Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

6.00pm, 28 June, 2016

Council Chambers, Civic Centre,

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Please note that no deputation session will be held prior to the meeting.

 

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

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 28 June, 2016 commencing at 6.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

21 June, 2016

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-06/16     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 May 2016  1

SOC02-06/16 Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 7 June 2016  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

UP01-06/16     Request for Speed Humps at the Roundabout at Hinchinbrook Drive and Ridgewood Boulevard Ridgewood (PT01-05/16) 1

UP02-06/16     Objection to Proposed Child Care Centre at 7 Yorlor Way, Quinns Rocks (PT02-05/16) 2

UP03-06/16     Request Consideration for a Horse Beach in the vicinity of Pippidinny Beach, Pippidinny Road, Eglinton (PT03-05/16) 2

UP04-06/16     Objection to possible De-registration of Heritage Listing of the Two Rocks Shopping Forum, Marina and Sculpture Park (PT04-05/16) 2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget  3

CS05-06/16     Adoption of Corporate Business Plan 2016/17-19/20 & Annual Budget 2016/17  3

Planning and Sustainability  3

City Growth  3

PS01-06/16      Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1308/41: East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area  3

Approval Services  17

PS02-06/16      Consideration of Development Application (DA2015/2097) - Addition to Single House (Patio) - Lot 137 (6) Nomad Drive, Clarkson  17

PS03-06/16      Recommend Approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64  24

PS04-06/16      Yanchep City Centre Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 100 and District Planning Scheme Amendment No.157  45

Land Development  122

PS05-06/16      Deed of Agreement - Banksia Grove Regional Roads Upgrade  122

Assets  126

Asset Operations & Services  126

AS01-06/16      Aldersea Circle Traffic Treatments  126

AS02-06/16      PT06-04/16 Petition to Stop Motorised Vehicles Using the Pedestrian Access Ways Between Duncombe Grove and Foundation Loop, Quinns Rock  140

Strategic Asset Management  145

AS03-06/16      Old Yanchep Road Black Spot Project - Environmental Offset Proposal  145

Infrastructure Capital Works  150

AS04-06/16      Tender No. 01617 - Salitage Park Development  150

Parks & Conservation Management  157

AS05-06/16      Installation of "Dogs on Leash" signs on approach to playground areas  157

Community & Place  160

Community Facilities  160

CP01-06/16     Picnic Cove - Concept Design  160

CP02-06/16     Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility - Concept Design  176

CP03-06/16     City of Wanneroo Active Master Planning Report  183

CP04-06/16     Tender No. 01629 Construction and Installation of Transportable Buildings at Yanchep Sports Club  220

CP05-06/16     Provision of Transportable Buildings at Active Reserves within the City of Wanneroo  229

Corporate Strategy & Performance  238

Transactional Finance  238

CS01-06/16     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 April 2016  238

CS02-06/16     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 May 2016  256

CS03-06/16     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 May 2016  276

 

 

Property Services  347

CS04-06/16     Consider the commercial lease/licence over a portion of Lot 14648 (29) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler (Brampton Park) 347

Chief Executive Office  356

Advocacy & Economic Development  356

CE01-06/16     Adoption of Economic Development Strategy & Action Plan  356

Governance & Legal  393

CE02-06/16     Review of the City's Delegated Authority Register 2016  393

CE03-06/16     Adoption of Proposed City of Wanneroo Fencing Local Law 2016  512

CE04-06/16     Adoption of Proposed Site Erosion and Sand Drift Prevention Local Law   536

CE05-06/16     Adoption of Proposed City of Wanneroo Dogs Local Law 2016  549

CE06-06/16     Adoption of Proposed City of Wanneroo Cats Local Law   572

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 587

MN01-06/16    Mayor Tracey Roberts – Mayor Tracey Roberts - Future Regional Facility Provision to Accommodate State League Competition. 587

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 590

Item  11____ Confidential_ 590

CR01-06/16     Authority to Sign Confidential Event Contractual Agreement  590

CR02-06/16     Dealing with a Vexatious Complainant  590

CR03-06/16     Neerabup Road Duplication (Bunnings Access to Connolly Drive) 590

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 590

Item  13____ Closure_ 590

 

 

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

 

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

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 May 2016 be confirmed.

That the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 7 June 2016 be confirmed.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

UP01-06/16       Request for Speed Humps at the Roundabout at Hinchinbrook Drive and Ridgewood Boulevard Ridgewood (PT01-05/16)

Cr Driver presented a petition of 24 signatories requesting speed humps to be placed at the roundabout at Hinchbrook Drive and Ridgewood Boulevard Ridgewood.   Update   A report is being written by Traffic Services with the intention of being presented at the Council Meeting on July 19th 2016.

 

 

 

UP02-06/16       Objection to Proposed Child Care Centre at 7 Yorlor Way, Quinns Rocks (PT02-05/16)

Cr Winton presented a petition of 357 signatories objecting to a proposed child care centre at 7 Yorlor Way, Quinns Rocks.   Update   Administration is currently assessing the application and a report will be presented to Council for its consideration in due course.

 

UP03-06/16       Request Consideration for a Horse Beach in the vicinity of Pippidinny Beach, Pippidinny Road, Eglinton (PT03-05/16)

Cr Winton presented a petition of 1002 signatories for consideration for a horse beach for locals living north of Claytons Beach and as far north as Two Rocks. The beach should be unused by dog owners. Horse beach is to be used by Horse Groups, Equestrians training and Horse enthusiasts without any time limit imposed on any group or groups using the beach. An area to be allocated in the vicinity of Pippidinny Beach off Pippidinny Road, Eglington.   Update   Administration is still in the process of investigating this request and intends to prepare a report on this matter for consideration at a future Council Meeting.

 

UP04-06/16       Objection to possible De-registration of Heritage Listing of the Two Rocks Shopping Forum, Marina and Sculpture Park (PT04-05/16)

Cr Parker presented a petition of 60 signatories objecting to the loss of unique public open space, amenity and inter-cultural heritage values due to possible de-registration of the heritage listing of the Two Rocks shopping forum. Marina and Sculptures Park resulting in demolition in order to build privately owned high rise apartment blocks overlooking the Two Rocks Harbour. Also object to the lack of time given regarding loss of a cultural icon such as Bond’s First Settlers Village which could leave the Council’s decision open to national and international shame.   Update   Administration is considering this petition as part of its review of the Local Heritage Survey.  It is anticipated that the draft Local Heritage Survey will be presented to Council at its meeting on 19 July 2016.

Item  8      Reports

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

File Ref:                                              25973 – 16/166150

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Discosure of Interest                       Nil

Attachments                                      4

 

This report is to be to be circulated under separate cover.

Planning and Sustainability

City Growth

File Ref:                                              2080 – 16/171373

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

To consider Council’s response to Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1308/41: East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area, that was released for public comment by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 5 April 2016.

Background

In 2011 the WAPC released the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP).  This designated approximately 2,300ha of land in the East Wanneroo area as ‘Potential Urban’.

 

The WAPC subsequently received a number of applications from landowners in the area, seeking rezoning to Urban and/or Urban Deferred under the MRS.  This has resulted in three pockets of land comprising a total of approximately 50ha adjacent to the existing Wanneroo urban area already being rezoned to Urban Deferred. (This land is shown as purple on Attachment 1).

Detail

On 5 April 2016, the WAPC released MRS Amendment 1308/41 for a three month public comment period.  This amendment proposes to rezone most of the balance of the EWSP potential urban area to Urban Deferred.  It involves an area of approximately 2,100ha (see Attachment 2).

 

There are a number of notable features of this proposed amendment:

 

1.       It is being processed as a ‘major’ amendment, due to the scale of the area proposed for rezoning.  The process for major amendments involves:

 

·        a 3 month public comment period, which concludes on 8 July 2016.

·        provision for hearings, where requested by submitters.

·        WAPC recommendation to the Minister for Planning.

·        presentation by the Minister for Planning to the Governor for approval.

·        consideration by both Houses of Parliament.  If after 12 sitting days, neither House has had a motion of disallowance tabled, then the amendment will take effect.  If such a motion is tabled, then that will be subject to a vote of that House, which will determine the outcome.

 

2.       The amendment report advises that the following requirements are to be addressed prior to Lifting of Urban Deferment (and the land then being zoned Urban):

 

·        “A District Structure Plan (DSP) being approved for the EWSP area.

 

          The DSP should consider matters such as: MRS reservations (eg: High Schools, Other and Primary Regional Roads, Railways etc), priority local natural areas and significant wetlands, spatial staging plan, buffers (eg: poultry and mushroom farms, piggeries, market gardens etc), district developer contribution plan, transport modelling and traffic analysis (amongst other matters) in consultation with relevant State Government agencies and the City of Wanneroo;

 

·        Confirmation of the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure;

 

·        A District Water Management Strategy (DWMS) being approved by the Department of Water (DoW) for the EWSP area.  Consideration will need to be given to the coordination and transfer of existing groundwater licences and the location of public open space (POS);

 

·        The north-eastern portion of the site is within a 500 metre separation buffer for sand resources.  These sand resources are within Mining Act 1978 tenements.  The sand extraction is required to be completed, prior to the transfer of the land to the Urban zone; and

 

·        A Bush Fire Hazard Assessment (BFHA) being undertaken to the satisfaction of the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES).”

 

3.       The amendment report includes a copy of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advice to the WAPC on the proposed amendment (see Attachment 3).

 

          The EPA recommendation provided at the end of this advice is of particular note, as it recommends that the future City of Wanneroo amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) for this area: “will need to contain specific mechanisms and provisions to adequately secure, protect and manage the environmental values within the amendment area.  The EPA recommends that the Department of Planning liaise with the City of Wanneroo to develop appropriate mechanisms which can be included in the local scheme and to ensure that the subsequent stages of planning for the area are consistent with work undertaken for the Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 million.”

 

          This matter is discussed further in the ‘Comment’ section of this report.

 

4.       It excludes approximately 150ha of land shown as ‘potential urban’ in the EWSP, which comprises six separate areas (shown in red on Attachment 1).  Administration suspects that this is due in part to five of these six areas being proposed for protection for environmental reasons under the draft Perth-Peel Green Growth Plan (PPGGP).

 

The draft PPGGP identifies one of these areas as being the site of a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC): Banksia attenuata woodland over species rich dense shrub-lands and subject to a specific commitment for protection.  Four of the areas are totally or mostly subject to broad commitments for protection under the draft PPGGP.

 

          Those broad commitments will be either (or both) relating to vegetation complexes with more than 10% but less than 30% remaining, and/or Carnabys cockatoo feeding habitat.

 

          The sixth area appears to have been excluded due to the area concerned currently being Priority 1 Public Drinking Water Source Area.

Consultation

Consultation on the proposed MRS amendment is being undertaken by the WAPC.  This has included WAPC writing to all affected landowners.  It should be noted, however, that the WAPC has not written to landowners whose properties are shown as ‘potential urban’ on the EWSP but have been excluded from this MRS Amendment due in part to the draft PPGGP.

Comment

The proposed MRS amendment is strongly related to, and impacted by, the draft PPGGP recently advertised for public comment by the State Government.  Details of this relationship are outlined below:

 

1.       A number of EWSP ‘potential urban’ areas have been excluded from the amendment area. Administration suspects that this is likely due in part to the draft PPGGP, as indicated in the ‘Detail’ section above.

 

2.       A substantial amount (approximately 300ha) of the amendment area is subject to proposed ‘commitments’ under the draft PPGGP.  This involves ‘specific’ commitments (see Attachment 4) which are areas proposed for protection, and ‘broad’ commitments (see Attachment 5) which are to be subject to further ‘refinement’ to determine whether they will be required to be protected.

 

3.       The amendment report, including the EPA advice appended to it (referred to earlier), propose that the PPGGP proposals for this area be implemented through the land use planning system, and particularly DPS 2.

 

Council considered the draft PPGGP at its meeting of 26 April 2016 (item PS12-04/16) and resolved to endorse the City’s submission on the proposal. The agenda report on this matter included particular consideration of the implications of the draft PPGGP for East Wanneroo, and Council’s endorsed submission raised a number of concerns in this regard.  A summary of these issues is outlined below, with further detail on this being provided in Attachment 6:

 

1.       Detailed information is required regarding how it is proposed that the PPGGP commitments for East Wanneroo be implemented through the land use planning system, particularly the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2.

2.       The PPGGP mapping needs to be further detailed to enable identification of which particular PPGGP commitment applies to each particular parcel of land which is shown as being subject to some type of broad commitment.

3.       Clarification is needed of exactly how the areas in East Wanneroo which are mapped as being subject to some type of broad commitment are going to be refined to identify which parts of those areas are going to be required to be protected.

4.       Further detail is needed on the proposal that developing landowners may be required to contribute to a levy to provide funding for management of conservation areas to be protected.

The above issues need to be adequately addressed prior to this area being rezoned Urban Deferred given such a large proportion of the area is subject to broad commitments for protection under the draft PPGGP, and the highly dispersed and fragmented nature of those commitment sites.  Potential problems may arise in respect to:

 

1.       Whether parts of the area significantly impacted by PPGGP (once the sites to be protected have been determined) will be able to be designed and developed for urban purposes in a satisfactory manner, in respect to issues such as viability of infrastructure provision, connectivity for movement systems, access to services and amenities, and bushfire management measures.

 

2.       Viability of future Development Contribution Plans for the area (particularly if these are proposed to include provision for acquisition of PPGGP sites), and the flow-on effect this would have on housing affordability in this area.

 

Summary

 

The above concerns need to be adequately addressed prior to this MRS amendment being finalised, and it is recommended that the City’s submission to the WAPC on the MRS amendment strongly reaffirms this position.

 

A draft submission on the MRS amendment has been accordingly prepared (see Attachment 6).

Statutory Compliance

Not applicable.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

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

Policy Implications

Council’s LPP 5.3: East Wanneroo includes a planning process for East Wanneroo which does not include an Urban Deferred zoning step as proposed by the current MRS Amendment proposal.

In strictly applying the current LPP 5.3, it may be noted that it includes a provision 2.2.2 which provides that when proposals are submitted which do not involve one of the ‘steps’ in the LPP 5.3 process (as in this case), then it should only be entertained by the City if it will not prejudice the effective undertaking of the planning process set out in the policy, and the ability for urban and related development to be able to occur in an orderly and proper manner.

 

The matter of whether this proposal may be prejudicial as indicated above will largely depend on how the concerns being raised in the recommended submission are addressed.

 

Should the subject land be rezoned to Urban Deferred through finalisation of MRS Amendment 1308/41, this would indicate a need for LPP 5.3 to be reviewed, given that the planning process set out in LPP 5.3 does not provide for Urban Deferred zoning of this area.

Financial Implications

The future urbanisation of the East Wanneroo area may have financial implications for this City in respect to the following:

 

·        Development Contribution Plans (DCP), and future DPS 2 provisions, and depending on how these may be impacted by the PPGGP proposals.

 

·        The City’s role in administration of DCPs.

 

·        Future provision of the range of infrastructure and services which this area will require, and the role of DCPs in this regard.

 

These financial implications will need to be addressed in detail as the planning process for this area progresses and the relevant information becomes available.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the proposed submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission on Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment (MRS) 1308/41 (East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area) in Attachment No. 6, which advises that the MRS Amendment should not be finalised until the following concerns which Council has previously raised in respect to the draft Perth-Peel Green Growth Plan (PPGGP) have been adequately addressed:

1.       Detailed information is required regarding how it is proposed that the PPGGP commitments for East Wanneroo be implemented through the land use planning system, particularly the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2.

2.       The PPGGP mapping needs to be further detailed to identify which particular PPGGP commitment applies to each parcel of land shown as being subject to some type of broad commitment.

3.       Clarification is needed of exactly how the areas in East Wanneroo mapped as being subject to some type of broad commitment are going to be refined to identify those specific areas that will need to be protected.

