construction crew worked on weekends to accelerate the reconstruction period thereby facilitating works completion within the approved road closure period minimising what would otherwise have been significant traffic management and on-costs. The actual final costs for Western Power and Telstra adjustment works were also considerably less than the estimated costs.

Consultation

No consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

The additional funding required to settle the outstanding Western Power account is recommended to be sourced from the $158,987 savings from the completed Wesco Road Stage 4 Upgrade and Widening project.

Statutory Compliance

Budget variation is in compliance with Part 6 – Financial Management of Local Government Act and Part 2 – General Financial Management of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

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 funding to settle the outstanding street lighting account for completed work in Caporn Street, Mariginiup, can be accommodated by reallocating funds from available savings from the completed Wesco Road Stage 4 Upgrade and Widening project as summarised below.

 

Project

Description

From

(Municipal Funding Available Though Project Savings)

To

(Municipal Funding Required)

PR-4012

Wesco Road, Nowergup – Stage 4 Upgrade & Widening

$158,987

 

PR-2861

Caporn Road Street Lighting

Mariginiup

 

$62,920

Total

$158,987

$62,920

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure listed in the following table, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 for the Upgrading of Street Lighting in Caporn Street, Mariginup, as follows:

EXPENDITURE

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Adjusted Budget

Upgrading of Street Lighting in Caporn Street, Mariginiup

PR-2861

$0

$62,920

 

2.       APPROVES the following budget amendment to fund the project funding shortfall for the recently completed street lighting in Caporn Street, Mariginiup;

 

Project No

From

To

Description

PR-4012

$62,920

 

Wesco Road, Nowergup – Stage 4 Upgrade & Widening

PR-2861

 

$62,920

Caporn Street Street Lighting, Mariginiup

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    184

 

3.15  Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Intersection Upgrade

File Ref:                                              3125V02 – 16/80112

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the results of a traffic study to improve safety at the Intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo. Attachment 1 shows a locality plan of the area.

Background

Council at its meeting of 03 March 2015 considered a report in relation to a project for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Giralt Road and Aylesford Drive (South), Marangaroo (refer IN05-03/15) and resolved in part as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

3. LISTS for consideration in the 2015/2016 Capital Works Program, $50,000 to

    undertake a study to analyse traffic issues at the intersection of Hepburn

    Avenue and Highclere Boulevard Marangaroo, and make recommendation to

    improve traffic safety at this intersection;”

 

Subsequent funding was adopted in 2915/16 Capital Works Program to undertake this study and the City appointed Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd to provide a Traffic Analysis and Feasibility Study of Safety Improvements for the intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue. Cardno’s final report for this study was received by the City on the 17 December 2015. A copy of this report has been tabled in the Elected Members Reading Room for reference and also made available on the Hub.    

Detail

The intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue is an un-signalised ‘Tee’ intersection with Highclere Boulevard terminating at this intersection. This intersection consists of right and left turning slip lanes from Hepburn Avenue to Highclere Boulevard and a left turn slip lane from Highclere Boulevard into Hepburn Avenue. There is a seagull island within the median on Hepburn Avenue to assist the right-through-turn manoeuvre.

 

Highclere Boulevard is classified as a Local Distributer in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy; it operates under the Default Built Up Area speed limit of 50km/h and traffic counts taken in September 2015 indicate it carries over 7800 vehicles per day (vpd) near the intersection of Hepburn Avenue. Hepburn Avenue is classified as a District Distributer ‘A’ in the City’s functional Road Hierarchy with a posted speed limit of 70km/h and traffic counts conducted in November 2013 indicate a traffic volume over 23000 vpd, approaching the intersection with Highclere Boulevard.

 

This intersection underwent extensive modification in June 2012 when Hepburn Avenue was modified to four lane dual carriageway. Main Roads WA reported crashes for this intersection during the period from June 2012 to December 2014 are summarised below;

 

·    Fatal Crashes: 0

·    Hospital Crashes: 0

·    Medical Crashes: 4

·    *PDO Major Crashes: 9

·    **PDO Minor Crashes: 3

 

*PDO Major Crashes are crashes which incurred more than $3,000 worth of damage.

**PDO Minor Crashes are crashes which incurred less than $3,000 worth of damage.

 

The Main Roads WA Crash Statistics for crash patterns at this intersection report the following crash types as being above the normal figures expected on this type of intersection;

 

·    Rear end crashes                                   (Significantly Over-represented)

·    Right Turn Through Crashes                  (Significantly Over-represented)

·    Dawn Or Dusk Crashes                         (Over – represented)

 

The report from Cardo highlighted poor sight lines to oncoming traffic while attempting to join the east bound traffic in Hepburn Avenue while performing a right through turn from Highclere Boulevard. In this case the sightline to oncoming traffic is obscured by queuing traffic in the right turn slip lane located in the Hepburn Avenue median. This is considered to be the major contributor to Right-Through-Turn Crashes. In addition to this drivers performing this manoeuvre may hesitate causing Rear-End crashes along the traffic queue.

In developing an effective treatment for the intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue, Cardno considered the following aspects:-

 

·    Road Function and configuration;

·    Crash Statistics;

·    Outcomes of Cardno’s Traffic Analysis and Feasibility Study;

·    Cost effectiveness of proposed treatment;

·    Effect on Public Transport and Pedestrian Facilities (bus routes and road crossings); and

·    Effect of intersection modification on existing traffic movement and behaviour.

The Traffic Analysis and Feasibility Study prepared by the consultant Cardno Pty Ltd identified five possible treatments for this intersection, as listed below in order of preference:-  

1.   Ban the right turn out of Highclere Boulevard onto Hepburn Avenue – traffic wishing to turn right can go left onto Hepburn Avenue then perform a U-turn at Hartman Drive roundabout;

2.   Install traffic signals at Hepburn Avenue/Evandale Drive to create additional gaps in the traffic flow (this will also benefit traffic turning in and out of Evandale Road);

3.   Install a roundabout at the Hepburn Avenue/Highclere Boulevard intersection – note that a smaller design will be required due to road reserve constraints;

4.   Ban right-turn out and right- turn in, replace with two U-turn bays spaced approximately 120m east and west of the intersection;

5.   Install traffic signals at Hepburn Avenue / Highclere Boulevard to provide fully controlled movements.

 

The two traffic signal treatments were not considered further due to those not meeting Main Roads WA requirements. The treatment banning all right turns and installing U-turn bays was also not considered suitable rejected as this treatment would require drivers to change lanes over a short distance on Hepburn Avenue and would be a difficult manoeuvre in peak traffic periods.

Following Cardno’s report, Administration developed three options for further consideration:-

Option

Description

Implications

Option ‘A’

Close Right Turn out of Highclere Boulevard in to Hepburn Avenue, as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3252-02-0 (refer Attachment 2). Estimated cost $80,000.

This option will stop all right turns from Highclere Boulevard into Hepburn Avenue and force all traffic from Highclere Avenue to turn left.

This option will substantially reduce the over-represented crashes, but will reduce the functionality of the intersection by removing the right-through-turn form Highclere Boulevard to Hepburn Avenue.

Drivers wanting to turn right from Highclere Boulevard would be required to turn left and use the roundabout 370m to the west on Hepburn Avenue to perform a U-turn. Similarly traffic will have to use an alternate option to turn right before Hepburn Avenue and use Berkley Road to access Mirrabooka Avenue. 

Option ‘B’

Offset the Right Turn Slip Lane into Highclere Boulevard from Hepburn Avenue, as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3252-3-0 (refer Attachment 3). Estimated cost $190,000.

This Option proposes to relocate the right turn slip lane in the Hepburn Avenue median. It will be relocated an estimated 2.0 metres south toward the median’s centre to give the right turning traffic from Highclere Boulevard a clearer sightline when joining the east bound traffic on Hepburn Avenue.

This will provide better sight lines for drivers turning right into Hepburn Avenue and will keep the full functionality of the intersection. However this option will not address all aspects of the safety concerns resulting in a partial reduction of over- represented crashes.

This will reduce Right-Through-Turn crashes and Reduce-Clear end crashes by reducing driver’s hesitation.

 

 

Option ‘C’

Construct roundabout at the intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue, as shown in the City’s drawing no. 3252-1-0 (refer Attachment 4). Estimated cost $1,200,000.

This option will provide significant reduction on all over represented crash types without reducing the intersections functionality but at a substantial cost. Given the high traffic volume and a 70km/h posted speed limit on Hepburn Avenue this intersection will require a large dual roundabout. There is insufficient road reserve width at this intersection to provide for the ideal size roundabout and therefore the optimum manoeuvring paths for larger vehicles will be compromised. There are existing bus routes using this intersection and Hepburn Avenue is classified as a Heavy Vehicle Route, installing a suitable roundabout that would cater for these vehicles would be challenging.

 

Consultation

Community Consultation has not been considered for this project since there are no residences that are directly affected by the proposed treatment identified as a safety requirement for the intersection of distributor roads.

Comment

During peak traffic flows this intersection offers little opportunity for vehicles turning right from Highclere Boulevard and this is resulting in drivers taking risks when turning right into Hepburn Avenue. With the added difficulty of poor sightlines to oncoming traffic once these drivers are queued in the median, it can be concluded that significantly over-represented right–through-turn crashes are caused by this manoeuvre. This manoeuvre may also cause drivers to hesitate when moving off, causing rear end crashes further down the traffic queue.

