Proof_CouncilAgenda_Coverpage_Template_Governance

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR ELECTED MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

on 28 February 2017 commencing at 6.00pm


PROCEDURE FOR FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING

PRINCIPLES

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

 

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

 

PROCESS

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

 

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

Ø  Attendance and Apologies

Ø  Declarations of Interest

Ø  Reports for discussion

Ø  Tabled Items

Ø  Public Question Time

Ø  Closure

 

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

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

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

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

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

 

DEPUTATIONS

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

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

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

 

LOCATION

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


 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 28 February, 2017

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Reports_ 1

Planning & Sustainability  1

Approval Services  1

3.1                         Consideration of the Draft Alkimos City Centre Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 89  1

3.2                         Consideration of Development Application for Single House Addition (Patio) at 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale  66

3.3                         Consideration of Development Application for Single House Addition (Outbuilding) – Lot 885 (8) Sweep Ridge Yanchep – DA2016/1660  73

3.4                         Consideration of Development Application for Single House at Lot  7 (23) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks (DA2016/1260) 81

Assets  116

Infrastructure Capital Works  116

3.5                         Tender 16200 for the Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building & Civil Works, Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep  116

3.6                         PT01-12/16 - Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Request for Traffic Treatments  128

Assets Maintenance  134

3.7                         Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment  134

Community & Place  159

Community Facilities  159

3.8                         Outcomes of the 2016 Community Sporting & Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Round  159


 

Corporate Strategy & Performance  164

Business & Finance  164

3.9                         Revenue Review Committee  164

3.10                      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 January 2017  170

Strategic & Business Planning  193

3.11                      Mid-Year 2016/17 Corporate Business Plan Performance Report  193

Transactional Finance  207

3.12                      Differential Rating - 11L Syros Court, Mindarie  207

3.13                      Sale of Land for Non Payment of Rates - 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola  222

Council & Corporate Support  229

3.14                      Donations to be Considered by Council - March 2017  229

Chief Executive Office  236

Governance & Legal  236

3.15                      Annual Review of the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan  236

3.16                      Delegation of Authority - Public Health Act 2016  249

3.17                      Amendment to Delegation 8.3 - District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Development Control  253

3.18                      Amendment to Public Place and Local Government Property Local Law 2016  259

3.19                      2016 Compliance Audit Return  264

3.20                      Function and Operation of the Audit and Risk Committee - Terms of Reference  276

3.21                      Corporate Governance Framework  284

3.22                      Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Framework  339

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 381

Item  5_____ Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover) 381

5.1                         Warrant of Payments for the Period to 28 February 2017  381

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 381

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 381

7.1                         KPMG Investigation  381

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 381

Item  9_____ Closure_ 381

 


Agenda

 

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

 

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

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Reports

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

Planning & Sustainability

Approval Services

3.1    Consideration of the Draft Alkimos City Centre Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 89

File Ref:                                              5742 – 16/318548

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Alkimos City Centre Activity Centre Structure Plan No. 89 (CSP 89) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability to forward to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

Roberts Day

Owner

Landcorp

Location

Lot 9502 (3K) Marmion Avenue)

Site Area

212 hectares

MRS Zoning

Central City Area, Railways, Other Regional Roads, Primary Regional Roads

DPS 2 Zoning

Centre, Railways, Other Regional Roads, Primary Regional Roads

 

 

Background

The proposed Activity Centre Structure Plan (CSP) was submitted on 26 August 2013. On 9 October 2013, a memorandum was forwarded to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of CSP 89 commenced on 21 October 2013 in accordance with former Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), and closed on 3 December 2013.

 

CSP 89 was advertised in conjunction with Draft Central Alkimos Local Structure Plan No. 95 (LSP 95) and Amendment No. 1 to Alkimos Eglinton District Structure Plan No. 18 (DSP 18). A plan showing the location of CSP 89 (pink), LSP 95 (green) and part of DSP 18 (outlined in blue) are included in Attachment 1. Due to the number of submissions received regarding CSP 89, Administration provided the proponent an opportunity to amend their proposal. Considerable review was undertaken including workshops with relevant state government stakeholders and, on 2 November 2015, revised documentation for CSP 89 was provided to the City.

 

Due to the time lapse since advertising and the extent of changes to the proposal, CSP 89 was referred back to the stakeholders who originally made submissions on the proposal. This resulted in further comments and changes being made.

 

On 2 September 2016 a final revision of CSP 89 was submitted to the City. For clarity within this report this version will be identified as revised CSP 89, while the as-lodged version from 26 August 2013 will be identified as the original CSP 89.

 

On 14 February 2017 CSP 89 was presented to Council Forum for information and discussion.

Detail

Site

The CSP 89 area is bounded by the future Mitchell Freeway Reserve to the east, Marmion Avenue to the west, Alkimos Central LSP 95 (undeveloped) to the north, and Trinity LSP 60 (partially developed) to the south. CSP 89 encompasses a total area of approximately 212 hectares. 

Proposal

The original CSP, as shown in Attachment 2, was prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DPS 2. CSP 89 is a proposed Secondary Centre. The CSP 89 will enable the delivery of the following:

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

·    Separation of the CSP into nine precincts based on the predominant land use through the centre catering for a maximum 67,000sqm retail floor space;

·    Residential development ranging from RAC1 (Residential Activity Centre) in commercial areas to R40 at the fringe of the CSP. This results in an estimated lot yield of 3,335 dwellings. This will achieve the 50 dwellings per hectare within 400m of the train station required in DSP 18;

·    Mixed Use, Business and Service Industrial precincts that can cater for a wide range of land uses appropriately located near infrastructure;

·    A Civic & Cultural zone that can cater for education and community facilities; and

·    A Social/Pedestrian/Cycle linkage between the existing South Alkimos development and the Regional Open Space to the north. This linkage will aim to maintain landform and existing vegetation.