4.       Further detail is needed on the PPGGP proposal for developing landowners to potentially contribute to a levy to fund ongoing management of conservation areas to be protected.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	EW Structure Plan - Land Excluded	16/189894
2.	East Wanneroo Amendment 1308/41	16/171966
3.	EPA Act 1986	16/171970
4.	Attach GGP	16/112068
5.	Area 1 Broad Commitments	16/172099
6.	Draft Sub for report to Council on East Wanneroo MRS Amendment	16/180168	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              DA2015/2097 – 16/164099

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2015/2097) proposing an addition to a Single House (Patio) at 6 Nomad Drive, Clarkson.

 

Applicant	Classic Home and Garden Innovations Pty
Owner	Mr James Young & Ms Deborah Bollans
Location	Lot 137 (6) Nomad Drive, Clarkson
Site Area	465m²
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 79 Zoning	Residential

 

Background

On 11 November 2015, the City received a development application proposing a patio as an addition to a Single House located on Lot 137 (6) Nomad Drive, Clarkson (subject site). The subject site is 465m² in area and is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 under the Tamala Park - Agreed Structure Plan No. 79 (ASP 79). A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

The details of the proposed patio are as follows:

 

·        The patio is located in the north western corner of the subject site;

·        The patio measures 3.2m in width and 3.7m in length;

·        The patio posts are setback 0.75m from the northern side boundary; and

·        The minimum height of the patio is 2.2m and the maximum height is 2.9m.

 

A site plan and an elevation depicting the patio are included in Attachment 2. The proposed side boundary setback of 0.75m is a variation to the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provision of Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) which prescribes a minimum setback of 1.0m.

Consultation

A letter of objection from the adjoining landowner at Lot 136 (4) Nomad Drive, Clarkson to which the boundary side setback variation is proposed was included when the application was submitted. As no other adjoining properties are affected by the setback variation associated with the proposed patio, no further consultation was undertaken by the City.

 

A summary of the submission is included in Attachment 3. The affected landowner raised concerns relating to the potential for the patio to block natural light to their house.

Comment

Assessment of Application

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the 'deemed-to-comply' provisions, the City is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant 'design principles'. As the patio does not meet the 'deemed-to-comply' provision of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes, it has been assessed against the corresponding 'design principle', as detailed in the table below.

Design Principle – Clause 5.1.3 P3.1	Administration Comments
Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.	The impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered minimal given the open framed structure is 2.9m high at its highest point and screened by the existing boundary fence.   The proposed patio is unenclosed on the northern and western sides. Generally, building bulk arises from large solid walls and structures that impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. The unenclosed design of the patio ensures that the impact of building bulk resulting from the portion of the patio which is visible above the boundary fence is reduced.
Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open space on the site and adjoining properties.	The patio is an unenclosed structure and therefore will not restrict ventilation to the site and neighbouring open space of 4 Nomad Drive.   The submitter’s dwelling is located to the north of the applicant’s dwelling. As such, shadowing from the proposed patio will predominantly fall over the subject site.   In light of the above, the proposed patio will not interfere with the ventilation and direct sunlight on the submitter’s dwelling.
Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.	The finished floor level of the patio is proposed to be one course lower than the applicant’s existing ground level. As such, the privacy of the adjoining property will be maintained by the existing boundary fence.

 

In light of the above, the proposed setback variation for the patio is considered to meet the relevant ‘design principle’ of the R-Codes. The patio also satisfies all other requirements of the R-Codes. Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no modification to the proposal is required. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the proposed patio at Lot 137 (6) Nomad Drive, Clarkson. 

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (2013).

 

Delegation to Determine Application

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

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to potential loss of natural sunlight on the adjoining property. Administration does not consider that this can be addressed by modification or imposition of conditions. Therefore, the application cannot be considered under delegated authority and must be determined by Council.

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

The proposed development has been assessed against the City’s Residential Development – Local Planning Policy 2.1.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the development application for the Addition to Single House (Patio) at Lot 137 (6) Nomad Drive, Clarkson, as shown in Attachment 2, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, subject to the following conditions:

a)   This approval only relates to the proposed Addition to Single House (Patio), as highlighted on the approved plan. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

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

2.       ADVISES the submitter of this decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	16/113216
2.	Attachment 2 - Site Plan	16/178648	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission	16/178426

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              3394-03 – 16/158150

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 3 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64 (ASP 64) and consideration of the amendment.

 

Applicant	Dynamic Planning and Developments
Owner	Watson Property Group Northern Aspects Ltd
Location	Lots 32, 83 and 90 (No. 487, 473 and 481) Wanneroo Road, Woodvale
Site Area	3.6 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 64 Zoning	Residential R25, R30 and R40

 

 

Background

On 26 February 2015, Dynamic Planning and Developments, on behalf of Watson property Group Northern Aspects Ltd lodged Amendment No. 3 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64 (ASP 64) for the City’s consideration.

 

The subject site is bound by Wanneroo Road to the east, Yellagonga Regional Park to the west, a vacant Residential lot to the south and a Residential lot being used for an agricultural machinery business to the north. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64 was initially advertised between 19 May 2015 and 30 June 2015. Due to the nature and number of submissions received during this time, Administration provided the proponent an opportunity to amend their proposal to address the issues raised. Revised plans were provided to the City on 30 March 2016. Due to the time lapse since the initial advertising of the proposal and the modification made to the proposal, Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64 was referred back to the submitters who originally made comments on the proposal. Following this advertising period, no further issues were raised by the original submitters.

 

Detail

 

Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64 proposes to modify the ASP 64 Structure Plan Map and Zoning Plan to increase the residential density coding of the subject site from R25, R30 and R40 to R60 and R80. The development yield of the subject site will be increased from approximately 50 dwellings under the existing residential density coding to approximately 98 dwellings under the proposed residential density coding. This is a total increase of 48 dwellings.

 

The amendment also proposes to modify the road layout for the subject site on the Structure Plan Map as follows:

 

1.       Modifying the internal road network to include rear laneways to the future lots; and

 

 

2.       Modifying the intersection of Prindiville Drive and Wanneroo Road to allow the extension of Prindiville Drive to be contained entirely within the lot boundaries of the subject site. The existing Structure Plan Map identifies the extension of Prindiville Drive to be split between the subject lot and the adjoining lot to the north (Lot 33).

See Attachment 2 for the existing and proposed Structure Plan Map.

Consultation

The amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of a sign on-site, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, a notice on the City’s website and letters written to the surrounding landowners. The advertising period began on 19 May 2015 and closed on 30 June 2015 with 25 submissions being received. Of these 25 submissions, 20 submissions objected to the proposal and five submissions made no objection to the proposal or provided comment only.

 

It is noted that of the 20 objections that were received, 18 of these provided identical comments.

 

A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s response is included as Attachment 3.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period relate to:

 

1.       Increased traffic volume in the area;

2.       The environmental impact on Yellagonga Regional Park; and

3.       The modification of the intersection of Prindiville Drive and Wanneroo Road.

 

Following comments received by Main Roads and an assessment of the proposal by Administration, the Structure Plan Map was modified by the applicant to reconfigure the proposed access arrangements to the site. The modified Structure Plan Map is included as Attachment 4. These modifications are further discussed in the Comment section below.

 

On 11 April 2016, the revised proposal was readvertised to the original submitters and they were given 28 days to provide additional comment on the revised Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64. The City received one submission during this time from Main Roads who indicated support for the revised access arrangements to the site. 

Comment

Assessment against the Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation

 

The City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) provides criteria for which to assess an application for re-coding within a structure plan area. The proposal has been assessed against the applicable criteria contained within Table 3 of LPP 3.1 and is detailed below:

 

No.	Criterion Detail	LPP 3.1 Requirement for R60 and R80 Coded Lots	Administration Comment
1.	Easy access/close proximity to Activity Centres	This criterion has been applied based on walkable distances as follows: a)   R60 within 400m from an edge of an Activity Centre excluding Local Centres.   No criteria provided for R80 coded lots.	R60: The subject site is not located within 400m of an Activity Centre. The proposed R60 lots do not meet this criterion detail.
2.	Easy access/close proximity to public transport with priority towards rail nodes and bus interchanges	This criterion has been applied based on walkable distances as follows: a)   R80 within 250m from the entry of a rail station and R60 between 401m and 800m from the entry of a rail station; b)   R60 within 250m of a high frequency bus route designated stops (‘High Frequency Bus Routes’ are defined as having a minimum of 2 services per hour during peak periods).	R80: The subject site is approximately 2.9km from the closest rail station being Whitfords Train Station. The proposed R80 lots do not meet this criterion detail.   R60: The subject site is within 250m of a high frequency bus route located along Wanneroo Road (bus routes 389, 468 and 469). On this basis, the proposed R60 lots meet this criterion detail.

 

Proposed R60 Coded Lots

 

As indicated in the above table, the proposed R60 coded lots are considered to meet Criterion Detail No. 2 as they are located within 250m of a number of high frequency bus routes located along Wanneroo Road, including bus routes 389, 468 and 469. These bus routes provide access to Perth City as well as surrounding train stations such as Whitfords and Joondalup. As a result, the proposed R60 coded lots are considered acceptable as they are deemed to satisfy the applicable criteria within LPP 3.1.

 

Proposed R80 Coded Lot

 

The proposed R80 coded lot does not meet Criterion Detail No. 2 of LPP 3.1 (Criterion Detail No. 1 does not specify requirements for R80 lots) as the lot is located approximately 2.9km from the closest rail station being Whitfords Train Station.

 

As such, it is recommended that the proposal is modified to change the coding of the proposed R80 coded lot to an R60 coded lot. This modification will make the proposal compliant with Criterion Detail No. 2 of LPP 3.1 as the proposed lot will be within 250m of a high density bus route.

 

Acceptability of the Proposal against LPP 3.1

 

Given the above, the proposed recoding of the subject site is considered acceptable and satisfies the criteria of LPP 3.1 subject to the proposed R80 lot being modified to be coded as R60.

 

Furthermore, it should be noted that the adjoining lot to the south is currently undeveloped with a residential density code of R30 and the adjoining lot to the north is currently being used as an agricultural machinery business with residential density codes ranging between R25, R30 and R40. It is considered that the proposed re-coding of the subject site will not negatively impact on the surrounding residents as there is an adequate separation distance between the site and the established residential areas further to the north and south and adjacent to the lots directly abutting the site. Additionally, should the adjoining lots to the north and south be developed in the future, any prospective landowners of these sites should be aware of the residential density coding of the subject site prior to purchasing a lot within the area.

 

 

Modification of the Intersection of Prindiville Drive and Wanneroo Road

 

The original proposed Structure Plan Map and the indicative plan of subdivision that was provided with the application proposed to realign the extension of Prindiville Drive at the intersection of Wanneroo Road to contain the road entirely within the lot boundaries of the subject site. The intention behind this was so Prindiville Drive could be extended and constructed prior to the development of the adjoining property to the north (Lot 33) (this is because under ASP 64, the extension of Prindiville Drive is intended to be divided between the subject site and Lot 33). This proposal is contrary to what is currently indicated within ASP 64.

 

When the proposal was advertised to Main Roads and referred to the City’s Land Development Unit, there were a number of concerns raised regarding the potential safety risks of realigning Prindiville Drive as proposed by the applicant.  

 

Following advertising and discussions with Main Roads, the applicant has modified the proposed intersection to allow for a temporary left-in only access off Wanneroo Road at the intersection of Prindiville Drive and left-out only access onto Wanneroo Road from the southern portion of the subject site. It is intended for this interim access configuration to be in place up until the adjoining lot to the north is subdivided and a four-way signal controlled intersection can be constructed at the junction of Wanneroo Road and Prindiville Drive.

 

The requirement for the temporary access arrangements to be removed upon completion of the extension of Prindiville Drive will be imposed as a condition of approval for any subdivision application proposed for the subject site, as well as the requirement for a notification to be placed on the Certificates of Title of the proposed lots informing landowners of this arrangement. This will enable access to the site in the interim and will facilitate the intended road treatment and future extension of Prindiville Drive to cater for the anticipated vehicles that will be generated for the locality at full build out of the ASP 64 area.

 

The proposal incorporating the temporary left-in, left-out access arrangements to the site was re-advertised to all of the original submitters to seek further comments on the modified proposal. No further objections were received by the surrounding landowners and the City received correspondence from Main Roads who indicated that they supported the proposed temporary left-in, left-out access arrangements as indicated on the modified plans.  On this basis, the modified access arrangements to the site as indicated in Attachment 4 are considered acceptable, and Administration’s recommendation of support for the proposal is based on this modified Structure Plan Map. 

 

Internal Road Layout

 

A number of issues were raised during the assessment of the application with regard to the separation distances between the Wanneroo Road traffic entrance and the traffic entrance to Rosso Meander from the northernmost rear laneway which runs parallel with Wanneroo Road (the proposed intersections are detailed in Attachment 5). In particular, there are potential safety issues created for vehicles entering the site from Wanneroo Road and conflicting with vehicles turning onto Rosso Meander from this proposed rear laneway.

 

Given that the road and lot layout is not subject to a full and detailed assessment until such time that a subdivision application is submitted for the subject site, Administration recommends modification of the proposal to remove the provision of the rear laneways which run parallel to Wanneroo Road. This will allow more flexibility at the time of subdivision to ensure a safe road layout is achieved for the subject site. This is in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Structure Plan Framework (August 2015) which indicates that lot layout and detailed design of a structure plan area should be refined and finalised at the time that a subdivision application is submitted and approved.

 

Increase in Traffic Volumes

 

Concerns were raised during advertising that the increased density of the subject site would result in traffic congestion on the surrounding road network.

 

The proposed re-coding will increase the potential dwelling yield of the subject site from approximately 50 dwellings under the existing R25, R30 and R40 coding, to approximately 98 dwellings under the proposed R60 and R80 coding. The total dwelling yield potential will therefore be increased by a maximum of 48 dwellings. Based on the Department of Planning’s Transport Data, a single dwelling is assumed to generate 8 vehicle trips per day on average. Therefore an additional 48 dwellings could generate up to an additional 384 vehicle trips per day (VTPD) at the proposed R60 and R80 coding than if it remained at the existing R25, R30 and R40 coding. It is noted however, that should the proposed amendment be modified to change the residential density code of the proposed R80 lots to R60 as recommended by Administration, the maximum dwelling yield and potential vehicular trips generated by the site would be reduced.

 

Notwithstanding, an accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) submitted with the proposal has provided future traffic count data to confirm that the increase in traffic is capable of being accommodated within the existing road network, in accordance with the indicative road volumes identified in the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy. The City's Traffic and Transport Service Unit has assessed the TIA and has confirmed that the data provided is in accordance with, and meets the requirements of the WAPC's Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development: Volume 2 – Structure Plans. Given the above, the potential traffic increase as a result of the proposed amendment is considered acceptable.

 

Environment Impact on Yellagonga Regional Park

 

There were a number of concerns raised during advertising regarding the environmental impact that the proposal may have on the Yellagonga Regional Park that is located to the east of the subject site.

 

Clause 5 of ASP 64 requires any application for subdivision of land within the structure plan area to be accompanied by environmental studies and management plans to be undertaken by appropriately qualified consultants. These plans and studies are required to be undertaken to ensure environmentally sustainable development is proposed that protects the adjacent Yellagonga Regional Park and enhances the habitat potential of the wetland.

 

The proposal was also sent to the Department of Environment and Regulation (DER) and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) to seek advice or comments on the proposal and how it may impact on the adjoining park. Both the DER and DPaW provided comments of no objection to the proposal with DPaW providing some additional comments in relation to the following:

 

·        The recommendation for a perimeter road between residential development and the adjoining bushland;

 

·        The provisions of pedestrian and bicycle pathways and fencing within the bushland; and

 

·        Appropriate control measures being implemented to control midges and cats in the area.

 

The above comments received from DPaW along with the required studies and management plans to ensure the protection of Yellagonga Regional Park will all be assessed and determined at the time when an application for subdivision is submitted to the WAPC for approval. This is because the above recommendations and required management plans are the subject of detailed design and are better addressed at the subdivision stage.

 

Additionally, in order to improve the quality of water entering Yellagonga Regional Park, the City has commenced works to upgrade the stormwater drainage infrastructure within the surrounding Wangara Industrial area. This will ensure that the impact of any overflow of stormwater going into Yellagonga Regional Park from the drainage site (Lot 477) abutting the subject site will be minimised, and potential odours that could impact on the surrounding residents will be minimised as a result of the improved water quality.

