Proof_CouncilAgenda_Coverpage_Template_Governance

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 07 November, 2016

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo


PUBLIC QUESTION AND STATEMENT TIME

 

1.         TIME PERMITTED

A minimum of 15 minutes is permitted for public questions at each Council Meeting.  If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the person presiding will move to the next item.  If there are more questions than can be considered within 15 minutes, the person presiding will determine whether to extend question time. Each person seeking to ask questions during public question time may address the Council for a maximum of 3 minutes each. 

 

2.         PROTOCOLS

No member of the public may interrupt the meeting’s proceedings or enter into conversation. 

 

Members of the public wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting are to register on the night at the main reception desk located outside of the Chamber.  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 (that is by noon on the day before the meeting).

 

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.  Members of the public 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 be stated.

 

3.         GENERAL RULES

The following general rules apply to public question and statement time:

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

·                Only questions relating to matters affecting the local government will be considered at an ordinary meeting, and only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered at a special meeting. 

·                Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting.

·                Questions may not be directed at specific Elected Members or Employees.

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

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

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

 

DEPUTATIONS

 

An informal session will be held on the same day as the Council meeting 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. To present a deputation members of the public are required to submit a request for deputation in writing at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer.  A request for a deputation must be received by Council Support 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 mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.

For further information please contact Council Support on 9405 5027.


Recording of Council Meetings Policy

 

 

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 29 November, 2016 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

3 November, 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

OC01-11/16     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 October 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

UP01-11/16     Request for footpath, Rayner Drive, Landsdale  (PT01-09/16) 1

UP02-11/16     Employment of a Town Planner or Consultant to Wanneroo City Council (PT02-09/16) 1

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

City Growth  2

PS01-11/16      Adoption of Scheme Heritage List  2

PS02-11/16      Annual Review of Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan  17

PS03-11/16      Draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes and Draft Street Tree Policy  65


 

Approval Services  104

PS04-11/16      Review of the Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy  104

PS05-11/16      Medium-Density Single House Development Standards (R-MD) 141

PS06-11/16      Proposed Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 15 to East Wanneroo Cell 5 Agreed Structure Plan No. 7  154

PS07-11/16      Consideration of Development Application (DA2016/857) - Single House (Patio) - Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie  175

Assets  184

Asset Operations & Services  184

AS01-11/16      PT01-09/16 Request for the Installation of a Footpath on Rayner Drive from Everglades Parade to The Broadview, Landsdale  184

AS02-11/16      Tender No 16137 - Construction of Sports Amentities and Carpark at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson  189

Assets Maintenance  197

AS03-11/16      Tender No 16171 - Supply and Application of Herbicides and Organic Control Products to Weeds in Hardstands, Kerblines and Mulched Areas  197

Waste Services  203

AS04-11/16      City of Wanneroo Strategic Waste Management Plan  203

Community & Place  232

Community Facilities  232

CP01-11/16     Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy  232

CP02-11/16     Edith Cowan University Waiver of Fees - Wanneroo Aquamotion Gym   242

Place Strengthening  246

CP03-11/16     Community Funding Program September 2016 Round Applications  246

Corporate Strategy & Performance  274

Business & Finance  274

CS01-11/16     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 September 2016  274

Strategic & Business Planning  305

CS02-11/16     Annual Report 2015/16  305

CS03-11/16     Updated Strategic Community Plan Vision, Outcomes and Strategies  309

Transactional Finance  318

CS04-11/16     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 October 2016  318

CS05-11/16     Annual Audited Financial Statements for the period ended 30 June 2016  384

CS06-11/16     Review of the Long Term Financial Plan 2016/17-2035/36  490

Property Services  544

CS07-11/16     Proposed Lease to The Badminton Association of Western Australia (Inc.) 544

Council & Corporate Support  550

CS08-11/16     Proposed Council Meeting Dates for 2017  550

CS09-11/16     Donations to be Considered by Council - November 2016  554

Chief Executive Office  560

Governance & Legal  560

CE01-11/16     Administrative Amendments to Council Policies  560

CE02-11/16     2015 Local Government Postal Elections - Issues Paper  588

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 595

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 595

Item  11____ Confidential_ 595

CR03-11/16     Proposal to Dispose of Portion of Lot 600 (570) Wattle Avenue Neerabup  595

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 595

Item  13____ Closure_ 595

 


Agenda

 

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

 

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

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-11/16       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 October 2016

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 October 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  

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 45 signatories requesting provision of a footpath along Rayner Drive, Landsdale to connect residents to pathways and public transport along The Broadview, Landsdale.

 

Update

 

A report is presented to this Council meeting at Item AS01-11/16.

UP02-11/16       Employment of a Town Planner or Consultant to Wanneroo City Council (PT02-09/16)

Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 49 signatories requesting the employment of a Town Planner or Consultant to encourage residential development and to allow rural uses and development to be approved by Council for the area identified as East Wanneroo and to improve the onus for District and Local Planning, MRC Amendment applications and identification of such matters as MRS reservations, priority local natural areas, wetlands, spatial staging plans etc. from proponents and ratepayers – as is currently required by Local Planning Policy 5.3 (now defunct).

 

Update

 

A report on this petition will be presented to a future Council meeting.

Item  8      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

City Growth

PS01-11/16       Adoption of Scheme Heritage List

File Ref:                                              2188 – 16/341737

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider the final adoption of the proposed District Planning Scheme No. 2 Heritage List (Scheme Heritage List).

Background

Council adopted a new Local Heritage Survey (LHS) at its meeting on 16 August 2016 (PS04-08/16) following a review of the former Municipal Heritage Inventory.

 

Through the process of reviewing and updating the LHS, a number of heritage places were assigned new management categories, which in some instances resulted in changes to the Scheme Heritage List.

 

The Scheme Heritage List is established under clause 8 of the deemed provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and includes those places in the LHS that are of exceptional or considerable significance and therefore assigned a management category of 1, 1A or 2. Places included on the Scheme Heritage List are provided protection under DPS 2.

 

The proposed Scheme Heritage List as considered by Council on 16 August 2016, is included as Attachment 1, and includes a total of 37 places and 1 precinct.  Council’s adoption of the LHS resulted in the following changes to the Scheme Heritage List:

 

·    four new places have been included - three individual places and one precinct;

 

·    nine places have been removed - two due to being removed from the LHS completely and the remaining seven due to being allocated a lower management category in the new LHS.

 

A full summary of the changes to the Scheme Heritage List is included as Attachment 2.

 

Before Council could adopt the final Scheme Heritage List, clause 8(3) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 requires that feedback from affected landowners be sought on any proposed changes that affect their properties.  Accordingly, as part of its adoption of the new LHS, Council resolved to:

 

“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;”

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, Administration wrote to affected land owners on 8 September 2016 inviting feedback on the proposed inclusion, change in management category or removal of their heritage place from the Scheme Heritage List.

Detail

Following the close of the comment period on 30 September 2016 the City received 3 submissions. A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s comments and recommended modifications is included as Attachment 3. 

 

Two submissions did not object to the proposed changes to their heritage places.  The third submission also made no objection, however provided additional information about the physical fabric, ownership and use of ‘Place 37: House, 466 Gibbs Road’ in Nowergup.  The submitter also advised that the heritage house was no longer on his property and was now within the Lake Nowergup Reserve, and that the correct address should be 465 Gibbs Rd, not 466 Gibbs Rd.

 

Administration sought and received further information and copies of transfer of land records from the submitter which verified the additional information for inclusion in the City’s Community History Library.  Accordingly, it is proposed to update Place Form 37 as shown in tracked changes in Attachment 4

 

The updated Place Form 37, with all new additions for inclusion in the LHS is included as Attachment 5. 

 

This additional information requires a minor change to the Scheme Heritage List to reflect the correct address for Place 37.  The revised Scheme Heritage List is included as Attachment 6.

Consultation

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 16 August 2016, a consultation with affected landowners was undertaken. This occurred between 8 September 2016 and 30 September 2016.

 

Administration sought the advice of the State Heritage Office regarding the process for updating a single Place Form within the LHS.  The State Heritage office advised that if the information could be verified and would not cause a change in the management category of the place, then there would not be a need for further advertising or public consultation to replace the LHS Place Form 37.

 

Administration provided information on the outcomes of landowner consultation and the proposed changes to Place Form 37 to members of the City’s Heritage Services Advisory Group (HSAG) for review and comment.  The HSAG members did not see any need for the outcomes of landowner consultation to be formally considered by the HSAG and were supportive of it being presented to Council for final adoption.

Comment

Given that no objections were received from affected landowners in relation to the proposed changes to Scheme Heritage List, Administration is not recommending any modifications to the List as a result of landowner consultation.

 

The uncovering of additional information in relation to Place 37 demonstrates the value of consultation with the community on Heritage matters.  As the additional information does not alter the management category of Place 37, and was able to be verified by Administration through the provision of transfer of land documents by the submitter, Administration recommends replacing Place Form 37 in LHS, without further advertising or public consultation.

Statutory Compliance

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.

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.       NOTES the submissions received during consultation with affected landowners in relation to the Scheme Heritage List, as included as Attachment 3 and ENDORSES Administration’s responses and recommended modifications in response to those submissions;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 8(3)(d) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPT the Scheme Heritage List as included at Attachment 6, to supersede the previous Scheme Heritage List;

3.       Pursuant to Clause 8(4) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 NOTIFY submitters, affected landowners and the Heritage Council of Western Australia of Council’s decision;

4.       ENDORSES the updated Place Form 37 as included at Attachment 5 and REQUESTS Administration to replace this Form in the Local Heritage Survey and update relevant Index pages, without further public advertising.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 to Council Report 16/341737 Council Adopted Heritage List

16/374778

 

2.

Attachment 2 to Council Report 16 341737 Changes the Scheme Heritage List.DOCX

16/372931

 

3.

Attachment 3 Council Report 16 341737 Summary of Submissions on proposed Scheme Heritage List.DOCX

16/372924

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 to Council Report 16/341737 Track Changes Place Form No: 37

16/357807

 

5.

Attachment 5 Council Report 16/341737 Place Form No: 37

16/342983

Minuted

6.

Attachment 6 Council Report 16/341737: Proposed Heritage List

16/196625

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                         6

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 08 November, 2016                                                         7

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                            8

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       10

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       13

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       16

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                           17

PS02-11/16       Annual Review of Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan

File Ref:                                              23156 – 16/354942

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the outcomes of stakeholder consultation on the proposed increase to the Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan (DCP) cost contribution amount.

Background

Council considered the outcome of the annual review of the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP at its meeting on 16 August 2016 which proposed an increase to the cost contribution amount from $2,070 to $2,780 per lot, and resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES that the annual review of the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan is proposing a change to apportionment of costs between the City and the Development Contribution Plan and an increase in the cost contribution per dwelling; and

 

2.       Pursuant to Clause 11.6 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme NOTIFIES affected landowners of the proposed cost increase and INVITES comment in writing from those landowners for a period of 28 days.”

 

In accordance with item 2 of Council’s resolution, affected landowners were notified in writing of the proposed cost increase on 22 August 2016 and invited to provide comment prior to 23 September 2016.

 

Following the conclusion of the comment period, two (2) submissions were received, both opposing the proposed increase to the cost contribution amount.

Detail

A summary of the submissions received, and Administration’s comments and recommended modifications in response to those submissions, is included as Attachment 1.

 

The key issues raised in the submissions are outlined below.

 

·    Downturn in the Property Market

 

Both submissions maintained that it is not appropriate to be increasing the cost contribution amount in a time of economic downturn, and that this would only further impact on the affordable end of the housing market and potentially prolong the depressed market conditions.

 

·    Need & Nexus

 

The submission from Mike Allen (on behalf of Yanchep Beach Joint Venture, Yanchep Sun City, Tokyu Corporation, Yanchep Beach Estates Pty Ltd, Two Rocks Investments Pty Ltd,

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, Atlantis @ Two Rocks Pty Ltd and New Orion Australia Pty Ltd) argues that the proposed increase in the cost contribution amount is due to Council’s commitment to the early provision of some of the DCP facilities, despite the slowing of the residential property market.  As a result of this, the submission argues that a greater proportion of demand is created by existing residents rather than new growth and therefore that a greater proportionate cost of these facilities should be met by Council rather than the DCP.

Consultation

Administration consulted with major landowners through the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Technical Advisory Committee, which met on two occasions as part of the annual review process, on 5 April and 13 May 2016.  Additional meetings between Administration and the landowner group occurred outside of the formal Committee process on 29 June and 14 July 2016.

 

Formal comment on the proposed cost increase was sought from all landowners in the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP area between 22 August 2016 and 23 September 2016.

 

A meeting of the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Technical Advisory Committee was held on 14 October 2016 to discuss the outcomes of stakeholder consultation.  As a quorum was not met for this meeting, no formal recommendations were made by the Committee.  However those Committee members in attendance noted the outcomes of the advertising period and Administration’s intent to present the outcomes of the stakeholder consultation period to Council for consideration.

Comment

The Yanchep Two Rocks DCP will provide long term benefits to the community in Yanchep and Two Rocks through the delivery of quality community facilities and amenity.  The purpose of the annual DCP review process is to ensure that sufficient funds continue to be collected from developing landowners to meet the cost of delivering these facilities.  Administration has worked with key landowners through the annual DCP review process to seek to minimise the extent of any cost increase, while still maintaining a contribution amount that can deliver the required DCP infrastructure.  The proposed increase is considered to represent a negotiated outcome that recognises the slowdown in the housing market, but acknowledges that it will likely improve in the future.  As actual lot creation was less than what was projected over the previous 12 month period, not increasing the development contribution amount as an outcome of this annual DCP review would almost certainly result in the need to increase the amount by a greater extent in future reviews.

 

In relation to the comments around need and nexus, the development contribution amount is determined through a cost apportionment exercise that considers the demand for the facilities generated from existing residents and projected new growth.  The proportion of demand for the facilities generated by existing residents is reflected in a financial contribution towards the total cost by the City of Wanneroo, with the balance to be met by new development, and funded through development contributions.  This cost apportionment exercise has been undertaken and factored into the calculation of the revised development contribution amount.  Through this process, the City’s proportionate contribution has already increased to reflect the greater proportion of demand being generated by existing residents as a result of reductions to the estimated dwelling yield.

 

The early delivery of these facilities and the need for the loan to fund the DCPs proportionate contribution in advance of sufficient contributions being received is a separate issue to the cost apportionment exercise and does not influence the proportion of the facility cost to be funded by the City on behalf of existing residents in the DCP area. 

 

 

The proposed loan is to be established to meet the proportion of the cost to be funded by new growth, with the cost to service this loan to be met by the DCP in accordance with the provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and State Planning Policy 3.6.

 

Given the above, Administration is recommending that the proposed cost increase be adopted by Council as advertised to affected landowners, along with a modified DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule that reflect the recommended changes.  A tracked change version showing the recommended modifications is included at Attachment 2, with a final version showing all changes accepted included at Attachment 3

 

Should Council adopt the revised cost contribution amount, it will have immediate effect and will be applied to all future contributions required to be made in accordance with the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP until such time as the cost is reviewed again in future.

Statutory Compliance

Pursuant to clause 11.7 of Schedule 14 of DPS 2, Administration is required to report the outcomes of the consultation period for the proposed cost increase to Council within 90 days of the close of the comment period, before deciding whether to increase the estimate costs associated with the DCP facilities.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-G09 Long Term Financial Plan

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

CEO

Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic Risk Registers.  The annual review of the DCP assists in addressing the impacts of the strategic risk relating to Long Term Financial Planning (LTFP) as it ensures that appropriate budget monitoring, timing and provisions are considered.  In addition the strategic risk relating to Stakeholder Relationships applies as a key element in the DCP review process is maintaining effective engagement with relevant stakeholders.

Policy Implications

Nil

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

The current development contribution rate is $2,070 per dwelling.  The outcome of the annual review process resulted in an increase in the cost contribution amount of $710 per dwelling ($2,070 to $2,780 per dwelling).

 

Although this may be considered a significant increase to the cost contribution amount, it is considered by Administration to be relatively affordable when compared to other metropolitan local government development contribution plans.  Although a true comparison cannot be made due to the differences in the type, number and catchment of facilities between each DCP, the cost contribution amounts for other local government community infrastructure DCPs range from $1,500 per dwelling through to $10,800 per dwelling.

 

Should Council support the proposed increase to the cost contribution, the City’s contribution to the DCP facilities will also change through the DCP review, given the funding models adopted for some DCP facilities, the proposed change to the cost apportionment, and the apportionment of grant funding between the DCP and the City’s funding.

 

The impact of this change on the current 2016/17 budget allocation is as follows:

 

 

2016/2017 Budget

Facility

Current Municipal Funds Contribution

Proposed Municipal Funds Contribution

Difference

Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club

$373,700

$948,865

$575,165

Yanchep Active Open Space

Groundworks

$395,250

$444,850

$49,600

Yanchep Active Open Space

Landscaping

$714,120

$1,226,897

$512,777

TOTAL

$2,633,073

$3,770,615

$1,137,542

 

An additional $1.1 million will be required for the City’s contribution on behalf of the existing ratepayer base, and it should be noted that these additional costs will impact on the mid-year review.  For DCP facilities listed in future financial years, the revised cost apportionment will need to be considered in future annual budget processes.

 

It should also be noted that the cost contribution amount is based on a number of facility construction and administration cost estimates, including the cost to service the loan associated with the early delivery of the Yanchep Active Open Space and Surf Life Saving facilities. While these estimates are as accurate as possible at this point in time, these variables may change as planning for these projects progresses.  This is particularly the case for the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club given the recent cancellation of the contract which will likely have cost implications as a result of necessary re-documentation and tender processes.  The implications of this on the DCP will need to be carefully monitored. 

 

The annual DCP review process has been established to address these issues to ensure that the DCP is always based on the most accurate and up-to-date cost estimates.  Furthermore, as the cost contribution amount is significantly impacted by the dwelling yield projections, Administration will continue to monitor actual dwelling/lot creation against the estimates included in the DCP over the coming months, and commence another DCP review early in 2017 to ensure that cost and dwelling estimates are as accurate as possible.

 

 

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submissions received on the proposed increase to the Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan cost contribution amount from $2,070 per lot to $2,780 per lot as set out in Attachment 1 and ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommended modifications in response to those submissions;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 11.7(b) of Schedule 14 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 increases the Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan cost contribution amount from $2,070 per lot to $2,780 per lot and ADOPTS the revised Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule as contained in Attachment 3; and

3.       ADVISES submitters of Council’s decision and INFORMS affected landowners of the revised cost that will apply through the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 to Council Report - Summary of Submissions - Proposed Cost Increase Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribtion Plan

16/354949

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2 - Tracked Changes - Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule

16/361104

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule

16/361107

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          22

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       25

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          32

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       47

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          54

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                           65

PS03-11/16       Draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes and Draft Street Tree Policy

File Ref:                                              6608 – 16/349721

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes (LPP 4.10) and draft Street Tree Policy for public consultation.

Background

The State Governments Directions 2031 & Beyond strategy led a shift toward delivering higher density housing in greenfield development sites across the Perth metropolitan area. Policy guidance on the design of neighbourhoods through structure planning and subdivision is provided by the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods, and guidance on the design of residential housing is provided by the Residential Design Codes. While these policies aim to deliver sustainable communities with a high level of amenity that promote active travel and a range of housing types, in reality the outcome is often large houses on smaller lots, dominated by garages with a lack of street trees or other amenity provided in the streetscape. This is having a significant impact on the quality, character and use of local streets delivered in new residential areas in the City of Wanneroo.

 

Council Forum considered the broad principles for improved streetscapes on 19 March 2016, and expressed their strong support for increasing tree coverage in the City’s urban areas. In particular, Elected Members were supportive of the principle that a minimum of one tree should be planted in the verge of each residential lot in the City of Wanneroo.