 

There are two main issues identified with the traffic flows at this intersection being the driver behaviour and sightlines issues in Hepburn Avenue.

 

Administration considers that Option A will address both issues but may not be acceptable to the community. The drivers have an option to use alternative roads in the vicinity and avoid right turn movement out of Highclere Boulevard. Therefore, Administration’s view is to allow full turn movements at this intersection and improve sightlines in Hepburn Avenue. Option B provides for that and is the favoured solution in this instance.

 

Consideration has been given to submitting this project for blackspot funding however this is unlikely to be considered as five years of crash data is required for funding submissions. Since the reconstruction of this intersection was completed in June 2012 it may be three to four years before the City has the required statistics to supports a Black Spot Submission.

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

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

Subject to the detailed design and outcome of investigation of the various services, the estimated costs for the design and construction of the three options are summarised below:

·    Option A - $80,000

·    Option B - $190,000 and

·    Option C - $1,200,000.

It is noted that no funding is currently allocated for works associated with these options in the approved Capital Works Budget.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the proposed Intersection Modifications - Option B, for the intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo as shown in City Drawing No.’s 3252-3-0 (Attachment 3 refers); and

2.       LISTS $190,000 funding for consideration in the Long Term Capital Works Budget for the construction of the Intersection Modification for the intersection of Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue, Marangaroo.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Marangaroo - Intersection Treatment - Locality Plan.

16/142948

 

2.

Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Marangaroo - Intersection Treatment - Option A.

16/142973

 

3.

Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Marangaroo - Intersection Treatment - Option B.

16/142975

Minuted

4.

Highclere Boulevard and Hepburn Avenue Marangaroo - Intersection Treatment - Option C.

16/142969

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    189


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    190

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    191

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    192

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    193

3.16  Tender No 01625 Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade

File Ref:                                              22777 – 16/134180

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01625 – Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation upgrade.

Background

The existing irrigation system at Marangaroo Golf Course has reached the end of its design life and historical maintenance information indicates that it needs to be replaced.  

 

The upgrade of the irrigation system is designed to meet industry best practice in the minimisation of water use through hydrozoning and use of contemporary irrigation technologies. The irrigation system will be a centrally controlled, pressurised system capable of delivering a full night irrigation cycle of 10mm between the hours of 8.00pm and 5.30am with the following features and capability parameters.

 

•        ET controlled via a weather station

•        Provision for a coefficient of uniformity of 90-95%

•        Sprinklers, Valves, valve boxes and quick coupler valves

•        Pump management software

•        Technical support on-line and on-ground for a period of 3 years

•        Remote access and control of the system via mobile devices

•        Two wire decoder system

•        New mainlines, laterals, wiring, satellites and required pump interfacing

•        Ability to inject liquid fertiliser/wetting agents through the system

•        Onscreen course map/interactive digital software with active aerial image mapping

•        Central system capable of creating course condition reports

Detail

Tender No 01625 for the Design and Construction of the Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade was advertised on 12 March 2016 and closed on 19 April 2016. A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are as follows:

 

Contract Term

Detail

Contract Type

Lump Sum

Commencement Date

June 2016

Works Completion date

End September 2016

Rise and Fall Included

No

 

A mandatory site inspection was held on 21st March 2016 with key stakeholders in attendance (Golf Pro-shop and Arboriculturalist). Representatives from 5 potential Tenderers attended the site inspection with key issues raised and discussed. 

 

 

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·      Total Eden Pty Ltd

·      LD Total

The tender submissions were deemed to be compliant.

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP), comprising a Project Manager, Irrigation Technical Officer, Principal Technical Advisor and a Contracts Officer, evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria and weightings:

 

Description

Score

Price for goods and services offered

35%

Tenderer’s demonstrated experience in delivering works of a similar nature on golf courses

15%

Tenderer’s safety management

20%

Tenderer’s proposed methodology to deliver the works

20%

Tenderer's demonstrated ability to complete the works within specified timeframes

10%

Price for Goods and Services Offered (50%)

Tenderers provided lump sum prices for the scope of works.  An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the lump sum price provided with the tender documentation.  Tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Rank

 LD Total

1

Total Eden Pty Ltd

2

An alternative option to consider the mainline in poly rather than PVC was requested but only LD Total submitted a price.  This option is generally a more expensive initial capital outlay but has increased reliability and reduced maintenance liability.  LD Total price for the poly option is lower than Total Eden’s submission for the PVC equivalent and is therefore considered value for money and the preferred option.

Tenderer’s demonstrated experience in delivering works of a similar nature on golf courses (15%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s experience and capability in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances on golf courses.

Total Eden has extensive experience in undertaking designs and construction works on golf courses in Australia and presented a list with examples of completed projects.  Total Eden’s response demonstrates excellent capability and experience relevant to the requirements of the project and evaluation criterion.

LD Total as a company does not have relevant experience delivering this type of work on golf courses but it provided a detailed list of key personnel and their relevant experience on delivering work of this type on golf courses.  LD Total’s response demonstrates very good capability and capacity for the construction works on the basis that staff listed are available to undertake this work.  Based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Rank

Total Eden Pty Ltd

1

LD Total

2

 

 

Tenderer’s Safety Management (20%)

The assessment was based on the tenderers submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) documentation, quality control system and responses to the tenderer’s OHS Management System Questionnaire.

Total Eden provided a comprehensive document which covered everything from ISO certification, to training matrix and an in depth HSEQ Management Plan.  Total Eden’s response demonstrates very good capability and experience relevant to the requirements of the project and evaluation criteria.

LD Total’s submission also included full HSEQ documentation including worked examples.  LD Total did not submit an ISO accreditation but do have AS4801 Certificate of Confidence. LD’s submission also demonstrated very good capability and experience relevant to the requirements of the project and evaluation criteria.  Based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Rank

Total Eden Pty Ltd

1

LD Total

2

Tenderer’s proposed methodology to deliver the works (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the preliminary design submitted as part of the tender evaluation and the tenderers proposed methodology to deliver the services.

LD Total provided a full list of personnel, most of whom have extensive experience and knowledge in delivering design and construction of irrigation works on golf courses.  It also provided a detailed methodology including key indicators that showed a good understanding of the operational constraints for the work.  The preliminary design submitted with the tender considered most of the design requirements.  The response demonstrates excellent capability, capacity and experience relevant to the evaluation criterion.

Total Eden provided a basic methodology with its submission.  The preliminary design submitted with the tender does not meet the requirement to minimise the impact to the golf course users, keeps the existing system hydraulically operational for the duration of the works and is not futureproof.  The tender submission is credible but not completely convincing with some gaps. Based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Rank

LD Total

1

Total Eden Pty Ltd

2

 

Tenderer’s demonstrated ability to complete the works within the specified timeframe (10%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s capacity in terms of labour and plant resources with due consideration given to the tenderer’s ongoing commitments.

LD Total provided a breakdown of the company structure stating that additional resources can be mobilised for this work.  It also stated that its current capacity is 65% and this work would take the capacity of the company to 80% giving the City confidence that there is a low risk associated with regards to the available resources. The schedule provided showed the duration of works for each fairway and included a completed date for the end of August 2016.  The response demonstrates excellent capability, capacity and experience relevant to the evaluation criterion.

Total Eden gave a list of projects and confirmed that this work would have no impact. It does not have a reliance on sub-contractors.

 

It did not submit a schedule but provided a list of the days the fairways would not be accessible with the indication that the constraints for holes 1 and 9 would not be achieved.  The response complies and is credible but not completely convincing.  Based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Rank

LD Total

1

Total Eden Pty Ltd

2

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 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

Rank

LD Total

1

Total Eden Pty Ltd

2

 

Consultation

The Pro shop and Golf Course Maintenance Contractor have been consulted with regards the extent and planning of the works.

 

Further detailed consultation will be undertaken with the affected parties including Golf Club operators.

 

Notifications will be sent to the neighbouring residents advising that construction works is due to commence 2 weeks before the commencement of the works.

 

Comment

 

The tender submission from LD Total achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria. LD Total has provided evidence as to its approach, experience, resources and safety systems to be able to carry out the services in accordance with the contract requirements and is therefore recommended as the preferred tenderer.

 

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

26 May 2016

Construction

June 2016 – August 2016

Practical Completion   

September 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.

 

It is noted that a development approval is not required for this project.

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

1.2    Conserve Water - We will have a community that encourages water conservation resulting in access to the right amount of water to meet our requirements

Risk Management Considerations

Corporate Score Card Pty Ltd undertook both financial and performance assessment of Sanpoint Pty Ltd t/a LD Total.  The assessment indicated that it has a sound financial capacity to undertake the contract in question. 

 

As a matter of course, bank guarantee or retention, will be provided by the appointed contractor prior to commencement of the works.

 

There are no other 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 requirements of the City's Purchasing Policy, including environmental considerations such as reuse of materials where appropriate.