 

Given the above, Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64 is not considered to have a negative impact on Yellagonga Regional Park.

 

Noise

 

At its Briefing Session held on 14 June 2016, Council raised concerns with regard to the potential for traffic noise generated from Wanneroo Road to have a negative impact on the future residents of the subject site. Provisions 5.17 and 5.10 of ASP 64 requires the subdivider of any lots within the Structure Plan area to prepare and implement a Noise Study to the satisfaction of  Main Roads as well as placing notifications on the Certificate of Title of all lots abutting Wanneroo Road notifying of potential traffic noise.

 

Notwithstanding, to address Council’s concerns in relation to noise generated from Wanneroo Road and the impact that this may have on future lots, Administration is recommending a provision be included within the Structure Plan Part 1 which requires noise walls to be constructed along the boundary of the subject site where it abuts Wanneroo Road at the time when the land is subdivided.

 

Conclusion

 

In light of the above comments, Administration considers the proposed amendment to be acceptable subject to modifications to replace the lodged Structure Plan Map (Attachment 2) with that provided to the City upon further consultation (Attachment 4). In addition, it is recommended that the following further modifications are made to the proposal:

 

1.         Changing the residential density code of the proposed R80 lot to R60;

 

2.         Removing the proposed north-south rear laneways which run parallel to Wanneroo Road; and

 

3.       The provision for noise walls to be constructed along the boundary of the subject site at the time of subdivision where it abuts Wanneroo Road.

 

Administration recommends support of the proposal be forwarded to the WAPC subject to the above modifications.

Statutory Compliance

The amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. It is recommended that Amendment No. 3 to ASP 64 be recommended for approval subject to modifications pursuant to Clause 20(2)(e) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

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

The proposal was assessed under the provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RECOMMENDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 3 to the Woodvale Agreed Structure Plan No. 64 submitted by Dynamic Planning and Developments on behalf of Watson Property Group Northern Aspects Ltd be approved subject to the following modifications:

a)   The proposed Structure Plan Map being replaced by Attachment 4 to this report; and

b)   Additional modifications made to the Structure Plan Part 1 and Map as follows:

i)   Changing the residential density code of the proposed R80 lot to R60;

ii)  Removing the proposed north-south rear laneways which run parallel to Wanneroo Road; and

iii) The provision for noise walls to be constructed along the boundary of the subject site at the time of subdivision where it abuts Wanneroo Road.

2.         Pursuant to subclause 20(1) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, PROVIDES the Western Australian Planning Commission a copy of the report on the proposed structure plan amendment; and

 

 

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1: Location Plan	16/175368
2.	Attachment 2: Existing and Original Proposed Structure Plan Map	16/165810
3.	Attachment 3: Schedule of Submissions	16/199460	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4: Revised Structure Plan Map	16/165847	Minuted
5.	Attachment 5: Map Showing Proposed Intersection of Rosso Meander and Lane 2	16/170645

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              20484 – 15/520533

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Yanchep City Centre Activity Centre Plan No. 100 (ACP 100). To determine the modifications required and its acceptability before forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination.

                                                               

Also, to consider the adoption of Amendment No. 157 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) for the purpose of incorporating the land use permissibility within ACP 100 into the Scheme.

 

Applicant	CLE Town Planning & Design
Owner	New Orion Investments & St Andrews Private Estate Pty Ltd (Yanchep Beach Joint venture)
Location	Lot 603 (146) Torepango Avenue, Yanchep
Site Area	106ha
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 68 Zoning	Centre

 

 

Background

On 24 December 2014, CLE Town Planning & Design lodged draft ACP 100 on behalf of the landowners; Yanchep Beach Joint Venture (YBJV).

 

Following many months of discussion and negotiation between the City and the applicant, a revised proposal was presented to Council. Council at its meeting on 18 August 2015 resolved to publicly advertise ACP 100 without modification. ACP 100 was publicly advertised from 1 September 2015 to 13 October 2015.

 

On 21 April 2016, the applicant submitted draft Amendment No. 157 to DPS 2 which proposes to incorporate the land use permissibility for the Structure Plan area into the Scheme.

Detail

Site

 

The subject area covers 106ha of land zoned Centre under Yanchep City Local Structure Plan No. 68 (ASP 68) which is located north-west of the St Andrews Golf Estate, south of Toreopango Avenue and east of the Marmion Avenue Road Reserve. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

Proposal

 

A Structure Plan is required in order to facilitate the development and subdivision of the subject area in accordance with DPS 2. 

 

The Yanchep City Centre (Centre) is identified as a Strategic Metropolitan Centre under the Yanchep – Two Rocks District Structure Plan No. 43 (DSP 43), which is the highest category Centre apart from the Perth Metropolitan area. The centre is anticipated to be of a similar scale as Joondalup City Centre.

 

ACP 100 will enable the delivery of the following:

 

·        Extension of the railway line (underground) through the City Centre with a centrally located train station;

 

·        A fixed public transport route (potentially light rail);

 

·        Concentration of retail facilities around central ‘Main Street’ (open air) connecting from the railway station to a proposed Town Square;

 

·        A diverse mix of land uses throughout the centre, catering for the maximum 71,800sqm retail floor space and 460,00sqm total employment generating land uses;

 

·        Residential development which achieves 50 dwellings per hectare within 400m of the train station;

 

·        A Mixed Use, Business and Tertiary precinct, that can cater for a University and Tafe, with a range of shared-use community facilities; and

 

·        A hospital, public health facilities and sports arena east of the railway line.

 

The advertised version of Part 1 of ACP 100 as well as the Structure Plan map is included in Attachment 2.

 

The revised version of Part 1 of ACP 100 as well as the Structure Plan map was submitted by the applicant on 26 May 2016 and is included as Attachment 3.

 

The key changes made to Part 1 of ASP 100 as a result of the submissions received include:

 

·        Text has been modified to be in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (LPS Regulations) which were gazetted in October 2015 and the WAPC's Structure Plan Preparation Guidelines;

 

·        Removal of land use permissibility tables from the Structure Plan in order to incorporate these provisions within a schedule of DPS 2;

 

·        Reduce the reliance on Local Development Plans (LDP) (previously referred to as Detailed Area Plans);

 

·        Updated provisions relating to a Parking Strategy.     

 

Scheme Amendment No.157 (Attachment 4) is recommended for adoption by Council as part of this report. Scheme Amendment No. 157 proposes to incorporate the land use permissibility for the Structure Plan area within a Schedule in DPS 2 and specifically proposes the following modifications to DPS 2:

 

1.       Deleting the following from clause 3.2.2:  “The Special Use Zone, Marina Zone, Urban Development Zone, Industrial Development Zone, Rural Community Zone and Centre Zone are not listed in Table 1 and the permissibility of uses in those zones is to be determined by the provisions specifically applying to them in the Scheme or in any Agreed Structure Plan approved under Part 9”.

 

2.       Including new clause 3.2.3: “If the zoning table does not identify any permissible uses for land in a zone the local government may, in considering an application for development approval for land within the zone, have due regard to any of the following plans that apply to the land-

 

i.        A structure plan;

ii.       An activity centre plan;

iii.      A local development plan.”

 

3.       Including new clause 3.2.4: “Notwithstanding clause 3.2.3 and any other provision of the scheme, for land which is subject to clause 3.2.3 and a Structure Plan or Activity Centre Plan referred to in Schedule 16 of the scheme, the local government shall determine the permissibility of uses in accordance with the use permissibility provisions for that land included in Schedule 16”.

 

4.       Renumbering clause 3.2.3 to 3.2.5 and clause 3.2.4 to 3.2.6.

 

5.       Modifying clauses 3.10.3(b), 3.13.4, 3.14.4, 3.15.4 and 3.23.4 to replace the words “in accordance with” to “with regard to”.

 

6.       Insert Schedule 16 (Clause 3.2.4) – Land Use Permissibility for Structure Plan and Activity Centre Plans and specifically include Land Use Permissibility tables for each of the ACP 100 Precincts.

Consultation

ACP 100 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the local newspaper and the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners. The submission period closed on 13 October 2015, with eight (8) submissions being received. Seven (7) of the eight (8) submissions received were from State Departments or Service Agencies with one (1) submission being from a local resident. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 5.

 

The revised proposal has incorporated modifications in response to the Department of Planning (DoP) and Main Roads submissions. A more detailed discussion of these submissions and the major issues considered in the assessment of ACP 100 is provided in the Comment section. 

In regards to Amendment No. 157 to DPS 2, if Council resolves that this is a standard amendment as per Administration’s recommendation, then in accordance with Regulation 47(2) of the LPS Regulations, a standard amendment to a local planning scheme must be subject to public consultation.

 

A standard amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days.  Advertising is to occur in a manner consistent with the requirements of the LPS Regulations.

 

If Council resolves this is a basic amendment as per the applicant’s recommendation then advertising is not required.

 

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

 

 

Comment

 

Amended Part 1 Plan and Text

 

Through the consultation process and assessment of ACP 100, there were a number of changes to the ACP that were required. While it was deemed that the majority of these modifications do not impact the intent of ACP 100 the quantity of changes resulted in a document which looked substantially different from that originally lodged.

 

As such, and due to the change in 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 changes to the Part 1 text specific to LDP Requirements, Parking Strategy, and Employment are discussed in detail below and overall replacement of the Part 1 text and plan is supported by Administration.

 

Local Development Plan Requirements

 

As the Structure Plan is for a high order centre and is expected to be developed over a number of years, the applicant proposed to defer many detailed provisions to the next planning stage, being the LDP stage. The advertised version of ACP 100 included the requirement for LDPs to be provided prior to the determination of a development application or subdivision application. This version listed a substantial number of requirements which needed to be addressed at LDP stage.

 

During the advertising period the DoP raised concerns with this approach on the basis that some of these provisions should be included within ACP 100 itself rather than deferred to the LDP, which are assessed and endorsed by the City with no involvement from the DoP.

 

As a result, the applicant proposes to modify the document to include additional development provisions within ACP 100 and reduce the number of provisions required to be determined at LDP stage. The requirement for LDP’s is still maintained, however the number of items that LDP’s need to address has been reduced. Given this is a high order Centre it is considered imperative that additional site specific standards are introduced via LDP’s to ensure a good quality built form outcome.

 

The applicant also included a provision which requires additional information to be provided at subdivision stage to demonstrate how a subdivision application is supported by an approved LDP and satisfies the objectives of ACP 100.

 

Parking Strategy

 

The advertised version of ACP 100 included the requirement for a Parking Strategy to be prepared at a later stage. Comments received from Department of Transport (DoT) during the consultation period specifically objected to ACP 100 until a Parking Strategy was completed. Following the advertising period the applicant prepared a Parking Strategy, in consultation with the DoT.

The main principles of the Parking Strategy are as follows:

 

·        Create public parking areas which are owned and managed by the City of Wanneroo and could be established through a cash-in-lieu payment from private developers;

 

·        Establish maximum car parking rates for private parking and minimum car parking rates for public parking within the Centre for non-residential parking;

 

·        Establish a governance framework for non-residential parking;

 

·        Establish minimum car parking rates for residential parking and propose to ‘unbundle’ parking so parking bays are not allocated to specific units to provide for flexible parking arrangements.

 

This approach to car parking differs to DPS 2 which requires each development to provide car parking on their own lot. DPS 2 also prescribes minimum (not maximum) car parking rates for non-residential land uses.  DPS 2 does have provisions to provide cash-in-lieu parking if public car parking can be provided within the proximity of the development. However, this provision is rarely utilised and has only been applied in individual circumstances.

 

Therefore the principle of providing minimal private car parking and public car parks that will be owned and managed by the City, with contributions from developers, is significantly different approach to how parking is currently provided for within DPS 2. This new approach requires a detailed review by the City prior to adopting an agreed position. Administration is therefore proposing the Parking Strategy be presented to a Forum Meeting in the coming months and following this, the Parking Strategy will be presented to Council for endorsement.

 

Administration does not wish to delay the approval of ACP 100 for this issue and therefore is recommending parking within ACP 100 be in accordance with DPS 2 until a Parking Strategy is approved. The applicant has agreed with this approach and updated the Part 1 document accordingly.

 

Employment

 

A major challenge for this Centre will be achieving the 15,000 jobs required under DSP 43. The Centre will be a vibrant mixed use community that needs to cater for employment generating land uses as well as some residential development. ACP 100 itself will not generate jobs, however provides the mechanism to achieve the job target by providing land that is capable of accommodating employment generating land uses and providing plot ratios, including a minimum plot ratio in Precinct 1 (City Centre Core).

 

The advertised version of ACP 100 includes an Employment Strategy as part of the technical appendices and a provision in Part 1 stipulates an ultimate employment target of 15,000 jobs. The City and DoP had concerns that the document did not adequately address the process and timeframe for monitoring of employment self-sufficiency. As a result the applicant updated the Employment Strategy to incorporate more information about implementation and monitoring employment targets. A provision has been included within Part 1 that requires an annual report monitoring the progress against employment targets and strategies. Every 5 years, within 12 months of census data, a more comprehensive review will be required to be undertaken by the developer.

 

This provision also requires a review of the relevant documents, including ACP 100, if the employment targets have not been achieved. This may trigger the need for the City to amend ACP 100 and Scheme to modify provisions to ensure employment generating development of an appropriate scale is provided within the Structure Plan area to achieve the employment self-sufficiency target. This may involve reviewing the permitted land uses within each precinct.

 

Given the provisions of ACP 100 coupled with the potential early delivery of the Train Station, which is discussed further in this report, it is anticipated that the Centre will attract high employment generating land uses, including the regional facilities such as a hospital, sports stadium and tertiary education facilities.

 

Land Use Permissibility and Scheme Amendment No. 157

 

ACP 100 proposes different precincts each with their own land use permissibility tables instead of utilising the zones and there corresponding land uses from DPS 2. This approach was taken and is supported by Administration as it was not considered the existing zones within DPS 2 accommodates the relevant mix of land uses required to create a Strategic Metropolitan Centre with specific precincts. 

 

In October 2015 the LPS Regulations were gazetted and introduced Deemed Provisions into DPS 2 which meant that only due regard is given to Structure Plans and they no longer had the force and effect of the Scheme. As a result, the DoP recommended the land use permissibility table for each precinct within the Structure Plan should be incorporated into DPS 2 to ensure there would be no discretion to considered prohibited land uses.

 

Subsequently, Administration liaised with DoP Officers to agree on an approach that could introduce land use permissibility for Structure Plan areas into DPS 2 and advised the applicant to prepared Scheme Amendment No. 157.

 

This amendment introduces an additional Schedule (No. 16) into DPS 2 that will include the land use permissibility tables as per the advertised version of ACP 100. Schedule 16 can also be used for other Structure Plan areas in which the City may deem it appropriate that land use permissibility be embedded into DPS 2. The Amendment will also modify clauses within Part 3 of DPS 2 to reference this new schedule.

 

The applicant has stated the amendment should be considered a basic amendment under Regulation 24 of the LPS Regulations, for the following reasons:

 

·        the amendment is primarily administrative;

 

·        the amendment is consistent with the model provisions in Schedule 1; and

 

·        the land use permissibility tables proposed to be introduced within the new schedule have been subject to public advertising as part of ACP 100 and no objections were received to any of the proposed precincts.

 

Administration considered the proposed Scheme Amendment to be a standard amendment under Regulation 34 of the LPS Regulations, for the following reasons:

 

·        does not comply with the requirements of a basic or complex Scheme Amendment;

 

·        introduces changes to land use permissibility that could be utilised by other Structure Plan areas and therefore is more than administrative in nature;

 

·        regardless of the advertising of the land use permissibility tables as part of ACP 100, this Structure Plan is still only a draft document which is only being considered by the Council as part of this report and still requires a full assessment and approval by the WAPC;

 

·        although it is acknowledged that some provisions proposed are consistent with the model provisions in Schedule 1, other provisions, including the introduction of Schedule 16 to determine land use permissibility within Structure Plan areas are not model provisions.

