Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 19 July, 2016

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 19 July, 2016 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

14 July, 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

OC01-07/16     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 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

UP01-07/16     Request for an Upgrade to the Public Space/Reserve at Callosa Park Alkimos – PT01-06/16  1

Item  8_____ Reports_ 1

Planning and Sustainability  2

City Growth  2

PS01-07/16      Adoption of Local Heritage Survey, Draft LPP 4.12 and proposed scheme heritage list. 2

PS02-07/16      Draft Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020  42

PS03-07/16      Adoption of the Wanneroo Town Centre Action Plan  91

Approval Services  133

PS04-07/16      Proposed Amendment No. 155 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 9340 (11) Hickory Road, Quinns Rocks  133

PS05-07/16      Proposed Amendment No. 156 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 499 (144) St Andrews Drive, Yanchep  157

PS06-07/16      Consideration of Development Application (DA2016/361) for 26 Multiple Dwellings at 1 Tacoma Lane, Mindarie (Amendment to DA2014/2408) 164

Assets  182

Asset Operations & Services  182

AS01-07/16      PT01-05/16 Petition to Request Speed Humps at the Roundabout at Hinchinbrook Avenue and Ridgewood Boulevard, Ridgewood  182

AS02-07/16      Safety Review - Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks  186

AS03-07/16      Aldersea Circle Traffic Treatments  192

Infrastructure Capital Works  206

AS04-07/16      Metropolitan Regional Roads Program - 2016/2017  206

AS05-07/16      Tender No 01628 Two Rocks Fire Station New Building  210

AS06-07/16      Tender 01636 for the Construction of the Yanchep Active Open Space, Lot 9100 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep  215

Community & Place  224

Cultural Development  224

CP01-07/16     Community History Centre Collection Policy - Review   224

Community Facilities  231

CP02-07/16     Quinns Football Club Contribution to Gumblossom Reserve Sports Amenities Building Extension  231

CP03-07/16     Tender No: 01638 - Aquamotion Aquatics Plant Preventative Maintenance  234

Corporate Strategy & Performance  240

People & Culture  240

CS01-07/16     Rescission of Managing our People Council Policy  240

Transactional Finance  244

CS02-07/16     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 June 2016  244

Property Services  324

CS03-07/16     Proposed Solar Farm Neerabup Energy Precinct  324

Council & Corporate Support  335

CS04-07/16     Donations to be Considered by Council - July 2016  335

Chief Executive Office  343

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 343

MN01-07/16    Cr Brett Treby – Re-coding of Residential Properties Outside Local Housing Precincts  343

MN02-07/16    Cr Hugh Nguyen – Long Stay Visa for Parents Visiting from Overseas  347

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 350

Item  11____ Confidential_ 350

CR01-07/16     Banksia Grove Deed of Agreement - Regional Roads Upgrade  350

CR02-07/16     Tender No. 01641 - Design, Supply, Install & Maintain Quinns Beach Shark Barrier  350

CR03-07/16     Infrastructure Projects, Building & Maintenance Enterprise Agreement Negotiations - Financial Parameters  350

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 350

Item  13____ Closure_ 350

 

 

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

 

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

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 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  

UP01-07/16       Request for an Upgrade to the Public Space/Reserve at Callosa Park Alkimos – PT01-06/16

Cr Winton presented a petition of 30 signatories of residents wishing to highlight a preference for any upgrade to the Callosa Park public space/reserve, to be a more user friendly and appealing area, similar to the park area to the south along Marmion Avenue at Butler.   Update   A report will prepared to be presented to OCM 16 August 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.

Planning and Sustainability

City Growth

File Ref:                                              2188 – 16/27955

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

Issue

To consider:

·    Adoption of the Local Heritage Survey (LHS), formally called a Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI); 

·    Adoption of proposed District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) Heritage List, for consultation with owners;

·    Adoption of the amended Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places (LPP4.12); and 

·    Potential Registration of the Susac Lime Kiln on the State Register of Heritage Places.

Background

The City currently has three adopted heritage documents that are used to guide decision making around places of local cultural heritage significance.

 

Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI)

 

Under section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (the Act), the City is required to prepare and maintain a record of places that are, or may become locally significant heritage places; previously known as a MHI. The MHI allocates each place a management category that clearly defines the level of heritage significance and the level of protection afforded. These categories provide guidance to the City and the owners of the sites when considering maintenance, conservation, planning and development issues.

 

The City’s MHI includes 120 sites and four precincts.

 

Heritage List

The City’s Heritage List is established under clause 8 of the deemed provisions of

DPS 2 and includes those places on the MHI that are of exceptional or considerable significance. Places included on the Heritage List are provided protection under DPS 2.

 

Local Planning Policy 4.12 – Heritage Places (LPP 4.12)

 

LPP 4.12 provides guidance on the level of protection for heritage places included on the Heritage List. The Policy elaborates on the DPS 2 requirements for planning approval for development proposals that may impact a heritage place on the Heritage List.

 

The City’s existing MHI, Heritage List and LPP 4.12 were adopted by Council at their meeting of 26 April 2006. In accordance with section 45 of the Act, the MHI is required to be updated to ensure that accurate information on heritage sites is available to Administration, owners and occupiers and the general public.

 

Following a period of preliminary research and consultation with affected land owners, Administration engaged external consultants, Hocking Heritage Studios in August 2015 to undertake an audit and review of the existing MHI and prepare a new LHS, which is the new title required by the State Government’s Heritage Green Bill (2015), for local government.

 

This process involved the:

 

·    Review of documentation and physical evidence for the places listed on the existing MHI;

·    Review of new documentation and physical evidence for places nominated for inclusion in the new LHS;

·    Allocation of a management category for all places (current and new) in accordance with the State Heritage Office Guidelines;

·    Review and update of Thematic History for the LHS;

·    Preparation of an updated LHS; and

·    Preparation of the Heritage List to reflect the updated management categories of the new LHS.

 

The draft LHS was included on the Agenda for the Council Briefing on 23 February 2016, but was withdrawn following requests from Elected Members for additional consultation to be undertaken with the City’s Heritage Services Advisory Group (HSAG). The draft LHS was subsequently presented to the HSAG at its meeting on 8 March 2016. The HSAG considered the draft LHS and recommended that wider community consultation be sought, prior to the LHS being presented to Council for consideration.

 

The draft LHS was advertised from 19 April 2016 to 11 May 2016. The public comment period was then extended a further 2 weeks to 25 May 2016. During this time a report on the progression of the LHS public consultation was presented at the HSAG meeting on 26 April 2016, and on 14 June 2016 a subsequent report was presented to HSAG to consider the final draft of the LHS following close of public advertising. The final draft of the LHS is now being presented to Council for adoption.

Detail

Administration has included the draft LHS as Attachment 1 and provided a copy on the Elected Members Hub and in the Elected Member’s reading room. A copy of the new Heritage List is included at Attachment 2.

 

Administration has also reviewed and amended LPP 4.12 in order to ensure alignment and consistency with the new LHS, the Heritage Green Bill (2015) and associated heritage reforms proposed by the State Government. A copy of the draft revised LPP 4.12 is included at Attachment 3.

 

Details of these draft documents are outlined below.

 

Local Heritage Survey

 

The LHS is designed to assist local governments in making and implementing decisions that respect local cultural heritage in a consistent and accessible way. This is accomplished by compiling a list of all places of heritage significance, providing details about the reasons for their inclusion in the LHS and allocating them one of the following management categories:

 

·    Category 1: Exceptional Significance. Place should be retained and conserved unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to doing otherwise. Any alterations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place, and be in accordance with a Conservation Plan (if one exists for the place);

 

·    Category 1A: Exceptional Significance, Place is on the State Register of Heritage Places;

·    Category 2:  Very important to the heritage of the locality. High degree of integrity/authenticity. Conservation of the place is highly desirable;

·    Category 3: Contributes to the heritage of the locality. Conservation of the place is desirable;

·    Category 4:  Contributes to the understanding of the history of the City of Wanneroo. Photographical record prior to major development or demolition. Recognise and interpret the site if possible.

 

In consultation with members of HAC and the Wanneroo Historical Society, a number of new sites were proposed for inclusion in the LHS. As a result of further investigation based on physical and documented evidence, one new site was deemed by the consultants to be appropriate for recommended inclusion as a stand-alone place in the City’s LHS, and three places were recommended to be incorporated into existing place entries, as follows:

 

1.   Wanneroo Recreation Centre, Scenic Drive, Wanneroo – Included as a stand-alone place and allocated a management category of 4;

 

2.   Bert Togno Park, Cnr Dundebar Road and Civic Drive Wanneroo – Included within the Wanneroo Civic Precinct entry with a management category of 2;

 

3.   Limelight Theatre, Scenic Drive, Wanneroo – Included within the Wanneroo Civic Precinct entry with a management category of 2;

 

4.   Portion of Old Wanneroo Road: Between Pippidini and Lacey Road and North of Carabooda – Included in the Old Wanneroo Road entry with a management category of 4;

 

The consultants have recommended 31 heritage places (included as Attachment 4) for removal from the new LHS for a range of reasons including:

 

·    Existing protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

 

Aboriginal heritage sites have been excluded from the LHS in order to ensure alignment with recent heritage reforms contained in the Heritage Green Bill 2015.  The reason for this is that the State Heritage Register and Local Heritage Surveys are governed by the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, while Aboriginal sites are afforded protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.  Administration is currently working with the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group to identify locally significant Aboriginal heritage sites and appropriate levels of protection. This will be a separate piece of work to the LHS and could involve either a new policy or DPS 2 provisions.

 

·    No heritage value;

 

The heritage value of a place is determined by assessing its characteristics against the criteria set out in the State Heritage Office Guidelines.  This assessment can result in a place being determined to have no heritage value.

 

·    Relocation or demolition; or

 

The relocation or demolition of a place affects its heritage status.

 

·    Unable to be located.

 

Every effort has been made to locate sites previously included on the 2006 MHI based on available information. 

In some instances, insufficient information exists in order for them to be located and this can result in them being excluded from the LHS. The sites that were unable to be located are:

o  Sheep Dips in Neerabup National Park;

o  Lime Kiln Brady (3);

o  Bamboo Plants; and

o  Chinese Market Gardens;

 

During the public consultation period for the LHS a total of 7 submissions were received, including a petition containing 66 signatures objecting to the de-registration of Two Rocks heritage sites (PT04-05/16).  A full summary of submissions and Administration’s responses to those submissions is included as Attachment 5. However, a summary of the key issues is outlined below.

 

Heritage Rotary Wall

 

Three of the submissions were concerned with the proposed removal of the Rotary Heritage Wall from the LHS.  Notwithstanding that the outcomes of the heritage assessment for this place deemed it to have no heritage value, given the demonstrated community interest in the retention of this place, it could be seen to have substantial social significance, and it is therefore considered to be suitable for inclusion in the LHS with a management category of 4.

 

Two Rocks

 

Petition PT04-05/16 objected to the possible de-registration of the Two Rocks Shopping Forum, Marina and Sculpture Park on the basis that it would allow for developers to demolish these structures to build high-rise apartment blocks.  Although the original draft LHS that was presented to the Briefing Session on 23 February 2016 proposed to downgrade the heritage status of some places in Two Rocks, following consultation with HSAG the advertised version of the LHS retained all of the Two Rocks heritage places.

 

One submitter requested that the town of Two Rocks be offered greater heritage protection through its listing on the State Register of Heritage Places. Given the heritage threshold requirements for assessing and listing a place on the State Heritage Register, Administration considers it highly unlikely that the town of Two Rocks would be successfully included. However, Administration met with the submitter on 11 May 2016, and provided her with the information and forms to pursue State Registration for Two Rocks as a community member.

 

Geneff Tower Kiln

 

One submitter identified the existence of a Lime Kiln situated at 400 Wattle Av, Neerabup which was not included in the draft LHS or the 2006 MHI. Photographs taken of this kiln by the submitter have been included in Attachment 6.

 

Administration has investigated the Lime Kiln and concluded that it is the Geneff Tower Kiln which was identified in a report by Robert K. Brittain entitled The lime kilns of Wanneroo: a study in the preservation and conservation of a series of historic structures that was published by the Shire of Wanneroo in 1984.  However, this report did not include information regarding the location of the Kiln, and as such it was not included in the 2006 MHI.

 

Given the current lack of detailed information about Geneff Tower Kiln it is not proposed to be included in the LHS at this time. Instead it is recommended that Administration further investigate this site, with a view to including the Geneff Tower Kiln in the LHS at a later date.

 

 

Cockman House and Della’s Dairy

 

One submitter provided additional information about Cockman House and Della’s Dairy that had not previously been captured in the 2006 MHI. This included detail on the original roofing material on Cockman House and the designation of Della’s Dairy as the second unofficial post office and telephone exchange in Wanneroo. After further investigation, Administration has included this information in the draft LHS and is proposing to re-categorise Della’s dairy from Management Category 4 to Management Category 3.