 

On 2 September 2016 the proponent provided a revised CSP Part 1 plan and text which is included as Attachment 3. The revised CSP includes the following modifications:

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

·    Reconfiguration of the central retail core and general rationalisation of land uses including a Civic and Cultural zone and Service Industrial zone;

·    Increase the width of the Mitchell Freeway road reserve and the inclusion of an indicative 132kv powerline easement;

·    Removal of land use permissibility tables from the Structure Plan in order to incorporate land use permissibility as per DPS 2; and

·    Modify Residential Design Code Variations to align with State Government Planning Bulletin 112/2016 Medium-Density Singe House Development Standards (R-MD) and future Local Planning Policies.

 

The reasons behind the revised document are discussed in the Comment section of this report and within the summary of submissions included as Attachment 4,

Consultation

The original CSP was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers, a notice on the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners.  The submission period commenced on 21 October 2013 and closed on 3 December 2013, with nine submissions being received from State Government agencies and five submissions being received from adjoining land developers. 

 

On 23 December 2015, the revised CSP 89 was sent to the 14 stakeholders who made a submission during the initial public consultation period. This is because the revised proposal incorporated modifications in response to these submissions. These stakeholders were given 28 days to provide comment on the revised CSP 89. Six submitters (being the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Department of Planning (DoP), Department of Education, Peet Limited, Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) and Public Transport Authority (PTA)) provided additional submissions. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 4.

 

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

 

·        The format of the Part 1 text and plan;

·        The interface between the proposed rail station/bus station and the retail core;

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

·        The impacts on employment generation.

A more detailed discussion of the major issues identified during the advertising period as well as by Administration in its assessment of CSP 89 is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

While CSP 89 covers a large area  (approximately 212 hectares), the provisions are considered detailed enough to ensure good outcomes for the City Centre, including location and design of the train station, whilst also allowing flexibility and innovation of development. The development will incorporate the key planning principles of connectivity between the retail core through to the civic uses and activation of areas surrounding the rail and bus interchange which will lead to a distinctive centre upon completion.

 

Amended Part 1 Plan and Text

 

Through the consultation process and assessment of CSP 89 there were a number of changes to the CSP that were required. While it was deemed that none of these modifications impacted on the intent of CSP 89 the quantity of changes resulted in a document which looked substantially different from that originally lodged.

 

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

 

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

·    Staging – Acknowledging that the development will be heavily reliant on the construction of the Mitchell Freeway extension, Romeo Road construction, railway extension and Alkimos Station construction;

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

·    Density Targeting – Identifying the target density within the CSP 89 Part 1 which is to provide a minimum of 3,335 dwellings.

 

The changes to the Part 1 text to include the above are minor and the overall replacement of the Part 1 text and plan is supported by Administration. In addition, it is recommended that further modifications are imposed requiring the update of Part 2 documentation in accordance with changes to the Part 1 plan and text as well as providing additional information as required through consultation.

 

Proposed Railway Station/Public Transport Authority Comments

 

Through the initial consultation as well as follow up advertising the PTA raised a number of concerns regarding the location of the train station within the retail core of CSP 89. While the complete list of issues is covered in Attachment 4, the main concerns were;

 

a)   Insufficient land has been provided for the provision of ‘Park and Ride’ parking;

b)   A strong pedestrian connection should be provided between the proposed railway station and the retail core;

c)   Increased food and retail land uses should be provided in close proximity to the transit facilities rather than car parking; and

d)   The proposed bus layout/route, included in the technical appendices, is not acceptable as it requires unnecessary turns for the vehicles to make.

 

In response to the above, Administration considers that items a) and d) are too detailed in nature for inclusion within the structure plan Part 1 documentation.  Rather, these are matters that need to be resolved at subdivision stage between the proponent and the PTA. Notwithstanding this, the parking strategy (as discussed below) will require a holistic review of car parking, including that required for park and ride. To strengthen this, clause 5.0 (relating to the requirements of Local Development Plans) also requires information on the design, traffic movement and parking associated with the rail station/bus interchange.

 

With regard to items b) & c) it is also considered that these are detail elements which need to be visited at the design stage of development, however, in order to encourage outcomes which benefit both the centre and proposed transit stations the following have been included within clause 4.10 of Part 1 of CSP 89;

 

·    Requirement for continuous active frontage to the main street as well as the proposed rail station/bus interchange;

·    Provision for safe pedestrian movements including active surveillance and weather protection; and

·    Provision of an entry point into the retail centre in close proximity to the proposed rail station/bus interchange.

 

In addition to the above, the proponent has also updated the masterplan for the retail core area (included as Attachment 5). This revised masterplan provides for further interaction between the transit station and retail core through increased commercial area and entrances and PTA officers have advised that this outcome is substantially more acceptable than previous versions. Administration considers this outcome as satisfactory as it will provide guidance at the appropriate stage of development rather than in the CSP 89 Part 1 text.

 

Traffic Modelling (Main Roads Western Australia Comments)

 

During the public consultation period, MRWA and Department of Transport (DoT) raised concerns regarding the traffic modelling which was used for the development of both LSP 95 and CSP 89. Bruce Aulabaugh Traffic Consultant developed a North West Corridor Model (NWCM) in 2011 which is more detailed than the MRWA Regional Operation Model 24 (ROM) where some existing traffic volumes already exceeded the ROM forecasts for 2031.

 

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

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

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

 

When undertaking a review of the original structure plan, the proponent and consultant engineers met with MRWA to establish an agreed position. The matter was not able to be resolved with MRWA restating its requirements for ROM to be used. The City, through consultation of the revised CSP 89, wrote to MRWA to establish the reasoning behind this decision. In response MRWA stated that they still had fundamental issues with the modelling, however, were willing to proceed with the matter and deal with issues at more detailed stages of development.

 

The City’s Traffic Engineers support the use of the NWCM as it has been utilised through other structure plans within the City.  Other comments raised by MRWA are included within the schedule of submissions in Attachment 4. On this basis Administration supports the progression of CSP 89.

 

Car Parking Strategy

 

Within the advertised version of CSP 89, Clause 8.3 stated that car parking standards shall be in accordance with the Alkimos City Centre Parking Strategy (as amended). During the consultation period, DoT raised a concern that the parking strategy had not been included.