 

 

 

As a result it is recommended that the Council adopts Amendment No. 157 as a standard amendment. Under the LPS Regulations basic amendment does not require public consultation whereas a standard amendment requires a minimum of 42 days public consultation and therefore is inherently is a longer process. Under Regulation 36 of the LPS Regulations the landowner has the ability to request the WAPC reviewed Council’s resolution and the WAPC can advise Council it is a different type of amendment and instruct Council to amend the resolution accordingly.

 

Notwithstanding this, it is not considered ACP 100 will be delayed if the Council resolves Amendment No.157 is a standard amendment. ACP 100 has been modified to remove the land use permissibility tables from ACP 100 and instead a provision that requires land use permissibility to be in accordance with Schedule 16 of DPS 2 or pending the gazettal of this Schedule be guided by Amendment No. 157. This means ACP 100 can still be considered by the Council and WAPC prior to the gazettal of Amendment No.157.

 

Advocacy Plan and Railway

 

The progression and approval of ACP 100 is in line with the City’s Advocacy Plan that was adopted by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on the 22 July 2014.

 

The adopted Advocacy Plan included the Advocacy Statement, Advocacy Strategy and four position statements, one of which was the Position Statement: Expansion of the Northern Suburb Rail Network, asking the State Government to commit to expanding the heavy and light passenger rail network in Perth's North-West Sub-Region.

 

Recently the landowner, YBJV prepared a value capture model Business Case in order to extend the rail to Yanchep by 2020. As part of this case YBJV offered approximately $120m cash and in kind to deliver an underground Yanchep Station and a range of supporting infrastructure including car parking. The early delivery of the rail to Yanchep would allow for the economic development activation of the first stage for the Centre and stimulate the early delivery of local knowledge economy jobs.

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 24 May 2016 resolved:

 

1        SUPPORT the value capture model Business Case by Yanchep Beach Joint Venture Proposal 1 to bring rail to Yanchep as detailed in the letter included at Attachment 1 and incorporate this into the City’s Advocacy Campaign at this point in time;

 

2.         ENCOURAGE the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture and the Alkimos/Eglinton landowners to continue to work together towards a fair and equitable distribution of cost to provide rail to Yanchep, including stations at Alkimos, Eglinton and Yanchep; and review the City’s advocacy position when this concluded; and

 

3.         SUPPORT the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to advocate at both State and Federal level including meeting with relevant Ministers in Perth and Canberra, to secure support for Proposal 1.

ACP 100 provides the planning framework for the Centre and includes provisions for the rail line and Yanchep Train Station. Council’s support for ACP 100 would assist in the delivery of the rail line and would be consistent with the above resolutions.

 

Conclusion

 

Considering the above comments, the proposed ACP 100 is considered to be acceptable, subject to modifications to replace the advertised Structure Plan with that provided to the City following further consultation (Attachment 3).

The adoption of Amendment No. 157 to DPS 2 is also considered acceptable as it will embed the land use permissibility for ACP 100 into DPS 2.

Statutory Compliance

The Structure Plan and the Scheme Amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.

 

As per Regulation 34, the Amendment is considered to be standard amendment as outlined previously in this report.

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.2    Growing Business - Our community is a preferred place for business to locate and grow.”

Risk Management Considerations

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 ACP 100 has been undertaken in accordance with Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres and State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres.

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 Yanchep City Centre Activity Centre Plan No. 100 be approved subject to the following modifications:

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

2.       FORWARDS a copy of the report on the proposed Yanchep City Centre Activity Centre Plan No. 100 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

4.       Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 157 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 as per the modifications listed in Attachment 4.

 

5.       Pursuant to Section 47(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 157 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a standard Amendment for the following reasons:

 

a)      it does not comply with the requirements of a basic or complex Scheme Amendment;

b)      it introduces changes to land use permissibility that could be utilised by other Structure Plan areas and therefore is more than administrative in nature;

c)      Yanchep City Centre Activity Centre Plan No. 100 has been advertised, however is only a draft document which is only being considered by the Council as part of this report and is still requires a full assessment and approval by the WAPC;

d)      Although it is acknowledged that some provisions proposed are consistent with the model provisions in Schedule 1, other provisions, including the introduction of Schedule 16 to determine land use permissibility within Structure Plan areas are not model provisions.

 

6.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 157 to District Planning Scheme No.2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and

 

7.       Subject to EPA approval ADVERTISES Amendment No. 157 to District Planning Scheme No.2 for a period of 42 days.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	16/193579
2.	Attachment 2 - Advertised Part One	15/417804
3.	Attachment 3 - Revised Part One	16/187767	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Scheme Amendment 157	16/190134	Minuted
5.	Attachment 5: Schedule of Submissions for YCCACSP 100(2)	16/194834

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land Development

File Ref:                                              4528V02 – 16/180874

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider a replacement Deed of Agreement (DoA) between the Housing Authority, Banksia Grove Development Nominees Pty Ltd (BGDN) and the City of Wanneroo for the upgrade of regional roads adjacent to the Banksia Grove development.

Background

At its Meeting of 8 June 2004 (Item PD08-06/04) Council authorised the affixing of the common seal to a DoA between the City of Wanneroo, Peet and Co and the State Housing Commission (now Housing Authority) for the provision of major roads in the localities of Tapping, Carramar and Banksia Grove.

 

Peet and Co has fulfilled all its obligations under the 2004 DoA. The remaining works required under the DoA are the responsibility of the Housing Authority (and BGDN their joint venture partners) and are concerned with the timely construction of essential regional road infrastructure adjacent to the Banksia Grove development. This includes Joondalup Drive, Pinjar Road, Old Yanchep Road (Flynn Drive to Neaves Road) and Flynn Drive (Pinjar Road to Old Yanchep Road). The standard of construction for the road works is defined in the DoA and includes full earthworks, and the construction of one carriageway, drainage, kerbing, lighting and a dual use path.

 

The 2004 DoA included a charge over approximately 20 hectares of land in the north eastern corner of the Banksia Grove development (refer Attachment 1) to secure the Housing Authority and BGDN’s obligations, with this charge permitting the registration of a caveat over the Certificate of Title for that property. The caveat prevents BGDN and the Housing Authority from developing and selling the affected land, until such time as the outstanding works have been completed.

 

Based on road length, 43% of the roads required under the 2004 DoA have now been constructed. The outstanding works are depicted in Attachment 1 and include –

 

1.       Pinjar Road Extension and the Intersection with Flynn Drive;

2.       Flynn Drive (Pinjar Road to Old Yanchep Road); and

3.       Old Yanchep Road (Flynn Drive to Neaves Road).

 

The ability for the developer to deliver the above works in the short to medium term is impacted by a number of factors, including the need for the City to resolve its land requirement issues associated with the Flynn Drive road reservation (relating to the existing Environmental offsets) and clarify the ultimate design requirements for Old Yanchep Road which is complicated by the uncertainty of future adjacent land uses.

 

Development at Banksia Grove is progressing, with subdivision approaching the area covered by the existing caveat.

 

To allow further development of the Banksia Grove estate to continue, BGDN has requested that the City consider a reduction in the land covered by the caveat to reflect the completion of a portion of the works required under the 2004 DoA.

 

Detail

 

A new DoA has now been finalised by BGDN in consultation with Administration. It carries over the existing and continuing obligations of the BGDN and the Housing Authority under the 2004 DoA, and provides for a reduced caveat.

 

In support of the reduced caveat area, BGDN has submitted the following:

 

1.       Valuation report from Burgess Rawson, to demonstrate that the value of the reduced caveat area proposed in the draft 2016 DoA is sufficient to cover the estimated cost of outstanding works; and

 

2.       Itemised, estimated costs of the remaining works to fulfil the obligations under 2004 DoA.

Consultation

Nil

 

Comment

 

To ensure the integrity of the information provided by BGDN in support of a reduced caveat area, Administration undertook the following:

 

1.       Administration sought an independent valuation report from Australian Property Consultants, for a valuation of the reduced caveat area. That report confirmed the findings of the BGDN report.

 

2.       Administration interrogated the estimated costs of the remaining works, and is satisfied that the estimates reflect the cost of the outstanding works.

Administration is therefore satisfied that the reduced area of caveated land will be sufficient security for the completion of the remaining civil works under the new deed.

A copy of the final draft 2016 DoA (TRIM 16/208774) has been made available for viewing in the Elected Member reading room and provided under separate confidential cover along with a copy of the valuation report prepared by BGDN and the City’s independent valuation.

Administration recommends that Council approves the proposed 2016 DoA on the basis that:

•        A portion of the road construction and upgrade works required by the 2004 Deed have been completed by BGDN;

•        The proposed 2016 DoA requires the construction of the remaining road construction and upgrade works as are outstanding from the 2004 DoA;

•        The replacement charge and caveat provided for by the proposed 2016 DoA relates to a sufficient area of land to provide adequate security for the completion of the remaining road construction and upgrade works.

The 2016 DoA also includes a provision that should the Housing Authority seek withdrawal of the absolute caveat, the parties agree that  Housing Authority and/or BGDN must provide alternative security in favour of the City to the value of the total costs of any outstanding obligations of the Housing Authority and/or BGDN as at that time.  This provides a further protection of the City’s rights in respect of any outstanding road construction and upgrade works or any other related works.

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

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Integrated Infrastructure and Utility Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Executive Management Team	Manage

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.   ENDORSES the replacement of the 2004 Deed of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo, Banksia Grove Development Nominees Pty Ltd and the Housing Authority with the  proposed 2016 Deed of Agreement; and

 

2.   AUTHORISES the execution of a new Deed of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo, Banksia Grove Development Nominees Pty Ltd and the Housing Authority for the provision/upgrade of various road works as required under the original Deed of 2004, reducing the security interest the City of Wanneroo has accordingly, in accordance with the City of Wanneroo Execution of City Documents Policy.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Subject of Banksia Grove Deed of Agreement 2016

16/194596

  

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/149481

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider the matter of the speed cushions installed along Aldersea Circle, Clarkson following adoption of the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy.

Background

In response to complaints received from residents relating to speeding and hoon driving on Aldersea Circle (refer to Attachment 1 for a Location Map), the City conducted traffic counts in March 2009 to investigate the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. The data collected indicated that a large proportion of drivers were travelling above the default 50km/hr built up area speed limit, and an assessment in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy indicated that traffic treatments were warranted.

 

In August 2012, the City presented a traffic management scheme for community consultation to determine the views of affected residents and property owners. A total of 132 letters were sent to residents and property owners abutting Aldersea Circle to seek feedback if they agree or disagree with the installation of speed cushions as indicated in the proposed traffic management scheme. The response rate to this consultation was 43% and the results indicated that 79% of the responses either strongly agreed or agreed with the installation of speed cushions on Aldersea Circle. It was therefore considered that the proposal had sufficient community support to proceed. The speed cushions were installed in February 2014 according to the traffic management scheme as shown in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.

 

At its meeting of 24 June 2014, Council received petition PT02-06/14 from residents opposed to the speed cushions installed in Aldersea Circle. The petition contained 119 signatures and read as follows:

“We, the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration: To remove, reduce or modify the traffic calming measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson so as to be less intrusive in regards to noise and hoon traffic."

 

A Report (item no IN03-09/14) on Petition PT02-06/14 was first considered by Council at its’ Ordinary Meeting of 16 September 2014.  At this time, Council moved to refer the matter back to Administration to further understand the complex legal advice.   Following this, Council, at its meeting of 11 November 2014, considered a further Report (Item no IN06‑11/14) addressing petition PT02-06/14. In this instance, Council resolved as follow:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the removal of traffic treatments on Aldersea Circle;

2.       APPROVES the installation of additional bollards to the speed cushion installations at the locations shown on Attachment 11, with the works to be funded from Project No. PR-2656 Traffic Management Projects-Various;

3.       requests Administration to inform all residents on Aldersea Circle and the side street catchment areas of the effectiveness of the speed cushions as demonstrated by the Traffic Speed and Count surveys undertaken in June 2014;

4.       REQUESTS Administration to undertake a further Traffic Speed and Count survey in February 2015 and report back to Council on the outcomes of this survey and subsequent consultation by June 2015, with these outcomes advised to all residents on Aldersea Circle and the side street catchment areas;

 

5.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's decision and the process with regards to advising WA Police of hoon behaviour; and

6.       REQUESTS Administration to undertake a review of the Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy and report back to Council at its meeting in April 2015.

 

As requested in resolution 4 of IN06-11/14, community consultation was undertaken and referred back to Council in Report IN09-07/15 at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 21 July 2015.  The report investigated the community consultation undertaken in April 2015 and examined a number of possible alternative treatments.  At this time, Council resolved as follows:-

 

1.       REQUEST administration to complete a review of Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy and report back to Council by November 2015;

 

2.       NOTES that the matters contained in this report to be reconsidered by Council once the reviewed Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy is adopted by Council; and

 

3.       ADVISES the survey respondents of Council’s decision.

 

In accordance with resolution 2 above this report seeks Council’s reconsideration of this issue, following adoption of the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy (formerly Traffic Management Investigation and Implementation Policy) at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 5 April 2016.

Detail

Aldersea Circle is classified within the City's Functional Road Hierarchy as a Local Distributor Road and has been constructed with a 7.4m wide pavement. As a Local Distributor, Aldersea Circle provides a link to a number of Local Access Roads and the arterial road network with a connection to Hester Avenue via Renshaw Boulevard including two connections to Connolly Drive via Brooks Pass and Victorsen Parade. The traffic counts for Aldersea Circle indicate a traffic volume in the region of 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd) which is well under the desirable capacity of a Local Distributor Road of 6,000 vpd.  There has been no significant change in traffic volumes on Aldersea Circle as a result of the speed cushions being installed.

 

Administration has conducted a number of traffic counts in Aldersea Circle to determine the long term effect of the speed cushions on vehicle speeds.  The results are presented in the tables below.

 

 

Table A

Traffic Counter Location	85th percentile speed (km/h)
	Pre speed cushion	Post speed cushion
	June 2012	Jun 2014	Feb 2015	Aug 2015	May 2016
North of Victorsen Parade	58	48	48	50	51
East of Hurst Trail	59	45	49	49	49
North of Pitchford Glade	57	46	46	45	45
North of Frawley Ramble	58	50	52	52	51
AVERAGE DATA	58	48	49	49	49

 

Table B

Traffic Counter Location	Vehicles Exceeding 50 km/h Speed Limit (%)
	Pre speed cushion	Post speed cushion
	June 2012	Jun 2014	Feb 2015	Aug 2015	May 2016
North of Victorsen Parade	56	9	11	18	19
East of Hurst Trail	57	6	12	13	13
North of Pitchford Glade	46	7	7	5	6
North of Frawley Ramble	59	15	24	22	21
AVERAGE DATA	55	9	13	15	15

 

Table C

 

 

The above data indicates that there has been a significant long term reduction in vehicle speeds as a result of the speed cushions.  While Table C shows that there are still a small number vehicles travelling at excessive speeds, the speed data shows that both low level and high level speeding have been significantly reduced.  Since the installation of the speed cushions, the number of vehicles travelling below the speed limit has increased from 45% in 2012 to 85% in 2016.  The number of vehicles travelling 50-60 km/h has reduced from 44% to 14%, the number of vehicles travelling 60-70 km/h has reduced from 9% to 1%, number of vehicles travelling 70-80 km/h has reduced from 0.8% to 0.2%, number of vehicles travelling 80-90 km/h has reduced from 0.12% to 0.03%, number of vehicles travelling 90-100 km/h has reduced from 0.03% to 0.01% and the number of vehicles travelling over 100 km/h has reduced from 0.01% to 0.

 

Administration has also examined the crash history for Aldersea Circle before and after the installation of speed cushions.  This data is provided to the City by Main Roads WA on an annual basis with the latest update being received in May 2015.  To maximise available data, crashes occurring in 2014 were split into those crashes occurring prior to the installation of speed cushions (4 crashes) and crashes occurring after the installation of speed cushions (2 crashes).  In the 50 months prior to the installation of the speed cushions, a total of 12 crashes were recorded at an average of 2.9 crashes per year.  In the 22 months following the installation of speed cushions, a total of three crashes were recorded at an average of 1.6 crashes per year. 