 

Summary

 

As a result of investigations based on physical and documented evidence and the outcomes of public advertising, the draft LHS includes a total of 90 places and 1 precinct which have been allocated varying levels of significance and management categories, as follows:

 

Level of Significance	Description	Desired Outcome	Management Category	Total Places in City of Wanneroo
Exceptional Significance	Essential to the heritage of the locality. Rare or outstanding example. Recommended for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places	The place should be retained and conserved unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to doing otherwise. Any alterations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place, and be in accordance with a Conservation Plan (if one exists for the place)	1	7
Exceptional Significance	As Above	Currently included on the State Register of Heritage Places	1A	12 + 1 Precinct
Considerable Significance	Very important to the heritage of the locality. High degree of integrity/authenticity	Conservation of the place is highly desirable. Any alterations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place.	2	17
Some or Moderate Significance	Contributes to the heritage of the locality. Has some altered or modified elements, not necessarily detracting from the overall significance of the item.	Conservation of the place is desirable. Any alterations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place, and original fabric should be retained wherever feasible.	3	16
Little Significance or Historic Site	Contributes to the understanding of the history of the City of Wanneroo.	Photographical record prior to major development or demolition. Recognise and interpret the site if possible.	4	38

 

The key differences between the 2006 MHI and the draft LHS are:

·    One new site (Wanneroo Recreation Centre)  was assessed and included;

·    Two precincts (Pappas Swamp & Two Rocks Marina Precinct) were changed to places;

·    Three new sites (Bert Tonga Park, Limelight Theatre and Portion of Old Wanneroo Road) were incorporated into existing places;

·    Provision of an up to date thematic history for the City of Wanneroo;

·    Addition of up-to-date details about existing sites and the provision of colour photographs; and

·    User friendly layout, easy to find specific places and the ability to browse heritage places by locality.

Attachment 7 provides a comparison by place between the management categories in the draft LHS and the 2006 MHI.

 

Should Council adopt the new LHS, Administration will provide a copy on the City’s website and make the LHS available for viewing during Civic Centre opening hours.

 

Heritage List

 

The City of Wanneroo is required to prepare and maintain a Heritage List under Part 3, clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS2. The Heritage List includes those places on the LHS that have exceptional significance and have been allocated a management category of 1(A), 1 or 2. Places on the Heritage List are provided protection under DPS 2. This list is retained by the City and made available for viewing within the completed LHS.

 

The City’s consultants, Hocking Heritage Studios, has provided the City with an updated Heritage List (Attachment 2) based on the draft LHS. The proposed changes to the Heritage List are:

 

Place Number	Place Name	Change	Reason	Status on Heritage List
5	George Gibbs House	Category 3 to Category 2	Good Intact example of inter war home	New Inclusion on Heritage List
6	Lime Kilns Yanchep Lime Company (40,41)	Category 1 to Category 2	Physically degraded since 2006	Maintained on Heritage List at new Category
7	Lime Kiln Susac (47,48)	Category 2 to Category 1	Functioning Site has greater heritage value	Maintained on Heritage List at new Category
10	Lime Kilns (8,9 & 10)	Category 2 to Category 3	New Works reduce authenticity	Remove from heritage List
18	Berriman House	Category 3 to Category 2	Restored fabric and rarity increases heritage value	Maintained on Heritage List at new Category
21	Edwards House	Category 2 to Category 3	Poor Condition	Remove from heritage List
32	George Leach House (1)	Category 3 to Category 2	Sympathetic restoration works have increased heritage value	New Inclusion on Heritage List
48	Two Rocks Limestone Retaining Wall	Category 2 to Category 4	Does not meet heritage thresholds. Record and interpret	Remove from heritage List
65	St Anthony’s Church site	Category 1 to Category 4	Demolished but still a valued site	Remove from heritage List
70	Della’s Dairy	Category 2 to Category 3	Degraded Condition	Remove from heritage List

 

However, prior to it being adopted by Council, the City must engage with the owners and occupiers of any places on the Heritage List that have been added, removed or changed.

 

Should Council adopt the new LHS for consultation, Administration will engage with affected owners and occupiers, review any submissions received and prepare a subsequent report to Council to adopt the new Heritage List.

 

Local Planning Policy 4.12 - Heritage Places

 

A minor amendment is required to bring LPP 4.12 in line with requirements of the Heritage Green Bill (2015) and ensure clarity and consistency between the Policy and the new LHS.   

The proposed changes to LPP4.12 include:

 

·    Change all reference to MHI or Municipal Heritage Inventory 2006 to LHS or Local Heritage Survey 2016 respectively;

·    Change the content of Table 1 to omit the requirement of colour slides and require digital photos to be submitted on a USB instead;

·    Change the format to be consistent with the City’s current local planning policy template;

·    Change the clause numbers referenced in the Policy to align with the newly adopted deemed provisions of DPS 2; and

·    Change any reference to ‘heritage impact statement’ to ‘heritage assessment’ (to align with new terminology within the State Heritage Office Guidelines).

 

The draft Policy is included as Attachment 2 and the previously adopted policy is included as Attachment 8.

 

Potential Registration of Lime Kiln Susac (47, 48) on the State Heritage Register of Places

 

In preparing the LHS the Consultants identified Place 7, Lime Kiln Susac (47, 48) for potential inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places. The Susac Lime Kiln is the only remaining working Lime Kiln in Wanneroo and has been identified as having very high cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

 

Historic Value:

·    Association with the important lime burning industry which was practised in many locations throughout the City of Wanneroo;

·    Association with Jack Susac and his family who have been significant contributors to the development of the lime burning industry in Western Australia, and for their role in the Wanneroo community;

 

Historic & Social Value:

·    Association with families who have been living and working at the site since the mid- 20^th century; and 

 

Research Value:

·    Potential to demonstrate techniques of lime building since the 1930’s

 

Based on the above, Administration considers the Susac Lime Kilns to be suitable for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places and recommends that the City commence the process for nomination. This entails completion of the State Heritage Register nomination form and compilation of supporting documentation to be forwarded to the Heritage Council for consideration. If the Heritage Council considers that the Susacs Lime Kilns meet the heritage thresholds they will then undertake a full assessment for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places.   

 

Consultation

Local Heritage Survey

 

Affected land owners were notified by mail of the City’s intention to update the MHI and were provided with an opportunity to make submissions with regard to their property’s heritage status, prior to the commencement of the review of the MHI.

 

Following this, Administration contacted HSAG members via direct email requesting their input into the preparation of the new LHS. Administration also discussed the implications of the new LHS in detail with a community representative of the HSAG and gained input from the Wanneroo Historical Society regarding the identification of new places for inclusion.

 

The draft LHS was included on the Agenda for the Council Briefing on 23 February 2016, but was withdrawn following requests from Elected Members for additional consultation to be undertaken with the HSAG.

 

Following the completion of the review, the draft LHS was advertised for public comment from 19 April 2016 to 11 May 2016 in Community Newspapers; the Wanneroo Times and Sun City News. The public comment period was extended a further two weeks to 25 May 2016 (to a total of 37 days) in response to public confusion about levels of heritage protection afforded to each of the management categories. In response to the public consultation a total of 7 submissions, including a petition with 66 signatures, were received.

 

Should Council adopt the draft LHS, Administration will write to all affected land owners informing them of the new LHS and the resultant heritage status of their property. Administration will also make the LHS available for viewing during business hours, provide an electronic copy on the City’s website and update the City’s intra-mapping system.

 

Heritage List

 

The City cannot enter or remove a place, or modify an existing entry on the Heritage List unless it formally notifies owners and occupiers of its intentions to list a place on the Heritage List, including a description of the place and reasons for inclusion. The City must allow owners 21 days in which to make a submission.

 

Given the recent public advertising of the draft LHS, which included the Heritage List, Administration does not consider further advertising of the Heritage List to be required.

 

Therefore, should Council adopt the new LHS for consultation, it is proposed that Administration advise affected landowners of the proposed changes to the Heritage List, consider any submissions received and prepare a further report to Council, to consider adopting the revised Heritage List.

 

Local Planning Policy 4.12 – Heritage Places

 

Due to the minor administrative nature of the amendment to LPP 4.12, the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2 do not require it to be advertised for public comment.  It is therefore proposed that Council adopt the revised draft LPP 4.12 without advertising.

 

HSAG

 

At the commencement of the LHS review and update, Administration contacted HSAG members via direct email requesting input to the preparation of the LHS.  Furthermore, the draft LHS has been considered by the HSAG on three occasions during its preparation.  At its meeting on 8 March 2016 the HSAG considered the draft LHS and recommended that wider community consultation be sought, prior to presenting to Council for consideration.

A report updating the HSAG on the progression of the LHS public consultation was presented at the HSAG meeting on 26 April 2016. Administration then presented a subsequent report to HSAG on 14 June 2016, to consider the final draft of the LHS.  At the final meeting, the following recommendation was carried unanimously by HSAG:

 

“That the Heritage Services Advisory Group

1.       SUPPORTS the draft revised Local Heritage Survey to supersede the previous Municipal Heritage Inventory and RECOMMENDS that it be presented to Council for adoption;

2.       SUPPORTS draft revised Heritage List and RECOMMENDS that it be presented to Council for Consideration;

3.       SUPPORTS the draft Local Planning Policy- Heritage Places and RECOMMENDS that it be presented to Council for adoption; and

4.       SUPPORTS the proposed inclusion of Place 7: Lime Kiln – Susacs (47, 48) on the State Heritage Register.”

Comment

All heritage places listed in the previous MHI have been assessed in detail by the City’s heritage consultants, Hocking Heritage Studios, using the State Heritage Office Guidelines. Sites considered to lack sufficient heritage value or sites afforded protection under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, have been removed and those considered to retain sufficient heritage value have been allocated appropriate management categories based on a thorough assessment of heritage value. Overall, this ensures a much improved level of detail and accuracy for Administration, land owners and the community when seeking information on places of heritage value in the City of Wanneroo.

 

The usability of the LHS has been significantly improved.  It now includes the addition of colour photos (where possible) and the provision of all relevant details in a new and improved format that has been optimised to provide greater clarity, structure and readability. Heritage places are now organised into alphabetised ‘localities’ and an index at the rear of the document provides the ability to quickly navigate to a specific property or simply browse the City’s heritage places.

 

The additional engagement with HSAG and the extended public consultation period has ensured that LHS contains the most up to date information for heritage places in Wanneroo and is representative of community interest in the historical ‘story of Wanneroo’.

 

Further, given the local and state significance of the Susac Lime Kilns, Administration considers that it would meet heritage thresholds for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places.  It is therefore recommended that Council instructs Administration to commence the process of nomination to the State Register.

Statutory Compliance

Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires the City to compile and maintain an inventory of heritage places using proper public consultation.

 

The LHS document is also consistent with the Heritage Green Bill 2015, in anticipation of this Bill superseding the existing Act in the near future.

 

Clause 8 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 requires the City to establish and maintain a Heritage List to identify places within the Scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation. Updating the Heritage List must be undertaken in accordance with Clause 8 and requires appropriate consultation and a resolution of Council.

Clause 5 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 allows the City make a minor amendment to LPP4.12 without advertising.

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 completion of the new LHS triggers the need for minor changes to LPP 4.12 to ensure clarity and consistency between the policy and the new LHS. A copy of the amended policy is provided in Attachment 2.

Financial Implications

The preparation of nomination documentation for the Susac Kiln to be considered for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places may require further engagement with qualified heritage consultants. The cost of this would be approximately $3,500 and can be met from existing operational budget.  

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submissions received during public advertising of the draft Local Heritage Survey, as included at Attachment 5 and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions;

2.       NOTES the petition PT04-05/16 requesting the retention of Two Rocks heritage places in the Local Heritage Survey;

3.       NOTES that the subject of petition PT04-05/16 was resolved prior to the advertising of the draft Local Heritage Survey and that no further action is required;

4.       NOTIFY the organiser of petition PT04-05/16 of Council’s decision;

5.       Pursuant to Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, resolves to:

a)      ADOPT the Local Heritage Survey, Attachment 1 to supersede the previous Municipal Heritage Inventory;

b)      FORWARD a copy of the Local Heritage Survey to the Heritage Council of Western Australia;

c)      NOTIFY submitters and affected landowners of Council’s decision;

6.       Pursuant to clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 resolves to:

a)      ADOPT for consultation the proposed Heritage List included as Attachment 2, for the purpose of seeking comment from affect landowners;

b)      NOTIFY affected land owners and occupiers by mail inviting submissions on the Heritage List for a period of 21 days;

7.       Pursuant to clause 5 of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, resolves to ADOPT Local Planning Policy 4.12 – Heritage Places, included as Attachment 3, without advertising; and

8.       REQUESTS Administration to commence the process of nominating the Susac Lime Kiln for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 to Council report 16/27955 Draft Local Heritage Survey	16/234697	Minuted
2.	Attachment 2 Council Report 16/27955: Heritage List	16/196625	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 report 16/180139: Draft LPP4.12	16/196473	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 to Council Report 16/27955 Sites recommended for removal from the LHS	16/196955
5.	Attachment 5 report 16/27955 Submission Table from Public Consultation Local Heritage Survey	16/224338	Minuted
6.	Attachment 6 to Council report 16/27955 Geneff Town Kiln Photos	16/196909
7.	Attachment 7 to report 16/27955: Comparison of Heritage Site Management Categories	16/197011
8.	Attachment 8 to Council 16/226601 LPP4.12 Heritage Places 2006	16/226601

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1 – Draft Local Heritage Survey

 

This attachment is available in the following formats:

1.   Distributed under separate printed cover to all Elected Members;

2.   Included in the ‘Associated Documents’ section of the City of Wanneroo website page under ‘Council meetings - Meeting agendas and minutes’ via the following link: http://www.wanneroo.wa.gov.au/info/20003/council/10/council_meetings/2

3.   in printed form for members of the public attending the Briefing Session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The full and complete Draft Local Heritage Survey is registered as TRIM 16/191504

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              6903 – 16/220678

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider and approve the revised draft Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy (CCAMS) following the public consultation period.

Background

The City’s Corporate Business Plan identified the need for Administration to prepare a CCAMS to coordinate an approach to climate change response. A draft CCAMS has been prepared by Administration and focusses on the four key themes of Temperature, Rainfall, Extreme Weather Events and Sea Level Rise. The purpose of the CCAMS is to identify risk areas where the City and the local community may be exposed to the effects of climate change and identify risk management adaptation measures to reduce that risk.