Financial Implications

The project costs, based on the recommended tenderer’s price is summarised below:

 

Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade (PR-3053)

 

Estimated Expenditure

Budget

Capital Works Program 2015/2016

 

$632,500.00

Total Budget

 

$632,500.00

Total expenditure to date

$5,233

 

Commitments (2015/2016)

$505

 

Construction costs – Tender No 01625

$922,200.80

 

Construction contingency including other works in conjunction with the contract works (15%)

$138,330

 

Construction (3%) and Project Management (3%) Costs

$55,332

 

Total Expenditure (Estimate)

$1,121,600.80

 

Balance:

-$489,100.80

Funding required in 2016/2017

 

$489,101

 

 

≈ $500,000

 

$500,000 has been listed in draft 2016/17 Capital Works Budget, noting that this project was scheduled to be undertaken over the financial year.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Sanpoint Pty Ltd t/as LD Total for Tender No 01625 for the Design and Construction of the Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade for its tendered fixed lump sum price of $922,200.80 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document; and

 

2.       NOTES that $500,000 has been listed in draft 2016/2017 Capital Works Budget to fully complete the works for the Design and Construction of the Marangaroo Golf Course Irrigation Upgrade.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    199

3.17  Tender No 01623 Fabrication and Installation of Garrison style perimeter fencing to part of Marangaroo Golf Course

File Ref:                                              21724 – 16/154285

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01623 for the fabrication and installation of Garrison Style perimeter fencing to part of Marangaroo Golf Course.

Background

The Marangaroo Golf Course is vested as Crown Land which the City operates as a public golf course. This tender is the second stage of the 'chain mesh' perimeter fence replacement with 'garrison style' fencing at Marangaroo Golf Course.

Detail

Tender No. 01623 was advertised on Saturday 5 March 2016 and closed on Tuesday 22 March 2016. A copy of the Tender document is available in the Elected Member Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Lump sum

Contract Duration

17 weeks

Commencement Date

July 2016

Completion

October 2016

 

Tenders received.

Tenders were received from the following companies:

·    Marebar Pty Ltd T/A D.B.S. Fencing (“DBS”);

·    The Fencewright Unit Trust T/A Fencewright (“Fencewright”);

·    Southern Wire Pty Ltd (“Southern Wire”);

·    Nikal Pty Ltd T/A Reliable Fencing (“Reliable Fencing”);

·    Local Fencing Pro;

·    The Trustee for the Simmonds Steel Trust (Simmonds Steel”);

·    Richlands Pty Ltd ATF the AG MacDonald Family Trust T/A CAI Fences (“CAI Fences”); and

·    Secure a Fence.

 

All tenders are compliant with the General Conditions of Tendering and have been evaluated in accordance with the City’s Tender evaluation process. 

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP), consisting of City’s Project Officers (Parks and Conservation), Project Manager Infrastructure Capital Works with oversight and guidance from Contracts and Purchasing, Contracts Officer, to evaluate the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

 

 

 

Item No

Description

Weighting

1

Price for the services offered

40%

2

Demonstrated ability on similar works

20%

3

Safety management and methodology

30%

4

Demonstrated ability to meet timeframes

10%

 

On initial review of the tender submissions by the TEP, it was confirmed that all tender submissions were deemed to be conforming tenders. Furthermore, an alternative tender was also submitted by Fencewright.

 

Price of services offered (40%)

 

Eight conforming tenders were received in accordance with the tendering requirements, each company submitted two options associated with fencing materials as alternative tenders and based on the prices offered, tenders are ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer – Option 1

Fencing materials for construction using Australian steel to comply with current Australian Standards

Rank

Local Fencing Pro

1

Southern Wire

2

Fencewright

3

DBS Fencing

4

Secure a Fence

5

Reliable Fencing

6

CAI Fencing

7

Simmonds Steel

8

 

 

Tenderer – Option 2

Fencing materials for construction to comply with current Australian Standards

Rank

DBS Fencing

1

CAI Fencing

2

Southern Wire

3

Fencewright

4

Secure a Fence

5

Reliable Fencing

6

Simmonds Steel

7

Local Fencing Pro

8

 

Demonstrated ability on similar works (20%)

 

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers experience in undertaking works of a similar nature and circumstances.

Southern Wire’s submission demonstrated a wide range of experience for industrial and rural fencing type of work. The submission provided a level of detail and clarity that reinforced the TEP’s confidence in their ability to complete the works to the required standard.

Fencewright’s submission also provided a wide range of experience for industrial and rural fencing type of work. However, the overall submission lacked detail and ranked accordingly.

 

Reliable Fencing’s submission was convincing and credible demonstrating a range of experience in similar works supported by relevant examples and timeframe methodology.

DBS Fencing, Secure a Fence and CAI Fencing provided a satisfactory submission supported by relevant works examples of similar scope and scale to what was tendered, however the documentation was not as detailed and ranked accordingly. 

Simmonds Steel submission was sound, demonstrated by similar scaled working examples and supporting references, however provided basic information in support of this criterion.

Local Fencing Pro was not completely convincing and presented an average level of detail specific to references and construction experience.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Rank

Southern Wire

1

Fencewright

2

Reliable Fencing

3

DBS Fencing

4

Secure a Fence

4

CAI Fencing

4

Simmonds Steel

5

Local Fencing Pro

6

Safety management and methodology (30%)

 

The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policy documentation, working documentation, and responses to the Tender’s OHS management system questionnaire. Evidence of safety management systems, policies and practices was assessed based on the tenderers' responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire and the supporting documentation provided.  All tenderers' provided details of varying standards.

 

Southern Wire and Fencewright demonstrated that they have a thorough understanding of the City’s requirements providing a comprehensive submission clearly detailing specific policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports, induction check lists, training records and toolbox records resources.

 

Reliable Fencing submission was credible and satisfactorily answered the Questionnaire and provided copies of policies, procedural documentation related to safety and demonstrated a sound level of understanding.

Secure a Fence provided a satisfactory submission supported by relevant works examples of similar scope and scale to what was tendered, however the documentation was not as detailed and ranked accordingly. 

 

CAI provided sound submissions detailing safety related data, working documentation inclusive of risk assessments, reports, and meeting records.

 

Simmonds Steel and DBS’s submissions were sound, however contained an average level of detail and supporting evidence.

 

 

 

Local Fencing Pro’s submission was credible however not entirely convincing. The submission lacked detail and presented limited supporting evidence.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Rank

Southern Wire

1

Fencewright

1

Reliable Fencing

2

Secure a Fence

3

CAI Fencing

3

DBS Fencing

4

Simmonds Steel

4

Local Fencing Pro

5

Demonstrated ability to meet timeframes (10%)

 

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers’ resources listed for use in carrying out the services under this contract, and the tenderers’ proposed methodology to utilise the resources to deliver the services.

 

Southern Wire and Fencewright identified strong capability of carrying out the prescribed works within the required timeframe with a comprehensive methodology for the construction works, supported by extensive organisational experience in fencing construction hence they were ranked higher.

 

Reliable Fencing and DBS identified adequate capacity and access to resources to complete the scope of work. However, was not as convincing as the higher ranked tenders.

 

Simmonds Steel submission was sound, however contained an average level of detail and supporting evidence.

 

Secure a Fence and CAI Fencing provided sound submissions detailing safety related data, working documentation inclusive of risk assessments, reports, and meeting records.

 

Local Fencing Pro submission lacked the level of detail and clarity to be convincing.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Rank

Southern Wire

1

Fencewright

1

Reliable Fencing

2

DBS Fencing

2

Simmonds Steel

3

Secure a Fence

4

CAI Fencing

4

Local Fencing Pro

5

 

Overall Weighted Score

 

Tenderer

Rank

Southern Wire

1

Fencewright

2

DBS Fencing

3

Reliable Fencing

4

CAI Fencing

5

Secure a Fence

6

Simmonds Steel

7

Local Fencing Pro

8

 

Southern Wire was assessed as having achieved the highest overall ranking from the tender assessment and is therefore recommended by the Tender Evaluation Panel as the preferred tenderer.

The key characteristics of Southern Wire’s tender submission are:

·    Competitive tender price;

·    Comprehensive experience with similar scale projects;

·    Qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully; and

·    Satisfactory reference checks.

Works Program

Should Tender Award as recommended be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program shall be implemented:

 

Tender Award

 25 May 2016

Construction Commencement

July 2016

Contract Completion

October 2016

Consultation

Information on the project scope and schedule will be provided to the adjoining residents and all affected parties prior to the commencement of works.

Comment

The evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Panel resulted in tender submission from Southern Wire achieving the highest score in accordance with the selection criteria and weightings as detailed in the Tender document. Option 2 was the preferred option as the materials conform to Australian Standards and represent the best value of money.

 

A financial assessment of Southern was undertaken which indicated a “Strong” financial rating. The company is trading in a profitable manner and the size of its annual revenue indicates that the contract in question is within its financial capacity and presents a low risk to the City.

 

Reference checks of Southern were undertaken with positive results, confirming their ability to meet the requirements of the contract.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

 

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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 requirements of the City's Purchasing Policy.