 

Street trees are an integral component of quality residential streets. The benefits of trees in the urban environment are widely acknowledged and include:

 

·    Provision of shade to buildings, outdoor living areas and pedestrian paths;

·    Encouraging healthy and active lifestyles for the community through creation of a walkable environment;

·    Improve the visual appearance of residential streets;

·    Increasing residential property values (according to the Australian Heart Foundation there is evidence of an increase ranging 1.9% - 7%);

·    Provision of cooling to assist with mitigating the urban heat island effect;

·    Used as a traffic calming device and encourages lower vehicle speeds;

·    Assistance with stormwater management; and

·    Performance of important other environmental and ecological functions.

There is a growing awareness in the community and industry over the benefits of trees in the urban environment. However, the City does not currently have a clear and consistent set of requirements for the planting, protection and management of street trees.

 

Draft LPP 4.10 and the draft Street Tree Policy have now been prepared in response to the above.  These draft policies were presented to the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) on 12 September 2016, and subsequently to Council Forum on 27 September 2016, and are now being presented to Council to consider advertising them for public comment.

Detail

Draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes

 

Draft LPP 4.10 (included as Attachment 1) has been prepared to improve the quality and character of local streets being delivered in new residential areas. This was largely in response to a lack of street trees in new residential suburbs.

 

The purpose of the draft LPP 4.10 is to provide local guidance on the requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods. Draft LPP 4.10 covers the design elements of verge widths, street trees and landscaping, footpaths, cycle paths, crossovers and laneways.

 

A number of other issues relating to residential streetscapes were discussed with Council Forum on 19 March 2016, including the overhang of vehicles on footpaths and the dominance of garages. Those issues will not be addressed in draft LPP 4.10 as they relate to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). An amendment to the Residential Design Codes was recently advertised for public comment, which proposes to address a number of minor issues with the R-Codes, including introducing a new streetscape appearance ‘deemed to comply’ clause. Administration in its submission highlighted the abovementioned issues, and requested they be dealt with through further review of the R-Codes.

 

The provisions of the Policy will be applied through the planning process and are relevant for local structure plans, subdivisions, local development plans and development applications. Therefore the scope of the Policy is limited to greenfield areas.

 

The key elements of the draft Policy are discussed below.

 

Requirement for street trees

Whilst the objective to deliver street trees is recognised in Liveable Neighbourhoods, there is currently no statutory requirement for trees to be planted by developers through the planning approvals process at a State or Local level. This has resulted in ad-hoc tree planting by the developers, usually as part of a landscaping package to sell lots. 

 

To ensure street trees are planted for every lot, it is recommended that the City set out in Policy, a requirement for a minimum of one street tree in the primary street verge of every lot, and 2 street trees in the sides of secondary street verges of corner lots.

 

The options for requiring street trees through the planning process, the advantages and disadvantages of each option and the cost implications to Council and the developers of each option are contained in a table at Attachment 2. It is recommended that these options are leveraged where appropriate to ensure the outcome of achieving tree canopy in residential streets is achieved.

 

Narrow verge widths

There has been a lack of space for trees to be planted in verges due to the narrowing of verges in residential streets under the policy direction of Liveable Neighbourhoods.

 

The current requirement in Liveable Neighbourhoods is for verges of 4.1metre wide.

 

 

 

To ensure sufficient space is provided within the verge it is recommended that a minimum verge width of 4.5 metres be required to accommodate street trees, in addition to all other essential services such as utility services (gas, telecommunications, water, underground power, sewer or stormwater drainage) and lighting.

 

Standard crossover width

As lots become narrower, there is potential conflict between the provision of a crossover to provide vehicle access to the dwelling, and the provision of a street tree in the verge. On average, 5 to 6 metres of the verge is taken up by a vehicle crossover, which takes up significant space in narrower verges and leaves little room for a tree.

 

It is proposed that as a design standard in new areas, a single crossover of 4 metres wide (3 metres for narrower lots of 10m width or less) be provided with wider verges allowed by exception. This will ensure sufficient space is provided for a street tree in the verge. Beyond ensuring there is sufficient space for street trees, reducing the width of crossovers in verges also reduces the potential conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles.

 

Setting a maximum crossover width of 4 metres may impose restrictions on the design of driveways by requiring it to taper in from a 6 metre double garage to a 4 metre crossover. This may reduce the number of vehicles capable of being parked on a driveway outside a garage within the lot, however would not limit the ability of residents to gain access to a double garage. This is not an issue for lots of less than 10m as they typically only accommodate single garages.  By reducing crossover width, the number of opportunities for on-street parking increases that would cater for lost parking opportunities within a lot. In addition, on-street parking acts as a traffic-calming measure that assists with lowering vehicle speeds and creating a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. This requirement is intended only for local access streets with low traffic volumes, which are the most common type of street delivered in residential areas.

 

Provision of footpaths and cycle paths

The provision of footpaths and cycle paths in residential streets is proposed to be required in new residential areas in accordance with the City’s Footpath Policy. Alignment to this Policy will ensure that the appropriate type of footpaths and cycle paths are consistently provided on residential streets across the City.

 

Conflict between vehicles and pedestrians

To ensure pedestrian safety within the road reserve, the number of potential conflict points for pedestrians and vehicles should be minimised. This means, the number of vehicle crossovers within a street should be minimised. To address this, it is proposed that as a general rule, a maximum of one crossover be approved for each lot. This would apply a similar design requirement to that which will be applied to the recoding areas of Wanneroo, Girrawheen and Koondoola.

 

Informal on-street parking

Current carriageway design allows vehicles to move unobstructed at higher speeds than is intended for residential streets. To assist in slowing traffic, it is proposed that informal on-street parking opportunities be encouraged on streets in lieu of embayment parking. This would allow a number of vehicles to be parked on the carriageway at any one time and would encourage the slow movement of vehicles through residential areas, creating a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. This position is proposed only for roads with low traffic volume, as streets designated as neighbourhood connectors and above would require embayment parking to ensure vehicle safety.

 

There are many suburbs in the Perth Metropolitan area where on-street parking is encouraged and works with minimal issues. This includes suburbs in the Cities of Stirling, Vincent and Subiaco.

 

To ensure success, it is proposed that community education be undertaken, in particular to mitigate any potential issue with bin placement for refuse collection, and on-street vehicles.

 

Administration has undertaken some preliminary consultation with the development industry and various planning, landscaping and engineering consultants to seek feedback on the key components of the Policy.  Through this process, a number of concerns were raised by the development industry, mostly in relation to the on-going management of street trees following handover to the City. It was noted that there remains a general lack of acceptance of street trees by the community and that the City will need to take an active role in managing on-going compliance to ensure street trees are protected. This information has re-enforced the need for the draft Street Tree Policy.

 

Draft Street Tree Policy

 

The City does not currently have an adopted policy for the management of trees on Council managed land (‘City Trees’). As the City has an active role in planting and managing trees on Council managed land, a draft Street Tree Policy has been prepared (refer Attachment 3) to provide specific guidance on:

 

·    The requirements for planting and replacement of City Trees;

·    How the City deals with requests for pruning or removal of City Trees by residents;

·    How the City deals with the illegal removal of City Trees; and

·    How the City would protect existing City Trees during the development process.

 

The draft Policy sets a standard of a minimum of one tree to be planted in the verge adjacent to each residential property. This is in line with the requirements of draft LPP 4.10. It also provides guidance on how these will be planted to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on existing utilities. It is intended that where this standard is currently not met on existing City streets, that trees will be planted by the City through future street tree planting programmes.

 

The draft Policy outlines how the City will undertake street tree pruning with an aim to maintain healthy street trees that are not impacted by power lines and are free of disease, dead wood, and pest infested limbs.

 

The draft Policy provides guidance on the removal of street trees (with street tree removal being on a ‘remove and replace’ basis) and contains specific information around when the City will typically consider tree removal.  This includes reasons such as disease, damage, structural integrity, and trees being removed for approved development and works such as road widening. Should a request not fall within the acceptable reasons for removal, the request for removal will be refused.

 

The processes and requirements outlined in the draft Policy are in line with industry standards, and are largely reflective of the City’s current practices.

Consultation

The draft policies were presented to the EAC on 12 September 2016. The EAC made some suggestions for improvement, and these have been incorporated into the draft policies. Overall, the EAC strongly supported the draft policies and recommended that they be presented to Council for consideration to advertise them for public comment. The EAC also requested that the policies be referred back to the committee following the consultation period.

 

 

 

 

 

Draft LPP 4.10

 

Clause 4 (2) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 requires a draft Local Planning Policy to be advertised for a minimum of 21 days. Given the timing of Council’s consideration of this matter relative to the Christmas / New Year period, it is proposed to advertise the draft Policy for public comment from 22 November 2016 until the 31 January 2017 to allow sufficient time for stakeholders or members of the community to review the draft documents and prepare submissions.  Advertising is proposed to occur in the following manner:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper;

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

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

 

It is noted that a number of the above requirements would be required to be applied through the subdivision process. Following Council’s agreement to advertise the draft LPP 4.10 Administration will consult with the Department of Planning to ensure the policy positions are supported, and will be applied through that process.

 

Draft Street Tree Policy

 

There is no legislative requirement for the draft Street Tree Policy to be advertised, however given the significance of the policy position it is proposed to engage with the community on the implications of the Policy, concurrently with draft LPP 4.10, to assist with future implementation.

 

Summary

 

Should the policies be supported by Council, Administration will prepare a community engagement strategy to facilitate an appropriate level of consultation (in addition to the legislative requirements for draft LPP 4.10) for advertising. This is proposed to include information on the benefits of street trees, as well as the detail of each policy and what they will mean for land owners and developers when it comes to tree planting, removal, and management on development sites, and Council owned land.

 

Following the public consultation period, a summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to those submissions will be included in a report to Council to consider final adoption of the draft policies.

Comment

The draft policies seek to increase the number of street trees planted and retained in the City of Wanneroo. This will lead to a greener, healthier City and will assist in delivering a higher level of amenity in the built environment.

 

The policies detailed in this report have been prepared to address a number of related issues and will form a framework that recognises street trees as City assets, and ensure that those assets are protected in the planning and development process once they have been handed over to the City.

 

Providing greater emphasis on trees across the City through an integrated approach is essential to providing healthy communities that maintain visual amenity and provide environmental benefits.

 

 

 

 

Should the policies be adopted by Council, the City will be required to implement the policies and act on compliance issues accordingly. The benefits of each of the proposed initiatives are outlined below:

 

Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes

 

Whilst some new development areas have been developed with an acceptable quality of streetscape there are many examples of poor streetscape design. The draft LPP 4.10 seeks to address a number of design issues that will have an immediate impact on streetscape design in new areas.

 

Street and Reserve Tree Policy

 

The City has a highly active role in the management of verge trees; however it does not currently have sufficient guidance on how this management is to be undertaken.

 

With clear guidance in place, the City will be able to proactively manage trees on City managed land which will lead to more informed decisions being made on the retention, removal, and effective management of trees. The draft Policy will also address the issue of healthy trees being removed through community requests due to a lack of clear direction on when the City will consider their removal.

 

The draft Policy provides further guidance on the implementation of Section 6.1 of the City’s Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2016 which prohibits the damage or removal of a street tree, or part of a tree, without a licence. In accordance with the draft Policy, where there is reasonable proof of unauthorised interference, removal, pruning or damage to a City tree, the remedies provided for in the Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law may be applied. Administration will prepare and present a framework outlining how this process is proposed to work to a future Council Forum for discussion prior to finalisation of the Policy.

 

Planting and replacement requirements will also ensure that canopy cover is maintained where trees have been removed unlawfully or where they have otherwise been removed by the City for valid reasons including risk to health and safety.

 

Types of Street Trees

In considering the City’s approach to the delivery of street trees it will be necessary to review the City’s Street Tree Masterplan, which sets out appropriate tree varieties for different streetscape or verge types.  This work is currently underway, with a revised Street Tree Species List nearing completion and intended to be distributed to industry for comment concurrently with the draft policies.

 

Tree Watering

In considering the approach to tree species selection and costs to the City it is necessary to consider the impacts of watering.  Under the North West Corridor Water Supply Strategy prepared by the City in partnership with the Department of Water, streetscapes in the City’s coastal areas (inclusive of street trees) are permitted to be irrigated by groundwater for an initial two year establishment period, following which they are not permitted to have an ongoing irrigation allowance.  In other areas of the City, groundwater licence areas are already fully allocated and no further groundwater allowances are permitted for significant street tree establishment programs. 

 

Any watering beyond the two year establishment period or in areas where groundwater is fully allocated needs to be by watering truck sourced from scheme water, which comes at a cost to the City. 

 

 

These issues need to be considered when selecting appropriate tree species, in the City’s review of the Street Tree Masterplan, and in the City’s management practices to ensure that trees are selected and maintained to maximise their chance of success in low water environments.

Implementation

It should be noted that while this report primarily deals with the planting of trees in new development areas, the objective to increase the number of urban trees applies to the entire City of Wanneroo area. To achieve this objective, the City has a number of on-going operational programs such as the ‘Request a Verge-tree’ program, and ‘Street-Tree Pilot program’ that will increase the number of trees planted in the City’s existing suburbs.

Following the preparation of draft LPP 4.10 and draft Street Tree Policy, Administration has identified the need for the preparation of an overarching Urban Forest Plan that would seek to coordinate the City’s existing tree planting and management programs and identify a number of high level objectives to improve the City’s urban tree canopy. This is proposed as a separate piece of work that would commence in the financial year 2017/18 following the completion of the higher order Strategic Environmental Plan that is currently being prepared.

Additionally, Administration will be commencing work this financial year on a pilot programme to register the City’s existing street trees. The establishment of a street tree register will assist with the implementation of the policies by providing the following strategic and operational benefits:

 

·    Assist with planning and building assessments where officers could readily identify existing trees, and then ensure adequate conditions are applied to require protection of those trees during construction;

·    Assist with Policy compliance in identifying where trees have been illegally removed;

·    Assist with planning for tree management and maintenance programmes including pruning;

·    Assist with risk management in assessing the safety of each tree, therefore reducing the risk to public and private property; and

·    Assist with planning for asset replacement.

The asset register is proposed to be complemented with a tree tagging programme, which is carried out with small numbered metal discs to identify trees within the database that it is logged in. This is carried out once the tree has been initially inspected, and will assist with the ongoing maintenance of each tree.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

 “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

 

“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.

                  

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

Street tree planting has been identified as an action in the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy 2016 – 2020 for Administration to complete in order to help mitigate the impacts of temperature increase caused from climate change.

Policy Implications

Once prepared and if adopted by Council, LPP 4.10 will form part of the City’s Local Planning Policy Framework. The Street Tree Policy will form part of the suite of existing Council Policies.

Financial Implications

Implications for Council

 

The drafting and final adoption of the draft LPP 4.10 and draft Street Tree Policy will be met by the operating budgets of the City.

 

The adoption of draft LPP 4.10 will have implications for on-going operational budget to manage and maintain street trees handed over to the City by developers in accordance with the Policy requirements.

 

The adoption of draft Street and Reserve Tree Policy will have a number of financial implications for Council including:

 

·    Cost of planting trees in existing areas to meet the standard outlined in the Policy. This will be ongoing for a number of years;

·    On-going operational budget to manage and maintain the City’s trees in accordance with the Policy; and

·    Compliance.

 

On average, the estimated cost to plant, water and maintain a typical 35 litre street tree for a period of two years is approximately $540. Based on a tree’s average life expectancy of 40 years the whole of life maintenance costs for a tree is approximately $2,000 ($4,000 for trees underneath powerlines). 

 

Budget has been allocated this financial year to undertake the following tree planting programs:

 

 

 

·    $40,000 to undertake a pilot programme for street tree planting on each ward;

·    $300,000 for the provision of 3000 trees to be planted in City reserves; and

·    $70,000 for the provision of 700 street trees that will be planted through the resident request a street tree program.

 

Note that the above costs are for planting only and do not make allowances for on-going management.

 

With regard to street trees, it is difficult to accurately quantify costs of ongoing maintenance as these largely depend on the number, type, age and maintenance regimes of street trees across the City. The City currently budgets $1.3 million per annum on contracted and in-house tree maintenance works across all of its parks and streetscapes.  The annual budget allocation will need to increase commensurate with the number of City trees and Administration will need to consider this as part of its long term financial planning to ensure appropriate resources are allocated.

 

With regard to the asset register for street trees, there is existing budget allocated this financial year to set-up the register and audit a small section of the City. The remainder of the City would be completed over subsequent financial years subject to sufficient budget allocation.

 

With regard to compliance, it is difficult to accurately quantify costs as these largely depend on the number and type of compliance issues requiring action. In particular, it is considered that the number of compliance issues will increase with the number of street trees planted. This will need to be monitored following the adoption of the policies to ensure sufficient resources are available to manage compliance with the policy positions.

 

Implications for developers

 

The adoption of draft LPP 4.10 will also have a financial implication for land developers. LPP 4.10 will require developers to plant trees as part of subdivisional works, which will see developers incur the additional costs associated with tree planting and establishment for a two year period. Detail on the cost implication for developers is contained in Attachment 2.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clauses 4 and 5 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions, ADVERTISES the draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment between 22 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 by way of the following:

 

a)      Advertisement in local newspapers;

 

b)      Display at the City of Wanneroo Civic Centre, City Libraries and on the City’s website; and

 

c)      Letters to relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director, Planning & Sustainability.

 

 

 

2.       ADVERTISES the draft Street Tree Policy, as contained in Attachment 3, for public comment between 22 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 by way of the following:

 

a)      Advertisement in local newspapers;

 

b)      Display at the City of Wanneroo Civic Centre, City Libraries and on the City’s website; and

 

c)      Letters to relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director Assets.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Draft Local Planning Policy 4.10: Streetscapes

16/357278

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2: Options for requiring street trees through planning process

16/357209

 

3.

Attachment 3: Draft Street Tree Policy

16/357275

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       75

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          79

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       83

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          88

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                          90

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                       93

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         104

 

Approval Services

PS04-11/16       Review of the Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy

File Ref:                                              4084 – 16/310016

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider amendments to the Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy for public consultation, in accordance with Clause 5 of City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) Deemed Provisions.

Background

The existing Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy (administratively referred to as LPP 2.4) was adopted by Council at its 1 February 2005 Meeting (PD01-01/05). The policy as adopted by Council is included as Attachment 1. The City has been applying the policy since its adoption; and is overdue for review.

 

Since LPP 2.4 was adopted in 2005, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) have been subject to review and extensive amendments. References in the policy to R-Code provisions are no longer accurate as a consequence of the R-Code reviews, as the wording and clause numbers of the R-Codes provisions have changed. Similarly, revisions to the R-Codes have changed how and to what extent that local planning policies can amend or replace deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes.

A review of LPP 2.4 also provides an opportunity to review the content of the policy generally; and in particular to revise the provisions that Administration has found to be open to interpretation or confusing.

Detail

The purpose of LPP 2.4 is to provide clarity and guidance for the development assessment of site works and retaining walls associated with residential development. The key aspects of what the policy provides for are as follows:

 

·    Development application submission requirements for proposals that include retaining walls and site works;

 

·    An expansion on what is prescribed in the R-Codes pertaining to site works and retaining; and

 

·    Consultation requirements when the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and the policy principles have not been met.

 

The draft revised LPP 2.4 (proposed to be retitled to Local Planning Policy 2.4: Retaining Walls and Site Works for Residential Development) is included in Attachment 2.

In drafting revisions to the policy, Administration considered that the key aspects of what the policy provides for (as outlined above) should be maintained. However, Administration considered it necessary to review the content and wording of the provisions as further discussed in the ‘Comment’ section below.

Consultation

Proposed revisions to the policy have already been presented and discussed with Elected Members at the 18 October 2016 Council Forum.

 

In accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions, it is necessary to formally advertise amendments to a policy for a period of not less than 21 days; unless in the opinion of the local government, the amendments to the local planning policy are minor. The proposed amendments to the policy are not considered minor, as Administration is proposing to introduce new policy provisions as well as deleting provisions from the existing policy.