 

Due to natural annual variations in crash data, the time period is too short to determine if there has been a statistically significant drop in the number of crashes in Aldersea Circle.  The data so far does seem to indicate that the reduced vehicle speeds have led to the expected safety benefits in terms of a reduced crash rate.

Consultation

Consultation was originally undertaken in August 2012 with residents and property owners in Aldersea Circle.  The majority of respondents to this consultation were in favour of installing speed cushions with a response rate of 43%.  Following the submission of petition PT02-06/14 additional consultation was undertaken in the wider area in April 2015 with the results presented to Council in Report IN09-07/15.  This consultation indicated that the majority of respondents did not approve the speed cushions; however the response rate to this consultation was below 20%. 

 

There have been no changes to the effectiveness of the treatment or the road environment since April 2015 therefore; Administration considers that further community consultation is not necessary.

Comment

A number of alternative options to address vehicle speeds in Aldersea Circle were raised by the community in the April 2015 community consultation.  These were addressed in detail in Report IN09-07/15 and the outcomes of this analysis are summarised in the table below:

 

Suggested Treatment	Pros	Cons
Signage and Enforcement	·   Removes issues with vehicle noise	·   Main Roads WA would not allow the installation of 50 km/h signs ·   Police are limited in resources available for enforcement ·   Speeds are likely to rise following removal of speed cushions
Alternative Vertical Deflection (e.g. speed humps)	·   Likely to be as effective as the speed cushions	·   Same vehicle noise issues as speed cushions ·   Considerable cost to the City
Horizontal Deflection (e.g. slow points)	·   Can be designed to be as effective as speed cushions	·   Vehicle noise issues still possible from accelerating vehicles and trailers going over kerbing ·   Impacts on property access ·   Considerable cost to the City
Roundabouts	·   Effective in reducing speeds in close proximity to the roundabouts	·   Land acquisition would have major impact on some residents ·   Require treatments between intersections ·   Considerable cost to the City ·   Noise associated with acceleration and deceleration of vehicles at roundabouts
Median Islands	·   Removes issues with vehicle noise	·   Impacts on property access ·   Much less effective in reducing vehicle speeds ·   Considerable cost to the City
Zebra Crossings	·   Generally well supported by the community	·   Main Roads WA would not allow the City to install zebra crossings ·   Not suitable in residential areas ·   Only slows traffic when pedestrians are present therefore ineffective where pedestrian numbers are low ·   May reduce pedestrian safety due to relatively low pedestrian numbers
Rumble Strips	·   May improve driver alertness	·   Much less effective in reducing speed ·   Generate high levels of noise
Partial Removal of Speed Cushions (remove every second set of cushions)	·   May reduce noise locally depending on alternative treatment	·   Where cushions are removed, speeds can return to previous levels ·   Residents where speed cushions remain may feel aggrieved

 

The costs for the above listed treatments varies from a few thousand dollars (signage) to well over a million dollars (roundabouts).

 

As requested by Council in the resolutions of Report IN09-07/15, an assessment of Aldersea Circle was conducted using the recently adopted Local Area Traffic Management Policy (LATMP).  Under the new policy, the traffic management score (using the original 2009 data) would be 18, which would not qualify for consideration of traffic management treatments.  Attachment 4 shows the original assessment under the TMIIP and Attachment 5 shows an assessment under the City’s new LATMP.

 

The issue of using the new LATMP to review previously installed traffic treatments was discussed in Report AS02-04/16 at the time of considering the new LATM Policy as detailed below:

 

“In assessing traffic management schemes which have already been installed by the City, the new LATM does not propose a review under the new policy. Both the TMIIP and the proposed LATMP rank projects to ensure funds are expended in the most appropriate locations. Where changes to scoring criteria indicate that a project identified under the TMIIP would not qualify under the LATMP, this does not indicate that the project was unnecessary or ineffective, rather it indicates a change in priority for funding allocation. Any review of the existing TMS shall be undertaken on a case-by-case basis and considered by Council. Given the limited budget available, the likely detrimental effect on road safety and the cost to remove existing traffic treatments, it will be difficult to justify this course of action when the funds required for removal could be allocated to other projects to improve safety on the City’s roads.  Removal of existing traffic treatments should therefore only be considered where they are shown to be ineffective.”

 

Administration considers that this advice applies to the existing situation on Aldersea Circle.  While Aldersea Circle would not have qualified for traffic treatments under the new LATMP, Administration does not consider that this has any bearing on the continued use of speed cushions as installed.  While the new LATMP would rank Aldersea Circle behind a large number of other projects, the existing speed cushions have been shown to have led to a long term reduction in vehicle speeds on Aldersea Circle and a drop in the crash rate from 2.9 crashes per year to a rate of 1.6 crashes per year.

 

To remove the speed cushions would cost in the order of $70,000, the majority of this cost being for the grinding of linemarking and for traffic management.  Given that the speed cushions have been shown to be effective, this is likely to lead to a reduced safety outcome for the community.  Legal advice to the City indicates that this course of action would not meet the City’s Duty of Care obligations and would leave the City vulnerable to legal action in the case of a crash related to removal of speed cushions on Aldersea Circle.

 

Report IN09-07/15 identified slow points as the preferred form of alternative treatment if it were decided to replace the speed cushions on Aldersea Circle.  Slow points were identified as being able to provide a comparable level of speed reduction to the existing speed cushions which would allow the City to meet its Duty of Care obligations.  It was also highlighted that slow points would have a negative impact because of their increased footprint may restrict property access and in their high cost with the 11 sets required potentially costing up to $880,000.

 

As stated in Report IN09-07/15, three options are available to the City:

1.       Remove the speed cushions and list a project in the long term Capital Works Program for installing alternate treatments.  The risk is that the travel speed of vehicles will return to the original level.  As the City is aware of this likelihood, any crashes occurring following the removal of the speed cushions would see the City exposed regarding its Duty of Care obligations;

2.       List a project in the long term Capital Works Program for installing alternate treatments and keep the speed cushions in place until the alternative treatment can be installed; and

3.       Continue using the speed cushions in Aldersea Circle as a preferred traffic treatment.

 

Administration supports option 3 for the following reasons:

 

·        The speed cushions are shown to be effective in reducing vehicle speeds on Aldersea Circle;

 

·        Initial evidence shows the speed cushions to be effective in reducing the number of crashes on Aldersea Circle; and

 

·        Removal of the speed cushions would not allow the City to meet its Duty of Care obligations.

 

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.

 

The speed cushions were installed in Aldersea Circle in response to the traffic safety concerns and risk to community safety due to speeding. An assessment of the relevant traffic data in accordance with the City’s Traffic Management Investigation and Intervention Policy determined that traffic treatments were warranted. The current available data indicates that the traffic safety risks have been mitigated greatly by the installation of speed cushions.

 

If the speed cushions are removed, the identified safety risks (and traffic safety issues experienced prior to the installation of speed cushions) that were alleviated by the installation of the speed cushions would be enlivened.  The exposure to the City would be greater as those risks are known, the City has a duty of care to mitigate such risks and the City undertook a specific action to mitigate such risks in accordance with the Policy applicable at that time.  Even though the current Policy assessment based on the traffic data prior to the installation speed cushions indicates that the traffic treatments may not be warranted in Aldersea Circle, City’s exposure to the traffic safety risk if the speed cushions are removed, would still be considered greater for the reasons set out above. Therefore, in the absence of any alternate traffic treatments, the continued use of speed cushions in Aldersea Circle is considered to be the most appropriate mitigation measure.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications in relation to Administration’s recommendation.

 

Removal of the speed cushions and grinding of existing line marking is expected to cost in the order of $70,000.

 

The implementation of an alternative traffic treatment scheme such as (eleven) angled slow points is expected to cost in the order of $880,000. 

 

Voting Requirements

 

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the speed cushions in Aldersea Circle have proven effective in reducing vehicle speeds and crashes;

2.       SUPPORTS the continued use of speed cushions as an effective traffic treatment in Aldersea Circle, Clarkson; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Aldersea Circle Location Map	16/188793
2.	Aldersea Traffic Treatments Drawing 1	14/193615
3.	Aldersea Traffic Treatments Drawing 2	14/193617
4.	TMIIP Assessment - Aldersea Circle 2009 Data	14/248306
5.	LATMP Assessment - Aldersea Circle 2009 Data	16/169363

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/178963

Responsible Officer:                           A/CEO

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 Issue

To consider Petition PT06-04/16, requesting the installation of bollards or a fence to stop motorised vehicles using the Pedestrian Access Ways (PAWs) between Duncombe Grove and Foundation Loop, Quinns Rocks.

Background

Council received petition PT06-04/16 at its meeting of 26 April 2016 containing 18 signatures and reads as follows:

 

“We the undersigned insist council provide bollards/fence to stop motorised vehicles using pedestrian access ways between Duncombe Grove and Foundation Loop passing through Arthurs Vale in Quinns Rocks. On more than 2 occasions young children have nearly been run over due to illegal use of the path by vehicles.”

Detail

The two PAWs in question are located between Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale and between Arthurs Vale and Foundation Loop.  Attachment 1 shows the location of the two PAWs in question.  Both PAWs are constructed as 2m wide red asphalt paths within a 14m road reserve.  The northern PAW between Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale is approximately 7m in length.  The southern PAW between Arthurs Vale and Foundation Loop is approximately 30m in length.  In both cases, pine bollards have been installed by the City between property boundaries to deter illegal use of the paths by vehicles.

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken.

Comment

The City’s primary obligation regarding PAWs is to provide pedestrian and disability access which meets the City’s obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).  Additionally, these PAWs are critically important in the City’s bicycle network and recent changes to Western Australian Law to allow cyclists to ride on footpaths increases their value to the cycling community.  Quinns Rocks has a large number of similar PAW links which form an integral part of the local pedestrian and cyclist network.  Without these links, active transport becomes much less desirable due to the greater distances and travel times involved. 

 

The request by the petitioners asks for motorised vehicles to be prevented from using the two PAWs in question.  A telephone enquiry regarding this issue was received from the petition organiser in January 2016 which referred to the use of the path by motor scooter and Administration understands that this petition refers to use by motorcycles and motor scooters rather than motorised wheelchairs or mobility scooters which must be provided with access under the DDA.  Bollards have already been installed by the City to deter vehicle use on both of these PAWs.  These bollards are considered effective in preventing access by cars and trucks but due to the smaller size of motorcycles, their access is not prevented. 

 

Under the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 2002, the minimum permitted width of motorcycle handlebars is 0.5m, with a maximum width of 0.9m.  To prevent motorcycle access, a barrier system would need to be installed with a maximum gap at handlebar height of 0.5m or less.  This could be done by providing fencing or landscaping between the property boundary and the pathway and installing u-rails on the pathway with a maximum gap of 0.5m.

 

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) requires that a person with a disability has a right to access public places in the same way as a person without a disability. Where pedestrian access is available, the City is obliged to ensure that access is also available to people with disabilities. The placement of bollards, u-rails or similar within the pathway can impact on the City’s ability to meet its obligations under the DDA.  The 0.5m gap required to prevent motorcycle access would not allow the City to meet its obligations under the DDA which requires pathways to have a continuous navigable width of at least 1.2m to allow for wheelchair access.

 

To meet DDA requirements, the City could construct a similar treatment but install the u-rails to allow a 1.2m continuous path.  Under this scenario, even motorcycles with the maximum permitted handlebar width of 0.9m would be able to negotiate the 1.2m wide path provided.  It is therefore considered that this treatment would be ineffective in preventing motorcycle access.  Additional works could be undertaken (at additional cost) to modify the proposed treatments to install additional u-rails or construct bends in the pathway.  It is considered that even with these additional measures, motorcycle access would not be prevented as a 1.2m wide continuous pathway would still be required to meet DDA requirements. Therefore,  a DDA compliant treatment which is also effective in preventing motorcycle access is not feasible.

 

Administration also notes that the installation of fencing or landscaping may reduce levels of passive surveillance within the PAWs which may lead to increased anti-social behaviour and reduced levels of community safety.

 

Under the Road Traffic Code 2000, persons are prohibited from driving a vehicle on a path.  While the City takes reasonable actions to deter use of pedestrian pathways by vehicles, ultimate responsibility in ensuring compliance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 lies with WA Police.  In the case of the two PAWs, Administration considers that reasonable measures have already been taken to prevent vehicle access and that WA Police are best equipped to deal with the small number of motorists who use the path illegally.

 

Administration also considers that this petition has highlighted an issue relating to the public access ways similar to the one connecting Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale.  Therefore it is proposed to trial an option incorporating the installation of two staggered u-rails spaced to allow the City to meet its requirements under the DDA.  A design will be required at each PAW to maximise effectiveness in reducing motorcycle use while meeting the City’s obligations under the DDA to allow the movement of authorised wheelchairs and mobility scooters. 

 

It is anticipated that a single set of u-rails be installed at the PAW between Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale and two sets of u-rails be installed at each end of the longer PAW between Arthurs Vale and Foundation Loop.  Attachment 2 shows a sketch of how a u-rail installation on the PAW between Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale might be installed.  It is noted that the existing bollard within the footpath would need to be removed to meet DDA compliance.

 

Though such a treatment will not stop motorcycles, it will provide a visual barrier and prompt such users to pass through more slowly.  It is intended that these installations are to be considered one off and not required the City to consider the installation of u-rails at all other PAWs.

Statutory Compliance

The City has an obligation under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to ensure that pathways within the City are accessible to disabled users. 

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

Total costs to install the u-rail treatments as proposed is estimated to be in the order of $1,200 and can be funded from existing operating budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT APPROVE the request made in Petition PT06-04/16 to install bollards or a fence to prevent vehicle access;

2.       APPROVES the design and installation of a DDA compliant u-rail treatment at the PAW between Duncombe Grove and Arthurs Vale and at the PAW between Arthurs Vale and Foundation Loop.

3.       NOTES that Administration will write to WA Police for enforcement under the Road Traffic Code 2000; and

4.       ADVISES the petition organizer of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Duncombe Grove PAWs, Quinns Rocks - Location Map	16/185674
2.	Arthurs Vale U-Rail Treatment 2	16/200282

 

 

 

 

Strategic Asset Management

File Ref:                                              4128 – 16/159507

Responsible Officer:                           A/CEO

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider the proposal to undertake the revegetation of 1.5 hectares of degraded areas within Badgerup Reserve, Wanneroo to satisfy an environmental offset condition resulting from the clearing of native vegetation required for the upgrade and realignment of Old Yanchep Road, Pinjar/Neerabup.

Background

The City currently has a Black Spot Program funded road project along Old Yanchep Road between Pederick Road and Wattle Avenue (Council Items IN02-10/14 and IN03-10/14 refer) which involves the clearing of native vegetation. The preliminary plans for the road project indicated a clearing area of 0.6 hectares which was approved by the Department of Environment Regulation (DER) under clearing permit CPS 3731/7. The clearing also triggered an environmental offset of 1.2 hectares which is located within Badgerup Reserve, Wanneroo.

 

The final design of the Old Yanchep Road upgrade project has been completed with construction proposed in two stages. Stage 1 of the project is from Pederick Road to Trandos Road while Stage 2 is from Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue. The final design identified additional clearing to accommodate the relocation of services within the road reserve and for the mitigation of road safety risks. As a result, two additional clearing permit applications have been submitted to DER for consideration:

 

·        CPS 6736/1 for the additional clearing area of 2.39 hectares in Stage 1, and

·        CPS 6737/1 for the additional clearing area of 0.87 hectares in Stage 2.

 

The clearing proposed under CPS 6737/1 in Stage 2 has been approved by DER without an environmental offset condition.

 

The clearing proposed under CPS 6736/1 in Stage 1, however, impacts one (1.0) hectare of Bush Forever reserved vegetation within Pinjar Park, Pinjar and triggers DER’s requirement for the revegetation of an environmental offset site at a ratio of 1:1.5.

 

This report considers a proposal to satisfy this requirement via additional revegetation efforts totalling 1.5 hectares in Badgerup Reserve, as shown in Attachment 1. This stage of the Black Spot Program funded project will not be able to be completed to its entirety without satisfying the environmental offset requirements of CPS 6736/1.