 

The draft CCAMS was considered by the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) on 3 February 2016 where it was agreed that Administration would consider the EAC feedback through the public consultation process.  The draft CCAMS was subsequently approved by Council at its Meeting on 1 March 2016 for the purpose of advertising for public comment, and was subsequently advertised for a period of 28 days.

 

Following the close of the public advertising period, a report was presented to the EAC on 5 July 2016 on the outcomes of public consultation. The EAC resolved to support the draft revised CCAMS, and it is now being presented to Council for final adoption.

Detail

Outlined below is a summary of the feedback received on the draft CCAMS from the EAC and the submission received during the public advertising period.

 

Feedback from EAC

 

The comments made by the EAC and Administration’s responses to those comments are contained in Attachment 1.  Key issues raised by EAC were:

 

Current actions to address climate change

 

The EAC requested that the draft CCAMS include all the actions currently being undertaken by the City to adapt to climate change, to demonstrate that the City is already committed to addressing this issue. Administration supports this change, and has now included this information in the Background section of the revised draft CCAMS.

 

Request for additional actions on a variety of matters

 

The EAC suggested a number of amendments to the draft actions and suggested additional actions on a diverse range of issues including mosquito management, the protection and retention of trees in development areas and the need to complete an assessment of water usage in City buildings and their surrounds. 

 

Many of these suggestions relate to matters that are already being dealt with by the City through some other mechanism (e.g. local planning policies). However, where these suggestions are not currently being addressed, such as the assessment of water usage in areas surrounding city buildings (as well as in the building itself), Administration is proposing that the draft CCAMSP be amended to include these actions.

 

Feedback from public submissions

 

One submission was received during the public advertising period (included as Attachment 2). A summary of that submission and Administration’s response to the issues raised is included as Attachment 3.

 

The submission made a number of informed comments on the state of the environment and matters that could potentially be addressed by the City through its future planning.  However, the majority of these comments were either not relevant to the CCAMS, or were beyond the scope of what the CCAMS is able to address. For example, the submission questioned how often the screens on water tanks should be replaced.  While this may be a valid action to address water quality, it is considered to be outside the scope of the CCAMS. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the submission did raise some relevant issues for consideration in relation to the relevance of many of the references used in the CCAMS to identify the impacts of climate change, and requested that additional information be included in web references to communicate the date that they were accessed.  Administration has reviewed all of the references included within the draft CCAMS and still considers them to be relevant.  However, the CCAMS has been updated to include the date that web references were accessed; additional references for the City’s key internal publications; and to delete duplicate references.

Consultation

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 1 March 2016, the CCAMS was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days from 3 March 2016 to 31 March 2016. Advertising was via the City’s website and in a local newspaper, as well as letters to key government stakeholders.  One submission was received during this time.

 

The draft CCAMS has been considered by the City’s EAC on 3 February and 5 July 2016. At its meeting on 5 July 2016 the EAC identified some minor corrections to the report, which have been rectified.  The EAC also requested amendments to some of the actions to more clearly address the identified risks, which included changes to action 4.1 to remove text relating to consultants being required to implement the findings of the Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Plan, and the addition of a new action 1.1.1:

 

“1.1.1                   Review and update the City’s Tree Preservation policy to address the protection of trees on private land”,

 

The EAC then resolved to recommend to Council that the draft revised CCAMS be approved.

Comment

Following consideration of the comments received by the EAC and following the public comment period, a revised CCAMS has been prepared and is included as Attachment 4. Administration considers that the changes made to the document as a result of input from the EAC and through public advertising have improved the overall document and resulted in a concise and targeted response to climate change as it affects the City.

 

 

 

The CCAMS will guide the City in its implementation of adaptation strategies to minimise the risk to the community from extreme weather events, coastal storm surge and other climate related risks. The application of the CCAMS will aim to ensure that the City is in a better position to respond to climate change impacts as they arise.

 

While the CCAMS primarily deals with climate change adaption, two key actions of the report are the completion of an Energy Reduction Plan and Energy Audit, which will identify climate change mitigation measures.  The EAC approved the approach to preparing the Energy Reduction Plan at its meeting on 3 February 2016.

 

The Energy Audit is currently being finalised by external consultants and will identify a baseline of current energy use across the City.  It will also identify a number of energy saving measures and areas for action to reduce the City’s energy use.  The Energy Audit is also the first step in the completion of the Energy Reduction Plan, which is a key means of addressing the carbon footprint of the City and reducing the City’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

 

While the Energy Reduction Plan is being prepared separately to the draft CCAMS, it is important to note that once it is finalised the City will have a comprehensive approach to addressing climate change adaption and mitigation.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Climate Change	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director of Planning and Sustainability	Manage

 

The risks relating to this issue have been identified and considered within the City’s strategic risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk and improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

As the CCAMS recommends the introduction of new policies, there will be an impact on the City’s policy framework should the CCAMS be adopted by Council and subsequently implemented.

Financial Implications

If adopted by Council, the City’s Corporate Business Plan identifies the need to plan for the implementation of the CCAMS throughout the 2016/17 financial year.

 

 

This will involve working with relevant service units of Administration to progress those actions that can be commenced immediately, and to program works that require further planning consideration. For those actions that have financial implications, funds will need to be included in the future operating budgets of the relevant service units for future consideration of Council.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the summary of Environmental Advisory Committee comments included in Attachment 1 and the summary of the submissions in Attachment 3 and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to those submissions;

2.       ADOPTS the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 included as Attachment 4; and

3.       NOTIFIES the Environmental Advisory Committee and submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Environmental Advisory Committee submissions - Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy (CCAMS)	16/234536	Minuted
2.	Anonymous Submission	16/233541
3.	Submissions Table - Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy	16/234549	Minuted
4.	Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy	16/234595	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              17722 – 15/167850

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To adopt the draft Wanneroo Town Centre Action Plan (WTCAP).

Background

At its meeting on the 13 October 2014, the Wanneroo Town Centre Advisory Group (WTCAG) considered Administration’s key issues for the Wanneroo town centre (included as Attachment 1). The Advisory Group agreed to trial a placemaking approach in the Wanneroo Town Centre and to use the resulting information gained from this consultation to inform the preparation of the draft WTCAP.

 

Between November 2014 and February 2016, Administration conducted three community engagement activities and four placemaking activities in the town centre including:

 

Community Engagement Activities

 

1.   At the 2014 Wanneroo Agricultural Show, City officers undertook a survey to gain insight into how the Wanneroo Town Centre could be improved and displayed a ‘My Wish’ ideas board to generate community responses to the statement ‘What is your wish for the Wanneroo Town Centre’; and

2.   The community was given opportunity to complete an online survey to provide information to the City on how the Wanneroo Town Centre is currently used, how it could be improved and how the community could participate in its revitalisation; and

3.   One on one stakeholder interviews were conducted to inform stakeholders of the placemaking project, identify issues with the Wanneroo Town Centre and generate ideas for its improvement.

 

Placemaking Activities

 

1.   A Little Free Library ‘Barrow of Books and Herbs’;

2.   Seating Christmas decorations;

3.   Yarn bombing; and

4.   A ‘My Wish’ ideas board at various locations in the town centre.

 

A full report on the details and outcomes of the community engagement and placemaking activities listed above is included as Attachment 2.

 

Administration also conducted a place audit of the Wanneroo Town Centre. A place audit is an assessment of how well a site is performing as a place, based on observations. The audit findings are included as Attachment 3.

 

These community engagement and placemaking activities have revealed that:

·    There is room for physical, social and economic improvement and enhancement of the Wanneroo Town Centre;

·    There is demand and desire from the local community and businesses to work together to improve the Wanneroo Town Centre; and

·    There is a need to define the City’s role and have a longer term vision for placemaking in the Wanneroo Town Centre and the City generally.

 

The findings from the community engagement, placemaking activities and place audit were used to inform the preparation of the draft WTCAP, which was presented to the WTCAG on the 5 April 2016. The WTCAG endorsed the draft WTCAP and recommended that the WTCAP be presented to Council for adoption.

 

Accordingly, the final draft WTCAP is now being presented to Council for adoption, and is included as Attachment 4.

Detail

The draft WTCAP is a three year plan that guides the role of the City of Wanneroo in the revitalisation of the Wanneroo Town Centre. It proposes physical, social and economic improvements to the town centre in response to the key issues that have been identified through community consultation. A summary of the key issues and the proposed approach to addressing these issues included in the draft WTCAP is detailed below.

 

Access & Linkages

 

There is currently a lack of focus on sustainable transport options within the Wanneroo Town Centre such as walking, cycling and public transport. Vehicle and pedestrian areas are disorganised and there is poor pedestrian connectivity within the centre. There is a desire to improve pedestrian connectivity and make the centre more “people-friendly” and there is an opportunity to improve accessibility and mobility within the centre.

 

The draft WTCAP proposes to address these issues as follows:

 

·    Investigate the potential for an express bus to connect the Wanneroo Town Centre to major rail infrastructure;

·    Prepare a concept plan for a connection between Rocca Way and Conlan Avenue to prioritise pedestrian and cyclist movement and to assist with negotiating the City’s preferred approach into any future shopping centre expansion;

·    Prepare a pedestrian/cyclist movement plan;

·    Implement traffic calming in key locations;

·    Engage with Main Roads to advocate for the alteration of traffic signals at intersections on Wanneroo Road within the Wanneroo Town Centre, to improve pedestrian crossing times; and

·    Engage with Main Roads to advocate for a reduction in the speed limit along Rocca Way and other low speed roads.

 

Sociability

 

The Wanneroo Town Centre does not have consistent branding and marketing and the sense of place could be improved through urban design, public art/cultural activities. There is a lack of effective participation and coordination between landowners to work toward better satisfying local demands for services and entertainment and providing a more attractive place for visitors. The community has a desire for more events, activities and entertainment, specifically a street market.

 

The draft WTCAP proposes to address these issues as follows:

 

·    Explore and investigate cultural activities for the public realm to support the attraction of visitors;

·    Audit the public realm to investigate opportunities to improve accessibility/mobility, encourage greater levels of activity and improve sense of place;

 

 

·    Engage with local business owners and managers to establish relationships between the City and the Wanneroo Business Association;

·    Lead the implementation of public art and cultural activities that are responsive to climate and lifestyle;

·    Investigate the provision and promotion of free Wi-Fi in the Wanneroo Town Centre area; and

·    Support and contribute to marketing/ branding initiatives to attract visitors to the Wanneroo Town Centre.

 

Comfort & Image

 

There is a lack of uniform landscaping and signage within the Wanneroo Town Centre. Public realm elements such as bollards, lighting and street furniture are inconsistent. There is a perceived lack of attractive seating areas. Although street furniture does exist, it appears to be underutilised. There is an opportunity to improve the legibility of the space through improved wayfinding. Finally, there is a desire to ‘green’ the town centre and increase the amount of shade in the public realm.

 

The draft WTCAP proposes to address these issues as follows:

 

·    Improve the provision of shade using street trees, building orientation and built form under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre (LPP 5.2); and

·    Review the provision of wayfinding (the ability for people to orient themselves) within the Wanneroo Town Centre and investigate options for further improvements.

 

Uses & Activities

 

There are currently no incentives to encourage the redevelopment of privately owned land in the centre. Many buildings have an internal focus, do not present to the streetscape and car parking is disjointed and dominates the public realm. There are limited spaces for temporary uses and events, with the exception of the area in front of the bank and liquor store adjacent to Rocca Way, which was designed to support public events but is underutilised. Land use and activity is focused around day time retail and many areas of the centre are underutilised during the evening. There is a desire to improve the quality of older buildings that reduce the amenity of the Wanneroo Town Centre and improve the diversity of restaurants and cafes.

 

The draft WTCAP proposes to address these issues as follows:

 

·    Investigate the viability of a community market in Rocca Way;

·    Engage with key land owners to revitalise key sites within the Wanneroo Town Centre that are privately owned; and

·    Investigate opportunities to promote business growth, redevelopment and attraction with business owners.

Consultation

Comprehensive collaboration has occurred between the City, external stakeholders and the community in the preparation of the draft WTCAP. This determined community aspirations, key issues and strategic actions that aim to improve the Wanneroo Town Centre.

 

Community consultation was undertaken broadly with the wider community and more specifically using techniques that target specific demographic groups.

 

 

 

Administration has carried out consultation activities at the Wanneroo Show in conjunction with a range of other activities that targeted the themes of Sociability, Uses & Activities, Access & Linkages and Comfort & Images.

 

Continued engagement through the implementation of the draft WTCAP will form a key component of the revitalisation of the town centre.

Comment

Through its implementation, the draft WTCAP aims to facilitate close engagement with the local community and business owners and enable community-driven revitalisation to emerge.

 

The proposed approach will complement and build on work previously completed for the town centre including the preparation of Agreed Structure Plan No. 23 Wanneroo Town Centre (ASP 23), LPP 5.2, Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation and the Your Move program.

 

If the draft WTCAP is adopted by Council, Administration will prepare an annual report to the WTCAG to update them on the progress of the implementation of the WTCAP.

Statutory Compliance

The revitalisation of the Wanneroo Town Centre is intended to be consistent with:

·        LPP 5.2;

·        ASP 23; and

·           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

Nil

Financial Implications

The draft WTCAP specifies which projects will be met through existing operational budgets and which will require funding through the capital works budget. Those projects that require capital works funding will be subject to the normal annual budgeting processes.

 

 

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ADOPT the Wanneroo Town Centre Action Plan included as Attachment 4.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Wanneroo Town Centre Issues	16/104672
2.	Wanneroo Town Centre Placemaking report	16/104660
3.	Wanneroo Town Centre Place Audit_findings	16/104654
4.	DRAFT Wanneroo Town Centre Action Plan 2016-2019	16/104648	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              23652 – 16/134852

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

 Issue

To consider a request to amend the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) by rezoning Lot 9340 (11) Hickory Road, Quinns Rocks (subject site) from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential R40.