Financial Implications

Project cost based on the recommended tenderer’s price is summarised below:

 

Tender 01623 – Fabrication and Installation of Garrison Style Perimeter Fencing to part of Marangaroo Golf Course (PR-3015)

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Budget:

 

 

Allocated Project Management Budget for 2015/16

 

$490,148

 

 

 

Expenditure:

 

 

Project costs to 30 April 2016

$6,519

Commitments as at 30 April 2016

$13,748

Construction costs based on the Recommended tenderer’s price

$439,000

 

Contingency

$15,000

Outstanding project costs to be committed separate to Tender

$15,000

 

 

 

 

Total Expenditure

$489,267

 

 

Sufficient funds are available in PR-3015 to complete the works.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS Tender submitted by Southern Wire Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01623 for Fabrication and Installation of Garrison Style Perimeter Fencing to part of the Marangaroo Golf Course for the tendered lump sum of $439,000 in accordance with the term and conditions specified in the tender document.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    205

 

Parks & Conservation Management

3.18  Tender No 01627 Supply and Application of Fertiliser and Wetting Agents for a Period of 36 months

File Ref:                                              26096 – 16/149320

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No.01627 for the Supply and Application of Fertilisers and Wetting Agents in Turf for a period of 36 months commencing 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2019.

Background

The supply and application of fertiliser and wetting agents to active and passive parks has previously been managed through period quotations. Due to the expected increase in the volume of the required service into the future it is now prudent to move to a public tender process to ensure that the City is compliant with the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations.

Detail

Tender No. 01627 for the Supply and Application of Fertilisers and Wetting Agents was advertised on 19 March 2016 and closed on 12 April 2016. A copy of the tender document is available in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the proposed contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Schedule of rates

Contract Duration

36 months

Commencement Date

1 June 2016

Expiry Date

31 May 2019

Extension Permitted

Yes, Two 12 month options

 

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

 

·        Turfcare WA Pty Ltd; and

·        Turfmaster Pty Ltd.

 

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

Selection Criteria

Weighting

Price for the services offered

20%

Demonstrated previous experience

20%

Demonstrated methodology and approach

20%

Plant and equipment

20%

Demonstrated compliance with OH&S requirements (safety management)

20%

 

Price for the services offered (20%)

 

This criterion was based on the estimated cost to the City over the term of the contract based on rates submitted by the tenderers in the price schedule and has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

1

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

2

 

Demonstrated relevant experience in similar works with achievement of client expectations (20%)

 

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

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd and Turfmaster Pty Ltd demonstrated extensive experience in the application of fertiliser and wetting agents in turf. Turfcare WA Pty Ltd provided details of relevant contracts and clients including the Cities of Wanneroo, Fremantle and Cockburn. Turfmaster Pty Ltd gave examples of the Cities of Wanneroo, Stirling and Melville.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

1

 

Demonstrated methodology and approach to undertake the services (20%)

 

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

 

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd provided a well-documented methodology, detailed staff information and demonstrated having significant modern resources to deliver this service.

 

Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided adequate information on their methodology, detailed information on staff, and had a detailed list of available plant and equipment.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

2

 

Demonstrated compliance with OH&S requirements (safety management) (20%)

 

The evaluation of safety management was based on the tenderers’ submitted occupational health and safety (OHS) policy documentation, working documentation, and responses to the OHS Management System Questionnaire. Evidence of completed examples of incident reports, near misses and hazard inspections were asked to be provided.

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd provided a detailed submission which included comprehensive policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, incident reports, hazard reports, induction checklists, training records and toolbox records.

 

Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided a detailed submission on safety management; however, no examples of completed documents were submitted. Due to a recent safety performance issue at one of the City sites, Turfmaster Pty Ltd was awarded a lower score under this criterion.

 

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

2

 

Plant and Equipment (20%)

 

The evaluation of this criterion considered the tenderers submitted list of plant and equipment to be used in the services to be provided.

 

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd proposes to use latest technology low footprint golf course equipment fitted with GPS tracking systems and fully shrouded spray booms to alleviate non target application to plant species and increased community safety.

 

Turfmaster Pty Ltd proposes to use GPS guided 3 tonne trucks, tractor mounted fertiliser hopper spreaders and Toyota Landcruisers. There was no mention of these hoppers being trackable through GPS technology and Turfmaster Pty Ltd does not propose to use shrouded spray booms for their spraying applications.

 

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

 

                                     Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

2

 

Overall weighted score

The overall ranking as summarised below is based on the tenderer’s scores against each criterion and its weighting:

 

 

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

2

 

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

 

The key characteristics of Turfcare WA Pty Ltd’s tender are:

 

·    Relevant experience with similar fertiliser and wetting agent spraying operations including being a current service provider with the City of Wanneroo; and

 

·    Qualified key personnel and modern safe equipment to enable the services to be rendered successfully and with the least amount of risk to the community.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Panel resulted in the tender submission from Turfcare WA Pty Ltd achieving the highest score in accordance with the selection criteria and weighting and therefore Turfcare WA Pty Ltd is the recommended tenderer.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

Sustainability Implications

 

The use of wetting agents on active sports fields will allow the City to reduce its water use on these areas and to remain within Department of Water allocations.

Risk Management Considerations

Operational Risk

The condition of the City’s parks and reserves can deteriorate quickly if not maintained to an acceptable level. The inability of a contractor to supply these services will result the degradation of the City’s assets and the City not providing the required standard of service to its residents.

The recommended tenderer, Turfcare WA Pty Ltd is assessed to have the required experience, staff, equipment, safety systems and operational capacity to meet the contract requirements, thus mitigating these risks.

 

Financial Risk

A previous independent financial assessment of Turfcare WA Pty Ltd was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd in October 2015 as part of the tender evaluation process for contracts 01545 and 01546. The financial assessment raised a concern about Turfcare WA Pty Ltd’s ability to meet the minimum desired financial criteria for these contracts.

The actual financial risk to the City for this contract is assessed to be low as the contract is based on a schedule of rates for services supplied upon request by the City, with the services paid for after satisfactory completion and inspection by the City.

The City is receiving satisfactory services from Turfcare WA Pty Ltd under two recently awarded contracts for Turf Renovation Services and Supply and Apply of Pesticides in Turf and is the current provider of the Supply and Application of Fertilisers and Wetting Agents under a period quotation.

In addition, an annual financial report from Corporate Scorecard will be initiated to monitor the financial performance of Turfcare WA Pty Ltd.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The annual cost associated with the Supply and Application of Fertilisers and Wetting Agents is estimated to be in the order of $225,000 and included in the annual Parks Maintenance Operational Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Turfcare WA Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01627 for the Supply and Application of Fertilisers and Wetting Agents as per the schedule of rates and in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document, noting that the commencement date of the contract shall be 1 June 2016 and expiry date of the contract shall be 31 May 2019, with options to extend the contract for two 12 month periods, at the City’s discretion, subject to (a) satisfactory performance; and (b) price adjustment of the 3 year rates based on the Perth Consumer Price Index.

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    210

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

3.19  City of Wanneroo Surf Life Saving Club Funding Proposal

File Ref:                                              6527 – 16/84520

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   CP05-03/16 - Project Status and Update - Project Number PR-2477 Coastal Risk Assessments - Ordinary Council - 01 Mar 2016 7.00pm       

 

Issue

To consider the provision of financial support to the City’s Quinns Mindarie and Yanchep Surf Life Saving Clubs.

Background

At its meeting held on 1 March 2016, Council considered report CP05-03/16 Project Status and Update – Project Number PR-2477 Coastal Risk Assessments. As a result Council resolved, amongst other things the following:

 

“3.     That Administration continues its investigation of the various service arrangements between Surf Clubs and other local governments and reports the findings back to the May Council meeting for consideration of financial support to the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club and Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club in recognition of their contributions in delivering the recommendations of the Coastal Safety Risk Audit Reports commissioned by Council and prepared by Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) in 2013.), including their various coastal aquatic safety education and awareness programs; and”

 

The “recommendations of the Coastal Safety Risk Audit Reports” referred to in the above recommendation include the provision of Voluntary Lifesaving Services and Education and Awareness Programs.

 

In respect to the current activities of the Quinns Mindarie and Yanchep Surf Life Saving Clubs, their current voluntary patrol times (based on the recently completed 2015/16 season) and those of SLSWA (as a part of their contact with the City) are as follows:

 

Volunteer Lifesavers (Clubs):

2015 - 2016

October

November

December – March

April

Quinns Mindarie

Saturday

17-Oct

09:30-14:00

Continue

09:30-14:00

Continue

09:30-14:00

Fin 25th

09:30-14:00

Sunday

18-Oct

09:30-14:00

Continue

08:30-15:00

Continue

08:30-15:00

Fin 26th

08:30-15:00

Yanchep

Saturday

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday

 

 

1-Nov

08:00-12:00

Continue

08:00-12:00

Fin 3rd

08:00-12:00

 

 

 

 

 

Lifeguards:

Quinns Beach

1-Dec

31-Mar

Mon - Fri

8:00

13:00

Yanchep Beach

1-Dec

28-Mar

Mon - Sat

9:00

16:00

Sun

12:00

16:00

29-Mar

30-Apr

Fri - Mon

9:00

16:00

 

The Clubs and SLSWA beach safety education and awareness orientated activities include:

 

·        Community programs delivered at these locations (School programs and SurfBabies) by SLSWA with club support (i.e providing a venue and a ‘meet and greet’ for the participants) subject to availability of club members;

·        SLSWA have delivered Multicultural BeachSAFE programs at Quinns Mindarie, with the CaLD participants touring the club and meeting the members;

·        First aid training for community groups (e.g Yanchep SLSC providing training for local soccer club and Yanchep High School); and

·        Providing training in respect to Surf Rescue Certification. The Yanchep SLSC have recently provided this training to local teachers so that they are able to conduct beach activities.