Detail

In liaison with DER, the City proposes to revegetate an additional 1.5 hectare area within Badgerup Reserve to satisfy the environmental offset condition triggered by CPS 6736/1. Badgerup Reserve currently contains environmental offset revegetation areas totalling 15 hectares to offset clearing activities for past road projects. The areas described above are shown in Attachment 1.

The inclusion of the additional revegetation area of 1.5 hectares at the same location will enable an efficient and streamlined delivery of on ground revegetation activities within Badgerup Reserve.

 

The 1.5 hectares of revegetation within Badgerup Reserve will be split over two discrete locations; Site A (1.1ha) and Site B (0.4ha) as shown in Attachment 1. The initial works will commence in the 2016/2017 financial year with works being undertaken over a ten (10) year period in accordance with DER requirements. The environmental offset works will commit the City to a ten (10) year offset revegetation program. The details of funding requirements are included within the financial section of this report.

 

A ‘Revegetation Plan’ has been created and includes site preparation works, weed management, seed collection, plant propagation, planting, watering and monitoring. The Plan also details environmental and historical factors affecting Badgerup Reserve, reserve vesting and management, scope and schedule of revegetation works, funding requirements and the City’s monitoring and reporting commitments.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

Council has previously considered a number of reports (including IN02-11/09 and IN01‑02/13) associated with the City’s Environmental Offset Banking Package strategy. The strategy was developed to address environmental offset conditions imposed by the State and Federal Government departments as a result of clearing of native vegetation to construct road projects listed in the City’s Capital Works Program.

 

The majority of the City’s past environmental offset conditions have been addressed by the strategy and met through revegetation works undertaken within Badgerup Reserve, which currently contains environmental offset revegetation areas totalling 15 hectares. Locating the environmental offsets within the City and at a strategic location, such as Badgerup Reserve, is a great outcome for the City with the following benefits:

 

·        an increase in biodiversity through the upgrading of degraded areas within the conservation reserve;

 

·        an increase in foraging habitat for the critically endangered Black Cockatoo species through planting activities; and

 

·        efficient and streamlined contractor works by having the revegetation areas located within one location.

 

The addition of the 1.5 hectare environmental offset site within Badgerup Reserve will complement previous environmental offset revegetation efforts within the Reserve.

 

It is considered that the City’s revegetation commitments and completion targets and criteria are achievable within the specified ten (10) year implementation period. The proposed actions will result in a significant upgrade of the 1.5 hectare degraded and completely degraded areas identified within Badgerup Reserve. This revegetation effort is required to satisfy an environmental offset condition of CPS 6736/1 compensating for the loss of Bush Forever vested native vegetation within Pinjar Park to facilitate the upgrade project along Old Yanchep Road.

Statutory Compliance

In Western Australia, the clearing of native vegetation is regulated by the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004.

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.

Incomplete environmental offset requirements directly affects the City achieving its State Government clearing permit conditions, including environmental offset requirements thus risking compliance with the clearing permit conditions. The proposal to undertake a 1.5 hectare revegetation project within Badgerup Reserve will mitigate this risk.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The revegetation activities for the 1.5 hectare environmental offset site within Badgerup Reserve, which will be undertaken over a ten year period, will commit the City to fund these in future budgets.

 

The financial implication for Year 1 (2016/2017) is $70,000 and Year 2 (2017/2018) is $106,000. The financial implication for the remaining 8 years of the program totals $304,000 (2018/2019 to 2026/2027).

 

This revegetation plan is currently un-budgeted, however it is proposed to add the first year of this revegetation plan in 2016/2017 to the existing project PR 2088 - Badgerup Lake, Gnangara (Environmental Offset), noting that there will be a shortfall in PR 2088 to cover this cost.  Funds will be adjusted to cater for this shortfall as part of the mid-year review process in January 2017.

 

Funding for Years 2 through to 10 will be considered as part of future budgeting processes.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the proposed revegetation of 1.5 hectares of degraded areas within Badgerup Reserve, Wanneroo (Reserve 43821) as shown in Attachment 1 to satisfy the Department of Environment Regulation’s environmental offset condition associated with CPS 6736/1 to facilitate Stage 1 of the Old Yanchep Road Blackspot funded project;

2.       AUTHORISES Administration to submit the proposal to the Department of Environment Regulation for its acceptance and approval;

3.       NOTES that the proposed revegetation of 1.5 hectares of degraded areas within Badgerup Reserve will be added to PR 2088 – Badgerup Lake, Gnangara (Environmental Offset) with the resultant shortfall in funding being considered as part of the mid-year review process in January 2017; and

4.       NOTES that the remaining financial commitment for Years 2 to 10 of the revegetation plan within Badgerup Reserve will be listed for consideration in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Environmental Offset Proposal for Old Yanchep Road Black Spot Project

16/199259

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              22723 – 16/121997

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1

Previous Items:                                   CD02-11/15 - Passive Park Upgrade - Salitage Park Concept Plan - Ordinary Council - 10 Nov 2015 7.00pm

                                                            CP03-03/16 - Passive Park Upgrade - Development of Stage 1 and 2 - Salitage Park, Pearsall - Ordinary Council - 01 Mar 2016 7.00pm       

Issue

To consider Tender No 01617 Development of Salitage Park, Pearsall.

Background

City's 2015/16 Capital Works Program provides for the development of Salitage Park which is approximately 0.8 hectares in size and is situated on the corner of Matta Way and Salitage Link in Pearsall. The Park is classified as a Local Park as per the City’s Public Open Space Hierarchy and is fringed by residential property on the Eastern, Southern and Western sides.

 

The design philosophy supporting the concept for the Park focuses on developing a space that promotes healthy outdoor activities for young children and youth. The construction of the park is to include playground equipment, path network, turf, planting, fitness equipment and park furniture and will feature an orchard of citrus trees commemorating the existence of market gardens in this area prior to residential development.

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on the 1 March 2016 (Item CP03-03/16 refers), it was resolved that Council:

 

1.         ENDORSES the Salitage Park concept plan as shown in Attachment 3 of this report inclusive of the development of the northern section of Salitage Park;

 

2.       LISTS the sum of $90,000 for consideration in the long term draft Capital Works

Budget for the completion of the additional northern section of Salitage Park, as shown in Attachment 3;

 

3.       NOTES that based on the current schedule, construction of the proposed

development is due to commence in June 2016 and will be concluded in October 2016 (inclusive of the northern section of Salitage Park subject to budget outcome); and

 

4.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

 

Detail

Tender No. 01617 Development of Salitage Park, Pearsall was advertised on the 16 April 2016 and closed on the 3 May 2016. At the close of tenders four submissions were received. 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	14 weeks
Construction Commencement	July 2016
Contract Completion	October 2016

 

Tenders Received

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

 

·        Phase Three Landscape Construction Pty Ltd (Phase Three)

·        Sanpoint Pty Ltd t/a LD Total (LD Total)

·        Environmental Industries

·        ReTech Rubber

 

ReTech Rubber’s Tender submission is deemed non-compliant as it did not satisfy the requirements outlined in the request for Tender document. All other 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) consisted of the City’s Project Manager Infrastructure Capital Works, Project Officer (Parks and Conservation) and Landscape Designer with oversight and guidance provided by the Contracts Officer. The purpose of the Tender Evaluation Panel was to evaluate the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria and weightings:

 

Item No	Description	Score
1	Price for services offered	40%
2	Demonstrated Ability to complete works within the specified timeframe	10%
3	Demonstrated Experience in completing similar works	30%
4	Safety Management	20%

 

Price for the services offered (40%):

 

The Price Schedule was separated into Schedules, namely 1A, 1B and 1C. Tenders were assessed based on Schedule 1C (Stage 1 & 2 combined) excluding all Optional Items and have been ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Phase Three	1
LD Total	2
Environmental Industries	3

 

This assessment option was chosen to ensure that a fair assessment was undertaken by comparing like for like submissions as not all submissions included all optional items.

 

Demonstrated Ability to complete works within the specified timeframe (10%)

 

Assessment of this criterion considered the capability of the tenderers in understanding the scope of work and demonstrating through their proposal that they had the ability to complete works within the specified timeframe. All tenderers indicated that they have the required capacity and sufficient access to resources to complete the necessary works.

 

Phase Three demonstrated that it has a thorough understanding of the City’s requirements. The submission was highly convincing and credible and included a detailed preliminary construction program and supporting documentation.

 

Environmental Industries submission was credible and included a program of works, however presented an average level of detail and supportive evidence in terms of its capacity to complete the numerous listed commitments.

 

LD Total’s submission was credible and rated good. The submission included a good understanding of works, however presented an average level of detail in the supporting documentation. The current commitments schedule was referred to but not included and the program of works did not align with proposed timeframes.

 

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Phase Three	1
Environmental Industries	2
LD Total	3

 

Demonstrated Experience in completing similar works (30%):

 

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

 

Phase Three demonstrated a wide range of experience in projects of a similar scale and included both private and Local Government project examples. Written references were provided and its submission clearly documented relative projects with images and comparative experience.

 

Environmental Industries demonstrated a range of experience in three project examples of a similar scale from both the private and Local Government sector. Written references were provided and its submission clearly documented relative projects with images and comparative experience.

 

LD Total’s submission was convincing and credible clearly presenting experience on a number of similar scale projects and included a supportive written reference. No local government project experience was included.

 

The information provided has resulted in the respondents being ranked as hereunder:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Phase Three	1
Environmental Industries	2
LD Total	3

 

Safety Management (20%):

 

The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policy documentation, working documentation, and responses to the Tender’s OHS management system questionnaire.

 

Phase Three demonstrated a thorough understanding of the City’s requirements and the company’s HSE Management Systems Plan and safety requirements have been well documented. Its submission was highly convincing, detailed and credible and represents a low risk to the City.

 

LD Total’s submission was convincing and credible providing all required documentation including insurances and an example of a ‘toolbox talk’ form.

 

Environmental Industries submission was convincing and credible and included a detailed OHS&E Policy and supporting documentation such as training matrix licences and completed safe working forms.

 

The information provided has resulted in the respondents being ranked as hereunder:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Phase Three	1
LD Total	2
Environmental Industries	2

 

Overall Weighted Score:

 

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Phase Three	1
Environmental Industries	2
LD Total	3

 

All tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the weighted score analysis process and all respondents provided tender submissions which have been evaluated to satisfactorily meet the City's requirements as defined in the tender document.

 

Phase Three 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 Phase Three’s tender submission are as follows:

 

·                Competitive tender price;

·                Comprehensive experience with similar scale projects for local government, and;

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

 

Works Program

 

Should the Tender Award as recommended be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program shall be implemented:

 

Tender Award	30 June 2016
Construction Commencement	July 2016
Contract Completion	October 2016

Consultation

The City has liaised with the local community throughout the development of the concept plan.

 

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 TEP resulted in the tender submission from Phase Three achieving the highest score for the evaluation Criteria. Phase Three has demonstrated an excellent understanding of the City’s requirements. Overall Phase Three’s submission carries low risk to the City and presents best value for money.

 

A financial assessment of Phase Three was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd advised that Phase Three Landscape has been assessed with a satisfactory financial capacity to meet the requirements of the contract.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders have been invited and properly evaluated against the selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations.

 

The tendering procedures and evaluation comply 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.

2.1    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.

 

Sustainability Considerations

 

Non-porous surface materials have been kept to a minimum and only utilized in highly trafficable areas. Drainage will be achieved through fine grading and working in with the current existing levels, directing runoff into planting areas.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The project costs, based on the recommended tenderer’s price is summarised below:

 

Development of Salitage Park  (PR-2573)
	Expenditure	Budget
Budget
Capital Works Program 2015/2016		$219,758.00
Draft Capital Works Program 2016/17 (listed)		$90,000
Total		$309,758
Expenditure
Project costs to 30 April 2016	$35,787.00
Commitments as at 30 April 2016	$0.00
Construction costs:
Schedule 1C (including all Optional Items except Items 2.6 & 2.7 temporary kerbing)	$300,414.78
Playground Audit (un-committed)	$400.00
Contingency	$10,000
Project Management	$10,000
Total Expenditure (Estimate)	$356,601.78
Funding shortfall		$46,843.78

 

A review of the project scope has been undertaken and all Optional Items are considered necessary except for Item 2.6 (1C) - Supply and installation of temporary concrete kerb, and Item 2.7 (1C) - Removal of concrete kerbing (temporary/sacrificial). These items are not required as the works are scheduled to be completed together. Additional funding of $46,845 is required in 2016/17 Capital Works Budget to deliver the project as per the concept endorsed by Council and in line with the local residents’ preference and expectations following the extensive community consultation process undertaken. It is proposed that the tender be awarded to facilitate the delivery of the project with the additional funding to be sourced as part of the 2016/17 mid-year budget review.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the Tender submitted by Phase Three Landscape Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01617 for the Development of Salitage Park, Pearsall for a period of 12 weeks from June 2016 to August 2016 at a lump sum price of $300,414.78 plus GST (Schedule 1C including all Optional Items except Items 2.6 and 2.7) as per the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Document;

2.       NOTES that there will be a carryover of $183,971.00 from the 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget to the 2016/2017 Capital Works Budget;

3.       NOTES that $90,000 has been listed in draft 2016/2017 Capital Works Budget to undertake works for the Development of Salitage Park, Pearsall; and

4.       NOTES that additional funding of $46,845 is required to fully complete the development of Salitage Park, Pearsall as per endorsed concept plan and this additional funding will be sourced during the 2016/17 Mid-Year Budget Review.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Council Report 20160301 CP03-03/16 Salitage Park Attachment 3

16/156895

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parks & Conservation Management

File Ref:                                              5569 – 16/92825

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Issue

To consider the installation of signs on approach to playground areas stating that dogs must be kept on a leash.

Background

A Motion on Notice (MN01-03/15) was presented at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 3 March 2015 by Cr Dot Newton to consider the installation of “dogs on leash” signs on approach to playground areas.  Council requested Administration to prepare a proposal to install signs on approach to playground areas stating that dogs must be kept on a leash.

Detail

In considering the Motion on Notice, it was noted that although a dog is seen as a part of the family, some young children are afraid when a dog runs towards them. It was therefore proposed that signs "Dogs to be kept on leash, Ranger contact number and the fine for non-compliance" be installed in the City's parks where play equipment areas have been provided.

 

Play equipment areas ranging from a swing set to large play equipment have been provided at many locations. As many locations have more than one obvious entrance/approach, the exact number of signs that will need to be determined. However to develop this proposal, it was considered that on an average two signs per playground location may be required. The City has nearly 200 playgrounds in parks based on the cost of purchasing and installing two signs per park (at $250 per playground) would be $50,000. 

 

The management of dogs in public places is regulated through the Dog Act. The Dog Act states that a dog shall not be in a public place unless it is held by a person who is capable of controlling the dog; or the dog is securely tethered for a temporary purpose by means of an appropriate leash.

 

The current Animal Local Law 1999 also sets areas aside that can be prohibited as being places where dogs may be allowed, as well as those places that are designated as Dog Exercise Areas.  The Animal Local Law will be repealed and replaced with the Dog Local Law that will be presented to Council for consideration at the June 21 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting. 

 

Under the proposed Dog Local Law, should the City wish to prohibit dogs in certain areas or set aside dog exercise areas, a report to Council will be required and an Absolute Majority Decision required.

The City receives minimal complaints from members of the community about dogs causing problems in and around playgrounds.

Information was sought from other Local Governments in regards to their management of dogs in the vicinity of playgrounds and is summarised in the below table:

Local Government	Management	Local Law/Policy
City of Joondalup	No signage in place around playgrounds.	No Local Law in place to manage dogs in and around playgrounds but does list parks that are listed as prohibited as dog exercise areas.
City of Stirling	Signage installed around the perimeter of most playgrounds stating “Dogs are prohibited in playground” with an image of a dog in a red circle with a cross through it.	Dog Exercise Area Policy (subject to the Dog Act 1976) – Dogs prohibited in an area set aside by a wall, fence, sandpit or other softfall surface set aside as a children’s playground within a site.
City of Subiaco	No signage in place around playgrounds.	Dog Local Law – Dogs prohibited within twenty metres of children’s playgrounds.

Consultation

Nil.