 

Applicant	Whelans Town Planning
Owner	Water Corporation
Location	Lot 9340 (11) Hickory Road, Quinns Rocks
Site Area	2,753m2
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Public Use (Local Reserve)

 

Background

On 4 April 2016, Whelans Town Planning submitted Amendment No. 155 to DPS 2, on behalf of the Water Corporation (the landowners) for the City’s consideration.

 

The site was created in 1973 for the purpose of ‘Water Tank and Reticulation’ and is managed by the Water Corporation. The Water Corporation has deemed this site as surplus to its requirements and has requested that the Department of Lands revoke its management orders. Given that the subject site is surplus Government land, it will be disposed of to the market through the Department of Lands, Land Asset Sales Program.

 

Coastal Matters

 

Council considered a report (PS11-04/16) at its meeting on 26 April 2016 for the timing of Local Housing Strategy Implementation for the Quinns Rocks, Yanchep and Two Rocks Housing Precincts. It was considered that the Quinns Rocks Housing Precinct required further study’s to be completed in order to investigate the most appropriate option for the long term management of the Quinns Rocks coastline. This was a result of the history of the area suffering extensive coastal erosion. Council resolved to defer any consideration of a Scheme amendment to increase the residential density code for the Quinns Rocks Housing Precinct until such time that:

 

·        The engineering design for the coastal protection works is confirmed; and

 

·        Coastal hazard modelling has been completed to identify areas at risk of coastal erosion and/or inundation over the next 100 years.

 

 

Detail

 

Site

 

The subject site is bounded by Hickory Road to the north, an existing Public Open Space (POS) to the west, Driftwood Rise to the south and Residential R20 properties to the east. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Rezoning the subject site from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential zone with a density code of R40, which will enable the development of approximately 12 dwellings on the site; and

 

2.       Modify the DPS 2 map accordingly. 

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposal can be summarised as follows:

 

1.       The rezoning will make use of a currently unused vacant land and the proposed R40 coding is consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Directions 2031 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 (LPP 3.1)

 

2.       The proposed R40 density is more likely to facilitate a grouped dwelling development which will address passive surveillance of the adjoining POS; and

 

3.       There is currently a lack of small lot housing within the Quinns Rocks locality.

 

Attachment 2 contains the proposed amendment document.

 

Consultation

 

In accordance with Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, a standard amendment to a local planning scheme must be subject to public consultation.

 

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.

 

The amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

·        Display on the City’s website;

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

·        Any other way the local government considers appropriate.

 

 

Comment

 

Applicant Justification

 

In justifying the suitability of the amendment the applicant highlighted the following matters.

 

Local Planning Policy 3.1 (LPP 3.1)

 

LPP 3.1 identifies six (6) Housing Precincts across the suburbs of Wanneroo, Koondoola, Girrawheen, Yanchep, Two Rocks and Quinns Rocks. The subject site is included within the Quinns Rocks Housing Precinct and has been identified as being capable to be recoded to R40 (refer to Attachment 3). However, Council in considering a recent report on the recoding of the entire area did not support this occurring until the coastal modelling for the area has been completed.

 

Whilst Administration is supportive of the rezoning of the land to Residential, it is not supportive of the R40 coding for the following reasons:

 

·    This Amendment would be a ‘spot’ recoding to a higher density and Administration does not support this, as it is considered to be adhoc and not orderly and proper planning. Administration is considering the recoding of the Quinns Rocks area in a comprehensive manner to ensure good design outcomes, and consistency of approach to the development of the area;

 

·   A R40 coding could potentially lead to a Grouped Dwelling or Multiple Dwelling development which is considered to be inconsistent with the existing surrounding area which has been developed as predominantly Single Dwellings; and

 

·    By allowing a R40 coding there is the potential to set an undesirable precedence which may encourage other recoding proposals in the locality.

 

Adjoining POS

 

It is noted that the subject site adjoins a POS and the applicant has stated that the POS is restricted in its ability to be used by residents for recreation due to its topography and it being undeveloped. Furthermore, the applicant states that the development of the subject site would assist in activating the space and providing surveillance.

 

Whilst Administration considers it to be beneficial to have active surveillance onto the adjoining POS, it is not regarded as a valid justification to increase the density of the site to R40.

 

Traffic

 

As part of the amendment a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was submitted by the applicant. The TIA predicts 11 dwellings which would result in an increase of 88 vehicles per day (vpd) based on the proposed land use. The TIA anticipates that the distribution of vehicular trips to the subject site is relatively equal in all directions that is, 50% of the traffic will exit the site onto Hickory Road whilst the other 50% will exit the site onto Driftwood Rise. Furthermore, the TIA shows that the surrounding road network is capable of carrying the increased number of vehicles (88 vpd) as a result of this development. This is captured in the table below:

Road Name	Road Classification	Indicative Daily Traffic Flows – VPD	Existing Weekday Daily Traffic	Estimated VPD
Hickory Road	Access Road	3,000 vpd	270 vpd	(44) 314 vpd
Driftwood Rise	Access Road	3,000 vpd	188 vpd	(44) 233 vpd

Hickory Road and Driftwood Rise have 20 metre wide road reserves and 7 metre wide carriage ways. These roads are classified as Access Road and in accordance with the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) Policy have capacity of 3,000vpd. These predicted traffic volumes with the additional development are significantly below the road capacity.

 

Alternative Proposal

 

Given that the subject site is no longer required by the Water Corporation, it is considered that the Public Use zoning is not necessary and an alternative is to rezone the site to Residential with a density code of R20. This is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·        As opposed to a R40 coding, which is likely to lead to a Grouped Dwelling or Multiple Dwelling development, a R20 coding is likely to result a development that is consistent with the locality; and

 

·        Rezoning the subject site from Public Use to Residential R20 would allow for the landowner to develop the site; and

 

·        Rezoning the site now to Residential with a density code of R20 does not compromise the capability of the site to be coded R40 in the future should the Quinns Rocks Housing Precinct be recoded.

 

A R20 density could accommodate approximately 6 dwellings (based on an average lot size of 450m² as per the Residential Design Codes) as opposed to a R40 density which will result in approximately 12 dwellings (based on an average lot size of 220m²). However, the details of the development including the number of dwellings and access onto the site will be determined once a Development Application is lodged for the City’s consideration.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that rezoning the subject site from Public Use to Residential R20 is acceptable. As such, subject to the submission of satisfactory documentation by the applicant to align with Administration’s position, it is recommended the subject site be rezoned to Residential R20.  

Statutory Compliance

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 for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed amendment relates to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in DPS 2 for that zone or reserve;

 

2.   The proposed amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme; and

 

3.   The proposed amendment is considered to have minimal impact on land in the DPS 2 area that is not the subject of this proposed amendment.

 

In the event that Council does not support this proposal, there is no right of appeal against the decision not to initiate a scheme amendment, however, Section 76 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 entitles a proponent for a scheme amendment to request the Minister for Planning to review the local government’s decision. In determining what (if any) further action to be taken, the Minister must consider whether the local government should have initiated the scheme amendment.

 

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

This proposal is assessed under the provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.         Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 NOT ADOPT Amendment No. 155 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to rezone Lot 9340 (11) Hickory Road, Quinns Rocks from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential with a density coding of R40; 

 

2.         Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 155 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to rezone Lot 9340 (11) Hickory Road, Quinns Rocks from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential with a density coding of R20 providing that the applicant submits revised documentation amending Amendment No. 155:

 

a)   to rezone the subject site to Residential with a density coding of R20; and

 

b)   is deemed satisfactory by the Manager Approval Services,

 

            then pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local       Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) ADVISES the Western           Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 155 to DPS 2 is a        Standard Amendment Because Amendment No. 155 to District Planning    Scheme No. 2:

 

c)    relates to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified    in DPS2 for that zone or reserve;

 

d)    is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme; and

 

e)    is considered to have minimal impact on land in the DPS2 area that is not      the subject of Amendment No. 155 to DPS2.

 

3.         Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 155 to District Planning Scheme No.2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and

 

4.         Subject to EPA approval, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 155 to District Planning Scheme No.2 for a period of 42 days.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1: Location Plan 11 Hickory Road Quinns Rocks	16/196320
2.	Amendment 2: Scheme Amendment Report	16/198600
3.	Attachment 3: Subject Site in Relation to Housing Precinct	16/202124

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              26351 – 16/177736

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a request to amend the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) by rezoning a portion of Lot 499 (144) St Andrews Drive, Yanchep from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential with a density coding of R40.

 

Applicant	LB Planning
Owner	Sun City Country Club Inc
Location	Portion of Lot 499 (144) St Andrews Drive, Yanchep
Site Area	69.17 hectares
MRS Zoning	Private Recreation, Urban
DPS2 Zoning	Public Use (Local Reserve)

Background

On 12 April 2016, LB Planning submitted proposed Amendment No. 156 to the City on behalf of the landowner of the subject site. The amendment proposes to amend DPS2 by rezoning a portion of Lot 499 (144) St Andrews Drive, Yanchep from Public Use (Local Reserve), which is reserved for the purpose of drainage, to Residential, with a density coding of R40.

Detail

Site

Lot 499 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep (the lot) is approximately 69.17 hectares in size. The lot is comprised of a Private Clubs and Recreation portion (Yanchep Sun City Country Club), and in the south-western corner, a Residential portion, with a density coding of R40, and a Public Use (Local Reserve) portion, which is reserved for the purpose of drainage. A location plan showing the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

 

The total area of the Public Use (Local Reserve) is 908m². For the purpose of this report, the Residential portion and the Public Use (Local Reserve) portion of the lot will be considered the subject site.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend DPS2 by:

 

1.       Rezoning a portion of the Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential with a density coding of R40; and

 

2.       Modifying the DPS2 map accordingly.

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposal can be summarised as follows:

 

 

 

1.       A detailed engineering investigation over the site has found that there is a surplus land area within the Public Use (Local Reserve) which is not required for future drainage purposes. Accordingly, it is considered that this surplus portion of the reserve (approximately 459m²) would be more suitable to form part of the adjoining residential zoned land; and

 

2.       The rezoning of a portion of the reserved area will provide more efficient use of the land and will allow for an improved future residential lot configuration outcome.

 

Attachment 2 contains the Amendment No. 156 plan showing the proposed zoning and density coding, as submitted by the applicant. A more detailed plan showing the proposed dimensions of the Public Use (Local Reserve) is included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

In accordance with Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, a standard amendment to a local planning scheme must be subject to public consultation.

 

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.

 

The amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

·        Display on the City’s website;

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

·        Any other way the local government considers appropriate.

Comment

The existing size of the Public Use (Local Reserve), located at the corner of St Andrews Drive and Yanchep Beach Road, is 908m². The applicant has provided an engineering report, which concludes that the minimum area of land required to serve the required drainage function is approximately 449m². The applicant is therefore proposing to amend DPS2 by reducing the size of the drainage reserve from 908m² to 449m², with the balance of the reserve area being rezoned to Residential with a density coding of R40. The City’s Land Development service unit has reviewed the submitted engineering report and has concluded that the proposed size of the drainage reserve (449m²) is acceptable.  

 

The applicant has indicated that the rezoning of a portion of the Public Use (Local Reserve) will provide more efficient use of the land and will allow for an improved future residential lot configuration outcome. As shown in Attachment 3, the balance of the Public Use (Local Reserve) is proposed to be incorporated into two adjoining residential lots (which do not yet have subdivision approval). It is proposed that 116.5m² of the balance area will be incorporated into proposed Lot 100 and 342.5m² of the balance area will be incorporated into proposed Lot 101. Administration agrees that, given the size of the Public Use (Local Reserve) has been found to be larger than that required to serve the required drainage purpose, the proposed rezoning of a portion of this Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential will allow for a more efficient use of land on the subject site.

 

 

Statutory Compliance

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 for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed amendment relates to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in DPS2 for that zone or reserve;

2.   The proposed amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme; and

3.   The proposed amendment is considered to have minimal impact on land in the DPS2 area that is not the subject of this proposed amendment.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.         Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 156 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) to rezone a portion of Lot 499 (144) St Andrews Road, Yanchep from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Residential with a density coding of R40;

 

2.         Pursuant to Section 47(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 is a Standard Amendment for the following reasons:

 

a)    The proposed amendment relates to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in DPS2 for that zone or reserve;

 

 

b)         The proposed amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme; and

c)         The proposed amendment is considered to have minimal impact on land in the DPS2 area that is not the subject of this proposed amendment;

 

3.         Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and

 

4.         Subject to EPA approval, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 for a period of 42 days.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Proposed Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 - Location Plan	16/190219
2.	Attachment 2 - Proposed Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 - Proposed Zoning	16/198839	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Proposed Amendment No. 156 to DPS2 - Detailed Rezoning Plan	16/220948

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2016/361 – 16/184798

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/361), amending a previous planning approval, to increase the number of Multiple Dwelling units from 10 to 26 at Lot 562 (1) Tacoma Lane, Mindarie (subject site).

 

Applicant	Doepel Marsh Architects
Owner	J Woodward
Location	Lot 562 (1) Tacoma Lane, Mindarie
Site Area	2587m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Marina
ASP 13 Zoning	Mixed Use – R100

Background

On 16 December 2014 a development application was lodged for 10 mixed use units for the subject site (DA2014/2408). The units were predominantly residential, however, each unit incorporated a studio area which could be used for Office/Consulting Room or Art Gallery land uses. The proposal was advertised on 5 March 2015 for a period of 21 days and, as no submissions were received, on 22 April 2015 Administration approved the proposal under delegated authority.