 

Administration proposes to advertise the revisions to the policy for a period of not less than 42 days. This is consistent with the way it has advertised other draft local planning policies, but given the timing of Council’s consideration of this matter relative to the Christmas/New Year period, it is proposed to advertise the draft Policy for public comment from 22 November 2016 until the 31 January 2017 to allow sufficient time for stakeholders or members of the community to review the draft documents and prepare submissions.   Advertising will be undertaken by way of the following:

 

·        Notification in local newspapers;

·        Display at City Libraries, the Civic Centre and on the City’s website; and

·        Letters to the Department of Planning and any other relevant stakeholder as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.

Comment

A table that explains how the draft policy provisions differ from the content of the existing policy is provided in the table included as Attachment 3. A further table outlining the extent of provisions proposed to be introduced into the policy is included as Attachment 4. The key changes proposed for the policy are outlined below:

 

Establishing Building Pad Levels

 

LPP 2.4 currently contains provisions for establishing building pad levels on residential development sites. This is done by firstly working out the average of five natural ground levels (taken at the four corners of a site and at the centre of the site), which is then assumed to be the average natural ground level of an entire site. A building pad can then be established to a level up to 0.3 metres more than the assumed average natural ground level of the site. LPP 2.4 allows this method to be applied for all residential development types (single houses, grouped dwellings and multiple dwellings).

 

The issues that Administration has identified with the existing LPP 2.4 provisions in respect to establishing building pads are that:

 

·    The R-Codes only allow for a local planning policy to provide ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions in respect to site works that establish building pads for single house and grouped dwelling development, or multiple dwelling developments in areas coded less than R40. Approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is required for a local planning policy to amend or replace the deemed-to-comply provisions in respect to site works that establish building pads for multiple dwellings in areas coded R40 or greater;

 

·    There are often built form implications where the establishing building pad provisions are applied for sites with significant level differences; and 

 

·    The provisions in LPP 2.4 are straightforward when applied on a rectangular site – as the current provisions require the calculation of an average natural ground level of a site by taking four corners. Applying the provision becomes unclear when a site is irregularly shaped, and does not have four corners.

 

The draft revisions to LPP 2.4 address the above issues, so that the building pad level provisions only apply in respect to:

 

·    Single house and grouped dwelling development, or multiple dwelling developments in areas coded less than R40; and

 

·    Where a site does not have a significant level difference. The draft policy provisions prescribe that establishing a building pad level for a site with a significant level difference (greater than 3.0 metres) would be subject to existing R-Code provisions.

 

The draft revisions of the policy also propose to introduce a notation that would clarify how the policy principles would apply to irregular-shaped sites.

 

Further detail and discussion on the modifications to the building pad provisions is provided for in Attachment 3.

 

Terracing Provisions

 

The existing policy has provisions in respect to terracing within front setback areas. Terracing means the creation of a series of raised steps with vertical or sloping sides and a series of flat levels formed across a slope. It is considered that terracing in front setback areas provides for better streetscape outcomes than single solid retaining walls on front boundaries.

 

The issues that Administration has identified with the existing LPP 2.4 provisions in respect to the terracing provisions are that:

 

·    The provisions in the existing policy apply to all residential development types. The R-Codes only allow for a local planning policy to provide ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions in respect to site works within front setback areas for single house and grouped dwelling development, or multiple dwelling developments in areas coded less than R40. The R-Codes do not allow for a local planning policy to provide ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions for these provisions for multiple dwelling sites coded R40 or greater, without the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC); and

 

·    The terracing provisions do not impose a maximum retaining wall height for each terrace.

 

Through the review of the existing policy, Administration proposes to generally maintain the principles of terracing. However, Administration sees the need to revise the policy so that it prescribes that:

 

·    The terracing provisions in the front setback be considered as deemed-to-comply in respect only to single house and grouped dwelling development, or multiple dwelling developments in areas coded less than R40; and

 

·    The maximum retaining wall height for each terrace not exceeding 1.0 metre in height. Administration considers that terracing retaining walls exceeding 1.0 metre in height have a greater potential on impacting negatively on the streetscape.

Further detail and discussion on the modifications to the terracing provisions is provided for in Attachment 3.

 

Retaining Walls Adjoining Lot Boundaries

 

LPP 2.4 currently allows for retaining walls on a side or rear boundary to a maximum height up to 1.0 metre without the need to consult with adjoining landowners. Administration has proposed to modify this requirement, so that consultation with adjoining landowners is required where a retaining wall within 1.0 metre of lot boundaries is proposed in excess of 0.5 metres in height.

 

The deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes allow for retaining wall height of up to 0.5 metres within 1.0 metre of lot boundaries. The provision in the policy has been worded so that a retaining wall proposed to a height in excess of the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes can only be considered following consultation with adjoining landowners.

 

Further detail and discussion on the modifications to retaining walls on lot boundary requirements is provided for in Attachment 3.

Statutory Compliance

Preparation and adoption of revisions to the existing Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy is proposed to be carried out in accordance with Clause 5 of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report. However, Administration acknowledges that unforeseen issues with applying local planning policies are more likely to arise if policies are not reviewed on a regular basis.

Policy Implications

Proposed revisions to the Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy (revisions prepared as the draft LPP 2.4 included in Attachment 2) are intended to supersede the existing policy included as Attachment 1.

Financial Implications

The costs of advertising the proposed revisions to the existing policy can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council, pursuant to Clauses 4 and 5 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions, ADVERTISES draft Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development, as contained in Attachment 2, for public comment between 22 November 2016 and 31 January 2017, by of following:

 

a)      Advertisements in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers;

 

b)      Display at the City’s Civic Centre Building, City Libraries and on the City’s website; and

 

c)      Letters to the Department of Planning and other relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director, Planning and Sustainability.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Existing Establishing Building Pad Levels Excavation Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy

16/315696

 

2.

NEW Attachment 2 - Draft Local Planning Policy 2.4 - Version for Advertising

16/353453

Minuted

3.

NEW Attachment 3 - Table and Figures Demonstrating Differences Between Existing Policy and Revisions

16/353454

 

4.

NEW Attachment 4 - Administration Comment on New Provisions Proposed for LPP 2.4

16/350036

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     109


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     116

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        123

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     134

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        137

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         141

PS05-11/16       Medium-Density Single House Development Standards (R-MD)

File Ref:                                              25285 – 16/318436

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the adoption of Local Planning Policy 4.19: Medium-density single house development standards (R-MD).

Background

The medium-density single house development standards (R-MD) were written by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and are detailed in Appendix 1 of Planning Bulletin 112/2016 (Attachment 1). The WAPC through its Planning Bulletin has acknowledged that the provisions of State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) has not evolved to facilitate housing trends and market pressures in medium density areas. The R-MD Planning Bulletin reflects some of the existing R-Codes variations that the City has approved in local structure plans, local development plans and local planning policies which have WAPC endorsement. In response to the R-MD Planning Bulletin, the City has prepared Local Planning Policy 4.19: Medium-density single house development standards (LPP 4.19) (Attachment 2) in the form recommended by the WAPC.

Local governments and the development industry have raised concerns with the WAPC about the increasing use of variations to the R-Codes ‘deemed-to-comply’ standards promoted under various planning mechanisms, specifically local structure plans and local development plans. In addition, the type and extent of planning mechanisms used to apply R-Code variations has been inconsistently applied by various local government authorities. The R-MD provisions are intended to provide local governments with a consistent basis upon which to assess R-Code variations in medium density single housing areas, assisting Administration in streamlining the assessment of applications. The R-MD Planning Bulletin states that the WAPC will monitor the implementation of the R-MD and conduct reviews at six monthly intervals, with the view that should the R-MD be considered appropriate, it will form part of the R-Codes in a forthcoming review.

Detail

The R-MD was developed by a working group of key government, development and building industry stakeholders and is endorsed by the WAPC through the Planning Bulletin. The proposed LPP 4.19 will enable the R-MD to act as a replacement to the specified R-Codes standards by providing variations to single house residential medium density lots zoned R25, R30, R40 or R60 in development zones. The specific provisions of the R-MD relate to building and garage setbacks (Clauses 5.1.2, 5.1.3 and 5.2.1 of the R-Codes), open space (Clause 5.1.4 of the R-Codes), parking (Clause 5.3.3 of the R-Codes), visual privacy (Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes) and solar access (Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes). LPP 4.19 also requires a minimum 10.5 metre lot width for single houses with double garages. The existing deemed-to-comply R Code provision for single storey dwellings states that a garage located in front of or within 1m of the building facing the primary street is not to occupy more than 50 per cent of the street frontage as viewed from the street. Whilst, there are structure plans that have been approved by the WAPC that have allowed a 10 metre lot width for a single house, the adoption of LPP 4.19 will not require a change to the lot width to be applied retrospectively.

 

 

A comparison between the existing R-Codes and the R-MD is shown in the attachment to the proposed LPP 4.19. All other remaining R-Code standards will continue to apply.

 

The content of the R-MD as detailed in the R-MD Planning Bulletin have been finalised and adopted by the WAPC. This will allow applicants to apply set standards to local structure plans, without the need to provide additional detailed area plans or local development plans. The WAPC has indicated that it is unlikely to support further variations to the R-MD, however they will do so where the proposal is considered to deliver positive community outcomes. LPP 4.19 will not be applied retrospectively to any local structure plan, local development plan or detailed area plan, but applicants can apply to have the R-MD included by amending their approved structure plan.

Consultation

The proposed policy has already been presented and discussed with Elected Members at the 18 October 2016 Council Forum.

 

Under the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, the City is required to advertise a proposed policy for the purposes of community consultation unless the Commission otherwise agrees. The WAPC has advised Local Governments through the Planning Bulletin that adoption of the R-MD as a local planning policy does not require public advertising. Notwithstanding, Administration has sought informal feedback on the implementation of the R-MD as a local planning policy from local developers and planning consultants. The City received one submission from a planning consultancy which details the complexities of applying the R-MD standards over existing local structure plan areas, provides comments on where the R-MD could be varied and how some existing structure plans can be incorporated into LPP 4.19, thereby allowing the R-MD standards in existing approved structure plan areas. Administration considers that it is not appropriate to include existing and developed approved structure plan areas in LPP 4.19 as:

 

·        The WAPC approves structure plans and the City would be bypassing the WAPC approval process,

·        Incorporation of R-MD into existing local structure plans could result in significant changes in previously approved structure plans and it may be difficult to determine the appropriateness of the R-MD provisions, and

·        The Planning Bulletin does not state or consider that the R-MD should be applied retrospectively to local structure planning areas and therefore is likely to be inconsistent with the intent of the WAPC Planning Bulletin.

 

Administration would consider supporting an amendment to a structure plan to include the R-MD provisions detailed in LPP 4.19 if the structure plan is consistent with the R-MD.

Comment

Development standards of R-MD

 

The adoption of LPP 4.19 gives certainty to developers in detailing revised deemed-to-comply design elements acceptable in medium density development zones. LPP 4.19 will subtly result in changes to the appearance of new single residential houses, allowing an improved streetscape and an increased area for outdoor living. The setback of buildings to the boundary has decreased and the length of boundary walls has increased, this is considered to increase the useability of lots by allowing greater opportunities and flexibility to maintain the size of homes on smaller lots.

 

 

 

 

The privacy provisions for lots zoned R-MD 25, R-MD 30 and R-MD 40 will have the privacy variations reduced from 4.5m to 3m for bedrooms/studies, 6m to 4.5m for all major openings to habitable rooms and 7.5m to 6m to unenclosed outdoor areas. The privacy provisions for a R-MD 60 zoned lot has been removed in lieu of the specified 4.5m setback for bedrooms/studies, 6m for all major openings and 7.5m to unenclosed outdoor areas.  However, it is considered that a level of privacy is already foregone as the trend to smaller lot sizes continues. It is considered reasonable that an expectation of privacy and overlooking is reduced as housing density increases. The amount of overshadowing that is permitted to occur to an adjoining dwelling has increased but is only applicable to the rear half lot and where the wall height is greater than 3.5m. The overshadowing provision has been removed for lots zoned R-MD 60, noting that occupiers will have an increased amount of outdoor living area. It is unlikely that owners will be impacted by the overshadowing provisions given that the orientation of most lots within a new estate will not be impacted by the R-MD changes to the overshadowing provisions.

 

The R-MD provisions reflected in the proposed LPP 4.19 are considered to be appropriate and will provide certainty to land developers and local government. The changes will allow developers greater flexibility in designing dwellings that make better use of medium density housing lots. Whilst the changes may appear significant, it is unlikely that the built design will be substantially different to recently constructed adjacent subdivisions because the built outcome would be similar to the standards previously approved in local development plans and local structure plans.

 

Implementation

The R-MD can be used as a replacement to the specified deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and can be implemented through either incorporation into a local planning scheme amendment or by the adoption of a local planning policy. The adoption of LPP 4.19 will substitute specified deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and will be applied in development zones within structure plan areas where specified. Any deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes can then be amended or replaced by including the R-MD in a structure plan or a local planning policy.

LPP 4.2 will allow the R-MD to be implemented by including a reference to LPP 4.2 in new local structure plans or alternatively, seeking an amendment to an existing local structure plan that includes reference to the provisions. Administration considers that this implementation process is considered most suitable as:

·    The R-MD provisions are released on a trial basis and it is considered appropriate to limit the R-MD provisions to new local structure plan areas to accurately gauge any amenity outcomes;

·    Administration will have the flexibility to recommend or not support changes to existing local structure plan areas depending on the local structure planning area seeking to be varied and development approvals already granted; and

·    By utilising a local planning policy to implement the R Codes it is a more expedient method of implementation than the scheme amendment process;

Administration’s view is that the R-MD codes will result in minor improvements to built form outcomes. However, much more could be achieved to improve the quality of our residential suburbs. Administration is currently working at what improvements could be made in this regard.

 

 

 

 

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Division 2 Clause 3 (1) Part 2 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2 contained in Schedule A of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, Local Government may prepare and adopt a LPP in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

The development and adoption of the proposed LPP 4.19 will provide greater certainty to the development industry as to the type of development which is deemed acceptable.

 

The WAPC has informed that they will be looking to include the R-MD into a future version of the R-Codes. Whilst this policy is necessary to provide a legal basis for implementing the R-MD, the policy may only be required until the R-Codes are amended to reflect the proposed changes or until the WAPC determines that the R-MD trial should not proceed.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       PURSUANT to Schedule A – Supplementary Provisions contained in the City of Wanneroo Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS Local Planning Policy 4.19: Medium Density Housing, as contained in Attachment 1;

2.       NOTES Administration will be placing a notice in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area in accordance with Part 2, Division 2 Clause 4(4) of the Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule A of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2; and

3.       ADVISES the WAPC of Council’s resolution.

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Planning Bulletin 112/2016

16/117825

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2 - Local Planning Policy 4.19: Medium-Density Single Housing

16/290707

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     145

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        147

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     149

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     150

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         154

PS06-11/16       Proposed Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 15 to East Wanneroo Cell 5 Agreed Structure Plan No. 7

File Ref:                                              11167 – 15/161437

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider,

 

·          Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to rezone Lots 16, 17 and 923 Grayswood Court, Lot 924, 925 & 926 Warradale Terrace and Lot 927 Kevo Place, Landsdale (subject lots) from Special Residential to Residential with a density coding of R40; and

 

·          Amendment No. 15 to East Wanneroo Cell 5 Agreed Structure Plan No.7 (ASP 7) to amend ‘Plan 2 – The Agreed Structure Plan’ of ASP 7 to reclassify the subject lots from Special Residential Precinct to Residential Precinct with a density coding of R40.

 

Applicant

Burgess Design Group

Owner

Colin Gibson, Lynne Amelia Nolan, Peter & Kaye Huisman, Peter Anthony & Teresa Marie Stokoe, Michael & Dorla Francis, Yemmy Effendi, Traian & Viorcia Stiube

Location

Lots 16, 17 and 923 Grayswood Court, Lot 924, 925 & 926 Warradale Terrace and Lot 927 Kevo Place, Landsdale

Site Area

5,000m2 (Lot 16), 5003m2 (Lot 17), 5001m2 (Lot 923), 5003m2 (Lot 924), 5005m2 (Lot 925), 5003m2 (Lot 926), 5003m2 (Lot 927)

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Special Residential

ASP 7 Classification

Special Residential Precinct

 

 

Background

On 13 November 2013, Burgess Design Group (the applicant) on behalf of the landowners, submitted to the City for its consideration Amendment No. 139 to DPS 2 to rezone the subject lots from Special Residential to Residential with a density coding of R40. A location plan is provided as Attachment 1.

 

Prior to commencing a preliminary review of the proposed amendment, Administration requested a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) be prepared in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Transport Assessment Guidelines.  The TIA was submitted on 22 October 2014.

 

Following a preliminary review of the proposal, Administration requested the applicant to provide a concept plan to demonstrate how the land could be developed if it were to be rezoned to Residential R40. Attachments 2 and 3 contain two concept plans – one demonstrating development of the subject lots at full R40 residential potential and the other integrating the existing dwellings with new dwellings on each lot.

 

A review of these concept plans raised concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area. Following considerable discussions between the applicant and Administration, on 31 March 2016, the applicant submitted Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7, which included design provisions to guide the future development of the subject lots.

 

Detail

Site

The subject lots are bound by Kevo Place to the north, Warradale Terrace to the west, Rockdale Pass and Grayswood Court to the south and East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale to the east.  Except for Lot 926, the other lots have been developed with a single house. The subject lots front Warradale Park on the western side and are surrounded by Residential R20 development on the other three sides. Lot 926 contains some vegetation.

Proposal

The proposal is to rezone the subject lots from Special Residential to Residential in DPS 2 and to recode the subject lots to Residential R40 in both DPS 2 and ASP 7.

 

Amendment No. 139 to DPS 2

 

In DPS 2 the subject Special Residential zone is described as ‘Special Residential 3’. Schedule 11 of DPS 2 contains specific provisions for Special Residential 3 on minimum lot size of 5,000m2, discharge of stormwater and planting of mature trees and shrubs.

 

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Rezoning the subject lots from Special Residential to Residential with a density coding of R40;

2.       Removing Special Residential 3 from Schedule 11 and re-numbering the remaining items in the schedule; and

3.       Modifying the scheme map accordingly.

 

Attachment 4 contains the amendment plan showing the existing and proposed zoning and coding of the subject lots.

Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7

 

The proposal seeks to amend ASP 7 by:

 

1.       Amending the Agreed Structure Plan to recode the subject lots from Special Residential to Residential R40; and

 

2.       Deleting ‘Section 4.4 – Special Residential Precinct’ from Part 1 the Statutory section and replacing it with a new section requiring the preparation of a Local Development Plan (LDP) to guide the development of the subject lots by addressing the following criteria:

 

a)    Dwellings to address the existing streets and the internal common access ways;

b)    Street, boundary and garage setbacks to respond to the residential character of the area;

c)    Uniform fencing requirements to provide consistent and visually permeable interface to all existing roads; and

d)    Pedestrian movement network to be integrated across the site

 

 

 

It is noted that the Zoning Plan of ASP 7 is not required to be amended as the subject lots are not zoned in the ASP 7 Zoning Plan. This is because DPS 2 zones these lots as Special Residential.

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposed amendments to both DPS 2 and ASP 7 can be summarised as follows:

 

1.       The subject lots were zoned Special Residential as they adjoined a buffer area between ASP 7 area and the Perth International Telecommunications Centre (PITC) located to the east.  This buffer area has since been removed through Amendment No. 25 to the DPS 2, which rezoned this buffer area from General Rural to Urban Development. This buffer area is now known as East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale. Therefore the Special Residential zoning is no longer necessary.

 

2.       The amendment proposals are consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Directions 2031 and Beyond, which promotes infill residential development that increases the population catchment near existing infrastructure such as schools and shopping centres.