Comment

Individual dog owners have a responsibility under the Dog Act to ensure that dogs must be kept under the effect control of the owner. The City’s Rangers conduct regular patrols of parks and reserves across the City to ensure compliance with the Dog Act.

As noted earlier the City receives minimal complaints from members of the community about dogs causing problems in and around playgrounds.

Whilst the installation of these signs will have some negative impact on the overall aesthetics of parks, their installation will be a visual reminder to dog owners to keep their dogs on a leash around playground areas.  The ability of the City’s Rangers to ensure compliance with the signs will be impacted by available resources but will allow for enforcement if and when required.

The City has nearly 200 playground facilities with multiple entry points and due to the low volume of complaints from members of the community and actual reported incidents, Administration proposes to develop an assessment matrix to prioritise a program to  install signs on the perimeter of each playground over a five year period.  The matrix will prioritise sign installation based on park/playground location, nature of park (active or passive), and size.  The program will aim to install signs to 40 playground facilities per year subject to future Parks Maintenance Operating Budgets.

Statutory Compliance

The following Act and Local Law apply:

 

·        Dog Act 1976

·        Animals Local Law 1999 (to be repealed and replaced and replaced with the Dog Local Law that will be presented to Council for consideration at the June 21 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting. 

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 Implication

Subject to Council’s acceptance of the recommendations made in this report, the financial implications to install Dogs on Leash signs at particular location(s) will be around $10,000 per annum which can be accommodated through future Parks Maintenance Operational Budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Does NOT SUPPORT the immediate installation of Dogs on Leash signs in all playgrounds;

2.       APPROVES a programmed installation of Dogs on Leash sign(s) on the perimeter of the playgrounds over a five year period from 2016/2017 with the priority order based on an assessment matrix to be prepared by Administration; and

3.       APPROVES the installation of Dogs on Leash signs in playgrounds outside of the program where complaints about dogs affecting the use of playgrounds justify such installation.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

File Ref:                                              23236 – 16/85707

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept plan for the development of Picnic Cove, Yanchep.

Background

Picnic Cove (the Park) is located on Brazier Road, Yanchep and forms part of Yanchep Lagoon. The Park is considered approximately 0.08ha and forms part of the wider 6.4ha foreshore reserve known as Newman Park. Picnic Cove is considered a Local Park as per the City’s Public Open Space Hierarchy.

 

Other existing public open space within a walkable catchment of the POS (400m to 800m, 5 minute to 10 minute walk) include:

 

Park	Location	Size	Status
Fisherman’s Hollow	Brazier Rd, Yanchep	5.69 ha	Passive use, developed with playground, toilet black and other amenities
Granite Park	20 Granite Place, Yanchep	1.98 ha	Passive use, developed with pathways
Leisure Park	5 Leisure Way, Yanchep	0.79 ha	Passive use, developed with playground
Lindsay Beach Park	2 Beachhaven Drive, Yanchep	0.38 ha	Passive use, developed with minor amenities
Mary Lindsay Homestead	Capricorn Esp, Yanchep	2.18 ha	Undeveloped Passive Park, to be developed in next 24 months
Old Nursey Park	5 Beachside Pde, Yanchep	3.18 ha	Passive use, developed with minor amenities
Seaside Park	86 Seaside Ave, Yanchep	0.84 ha	Undeveloped Passive Park
Smith Park	8F Smith Ct, Yanchep	0.27 ha	Undeveloped Passive Park

Detail

The initial draft concept plan for the development of the Park is included within (Attachment 1). The plan provides for the following elements:

 

Elements	Description
Gathering Spaces	Tiered grass spaces with decked seating areas. This space will occupy the top of the dune and take advantage of the views towards the sea. The area will be accessible by steps and an existing footpath
Lookout Area	The foundation of an old lookout point will be utilised to create a new lookout area with a bench that connects the space with the new upper gathering space
Seating Pods	Along the feature walls decked seating pods will be located under the shade of existing trees and in the BBQ area. They will provide opportunities for sitting and relaxing. Either timber or composite decking could be used
BBQ and Shelter Area	A hard stand seating area comprised of BBQs, Picnic Table and Shelter (to match the style of the existing retained shelter)
Turf Area and Tree Planting	The space will be turfed and new tree planting will tie in with the proposed landscaping for the surf lifesaving club.
Feature Wall	A feature wall winds through the space. The wall will retain existing levels where required. The wall can be used for seating and will connect the decked seating pods

 

The design philosophy supporting the concept for the Park aims to encourage participation within the area, as well as at the adjacent coastal features, primarily the Yanchep Lagoon.

 

A number of seating areas have been included to encourage intergenerational interaction and supervision of activities, in particular those with young children. Due to the size of the Park, passive activities (such as sitting and congregating) have been catered for rather than more active pursuits.

 

The draft concept plan incorporates some potential native tree planting, while also maintaining an area of unirrigated turf. The design of the park has taken into consideration existing parks within the surrounding area, noting the availability of both active, passive pursuits, irrigated and un-irrigated parks within the immediate area

 

The draft concept plan allows for the development of the park in a single stage, within the current budget of $480,450 in the 2016/17 financial year. The proposed programming of works will see construction commence in early 2017 and conclude in June 2017.

Consultation

The community consultation period was conducted between Tuesday, 26 April and Monday, 23 May 2016 and included the following consultation strategy, as endorsed by the City’s Community Engagement Advisor: 

 

·        Distribution of an information letter to residents within a walkable radius of the Park, requesting that they take part in an online survey and view the concept plan. Hardcopy surveys and copies of the concept design were also sent;

 

·        On site community consultation held on Wednesday, 4 May to allow interested members of the public to view and discuss the draft concept plan with the relevant City of Wanneroo staff members, Elected Members and; and

 

·        Inclusion of the concept plan and comment form on the City's web site under the 'Your Say" section. 

 

The draft concept plan in (Attachment 1) was the basis of the consultation process.

 

Administration received a total of 56 submissions as a result of a mail out to 289 local residents; a response rate of 19.4%. The comment form requested residents to consider the following aspects of the proposed design:

 

·        Upper Gathering Spaces;

·        Lookout Area;

·        Decked Seating Pods;

·        Barbeque and Sheltered Area;

·        Turf and Tree planting; and

·        Feature Wall.

 

There were forty six (46) responses that supported the proposed concept plan and only three (3) submissions that did not. There was one response that indicated “Yes and No”.

 

Of the three respondents who did not support the plan, one felt that there was more requirement for car parking rather than another park.  The second respondent recommended we redevelop the area behind the existing café instead.  The third respondent felt that a playground should be incorporated.

 

For the respondents who were in favour of the proposed concept, many positive comments focused on the concept design features. A summary of the responses is included in (Attachment 2).

 

Of the identified features, five out of six had at least 70% support from respondents. The exception to this was the Feature wall, with only 30.2% considering this aspect “Important”.

 

In addition, a question asked respondents to identify features that have not been listed. The top features are listed below:

 

Top 6 Response Categories

·        More Shelter (natural and artificial);

·        Toilets / Drinking Fountain;

·        Restaurant / Café;

·        Car parking;

·        Playground Equipment; and

·        Rubbish Bins.

 

Where applicable, consultation feedback has been incorporated within the revised Final Concept Design (Attachment 3), as outlined in the section below.

Comment

In considering the responses, the following advice is provided.

 

Feature Wall

The feature wall, while shown in the concept design to be aesthetic, serves a functional purpose to the development of the park, especially as the levels of the park need to be corrected. Due to the feedback from residents indicating that they do not see the feature wall as important, there will be less emphasis on the aesthetics of the design. In order to ensure clarity, the feature will be designated as an integrated retaining wall.

 

More shelter (natural and artificial)

More shelter will be investigated, particularly natural coverage from trees. This is outlined in the Final Concept Design (Attachment 3).

 

Toilets / Drinking Fountain

The adjacent Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club (YSLSC) will provide these amenities for the general public.

 

Restaurant / Café

The size of the Park would prohibit a café / restaurant in the area.

 

Car Parking

The construction of the YSLSC incorporates approximately 100 additional car parking bays. These bays will be able to support the servicing of the Park and the Lagoon.

 

Playground Equipment

Fisherman’s Hollow (located 300m to the south) has play equipment. In the next financial year, the Mary Lindsay Homestead site (located 200m north) will provide further play equipment.

 

Due to the aforementioned proximity of the other parks with play equipment and the restrictive size of the site, playground equipment is not considered feasible within the Park.

 

Rubbish Bins

Rubbish bins will be located on the site. Indicative placements can be found in (Attachment 3).

 

It should be noted that the concept design has demonstrated indicative levels for the Park. The levels may require some further investigation through the detailed design.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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.

Financial Implications

An allocation of $480,450 is listed in the draft 2016/17 Capital Works Budget under PR-2677 for the development of the Park. The estimated cost for implementing the final concept plan is in the order of $480,284.15 (Attachment 4) inclusive of contingencies, design and project management fees and inflation.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Picnic Cove Concept plan as shown in Attachment 3 of this report;

2.       NOTES that based on the current proposed project schedule, construction of the proposed development is due to commence in early 2017 and will be concluded in June 2017; and

 

3.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Concept Design (for Consultation) - Picnic Cove	16/191513
2.	Consultation Summary - Picnic Cove Concept Design	16/178680
3.	Picnic Cove, Yanchep Final Concept Plan	16/183555	Minuted
4.	Picnic Cove Concept Design - Cost Estimate	16/191136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              13676 – 16/177336

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept design for the development of the Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility.

Background

The Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (the Reserve) is located at 100 Kingsway, Madeley and is classified as a Regional Active Reserve (Attachment 1). The property type is Crown Land vested in the City of Wanneroo for the purposes of recreation.

 

Athletics has been conducted at the Reserve since circa 1977, primarily through the activities of the Kingsway Little Athletics Regional Centre, but also through the activities of the Lansdale Little Athletics Club (which re-located from Warradale Park, Landsdale in 2010) and the Kingsway Senior Athletics Club. Athletics is conducted at the existing athletics field/AFL ground located at the corner of Sporting Drive and Spectator Drive, Madeley (Attachment 1).

 

A summary of athletics usage at the Reserve and membership levels has been provided as follows:

 

User Group	Membership Levels	Description of Use
Kingsway Little Athletics Regional Centre	·    2015/2016 534 members (this number includes the numbers below as it is the centre)	·    Mondays, Wednesday’s, Fridays (4.30pm-6.30pm) and Saturdays (7am – 1pm).
Landsdale Little Athletics Club	·   2015/2016 184 members	·    Mondays and Wednesdays 4.30pm to 6.30pm.
Kingsway Senior Athletics Club	·    2015/2016 11 over 18 years of age 18 juniors Total 29 members	·    Tuesday’s and Thursday’s (6.30pm -8.30pm)

 

The existing storage facilities used by the athletics groups include the following:

 

Element	Description
Storage Sheds	6m2 x 6m2  Used for Kingsway Little Athletics equipment
Storage Sheds	3m2x 5m2 Used for Landsdale Little Athletics equipment
Sea Container	6m2x 2m2 located near the Jump pits. Donated to the Club during the Stage 4 Kingsway Redevelopment Stage. Sea container most likely to be removed once the construction of the storage shed is complete.
Office	6m2x7m2 used by all little athletics members for committee meetings and competition registration and timing
Storage Facility	3m2x4m2 located near the jump pits installed by the City in 2014.

 

The Sheds and Office were initially provided by the City of Wanneroo in 1995 as temporary facilities, which have become permanent in nature. These facilities are not to the required standard and as a result do not support the ongoing need of the athletics groups. As a result, the concept design for the storage facility has been developed, to provide facilities which more effectively meet the current and future needs of the athletics groups.

Detail

Athletics Storage Facility

The location of the proposed storage facility will replace the existing store sheds which are located to the south of the Kingsway Sportsmen’s and Football Clubrooms (Attachment 2).

The concept plan for the storage facility has been included in (Attachment 3), with the proposed scope of the building being as per the table below:

Element	Description
Kingsway Little Athletics Store  (Store room 1 proposed on the plan)	Store room to be designated for the Kingsway Little Athletics Association (109m2).
Kingsway Senior Little Athletics (Store room 2)	Store space to be designated for the Kingsway Senior Athletics Club (42m2).
Landsdale Little Athletics Store (Store room 3)	Store space to be designated for the Landsdale Little Athletics Club (20m2)
Male & Female Toilets	Male and female toilets and a separate universal access toilet (19m2).
Meeting Room	Complete with meeting room amenities sink, hot water unit, some cupboard space (20m2).
Drive Thru area	To allow a vehicle to be stored on site and packed on competition day to move equipment (35m2).

 

The proposed facility provision is considered to be appropriate for a regional level active reserve and for the activities of the athletics groups. The proposed facility design has also taken into consideration the facility provision provided by the Kingsway Sportsman and Football Club. It should be noted that room sizes and functionality have been based on key stakeholders needs (i.e. the athletics groups) and requirements for competition and training days. 

 

Arrangements will be made by Administration in conjunction with user groups to have sea containers located on site prior to the existing storage being demolished.

 

Project Schedule

 

The proposed timeframes for the Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility is as follows, noting that this has been revised to allow for submission of a Department of Sport and Recreation Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund (CSRFF) Grant:

 

Project Phase	Timeframe
Concept Design	November 2014 - May 2016 (complete)
Detailed Design	May 2016 – July 2016
Grant Application Submission	September 2016
Advice from DSR – Grant	March 2017
Tender Advertising and Evaluation	March 2017- April 2017
Construction	May 2017 – December 2017
Practical Completion (Handover)	January 2018

Consultation

In developing the proposed concept design consultation was undertaken with the following key stakeholders:

 

1.       Kingsway Little Athletics Regional Centre;

2.       Kingsway Senior Athletics Club; and

3.       Landsdale Little Athletics Club.

 

The following table outlines the process undertaken between the user groups and administration.

 

Date	Meeting Purpose
November 2014	Stakeholder engagement to develop and confirm scope to commence functional brief for concept design process to commence.
September 2015	Draft concept plan presented for comment to stakeholders. Feedback provided by all stakeholders.
December 2015	Revised concept plan presented for review. Amendments considered
February 2016	Minor Concept plans amendments, key stakeholder approval received.

 

Administration has also had correspondence with the Kingsway Sportsmen’s and Football Club, who are supportive of the adjacent development.

 

Broader community engagement has not been undertaken on the basis that the proposed development sits within the Reserve and, as such, will have minimal impact on the surrounding community.

Comment

The Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility is a key facility in meeting the current and future needs of the resident athletics groups. As such, it is important that the facilities provided meet the overall needs of the key stakeholders and are provided in a manner consistent with those needs (current and future) and the City’s facility provision standards.

 

Administration is of the view that the proposed Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility (Attachment 3) will adequately meet these needs.

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 risks registers which relates to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A summary of the project budget (PR-3086) has been outlined in the table below:

 

Year	Description	Total
2015/16	Design Development	$60,000
2016/17	Construction	$668,000
	Total	$728,000

 

An allocation of $668,000 (PR-3086) has been listed for construction within the draft 2016/17 Capital Works Budget (not yet adopted), noting that further budget adjustments will be required based on the project timeframe advised above, given that construction will cross over the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years. It is envisaged that this amendment will be made when reporting 2016 CSRFF grant applications to Council at the September 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Kingsway Athletics Storage Facility Concept Design, shown in Attachment 3 of this report;

2.       NOTES that based on the current proposed project schedule, construction is due to commence in May 2017 and will be concluded in December 2017;

3.       NOTES that the project budget will need to be further amended to reflect the revised project timeframe outlined within the report, to accommodate the submission of a Department of Sport and Recreation Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund Grant; and  

4.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the User groups for their involvement in the concept design process.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Location Plan for Kingsway AFL	16/189388
2.	Kingsway Little Athletics Storage Building  - Location Plan	16/184697
3.	Kingsway Little Athletics Storage Building , Floor Plan & Elevations	16/184695	Minuted

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              1465 – 16/185345

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       13  

Previous Items:                                   CD02-02/14 - Update of Petition for Hudson Park, Girrawheen - Ordinary Council - 04 Feb 2014 7.30pm

                                                            CD01-04/15 - South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes - Ordinary Council - 28 Apr 2015 7.00pm

                                                            CD04-11/15 - Central Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes - Ordinary Council - 10 Nov 2015 7.00pm

                                                            MN02-08/15 - Installation of exercise equipment - Paloma Park - Ordinary Council - 18 Aug 2015 7.00pm      

Issue

To consider the draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan Report for release for the purposes of public comment.