 

In addition to this, the Clubs Club Development orientated activities include:

 

·        Clubs participates in internal SLSWA activities in relation to member communication and consultation forums (across all areas of Surf Life Saving business) which also includes annual workshops around Director responsibilities and good governance activities;

·        Provision of in-house training for members. For example the Yanchep SLSC has three members who have Training Assessor Certificates, which enables them to conduct Beach Management Training course (3 months in duration) for members;

·        Provision of training to upskill members, ie spinal injury management; and

·        Core club development/management activities undertaken as a part of normal club activities.

Detail

Review of Existing Arrangements

 

Administration has undertaken a review of existing service/funding arrangements between metropolitan and regional surf lifesaving clubs and Local Government. A summary of the outcomes of this review has been included within Attachment 1.

 

By way of summary, the following key outcomes have been identified as a result of the review process:

 

1.       Payment to Surf Life Saving Clubs for Services?

A total of four of the ten Local Governments contacted indicated that they do provide an annual payment to their respective clubs, either as a set payment or based on patrol hours. Payments ranged from $2,000 to $62,000 per annum.

 

2.       Services Provided by Clubs?

Clubs generally provide a weekend and public holiday beach safety service. This is consistent with the services currently provided by the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club and the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club.

 

 

 

3.       Payment to Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) for Services?

A total of five of the Local Governments contacted engaged Surf Life Saving WA for the provision of professional lifeguard services in addition to those services provided by their resident clubs. Specific dollar amounts have not been identified within this report, given the contractual nature of the individual agreements. It should be noted that the City of Stirling provides their own full time service.

 

4.       Services Provided by SLSWA?

For those Local Governments who do engage SLSWA, all do so on the basis of SLSWA providing professional lifeguard services to patrol identified beaches on weekdays during the summer season (generally defined from April to October 2016).

 

5.       Payment of Lease Fees by the Club?

A total of seven of the ten Local Governments contacted advised that their respective clubs did lease the facilities from which they operate. These leases were essentially on a minimal fee or “peppercorn basis” with some responsibility for payment of utilities etc. This is consistent with the City of Wanneroo’s Tenancy Policy.

 

In respect to the City’s Surf Life Saving Clubs, their current patrol schedules and related activities appear to be consistent with the other identified metropolitan sur lifesaving clubs.

 

Proposed Funding Model

 

In considering the provision of financial support for the City’s clubs, a model based primarily on the provision of voluntary lifeguard patrols, with a secondary focus on beach safety and awareness activities, and club development activities would be considered appropriate. The detail of such a model could include the following:

 

Criteria

Outcomes Required

1.   Voluntary Lifeguard Patrols

·    Provision of services for the summer season, as defined by the approved Annual Life Saving Service Agreement (Note – approved annually by the City of Wanneroo, SLSWA and the Club prior to each season);

2.   Beach Safety & Education Awareness

·    Ongoing delivery of Beach Safety and Education Awareness activities, as agreed;

·    Noting that this would be included as an attachment to the existing Annual Life Saving Service Agreement.

3.   Club Development Activities

·    Ongoing delivery of Club Development activities, as agreed;

·    Noting that this would be included as an attachment to the existing Annual Life Saving Service Agreement.

 

In terms of a weighting of the above criteria (should it be deemed necessary), a suggested prioritisation would be as follows:

 

1.       Voluntary Lifeguard Patrols – 50%

2.       Beach Safety & Education Awareness – 30%

3.       Club Development Activities – 20%

 

The rationale for the model, as proposed above, is as follows:

 

1.       Voluntary Lifeguard Patrols – recognises that the clubs play an important role in the delivery of beach safety services every summer season through the provision of voluntary lifeguard patrols. This service augments the professional lifeguard service provided by SLSWA at the City’s main swimming beaches each summer season.

It also recognises the role that the Clubs can and do play in respect to emergency response situations.

2.       Beach Safety and Education Awareness – recognises that clubs, through their normal day to day activities, undertake a role in the education of club members (and therefore the public) in respect to beach safety and awareness.

3.       Club Development – recognises that for a club to be effective in the delivery of items one and two listed above, it is important that they continue to develop a strong and sustainable club in respect to membership development (patrolling, non-patrolling and junior members) and in the development and maintenance of effective governance structures.

 

In terms of payment, the proposed model envisages that 50% of the endorsed funding amount would be paid at the beginning of the season with 50% at the end of the season, upon receipt and acceptance of the club’s reporting against the three criterion identified above. For the purposes of this report, the season commencement and conclusion dates are October and April respectively, based on SLSWA definitions.

 

Review of the agreements is envisaged to occur annually based on the clubs reporting their service outcomes against the criteria identified above. This would be in the form of a written report, endorsed by the club committee, submitted by 31 May of each year. This report would be further supported by the provision of the audited financial statements of each club, once available at the end of the club’s financial year.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with the Quinns Mindarie and Yanchep Surf Life Saving Clubs and also with Surf Life Saving WA.

Comment

The review of arrangements within the metropolitan area indicates that the provision of funding by Local Governments in support of Surf Lifesaving Club activities is an established model. In addition, the implementation of a model within the City of Wanneroo which focuses on the key areas of Voluntary Surf Life Saving patrols, delivery of Beach Safety and Education Awareness activities and Club Development would appear to be in keeping with similar arrangements within Local Government and be sound in approach.

 

It is on this basis that this report will recommend that the City implement an annual funding arrangement with the Quinns Mindarie and Yanchep Surf Lifesaving Clubs, based on the criteria, payment and reporting mechanism outlined above. In doing so, this report will recommend that Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and enter into a Deed of Agreement with clubs on this basis, for a duration of three years, reviewed annually.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

Currently there are no funds specifically allocated within the City’s operating budget for the provision of an annual payment to the clubs, as identified above.

 

As part of the 2016/17 operating budget development process, Administration has made an indicative allowance within the operating budget for the provision of an annual grant to the Clubs. This is based on an amount of up to $40,000 per club per annum.

 

As identified within this report, the key parameters of this agreement, and subsequent Deed of Agreement between the Clubs and the City would be as follows:

 

Key Parameters

Detail

Funding Amount and Payment

·    Up to $40,000 per annum per club (subject to Council budget consideration and endorsement);

·    Payment of 50% at the commencement of the season (October) and 50% at the end of each season (May), subject to meeting agreed outcomes;

Funding Criteria

·    Provision of Voluntary Lifeguard Patrols;

·    Ongoing delivery of Beach Safety and Education Awareness activities, as agreed; and

·    Ongoing delivery of Club Development activities, as agreed.

·    Agreed each year as a part of the approved Annual Life Saving Service Agreement between the City of Wanneroo, the Club and Surf Life Saving WA.

Reporting

·    Written report addressing action taken in respect to each of the three criteria, as agreed within the Annual Life Saving Service Agreement;

·    Submitted with formal Committee endorsement;

·    Required annually by 31 May each year; and

·    Provision of audited financial statements by the Clubs, once available at the end of each financial year. 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the review of Service Arrangements between Surf Life Saving Clubs and Local Governments within the Perth Metropolitan area, as outlined within Attachment 1;

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to prepare individual Deeds of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo and the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club and Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club, respectively, for the commencement of the 2016/17 summer season and based on the following key parameters:

Key Parameters

Detail

Funding Amount and Payment

·    Up to $40,000 per annum per club (subject to Council budget consideration and endorsement);

·    Payment of 50% at the commencement of the season (October) and 50% at the end of each season (May), subject to meeting agreed outcomes;

Funding Criteria

·    Provision of Voluntary Lifeguard Patrols;

·    Ongoing delivery of Beach Safety and Education Awareness activities, as agreed; and

·    Ongoing delivery of Club Development activities, as agreed.

·    Agreed each year as a part of the approved Annual Life Saving Service Agreement between the City of Wanneroo, the Club and Surf Life Saving WA.

Reporting

·    Written report addressing action taken in respect to each of the three criteria, as agreed within the Annual Life Saving Service Agreement;

·    Submitted with formal Committee endorsement;

·    Required annually by 31 May each year; and

·    Provision of audited financial statements by the Clubs, once available at the end of each financial year. 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Summary of Existing Local Government Arrangements

16/159682

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                                                    216

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    218

3.20  Request for Additonal Funding - Hudson Park Master Plan

File Ref:                                              14905 – 16/136927

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider a request from the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group for additional funding to support the implementation of the Hudson Park Master Plan.

Background

Hudson Park (the Park) is located at 33 Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen (Attachment 1) and is classified as a Neighbourhood Active Reserve. The property is Crown land vested in the City of Wanneroo for the purposes of public recreation.

 

At its meeting held on 15 April 2015, Council considered report C01-04/15 South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes, and as a result resolved, amongst other things, the following:

 

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

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

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

Year

Financial Year

Item

Preliminary Cost Est.