 

3.       The amendment proposals are consistent with the City's Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) as the subject lots are:

 

a)      Within 250 metres of high frequency bus route on Warradale Terrace; and

 

b)      Within 800 metres of the Landsdale Neighbourhood Centre located on The Broadview to the south.

 

Attachment 5 contains the ASP 7 amendment document.

Consultation

Amendment No. 139

 

The proposal will enable the development of 106 dwellings (as shown in the Concept Plan). Currently there are six dwellings. The traffic generated by the 106 dwellings is likely to impact the current movement of traffic in the locality. Therefore under the provisions of Regulation 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) the amendment is considered to be complex for the following reason:

 

“An amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality.”

 

Under the provisions of Regulation 37 of the Regulations, prior to advertising a complex amendment the amendment is required to be submitted to the WAPC for it to consider if any modification is required to the amendment document prior to advertising. Therefore the WAPC’s advice is required before the amendment can be advertised.

 

Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Amendment No. 139 will also be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for its consideration as to whether the proposal requires further environmental assessment.

 

Subject to WAPC and EPA approval, Amendment No. 139 will be advertised for a period of not less than 60 days inviting public comments. 

 

 

If the advertising period covers the Christmas and New Year holidays, Administration will extend the duration of the public consultation.

 

Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7

 

Under the provisions of the Regulations, local government must advertise an amendment to a structure plan within 28 days of receiving it. The length of advertising period is between 14 and 28 days or a later day as approved by the WAPC. In this instance it is considered appropriate to advertise it along with the scheme amendment for a period of not less than 60 days with the WAPC’s approval. This will provide an opportunity to the residents to comment on both proposals at the same time.

 

Advertising of both amendments will occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Regulations:

 

·        Placement of an advertisement in a local newspaper;

·        Placement of sign(s) giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and 

·        Referral in writing to the affected residents within a radius of 200 metres from the subject area and to the government agencies.

Comment

General Comments

 

The following comments apply to both amendments.

 

LPP 3.1

 

LPP 3.1 provides a framework to guide the planning and development of increased housing density in existing suburbs identified as either Housing Precincts or Other Infill Development areas. The suburb of Landsdale is not one of the Housing Precincts. 

 

For consideration of proposals outside the Housing Precincts, under Section 9.1 b) of LPP 3.1, where the land concerned is the subject of an approved Structure Plan (in this instance ASP 7) approved under DPS 2, the application must include an assessment of how the proposal:

 

1.       is appropriate within the broader planning framework provided by the structure plan;

2.       satisfies the criteria in Table 3 of this policy relating to infill development and increased density; and

3.       supports the objective and recommendations of the Local Housing Strategy.

 

The above matters are discussed below:

 

1.       The subject lots were zoned Special Residential in ASP 7 as they adjoined a buffer area between ASP 7 area and the PITC.  This buffer area has since been removed through Amendment No. 25 to DPS 2, which rezoned it from General Rural to Urban Development. Therefore the Special Residential zoning is no longer necessary.

 

The former buffer area is being developed as part of East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Agreed Structure Plan No. 57 (ASP 57). There are provisions within ASP 57 to ensure that development has minimal adverse impact upon the PITC communication facilities. Accordingly, Cell 9 has been developed to an average density of R20.

 

However this provision does not apply to ASP 7 area. Therefore several pockets of land within ASP 7 were recoded as Residential R40 and have been developed to R40 standards.

 

2.       The amendment proposals satisfy Table 3 of LPP 3.1 as demonstrated below:

 

No.

Criterion

Policy Application

Comment

1.

Easy access/close proximity to Activity Centres

R40 between 401 and 800 metres from an edge of Activity Centre excluding Local Centres.

The subject land is approximately 800 metres from the edge of the Landsdale Neighbourhood Centre located at 127, The Broadview, Landsdale to the south of the amendment area. The proposals satisfy this criterion.

2.

Easy access/close proximity to public transport with priority towards rail nodes and bus interchanges.

R60 within 250 metres of a high frequency bus route designated stops. High Frequency Bus Routes are defined as having a minimum of two services per hour during peak periods.

The subject land is located on bus route 376, which originates at Warradale Avenue/Rockdale Pass and terminates at Mirrabooka Bus Station with a 30-minute frequency at peak period. Thus the proposals satisfy this criterion.

 

Despite this criterion supporting a R60 development, the applicant has proposed a R40 development. Considering the magnitude of a R40 development in comparison to that of a R60 development, the applicant’s proposal is supported.

 

3.       The proposal to rezone the subject land to Residential with a density coding of R40 generally satisfies the following objectives of the City's Housing Strategy:

 

·        To address State government policy to increase housing density within the existing urban footprint of the metropolitan region and meet State Government infill housing targets.

The WAPC’s Directions 2031 seeks a 50% improvement on current infill residential development trends between 30% and 35%. The proposed amendments will encourage a more effective use of existing developed land.

 

·        To address housing affordability within the City providing a variety of housing stock.

Under the current coding of R2 the amendment area could create seven dwellings of which six have already been constructed. By recoding to R40 as shown in the concept plan a total 106 dwellings can be developed adding to the City’s housing stock.

 

·        To better utilise existing infrastructure and amenities in existing suburbs by providing additional dwellings in close proximity.

 

The amendment area is located in close proximity to the Neighbourhood Centre, Primary School and is on bus route 376.

 

·        To promote higher density development in appropriate locations.

Being located on a bus route and in close proximity to the Primary School and Neighbourhood Shopping Centre the amendment area is strategically located to promote higher density development.

 

 

Specific Comments

 

Amendment No. 139 to DPS 2

 

Schedule 11 of DPS 2 includes special provisions for Special Residential 3. These provisions relate to the minimum lot size of 5,000m2, drainage and landscaping. In view of the amendment proposal, it is recommended that the special provisions of Special Residential 3 be deleted from Schedule 11.

 

Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7

 

Subclause 4.4 of Part 1 – Statutory Section of ASP 7 deals with Special Residential Precinct. The objective of this precinct was to provide for a low-density residential development serving as an effective buffer between PITC and Residential areas. As this buffer is no longer required as discussed above, it is recommended that this subclause be deleted.

 

Development guidelines

 

Attachment 2 is a concept plan of the subject lots at full R40 development potential and Attachment 3 is a concept plan integrating the new dwellings with the existing dwellings. Each subject lot being under separate ownership would be capable of a grouped dwelling development. None of the dwellings abutting the existing streets is proposed to gain direct access from these streets but from a common access way, which also provides access to other dwellings.

 

In order to ensure that a high standard development outcome is achieved, the applicant has proposed to introduce a new section in Part 1 of ASP 7 requiring the preparation of a Local Development Plan (LDP) addressing the following criteria as discussed below:

 

a.         Dwellings addressing the street.

 

Dwellings fronting a street will address the street to achieve an acceptable streetscape. Where dwellings side onto the street, it is proposed to improve the side elevation of the dwelling by incorporating architectural features. Attachment 6 is a concept design of such a dwelling.

 

b.         Street, boundary and garage setbacks to respond to the residential character of the area.

 

Where dwellings are proposed to directly orientate toward Kevo Place or Grayswood Close as shown in the concept plan, it is proposed to match the front setback of these dwellings with that of the existing dwellings on those streets in order to achieve uniformity in streetscape.

 

c.         Uniform fencing requirements to provide consistent and visually permeable interface to all existing roads.

 

A semi-permeable fence is proposed along the front boundary of the subject lots as shown in Attachment 6. The LDP is likely to provide guidance on the material of the fence.

 

d.         Pedestrian movement network to be integrated across the site.

 

In order to provide north-south connectivity between the subject lots, a pedestrian pathway between Kevo Place to the north and Grayswood Court to the south is proposed as shown in the concept plan (Attachment 2).

 

 

Application of the above criteria would result in a high quality development. A LDP addressing these criteria will be prepared in more detail spelling out each criterion clearly to achieve the desired outcome. No development would be undertaken until such time the LDP is approved by the City.

 

Other Matters

 

Traffic

 

The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment as per the provisions of the WAPC’s Transport Assessment Guidelines. The current and estimated volume of traffic on Kevo Place, Warradale Terrace, Rockdale Pass and Grayswood Court in comparison with the indicative volume range recommended in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) policy are shown in the following table:

 

Road

Current Traffic Volume

Vehicles per day (vpd)

Estimated Traffic Volume

Vehicles per day

(vpd)

WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhood policy – Indicative volume range Vehicles per day (vpd)

Warradale Terrace

700

1,200

3,000

Kevo Place

300

400

1,000

Rockdale Pass

500

1,000

1,000

Grayswood Court

50

390

1,000

 

Warradale Terrace is a Neighourhood Connector with a road reserve width of 18 metres. The other roads are classified as Access Streets. The road reserve width of Rockdale Pass and Grayswood Court is 17 metres and that of Kevo Place is 20 metres. The carriageway of all these roads is 6 metres wide.

 

As indicated in the above table, the estimated volume of traffic on Warradale Terrace, Kevo Place and Grayswood Court is within the indicative volume range recommended in the LN Policy. In regard to Rockdale Pass the estimated volume of traffic is in par with the indicative volume range of the LN policy. As the indicative volume range is not the maximum volume, Rockdale Pass could accommodate additional volume of traffic if it occurs. Considering the above, the amendment proposal is considered to be acceptable.

 

Draft Green Growth Plan

 

Lot 926 Warradale Terrace located within the amendment area is currently vacant. In the State Government’s draft Green Growth Plan (GGP), this lot is identified for ‘Broad Commitments and Values’ as shown in Attachment 7.

 

In Special Residential zone, the use class Single House is a Permitted ‘P’ use. Lot 926 is 5,003m2 in area and therefore the provisions of Residential Density Code R2 would apply. According to Clause 61(c) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, a planning approval is not required for the erection of a single house on a lot if the R-Codes apply. Therefore the owner of this lot would only require a building permit to construct a single house. Having regard to the draft GGP, Administration sought the advice from the Department of Planning (DoP) on whether approval of a government agency to clear any vegetation on the lot would be required prior to issuing a building permit. 

 

In response the City received the following advice from the DoP:

 

 

“The vegetation on Lot 926 has been identified as a draft broad commitment in the GGP, with the following environmental values:

 

·    Carnaby's feeding vegetation; and

·    Bassendean Complex Central and South (21% original extent remaining).

 

However, the GGP commitment mapping is currently in draft form, and the broad commitments in particular, are undergoing a process of refinement to determine which areas should be targeted for retention and which areas can potentially be lost.

 

Given the circumstances in this case, including:

 

·    that this lot is already zoned for urban development;

·    that a dwelling is a permitted use and would not require a planning application for a deemed-to-comply house; and

·    that the area of vegetation that would be retained is relatively small (<0.5ha),

 

it is unlikely that the vegetation over this lot would be targeted for retention in the finalisation of the commitment mapping. The draft GGP mapping in this instance would not impact the issuing of a building permit.”

 

As the draft GGP mapping would not impact the issuing of a building permit, Administration is of the view that the draft GGP mapping would not impact on the proposed rezoning of Lot 926 from Special Residential to Residential R40.

Conclusion

The proposed amendments satisfy the City’s LPP 3.1 to allow the land to be developed at a density of R40.  The proposed design guidelines would achieve a desired design outcome. It is recommended that the amendments be supported.

 

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 139 to DPS 2

 

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7

 

Under the provisions of the Regulations, the local government must advertise an amendment to a structure plan for a period not more than 28 days or a later day as approved by the WAPC. In this instance, as the City is considering Amendment No. 15 to ASP 7 along with Amendment No. 139 to DPS 2, it is appropriate that both amendments are advertised for the same length of period, which is 60 days, as noted above. This will provide an opportunity to the residents to comment on both proposals at the same time. 

 

The City has written to the Department of Planning seeking approval from the WAPC to advertise the structure plan amendment along with the scheme amendment for the same length of time. To date, no response has been received from the WAPC.

 

Under the provisions of the Regulations a Council resolution is not required to advertise an amendment to a structure plan. 

 

 

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 relates to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

The amendment proposals have been assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Local Housing Strategy Implementation.

Financial Implications

If the amendment proposals were to be successful, under the provisions of DPS 2, the future development of the subject lots will be subject to the payment of an Infrastructure Cost per lot.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.         Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to:

 

a)      rezone Lots 16, 17 & 923 Grayswood Court, Lot 924, 925 & 926 Warradale Terrace and Lot 927 Kevo Place, Landsdale from Special Residential to Residential with a density coding of R40;

b)      delete Special Residential 3 from Schedule 11 and renumbering the remaining items of the schedule; and

c)      modify the scheme map accordingly;

 

2.         Pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) DETERMINES that Amendment 139 to the District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Complex Amendment for the following reason:

 

“An amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality”;

 

3.         Pursuant to Regulation 37(2) of the Regulations SUBMITS two copies of the amendment document to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its consideration;

 

 

 

4.         Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No.2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and

 

5.         Subject to approval from EPA and the WAPC, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 139 to District Planning Scheme No.2 for a period of not less than 60 days.

 

a)                                   

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 -Location Plan

14/324160

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Concept Plan - total redevelopment

15/548055

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Concept Plan - Partial redevelopment

15/534676

 

4.

Attachment 4 Existing and proposed zoning

14/324162

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Amdt 139

16/356591

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Amdt 139

16/197105

 

7.

Attachment 7 - Amdt 139

16/200239

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     164

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     165

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     166

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     167

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     168

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     173

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     174

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         175

PS07-11/16       Consideration of Development Application (DA2016/857) - Single House (Patio) - Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie

File Ref:                                              DA2016/857 – 16/329314

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/857) proposing an addition to a Single House (Patio) at 66 Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie.

 

Applicant

Australian Outdoor Living

Owner

May Mark & Colin Tey

Location

Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie

Site Area

800m²

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

ASP 12 Zoning

Residential

 

Background

On 27 June 2016, the City received a development application proposing a patio as an addition to a Single House located on Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie (subject site). The subject site is 800m² in area and is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 under the Mindarie Keys - Agreed Structure Plan No. 12 (ASP 12). A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

The details of the proposed patio are as follows:

 

·        It is located on the western side boundary of the subject site;

·        It measures 7.1m in width and 14.1m in length;

·        The posts are setback 0.5m from the western side boundary; and

·        The height of the patio is 2.4m.

 

A site plan and an elevation of the patio are included in Attachment 2. The proposed side boundary setback of 0.5m is a variation to the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provision of Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) which prescribes a minimum setback of 1.5m.

Consultation

As the proposed setback variation for the patio is to the western boundary of the subject site, the City wrote to the affected landowner at Lot 1060 (64) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie advising of the proposal. Consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 1 July 2016 and closing on 15 July 2016. A submission objecting to the proposal was received from the affected landowner. A summary of the submission is included in Attachment 3. The affected landowner raised concerns relating to the potential for the reduced patio setback to reduce privacy and generate noise.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment

Assessment of Application

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

Design Principle – Clause 5.1.3 P3.1

Administration Comments

Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.

The impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is considered minimal given the open framed structure is 2.4m high and generally screened by the existing boundary fence.

 

The proposed patio abutting the residence on the northern and eastern sides would be unenclosed on the southern and western sides. Generally, building bulk arises from large solid walls and structures that impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. In this instance, being separated by the boundary fence and being open framed as viewed from the western elevation, the patio would have less impact on the objector’s residence.

Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open space on the site and adjoining properties.

The patio is unenclosed on the western boundary and therefore will not restrict ventilation to the objector’s dwelling.

 

Given the north-south orientation of the subject and adjoining lots, shadowing from the proposed patio will predominantly fall over the subject site when measured at midday 21 June as required by R-Codes. As such, the proposed patio will not untenably affect sunlight to open spaces of the adjoining dwelling.

Minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

The finished floor level of the patio is proposed to be one course lower than the applicant’s existing ground level. Separated by the existing boundary fence, the privacy of the adjoining property will be maintained.

 

In light of the above, the proposed setback variation for the patio is considered to meet the relevant ‘design principle’ of the R-Codes. The patio also satisfies all other requirements of the R-Codes.

 

In relation to potential noise concern raised by the objector, any noise generated on any residential lot is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times. In the event that noise is emitted at a level that becomes a nuisance to local residents, Administration would investigate noise levels and if substantiated, require a property owner to undertake appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

 

Consequently, Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no modification to the proposal is required. It is therefore recommended that the proposed patio at Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie be approved. 

 

 

 

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Delegation to Determine Application

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

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       PURSUANT to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 APPROVES the development application as submitted by Australian Outdoor Living on behalf of May Mark and Colin Tey for the Single House Addition (Patio) at Lot 1061 (66) Lighthouse Parade, Mindarie, as shown in Drawing No’s A01, A02 and A03 subject to compliance with the following conditions:

 

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Single House Addition (Patio), as highlighted on Attachment 2. It does not relate to any other development on the lot;

b)      Stormwater and any other water run-off from buildings or paved areas shall be collected and retained on site; and

2.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

16/358096

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans

16/310291

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission

16/310735

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        179

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        180

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        183

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         184

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

AS01-11/16       PT01-09/16 Request for the Installation of a Footpath on Rayner Drive from Everglades Parade to The Broadview, Landsdale

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 16/338654

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting the installation of a pathway along Rayner Drive from Everglades Parade to The Broadview, Landsdale.

Background

At its meeting of 13 September 2016 Council received petition PT01-09/16, signed by 45 residents of the City of Wanneroo, which reads:

 

We, the undersigned, all being Resident of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration on the immediate provision of a footpath along Rayner Driver, Landsdale to connect residents to pathways and public transport along the Broadview, Landsdale..”

Detail

Rayner Drive is classified as a Local Access Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy running north-south between The Broadview and Abbotswood Drive and operates under the Default Built-Up Area speed limit of 50km/h. A location map of the area is shown as Attachment 1 and an aerial map is attached as Attachment 2.

 

Rayner Drive is an urban standard road with a 2.5m shared path constructed on the eastern side from Abbottswood Drive to the Pedestrian Access Way (PAW) adjacent to No. 35 Rayner Drive. This shared path was constructed as part of the staged subdivision of Landsdale.  During the development of Landsdale, a section of 360m of pathway was not constructed between the PAW adjacent to No. 35 Rayner Drive to The Broadview. Refer Attachment 2 for an aerial map showing the existing and missing pathway along Rayner Drive.

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report. Subject to Council’s decision, properties directly affected are required to be consulted as part of detail design of the project.

Comment

Rayner Drive has operated in an urban environment within the City for a number of years with a steady traffic volume which are unlikely to undergo any major changes in near future. Administration supports the construction of the 360m missing pathway along Rayner Drive between the PAW adjacent to No. 35 Rayner Drive to The Broadview as the pathway will protect vulnerable road users, provide safe access to the bus services on Abbotswood Drive & The Broadview and provide access to the Broadview Park, Landsdale Primary School and Landsdale Shopping Centre.

Initial site investigations of Rayner Drive have identified that the streetlights and all existing services apart from Water Corporation sewerage manholes are located on the western side of the road. Therefore, subject to a detail design, Administration supports constructing a pathway along the eastern side of Rayner Drive in the abovementioned section.

 

The City has a significant number of unfunded pathway projects and the consideration of this missing pathway link will need to be prioritised in conjunction with those projects. Administration recommends that a project for the construction of the missing pathway is listed in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program (LTCWP) and the project is prioritised in accordance with the City’s Pathways Policy. Administration is currently assessing all missing pathway links within the City in accordance with the Pathways Policy, which is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2017. Once completed, this will provide a priority list of all projects within the City and the Rayner Drive project will be listed accordingly in the City’s LTCWP.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

The City’s Pathway Policy is applicable in assessing the petition.