Background

The progression of the City's Active Reserve Master Planning Process (ARMP) was undertaken via two separate, but related processes. These included the South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group and the Central Ward and Coastal Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process. 

 

South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group (the Reference Group)

 

The Reference Group was established as a result of Council considering report CD02-02/14 in relation to Petition PT04-10/13. As a consequence, Council resolved to authorise the formation of the Reference Group. The Terms of Reference and approved Project Methodology/Meeting Schedule have been included in (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2), respectively. 

 

Active Reserve Master Planning Process – Central Ward and Coastal Ward

 

In addition to the South Ward South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group process, two Active Reserve Master Planning Projects were listed as a part of the 2014/15 Capital Works Budget. These were for the Central Ward (PR-2957) and the Coastal Ward (PR-2928).

 

It should be noted that the Coastal Ward process was amended post the 2015 Local Government Elections to the North Coast Ward.

 

The purpose of the ARMP process was as follows:

 

·        Guide the development or re-development (upgrade) of infrastructure;

·        Identify current/future uses, levels of use and barriers to use;

·        Maximise the flexibility and use of each reserve;

·        Provide evidence based need and feasibility to support the proposed upgrades;

·        Identify agreed project priorities; and

·        Inform the City’s 20 Year Capital Works Budget.

 

The scope of the ARMP processes was as follows:

 

 

The methodology undertaken within the ARMP process was as follows:

 

1.       Individual Park Analysis;

2.       Community Consultation (phase 1);

3.       Develop recommendations;

4.       Draft Master Plan Designs;

5.       Cost Estimates;

6.       Prioritise;

7.       Community Consultation (phase 2); and

8.       Report back to Council.

 

For the purposes of the ARMP process, an Active Reserve has been defined as an existing playing field or hard court (i.e netball or tennis) that accommodates organised sport (i.e competitive fixtures) or training that supports participation in organised sporting fixtures.

 

On that basis the facility upgrades identified have primarily focussed on supporting sporting activity. However, it is acknowledged that some of the identified facility upgrades accommodate informal sporting activity (i.e 3 on 3 basketball court) and will provide an improved amenity for the community in general (i.e additional car parking, provision of drinking fountains etc).

 

It should be noted that the original intent of the ARMP process was not to capture the development of new facilities, such as the Banksia Grove District Public Open Space, Butler North District Public Open Space or the Yanchep Active Open Space. This was on the basis that these have been, or will be, subject to separate planning and consultation processes. However, based on feedback from Elected Members during the ARMP process, these have now been included in the draft ARMP report.

 

Through the resolutions resulting from Council’s consideration of reports CD01-04/15 – South Ward Active Reserves Master Planning Process Outcomes (Attachment 3) and CD04-11/15 Central Ward Active Reserves Master Planning Process Outcomes (Attachment 4) advice has been provided to Council as to the draft outcomes of the ARMP for these two electoral zones.

 

 

In addition to the above reports to Council, Council also considered report MN02-08/15 Installation of Exercise Equipment – Paloma Park, which was tabled by Cr Treby at the Ordinary Council Meeting, held on 18 August 2015. As a result, Council resolved the following:

 

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT undertake Project Number PR-2958 for the installation of skate-park flood lighting in Paloma Park with an allocation of $34,600 and lists this project for re-consideration in the future long-term Capital Works Budget as part of the outcomes of the City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan; and

2.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $36,000 to install exercise equipment in Paloma Park, Marangaroo and NOTES the following budget variation:-

 

Cost Code	From	To	Description
PR-2958	$28,200		Installation of skate-park flood lighting, Paloma Park
PR- New		$36,000	Installation of Exercise Equipment, Paloma Park   $7,800 to be sourced during the mid-year budget review.

 

To support the installation of the exercise equipment in 2015/16, additional funding was sought as a part of the 2015/16 mid year review process to enable the completion of the path network at Paloma Park. The adjusted budget amounts have been captured in (Attachments 5, 9 and 11).

 

This information has, alongside the North Coast Ward ARMP outcomes, been included within the overall draft ARMP report which seeks to guide the development or re-development of infrastructure through identifying current/future uses, levels of use and barriers to use, where possible maximise the flexibility and use of each reserve whilst providing evidence based need and feasibility approach to support the proposed prioritised upgrades. This information will then be used to subsequently inform the City’s 20 Year Capital Works Budget

 

The resulting draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserves Master Plan Report has been provided to each Elected Member in hard copy format under separate cover. This is due to size of the document. A copy has also been made available within the Elected Member’s Reading Room.

Detail

The draft Active Reserve Master Plan Report seeks to bring together all of the existing data and analysis collected as a result of the ARMP process undertaken to date.

 

In undertaking the ARMP process, the outcomes sought were as follows:

 

·        Identify agreed base principles/assumptions for each of the Active Reserves;

 

·        Identify an agreed understanding of future usage for each of the Active Reserves;

 

·        Identification of required infrastructure upgrades, listed in an indicative priority order; and 

 

·        An agreed preliminary General Arrangement Concept for each Active Reserve.

 

The agreed base principles/assumptions for each of the Active Reserves included in the ARMP process for each Ward are as follows:

 

·        The Park (Active Reserve) will continue to be used for both organised sport and passive recreational purposes, consistent with its designation as a Neighbourhood Park;

 

·        The Park (Active Reserve) will continue to accommodate use by both junior and senior sports;

 

·        Facility hire will continue to be managed by the City through its existing facility booking system and guided by the City's Facility Hire policy; and

 

·        The Active Reserve (playing field) will continue to be of a multi-purpose nature primarily (but not exclusively) providing for AFL, cricket, rectangular field sports (soccer and rugby) and diamond sports. 

 

It should be noted that the above outcomes and agreed base principles/assumptions are consistent within all Wards.

 

A summary of the outcomes from the ARMP process has been included in (Attachment 5) (South Ward), (Attachment 6) (Central Ward) and (Attachment 7) (North Coast Ward). As a result of the ARMP process, a total of 196 individual projects at an approximate cost of $62.2M have been identified.

 

A summary of the Ward outcomes by infrastructure type has been included in (Attachment 8).

 

A cost summary of the outcomes based on infrastructure type has been included in (Attachment 9) with the range of projects being quite diverse, as outlined but not limited to the table below:

 

 

In terms of meeting the scope requirements for the ARMP process, Administration has been successful in achieving all aspects of the scope, with the exception of the future use/demand analysis. While Administration has been able to make some progress in respect to this analysis, it has been limited by the availability of data from State Sporting Associations and general participation data. This has been outlined in more detail in the following section.

 

Prioritisation of Identified Individual Infrastructure Projects

 

Project prioritisation for the outcomes of the ARMP process has been undertaken using the matrix template and criteria as included within (Attachment 10). The matrix and criteria is based on existing matrices used in the prioritisation of the City's Dry Parks, Shade Structures and Playground upgrades.

 

The matrix template has been applied to each individual Active Reserve identified within the ARMP process, capturing each of the infrastructure upgrades identified by the process.

 

The matrix includes seven criteria in total (A1 to A7). A brief outline of each of the matrix criteria is provided below:

 

 

A summary of the matrix scores for all individual infrastructure upgrades identified within the ARMP have been provided to Elected Members under separate cover. In addition to this, an updated project prioritisation schedule (reflecting Elected Member feedback), has also been provided under separate cover and has been used to inform the development of the 20 Year Capital Works Budget.

 

 

Future Needs Identification

 

As has been reported to Council previously, Administration sought to undertake an extensive exercise to engage with State Sporting Association to determine what, if any, information was available in regards to strategic plans for their respective sports to provide an indication of future demand and therefore facility needs.

 

In total 19 State Sporting Associations were contacted by Administration requesting the provision of the following key data:

 

·        Relevant strategic planning documentation in relation to the growth of the respective sport and future facility requirements;

 

·        2014 membership numbers for clubs that are affiliated with the respective Associations and which are based within the City of Wanneroo; and

 

·        Projected membership numbers for those City of Wanneroo based clubs projected forward to 2019 and 2024.

 

Regrettably the return on information from the various State Sporting Associations was very poor and in a number of cases no return was made. Administration was able to meet with the West Australian Football Commission, Baseball WA, Football West, Hockey WA, WA Athletics, the West Australian Cricket Association (WACA) and Tennis West. Information was also provided by Netball WA.

 

While the information gained from these meetings assisted Administration in the ARMP process, the format and consistency of the information received from each responding State Sporting Association was not suitable for comparison against other Associations’ data. Whilst in isolation some of the data can be used for future requirements of individual sports they could not be used accurately in the development of demand analysis for the City moving forward.

 

In addition to this, Administration sought information from the following State Sporting Associations without success:

 

·        West Australian Marathon Club;

·        Gridiron West;

·        Lacrosse WA Inc;

·        Western Australian Rugby League Ltd;

·        Softball Western Australia Inc;

·        Tee-Ball Association of WA;

·        Touch Football WA;

·        Rollersports Association of WA Inc;

·        Federation Sport Bocce of WA Inc; and

·        Archery Western Australia.

 

Preliminary Demand Analysis

 

To assist in identifying the future needs for Active Reserves (and associated infrastructure) within the City of Wanneroo, and to determine the impact of population growth, Administration has used the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Data for sport participation in Western Australia, which was released in February 2015 for the 2013-14 sporting year. It is noted that this information is dated and further impacted by the ABS discontinuing data research partnerships with State and Federal Sport and Recreation agencies. A summary of the key participation rates for main stream sports has been included in the table below.

 

 

These participation rates have been used as a base line population percentage participation rate to provide an indication of the increase of participant numbers into the future. The underlying assumption, as a result of no substantial predictive data being available (either from State Sporting Associations or the ABS), is that above participation rates within each sporting code will remain consistent.

 

The following table provides an overview of the estimated participation rates and required facilities within the identified sports over the next ten years.

 

 

This information has been provided at a City wide level, however has been broken down into individual localities within the draft ARMP report. In addition to this, the draft ARMP report endeavours to provide an initial indication of what this might mean in respect to the number of additional Active Reserves that may be required to service this growth.

 

The draft ARMP report does not attempt to address demand analysis in greater detail, given the limitations in the available data and the extent of work required to develop more detailed data to support a more rigorous analysis. As such, Administration will seek to undertake this work as a separate project. It is envisaged that this body of work will be undertaken in consultation and cooperation with key stakeholders such as the Department of Sport and Recreation, Curtin University Centre for Sport and Recreation Research and State Sporting Associations.

 

Whilst the preliminary demand analysis makes the assumption that participation rates will remain constant, in reality, there will be fluctuations based on individual sporting trends over the next ten year period. As a result, the data provided within the draft ARMP report seek to provide a guide of likely participation rates and will be updated as a result of the additional work Administration will undertake in this area.

 

Also, as each of the identified projects within the draft ARMP report is brought to the delivery stage within the City’s 20 Year Capital Works Program, the supporting assessment of need and feasibility will include an updated analysis of participation levels relevant to the project.

Consultation

The consultation process undertaken to date as a part of the ARMP process is as follows:

 

Phase	Consultation	When
Phase 1	City wide on-line survey of existing users of the City's Active Reserves (28 days);	Open: 8 July 2014 Close: 4 August 2014
Phase 2	Workshop 1: Facility Concept Development	Central - 15 September 2014 Coastal - 22 September 2014
Phase 2	Workshop 2: Concept Design Presentation for consultation	Coastal - 22 April 2015 Central - 28 May 2015
Phase 3	Ward Active Reserves Master Plan Interim Reports to Council.	South - 28 April 2015, CD01-04/15 Central - 10 Nov 2015, CD04-11/15 North Coastal Interim Report was not presented to Council

 

The remaining consultation activities to be concluded are as follows:

 

Phase	Consultation	When
Phase 4	Draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan Report to Council, seeking approval for release for public comment.	June 2016
Phase 5	Public comment process (as outlined below)	July 2016
Phase 6	Draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan Report to Council, seeking final adoption as a working document.	September 2016

 

Subject to Council approval, it is Administration’s intention to release the draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan Report for a period of 4 weeks commencing Monday, 5 July 2016. Copies of the report will be available on line through the City’s website and in hard copy at the Civic Centre and branch libraries. Notification will also be sent to all stakeholders involved in the process to date. The feedback received will be considered and a final version of the report, which is planned to be submitted to Council for consideration at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 13 September 2016.

 

As discussed with Elected Members at the Council Forum held on 31 May 2016, Administration will give consideration to providing the Master Plan Report in a format which will be able to be easily accessed and read by the community.

 

It should be noted that each individual Active Reserve Master Plan and related infrastructure upgrade project will become a separate project within the City's 20 Year Capital Works Program and as such will be subject to further consultation with user groups and residents as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

Comment

By way of summary, the purpose of the ARMP process has been to:

 

·        Guide the development or re-development (upgrade) of infrastructure;

·        Identify current/future uses, levels of use and barriers to use;

·        Maximise the flexibility and use of each reserve;

·        Provide evidence based need and feasibility to support the proposed upgrades;

·        Identify agreed project priorities; and

·        Inform the City’s 10 Year Capital Works Budget.

 

As a result, the intention of the ARMP process has been to identify the specific infrastructure projects required at each of the City’s Active Reserves to meet the needs of the community both now and into the future.

 

The intention of the Master Plan Report will be to provide an evidence base which assists Council in their decision making process in regards to the funding and timing of projects. As a consequence, the report is a working document, in that the identified infrastructure projects will continually be assessed against updated demand analysis, which will occur on an ongoing basis, and inform needs and feasibility assessments for the respective projects.

 

It should also be noted that this body of work will form one component of a broader strategic Community Facility Planning Framework, the development of which Administration will be seeking to commence shortly.

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 ARMP processes have considered 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.

Financial Implications

As identified earlier in this report the outcomes of the ARMP processes have been used to inform the development of the 2015/16 Capital Works Budget, the 2016/17 Capital Works Budget and to inform development of the City’s 20 year Capital Works Program.

 

As identified within (Attachment 5) (South Ward), (Attachment 6) (Central Ward) and (Attachment 7) (North Coast Ward). As a result of the ARMP process, a total of 196 individual projects at an approximate cost of $62.2M have been identified. Of this, $37M is related to infrastructure upgrades to existing active reserves, while $25.5M relates to the development of new active reserves (i.e Banksia Grove District POS, Butler North District POS etc).

 

A summary of project listings for each Ward, as per the 2015/16 budget process, has been included within (Attachment 11) (South Ward), (Attachment 12) (Central Ward) and (Attachment 13) (North Coast Ward).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the release of the draft City of Wanneroo Active Reserve Master Plan Report for the purposes of public comment for a period of 4 weeks, commencing from 5 July 2016; and

2.       NOTES that a further report will be submitted to Council at the conclusion of the public comment period, advising of outcomes of this process and to seek formal adoption of the report.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - South Ward Community Reference and Sporting User Group	16/198489
2.	Attachment 2 - Project Methodology and Meeting Schedule Agendas	14/218063
3.	Attachment 3 - Council Resolution for South Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes	16/148825
4.	Attachment 4 - Council Resolution for Central Ward Active Reserve Master Planning Process Outcomes	16/150910
5.	Attachment 5 - South Ward ARMP Outcomes	16/159827
6.	Attachment 6 - Central Ward ARMP Outcomes	16/159823
7.	Attachment 7 - North Coast Ward ARMP Outcomes	16/159825
8.	Attachment 8 - Summary of outcomes	16/175608
9.	Attachment 9 - Summary of ARMP Outcomes	16/159869
10.	Attachment 10 - Prioritisation Matrix	16/159871
11.	Attachment 11 - Summary Project Listings - South Ward	16/175852
12.	Attachment 12 - Summary Project Listings - Central Ward	16/175902
13.	Attachment 13 - Summary Project Listings - North Coast Ward	16/175952