On 8 February 2016 a development application was lodged to amend the approved development to increase the number of units from 10 to 26 while keeping the same external building design with the exception of minor architectural modifications. The proposed decrease in unit size has resulted in the studio areas being reduced to a single room abutting the marina. The application (DA2016/361) is the subject of this report.

Detail

The subject site is located to the south/south west of the existing Mindarie Marina and directly south of the Mindarie waterway and boat pens. The site is bounded by public open space in the form of a pedestrian walkway along the marina to the north west, Salford Park to the south west, and Tacoma Lane to the south east (refer Attachment 1).

 

The development application proposes 26 Multiple Dwellings which is a Permitted (“P”) use in the Mixed Use zone. The application incorporates;

 

·    Non-residential uses (Consulting Room/Office or Art Gallery) within units 1, 8 and 10 (along the existing marina boardwalk);

·    Development of two stories abutting Tacoma Lane and three stories abutting the existing marina boardwalk;

·    46 car parking bays (including 6 within car stackers) which are provided from one crossover from Tacoma Lane; and

·    Pedestrian access to the development from both Tacoma Lane (south east) as well as the marina boardwalk (north west).

 

The minor design modifications to the development include;

·    Inclusion of garages abutting Tacoma Lane;

·    Increased building setback from Tacoma Lane from 6m to 9.5m;

·    Removal of the roof terrace, lift over run and cabanas;

·    Minor changes to balcony sizes facing the Mindarie Marina; and

·    Inclusion of bin storage area;

 

Plans depicting the proposal are included as Attachment 2.

Consultation

Public consultation was undertaken by way of a sign erected on site and letters to landowners within a 50m radius of the subject site. Consultation was undertaken to the same degree as DA2014/2408. At the conclusion of the comment period (14 days) one submission was received which raised concerns about vehicle access, increase in vehicle and pedestrian traffic, car parking and impacts from the development on adjoining properties (such as views, landscaping and visual privacy). A summary of the issues raised in the submission and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 3 and a more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of the application is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

The development proposal is generally in accordance with provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Mindarie Harbourside Village Agreed Structure Plan No. 13 (ASP 13), DAP No. 8 - Lot 561 Bristol Lane & Lot 562 Tacoma Lane and relevant local planning policies. Notwithstanding, two variations to the above requirements are proposed, in relation to:

·    Car Parking; and

·    Activity Centres Local Planning Policy.

 

These variations and other elements pertinent to consideration are discussed in detail below.

 

Increase in Density

 

The proposal increases the number of dwellings from 10 to 26 dwellings which represents a significant increase in the number of dwellings previously approved. As the building is remaining the same, with only minor alterations to the external appearance, this increase results in a significant reduction in the size of each unit. Under the original approval each unit contained 3 bedrooms and a large living area while the subject development application incorporates 5 one bedroom dwellings, 17 two bedroom dwellings and 4 three bedroom dwellings.

 

The proposed density is still within the plot ratio requirements for the R-Code of R100 which allows up to 3,234m² to be developed. On this basis the increase in the number of units can be considered.

 

Commercial Development

 

The proposal incorporates a predominantly residential development, 26 Multiple Dwellings, however, end units 1, 8 & 10 are also intended to cater for non-residential development. It is the intent that the front room of each of these units provides a degree of flexibility for land use. There is no obligation under the structure plan to provide non-residential land uses, as occurred in the adjoining development at 1 Bristol Lane which is all residential, however it is considered beneficial in order to promote small businesses within the development. After discussing the proposed uses with the applicant it was identified that uses which would facilitate both the use of the residential and commercial areas by the same residents would be preferred (i.e. living in the dwelling and utilising the commercial area). The uses listed below were identified as the most appropriate for the subject site and are either permitted (‘P’) or discretionary (‘D’) uses within the mixed use zone;

 

·    Art Gallery (D);

·    Office (D);

·    Consulting Room (P);

 

If approved, it will be possible for residents in the proposed units to operate non-residential uses in the commercial portions. The applicant has indicated that no tenants have been secured for the site as approvals have not yet been granted by the City. Therefore, the use of the commercial portions is unknown and only indicative. It is possible that some of the identified units may be used for residential purposes only.

 

In the former approval the proposal included all 10 units incorporating non-residential development within the ground floor areas abutting the marina. The reduced number of commercial units is directly linked to the car parking requirements on the site. Notwithstanding this, it is considered beneficial to activate the marina boardwalk with non-residential uses and as such recommended that all ground floor units are permitted to incorporate the front room in the same manner as units 1, 8 & 10.The car parking implications for this are discussed in detail below but any potential implications are not considered to outweigh the benefits of activating the marina.

 

Car Parking

 

The car parking requirements for the development are determined by the R-Codes, with regards to the residential components of the application, and by DPS 2, with regards to the non-residential components. The proposal includes 43 residential bays and 3 non-residential bays provided on site (through the use of open, garaged bays and car stackers). Of these bays, 36 are gated to be uses for residential only but 10 are available to the public for both residential visitor bays and commercial visitor bays. Assessment of the residential portion of the development identifies that only 40 bays (33.5 residential bays and 6.5 visitor’s bays) are required.

 

The car parking requirements for the non-residential development will vary depending on the land use and the number of units which undertake the non-residential development (Art Gallery, Consulting Room & Office. As discussed above, the proposal is looking to incorporate a range of uses for units 1, 8 & 10. The car parking requirements under Table 2 of DPS 2 for each use are;

·    Art Gallery requires 1 bay per 50m²;

·    Office requires 1 bay per 30m²; and

·    Consulting Room requires 5 bays per consultant.

 

While it is not considered likely that all units will undertake the same land use, the below table illustrates the worst case scenario depending on the number of the ground floor units using each land use. This is based on three units undertaking non-residential uses which are limited to 20m² (as shown in the plans) or 1 consultant per unit.

 

Land Use	Number of Units
	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Art Gallery	1.2	1.6	2.0	2.4	2.8	3.2	3.6	4.0
Office	2.0	2.7	3.3	4.0	4.7	5.3	6.0	6.7
Consulting Room	15	20	25	30	35	40	45	50

 

The applicant has provided 3 bays on site for non-residential land uses and based on the above, the worst case scenario is if all 10 units incorporate consulting rooms would be a 47 bay shortfall. It is considered that the potential 47 bay shortfall can be considered for the following reason;

 

·    It is very unlikely that all 10 units would be utilised for one land use given market competition factors.

·    Due to the design of the units it is intended that the residents who live in the unit will also be associated with any non-residential land use undertaken. This would potentially reduce car parking demand.

·    The site is located immediately adjacent to the car park for the boat ramp and Mindarie Hotel which is subject to an easement in gross allowing access to the public. It is considered that the peak times of any non-residential use would be during the week which is when the boat ramp parking is at its lightest. This is confirmed by a parking study that was undertaken by Mirvac in 2005 for future development within the marina precinct which also considers provision of parking for the subject site.

·    The proposal is also likely subject to other reciprocal visitors to the Mindarie marina i.e. those who attend an Art Gallery/Office or Consulting Room on the subject site would likely also visit other establishments in Mindarie.

 

Based on the above reasons it is considered that the potential car parking variation is considered acceptable.

 

Activity Centres Local Planning Policy

 

The Activity Centres Local Planning Policy 3.2 (LPP 3.2) identifies a number of requirements for developments occurring within commercial centres. The proposal was assessed in accordance with these requirements and it was established that two provisions of the policy were not provided, being public artwork and weather protection.

 

The provision of public artwork, sculptures, water features and landmarks on the site is considered unnecessary due to the location immediately abutting a public open space site. This public open space site contains pillar constructions, public seating and artistic features. Due to the location of the site it is considered that pedestrian activity will already be encouraged and no additional provisions within the development are likely to increase this.

 

The policy identifies that weather protection should be provided along street frontages of the building. In this instance the provision would require weather protection over Tacoma Lane, which is not considered necessary as this façade would not cater for significant pedestrian traffic.

 

Administration therefore considered it appropriate that elements of public art work and weather protection are not required within the proposal.

 

Access

 

The proposed amendment increases the number of units from 10 to 26 which, based on 8 vehicle trips per day (VTPD), will increase the total VTPD from 80 to 208. Liveable Neighbourhoods identifies that Laneways have an indicative volume of 300 vehicles per day.

Based on the surrounding road configuration the subject site is the only site which gains access from the east west stretch of Tacoma Lane with all other properties gaining access from Tacoma Lane which runs north south.

 

 

 

 

 

While it is noted that this does not preclude other vehicles using this portion of Tacoma Lane it is considered that the volumes would be well below the 300 vehicles per day as permitted by Liveable Neighbourhoods. In addition the access to the site is via Tacoma Lane which, while called a laneway, incorporates a 10m wide road reservation and 6m pavement width.

 

As such it is not considered the traffic that will be generated by the proposal will cause an issue to the surrounding development as it will remain within the capacity of the road network.

 

Construction Management Plan

It has been identified through the development of the adjoining site (1 Bristol Lane) that development on confined lots within this area has potential impacts on the surrounding residents, including rubbish, noise, sand drift and the location of construction equipment. As a condition of approval, Administration requires the lodgement of a Construction Management Plan (CMP) prior to the commencement of works. The CMP is intended to cover elements that may potentially impact surrounding sites such as traffic, rubbish, delivery and working times.

The CMP identifies how the construction will be controlled but will also reinforce a number of elements which are already statutorily required such as the Environmental Protection (Health) Regulations 1997 to ensure construction times are managed and City of Wanneroo Parking Local Law 2015 to prevent the vehicles from blocking public access routes or parking illegally.

The CMP will identify the potential issues and plan to mitigate the impact. Administration, through its compliance teams, can also enforce these requirements to reduce the potential impact.

The applicant has been made aware of the issues with the surrounding development and has advised that they will take care in the preparation and implementation of the construction phase.

Conclusion

 

An amendment to a development application has been submitted for the City’s consideration to increase the number of units on the site to 26 Multiple Dwellings located on Lot 562 Tacoma Lane, Mindarie. The development is substantially compliant with the relevant development provisions except those discussed above.

 

The development application has been the subject of public consultation with one objection being received. Overall the plans are considered to be satisfactory and are recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Delegation to Determine Application

 

Pursuant to Part 8.3(b) of the City’s Delegated Authority Register and Sub-Delegated Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegation if, it is the view of the Operations Manager Planning and Development Services or Director, Planning and 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 the traffic generation and building bulk and scale of the proposed Multiple Dwelling development. Administration does not consider that these 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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 APPROVES the amended Development Application for 26 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 562 (1) Tacoma Lane, Mindarie, as shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions:

a)      The land use of the development shall be limited to Multiple Dwelling except for units 1 - 10 which, in addition to Multiple Dwelling, may be used for;               

                   Art Gallery;

                             Consulting Room; or

                             Office

          Any Consulting Room land use is limited to no more than one (1) consultant working at any one time;

b)      Maintenance of the pedestrian access way abutting units on Level 1 (as indicated in DP 52136) shall be undertaken by the owner to the satisfaction of the City;

 

c)      Detailed Landscaping and Reticulation Plans, for the subject site shall be lodged for approval by the City prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit. Planting and installation shall be in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plans and completed prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter maintained the City’s satisfaction;

d)      Lighting shall be installed in all car-parking areas. Any lighting is to be designed in accordance with Australian Standards for the "Control of Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting" (AS4282) and shall, where possible, be directed internally so as not to overspill into nearby lots;

e)      A refuse management plan to the satisfaction of the City detailing how waste is to be managed shall be provided and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any works;

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

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

h)      An on site stormwater drainage system, sufficient to contain a 1:100 year storm event (over 24 hours) must be provided. Plans illustrating the system proposed shall be submitted prior to the commencement of works, to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo, and the system shall be installed during the construction of the development;

i)       The applicant is responsible for the dust and sand drift to the satisfaction of the Manager Approval Services. Disturbed areas shall be stabilised, with stabilisation maintained to the satisfaction of the City;

j)       Any blank wall of the development, including any retaining walls shall be coated with a non-sacrificial anti-graffiti coating;

 

k)      All earthworks shall be contained on-site and not encroach onto any adjoining road reserves or rights-of-way;

 

l)       The building is to include noise mitigation measures that include the use of 10mm thick glass and commercial standard frames and seals shall be included for all windows and doors facing the marina and boat ramp;

 

m)     A construction management plan shall be submitted for approval when application is made for a building licence. This plan is to detail how construction will be managed to minimise disruption in the area and shall include:

i)       The delivery of and delivery times for materials and equipment to the site;

ii)      Storage of materials, rubbish and the location and type of equipment on site;

 

iii)     Parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors

iv)     The impact on traffic movement (including potential road closures);

v)      Construction times;

vi)     The relocation of public footpaths;

vii)    The impacts of dust and sand drift;

viii)   Measurers to minimise noise impacts on surrounding residents; and,

ix)     Any other matter required by the City.

2.       ENDORSES Administration’s responses to the submission as provided in Attachment 3; and

3.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Diagram - Lot 562 (1) Tacoma Lane, Mindarie	16/206996
2.	Attachment 2 - Development Plans - 1 Tacoma Lane, Mindarie	16/206998	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions following Advertising	16/222497	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/201016

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider Petition PT01-05/16 requesting the installation of speed humps on the roundabout at the intersection of Hinchinbrook Avenue and Ridgewood Boulevard, Ridgewood.

Background

Council received petition PT01-05/16 at its meeting of 24 May 2016 containing 23 signatures which reads as follows:

 

“We need to have speed humps installed on the roundabout at the below address – screeching tyres, every night on this roundabout, not only dangerous to young children on the area, but a very noisy situation every night to local residents.  Speed humps are, we think a necessary to be installed ASAP.”