Financial Implications

The estimated cost to complete the section of 360m long pathway on Rayner Drive from Everglades Parade (adjacent to No. 35 Rayner Drive) to The Broadview is $145,000. An average overall allocation of $1M (2017/18 and 2018/19) to $1.8M (2019/20 onwards) is listed in the City’s LTCWP for constructing pathways within the road reserve. Once listed, this project will form part of the overall allocated budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       SUPPORTS the petition request to construct a 360m section of pathway along Rayner Drive, Landsdale;

2.       LISTS a project for the construction of a 360m long pathway in Rayner Drive between the PAW adjacent to No. 35 Rayner Drive to The Broadview in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program and prioritises the project in accordance with the City’s Pathways Policy; and

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map - Rayner Drive, Landsdale pathway

16/357116

 

2.

Aerial Map - Rayner Drive, Landsdale Footpath

16/357053

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     187

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     188

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         189

AS02-11/16       Tender No 16137 - Construction of Sports Amentities and Carpark at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson

File Ref:                                              23858 – 16/355768

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 16137 for the Construction of Sports Amenities and Carpark at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson.

Background

At its meeting of 17 September 2013, Council considered report CD03-09/13 and resolved the following:

 

“That Council:

1.       NOTES Petition PT02-06/13, signed by 85 City of Wanneroo residents, requesting the development of an alternative venue at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson, including the development of toilet and changeroom facilities and floodlighting for Quinns Football Club;

2.       NOTES Petition PT03-06/13, signed by 170 City of Wanneroo residents, requesting upgraded facilities for training by the Quinns Football Club at Abbeville Park, Mindarie, including  improved floodlighting and maintenance to the reserve;

3.       NOTES Administration's intention to submit separate proposals for the Abbeville Park and Riverlinks Park infrastructure upgrades for consideration as a part of the 2014/15 10 Year Capital Works program development. 

4.       ADVISES the petitioner of Council's resolution.”

Subsequently, a proposal for the Riverlinks Park infrastructure was included in the approved Capital Works Program. An external design consultant, Scatena Clocherty Architects, was engaged to proceed with the preparation of the detailed design, technical specifications and tender documents for a public tender.

Detail

Tender No. 16137 was advertised to appoint a contractor to carry out construction works at the Riverlinks Park, located at 15 Riverlinks Drive, Clarkson.

The Scope of Works included a building incorporating toilets, change facilities, a kiosk and storage facilities, along with a 40-bay carparking area and a crossover from Connolly Drive.

The Request for Tender was advertised on Saturday 3 September and closed on Tuesday
4 October 2016 and a non-mandatory site briefing was held on at site on 9 September 2016.

A copy of the tender document is available for perusal in the Elected Member’s Reading Room.


 

 

Tenders Received

Eleven tender submissions were received as tabled below:

 

Company

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

Linkforce Engineering  (Linkforce)

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

 

Linkforce did not submit its Price Schedule and is therefore excluded from further consideration.

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation Panel (“TEP”) comprising Coordinator Building Projects, Project Officer Building, the City’s Design Consultant with oversight from City’s Contracts Officer evaluated the tenders in accordance with the following weighted selection criteria:

 

 

Selection Criteria

Weight

1

Price for Services

40%

2

Organisational Experience

15%

2

Key Personnel Experience

15%

3

Understanding of Tender and Methodology

15%

4

Occupational Health and Safety including responses to Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire 

15%

 

Price for the services offered (40%)

Ranking of the Tender submissions based on the lump sum prices provided is as follows:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

1

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

2

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

3

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

4

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

5

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

6

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

7

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

8

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

9

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

10

 


 

 

Organisational Experience including relevant reference checks (15%)

This criterion considers the tenderers' experience in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances, with considerations given to project type, size and complexity.

Shelford provided a response that complies and is convincing and credible. Their Tender submission demonstrated very good capability and experience relevant to this criterion. Shelford provided names and construction costs of past projects of similar type, scale, and complexity which satisfied the TEP of its suitability.

Pindan demonstrated adequate capability, capacity and experience, and presented a low risk. Pindan included projects for local and state governments for consideration.

BEP was also assessed as acceptable under this criterion. BEP included names and construction costs of past projects relevant to this project. However, the TEP found the information provided was more generic than specific to the requirements of this criterion.

Slatter and LKS were compliant but less convincing. Slatter listed past projects ranging from office fitouts and warehouses. LKS provided minor building modification and carpark projects for consideration.

MACS, Geared, CLPM and Adrina each had minor omissions in their submissions. The TEP found these tenderers’ responses to this criterion were credible, however less convincing. MACS and Geared included construction projects of simplistic functions in their submissions and did not elaborate on their direct relevance to this project. CLPM listed heritage restoration projects of various sizes but did not demonstrate how these experiences can be applied to this project. Adrina listed names and costs of completed projects but no further details were provided for the TEP for evaluation.

Buildon listed past projects which included building upgrades, additions and institutional buildings, however did not provide adequate information demonstrating its capabilities in delivering civil works.

The information provided has resulted in the tender submissions being ranked under this criterion as follows:

Tenderer

Ranking

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

2

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

3

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

4

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

4

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

6

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

6

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

6

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

6

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

10

 

Key Personnel Experience including relevant reference checks (15%)

This criterion evaluates the tenderers’ experience and qualifications of the key personnel proposed to work on the project. The tender required tenderers to provide details of its personnel proposed for this project including site supervisors and contract administrators.

 

 

Shelford, Slatter, BEP, Pindan, Geared, MACS and LKS were convincing and credible, demonstrating substantial experience and qualification for the nominated key personnel.

 

The inclusion of resource commitments and CVs of the nominated key personnel further illustrated compliance to the requirements of this criterion. The submissions have some gaps, some lacking the required licence numbers, but present a low risk overall.

CLPM and Adrina were credible, however less convincing. Their submissions demonstrated a marginal understanding of the criterion and present a medium risk overall.

Buildon’s response had some omissions. Their submission has shortcomings and deficiencies in demonstrating the tenderer’s capability and capability relevant to the requirements of this criterion.

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

Tenderer

Ranking

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

1

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

1

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

1

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

1

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

1

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

1

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

8

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

8

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

10

 

Understanding of Tender and Methodology (15%)

This criterion evaluates the tenderers’ understanding of tender requirements and their proposed methodology to carry out the services to achieve the required outcome specific to the project.

Geared’s submission complied with the requirements and is convincing and credible. The submission demonstrated a very good understanding of the tender requirements although the submission lacked substantiation to a minor degree. The submission addresses the items specifically related to the project such as scope, deliverables, timeframe, maintenance, safety, budget, and other project constraints. The tenderer’s overall claims are supported and present a low risk to the City.

Shelford, BEP, CLPM and LKS’s submissions were compliant; however less convincing, demonstrated a fair understanding to a lesser extent of the tender requirements by providing information on site safety, sample project programs, clarifications of work required for the scope and relevant project deliverables. Minor uncertainties and shortcomings exist in the tenderers’ claims; however overall they each present a low risk.

Slatter, Pindan, Buildon, MACS and Adrina were credible but not completely convincing. The submissions demonstrated a lower level of understanding of the scope of work by providing information on scope breakdown, methodology statements, and a brief outline of the project program; however the submissions have some gaps.


 

 

On the basis of the information submitted, the tenderers were assessed and ranked under this criterion as follows:

Tenderer

Ranking

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

1

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

2

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

2

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

2

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

2

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

6

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

6

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

6

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

6

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

6

Occupational Health and Safety including responses to Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire (15%)

This criterion evaluates the tenderers’ safety management systems and approach to occupational health and safety.

Slatter, Pindan and Geared all complied with the requirements of the criterion and demonstrated very good capability, capacity and relevant experience. Slatter’s submission detailed organisational safety management policies and processes. The level of information provided was satisfactory along with its safety management systems and approach to occupational health and safety. Pindan’s response complied, and although a minor lack of substantiation exists, the overall claim is supported and is rated as low risk. The level of information provided by Geared was satisfactory along with its safety management systems and approach to occupational health and safety.

Shelford, BEP, CLPM, MACS, Buildon and LKS complied with the criterion despite minor uncertainties in their documentation noted. The submissions met the requirements of the evaluation criterion by showing evidences of established safety management systems. The individual submissions under this criterion each presents a low risk.

Adrina has deficiencies and were less convincing. Their response demonstrates marginal capacity and experience relevant to the requirements of the criterion as the information provided was not sufficiently comprehensive.

The ranking of tenderers under this criterion based on the submissions received is as follows:

Tenderer

Ranking

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

1

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

1

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

4

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

4

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

4

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

4

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

4

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

4

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

10

Overall Ranking Assessment

The overall scoring of tenders based on the weighted selection criteria has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd  (Shelford)

1

The Slatter Group WA Pty Ltd  (Slatter)

2

BE Projects WA Pty Ltd  (BEP)

3

Maintenance And Construction Services Australia Pty Ltd  (MACS)

4

LKS Construction WA Pty Ltd  (LKS)

5

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd  (Pindan)

6

Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd  (CLPM)

7

Geared Construction Pty Ltd  (Geared)

8

Buildon Construction  (Buildon)

9

Adrina Project Management Pty Ltd  (Adrina)

10

 

As a result of the tender evaluation process, Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd is rated by the TEP as the highest ranked tenderer.

Program

The proposed timeframe for the Scope of Works is outlined below:

 

Task Name

Indicative Timeframe

Tender Award by the City

10 November 2016

Site Possession and Construction Commencement

1 December 2016

Practical Completion

 15 August 2017

Completion of Defects Liability (12 months)

15 August 2018

Comment

As a result of the tender evaluation process, Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd is recommended by the TEP as the preferred Tenderer and provides the best value for money.

 

Key characteristics of Shelford’s submission are:

·    Competitive lump sum price;

·    Relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Experienced and suitably qualified key personnel to enable the services to be delivered successfully;

·    Strong recommendations through reference checks; and

·    Sound financial status.

Consultation

Community consultation was undertaken with residents residing within 400m of the reserve. The residents were provided with an information letter, along with site and concept plans. The consultation period was open for four weeks from 17 June to 14 July 2016.

 

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period a total of 26 responses were received of which 24 (92%) supported the concept and 2 (8%) did not, expressing concerns about potential anti-social behaviour, security and sufficient parking. Administration is of the view that the proposed Sports Amenities Building and Car Parking is appropriate for a neighbourhood level active reserve of this size.

 

The consultation process did not result in any significant issues being identified and as a result the project proceeded to the detailed design and public tender.

 

The results of this consultation were also endorsed by the Council at its meeting on 16 August 2016 (Item No. CP01-08/16 refers).

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Enterprise Risk

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

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

Notwithstanding the considerations for the sustainable procurement in accordance with section15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the evaluation of this tender did not set out a specific criteria to assess sustainability. The Tender document included these considerations as non-weighted criteria.

Broader Economic Impact for the City of Wanneroo

The contractor was unable to identify any economic impact to the City in delivering these works. The Tender document included these considerations as non-weighted criteria.

Operational Risk Management Considerations

Project Risk

Project risk mitigation will be identified and addressed by the contractor as part of the its construction management and programming phase so that it aligns with the daily operations of the construction site and public usage and access around the site.

Financial Risk

A financial assessment of Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd was recently undertaken by Corporate Scorecard.

 

 

 

 

In their assessment report dated 19 October 2016, Corporate Scorecard confirmed that Shelford is trading in a profitable manner and the contract in question is within the appropriate capacity and risk based thresholds. The following are excerpts from the report,

 

          “The subject is considered to meet the minimum desired financial criteria for the     contract is question.”

 

          “No other items are evident that are considered to have a material impact on the    subject in undertaking the contract in question.”

 

Reference Checks

Two referees were contacted in relation to past performance and quality of service provided by Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd. Both referees provided positive responses.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The following table identifies the project budget and costs associated with the project:

 

Sports Amenities Building & Carpark at Riverlinks Park (PR-2961)

Description

Project Costs

Project Funding

Project Funding PR-2961 for 2014/15 and 2015/16

$152,195

Project Funding PR-2961 for 2016/17

 

1,516,329

Expenditure/Commitments to Date:

 

Expenditure to October 2016

$164,795

 

Outstanding Commitments to October 2016

$53,542

 

Proposed Commitments Under Tender 16137

 

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd

$1,256,825

 

Onging transportable hire and maintenance

$15,000

 

Construction Contingency (8%)

$100,000

 

Project Management

$50,000

 

Total Estimated Expenditure

$1,640,162

 

Total Budget

 

$1,668,524

Estimated Balance of Funding

 

$28,362

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd for Tender No. 16137 Construction of Sports Amenities Building and Carpark at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson for its tendered fixed lump sum price of $1,256,825.16 as per the General Condition of Tendering.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         197

 

Assets Maintenance

AS03-11/16       Tender No 16171 - Supply and Application of Herbicides and Organic Control Products to Weeds in Hardstands, Kerblines and Mulched Areas

File Ref:                                              27684 – 16/358301

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 16171 for the Supply and Application of Herbicides and Organic Control Products to Weeds in Hardstands, Kerblines and Mulched Areas.

Background

Weed spraying application services on all of the City’s hardstands, kerblines and mulched areas have previously been provided by external contractors engaged through a quotation process. Due to the expected increase in the value of the required service into the future it is now prudent to move to a public tender process to ensure that the City is compliant with the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations.

Detail

Tender No. 16171 for the Supply and Application of Herbicides and Organic Control Products to Weeds in Hardstands, Kerblines and Mulched Areas was advertised on 17 September 2016 and closed on 4 October 2016. A copy of the tender document is available in the Elected Members Reading Room for perusal.

 

The Tender allows for the provision of both chemical and non-chemical weed control methods to provide the option to use the most appropriate control method in specific environments.

 

Essential details of the proposed contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Schedule of rates

Contract Duration

24 months

Commencement Date

1 December 2016

Expiry Date

31 November 2018

Extension Permitted

Yes, 2 x 12 month options

Tender submissions were received from the following contractors:

·      MCL Commercial Services.

·      Turfmaster Pty Ltd.

·      Environmental Industries Pty Ltd.

·      Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd. 

·      Skyline Landscape Services.

 

 

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

Selection Criteria

Weighting

Price for the services offered

20%

Demonstrated previous experience

20%

Demonstrated methodology and approach

20%

Plant and equipment

20%

Demonstrated compliance with OH&S requirements (safety management)

20%

Price for the services offered (20%)

This criterion was based on the estimated cost to the City over the term of the contract based on rates submitted by the tenderers in the price schedule and has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows:

Tenderer

Rank

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

1

Skyline Landscape Services

2

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

3

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

4

MCL Commercial Services

5

Demonstrated relevant experience in similar works with achievement of client expectations (20%)

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

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd and Turfmaster Pty Ltd demonstrated extensive experience in the application of herbicides within hardstand and kerbline areas. Environmental Industries Pty Ltd provided details of relevant contracts and clients including the City and developers in Holland Park and Seville Grove. Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided details of relevant contracts including the Cities of Wanneroo, Stirling and Vincent.

Skyline Landscape Services demonstrated more than adequate experience associated with weed control in hardstand areas. Skyline Landscape Services gave examples of works performed for the Cities of Cockburn, Nedlands and Wanneroo.

MCL Commercial Services and Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd provided details of weed management experience; however the experience was not related to the required scope within Tender No 16171.

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

 

 

Tenderer

Rank

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

1

Skyline Landscape Services

3

MCL Commercial Services

4

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

4

 

Demonstrated methodology and approach to undertake the services (20%)

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

Skyline Landscape Services demonstrated having significant modern resources, a well-documented methodology and provided detailed staff information.

MCL Commercial Services and Environmental Industries Pty Ltd provided more than adequate information on their methodology and provided detailed information on staff.

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd and Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided a basic methodology and adequate information on staff. 

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

Tenderer

Rank

Skyline Landscape Services

1

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

2

MCL Commercial Services

2

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

4

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

4

 

Demonstrated compliance with OH&S requirements (safety management) (20%)

The evaluation of safety management was based on the tenderers’ submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) policy documentation, working documentation, and responses to the OHS Management System Questionnaire. Evidence of completed examples of incident reports, near misses and hazard inspections were asked to be provided.

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd provided a detailed submission, comprising comprehensive policies, procedural documentation and demonstrated use of working documentation including risk assessments, incident reports, hazard reports, induction checklists, training records and toolbox records.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd provided a detailed submission on safety management; however the copy of an expired pest management business licence was provided. Environmental Industries has since provided a copy of a current business pesticide licence.

Skyline Landscape Services and Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided a more than adequate submission on safety however no examples of completed documents were submitted as requested.

MCL Commercial Services provided limited information on safety; although having completed the questionnaire, it did not provide copies of management systems or actual documents as requested.

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

 

Tenderer

Rank

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

1

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

2

Skyline Landscape Services

3

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

MCL Commercial Services

5

 

Plant and Equipment (20%)

The evaluation of this criterion considered the tenderers submitted list of plant and equipment to be used in the services to be provided.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd propose to use purpose built equipment fitted with GPS tracking systems and provided a detailed methodology on the use of the equipment.

Skyline Landscape Services provided adequate information on the equipment to be used in this contract with information on types of equipment and photos supplied.

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd and Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided information on the type of equipment to be used, with Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd only including the use of utility vehicles and no other alternatives and Turfmaster Pty Ltd providing a list of equipment that will only be available dependent on other commitments.

MCL Commercial Services provided very basic information on the spraying equipment to be used.

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

Tenderer

Rank

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

1

Skyline Landscape Services

2

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

3

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

MCL Commercial Services

5

Overall weighted score

The tenderers’ submissions were reviewed in accordance with the selection criteria and the overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

 

 

 

 

Tenderer

Rank

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

1

Skyline Landscape Services

2

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

Natural Area Holdings Pty Ltd 

4

MCL Commercial Services

5

 

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

The key characteristics of Environmental Industries Pty Ltd’s tender are:

·      Relevant experience with similar herbicide spraying operations including being a current service provider with the City of Wanneroo; and

·      A sound methodology and modern equipment to enable the services to be rendered successfully.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The evaluation undertaken by the Tender Evaluation Panel resulted in the tender submission from Environmental Industries Pty Ltd achieving the highest score in accordance with the selection criteria and weighting and therefore Environmental Industries Pty Ltd is the recommended tenderer.

Environmental Industries Pty Ltd is currently performing hardstand and kerbline weed control services to the City under a quotation process. This service has been provided since
9 February 2016 with no non-compliance issues being recorded during this period.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Enterprise Risk

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

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

Notwithstanding the considerations for the sustainable procurement in accordance with section15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the evaluation of this tender did not set out a specific criteria to assess sustainability. The Tender document included these considerations as non-weighted criteria.

Broader Economic Impact for the City of Wanneroo

The contractor was unable to identify any economic impact to the City in delivering these works. The Tender document included these considerations as non-weighted criteria.

Risk Management Considerations

Performance Risk

The condition of the City’s hardstands, kerblines and mulched areas can deteriorate quickly if not maintained to an acceptable level. The inability of a contractor to supply these services will result in the degradation of the City’s assets and the City not providing the required standard of service to its residents. It is important that the successful tenderer has the required experience in the use of chemicals, and the staff, equipment, safety systems and operational capacity to meet the contract requirements. Based on the information provided, Environmental Industries is assessed to have sufficient resources to identify and mitigate risks associated with the provision of services under this contract.

Financial Risk

A financial risk assessment was not undertaken as part of this tender evaluation process, as an assessment was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard on Environmental Industries in June 2016 as part of the Yanchep Open Space Oval Development project. The financial check assessment indicated a pass score for Environmental Industries.

Policy Implications

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Purchasing Policy. The City’s Weed Management Policy is currently being reviewed and updated to reflect current best practice in the pesticide management. The specification in this tender will comply with the intended updated policy that will be presented to Council in early 2017.