1

14/15

Design Flood Lighting - Hudson Park; 

$25,000

1

14/15

Design + Construct "Family Area" to support existing playground area; 

$75,000

1

14/15

Design and construct Path network around the perimeter of the park, providing connections to the active reserve and other infrastructure in place, and with the provision of park benches on the path network; 

$100,000

1

17/18

Review and Upgrade Security lighting for the car park;

$40,000

1

14/15

Clearing of the undergrowth to improve passive surveillance;

$0

 

14/15

Total Expenditure

$240,000

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

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

  Year

Financial Year

Item

Preliminary Cost Est.

2

15/16

Construction Flood Lighting - Hudson Park (2)

$250,000

2

15/16

Design - New change rooms, toilets and showers;

$80,000

2

15/16

Provision of a backnet for baseball and softball;

$12,000

2

14/15

Upgrade of the existing cricket nets to include full length netting of the wicket and full length carpet.

$50,000

 

15/16

Total Expenditure

$342,000

3

16/17

Construct - New change rooms  with toilets and showers;

$780,000

 

16/17

Total Expenditure

$780,000

4

17/18

Conversion of the existing tennis into multipurpose hard courts to include basketball and netball. Courts to be open access to the community with not bookings required;

$70,000

4

17/18

Installation Outdoor fitness equipment circuit around the perimeter of the park; 

$60,000

4

17/18

Additional car park located on Arnos Way;

$50,000

 

16/17

Total Expenditure

$220,000”

 

Consequently, the project priorities identified in the 2015/16 financial year were included within the adopted 2015/16 Capital Works Budget.

 

In progressing the project priorities identified for Hudson Park, a Master Plan was developed (Attachment 2) and was subject to a community engagement process as outlined within the consultation section of this report.

Detail

The current project priorities in respect to the implementation of the Hudson Park Master Plan (Attachment 2) are as follows:

 

·           Family Area;

·           Footpath Networks;

·           Relocation and construction of new Cricket Nets; and 

·           Install of Baseball/Softball Backnet; 

 

The floodlighting project was approved by the CEO on 19 April 2016 with works scheduled to commence on 12 May 2016.

 

Administration is progressing the remaining items on the Hudson Park prioritisation list for 2014/15 with the clearing of the undergrowth around the venue now a part of the Parks Maintenance team routine works at Hudson Park. The car park security lighting audit is in the process of being finalised and the changeroom design is currently being progressed as a part of the Active Reserves Master Plan Building Needs and Assessment Project.     

 

The South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group (the Working Group) met on 17 February 2016 to consider the Hudson Park Master Plan and the community engagement outcomes. A copy of the Agenda and Meeting Minutes have been included as (Attachment 3.) In considering this report, the Working Group made the following amended recommendation:

 

“That the Working Group;

 

1.  SUPPORTS the Hudson Park Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment 1 with costings for the following requested items to be presented to Council;

a)  Conversion of sand softfall to rubber softfall in the existing playground amenity; and  

b)  Footpath commencing from the existing carpark to the Clubrooms.”

 

The amendment to the recommendation by the Working Group was based on the results of the community engagement process, in which those members of the community, who attended the onsite consultation session, strongly indicated their preference for the replacement of the proposed sand softfall with rubber softfall. In addition to this, the community members also were strong in their views that the provision of a path connection from the car park to the existing clubrooms was also required.

 

The views of the community reflected within the onsite consultation session were supported by the Working Group, and thus reflected within their amended recommendation. Administration’s advice to the Working Groups was that rubber softfall should be considered for the combination play unit only, with sand softfall being provided for the swings. This was on the basis that rubber softfall used for swing units wears quicker and that there is emerging evidence that indicates that sand softfall causes fewer injuries falling from swings compared to other softfall options.

 

Administration has investigated of the two proposed changes and can advise that the cost estimate for the provision of rubber softfall for the combination swing unit is $74,000 and for the provision of the additional path from the car park to the existing clubrooms is $23,000. The total cost of the two items is $97,000, rounded up to $100,000.

Consultation

In respect to the Hudson Park Master Plan (Attachment 2), an informing community engagement process was conducted between 18 January and February 1 2016. This included the following consultation strategy, as endorsed by Administration's Community Engagement Advisor.

 

·        Distribution of the draft concept plan (Attachment 2) to all residents within a 400 metre radius of the Park;

·        Inclusion of the concept plan on the City's web site under the 'Your Say' section; and

·        Community Workshop on site on February 1 2016,

 

Administration received a total of 1 comment from the 509 mailed out local residents. To support the mail out the City undertook a workshop exercise, (attended by approximately 20 residents) on site, on February 1 2016 with the following comments recorded; 

 

·        Installation of a Water Fountain; 

·        Rubber softfall is preferred over sand softfall for the playground;

·        Footpath needs to be wide enough for kids to ride their bikes;

·        More bins are to be provided once the upgrade is complete; 

·        More seating at Arnos way side of the reserve; 

·        Footpath from Gayford Way to Arnos Way;

·        Footpath connecting the carpark to the playing field; and

·        To relocate the Hudson Ave footpath connection further east

 

In considering the additional items listed above, the following Administration advice was provided:

 

Installation of a Water Fountain 

 

A water fountain is already proposed within the family area of the Hudson Park Master Plan. 

 

Change of sand softfall to rubber softfall.

 

Through the consultation process many of the residents supported the proposed Master Plan for Hudson Park; however concern was expressed at the proposal to leave the existing sand softfall supporting the combination unit and swings. Resident's concern centred on the anti-social behaviour seen at the park and the resulting rubbish and other items left at the park, which could pose a hazard to children using the play equipment. Concerns regarding anti-social behaviour were also discussed during the on-site community workshop, with residents having a very strong view of the need to replace sand with alternative softfall options. 

 

Footpath needs to be wide enough for Kids to ride their bikes

 

The City’s design team has confirmed that the footpaths proposed for the Master Plan are 2.5 meters wide.

 

More Bins 

 

The request of more bins can be accommodated internally once the Master Planning Elements have been completed

 

More Seating at Arnos Way

 

The request of more seating can be accommodated internally once the Master Planning Elements have been completed

 

Footpath from Gayford Way to Arnos Way

 

An elderly resident living on Gayford Way enquired about the possibility of having a footpath link from Gayford Way to the proposed footpath. Advice from the design team is the link was considered in the design phase and was decided that the terrain is too steep to provide a path that would be of benefit to the residents. In addition, it was recognised that the footpath could potentially require a clearing permit with the number of trees located on that side.

 

Footpath connecting the carpark to the playing field

 

Currently there is no proposed direct foot path connecting the car park to the clubrooms. Advice from the Design Team is that the contours of this area would require level landings to be considered in design of a footpath which is an expense not currently allocated for in the project budget. The proposed Master Plan does however link the clubrooms via the family area to the car park, on a more accommodating gradient. 

 

To relocate the Hudson Ave footpath connection further east

 

The resident in Number 25 Hudson Avenue expressed her concern at having the path connection from the park to the existing Hudson Ave Path so close to her residence. The Resident cited that shopping trolleys are left already on the corner near their lot and having the path there would create further build-up of disregarded trollys. Administration believes the request is easily accommodated and will request the path is moved further east.

 

Comment

In summary, the current project budget from PR-2960 Hudson Park Infrastructure Upgrades   does not have the capacity to accommodate the rubber softfall installation and the path connection to the clubrooms. In acknowledging the financial statues for the Hudson Park Master Plan upgrades The Working Group have provided direction to Administration to seek additional funding for both items to occur within this current financial year.

Statutory Compliance

The outcomes of the South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning process are required to be compliant with the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group Terms of Reference (Attachment 4).

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

In respect to the Active Reserve Master Planning process undertaken by the Reference Group, consideration has been given to the City's Local Planning 4.3 Public Open Space Policy, City's Floodlighting Policy and the City's Facility Hire and Use Policy. 

 

Implementation of the outcomes of the process will also need to consider the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

 

In respect to the financial implications, 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 current project budget for the implementation of the current project priorities is as outlined in the table below:

 

Item

Budget ($)

Footpaths

$240, 000

Family Area

$78 ,623

Family Area - Optional Items

$20, 000

Cricket Nets

$80, 780

Baseball Back Nets

$19, 145

Car Park Lighting*

$20, 000

TOTAL

$459, 000

*Car park lighting expenditure will be determined by the outcomes of the car park lighting audit.

 

As outlined previously in this report, the cost of the provision of rubber softfall for the combination swing unit is $74,000 and for the provision of the additional path from the car park to the existing clubrooms is $23,000. The total cost of the two items is $97,000, rounded up to $100,000. This additional cost is not able to be met by the current project budget.

 

As a result, Administration has undertaken a review of existing projects within the South Ward to identify any confirmed cost savings that may be used to off-set the cost of the provision of the rubber softfall and the additional path network. This review has resulted in the identification of budget savings in the project PR-2823 Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex - Building Renewal Works from the Asset Management Plan, with sufficient funds to undertake the following transfer of funds to the implementation of the Hudson Park projects, as outlined below.