Detail

The roundabout in question is located at the intersection of Ridgewood Boulevard, Hinchinbrook Avenue and Fedamore Approach as shown in Attachment 1.  Ridgewood Boulevard and Hinchinbrook Avenue operate as Local Distributor roads within the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and Fedamore Approach operates as a Local Access road.

 

Local Area Traffic Management treatments are installed on all approaches to the roundabout with median treatments installed on Hinchinbrook Avenue and Ridgewood Boulevard and a raised plateau installed on Fedamore Approach. Transperth operates the 484 bus route through Ridgewood between Clarkson Train Station and Butler Train Station and use the roundabout to travel between Hinchinbrook Avenue (north) and Ridgewood Boulevard.

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Comment

While the installation of vertical displacement devices such as speed humps is effective at reducing vehicle speeds on straight sections of road, Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8: Local Area Traffic Management does not recommended their use on bends.  This is because of a lack of available sight distance may mean that motorists are not expecting to encounter speed humps and they pose a particular hazard for motorcyclists who may be unbalanced by a bump when they are leaning through a bend. Therefore, the provision of speed humps within the roundabout is not supported by Administration. 

 

Administration has considered alternative options to address the concerns raised in the petition but these have not proven feasible.  Geometric changes to narrow the circulating width of the roundabout are not possible as sufficient width is required to allow for the safe operation of busses.  Surface treatments such as increasing the size of pavement aggregate or installing rumble strips to provide drivers with audible feedback are considered ineffective in reducing vehicle speeds and would increase road noise generated by all vehicles.

 

The issue of intentionally causing tyres to lose traction is covered under the States hoon laws and can be reported to WA Police for enforcement.  With no viable infrastructure changes available, Administration considers that WA Police are best equipped to deal with motorists using the roundabout illegally. 

 

Individual drivers have the responsibility to drive within the State road rules. If drivers choose to disregard those rules the WA Police is the only authority to enforce compliance.  If hoon driving is occurring in the area, community members are encouraged to report their concerns to the WA Police to assist them with enforcement of the Road Traffic Code. Complaints about speeding/hooning should be directed to WA Police by calling the 'Hoon Hotline' on 13144 or can be reported online at https://www.police.wa.gov.au/ and navigating to Your Safety/Antisocial Behaviour/Reporting Hoon Behaviour.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Local Area Traffic Management Policy applies to the assessment of this request.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT APPROVE the request made in Petition PT01-05/16 to install speed humps on the roundabout at the intersection of Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood Boulevard and Fedamore Approach;

2.       REQUESTS Administration contact WA Police regarding hoon behaviour at the intersection of Ridgewood Boulevard and Hinchinbrook Avenue; and

3.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's Decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Ridgewood Boulevard / Hinchinbrook Avenue / Fedamore Approach Roundabout Location Map

16/201218

  

File Ref:                                              3000V02 – 16/224840

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the outcomes of a safety review of Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks including the recommendations from a Crash Location Report on March long weekend tragic fatal crash in Two Rocks Road.

Background

Two Rocks Road has historically operated as regional distributor road carrying low traffic volumes in rural areas. As the localities of Two Rocks and Yanchep continue to undergo significant land use changes, traffic volumes have increased impacting on the safety and operating environment of previously rural road. Additionally, the number of crashes occurring in Two Rocks Road also triggered a safety review of the road.

 

The State Road Safety Strategy - Towards Zero: Getting there together 2008 - 2020 is based on a Safe Systems approach and is a holistic view which seeks to manage the interaction between road users, roads and roadsides, travel speeds and vehicles. In considering a preliminary safety review for Two Rocks Road, it is appropriate to do so in accordance with the 'Safe System' cornerstone.

 

As part of the speed limit review of a number of rural roads Council considered a reduction in speed limit on Two Rocks Road (IN03-08/13) in August 2013, however this was not supported. A report was presented to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 April 2016 (Item AS10-04/16) on Safety Review – Two Rocks Road, and Council deferred this matter back to Administration for further information and investigation. Main Roads WA (MRWA) has also provided a Crash Location Report (CLR) prepared after the fatal crash in Two Rocks Road in March 2016. This report now presents the matter for Council consideration including the recommendations from MRWA as made in the CLR.

Detail

Two Rocks Road is 6.66km long stretching between Yanchep Beach Road and Lisford Avenue. It is classified as a District Distributor ‘B’ road in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy, connecting Yanchep and Two Rocks. Most of the section of Two Rocks Road from 150m north of Lookout Drive and 200m south of Montebello Boulevard operates at 90km/hr posted speed limit; the remaining section of Two Rocks Road operates at 60km/hr posted speed limit. The majority of a section of the road is constructed as two lane undivided single carriageway and has a number of crests and dips. While appropriate linemarking is installed on the whole length of the road the sight distance at some locations is restricted by the crests and dips and overtaking opportunity is limited along the road. Refer to Attachment 1 for a location and speed zone map.

Traffic Data for Two Rocks Road is summarised in the table below which shows the increase in traffic volume.

 

 

Traffic Count Locations, Two Rocks Road	Traffic Count Date	Average Weekday Traffic volume, Vehicle Per Day (Vpd)	85th percentile speed (speed at which or below 85% of the motorists are driving)
North of Lookout Drive	4 May 2010	3632	88km/hr
North of Montebello Bvd	4 May 2010	3217	82km/hr
South of Montebello Bvd	15 March 2016	4557	90km/hr
North of Zamia Rise	15 March 2016	4631	95km/hr

Crash data for Two Rocks Road records 21 crashes for the whole length (6.66Km) over the five years period between 2011 and 2015. Outcomes of the 21 crashes recorded included two fatalities, five hospital admission crashes and three crashes requiring medical attention. The crash data also highlights that eight of the 21 crashes occurred at night and five of the crashes are off carriageway (leaving road) crashes. While Main Roads WA (MRWA) crash database has not been updated after 2015, the City is aware of a recent tragic head on fatal crash on this road over the March 2016 Labour Day long weekend, which resulted in the loss of three lives.

As an aftermath of any fatal crash MRWA undertakes a preliminary investigation and should any infrastructure deficiency be identified, MRWA issues a Crash Location Report (CLR) to the local authority for action. In this case, MRWA has submitted a CLR for this crash and recommended installing Raised Reflective Pavement Marker (RRPM) and Guideposts along the 90Km/hr road section to better delineate the road in the absence of Street-lighting. A copy of the CLR has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for reference.

 

There are currently no bus stops along this section of road due to minimal urban development, however bus stops will be provided in the future as development occurs along Two Rocks Road. Two Rocks Road does not have any dedicated provision for cyclists as no shared path or cycle lanes are provided on this section of road. However, wide sealed shoulders are used by road cyclists. An additional source of information was gathered by Administration through a mobile tracking tool, Strava, which monitors the movements utilised by registered users of GPS tracking and available on a number of fitness trackers and smartphones. This information is also used to generate heat maps indicating the popularity of certain routes. The application is available to the public and has over 1.2M users worldwide and is particularly popular with road cyclists to track their rides. Strava indicates that Two Rocks Road is a low use cycling route at the moment. Improved cycling facilities will be considered as part of future upgrading of Two Rocks Road.

Consultation

No consultation was conducted as part of this report. Since no residents are directly affected by the proposed works no future direct consultation will be undertaken. However, If Council and Main Roads WA support a speed limit change; Main Roads WA will advertise the change on their website and install advanced warning signs to alert motorists of the speed limit change.

Comment

The 'safe speed' cornerstone recognises that under a safe systems approach, 70km/hr is considered as being the highest survivable speed for a head on collision and 50km/hr for a right angle collision.

 

 

 

While it is noted that the 85^th percentile speed (operating speed) is close to the posted speed limit, it can be established from the crash history that speed has contributed to the severity of the crashes. Speed affects both the risk of being involved in a crash due to the decrease in time to react and the severity of a crash should it occur. The ' Safe Speed' cornerstone endeavours to:

-     Ensure speed limits suit the purpose and nature of the road;

-     Educate road users on safe travel speeds; and

-     Develop effective speed enforcement strategies.

 

Administration considers that reviewing the speed limit on Two Rocks Road will play a significant role in improving safety of the road. MRWA undertakes review of speed limit on Local Government roads based on Council requests. If a review identifies a change in speed limit of a road, MRWA installs and maintains the new signs.

 

Development along Two Rocks road is progressing and a new subdivision, ‘The Spot Stage 1’ is being constructed south of Montebello Boulevard. This subdivision will include an intersection on Two Rocks Road at Reef Break Drive. As a result, the environment of Two Rocks Road adjacent to the subdivision will change to a built up area environment. Considering the change in environment, MRWA has conducted an initial investigation which has concluded that the existing 60km/hr speed limit to be extended by 640m from 200m south of Montebello Boulevard to 300m south of the new intersection with Reef Break Drive. Refer to Attachment 2 for a location map of the subdivision.

 

As part of the safety review and in consideration of the recommendation of the CLR provided by MRWA, Administration proposes to install guideposts along the road verge and Raised Reflective Pavement Markers (RRPM) along the existing linemarking. If agreed by Council, MRWA will install the RRPM and the City will install the guideposts within three months.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The responsibility of changing speed zone, installing and maintaining RRPM lies with MRWA and as such the City will incur no financial cost for these items. The City will however need to meet the cost of the guideposts; these items are estimated in the order of $10,000 and can be funded from PR 2656 – Various Traffic Management Projects.

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       REQUESTS Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of Two Rocks Road for the section with existing 90km/hr speed zone;

2.       AGREES to install RRPM and guideposts on Two Rocks Road as recommended in the Crash Location Report; and

3.       NOTES the extension of the existing 60km/hr speed zone from 200m south of Montebello Boulevard to 300m south of the proposed Reef Break Drive and Two Rocks Road intersection.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Two Rocks Road Speed Map	13/122471
2.	Location of The Spot Stage 1 subdivision	16/107424

 

 

 

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 follows:-

“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.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 June 2016 Council resolved a procedural motion to defer the motion set out in this report to seek further legal advice.  Administration has procured the requested legal advice which is provided to Elected Members under separate confidential cover.

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 originally provided in 2014 and further confirmed in 2016 (both of which are provided to Elected Members under separate confidential cover) 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.

 

As the City is the public authority responsible for the control and management of areas of public land within the district of the City of Wanneroo, in particular the road Aldersea Circle, the City owes a duty of care to all entrants using that road. The City identified specific issues of speeding and hoon driving on Aldersea Circle that posed a risk to road users and the general public.  The City acted appropriately to mitigate that risk by installing the traffic treatments.  The legal position is clear that removal of the traffic treatments is more likely than not to expose the City to the risk of being held liable for any injury or death resulting from vehicular activity 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 organizer 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              6923 – 16/194117

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

To consider submissions for grant funding from the 2017/2018 Metropolitan Regional Road Program for Road Improvement and Road Rehabilitation Projects.

 

Background

Each year, Main Roads WA (MRWA) invites project submissions for grant funding consideration as part of the Metropolitan Regional Road Program (MRRP).

 

This report outlines the guidelines for the assessment of road works and recommends projects for consideration by the Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG).

 

The project types are separated into two categories as outlined below:

 

Road Improvement Projects

Improvement projects are those which would involve the upgrading of an existing road to a higher standard than currently exists, i.e. dual carriageway construction, pavement widening, new overtaking lanes, traffic control measures, etc.

 

A multi-criteria analysis (taking into consideration road capacity, geometry, accidents, benefits and costs) is used to prioritise road improvement projects on urban arterial roads within the metropolitan area.  This analysis is an integral part of the guidelines for the MRRP and must be followed for submissions to be considered for funding.

 

Road Rehabilitation Projects

Road rehabilitation projects are those proposed for existing roads where a failed link is to be brought back to pre-existing physical condition, e.g. resealing, reconstruction, re-sheeting and reconditioning.

 

A number of conditions have to be met for a project to be considered in the program.  Projects qualify only if the road has a classification of a local distributor road or higher and its Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) exceeds 2,000 vehicles per day or the design traffic exceeds 1 x 10⁶ Equivalent Standard Axle (a measurement that relates to the commercial vehicle content).  Another qualifying criterion requires the points scored for the criterion relating to road condition to be greater than 700 points.

Detail

Road Improvement Projects

Opus International Consultants (PCA) Ltd were commissioned to prepare the City's Road Improvement submissions. The multi-criteria analysis adopted by MRWA was used to evaluate roads in the City of Wanneroo. The higher the points score the better the chance the project has in being funded. The Road Improvement projects listed below have been submitted for the 2017/2018 program:

 

 

 

The points score of each project is based on analysis of the benefits of the project (reduced travel time, reduced vehicle operating costs, crash cost savings etc.) relative to the project costs (for construction and maintenance).  Based on the successful submission scores for Road Improvement projects funded in the 2016/17 Program for the metropolitan area, Administration considers that the submissions for both Marmion Avenue and Pinjar Road have a high chance of success.

 

Road Rehabilitation Projects

The table below lists the rehabilitation projects that were submitted for consideration in the 2017/2018 program These road rehabilitation projects were unsuccessful in gaining grant funding in previous years. Pavement Analysis Pty Limited was re-appointed to review the previous report submission and provide updated technical details and recommendations for the Buckingham Drive project and likewise Asset Infrastructure Management was re-appointed to update the report for the Hartman Drive project. 

 

 

The deadline for Road Rehabilitation submissions was 29 April 2016 while the deadline for Road Improvement submissions was 27 May 2015. The above projects were submitted to MRWA by their respective due dates subject to Council endorsement. Following Council’s endorsement, a follow up letter will be sent to MRWA advising of the outcome.

 

The tight timeframe for the preparation of the grant submissions from the date of invitation (which was 9 March 2016) to the associated deadlines meant that reporting to Council prior to the deadline was not feasible. The City engaged specialist consultants to collate data, evaluate and prepare the submissions in accordance with the criteria set out in the invitation. The scheduling of the work and the time taken to complete these submissions could not be aligned with Council’s reporting cycle and as a result, the submissions could not be presented to Council prior to the specified deadlines.