Financial Implications

The costs associated with the supply and application of herbicides and organic control products to weeds in hardstands, kerblines and mulched areas is estimated to be in the order of $150,000 per annum and is included in the annual Parks Maintenance Operational Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple  Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Environmental Industries Pty Ltd for Tender No. 16171 for the Supply and Application of Herbicides and Organic Control Products to Weeds in Hardstands, Kerblines and Mulched Areas as per the schedule of rates and in accordance with the conditions of tendering, noting that the commencement date of the contract is 1 December 2016 and expiry date of the contract is 30 November 2018, with options to extend the contract for two 12 month periods, at the City’s discretion, subject to:

a)      satisfactory performance; and

b)      price adjustment of the second year rates based on the Perth Consumer Price Index.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         203

 

Waste Services

AS04-11/16       City of Wanneroo Strategic Waste Management Plan

File Ref:                                              2240 – 16/355828

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the adoption of the draft Strategic Waste Management Plan following community consultation.

Background

Council, at its meeting on 16 August 2016, considered Item No AS05-08/16, City of Wanneroo Strategic Waste Management Plan 2016-2020 and resolved to:

“That Council ENDORSES the draft Strategic Management Plan (Attachment 1) to be advertised for Community Comments and feedback.”

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 specifies that a waste plan should outline how waste services provided by local governments will be managed in alignment with the State waste strategy.

The City’s aim is to align the provision of waste services with the Western Australian Waste Authority’s 2012 strategy; Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment, which encourages local governments to include waste plans in their strategic planning cycles. Accordingly, development of this draft Strategic Waste Management Plan is an action within the City of Wanneroo Corporate Business Plan 2016/2017 to 2019/2020.

Detail

The draft Strategic Waste Management Plan outlines the City’s strategic waste objectives and actions it will take to achieve these objectives over the next five years; while giving consideration to the following key items:

·    Federal legislation;

·    State legislation;

·    Industry practices;

·    City’s Waste Service provision obligations, current services and waste management practices/initiatives;

·    Mindarie Regional Council’s Infrastructure Options Assessment Report;

·    Community feedback received through a community survey.

Community consultation was undertaken between 22 August and 18 September 2016 and in line with the City’s Community Engagement Policy. A copy of the draft SWMP was available both online and at various City buildings which allowed residents the opportunity to view the document. Respondents were able to comment by completing an online Survey Monkey questionnaire, emailing Waste Services directly, posting responses by mail, or dropping off responses at designated City buildings, ie Civic Centre, libraries, etc.

Sixteen responses were received:

·    Survey Monkey – 11;

·    Direct email – 4; and

·    Letter by post – 1

All respondents have been thanked for their feedback, with relevant comments provided.

Consultation

In preparing the draft SWMP, consultation occurred with both internal and external stakeholders.

 

Following the endorsement of the draft Strategic Waste Management Plan for community consultation, an engagement plan was prepared in line with the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

Comment

The responses received from the community consultation generally support the recommendations and actions highlighted in the draft SWMP, and the direction which is proposed for the City’s waste management operations for the next five years. Refer Attachment 2

 

A few of the responses relate to specific topics:

·    a respondent had met with the Manager Waste Services and the Mayor to discuss the three bin system outlined in his response.

·    a respondent has previously discussed with the Manager Waste Services issues experienced with the bulk service received; the resident was advised at the time that the issue was recognised and would be taken into consideration in future.

·    one respondent appears to have responded more to the recent media reports regarding the setting up of the Waste Local Law within the City, and the City of Gosnells; this respondent has been provided with a copy of the draft SWMP.

Many of the responses received reinforce the details highlighted by the community during the earlier survey stage of the development process of the Plan; yellow bin not big enough/two-weekly recycling pick-ups not enough, waste education should be promoted within the community, three bin system, etc.

There were some new ideas proposed to enhance reuse and recycling within the community; drop-off points, tip shop, community gardens, e-waste collection, etc., which will be considered and assessed during the next stages of the recommendations proposed within the Plan.

Administration agrees that the comments received are in line with the current draft of the SWMP, with no change required to the current draft SWMP and it is recommended that the draft SWMP, refer Attachment 1, be endorsed by Council.

The WMAC considered the community feedback at its meeting on 18 October 2016 and supports Administration’s recommendation that the draft SWMP does not require any revision and its adoption by Council.

The final endorsed and adopted SWMP will be a publically available document, in which the community will be able to view and understand the strategic waste intentions of the City.

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

1.3    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Waste - Our community will be a leading example of recycling, reusing and waste management.

 

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 development of a Strategic Waste Management Plan has been undertaken in accordance with the Waste Management Services Policy, CS07 – 04/15.

 

“The City of Wanneroo is committed to ensuring that its waste management services support the Strategic Plan to improve management, recycling and re-use of waste.”

Financial Implications

Expenditure associated with the adoption and implementation of the SWMP forms part of the Annual Waste Services operational budget. Financial implications from projects and initiatives resulting from the implementation of each of the actions from the adopted SWMP will be considered in the detailed analysis of each action and included in future reports to Council as necessary.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       NOTES the feedback received in response to the community consultation on the draft Strategic Waste Management Plan Community Consultation undertaken from 22 August to 18 September 2016; and

2.       ADOPTS the Strategic Waste Management Plan as per Attachment 1.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Strategic Waste Management Plan 2016 (Final)

16/368263

Minuted

2.

Strategic Waste Managemnt Plan Community Consultation Comments Summary Final

16/368294

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     206

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        225

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         232

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

CP01-11/16       Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy

File Ref:                                              20774 – 16/347063

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the proposed Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy.

Background

The draft Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy (Attachment 1) has been developed as a result of a community petition following two incidents at City of Wanneroo beaches in 2014. The petition requested the City to provide advice and recommendation on identifying ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ beaches. Due to the dynamic nature of the beach environment, it would not be possible for the City to place a classification on all of its beaches, as safety is also associated with the capability, experience and familiarity of each specific beach user. This is a position which is consistent with advice from Surf Life Saving WA.

 

In order to identify potential hazards and employ the associated risk management practices, the City commissioned Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) to carry out comprehensive Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments (CARA) at all City beaches in 2014. The proposed policy seeks to build on the CARA as well as the City’s Coastal Management Plan and various Foreshore Management Plans to outline the City’s role in managing coastal aquatic risks on behalf of the community.

Detail

The purpose of the policy is to encourage safe community participation in coastal aquatic activities across City of Wanneroo beaches and mitigate incidences of drowning, near drowning and related injuries in the City’s coastal aquatic environment. The policy is solely associated with the beach area and coastal waters and refers to activities specifically undertaken in these settings, such as swimming, snorkelling, fishing etc. It does not include other recreational activities associated with the coastline or foreshore such as dunes, access tracks or carparks as these are captured in the City’s Coastal Management Plan, Foreshore Management Plans and other ongoing bodies of work in this area.

 

The proposed policy is focussed on community capacity building through the implementation of coastal aquatic education, awareness and information programs in partnership with SLSWA and other agencies. The policy also aligns with local and national policies through consideration of the Australian Water Safety Framework and the implementation plan is based on the Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) BeachSAFE priorities.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with Managers across the relevant Directorates within the City. Feedback has also been obtained from existing partners and peak bodies in this space, such as SLSWA.

Comment

Nil

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.

 

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

 

2.3     Safe Communities – We feel at home in our local area.

         

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

 

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST -23 Stakeholder Relationships

Moderate

CO-O01 Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

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

 

It is important to highlight to all stakeholders and partners that this policy is not intended to be about regulation, but increasing community awareness of the risks associated with the City’s coastal aquatic environment.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

It is envisaged that the implementation of the policy will be covered through existing operational budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the proposed Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy as per
Attachment 1.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Coastal Aquatic Safety Policy

16/280596

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     235

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         242

CP02-11/16       Edith Cowan University Waiver of Fees - Wanneroo Aquamotion Gym

File Ref:                                              8263 – 16/356848

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   CD01-09/15 - Proposed Fee Waiver to Support ECU Collaboration on Exercise Clinical Trials and Exercise Physiology Services - Ordinary Council - 15 Sep 2015 7.00pm       

 

Issue

To consider and report on the continued waiver of fees to support the delivery of Exercise Clinical Trials and Exercise Physiology Clinical Service by the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute (ECU) at the Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium (Aquamotion).

Background

In September 2015 Council considered report CD01-09/15 regarding a proposed waiver of fees to support ECU’s delivery of Exercise Clinical Trials and Exercise Physiology Clinical Service by the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute (ECU) at the Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium. As a result, Council resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

          1.       NOTES the collaboration between the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute and the City of Wanneroo in the delivery of Exercise Clinical Trials and Exercise Physiological Clinical Services at Wanneroo Aquamotion; and

          2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the waiver of fees for the use of the Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium by the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute to a maximum of $14,020 per annum for a period of 12 months, after which a formal review will be undertaken and further reporting to Council regarding the extension of the program, should it be required.”

This report aims to evaluate the success of the collaboration between ECU and the City of Wanneroo and to consider continued collaboration between ECU and the City of Wanneroo for the purposes of maintain and or increasing the depth and breadth of medical and health research in the City of Wanneroo to be considered.

Detail

Evaluation of the collaboration relates to two parts as outlined below.

 

Exercise Clinical Trials

As outlined within report CD01-09/15, the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute are engaged in a range of research projects examining the application of exercise as medicine for the management of chronic disease in particular cancer and metabolic syndrome (definition). This entails anywhere between 10 to 15 clinical trials being conducted throughout Perth, nationally and internationally at any one time involving patient numbers between 10 and 900. In Perth alone ECU currently conduct research trials at seven sites to facilitate recruitment as well as providing convenient access for local communities.

 

 

 

 

Aquamotion was proposed as one of the sites to support the delivery of the exercise clinical trials. Aquamotion was chosen due to its central location within Wanneroo and its proximity to the ECU Health Centre. 

 

For each clinical trial patient, an exercise program is prescribed by a qualified Exercise Physiologist who accompanies the patient (individually or in a group setting) to a gymnasium to implement their exercise program. Under the collaboration it was expected that within a 12 month period, approximately 20 patients would require entry into the Aquamotion Gymnasium on an average of three times per week, with exercise interventions ranging from 12 to 52 weeks and at an estimated cost of $11,980. Over the period from September 2015 to September 2016 there was not any research trials conducted at Wanneroo Aquamotion. While this was initially proposed it has not eventuated and it is Administration understands that ECU is continuing to develop this aspect of the proposed service delivery.

 

Exercise Physiology Clinical Services

 

To support the delivery of the exercise physiology clinical service, access to Aquamotion was requested for the ECU Exercise Physiologists and their patients to utilise for the initiation stage of the service. The initiation stage with patients was proposed over two sessions with each session being 30 to 60 minutes in duration, supported by the Exercise Physiologist. It was expected that this service will receive 60 patients per year.

 

The implementation of this service has identified that between November 2015 to September 2016 ECU Exercise physiologists were undertaking four site-based visits with clients instead of the proposed two visits. This was to enable greater patience adherence to programming and improve familiarity with Aquamotion, noting the total value of these sessions (combined with the proposed Exercise Clinical Trials) was still required to be within the approved total value of waiver of fees. Aquamotion recorded 17 patients that required access to the centre. In order to effectively capture the patients and allow accurate tracking of subsidy, Aquamotion staff adhered to liability process and enlisted patients on subsidised membership terms with varied access as directed by ECU Exercise physiologists. Total subsidy required for the initial 12 month period totalled $3,095, with this being treated as forgone revenue.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The review of the current arrangement has noted that there was a difference in attendance figures from expectations outlined within the initial proposal. Program infancy and continued establishment of GP referral pathways are noted as areas for improvement over the coming term. As knowledge of the program within the Wanneroo GP super clinic continues to increase and doctor familiarity with the programs and facilities being offered at Aquamotion is also improved, referrals from this pathway are projected to strengthen.

 

Throughout the partnerships initial term, opportunities for Aquamotion to leverage membership and establish referral pathways were limited due to the irregularities within patient and exercise physiologist visitation. A small number of the patients undertaking rehabilitation services have continued as Aquamotion members, this continued referral is projected to increase as the program continues.

 

Professional development opportunities for Aquamotion Health and Fitness staff were also limited as operational constraints and obligations remained as a high priority and the alignment of staff to irregular timeslots could not be facilitated.

 

 

The inability to facilitate professional development consequently impacted rapport building opportunities and the ability to leverage membership conversion throughout the exercise clinical trials. This is an area that would require focus and development over the coming term.  

 

In consideration of the above, this report will recommend the continuation of the arrangement with ECU for a further 12 months, to allow time for ongoing program development to occur.

 

From a National Competition Policy perspective, it should also be noted that the agreement with ECU may need to be re-considered should other organisations wish to enter into a similar arrangement.

Statutory Compliance

Given that the Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium fees and charges are endorsed by Council as a part of the annual budget process, waiver of these fees to accommodate the ECU proposal will need to occur via Council resolution.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O01 Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Based on the information provided by ECU and data recorded by Aquamotion, the financial implications and reporting’s of the partnerships initial 12 month term is outlined within the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Elements

 Proposed Detail

 Proposed Total $ Value Per Annum

Actual Total $ Value Per Annum

Exercise Clinical Trials

20 patients per annum

12 month gym membership @ $599.00

$11,980

$0

Exercise Physiology Clinical Services

 

60 patients per annum

2 x 1 hr sessions @ $17.00 per session 

$2,040

$3,095

 

Total

$14,020

$3,095

 

As a result, the total subsidy provided to ECU for the initial 12 month term was $3,095, which is within the maximum value of the approved waiver of fees of $14,020.

 

as noted previously, is being treated as forgone revenue in respect to Aquamotion’ s budget.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the total subsidy provided to Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute for use of the Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium for the period September 2015 to September 2016 was $3,095; and

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the further waiver of fees for the use of the  Wanneroo Aquamotion gymnasium by the Edith Cowan University Health and Wellness Institute to a maximum of $14,020 per annum for a second 12 month trial period, after which a formal review will be undertaken and further reporting to Council regarding the extension of the program, should it be required.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         246

 

Place Strengthening

CP03-11/16       Community Funding Program September 2016 Round Applications

File Ref:                                              19964 – 16/329939

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider applications from community groups requesting funding through the City’s Community Funding Program September 2016 round for specified projects, activities or events.

Background

The Community Funding Program currently offers two funding rounds per year, one in March and one in October, however in 2016 the Community Funding Working Group agreed to bring forward the October round to September in 2016 to accommodate Hallmark applications, some of which would be for events commencing in January 2017.  Accommodation of the major Community Funding Policy and Program Review to occur this financial year was also considered.  The September 2016 round represents the first round for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

The Community Funding Working Group met on Wednesday 12 October 2016 to review Administration recommendations for the Community Funding Program September 2016 round.  The Community Funding Working Group supported Administration recommendations as follows:

 

“1. APPROVES $3,000.00 to the Royal Australian Airforce Association (WA Division) via       Hallmark Event Funding for the ANZAC Day Dawn Service 2017 and Gunfire      Breakfast and the Remembrance Day Memorial Service 2017 and Sausage Sizzle lunch SUBJECT to receipt of City of Wanneroo Event Application approval and satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding;

 

2.   APPROVES $8,000.00 to the Quinns Rocks RSL Sub Branch via Hallmark Event Funding for the ANZAC Day Commemorative Service 2017 and Gunfire Breakfast, Vietnam Veterans Day Service 2017 and lunch and Remembrance Day Service 2017 and lunch SUBJECT to receipt of City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding and satisfactory quote for wreaths;

 

3.   APPROVES $5,422.00 to the Yanchep Two Rocks RSL Sub Branch via Hallmark Event Funding for the  ANZAC Day Service 2017 and Gunfire Breakfast, Vietnam Veterans Day Service 2017 and lunch, Merchant Navy Day Service 2017 and lunch, Battle for Australia Day Service 2017 and lunch and Remembrance Day Service 2017 and lunch SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval and satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding;

 

4.   APPROVES $3,500.00 to the Wanneroo Scout Group via Hallmark Event Funding for the Australia Day Community Breakfast 2017 pending the outcome of the Communications and Events Team call for an Expression of Interest for 2017 City of Wanneroo Australia Day Ceremony catering and SUBJECT to receipt of a City of Wanneroo Event application approval, receipt of satisfactory quotes and documentation to support the number of participants expected at the separate Wanneroo Scout Group Australia Day Breakfast 2017 and a second support letter;

 

5.   APPROVES $3,000.00 to the Landsdale Residents Association via Community Event Funding for ten Street Corner Barbecues at various parks in Landsdale from 1 December 2016 to 30 April 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, and satisfactory acquittal of previous community funding;

 

6.   APPROVES $3,029.69 to the Edmund Rice Centre Mirrabooka Inc via Community Event Funding for the Edmund Rice Community Sports Festival on 9 April 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval;

 

7.   APPROVES $746.82 to Charles Rawlins Taekwondo Inc via Community Event Funding for the Celebration of Martial Arts School Opening for Children in the Pearsall Hocking Area on 4 February 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, receipt of renewed Certificate of Public Liability Insurance and second support letter; and

 

8.   APPROVES $3,030.00 to the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group via Community Development Funding for Exploring Nature by the Nyoongar Seasons at various locations in the North Coast Ward from 26 February 2017 to 3 December 2017.”

Detail

Eight applications with the following ward distribution were received in the September 2016 round. 

 

Ward

Projects

CommunityEvents

Hallmark Events

TOTAL

South

0

2

0

2

Central

0

1

1

2

North Coast

1

0

3

4

All Wards

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

1

3

4

8

 

A summary of each application together with Administration and Working Group recommendations has been attached (Attachment 1).

Consultation

The City’s Community & Place Directorate teams were provided with information about the September 2016 round of funding.  Teams were encouraged to give early consideration to eligible community groups of interest and community project and event ideas.  This was also an opportunity for teams to distribute community funding information to community groups as well as through their networks. 

 

A new first step in the community funding process was introduced in the March 2016 round and continued as a part of the September 2016 round.  The step required all potential applicants to make contact with their ward-based Place Development Facilitator.  This approach ensured that potential applicants were offered an opportunity to discuss and shape their project or event idea with a Connected and Resilient Communities team member whose knowledge of, and interest in, community-led activities could be beneficial during the project/event development and planning phase.  The ward-based Place Development Facilitator could also link together groups and organisations with a similar local interest for potential partnerships and therefore development of stronger projects or activities. 

With this connection, potential applicants whose project or activity ideas did not satisfactorily meet community funding eligibility criteria, were then also best-placed to receive information about other City and non-City funding opportunities and resources. 

Comment

The Community Funding Program September 2016 round was promoted through:

·        Wanneroo Link;

·        What’s Happening;

·        Email notification to Community & Place databases and network groups;

·        City of Wanneroo website and Facebook page;

·        NABO;

·        Brochures and flyers displayed at the Wanneroo Library Cultural Centre and across the City’s libraries and community centres.

 

A total of 37 community funding enquiries were received, resulting in eight submitted applications. A register of enquiries was compiled to capture the scope of ward-specific projects, events and outcomes (Attachment 2).  Ward-based Place Development Facilitators will use this as a reference document for identifying and engaging with community groups regarding future community funding as well as other funding and support opportunities.

 

The Community Funding Officer offered two Community Funding Information Sessions, one at Clarkson Library and one at the Wanneroo Library and Cultural Centre, with six participants at each session.  The Community Funding Officer also provided one-to-one assistance to applicants as requested regarding completion of applications as well as navigating the on-line application process. 

 

There was again evidence in the September 2016 community funding round of community groups continuing to face challenges outlined below.  Place Development Facilitators and the Community Funding Officer were able to support some groups by providing expertise and guidance to potential applicants as required.  In other instances the capacity of some community groups has prevented them from completing and submitting applications.   The points below will also be considered as a part of the City’s impending Community Funding Policy and Program review in 2016/17:

·        Low level of project and event (including budgetary) planning prior to seeking funding opportunities.

·        Limited knowledge of the suite of funding support programs offered by the City and by other funding bodies.

·        Limited capacity to self-assess regarding eligibility of their initiative for community funding and other funding opportunities.

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.

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

 

2.3     Safe Communities – We feel at home in our local area.

          4        Civic Leadership – Working with others to ensure the best use of our resources.”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title         

Risk Rating

Productive Communities

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community & Place

Manage

Policy Implications

Administration assessed the applications against the Community Funding Policy and provided recommendations for each application.