 

Project Number

Description

From

(Municipal Funding Available Though Project Savings)

To

(Municipal Funding Required)

PR-2823

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex - Building Renewal Works from the Asset Management Plan 

$100,000

 

PR-2960

Hudson Park Infrastructure Upgrades Project 

 

$100,000

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group’s amended recommendation as a result of its consideration of Item 4.2 Hudson Park Master Plan Consultation, at its meeting held on 17 February 2016 as follows:

That the Working Group:-         

1.       SUPPORTS the Hudson Park Draft Master Plan as shown in Attachment 1 with costings for the following requested items to be presented to Council;

a)      Conversion of sand softfall to rubber softfall in the existing playground amenity; and  

b)      Footpath commencing from the existing carpark to the Clubrooms

 

2.       REQUESTS that future consideration is given for a path connection from Gayford Way and Arnos Way; 

 

3.       NOTES the comments as a result of the community consultation; and 

 

4.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.”

 

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure listed in the following table, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 for the Provision of Rubber Softfall to the Combination Play Unit and a path connection from the car park to the existing clubrooms at Hudson Park:

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Adjusted Budget

Provision of Rubber Softfall to the Combination Play Unit and a path connection from the car park to the existing clubrooms at Hudson Park

PR-2960

$459,000

$559,000

3.       APPROVES the following budget amendment to fund the project funding shortfall for the Hudson Park Infrastructure Upgrade Projects;

Project Number

From

To

Description

PR-2823

$100,000

 

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex - Building Renewal Works from the Asset Management Plan 

PR-2960

 

$100,000

Hudson Park Infrastructure Upgrades Project 

 

4.      THANKS the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User group for their ongoing contribution to the project.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Hudson Park -Site Map

16/144637

 

2.

Hudson Park Master Plan

16/159662

 

3.

Agenda and Minutes

16/146164

 

4.

South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group

14/64046

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                225

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                226

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                227

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                                245

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 17 May, 2016                                    248

3.21  Jimbub Reserve Changerooms and Floodlighting - Concept Design

File Ref:                                              23853 – 16/89585

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5  

Previous Items:                                   CD06-05/11 - Jimbub Reserve - Community Consultation and Design - Ordinary Council - 31 May 2011 7.00pm      

 

Issue

To consider the proposed concept design for the development of the Jimbub Reserve Changerooms and Floodlighting.

Background

Jimbub Reserve (the Reserve) is located at 120 Waldburg Drive, Tapping (Attachment 1) and is classified as a Neighbourhood Active Reserve. The property type is Crown land vested in the City of Wanneroo for the purposes of recreation.

 

At its meeting held on 31 May 2011 Council considered report CD06-05/11 - Jimbub Reserve - Community Consultation and Design and resolved the following:

 

“1.     ENDORSES the Jimbub Reserve Landscape Master Plan as shown on Drawing No. 2614-1-0 and contained in Attachment 1;

 

2.       INSTRUCTS Administration to proceed with the construction of Jimbub Reserve  in accordance with the endorsed Landscape Master Plan;

 

3.       THANKS the Community for its involvement by replying to submissions received during the community consultation process; and

 

4.       REFERS the matter for Traffic management study.”

 

A copy of the endorsed Jimbub Reserve Master Plan has been included in (Attachment 2). The Master Plan provides for the staged development of the following facilities at the Reserve:

 

·        Irrigation and turf installation;

·        Planting and pathway;

·        Park furniture and equipment;

·        Play equipment;

·        BBQ

·        Fitness equipment;

·        Cricket practice nets.

·        Sports Amenities Building;

·        Car park; and

·        Floodlighting.

 

The construction of the Reserve was undertaken by the developer, being the Satterley Property Group (SPG), who was responsible for the filling-in of the original swamp, development of an onsite swale, all bulk earth works, as well as obtaining a bore for the site. 

 

 

 

In January 2012, Earthcare Landscapes Pty Ltd was awarded the tender for the construction of Jimbub Reserve (Stage One).  These works included the installation of turf, sports goals, the central cricket wicket, path networks and passive planting. 

 

Following the development of the playing field, drainage issues were identified in respect to the playing surface and as a result the second stage of the reserve development was placed on hold until the drainage issues could be resolved. 

 

In response to the drainage issues identified, Administration implemented a sub soil drainage system (over three stages) to improve the drainage of water away from the playing surface. With this work undertaken, the stage two of the reserve development was progressed. This work included the following infrastructure and was completed in 2014.

 

·        Playground equipment

·        Cricket practice nets

·        Exercise equipment

·        Park furniture

·        Park signage

 

The provision of a BBQ was delayed until the Sports Amenities Building was constructed to provide the necessary power supply.

Detail

Sports Amenities Building

 

The location for the proposed Sports Amenities Building (the Building) is on the southern boundary of the active reserve, adjacent to Ashley Road (Attachment 3).  This location is consistent with that identified in the original Master Plan (Attachment 2).

 

The concept plan for the Building has been included in Attachment 4 and was used as the basis for the consultation process.  The concept plan includes:

 

Element

Description

Changerooms

2 x 28m2 changeroom facilities including a 20m2 amenities area for each changeroom.

Storerooms

3 x 12m2 user group external storerooms.

First Aid Room

15m2 first aid room

Umpires room

19m2 includes 2 showers and toilet facilities

Male & Female Toilets

Male and female toilets that are separate facilities from changerooms and a separate universal access toilet.  These facilities will service the reserve hirers.

100m2 of Multipurpose Room

Future provision as a stage 2, subject to demand.

 

The proposed facility provision is considered to be appropriate for a neighbourhood level active reserve of this size (Reserve size of 6.3 ha and Playing Field size of 2.1 ha). The provision of a 100m2 of multipurpose room has been included as a future second stage, based on demand. It has not been included in the stage 1 development on the basis that there is not sufficient demand to justify the development of this space at the present time.

 

This position is consistent with the Draft Community Facility Standards which are currently being developed by Administration in respect to future community level sport infrastructure provision.

 

 

The draft Standards will propose all future neighbourhood level Active Open Space is provided with a sports amenities building of up to 100m2, subject to consideration through the planning process of:

 

·        Number of user groups; and

·        Specific sport requirements.

 

Future facility provision will be guided by the Draft Community Facility Standards. These will be based around the below existing hierarchy which applies to Active Open Space:

 

Designation

Number of Ovals Provided*

Size +

Minimum Multipurpose Facility Provision

Maximum Multipurpose Room Provision

Local

0

Between 0.4 and 1 ha

N/A

N/A

Neighbourhood

1

1 to 5ha

0m2

100m2

District

2

5 to 15+ha

100m2

150m2

Regional

More than 2

At least 20ha

150m2

200m2

*1 Oval can host cricket, AFL, 2 x Rugby / Soccer fields

 +based on classification framework developed by Department of Sport and Recreation(DSR) in 2012 and revised City of Wanneroo Local Planning Policy 4.3 – Public Open Space.

 

In accordance with the Draft Community Facility Standards that will ultimately be presented to Council for endorsement, the provision of such infrastructure would also be measured against the levels of activity at each location on a case by case basis specific to sport requirements and a clear demonstration of the need identified for the provision of the facilities within the minimum and maximum provision.

 

In terms of the broader catchment for the Reserve, the following table provides an overview of the other active reserves within the catchment and their current use.

 

Park

Size

Distance from Jimbub

Facilities

Current users

Level of use per week (hours)

Houghton Park

5ha

1.8km

One playing field, floodlighting,

sports amenities building,

playground equipment,

BMX facility

Carramar FC

Carramar Primary School

Wanneroo Cricket Club

Step into Life

Wanneroo/ Joondalup Tee ball

Wanneroo Lacrosse

21 (W)

30 (A)

 

22 (S)

 

7 (A)

 

0.5 (S)

2 (S)

Peridot Park

3ha

3.8km

One playing field, toilet block, playground, floodlighting, tennis courts

Neerabup Junior Football Club

Carramar FC

Neerabup Primary School

 

*No summer club usage

8.5 (W)

 

7.5 (W)

 

35 (A)

Lake Joondalup Park

9.2ha

3.5km

One playing field, changerooms, toilets,

cricket nets, floodlighting, playground,

fitness equipment

Wanneroo Cricket Club – Juniors

Wanneroo Junior Football Club

15 (S)

 

 

8 (W)

Edgar Griffiths Park

14.7ha

3.8km

One playing field, toilet block, playground,

cricket nets,

Wanneroo Cricket Club – Junior

Wanneroo Cricket Club – Senior

Wanneroo Little Athletics Club

 

17 (S)

 

11 (S)

 

5 (S)

Wanneroo Showgrounds

9.3ha

4.7km

One playing field, clubrooms,

3 x toilet blocks, tennis courts, pavilion,

cricket nets,

power supplies

Wanneroo Cricket Club – Juniors

Wanneroo Cricket Club – Seniors

Wanneroo Junior Football Club

Wanneroo Amateur Football Club

Step into Life (Fitness)

Nollamara RSL Swap Meets

17 (S)

 

9.5 (S)

 

21 (W)

 

10.25 (W)

6.25 (W)

 

6 (A)

Note: W – Winter, S – Summer, A - Annual

 

In respect to population growth within the catchment area, the table below outlines the anticipated growth within the locations of Wanneroo, Carramar and Tapping. As can be seen, the level of growth over the 10 year period will be significant, with the population threshold meeting the required 1:7,000 ratio for Neighbourhood POS (Active) (Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan, 2011).