 

Following the closing date, submissions are checked by MRWA for omissions and errors in computations. The MRWA Pavement Branch will audit submissions relating to Road Rehabilitation Projects and an independent auditor appointed by MRWA will audit Road Improvement Projects.

 

Final audited projects are then collated by MRWA and a priority listing developed based on the audited points score. It is anticipated that this list of audited projects will be distributed to all Councils by September 2016.

 

The Sub Groups of the MRRG, each have technical meetings to discuss and approve projects within their own Sub Group. Recommendations are forwarded to the MRRG.  The Cities of Wanneroo, Joondalup and Stirling form the North West Sub Group.  The MRRG considers funding submissions in accordance with the guidelines and makes recommendations to the State Road Funds to Local Government Advisory Committee.

 

Councils would expect to receive advice from MRWA early in 2017 of the successful projects for the 2017/18 financial year. The final listing of the successful projects in subsequent years’ budgets will be considered by Council as part of the annual budget process.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The projects selected have been identified as these best meet the grant funding program’s selection and assessment criteria and enables the City to maximise the opportunity for funding under the MRRP’s competitive process.

 

Should any of the new Road Improvement projects be successful, the maximum funding which the City could potentially receive in 2017/18 will be the remainder of the annual cap of $3,000,000 noting that the current approved Mirrabooka Avenue dual carriageway project is already listed to receive Road Improvement funding in 2017/18 to complete the project. There may be a need to adjust the 2017/18 grant funding for two projects (Marmion Avenue and Mirrabooka Avenue) already committed under this program to receive funding in 2017/18 to allow for the inclusion of any new successful project. As is generally the case with the larger projects, successful projects are able to be staged over the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial years.

 

Based on previous years grant funding submissions to the MRRP, the Road Rehabilitation Projects listed for 2017/2018 have a high potential of success. Should the City be unsuccessful in receiving grant funding for the rehabilitation projects, the road conditions will continue to be monitored and projects will be included in the City’s Annual Transport Assets Renewal Program in accordance with the priorities determined by the City’s Road Asset Management System.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety”

                   2.5     Improve transport options and connections

Risk Management Considerations

 

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The maximum annual grant allocation for Councils is $3,000,000 for Road Improvement Projects and $750,000 for Road Rehabilitation Projects. A condition of the grant under the MRRP is that the City must contribute at least one third of the project cost to secure the State Government funding.

 

Should the funding submission for projects submitted to the Road Improvement and Road Rehabilitation Program be successful, the matching funding will be considered as part of the City's Annual Capital Work Budget deliberations. Based on the City's historical funding ability, it is likely that the City will be able to match the funding required.    

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the submission of the following projects to Main Roads WA for grant funding consideration as part of the 2017/2018 Metropolitan Regional Road Program: -

 

1.       Road Improvement Projects:-

YEAR	ROAD	SECTION OF PROPOSED DUAL CARRIAGEWAY	ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
2017/2018	Hartman Drive, Darch/Madeley	Hepburn Avenue to Gnangara Road	$4.5M
2017/2018	Marmion Avenue	Reflection Boulevard/ Camborne Parkway to Graceful Boulevard/ Romeo Road	$3.5M
2017/2018	Pinjar Road	Blackberry Drive to Joondalup Drive	$5.45M

2.       Road Rehabilitation Projects:-

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                              23752 – 16/229004

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider Tender No 01628 for Design and Construction services for the proposed new Ablution Building and Meeting Room to complement the existing Bush Fire Brigade Station at Carraway Loop, Two Rocks.

 

Background

The City's 2015/2016 Capital Works Program included $225,000 for completion of the construction of a new Ablutions Block and Meeting Room (refer to Attachment 1 for location). Following the completion of a detailed design, tenders for the construction of this building were invited.

 

The tender consisted of two Options the first being a scheme which was compliant with the user requirements, the second scheme was of a reduced specification. This report considers the tender outcome and recommendation.

Detail

Tender No 01628 for Design and Construction services for the proposed new Ablution Building and Meeting Room was advertised on Saturday 16 April 2016 and closed on Tuesday 10 May 2016.  A copy of the tender document is available in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Terms	Detail
Contract Type	Fixed Lump Sum Price
Commencement Date	5 September 2016
Contract Duration	32 weeks from possession of site
Extension Permitted	No
Rise and Fall	No

 

Tender submissions were received from:

 

·    Diploma Construction Pty Ltd;

·    Fleetwood Pty Ltd; and

·    Maintenance and Construction Services Australia (MACS) Pty Ltd.

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

 

Tender Evaluation Process

A "value for money" approach was adopted for tender evaluation, with the principles that guided this assessment summarised as follows:

Compliance Assessment

All tenders to be assessed for compliance with the requirements of the Conditions of Tender and any specified Contract requirements.

 

On initial review of tender submissions received, all tenders were deemed compliant with the tender requirements.

 

Non-Price Assessment

A non-price assessment provides a measure of the tenderer’s capability and capacity to perform the requirements of the Contract. The non-price assessment involves ranking the tenderers in accordance with weighted scores against the assessment criteria arising from the evaluation undertaken. The non-price assessment criteria and their weighting are summarised as follows:

 

 

Based on the total weighted score, a “normalised score” is then developed for ranking purposes and further analysis.

 

Value for Money Assessment

An analysis of the tendered lump sum pricing, non-price criteria and assessment of risk to the project to determine the Tender that offers the best value for money.

 

Price for the services offered

Tenderers provided lump sum prices for the scope of works. The prices received range from $428,858.00 to $1,129,900.00.

 

The approved 2015/2016 Capital Works program was $225,000 with $215,967 remaining available for the construction of this project.

The prices received represent between 199% and 525% over the available budget.

 

Organisational Experience in similar works (25%)

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

 

Two tenderers demonstrated good compliance to the requirements. The remaining one did not include any evidence of previously completed projects.

 

Tenderer’s Key Personnel Experience in similar works (25%)

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

 

Two tenderer’s submissions listed their personnel but no details provided in either case. The third tenderer was considered unacceptable as no personnel information was provided.

 

 

 

Tenderer’s Understanding of the Tender Requirements and Methodology (25%)

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

 

All tenderers provided a program of works and demonstrated understanding of the tender with two tenderers addressing items specifically related to the project such as level of service by architect and design team and scope of work at consultancy stages including detailed programs and one tenderer presenting a more generic approach.

 

Tenderer’s Occupational Health and Safety Management (25%)

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

 

All Tenderers demonstrated detailed organisational safety management policies and processes with management systems and approach to occupational health and safety addressed the criterion.  

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with the relevant stakeholders including the following:

 

·    Two Rocks Volunteer Fire Brigade;

·    Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES); and

·    Internal stakeholders.

Comment

Given that all tender prices exceed the available budget by a significant amount and do not represent best value for money for the City, it is felt necessary and appropriate that Administration review the requirements and scope of the works, revise the construction estimate and then go back to market with a revised project. 

 

In order to ensure that this project is delivered within the 2016/17 financial year, it is proposed that Administration will develop a revised concept design in consultation with the Two Rocks Volunteer Fire Brigade and immediately commence the procurement process. Given that this project was subject to an unsuccessful Tender exercise, Administration would now propose to progress procurement on the basis of competitive quotations.

 

The last Fire Station delivered by the City was the Quinns Rock Fire Station that was built in 2008 by Redink Homes P/L at a cost of just over $200,000. Scope included 270m2 of residential grade construction and excluded a number of items including fit-out, hardstands, turn-around areas, external works, etc.  

Statutory Compliance

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

 

The following are project related approvals:

 

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

 

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

 

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

By not accepting this tender, the project delivery will be delayed, however it is anticipated that this can be managed through a revised project scope and associated schedule within the current financial year.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Tender prices received are more than the $200,000 available budget. The tender prices also exclude several potential contingency items that have the potential to significantly influence the overall cost.

 

Any financial variances will be managed as part of the review of the scope of works and consideration of the procurement of works.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DECLINES all tenders for Tender No 01628 for the Construction of Two Rocks Fire Station new ablution building and meeting room;

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

3.       NOTES that Administration will review the scope of works and seek competitive quotations and award contract for the construction of the Two Rocks Fire Station new ablution building and meeting room.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

LOCATION PLAN Two Rocks Fire Station

16/235597

 

 

File Ref:                                              4504 – 16/234105

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 01636 for the Construction of Yanchep Active Open Space, Lot 9100 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 26 May 2015 (CR05-05/15; IN01-05/15 refer), considered the costs associated with the Oval Groundworks and Marmion Avenue Extension in relation to the Deed of Agreement for the Yanchep Active Open Space (YAOS) and adopted following resolutions;

 

“CR-05/05/15 - ENDORSES the estimated Oval Groundwork’s Costs as detailed in the report, therefore complying with the requirements of Clause 5.1(b)(ii) of the Deed of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo and the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture, subject to satisfactory completion of the Developer Contribution Plan for Yanchep-Two Rocks.

 

IN01-05/15 - accepts the agreed total Marmion Avenue Extension Costs of $1,650,592.05, therefore complying with the requirements of Clause 4.2(b) of the Deed of Agreement between the City of Wanneroo and the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture, subject to satisfactory completion of the Developer Contribution Plan for Yanchep-Two Rocks.”

 

On 27 August 2015 the Chief executive Officer in accordance with Part 6.4 – “Choice of most Advantageous Tenderer” of the City’s Consolidated Delegated Authority Register for awarding of tenders limited to $250,000; accepted Tender No 01516 for the lump sum price of $132,312 (ex GST) from Lycopodium Infrastructure Pty Ltd for the provision of Services for Design Development and Contract Administration for the Yanchep Active Open Space.

 

It is noted that the final oval groundworks are now almost complete. Following the completion of the detailed design, tenders were invited for the construction of Yanchep Active Open Space and this report now considers the outcome of the tender evaluation.

Detail

The Tender for the Construction of Yanchep Active Open Space (YAOS), Lot 9100 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep, was advertised on 4 June 2016 and closed on 21 June 2016.

 

A copy of the Tender documents has been made available in the Elected Members’ reading room.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·    BCL Group Pty Ltd;

·    Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd;

·    Environmental Industries Pty Ltd;

·    Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd;

 

·    RJ Vincent & Co;

·    Le Grove Landscaping; and

·    Tracc Civil Pty Ltd.

Tender Assessment

It was determined that each of the Tenderers had satisfied the Tender submission qualification.

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of three members whose functions were:

Evaluation Panel Member	Function
Project Manager Yanchep Infrastructure	Undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions
Project Manager Infrastructure Projects	Provide input and oversite to the qualitative (technical) assessment
Technical Officer - Irrigation	Provide input and oversite to the qualitative (technical) assessment

 

Contracts officers provided an oversight of the evaluation process for statutory compliance and verify the value for money assessment.

 

Tenders were evaluated in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

1.       Methodology: the construction of the works and phasing requirements.

 

2.       Demonstrated Experience: undertake and completed projects of a similar nature and complexity.

 

3.       Resources and Capability: to construct the works within the nominated timeframe and schedule; qualifications and experience of the tenderer’s key personnel and their position in management of the works; list of all subcontractors whose services will be utilised for the works.

 

4.       Occupational Health & Safety Management: must provide an overview of the organisations Safety and Health Management System (OSHMS) and provide current applied examples commensurate with construction work.

 

5.       Contract Lump Sum: including priced Bill of Quantities, costed lump sum tender price schedules.

 

The nominated weightings applied to each of the five selection criteria are noted as follows:

Item No	Category	Score
1	Methodology	20%
2	Demonstrated Experience	10%
3	Resources & Capability	10%
3	Occupational Health & Safety Management	20%
5	Price for Works offered	40%
Total Weighted Score		100%

 

Tenders were assessed against the selection criteria outlined above, along with a financial risk assessment and reference check to determine the most appropriate Tender providing the best ‘value for money’ submission.

 

Methodology (20%):

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd, RJ Vincent & Co, provided very good methodology statements and conveyed a more detailed understanding of the works to be carried out. Gantt charts were included that clearly outline the timelines proposed for each phase of the works.

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	2
BCL Group Pty Ltd	3
Le Grove Landscaping	3
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	3
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	6
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	6

 

Demonstrated Experience (10%):

RJ Vincent & Co, BCL Group Pty Ltd and Environmental Industries Pty Ltd presented a good standard of experience in relation to the delivery of similar projects. Remaining submissions provided an adequate response to this criterion; therefore, based upon the information provided, tenders have been ranked as below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
RJ Vincent & Co	1
BCL Group Pty Ltd	2
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	2
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	4
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	4
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	4
Le Grove Landscaping	7

 

Resources and Capability (10%): 

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources to manage the contract. BCL Group Pty Ltd, Environmental Industries Pty Ltd, Tracc Civil Pty Ltd and RJ Vincent & Co provided a good submission clearly outlining specific resources and ample capacity. Remaining submissions provided an adequate level of resources and capability, therefore based on the information provided tenders have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
BCL Group Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Le Grove Landscaping	5
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	5
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	5

 

Occupational Health & Safety Management (20%):

Tenderer’s safety management policies and practices were assessed in response to their completion of an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire and with respect to their approach, specific to the requirements of this project as included within the Tender documentation. Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	1
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	4
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	4
BCL Group Pty Ltd	6
Le Grove Landscaping	6

 

Price for Works offered (40%):

An assessment was made to determine ranking based on the Tender lump sum price; this included a review of the lump sum price schedules as provided by the Tenderers. Based on the information provided, tenders have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
BCL Group Pty Ltd	1
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	2
Le Grove Landscaping	3
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	4
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	5
RJ Vincent & Co	6
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	7

 

Tenderer’s Overall Weighted Score:

The Tender submissions were reviewed against weighted scores based upon an evaluation of each tenderer’s – Lump Sum price; construction methodology; demonstrated experience; resources and capability; and displaying an appropriately employed safety management system to be able to undertake the construction of the tendered works.