 

Following the advertising period the applicant prepared a Parking Strategy. The main purpose of the Parking Strategy is to determine and agree the following;

 

·    The optimum amount of car parking to provide in the city centre as a whole and within different centre Precincts;

·    The required numbers of car parking for different land uses within the centre;

·    The proportion of overall car parking that is planned as shared or public parking;

·    The preferred location of public car parking;

·    A car parking management strategy designed to ensure maximum efficiency in traffic access and use of resources;

·    A car parking policy framework, including a cash-in-lieu policy to guide provision of parking in the centre; and

·    Guidelines for provision of bicycle parking and motorcycle parking.

 

The Parking Strategy is still being reviewed by Administration. As part of that review Administration will liaise with DoT, PTA, DoP and other key stakeholders. Following the review, the parking strategy will be presented to Council for endorsement. In order to progress CSP 89, the Part 1 document has been amended to state that parking shall be in accordance with DPS 2 or an approved Parking Strategy. This means in the unlikely event that any development will occur within the centre prior to the approval of the Parking Strategy then the City will be able to apply the standard parking provisions in DPS 2.

 

Strategic Community Plan – Creation of Distinctive Places

 

As discussed at Council Forum meeting held on 14 February 2017, Administration considers that CSP 89 will create a distinctive Centre within the northern growth corridor. The Centre will be focused around a town square at the entrance of the proposed rail and bus station. The town square should be designed to allow a variety of activities, including the potential for markets and events. The main street is envisaged to be a tree lined boulevard which promotes pedestrian activity and interaction while reducing vehicle movements.

 

The way that this can be implemented is through the CSP 89 Part 1 text, specifically Clause 4.10 and 4.14. Clause 4.10, identifies various special development provisions that are to be included in Local Development Plans to address any development adjacent to the town square (and bus/train interchange) and main street. Clause 4.14 identifies objectives for the development of the retail core with strong connections to the proposed rail station. Examples of objectives within Clause 4.14 include encouraging a range of land uses to promote activity outside core business hours and providing for strong pedestrian connections.

 

The normal planning process following structure plan approval involves subdivision, Local Development Plans and Development Applications. Administrations aim during these stages is to have regard to these provisions, as well as the overall vision, in order to achieve the desired outcome of creating a distinctive Centre.

 

To ensure the creation of an activated and distinctive town centre, Administration is also proposing to prepare a Local Planning Policy (LPP). The LPP will amplify the CSP 89 provisions to provide clear guidance on built form and public realm outcomes. This would provide extra guidance to the developer, subsequent purchasers and Administration to ensure Alkimos City Centre is developed as a distinctive Centre.

 

Employment

 

The Alkimos Eglinton DSP requires 13,500 jobs to meet the 60% employment self-sufficiency (ESS) target. The Local Economic Strategy (LES) submitted identifies that the provision of jobs could vary from 11,263 – 14,571 jobs depending on various land use scenarios.

 

As a result the applicant updated the LES which clarified that tertiary health, in this instance, is defined as a private hospital, of between 80 and 120 beds (the minimum size generally required for the sector in suburban locations) with support allied health services (such as cancer treatment).

 

The LES has identified that the development could provide for the minimum 60% ESS. Notwithstanding this, a provision has been included within Part 1 that requires an annual report, to be undertaken by the applicant, monitoring the progress against employment targets and strategies. Further, every 5 years, within 12 months of census data, a more comprehensive review will be required to be undertaken. This provision also requires a review of the relevant documents and approach if the employment targets have not been achieved and that an amended proposal is submitted detailing measures to be taken to meet the targets.

 

The City’s Advocacy and Economic Development team has considered the employment generating land/job creation proposed through the LES as well as the proposed monitoring and reporting systems and deem it adequate to meet the ongoing employment needs of the City.

 

Requirements for Residential Medium-Density (R-MD) Single House Development Provisions

 

The R-MD are provisions released by the WAPC which outlines acceptable variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

 

Prior to consideration of CSP 89, Administration undertook discussion and consultation with the proponent and the DoP regarding the procedure associated with the inclusion of R-MD codes and provisions within the structure plan. The DoP has advised that due to the non-statutory nature of structure plans following the implementation of the Planning and Development Regulations 2015, a LPP is required to be drafted by the City which contains these R-MD provisions. On 1 April 2016, the DoP released a revised Planning Bulletin which includes these R-MD provisions. At the 7 November 2016 Council Meeting, the City adopted LPP 4.15 Medium-density single house development standards.

 

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

Conclusion

Considering the above comments, the proposed CSP 89 is considered to be acceptable, subject to modifications to replace the lodged structure plan with that provided to the City following further consultation (Attachment 3). In addition, it is recommended that further modifications are imposed requiring the update of Part 2 documentation in accordance with changes to the Part 1 plan and text.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Administration's assessment of CSP 89 has been undertaken in accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RECOMMENDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Alkimos City Centre Structure Plan No. 89 be approved subject to the following modifications:

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

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

2.       FORWARDS a copy of the report on the proposed Alkimos City Centre Structure Plan No. 89 to the Western Australian Planning Commission;

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision; and

4.       Following final adoption of the proposed Alkimos City Centre Structure Plan No. 89 by the Western Australian Planning Commission, Administration initiates preparation of an Alkimos City Centre Local Planning Policy.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

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

16/125566

 

2.

Attachment 2 - As advertised version of CSP 89

16/320923

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Proposed CSP 89 Part 1 text and plan

16/321624

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of submissions - CSP 89 Alkimios City Centre

16/339606

Minuted

5.

Attachment 5 - Masterplan for retail core

16/321454

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                           9

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         10

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         22

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         36

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         64

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                          66

3.2    Consideration of Development Application for Single House Addition (Patio) at 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale

File Ref:                                              DA2016/1601 – 17/7163

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/1601) for a Single House Addition (Patio) at 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale (subject site).