 

The population of Wanneroo is expected to increase by 38% by the year 2024 and a 16% rise in population is anticipated for the suburb of Carramar.

 

Suburb

2014

2024

Difference

%

Wanneroo

12,749

17,706

+ 4,957

38%

Carramar

7,134

8,339

+ 1,205

17%

Tapping

9,791

10,001

+ 210

2%

Total

29,674

36,046

6,372

21%

Source – Population Forecast id

 

To ensure access by the broader community to the building, it will be necessary to implement an appropriate management model that does not allow any one group or only a small number of groups to have dedicated exclusive use. Fundamentally, this will be achieved via the City’s Facility Hire and Use Policy, providing equitable access to all of the community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Floodlighting

 

It is proposed to design and construct a 4 pole installation on the playing field (Attachment 5), to AS 2560.2.3 for large ball sport training, with capacity to increase to 100 lux at a future point in time. 

 

As outlined in the Financial Implications section of this report, the total estimated cost for the installation is $165,000, with a CSRFF grant being sought for $50,000.

 

The floodlighting installation is currently scheduled to be completed in the 2017/18 financial year, to coincide with the completion of the Sports Amenities Building.

 

Car Park

It is proposed to construct an 86 bay car park to the south of the building to AS 2890.1 standards (Attachment 3).

 

The car park design and construction is estimated at $550,000 and no grant funding will be available for this component. The car park is scheduled to be completed in the 2017/2018 financial year to coincide with the completion of the Sports Amenities Building.

 

Project Schedule

 

The proposed timeframes for the Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building, Floodlighting and Car Park are as follows:

 

Project Phase

Timeframe

Concept Design

December 2015- March 2016

Detailed Design

March 2016 – July 2016

Grant Application Submission

September 2016

Advice from DSR – Grant

February 2017

Tender Advertising and Evaluation

March 2017 – June 2017

Construction

July 2017 – February 2018

Practical Completion (Handover)

February 2017 – March 2018

Additional Site Investigations

Subsequent to the previous work undertaken in respect to drainage of the site, Administration has identified ongoing issues in respect to the drainage at the reserve, which will require further investigation.

 

In the first instance this will include undertaking further hydrological and geotechnical investigation at Jimbub Reserve to determine the geotechnical conditions prior to any further development of the oval and construction of change room facilities. This is fundamentally due to ongoing nature of the drainage issues at the reserve and for Administration to be sure that the proposed further development on the site will not be adversely impacted upon into the future. This work will commence in the 2015/16 year and be completed in the 2016/17 year and will be funded via a transfer of $80,000 in project savings from PR-4012 Wesco Road, Nowergup – Stage 4 Upgrade and Widening.

 

A further report will be provided to Council should this work identify any issues within the site which impact on the delivery of the Sports Amenities Building, Floodlighting and Car Park.

Consultation

Community Consultation in respect to the Master Plan (Attachment 2) was undertaken with the residents who reside within 400 metres of the reserve.

 

A community information letter, as well as a copy of the Master Plan and public comment form was sent to residents. The public comment period commenced on 4 April 2011 and concluded on 29 April 2011.

 

The consultation period specifically for the changerooms and floodlighting was conducted between 4 April and 2 May 2016 and included the following consultation strategy, as endorsed by the City’s Community Engagement Advisor: 

 

·        Distribution of information letters and plans (Attachments 2 & 4) to residents and landowners within 400m from the Park, requesting that they take part by providing feedback and view the concept plan;

·        Community consultation held onsite on 20 April 2016 to allow interested members of the public to view and discuss the draft concept plan with the relevant City of Wanneroo staff members and Elected members; and

·        Inclusion of the concept plan and comment form on the City's web site under the 'Your Say" section. 

 

Administration received 2 written submissions in total from 782 mails outs. Of those submissions, 1 writer was seeking additional security to combat the anti-social behaviour and sought to include a dog exercise area including sand and obstacles, the second writer requested a specialized dog play pen area.  Approximately, thirty (30) community members attended the onsite consultation with 6 written comments accepted by City Officers.

 

The requests from this consultation included:

1.       Water fountain including access for a dog bowl

2.       Dog waste bags to be attached to bins around the park

3.       Additional bins near the playground

4.       Access to toilets during day

5.       Adequate shade around building

6.       Plant more trees around the park

7.       Plants/mulch on north/east corner to be addressed as this area washes away

 

Administration has followed up on the queries from the consultation period and is able to provide the following responses:

 

1.       A water fountain will be requested at detailed design stage

2.       Dog waste bags will be placed on the City’s audit list with Waste Services

3.       A request has been made to Waste Services

4.       A request will be made to the project manager to have time locks costed and if within budget installed on the toilet block.

5.       The building will have verandas to the front of the building (facing the park)

6.       A request to parks maintenance to investigate the ability to plant additional trees around the park.

7.       Will request that parks maintenance investigate this area and provide a solution

 

The request for a specific dog exercise area would be difficult to accommodate on site as the only available space for a fenced facility would be within the drainage basin, which would mean the facility would not be accessible during wet period and would create a potential risk at during high rainfall events. Jimbub Park has no restrictions in relation to dogs exercising in the park and dog waste bags are provided on site. Whilst not considered as part of this project, specific dog exercise areas within the City are being considered through the 2016/17 Capital Budget process, the location of these facilities have yet to be determined.

 

Administration has not received any concerns, objections or indications from the community suggesting that this project should not proceed. All of the attendees at the onsite consultation were supportive of the project and welcomed the further development of the POS.

 

Comment

Administration is of the view that the proposed facility provision, being the Sports Amenities Building, Floodlighting and Car Parking is appropriate for a neighbourhood level active reserve of this size. The consultation process did not result in any significant issues being identified and as a result the proposed concept and project timeframes remain unchanged.

 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

The City's Local Planning Policy 4.3 Public Open Spaces was used as the guiding framework for the development of the draft concept plan.

 

In respect to the financial implications, 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 total estimated cost for the Sports Amenities Building, Floodlighting and Car Park is $2,260,000 with the funding sources being the City of Wanneroo municipal funds and grant funding from the Department of Sport and Recreation ($616,333 CSRFF grant).

 

A summary of the combined project budget (Sports Amenities Building and Floodlighting) to form part of the draft 20 year Capital Works Budget has been outlined in the table below.

 

Year

Description

Car Park

Flood-

lighting

S.A.B

Total

1 (2015/16)

Detailed Design

 

 

 

81,000

3 (2017/18)

Construction (Grant Funding)

0

60,000

556,333

616,333

3 (2017/18)

Construction (Municipal Funding)

330,000

120,000

1,112,667

2,179,000

 

Construction Sub Total

330,000

180,000

1,669,000

 

 

Total Project Cost

 

 

 

2,260,000

 

As noted, Administration will be submitting a CSRFF grant application in the 2016 round for both projects.

 

Based on the submission of grant applications by the end of September 2016 and announcement of grant outcomes by the end of February 2017 (subject to Ministerial considerations and timeframes), it is envisaged that tender advertising will not occur until March 2017. Taking into consideration the timeframes required for tender advertising and evaluation, commencement of construction is not likely to occur until June/July 2017.

 

As outlined previously within this report, Administration will also be undertaking additional investigations into hydrological and geotechnical conditions at the site. These will be funded via the transfer of project savings, as noted within the table below.

 

Project

Description

From

(Municipal Funding Available Through Project Savings)

To

(Municipal Funding  Required)

PR-4012

Wesco Road, Nowergup – Stage 4 Upgrade and Widening

$96,067

 

PR-3087

Jimbub Reserve Hydrological and Geotechnical Site Investigations

 

$80,000

Total

$96,067

$80,000

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building, Car Park and Floodlighting Concept Plan shown in Attachment 3 and Attachment 5, respectively, of this report;

2.       NOTES that a CSRFF Grant Application for $616,333 is scheduled to be submitted in September 2016, with notification by end of February 2017;

3.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure listed in the following table, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 for the completion of further hydrological and geotechnical site investigations at Jimbub Reserve;

 

 

 

 

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Adjusted Budget

Jimbub Reserve Hydrological and Geotechnical Site Investigations

PR-4012

$0

$80,000

4.       APPROVES the following budget amendment to fund the project funding shortfall for the Jimbub Reserve Hydrological and Geotechnical Site Investigations:

 

Project Number

From

To

Description

PR-4012

$80,000

 

Wesco Road, Nowergup – Stage 4 Upgrade and Widening

PR-3087

 

$80,000

Jimbub Reserve Hydrological and Geotechnical Site Investigations

5.       NOTES that construction of the proposed development is estimated to commence by end July 2017 and will be concluded in March 2018; and

6.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan - Jimbub Reserve,

16/132183

 

2.

Landscape Plan - Jimbub Reserve

16/132216

 

3.

Building Location Plan - Jimbub Reserve

16/132255

Minuted

4.

Concept Floor Plan - Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building

16/132260

 

5.

Lighting Towers - Jimbub Site Plan

16/136303

Minuted