 

There are no significant policy implications impacting the eight submitted applications.  However of note is application number five from the Landsdale Residents Association which is impacted by:

 

·        Section 1, dot point 3 of the policy which states:

 

Eligible community organisations who have received City of Wanneroo community event funding on a recurrent basis for more than three years in a row, and who continue to contribute to the City’s strategic plan, will be eligible for funding capped at $3,000.”

 

The above section was added during the policy’s 2012 review and endorsed by Council in May 2013. 

 

A major policy review is scheduled for completion by June 2017.  This review will incorporate research and consultation for producing a more accessible community funding program framework.

 

A variation to 2017 Hallmark Event application management was noted and carried unanimously by the Community Funding Working Group at its 12 October 2016 meeting.  The variation allowed for Hallmark Event applications for events occurring from January to December 2017.  This ensured that 2017 Hallmark Event applicants could plan their events with certainty and would also bring the 2017 Hallmark Event funding dates into line with the new policy review date.

Financial Implications

It is noted that a total amount of $29,812.55 was requested from eight community funding applications.  The average request for this funding round was $3,727.00.  Following is a breakdown of funding requested by the eight submitted applications:

 

Category

No. of Applications

% Value

$ Value requested by applicants

A – Community Development Funding

1

10%

  $3,030.00 

B – Community Event Funding

3

23%

  $6,860.55

C – Hallmark Event Funding

4

67%

$19,922.00

TOTAL

8

 

$29,812.55

 

The value of Administration recommendations in the September 2016 round of Community Funding for consideration by the Community Funding Working Group is $29,728.51. 

 

The Community Funding Program September 2016 round is funded through the 2016/2017 adopted budget for Community Funding. The current GL account is 717253-1205-316.

 

Annual Community Funding Budget 2015/16

$90,000.00

Estimated commitments for Category D Community Celebration Christmas Events - 2016

 

 

 

$16,000.00

Balance available for September 2016 and March 2017 rounds

$74,000.00

Value of Administration and Community Funding Working Group recommendations for September 2016 round

$29,728.51

Balance remaining for March 2017 round

$44,271.49

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES $3,000.00 to the Royal Australian Airforce Association (WA Division) via Hallmark Event Funding for the ANZAC Day Dawn Service 2017 and Gunfire Breakfast and the Remembrance Day Memorial Service 2017 and Sausage Sizzle lunch SUBJECT to receipt of City of Wanneroo Event Application approval and satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding;

 

2.       APPROVES $8,000.00 to the Quinns Rocks RSL Sub Branch via Hallmark Event Funding for the ANZAC Day Commemorative Service 2017 and Gunfire Breakfast, Vietnam Veterans Day Service 2017 and lunch and Remembrance Day Service 2017 and lunch SUBJECT to receipt of City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding and satisfactory quote for wreaths;

 

3.       APPROVES $5,422.00 to the Yanchep Two Rocks RSL Sub Branch via Hallmark Event Funding for the  ANZAC Day Service 2017 and Gunfire Breakfast, Vietnam Veterans Day Service 2017 and lunch, Merchant Navy Day Service 2017 and lunch, Battle for Australia Day Service 2017 and lunch and Remembrance Day Service 2017 and lunch SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval and satisfactory acquittal of 2016 Hallmark Event Funding;

 

4.       APPROVES $3,500.00 to the Wanneroo Scout Group via Hallmark Event Funding for the Australia Day Community Breakfast 2017 pending the outcome of the Communications and Events Team call for an Expression of Interest for 2017 City of Wanneroo Australia Day Ceremony catering and SUBJECT to receipt of a City of Wanneroo Event application approval, receipt of satisfactory quotes and documentation to support the number of participants expected at the separate Wanneroo Scout Group Australia Day Breakfast 2017 and a second support letter;

 

5.       APPROVES $3,000.00 to the Landsdale Residents Association via Community Event Funding for ten Street Corner Barbecues at various parks in Landsdale from 1 December 2016 to 30 April 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, and satisfactory acquittal of previous community funding;

 

6.       APPROVES $3,029.69 to the Edmund Rice Centre Mirrabooka Inc via Community Event Funding for the Edmund Rice Community Sports Festival on 9 April 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval;

 

7.       APPROVES $746.82 to Charles Rawlins Taekwondo Inc via Community Event Funding for the Celebration of Martial Arts School Opening for Children in the Pearsall Hocking Area on 4 February 2017 SUBJECT to City of Wanneroo Event Application approval, receipt of renewed Certificate of Public Liability Insurance and second support letter; and

 

8.       APPROVES $3,030.00 to the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group via Community Development Funding for Exploring Nature by the Nyoongar Seasons at various locations in the North Coast Ward from 26 February 2017 to 3 December 2017.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

September 2016 Round - Summary of Applications

16/352065

 

2.

Community Funding Enquiries Register - September 2016 round

16/339186

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        252

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     255

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     271

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         274

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

CS01-11/16       Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 September 2016

File Ref:                                              25973 – 16/344486

Responsible Officer:                           Principal Specialist Strategic Finance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider the Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 30 September 2016.

Background

In accordance with Local Government Regulations, the Financial Activity Statement has been prepared in compliance with the following:

 

1.       Regulation 34(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, which requires a local government to prepare a statement of financial activity each month, presented according to nature and type, by program, or by business unit.  For the 2016/17 financial year Council will present the statement of financial activity by nature and type.

 

2.       Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, which requires a local government to adopt a percentage or value, calculated in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances.  For the 2016/17 financial year Council will use 10% and a value greater than $10,000 for the reporting of variances.

Detail

RESULT FROM OPERATIONS

Overall Comment

Year to date (YTD) Operations to September presents an overall favourable variance of +$4.0m (4%) to budget.  Operating Revenue presented an unfavourable variance to YTD budget of -974K (-1%).  Expenditures from Operations however present a favourable variance of +$5.0m (+11%) with the main contributor being Materials & Contracts (+$5.0m).

Consultation

This document has been prepared in consultation with Responsible Officers for review and analysis.

Comment

Below is a table which highlights the financial activity for the month of September 2016.  Included in the table are the month’s revenues and expenditures by category, with corresponding budgets and variances.

 

In accordance with the requirement of Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the commentaries on material variances to budget of greater than +/- 10% and $10K in the Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 30 September 2016 are also provided. 

 

CURRENT MONTH

 

The below table highlights the operating performance for the City of Wanneroo for the month of September and identifies variances to budget for each category of income and expense.  The following colours have been used to categorise levels of variance:

·        Green >+10%

·        Orange <+/-10%

·        Red >-10% 

 

 

The month of September produced an overall favourable net result variance of $552K (6%). 

 

Operating Revenues showed a marginal positive variance of $14K (0%).  Rates produced a positive variance of $257K (+100%) which is a result of receipt of unbudgeted interim rates.  Operating grants produced a positive variance of $407K (+227%) through the receipt of the Kidsport grant ($480K) which was budgeted for August.  Fees and Charges produced an unfavourable variance of -$504K (-23%) mainly through bulk rubbish collection fees (-$310K) as a result of the cessation of the uplift of bulk waste with the City of Joondalup.  Another contributor was rates instalment admin fee income which had an unfavourable variance of     -$150K.  This reflects income received in August which was budgeted for September, therefore resulting in a lower income level in September.

 

Operating Expenses displayed a positive variance of +$1.5m (+9%).  The more substantial contributor to this variance was Materials & Contracts (+$1.3m).  Within Materials & Contracts the Contract Expenses produced a variance of (+$870K) being a result of invoicing discrepancies on three park maintenance contracts and invoices which are yet to be received. These invoices were not accrued and have a total value of approximately $322K however further consultation with units will be conducted to mitigate similar situations in the future; weather/seasonal conditions causing a delay on turf related renovations and upkeep; and deferral of post fire weed control as the prescribed burn period ends in late October.  It was also determined that some maintenance works will not be required due to the favourable conditions of the turf.  The areas which this has affected includes; Parks Irrigation Equipment, Park Equipment Maintenance, Sport Ground Maintenance and Bulk Rubbish Collection.  It is also noted that the contract expenses are subject to seasonal variations.  Another contributor to the positive variance was the lower refuse removal expenses in September (+$266K) due to the uplift of bulk waste with the City of Joondalup.

 

Other Revenue & Expenses produced an unfavourable variance of -$932K (-35%) which was mainly attributed to Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions grants yet to be received (-$1.4m).  TPS revenues presented favourable variance of +$482K through higher contributions for lot sales relating to cells 2 and 9. Town Planning Scheme revenues and expenses are accounted for when a cell has received income or the project expenses have been incurred.  It is noted that works undertaken is not under the City’s direct control.

 

The graphs below illustrate the various operating income categories for each month and are compared against their respective monthly budgets.  Rates have been excluded as almost the entire income amount for this category is received in one month.  Rates income is presented in a graph further in this report titled “Operating Revenues – Cumulative YTD (Actual vs Budget)”.

 

 

 

 

The following graphs represent the operating expenditure for each month and are compared against their respective monthly budgets.  As a non-cash expense, depreciation has been excluded from these graphs but is shown as part of the graph titled “Operating Expenses – Cumulative YTD (Actual vs Budget)”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income Statement (Refer to Attachment 1)

 

 

Year to Date (YTD) Net Result

 

The year to date Net Result presented an unfavourable variance of -$1.6m (-1%).  Details for the variances are outlined below.

 

Operating Revenues

 

 

The Year to September produced an unfavourable variance of -$974K (-1%) comprising the following:

 

 

Fees and Charges (Actual $4.6m, Revised Budget $6.0m)

 

This income category produced an unfavourable variance of -$1.3m (-23%) to September. This relates to lower bulk rubbish collection fees (-$1.0m) as a result of the cessation of the uplift of bulk waste with the City of Joondalup.  Another less substantial contributor to the variance was lower inspection fees (-$87K) which relates to pool inspection fee income having been conducted in August however still retaining a minimal residual budget as well as engineering maintenance inspections not yet conducted.

 

Interest Earnings (Actual $2.3m, Revised Budget $2.6m)

 

Interest earnings to September produced an unfavourable variance of $253K (-10%).  This is a result of investment balances accumulating slower than anticipated due to the staggered receipt of rates income.  However balances are currently tracking to meet budgeted interest receipt expectations. It is also noted that the current weighted interest rate the City is attaining on investments is slightly below budget by .21% (2.79% vs 3.00%).

 

Other Revenue (Actual $211K, Revised Budget $176K)

 

The result to September produced a positive variance of +$36K (+20%).  This was a result of higher than expected street signage income as well as modification income for miscellaneous roads and footpath works.

 

Operating Expenses

 

 

Operating Expenses to September present a positive variance of +$5.0m (+11%).  The above table highlights the month, YTD and full budget results which are further expanded in the section below.  As with Operating Revenue, a bar graph is also included allowing comparison of expenditure categories.

 

 

Employee Costs

 

This category of expense is currently tracking to budget (0% variance). It is noted however that a review is being undertaken of the salary and wage budgets.

 

Materials and Contracts (Actual $10.1m, Revised Budget $15.1m)

 

This category of expenses displayed a positive YTD variance of +$5.0m.  The main contributor for the variance pertains to Contract Expenses which produced a YTD variance of (+$3.7m) being a result of invoicing discrepancies on three park maintenance contracts and invoices which are yet to be received. These invoices were not accrued and have a total value of approximately $322K however further consultation with units will be conducted to mitigate similar situations in the future; weather/seasonal conditions producing a delay on turf related renovations and upkeep, and deferral of post fire weed control as the prescribed burn period ends in late October.  It was also determined that some maintenance works will not be required due to the favourable conditions of the turf.  The areas which this has affected includes; Parks Irrigation Equipment, Park Equipment Maintenance, Sport Ground Maintenance and Bulk Rubbish Collection.  It is also noted that the contract expenses are subject to seasonal variations.  Refuse removal expenses also produced a positive variance (+$500K) to September which was mainly a result of lower bulk rubbish collection expenditure through the cessation of Joondalup services.  Another contributor was domestic rubbish collection which saw a positive variance of +$376K YTD through lower service activity.

 

Interest Expenses (Actual $1.0m, Revised Budget $1.2m)

 

Interest expenses produced a favourable YTD result of +$126K.  This is a result of the deferred drawdown of a loan for the Yanchep DCP.

Insurance Expenses (Actual $348K, Revised $396K)

 

The year to date produced a positive result of $48K which is a result of annual premiums being slightly lower than budgeted.

 

Other Revenue and Expenses

         

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (Actual $1.2m, Revised Budget $4.8m)

 

This category of income produced an unfavourable YTD variance of -$3.7m (-76%).  This is attributed to the timing of expected grants which are yet to be received.

Town Planning Scheme (TPS) Revenues (Actual $7.1m, Revised Budget $8.8m)

This category of income showed an adverse variance to September of -20% (-$1.7m).  This is attributed to Lot Sale contributions across various TPS Cells.  The Cells with YTD unfavourable variances are Cell 1 (-$982K) and Cell 9 (-$4.0m) which are a result of lower lot creations due to current property market conditions.  These were however offset by Cell 4 which had favourable YTD activity of +$210K, Cell 5 (+$1.3m), Cell 6 (+$684K) and Cell 8 (+$531K). The cells with favourable variances are predominantly a result of prior period payments being recognised. These categories of income do not impact the City’s municipal operations.

Profit / Loss on Asset Disposals (Actual $296K, Revised Budget $458K)

The result to September displays a positive variance of -$162K (-35%).  This is a result of lower sale of asset activities than anticipated.  As activity volume cannot be reliably estimated budgets can be subject to variations due to activity levels.

 

Statement of Financial Position (Refer to Attachment 2)

The Statement of Financial Position as at September month end presents a consistent level of operations.  When compared to the position as at 30 June 2016 Net Assets have increased by $118.0m and largely reflects the timing of rates receipts for 2016/17.

Non-Current Assets have increased by $781k from 2015/16 which reflects rates receivables and accumulated investments through operations.

Non-Current Liabilities remain unchanged with 98% of this balance being directly related to the Western Australia Treasury Corporation loan.

 

RATIOS

The table below shows selected ratios for the month ending 30th September and are compared against 2015/16 end of year:

 

* Standard rates set by the Department of Local Government & Communities.

The Current Ratio provides information on the ability of the City to meet its short-term financial obligations from unrestricted current assets.  At September 2016/17 the City has a Current Ratio of 3.83:1 which was higher than the benchmark of 1:1 provided by the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC).  The reason for the positive outcome is due to the quantum of Receivables of $80.7m (mainly Rates) when compared to the total for Payables & Provisions ($40.8m).  The Current Ratio at 2015/16 year end (Estimate) was 1.72:1.  This ratio typically decreases as the year progresses due to receivable balances reducing after rates have been raised and expenditure on operating and capital works is realised.

 

The Debt Service Cover Ratio is the measurement of the City’s ability to produce enough cash to cover its debt payments.  The City’s Debt Service Cover Ratio at September month end was 124.57:1 which was materially higher than the DLGC benchmark of 5:1.  This was a result of the annual Rates billings ($140.0m) against the comparatively small value of Interest payments ($1.0m).  The Debt Service Cover Ratio at 2015/16 year end (Estimate) was 31.55:1.  Similar to the current ratio the debt service ratio reduces throughout the year as expenditures are realised.

 

The Own Source Revenue Coverage Ratio is the measurement of the City’s ability to cover its costs through its own revenue efforts.  The City’s Own Source Revenue Coverage Ratio at September month end was 3.70:1 which exceeds the DLGC benchmark of 0.9:1.  This outcome reflects the raising of the annual Rates charges at the start of the financial year, as noted above.  The Own Source Revenue Coverage Ratio at 2015/16 year end (Estimate) was 1.01:1.

 

Capital Works Program

The current status of the Capital Works Program as of 30 September 2016 is summarised below by Program Category.

 

 

 

Key infrastructure projects are itemised on the Top Capital Projects attachment to this report: (Refer to Attachment 3) 

 

It is noted that as at 30 September the total amount of expenditure relating to carry forwards was $7.4m. The revised total carry forwards for the YTD is $17.9m which is detailed in Attachment 4 of this report. The changes to the carry forwards will impact on the total capital works budget for 2016/17. These changes will also be reflected in the October end of month financial report to Council.

 

At the end of the 2015/16 financial year it was anticipated that some projects and plant replacements will be either incomplete or not commenced due to various reasons including the size and complexity of projects, the need for phasing over multiple financial years, delays and interruptions as a result of extended consultation periods, planning and approvals, 3rd party/statutory bodies and contractual delays etc. Overall capital projects worth $16.89 million of works were carried forward to 2016/17 with an anticipation that approximately $10.0 million will be expended by 30 September 2016 on projects which had either already been awarded / committed or were in progress at the end of the 2015/16 financial year.

 

A review of actual spend indicates that just over $7.0m of 2015/16 carry over funds have been expended by 30 September 16. The underspend mainly relates to the following projects which were initially planned to be expended before 30 September 2016:

a.       Termination of the construction contract for Yanchep surf Lifesaving Club = Approx. $1million

b.       Delay in executing  Yanchep DCP for POS = $0.75million

c.       Delay in executing  Yanchep DCP for Amenities Building = $0.75million  

d.       Delay in executing Tender for Lake Joondalup Floodlights = $0.35million  

e.       Delay in finalising the recommendation for Quinns Beach Coastal Protection = $0.2million  

f.       Delay in finalising construction of various Traffic Management Schemes (due to Western Power) = $0.2million  

g.       Various projects that are now finished with potential underspends.   

 

Annual 2015/16 Completed Capital Projects Variances Report (Refer to Attachment 5)

In accordance with the requirement of Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the 2015/16 Capital Works Material Variance Report is included as Attachment 5, which provides specific commentaries on capital projects reflecting +/-10% variances to Revised Budgets for the financial year ended 30 June 2016.

The related Regulation requires local governments to compare year to date actual with year to date budget and report the variances with commentaries to Council. However, as progress of capital works projects vary throughout the year depending on a range of factors, including factors outside of the City's control, it is appropriate to report the variances on completed projects on an annual basis post financial year end closing.

Whilst it is recognised that actual costs incurred may occasionally exceed the allocated budget, the City is dedicated to ensuring that effective processes are in place to achieve an appropriate level of financial management in accordance to the City's Accounting Policy.  This will be achieved through the ongoing monitoring of each Capital Project by Responsible Officers and monthly internal reporting on the status of works and costs.

 

Investment Portfolio Summary (Refer to Attachment 6)

 

In accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the City only invests in the following highly secured investments effective from 1 August 2012:

 

1.       Deposits with authorised deposit taking institutions and the Western Australian Treasury Corporation for a term not exceeding 12 months;

2.       Bonds that are guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government or a State or Territory for a term not exceeding three years; and

3.       Australian currency.

 

As at 30 September 2016 the City holds an investment portfolio (cash & cash equivalents) of $373.3m (Face Value).  Interest Earnings were budgeted at a 3.00% yield.  For the financial YTD ending September 2016 the City’s investment portfolio return has exceeded the Bank Bill index benchmark by 0.60% pa (2.79% pa vs. 2.19% pa).

 

Displayed below are graphical representations of the portfolio performance and earnings.

 

 

Rate Setting Statement (Refer to Attachment 7)

The Rate Setting Statement outlined in Attachment 7 represents a composite view of the finances of the City identifying the movement in the Surplus / (Deficit).  This is based on the capital works and revenue & expenditure, and the resulting Rating Income required.

Statutory Compliance

This monthly financial report complies with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations 33A and 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Strategic Implications

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

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

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Financial Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

As outlined above and detailed in Attachments 1 - 7.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.         RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statements and commentaries on variances to YTD Budget for the period ended 30 September 2016, consisting of:

a)      2016/17 Annual Adopted and Revised Budget;

b)      September 2016 YTD Revised Budget;

c)      September 2016 YTD Income and Expenditure;

d)      September 2016 Statement of Financial Position and Net Current Assets;

e)      September 2016 YTD Material Variance Notes;

f)       2015/16 Capital Works End of year Variances (+/-10%); and

2.         ENDORSES the 2015-16 Capital Works Carry Forward Adjustments
(Attachment 4).

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

September Income Statement

16/346247

Minuted

2.