 

Applicant

Wanneroo Patios

Owner

Elizabeth P Drummy

Location

18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale

Site Area

448m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

ASP 7 Zoning

Residential R20

 

 

Background

On 15 November 2016 the City received a development application for Single House Addition (Patio) at the subject site. A location plan of the subject site is provided in Attachment 1.

Detail                                                                                                    

The application proposes one gable-roof patio. The site plan and elevations for the proposed patio are included in Attachment 2. The proposed patio is approximately 26.3m2 in area with a post height of 2.2m and a maximum ridge height of 2.9m.

 

The proposed patio is setback 0.5m from the eastern lot boundary. The setback of the patio is a variation to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) which requires a minimum setback of 1.5m from the eastern lot boundary.

 

It should be noted that the subject site is elevated approximately 0.7m higher than the adjoining property to the east.

Consultation

Advertising of the proposal was undertaken by the City in writing to the landowner adjoining the eastern lot boundary (20 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale). Advertising was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 25 November 2016 and closing on 9 December 2016. A submission was received from the adjoining affected landowner who objected to the proposal and raised concerns regarding loss of sunlight to the rear of their property as a result of the proposed patio.

 

A summary of the submission and Administration’s response is included in Attachment 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 proposed patio does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes in regard to lot boundary setbacks, it has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principles as detailed in the table below.

 

Design Principles – Clause 5.1.3 P3.1

Administration Comments

Reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties.

The proposed patio is unenclosed on the northern, southern and eastern side. Building bulk generally arises from large solid walls and structures that will impact the amenity of adjoining properties. The unenclosed design of the patio ensures that the impact of building bulk resulting from the portion of the patio visible above the boundary fence is reduced.

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

Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes relates to overshadowing and the Deemed-to-Comply provisions assess the shadow cast at midday on June 21 which will fall to the south. Given the northern orientation of the subject lot, shadowing from the proposed patio will fall to the south onto the subject site. Therefore, as the submitter is located to the east of the subject lot, the proposed patio will not impact on sunlight access to open spaces of the submitter’s property.

 

In regards to the ventilation to buildings and open spaces on the subject lot and adjoining properties, the patio is unenclosed on the eastern side and therefore will not restrict ventilation.

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

The eastern side boundary fence is 1.8m in height. The proposed patio is 2.2m in wall height and the finished floor level of the patio is proposed to be 100mm lower than the existing dwelling. Based on this, the proposed patio does not result in any overlooking to the adjoining property and privacy will be maintained by the existing boundary fence.

 

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

 

Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no modification to the proposal is required. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the proposed patio at 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale.

Statutory Compliance

Delegation to Determine Application

 

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

 

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to potential overshadowing of the patio for the adjoining property. 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

This application has been assessed against the provisions of the State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes and 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 (DA2016/1601) as shown in Attachment 2 for the Single House Addition (Patio) at 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale, subject to compliance with the following conditions:

a)   This approval only relates to the Single House Addition (Patio), as highlighted on the approved plans. It does not relate to any other development on the site; and

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

2.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale

17/9374

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans and Elevations - 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale

17/9220

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission - 18 Hersey Parkway, Landsdale

17/9789

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         69

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                      70

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         72

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                          73

3.3    Consideration of Development Application for Single House Addition (Outbuilding) – Lot 885 (8) Sweep Ridge Yanchep – DA2016/1660

File Ref:                                              DA2016/1660 – 17/14213

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2016/1660) for a Single House Addition (Outbuilding) at 8 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep (subject site).

 

Applicant

Outdoor World Wangara

Owner

Kerry and David Rayfield

Location

Lot 885 (8) Sweep Ridge Yanchep

Site Area

743m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential

ASP 19 Zoning

Residential R20

 

Background

On 21 November 2016, the City received a development application for a Single House Addition (Outbuilding) at the subject site. A location plan of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

Detail

The application as submitted for the outbuilding proposed the following:

·    2.7m wall height and 3.4m ridge height;

·    5.3m in width and 5.9m in length, being approximately 31.3m2 in area;

·    Setback ranging from nil to a maximum of 0.4m from the rear south-western boundary; and,

·    Setback ranging from nil to a maximum of 0.3m from the side north-western boundary.

 

The outbuilding as submitted proposes a 2.7m wall height, exceeding the maximum wall height of 2.4m prescribed by the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions of Clause 5.4.3 of the R-Codes. Additionally, the outbuilding as submitted was setback between nil and 0.4m from the rear boundary, in lieu of the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions of the R-Codes which prescribes a 1.0m minimum setback. The setback of outbuilding from the north-western boundary complies with Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes which allows boundary walls to one side boundary only.

 

In response to objections from the rear landowners (see ‘Consultation’ section below), the applicant modified the original plans for the outbuilding by amending the dimensions to:

·    4.9m in width and 4.9m in length, reducing the area to approximately 24.4m2; and

·    Increasing the setback from the rear south-western boundary to a minimum of 1.0m to a maximum of 1.3m.

 

Whilst the rear setback variation has been addressed in the modified plans for the outbuilding, the wall height of the outbuilding still constitutes a variation to the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions of the R-Codes. The applicant has advised that the outbuilding is intended to accommodate a boat, limiting the extent to which its height and length may be reduced.

 

Additionally, the applicant has noted that for the purpose of fire separation, the proposed outbuilding may not be moved any closer to the existing house on the subject site.

 

The site plan, floor plan and elevations for the modified outbuilding as proposed are included in Attachment 2.

Consultation

The plans as originally submitted for the outbuilding proposed minimum nil setbacks to both the rear south-western and side north-western boundaries, and the applicant included the comments of the adjoining landowners in the application submitted. The landowners of 6 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep (adjoining the north-western boundary of the subject site) indicated that they have no objections to the proposal.

 

The landowners of 16 Bass Chase, Yanchep (adjoining the rear boundary of the subject site) objected to the proposal on the grounds that the outbuilding would create excessive building bulk, which would affect their rear-facing outdoor living area and bedroom windows. Despite modifications to the proposed outbuilding made by the applicant (see ‘Detail’ section above), the landowners of 16 Bass Chase, Yanchep have advised that they still object to the proposed outbuilding. They have indicated that their concerns would only be sufficiently addressed by significantly reducing the height of the outbuilding.