 

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

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
RJ Vincent & Co	2
BCL Group Pty Ltd	3
Tracc Civil Pty Ltd	4
Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd	5
Le Grove Landscaping	6
Civcon Civil & Project Management Pty Ltd	7

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel confirms and recommends that the City should accept the tender of Environmental Industries Pty Ltd for the construction of the YAOS.

 

Consultation

Administration has engaged with key stakeholders throughout the development of this project including meetings with the representatives of the Yanchep Redhawks Football Club; the Cricket and Little Athletics Clubs. The comments provided by the Clubs have been considered during the detailed design of this project. The comments were minimal and the clubs were in agreement with the design as a whole with minor adjustments to location of some item of infrastructure. All clubs have since been provided with updated information as it became available.

 

Furthermore, as the Yanchep Active Open Space facility is included as an infrastructure item in the Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan (DCP), Administration has consulted with the landowners in Yanchep and Two Rocks through the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Technical Advisory Committee on 5 April 2016 and 13 May 2016 as well as an informal meeting with landowners on 29 June 2016.  This consultation has occurred as part of the annual review process for the DCP, part of which comprises a review of all estimated costs for the construction of DCP facilities, which includes the Yanchep Active Open Space.

 

At these meetings the landowners noted the pre-tender cost estimates for the Yanchep Active Open Space and the fact that this cost estimate will be revised following the outcome of the tender process.  Once the preferred tender is accepted, this cost will be factored into the DCP review process.

Comment

The panel is satisfied that the proposed costs for the works reflect best value for the City.

 

As the Tender submission from Environmental Industries Pty Ltd achieved the highest ranked score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings and is recommended as the preferred Tenderer.

 

Reference checks indicate that Environmental Industries Pty Ltd has previously provided good service to its previous clients.

 

In 2014/15, the City had some concerns with the provision of maintenance services by Environmental Industries Pty Ltd under another contract. However, since then Environmental Industries Pty Ltd has delivered satisfactory service under other maintenance contracts with the City. It is also noted that the concerns experienced under the previous contract should not impact the tender evaluation panel’s recommendation for tender 01636.

 

Works Programme

 

The construction of the Yanchep Active Open Space anticipated programme is outlined as follows:

 

Report to Council – Construction Tender Outcome	July 2016
Contract Award and Possession of Site	September 2016
Construction Completion	February 2017
Practical Completion	February 2017
Maintenance & Establishment Period	May 2017
Winter Planting (by the City)	June 2017

 

 

Following award of the Tender, City’s appointed consultant will administer the contract during the construction and after practical completion of the works, and the maintenance & establishment period. Thereafter attend upon the 12 month defects liability period.

 

Procurement of the non-irrigated tube stock will be carried out by the City ahead of the winter 2017 planting, which is scheduled to be completed in June 2017. This will be closely followed by the completion of the District Sports Amenities building in early July 2017.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

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

Documentation will be provided by the contractor identifying operational risks and mitigation measures associated with the delivery of these contract works, the implementation which will be audited by the City as part of the management of these contract works.

Policy Implications

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

 

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

Financial Implications

The table below summarises the available funding for the project, including current expenditures, for the recommended tender price by Environmental Industries Pty Ltd for the Construction of the Yanchep Active Open Space and associated expenses:

 

 

 

Project Number PR- 2072 Yanchep Active Open Space Playing Fields
Description	Expenditure	Budget
Budget:
Budget prior to 2015/2016		$158,235
Capital Works Budget for 2015/16		$1,403,257
Budget 2016/17		$5,803,508
Total allocated Budget to date (PR-2072)		$7,365,000
Expenditure:
Expenditure incurred to date	$310,273
Commitments (2015/2016)	$17,692
Construction Activities
-     Tender No. 01560 for the Construction of the Yanchep Active Open Space – Based on Recommended Tenderer’s (Environmental Industries Pty Ltd) price	$3,839,343.94
-     Based on Recommended Tenderer’s Price Contingency @10%	$383,934.40
Associated other works including soil enhancers, site security, additional paving, and play equipment etc.	$500,000
Winter Planting Works	$600,000
Construction and Project Management Costs	$150,000
Total Expenditure (estimated)	$5,801,243.34
Total Project Budget		$7,365,000
Balance:	$1,563,756.66

 

Council has approved an allocation for project PR-2072 of $5,803,508 as part of the 2016/17 budget process; the budget provision includes a grant from the Department of Sport and recreation of $975,000 with the remainder funded by municipal and loan funding. The project cost will be reviewed and an appropriate budget adjustment will be requested as part of the mid-year budget review during January 2017.

 

In relation to the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP, it should be noted that the preferred tender cost is less than what has previously been allowed for in the DCP as outlined below:

·    DCP Cost Estimate = $7,365,000

·    Updated estimate based on Tender Cost = $5,801,243

 

Savings resulting from the reduced cost estimate cannot be automatically used on other elements of the Yanchep Active Open Space (i.e. sporting pavilion, land acquisition).  Instead they represent a cost saving to the City and the DCP on a proportionate basis according to the cost apportionment schedule adopted by Council for the DCP and these cost savings will need to be factored into the annual review of the DCP.

 

Administration has been working separately with the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Technical Advisory Committee on the annual review of the DCP, which has been considering the funding and cash-flow requirements for DCP projects. A significant driver in the establishment of the DCP was to provide for the early delivery of some of the DCP facilities, in particular the Yanchep Active Open Space. To this end, land acquisition for the Yanchep Active Open Space was approved by the Minister for Planning for inclusion in the DCP to provide the land for the facility in advance of the normal subdivision process, the DCP Report adopted by Council listed the delivery of the facility in year 2 of 10, and a Deed of Agreement was established with the Yanchep Beach Joint Venture setting out the responsibilities and

 

timeframes for construction.  Also associated with the early delivery of the Yanchep Active Open Space was the need to access loan funds to ‘pre-fund’ construction in advance of sufficient income being available in the DCP, with this loan to be progressively repaid over the life of the DCP by developing landowners.

 

It is important to note that should Council resolve to accept a tender for these works, this will ‘lock in’ the need to access loan funds to meet the DCP’s proportionate funding contribution towards this facility, and in turn ‘lock in’ these costs in the DCP model currently being finalised as part of the annual DCP review.

 

It should also be noted that although landowners in the DCP area were involved in the process of preparing the DCP, including Council’s subsequent adoption of facility timing and cost apportionment schedule, they have made a submission through the annual DCP review process noting their opposition to the establishment of loan funding to prefund the works, and have requested that the City defer all works not already committed to until such time as there are sufficient funds in the DCP to pay for the works.

 

In relation to these matters, it is important to be clear that the type and number of facilities included in the DCP was determined through the Minister for Planning’s approval of Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and these are not subject to annual review or challenge by landowners.  However, the DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule, which set out the facility timing and DCP costs, were adopted by Council but sit outside DPS 2 and are subject to annual review.  Through the process of this annual review, the relevant clauses of DPS 2 only provide opportunity for landowners to comment or request a review of specific DCP elements as outlined in the following clauses from Schedule 17:

 

11.6 Where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be increased pursuant to clause 11.4(c), then the local government shall in writing invite comment on the

proposal from owners for a period of not less than 28 days, prior to making any decision to increase the estimated costs.

 

11.7 The local government shall consider all submissions received and within ninety (90) days of the date of the latest date specified in the notice given under clause 11.6,

decide that the estimated costs are to be:

(a) maintained; or

(b) increased and if so the degree of that increase.

The local government shall notify affected persons of its decision.

 

11.8 If an owner objects to the amount of a cost contribution, the owner may give notice to the local government requesting a review of the amount of the cost contribution by an

appropriate qualified person (‘independent expert’) agreed by the local government and the owner at the owner’s expense, within 28 days after being informed of the cost

contribution.

 

11.9 If the independent expert does not change the cost contribution to a figure acceptable to the owner, the cost contribution is to be determined—

(a) by any method agreed between the local government and the owner; or

(b) if the local government and the owner cannot agree on a method pursuant to (a) or on an independent expert, by arbitration in accordance with the

Commercial Arbitration Act 1985, with the costs to be shared equally between the local government and owner.

 

12.3 If an owner objects to a valuation made by the valuer, the owner may give notice to the local government requesting a review of the amount of the value, at the owner’s expense, within 28 days after being informed of the value.

 

Essentially these provisions allow landowners to make comment on any proposed increase in the cost estimates (clause 11.6) and Council is required to give due regard to any submissions made in this respect (clause 11.7) before deciding whether or not to increase the DCP costs.  In the case of this tender, the cost estimate has reduced significantly from what was previously identified in the DCP.  Landowners may also object to the amount of a cost contribution (clause 11.8) and request a review by an independent expert. If this does not result in the cost contribution being acceptable to the landowners then ultimately they can request that the cost contribution be determined through a process of arbitration.  A similar right exists for the process of determining the value of any land to be acquired through the DCP (clause 12.3).

 

Given that the extent of review provided for landowners under DPS 2 does not extend to the timing of delivery of facilities or the right to access loan funds (provided for in the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP included in Schedule 18 of DPS 2) to facilitate the early delivery of DCP facilities, it is considered appropriate that Council proceed to accept this tender, subject to the establishment of a loan to meet the DCP’s proportionate contribution towards the construction costs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Environmental Industries Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01636 for the Construction of the Yanchep Active Open Space Lot 9100 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep for the fixed lump sum price of $3,839,343.94 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document; and

2.       NOTES that the City will be establishing a loan to fund a portion of this project in accordance with the approved 2016/2017 Budget.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Community & Place

Cultural Development

File Ref:                                              1443 – 16/209652

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the review of the Community History Centre Collection Policy.

Background

A collection development policy for the then newly created Community History Centre was developed in 2009/10 and was approved by Council in 2010. This policy was revised and approved in 2012 and a third revision has now been drafted.

Detail

The proposed changes to the policy in their entirety are detailed in the document Community History Centre Policy New Draft 2016 which is attached to this report.

 

A summary of the significant changes follows:

 

The policy updates name changes to the business unit – from Community Capacity Building to Cultural Development and the sub-unit from Heritage, Museums and Arts to Cultural Services.

 

The policy objective “To provide a framework within which the Community History Centre’s collection can be managed, preserved and made accessible” is expanded to, “The purpose of this policy is to provide the City of Wanneroo (the City) and the community with clear and consistent business rules for the administration of the Community History Centre. The policy will:

 

·        provide a framework for the management of the Community History Centre, its services and the preservation of its resources;

·        clarify the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved; and

·        ensure consistency in the management procedures adopted.

 

The policy statement emphasises the recognition placed by the City of Wanneroo on the importance of storing, conserving and protecting material in the Community History Centre so that it may be preserved for posterity.

 

Additions to the scope state that this policy also applies to users of the Community History Centre and not just to staff and volunteers involved in the management of the Centre. The scope also covers administration of services and programs, service delivery and technology.

 

Part of the background statement has been modified to provide further clarity about the administrative history of the City. “The former City of Wanneroo comprised the area now covered by the City of Joondalup and the current City of Wanneroo. In July 1998 the municipality was split into the two Councils that exist today”, will be replaced with “In July 1998 the municipality that was the City of Wanneroo was divided and the City of Joondalup and Shire of Wanneroo created. In July 1999 Wanneroo regained its City status.”

 

The Heritage Services Advisory Group is added as a stakeholder that needs to be consulted.

 

With regard to financial and human resource implications, “Not applicable” will be replaced with, “The Community History Centre Collection Policy will guide Cultural Services staff in ensuring fair and equitable access to the services and resources provided by the Community History Centre. Service and development are to be met out of the current operating budget which is reviewed on an annual basis. This policy will be regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains relevant to customer requirements and industry standards. Staff will receive ongoing training and development to ensure the provision of best practice delivery.”

 

Implementation, which currently has a simple referral to the Community History Centre Management Procedure, is expanded to state that the policy will support the ongoing task of providing a community history service. In addition, the Community History Centre Management Procedure details specific procedures relating to implementation. Cultural Services will also review demand for services and technological developments in order to continuously improve services.

 

Dispute resolution will change from being non applicable. Instead, all disputes in regard to this policy will be referred to the Manager Cultural Development in the first instance. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be submitted to the Director Community and Place for a ruling.

 

All Cultural Services staff should be aware of this policy and specifically Coordinator Cultural Services, Community History Librarian, Curator, Curatorial Assistants and Museum Assistants must have a detailed knowledge of this policy. Employees of the City in general and residents will no longer need to know about this policy.

 

With policy evaluation, reviewing the policy every two years to make adjustments to internal and external changes will be replaced with evaluation as to its effectiveness in achieving its outcomes. Measures will be established, including developing and listing key performance indicators to ensure that the policy is meeting objectives and accountability requirements.

Consultation

The Heritage Services Advisory Group has been consulted in the revision of this policy and at its meeting of 26 April recommended to Council to adopt the revision of the Community History Collection Policy.

Comment

It is important to regularly revise policies like the Community History Centre Collection Policy so that such policies properly reflect the active planning, changes and refocusing of the City’s aims and objectives. Regular policy reviews help to achieve better and more innovative operational outcomes for both the City and the community. 

 

The proposed changes refine the policy to reflect current practice.

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

Nil

Financial Implications

There are no direct financial implications of the revision/updating of this policy.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the revised Community History Centre Collection Policy as per Attachment 1.

 

Attachments:

1.

Community History Centre Collection Policy Revised 2016

14/371258

Minuted