September Balance Sheet

16/346252

Minuted

3.

Top Projects 2016-17 - September 2016 - 20161010

16/151914[v7]

Minuted

4.

2015-16 Capital Works Carry Forward Adjustments

16/367108

Minuted

5.

Annual 2015-16 Completed Capital Projects Variance Report

16/368180

Minuted

6.

September Inv

16/346365

Minuted

7.

September RSS

16/346251

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        288

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     289

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        290

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     293

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        296

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        300

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        303

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         304

 

Strategic & Business Planning

CS02-11/16       Annual Report 2015/16

File Ref:                                              26831 – 16/366253

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

For Council to consider the Annual Report 2015/16.

Background

The development of an Annual Report is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act). Section 5.53(1) of the Act requires local governments to develop and publish an annual report for each financial year with the required content of the annual report specified in section 5.53(2) of the Act.

Section 5.54 of the Act requires that the local government accept the annual report for a financial year no later than 31 December after that financial year; the exception being that if the Auditor’s report is not available in time for the annual report for a financial year to be accepted by 31 December after that financial year, the annual report is to be accepted by the local government no later than 2 months after the Auditor’s report becomes available.

Detail

The Annual Report provides a comprehensive account of the City’s activities throughout 2015/16 (Attachment 1).  It outlines the progress made towards the strategic objectives as set out in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013/14 - 2022/23, and details achievements and performance against the 2015/16 commitments made in the Corporate Business Plan 2015/16 - 2018/19.

 

The City’s last Annual Report for the period 2014/15 was structured on a new template which was developed following extensive benchmarking with other local governments, and based on the criteria of the Australasian Reporting Awards (ARA). The ARA provides an opportunity for the City to benchmark its report against set criteria; the Awards consider Annual Reports from across the globe, with the purpose being to improve the standards and quality of financial and business reporting. The 2014/15 Annual Report was entered into the ARA and achieved a Gold Award as well as a nomination for Best First Time Entry. Formal feedback from the ARA adjudicator was received during July 2016 and the learnings from this were incorporated into a revised template for the 2015/16 Annual Report. This template was presented at the Executive Leadership Meeting on 21 July 2016, and further feedback was received in relation to the theme, format and timeframes.

 

The first draft of the Annual Report 2015/16 was submitted to ELM on 29 September 2016 and a final (unbranded) draft was submitted to Audit and Risk Committee on 25 October 2016.  The Audited Financial Statements and the Audit Report of the Financial Statements are listed as separate items for this Council meeting. Please note that in the branded version of the Annual Report that will be submitted to the AGM on 29 November 2016, these two items will be included in the Report.

 

Consultation

In preparing the Annual Report, consultation has occurred with Elected Members and a broad range of the Administration including the Chief Executive Officer, Directors, Managers and Coordinators.

Comment

The ARA provides an opportunity for the City to benchmark its report against set criteria, with the purpose being to improve the standards and quality of financial and business reporting. The Annual Report 2015/16 will again be entered into the Australasian Reporting Awards (ARA).

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.55 of the Act requires that Council give local public notice of the availability of the Annual Report once adopted by Council.  This will be carried out via advertisements in newspapers, the City's website and notices placed on Council’s Public Notice Boards.

 

Section 5.27 of the Act states that a General Meeting of the Electors (AGM) is to be held once every financial year and not more than 56 days after the local government accepts the Annual Report.

 

The final Annual Report 2015/16 as well as the final Audited Financial Statements will be submitted to Council on 8 November 2016.  The AGM is scheduled to be held on 29 November 2016, 21 days after Council adoption; this will ensure that the Annual Report complies with section 5.27 of the Act which requires the report to be submitted to an AGM within 56 days. 

Strategic Implications

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

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

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Integrated Reporting

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost of developing the Annual Report will be met through the City’s operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY ACCEPTS the Annual Report 2015/16 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Annual Report 201516

16/375544

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                     307

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         308

CS03-11/16       Updated Strategic Community Plan Vision, Outcomes and Strategies

File Ref:                                              19040 – 16/366787

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider updates and amendments to the Vision, Outcomes and Strategies arising from a review of the Strategic Community Plan 2013/14-2022/23.

Background

The current Strategic Community Plan 2013/14 – 2022/23 (the SCP) was adopted in 2012/13 as part of a suite of documents to meet the regulatory requirements of an Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (the Framework). The Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 s.5.53 (2) sets out the requirements for this Plan to be reviewed at least once every four years. In accordance with the Guidelines and Advisory Standards published by the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department), the Framework states that a strategic review of the SCP should be conducted every two years, however the approaches and methodology can be determined according to each local government’s circumstances, availability of resources, and taking into account existing processes.

 

The first review of the SCP involved a desktop review of community engagement with specific focus groups; this was carried out in 2014, primarily to test the continuing validity of the assumptions upon which the SCP had originally been developed. This resulted in no changes required to the prevailing objectives and strategies.

 

A number of factors have however accelerated in recent years and collectively have had significant impacts on the context within which the City operates.  Given the regulatory requirements pertaining to the Framework and the contextual changes within which the City operates, it has been appropriate to conduct a more comprehensive strategic review during 2016.  This is described in more detail below.

Detail

Research – Current Context 

 

Research was undertaken to better understand the current and future factors impacting on the context within which the City operates. These factors pose both challenges and opportunities for the City; some of the key factors include the rapid expansion of the City arising from significant and continuing population growth, changes to the economic situation, environmental considerations arising from climate change and urban development, and the changing role and requirements of local government. These factors together with the changing community expectations point to significant critical shifts that have implications across the current strategic priorities and objectives and collectively inform the review of the SCP.

 

Council Direction and Priorities

 

The strategic direction of Council has been informed by community priorities and aspirations, and an understanding of the key shifts in the context that the City operates.

 

 

The Administration held four workshops directly with Elected Members over the course of the review (May, July, September, October 2016); Elected Members have also been involved in the individual community and stakeholder engagement activities undertaken. These have provided the opportunity for Elected Members to engage directly with the community, to receive regular updates on the findings following each stage of the review and engagement process, and to provide where necessary guidance and strategic direction on Council’s priorities.

 

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

 

In accordance with the Department’s Guidelines and Advisory Standards, the Framework requires the review of a Strategic Community Plan (SCP) to be informed by an understanding of community aspirations and local priorities. To achieve this, a range of activities were undertaken thereby ensuring it was fully informed by the views of community. This commenced with a desktop review, and was followed by a range of community consultation activities.

 

The desktop review was conducted of engagement undertaken since the previous two-year review of the SCP in 2014. This included a consideration of the priorities arising from engaging with key stakeholders in developing some of the City’s strategies and plans including the Economic Development Strategy 2016–2021, Access and Inclusion Plan 2015/16–2017/18, Youth Strategy, and Age Friendly Strategy. Views of attendees at the 2016 Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony were also sought.

 

To further build on the desktop review, community and stakeholder engagement activities were undertaken during March–August 2016. These mechanisms collectively provided opportunities for community and stakeholders to share their views on the vision, direction and strategic priorities. This approach is consistent with the requirements of conducting strategic reviews of a SCP.

 

The engagement activities consisted of:

·        The Neerabup Ideas Breakfast (March 2016);

·        Two Strategic Community Plan Ideas Forums (March and April 2016);

·        A Community Survey: Thinking Ahead: Help Shape Your City Community Survey (April – May 2016);

·        Three Community Focus Groups (July – August 2016).

 

Analysis

 

The findings from community and stakeholder engagement have been analysed by reviewing the issues and priorities to determine the key themes. These themed priorities and aspirations include:

 

Economy

·        Business growth and attraction

·        Business hubs, innovation focus

·        Employment opportunities, youth employment for growing population

·        Neerabup opportunities for employment

·        Local area business and home business support / incentives

·        Self-sufficiency, provide and buy local

·        Technology, transport, supporting local and regional infrastructure

·        Education linkages, partnerships to develop workforce with skills for the future

·        Tourism, cultural areas, hospitality industries

·        Development of a City Centre / economic centres

·        Promote Wanneroo area for beach / bush lifestyle and business investment

 

Natural Environment

·        Conservation and protection of natural areas (bushland, wetlands)

·        Conservation and protection of fauna

·        Climate change, coastline, sea level rises

·        Alternative energy sources (wind, solar, waste-to-energy)

·        Water conservation, recycling and harvesting (rainwater, recycled water, greywater)

·        Waste management, reduction, recycling, community education

 

Built Environment

·        Accessible transport options (roads, pathways, buses, trains, light rail)

·        Trees, greenery, parks, open spaces

·        Places to do things; provision of leisure, sports and recreation facilities and spaces

·        Urban growth sensitive to the environment

·        Housing choice and affordability

 

            Society

·        Accessible local services

·        Services and networks that focus on youth, aged, Aboriginal heritage, diverse multicultural communities

·        Recreation, leisure opportunities

·        Support for community groups, volunteering, engagement

·        Social connectedness, building community spirit, creating a sense of place

·        Promoting health and wellbeing, and safe lifestyles

·        Libraries, art and culture

·        Working with partners to improve safety

 

            Civic Leadership

·        Transparent, open, honest, accountable leadership

·        Resource management

·        Community and stakeholder relationships, engagement, communication, consultation, participation

·        Partnerships, shared service delivery

·        Innovation through technology, progressive

 

Having identified community themes, Council priorities were then used to frame these.  The existing SCP objectives and strategies were reviewed to determine how well they reflect the changing Council priorities, community expectations and aspirations, and the critical shifts in the City’s operating context. Together these have been used to determine the extent of refocusing and realignment of strategies and objectives required.  Accordingly, the Vision has also been reviewed to ensure that it reflects the refocused long term goals.

 

Some of the key themes relating to the Vision that recurringly emerged through the community consultation process included:

 

·        Thriving, vibrant, prosperous, employment, opportunities for business investment, self-sufficiency; progressive, diverse, innovative City

·        Environmentally sensitive

·        City that builds a sense of belonging and identity – places more than suburbs, places of destination, places to visit, places to meet and recreate, places to work, places to live, places to play; Inclusive, socially connected, activated places

·        Build on the natural landscape – coastal, bushland, national parks

·        Community pride in their local area and of its inheritance; Based on history, indigenous heritage, pioneers

·        Cultural diversity

·        Healthy, safe, secure

 

The revised Vision, Outcomes and Strategies are presented in ATTACHMENT 1. It is worth noting a change in the terminology that is used; the term ‘Objective’ as used in the existing SCP is now replaced with ‘Outcome’ to more clearly reflect that the implementation of strategies will result in improved outcomes for the community. The revised Vision better reflects the strategic direction and future based on the prioritised aspirations of community.

 

Collectively, the revised Outcomes and Strategies achieve:

·        Improved alignment of the existing SCP Objectives and Strategies;

·        Separation of the current Objectives and Strategies relating to the natural and built environment;

·        Inclusion of new Outcomes and Strategies to reflect changes in priorities;

·        Deletion of those Objectives and Strategies that have either been achieved or where there are clear changes in Council or community priority;

·        Improved wording to existing Objectives and Strategies to better reflect the Council or community priority;

Consultation

Views of the City’s community and stakeholders have been used to inform the review and setting of Council priorities.

Comment

Once adopted, the Vision, Outcomes and Strategies will be incorporated into an updated Strategic Community Plan document.

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.56(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the requirements for local governments to have in place a plan for the future. Regulations under Section 5.56(2) of the Act outline the minimum requirements to achieve this. In addition, the Advisory Standard published by the Department of Local Government and Communities details the regulatory requirements relating to this. 

Strategic Implications

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

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

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

 

As this is a review of the Strategic Community Plan, it therefore relates to all strategies.

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Strategic Community Plan

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Manage

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic risk register. 

 

Action plans to manage this risk have been developed to support existing management systems. In particular this review has lowered the risk profile as community has been involved in checking the relevance of the strategies.

Policy Implications

Policy implications arising from amendments to the strategies and objectives contained within the revised Strategic Community Plan will be addressed through the annual review of the Corporate Business Plan.

Financial Implications

Financial implications arising from the amended Strategic Community Plan will be incorporated into the Long Term Financial Plan.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY ADOPTS the revised Vision, Outcomes and Strategies as per Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Final - Revised SCP Outcomes and Strategies

16/368031

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                                                                        313

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 07 November, 2016                                         317

 

Transactional Finance

CS04-11/16       Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 October 2016

File Ref:                                              1859 – 16/368561

Responsible Officer:                           A/Manager Transactional Finance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the list of accounts paid for the month of October 2016, including a statement as to the total amounts outstanding at the end of the month.

Background

Local Governments are required each month to prepare a list of accounts paid for that month and submit the list to the next Ordinary Meeting of the Council.

 

In addition, it must record all other outstanding accounts and include that amount with the list to be presented. The list of accounts paid and the total of outstanding accounts must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Detail

The following is the Summary of Accounts paid in October 2016:

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – October 2016

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Manual Journals

TPS Journals

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

107422 - 107654

2691 - 2718

 

 

$991,562.65

$13,814,209.97

$14,805,772.62

 

($5,837.16)

($1,275,589.06)

($1,289)

$13,523,057.40

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – October 2016

Muni Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$13,523,057.40

$79,061.97

$3,591,295.16

$17,193,414.53

 

At the close of October 2016 outstanding creditors amounted to $344,763.67

Consultation

Nil

 


 

Comment

The list of payments (cheques and electronic transfers) and the end of month total of outstanding creditors for the month of October 2016 is presented to the Council for information and recording in the minutes of the meeting, as required by the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Statutory Compliance

Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to list the accounts paid each month and total all outstanding creditors at the month end and present such information to the Council at its next Ordinary Meeting after each preparation.  A further requirement of this Section is that the prepared list must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Strategic Implications

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

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

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Warrant of Payments Information Only

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Acting Manager Transactional Finance

Accept

 

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 RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of October 2016, as summarised below:-

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – October 2016

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Manual Journals

TPS Journal

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

 

107422 - 107654

2691 - 2718

 

 

 

$991,562.65

$13,814,209.97

$14,805,772.62

 

($5,837.16)

($1,275,589.06)

($1,289)

$13,523,057.40

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – October 2016

Muni Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$13,523,057.40

$79,061.97

$3,591,295.16

$17,193,414.53

 

 

WARRANT OF PAYMENTS OCTOBER 2016

 

PAYMENT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

00107422

04/10/2016

Rates Refund 

$739.81

 

00107423

04/10/2016

Mukesh Karsan 

$535.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107424

04/10/2016

Kishor Senghani 

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107425

04/10/2016

Doanh Kinh Le 

$850.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107426

04/10/2016

Wanneroo Softball Club Incorporated

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107427

04/10/2016

Maria  Echaluse 

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107428

04/10/2016

Agnieszka Rados 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107429

04/10/2016

North Coast Rangers Christian Soccer

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107430

04/10/2016

Joondalup Giants Rugby League Club 

$850.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107431

04/10/2016

Tyneeka Packham 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107432

04/10/2016

Alkimos Seahawks AFL Club Incorporated

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107433

04/10/2016

Ovidiu Vasile Puscas 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107434

04/10/2016

Aleice Ellement 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107435

04/10/2016

Sinead  Beeck 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107436

04/10/2016

Lisa Grundy 

$535.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107437

04/10/2016

Praneil Lachhani 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107438

04/10/2016

Masiha Minhaj 

$540.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107439

04/10/2016

Claire Harris 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107440

04/10/2016

Jeanette McFadyen 

$100.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107441

04/10/2016

Jon Knox 

$850.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107442

04/10/2016

Andrew J Louden 

$90.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Copies Of Plans - Plans Unavailable

 

 

00107443

04/10/2016

Alicia Wright 

$100.57

 

 

 

  Refund - Infringement Notice - Issued In Error

 

 

00107444

04/10/2016

Clontarf Foundation 

$880.00

 

 

 

  Donation - Hire Of The Kingsway Sporting Complex & Lunch - Participants In The Deadly Attendees Club 19.08.2016

 

 

00107445

04/10/2016

Proudies Foundation Incorporated 

$1,400.00

 

 

 

  Donation - Golf Tournament At Marangaroo Golf Course 07.10.2016 - Raise Funds For Care & Rehabilitation Of City Of Wanneroo Resident Warrick Proudlove

 

 

00107446

04/10/2016

Ashdale Primary P & C 

$730.00

 

 

 

  Donation -  Subscription To The Safety House Program 2016 & Cost Of Safety House Educational Puppet Shows

 

 

00107447

04/10/2016

Gailene Shore John Wollaston Anglican

$500.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107448

04/10/2016

G Choe 

$30.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Food Business Notification Fee - Cancelled

 

 

00107449

04/10/2016

Ameni Supermarket Pty Ltd 

$272.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Food Business Application And Registration Fee - Duplicate Payment

 

 

00107450

04/10/2016

Kintyre Holdings Pty Ltd

$35.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Subdivision Clearance Application Fees  - Overpayment

 

 

00107451

04/10/2016

Taryn O'Connell 

$35.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Ice Skating & Aerial Fun Trampolining - Youth Programs

 

 

00107452

04/10/2016

A Deagrela 

$35.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Ice Skating & Aerial Fun Trampolining - Youth Programs

 

 

00107453

04/10/2016

Rates Refund 

$318.51

 

00107454

04/10/2016

Bradley Crooks 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107455

04/10/2016

CJ Herbst 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107456

04/10/2016

Christopher Green 

$298.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107457

04/10/2016

L Budloo 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107458

04/10/2016

M & K Stitfall 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107459

04/10/2016

Hanna Edge 

$150.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Infringement - Regulatory Services

 

 

00107460

04/10/2016

Touch Football WA 

$1,200.00

 

 

 

  Sponsorship - 2016 Harvey Norman National Youth Championships Touch Football U18 Girls & U18 Boys - Caloundra Qld 14 - 18.09.2016

 

 

00107461

04/10/2016

Department of Fire & Emergency Services

$750.00

 

 

 

  False Fire Alarm Attendance - Wangara Recycling Centre - Building Maintenance

 

 

00107462

04/10/2016

Cancelled

 

 

00107463

04/10/2016

Water Corporation 

$15,519.08

 

 

 

  Water Charges For The City

 

 

00107464

04/10/2016

Cancelled

 

 

00107465

04/10/2016

Cancelled

 

 

00107466

04/10/2016

Cancelled

 

 

00107467

04/10/2016

Synergy 

$105,830.15

 

 

 

  Power Supplies For The City

 

 

00107468

04/10/2016

Telstra 

$180.23

 

 

 

  Wireless Internet - WLCC - IT

 

 

 

 

  Phone Charges For The City

 

 

00107469

07/10/2016

Building & Construction Industry 

$77,356.66

 

 

 

  Collection Levy Payments 01 - 30.09.2016 - Finance

 

 

00107470

10/10/2016

Synergy 

$521,943.95

 

 

 

  Streetlights X 25957 25.08.2016 - 24.09.2016

 

 

00107471

11/10/2016

Wanneroo Senior Citizens Club 

$500.00

 

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

 

00107472

11/10/2016

Rates Refund

$60.00

 

00107473

11/10/2016

Steve O'Connor 

$564.00

 

 

 

  Refund - Membership Cancelled - Aquamotion

 

 

00107474

11/10/2016

K Blenkinsop & J Fullelove 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107475

11/10/2016

B Reader & L Spence 

$360.00

 

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

 

00107476

11/10/2016

Rates Refund

$328.36

 

00107477

11/10/2016

Rates Refund

$8.64

 

00107478

11/10/2016

Emma Matthews 

$112.70

 

 

 

  Refund - Swimming Lessons - Aquamotion

 

 

00107479

11/10/2016

Sandra T Canham 

$540.00