 

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

Comment

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 proposed outbuilding does not meet the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provision of Clause 5.4.3 of the R-Codes in regards to wall height, it has been assessed against the corresponding ‘design principles’, as detailed in the table below.

 

Design Principles – Clause 5.4.3 P3

Administration Comments

Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties. 

The proposed outbuilding is located in the backyard of the subject site, meaning that it will not be visible from the street.

 

It is noted that the rear property (16 Bass Chase, Yanchep) is approximately 0.76m lower than the subject site. As such, if the outbuilding were to be built to a height of 2.7m on the subject site, the top of the outbuilding’s rear wall would be approximately 3.46m high, measured from the ground level of the rear property.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the 0.9m-high portion of the outbuilding wall visible above the dividing fence is 4.9m in width, which equates to less than 25% of the total length of the subject site’s rear boundary.  Furthermore, the outbuilding is proposed to be setback a minimum of 1.0m from the rear boundary.

 

Visual amenity is considered to largely relate to the building bulk of a development which is visible from adjoining properties. In light of the above, the impact of building bulk from the outbuilding’s rear wall is considered minimal and the outbuilding is not considered to detract from the visual amenity of the rear property.

 

 

With regards to the applicant’s justification relating to fire separation, this is not a planning consideration as it is considered at the building licence stage. Notwithstanding this, the National Construction Code of Australia Volume 2 classifies an outbuilding as a 10a building and requires a minimum of 900mm separation distance between the structure (outbuilding) and the dwelling. To satisfy this fire separation requirement from the existing dwelling and patio to the proposed outbuilding, the outbuilding cannot be setback any further from the rear boundary.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the proposed outbuilding is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. The outbuilding also satisfies all other requirements of the R-Codes.

Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed and no further modifications to the proposal are required. It is therefore recommended that the proposed outbuilding at 8 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep, be approved.

Statutory Compliance

 

Delegation to Determine Application

 

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

 

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objection raises relevant planning considerations in relation to potential building bulk of the outbuilding for the adjoining property. 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 provisions of the State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes and 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 District Planning Scheme No. 2, APPROVES the Development Application (DA2016/1660) as shown in Attachment 2 for the Single House Addition (Outbuilding) at Lot 885 (8) Sweep Ridge, Yanchep, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)      The approval only relates to the Single House Addition (Outbuilding), as highlighted on Attachment 2. It does not relate to any other development on the site; and

 

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

 

2.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - 8 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep

17/23553

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans and Elevations - 8 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep

17/14248

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submission - 8 Sweep Ridge, Yanchep

17/22488

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         77

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                      78


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         80


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                          81

3.4    Consideration of Development Application for Single House at Lot  7 (23) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks (DA2016/1260)

File Ref:                                              DA2016/1260 – 17/40192

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

 

To consider a development application (DA2016/1260) for a Single House at Lot 7 (23) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks (subject site).

 

Applicant

Mr Marcin Glowacz

Owner

Mr Marcin Glowacz & Ms Jane Glowacz

Location

Lot 7 (23) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks

Site Area

627m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R20

 

Background

On 12 September 2016, the City received a development application for a Single House on the subject site.

Detail

The subject site is zoned Residential under the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) with a residential density code of R20. The subject site is bounded by Hazel Avenue to the east, and residential lots to the north, south and west. The lots to the south and the west have existing dwellings constructed on them, while the lot to the north is currently undeveloped. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site has a natural ground level (NGL) of 10.75m – 11.11m at the front boundary for the first 14m of the site. There is then a significant slope which rises from 12.0m up to 16.0m - 17.5m, before sloping back down to 15m – 16.8m at the rear boundary of the subject site. Photos of the site are included in Attachment 6.

 

The development application proposes a Single House, which is a Permitted (“P”) use in the Residential Zone.

 

The application, as submitted, proposes a number of variations to the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.4: Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development (LPP 2.4), being:

 

·    Lot boundary setbacks (to the northern and southern boundaries);

·    Building height (to the top of wall and top of roof);

·    Site works (including building pad height, filling and retaining);

·    Garage width; and

·    Visual privacy (overlooking to the northern and southern properties).

 

These variations are discussed in the Comment section below.

 

The proposed plans for the Single House (including site plan, floor plan and elevations) are included as Attachment 2.

 

Consultation

Advertising of the proposal was undertaken by the City by writing to the affected landowners adjoining the subject site to the south and west (21 Hazel Avenue, 120 Ocean Drive and 122 Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks), and the landowners directly opposite the subject site to the east (22 and 24 Hazel Avenue). The applicant provided comments of no objection from the adjoining landowner to the north (25 Hazel Avenue) as part of the application submitted to the City.

 

Advertising was undertaken for a period of 17 days between 20 January and 6 February 2017 (which included the public holiday on 26 January 2017). A submission objecting to the proposal was received from the landowner of the southern adjoining property (21 Hazel Avenue). The adjoining landowner raised concerns with the potential negative effects of the Single House on their existing dwelling, specifically as a result of overshadowing, visual privacy, and building height. A summary of the submission received, and Administration’s response is shown in Attachment 3.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period and following detailed assessment by Administration relate to the variations to the proposed building height, and the proposed building pad height, and is discussed in further detail below.

 

In addition to these, there are a number of other variations proposed in the application relating to setbacks, site works, garage width and visual privacy. A plan showing the extent of these variations is included as Attachment 4. Administration’s comments in respect to these variations is outlined in Attachment 5.

Comment

Assessment of Application

 

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions, Administration is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant Design Principles or relevant policy objectives. As the revised proposal includes variations to the building height which does not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes, and to the building pad height which does not meet the standards set out in LPP 2.4, it has been assessed against the corresponding criteria below.

 

Building Height

 

The Deemed-to-Comply provisions of Clause 5.1.6 of the R-Codes permits a maximum wall height of 6m above NGL, and a maximum roof height of 9m above NGL. The application proposes the following variations to these requirements:

·    A maximum wall height of 8.2m, applicable to the first 8m of the building; and

·    A maximum roof height of 10.7m, applicable to the first 6.2m of the building.

 

The remaining 16.8m length of the proposed Single House is compliant with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements for wall and roof height, which equates to 67% of the building.

 

The Design Principles of Clause 5.1.6 requires that the building height creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape and maintains adequate access to direct sunlight and appurtenant open spaces, adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms and access to views of significance. A consideration of the extent of the proposed variations to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions is outlined below:

 

 

 

 

Design Principles

(Clause 5.1.6 P6)

Administration Comment

Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public and open space.

Impact on Amenity of Streetscape

 

The site slopes steeply, ranging from 10.75m – 11.11m at the front to 16m – 17.5m in the middle, and back down to 15m – 16.8m at the rear. The proposed variations to the wall and roof heights are located in the portion of the site where the NGL is 12.5m.

 

Additionally the dwelling is setback between 16.8m and 17.7m from the primary street. Development is permitted to be setback 6m from the primary street under the R-Codes. This increased setback is considered to offset the portion of the dwelling with the increased wall and roof height, and ensures that there is no adverse impact on the streetscape as a result.

 

Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Properties

 

The R-Codes assessment of overshadowing measures the shadow cast to the south. Given this, there is no impact from overshadowing as a result of the proposed wall height and roof height on the adjoining properties to the north and west, or the properties located directly opposite to subject site to the east.

 

The existing dwelling on the adjoining property to the south is located at the rear of the lot, adjacent to the portion of the proposed Single House which has a wall height of 5.8m, and a roof height of 8.2m. The compliant portion of the dwelling does result in overshadowing to the adjoining dwelling. However, as the variation occurs to the front of the proposed dwelling, and away from the location of the adjoining dwelling to the rear of the lot, the proposed variations do not result in any additional overshadowing. 

 

The proposed Single House results in overshadowing to the southern property, however this is compliant with the 25% permitted under the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes.

 

The dwelling is also setback from the lot boundaries. While there are variations proposed to the setback requirements (discussed in detail in Attachment 5), the first and second floors of the dwelling are setback a minimum of 1.2m from the southern boundary, and 1.35m from the northern boundary. The northern and southern facades of the dwelling also feature articulation and obscured windows to break up the appearance of the blank walls. This articulation and setback of the building ensures that there is no adverse impact on the adjoining properties by way of building bulk.

Maintains adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces.

As per the above, overshadowing is measured to the lot to the south, and given this there is no impact from overshadowing or direct sun access on the adjoining properties to the north and west, or the properties located directly opposite to subject site to the east.

 

The extent of the variations to the wall and roof heights is located at the front of the proposed Single House, which is positioned away from the existing dwelling on the adjoining property to the south.  The compliant portion of the dwelling does impact on direct sun into the adjoining dwelling and open spaces. However as the height variation occurs to the front of the proposed Single House, and away from the adjoining dwelling, the proposed variations do not result in any further restriction to direct sun than the compliant portion of the dwelling does.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that there is no additional impact as a result of the proposed increased wall and roof heights, as adequate access to direct sun for the buildings and open spaces on the adjoining properties is maintained.

Maintains adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms.

As per the above, overshadowing is measured to the lot to the south, and given this there is no impact from overshadowing or provision of adequate daylight on the adjoining properties to the north and west, or the properties located directly opposite to subject site to the east.

 

The extent of the variations to the wall and roof heights is located at the front of the proposed Single House, which is positioned away from the existing dwelling on the adjoining property to the south.  The compliant portion of the dwelling does result in a restriction of daylight to major openings into habitable rooms. However as the variation occurs to front of the proposed Single House, and away from the adjoining dwelling, the proposed variations do not result in any further restriction of daylight to major opening than the compliant portion of the dwelling does.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that there is no additional impact as a result of the proposed increased wall and roof heights on the provision of adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms on the adjoining properties.

Maintains access to views of significance.

Views of significance are considered in the R-Codes to be an outlook or featured landscape view. In this instance, the ocean is located approximately 150m from the western boundary of the subject site. The proposed Single House maintains access to views of significance for the adjoining properties to the north, south, and west.

 

The properties directly opposite the subject site to the east are situated on lots which have a steep slope, similar to that which affects the subject site. The two-storey dwellings on these lots are built on the higher NGL at the rear of the lots. As these lots are at a similar level as the subject site, the proposed variations to the wall and roof height do not restrict the views of significance any more than a fully compliant Single House on the subject site would.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that there is no impact as a result of the increased wall and roof heights on the access to views of significance of the properties to the east of the subject site.

 

In light of the above, the proposed wall height and roof height variations for the Single House are considered to meet the relevant Design Principles of Clause 5.1.6 of the R-Codes.

 

Building Pad Height

 

LPP 2.4 permits a building pad to a maximum finished floor level (FFL) of 13.87m. The application proposes a building pad height with an FFL of 12.50m for the ground floor, which is compliant with this requirement, and a building pad height with an FFL of 15.50m for the first floor, which does not comply.

 

LPP 2.4 calculates maximum building pad height based on the average of five points on the site, being the four corners, and a central spot, and adding 0.3m to this to allow for the slab of the building. It is noted that this method does not take into consideration sites which have significant topographical variations, such as this one, which has a NGL of 10.75m – 11.11m at the front, which rises to 16m – 17.5m in the middle, and slopes back down to 15m – 16.8m at the rear.

 

Notwithstanding this, LPP 2.4 identifies that any variations to the policy must have due regard to a number of provisions including the natural features of the site, physical restrictions of the site such as excessive gradients, the existing streetscape, the amenity of the locality, relative levels, finished floor levels and contours of the adjoining property, and the natural ground level of the site when viewed from the street. The Design Principles of Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes, which pertain to site works, also identify that development should respond to the natural features of the site, and minimise the need for excavation and/or fill, as well as ensuring that proposed FFL’s respect the NGL at the lot boundary and when viewed from the street.

 

An assessment of this variation against the R-Codes and LPP 2.4 is carried out below:

 

R-Codes

Design Principle

(Clause 5.3.7 P7.1)

Administration Comment

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

There is a significant slope across the site due to the natural topography of the locality. The site photos included as Attachment 6 show this slope on the site. The proposed Single House is considered to respond to this natural feature of the site, and retain the natural slope of the land. In doing this, it is proposed to excavate a portion of the site to allow for the ground floor, with the proposed first floor building pad height FFL being consistent with the lot levels from the middle to the rear of the site. In doing so, the amount of fill for the site is minimised.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the development responds to the natural features of the site, and requires minimal excavation and fill.

Design Principle

(Clause 5.3.7 P7.2)

Administration Comment

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

Streetscape

 

The existing streetscape is not consistent, as existing development accommodates the natural topography of the locality which has numerous hills and steep slopes (as shown in Attachment 6). As the proposal seeks to maintain this topography, it is considered to be consistent with the existing streetscape. When the building is viewed from the street, the peak of the dwelling appears to be at the same height as the compliant portion of the building. In this regard, the increased first floor building pad height is not considered to result in an excessive FFL when viewed from the street.

 

Lot Boundary

 

The adjoining properties to the north and south have similar contours and topographical features as the subject site. The proposed FFL of the first floor is consistent with the natural contours through the middle portion of the site, where the majority of development occurs.

 

The southern property has an existing dwelling at the rear of the site, which is at a similar level to the rear of the proposed Single House. The City issued development approval on 1 June 2016 for retaining and fill within the front 24m of the site. This application approved the ground level of a portion of the site from 10.66m at its lowest, to 13.5m, an increase of 2.84m. This retaining and fill occurs adjacent to the proposed Single House on the subject site, and is higher than the proposed FFL of the ground floor.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the FFL of the development respects the NGL at the lot boundary, and when viewed from the street.

LPP 2.4

Performance Criteria

Administration Comment

Physical restrictions of the property

There is a significant slope across the site due to the natural topography of the locality. The proposed Single House is considered to respond to the physical restrictions of the property. The proposed building pad height is consistent with the lot levels from the middle to the rear of the site, and maintains this natural landform.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the development responds to the physical restrictions of the property.

The existing streetscape

The existing streetscape is not consistent, as development has been constructed to accommodate the natural topography of the locality which has numerous hills and slopes, as is demonstrated by the site photos included as Attachment 6.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the development is not out of character with the existing streetscape.

The amenity of the locality

 

The proposed dwelling is generally consistent with the existing development within the Quinns Rocks locality, including along the eastern side of Hazel Avenue, which have similar topographical constraints, with the dwellings constructed towards the rear of the lot.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the development is consistent with the amenity of the locality. 

Relative levels, finish floor levels and contours of adjoining and abutting properties

The adjoining properties to the north and south have similar contours and topographical constraints as the subject site. The proposed FFL of the first floor is consistent with the natural contours through the middle portion of the site, where the majority of development occurs.

 

The existing dwelling on the southern property is at a similar level to the rear of the proposed Single House. The City has issued development approval for increasing the ground level of the adjoining site by a maximum of 2.84m.

 

On this basis, the proposed increased building pad height is considered to be generally consistent with the approved levels and/or existing NGL of the abutting properties.

Ease of accessibility

The proposed ground floor building pad height is compliant with the requirements of LPP 2.4, and the City’s Local Law with respect to driveway gradient. The first floor, where the building pad height variation occurs, is accessed by stairs, and an internal lift is provided from within the garage.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the site and the dwelling facilitates easy accessibility.

General Principles of this Policy, being:

· Alteration to the site levels prior to an application being made for the subject site will not be supported;

· Filling and/or retaining to the highest level of a site will not be supported; and

· A ‘cut and fill’ approach shall be taken in the consideration of all applications involving alterations of levels on a site. the principle of ‘cut and fill’ is such that equal amounts of cut and fill are undertaken to establish finish levels.

· The application for a Single House includes site works, and is considered concurrently;

 

· The highest lot level on the site is 17.5m in the north-west corner of the site. The application proposes retaining to a maximum height of 17.0m, and maximum fill to 15.5m. Neither of these is to the highest level on the site. The proposed building pad height at 15.5m is 2.0m less than the highest level of the site; and

 

· The application incorporates a ‘cut and fill’ approach, by excavating into the site to allow for the ground floor, and the rear portion of the dwelling, and filling to accommodate the natural slope of the site.

 

On this basis, Administration considers that the proposed variation to the building pad height is consistent with the General Principles of LPP 2.4. 

 

In light of the above, the proposed building pad height variation for the Single House are considered to meet the relevant Design Principles of Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes, and the performance criteria of the LPP 2.4.

Statutory Compliance

Pursuant to Part 8.3(b) of the City’s Delegated Authority Register, the application may be considered under delegation if, it is the view of the Director, Planning and Sustainability, that the objections do not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be 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 overshadowing, building height, and privacy of the single house for the adjoining property. 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

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and Local Planning Policy 2.4: Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the District Planning Scheme No. 2, APPROVES the Development Application (DA2016/1260) as shown in Attachment 2 for a Single House at Lot 7 (23) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks, subject to the following conditions:

a)      The driveway and crossover shall be constructed to the City of Wanneroo’s residential specifications prior to the occupation of the dwellings;

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

c)      The provision of screening with a minimum height of 1.6m, at least 75% obscured, and permanently fixed, in the locations shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes; and

2.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

17/41335

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans

17/42960

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submisison

17/49377

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Proposed Variations

17/43916

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Table of Variations

17/49555

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Site Photos

17/51113

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         89


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                      90


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         92


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                         97


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       100


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       105


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    113


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        116

 

Assets

Infrastructure Capital Works

3.5    Tender 16200 for the Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building & Civil Works, Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep

File Ref:                                              22550 – 16/425346

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 16200 for the Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works, Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 2 February 2016 (AS06-01/16 refer), considered a tender for the Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works, Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep and adopted the following resolutions;

 

“That Council;

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

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

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Adjusted Budget

Upgrade Old Yanchep Road – Pederick Road to Trandos Road

PR-2598

$2,670,000

$2,070,000

Upgrade Old Yanchep Road – Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue

PR-3074

$793,000

$593,000

Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works

PR-1048

$1,103,942

$1,903,942

 

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

Contract 01560 commenced on 29 February 2016 with the work progressing in accordance with the agreed contract schedule up to July/August 2016. Administration corresponded several times with the Contractor in an effort to rectify the departures from the agreed program. Further to the issue of two formal notices to the Contractor without a satisfactory response, Administration terminated contract 01560 on 28 September 2016.

 

Administration commenced re-scoping, verification, certification and documentation of the incomplete works under Contract 01560, in addition to preparing revised design details and contract documentation for Public Tender to complete the project. 

 

A new tender for completion of construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works (YSLSC) was advertised on 19 November 2016. 

Detail

A copy of the Tender documents are available in the Elected Members’ reading room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type

Lump Sum

Tender Advertised

19 November 2016

Stage 1 Tender Closed

13 December 2016

Stage 2 Tender Closed

20 January 2017

Contract Duration

26 weeks

Commencement Date

March 2017

Practical Completion

 September 2017

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·        Bistel Construction Pty Ltd;

·        Northerly Group Australia; and

·        Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

Tender Assessment

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

 

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

Evaluation Panel Member

Function

Project Manager Yanchep Infrastructure

Undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions

Project Manager Major Building

Undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions

Architect Consultant

Undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions

Occupational Safety & Health Officer

Undertake the qualitative scoring for the OS&H criterion

 

Contracts Officer provided oversight of the evaluation process to ensure statutory compliance and verify the value for money assessment.

 

Tender evaluation and selection was conducted in two stages; Stage 1 identified the list of suitable tenderers capable of completing the project and that would progress to undertake a verification process. Stage 2 enabled the shortlisted tenderers to conduct a verification of the works completed to date, finalisation of their detailed construction schedules, and confirmation of lump sum price inclusive of the cost breakdown schedule.

Tenders were evaluated in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Evaluation Criteria – Stage 1

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.       Occupational Health & Safety Management: overview of the organisation’s Safety and Health Management System (OSHMS) and current applied examples commensurate with construction work.

 

5.       Contract Lump Sum:

 

The nominated weightings applied to each of the five Stage 1 selection criteria are noted as follows:

Item No

Category

Score

1

Methodology

20%

2

Demonstrated Experience

10%

3

Resources & Capability

10%

4

Occupational Health & Safety Management

20%

5

Price for Works offered

40%

Total Weighted Score

100%

 

Evaluation Criteria – Stage 2

 

Following the completion of Stage 1 tender evaluation, tenderers identified as being capable of completing the project were required to conduct a verification of the works completed to date, finalise their detailed schedule, confirm their lump sum price and provide a price breakdown schedule. 

 

Evaluation of tenders for Stage 2 was scored with weightings applied to give a total score for each tender received. The evaluation process took into consideration the following criterion:

 

Detailed Program of Works: the tenderers’ detailed program of works.

 

Reference Checks: tenderers’ referees to provide responses to the City’s reference check questionnaire.

 

Value Engineering: tenderer to provide examples of Value Engineering that would either effect the completion date or provide savings that were not outweighed by additional costs.

 

Final Lump Sum: the tenderers’ adjusted lump sum price and detailed cost breakdown price schedule.

 

The nominated weightings applied to each of the four Stage 2 selection criteria are noted as follows:

Item No

Category

Score

1

Detailed Program of Works

20%

2

Reference Checks

20%

3

Value Engineering

20%

4

Price for Works offered

40%

Total Weighted Score

100%

 

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

 

Stage 1 Evaluation

 

Methodology (20%):

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd provided a comprehensive methodology statement conveying a detailed understanding of the works to be carried out, supported by Gantt charts that clearly outlined the timelines proposed for each phase of the works.

 

Northerly Group Australia demonstrated a good understanding of the works to be carried out however, detailed issues related to clarifications rather than its method statement for construction.   

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd submissions had some shortcomings in fully demonstrating their understanding of the project requirements and their approach to ensure acceptable project delivery; therefore, based upon the information provided, tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

Northerly Group Australia

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

3

 

Demonstrated Experience (10%):

Northerly Group Australia and Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd presented a good standard of experience in relation to the delivery of similar projects. Bistel Construction Pty Ltd provided an adequate response to this criterion; therefore, based upon the information provided, tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Northerly Group Australia

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

1

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

3

 

Resources and Capability (10%): 

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources and capability to manage the contract. Northerly Group Australia provided a very good submission clearly outlining specific resources and ample capacity. Remaining submissions provided an adequate level of resources and capability, therefore based on the information provided tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Northerly Group Australia

1

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

2

 

Occupational Health & Safety Management (20%):

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Northerly Group Australia

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

2

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

3

 

Price for Works offered (40%):

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

Northerly Group Australia

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

3

 

After the Stage 1 evaluation process was completed the tender evaluation panel considered that all three (3) tenderers were suitable to be shortlisted and to proceed to Stage 2, and conduct individual verification of the extent of the works constructed to date.

 

Stage 2 Evaluation

 

Detailed Program of Works (20%)

Tenderer’s detailed program for the works was assessed to evaluate their understanding of works and timeline to complete the project. Northerly Group Australia provided a good program that indicated an understanding of what was required and completion within 26 weeks. Remaining submissions provided less comprehensive program submissions, therefore based upon the information provided tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

Tenderer

Ranking

Northerly Group Australia

1

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

3

Reference Checks (20%)

Tenderer’s nominated referees were supplied with a questionnaire and asked to score the tenderer against each question. The received responses were quantified and a score provide for each tenderer. 

 

Based on the information provided by the nominated tenderer’s referees, tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Northerly Group Australia

1

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

3

 

Value Engineering (20%)

Tenderers were assessed on Value Engineering that would either effect the completion date or provide savings that were not outweighed by additional costs. Bistel Construction Pty Ltd proposed alternative engineering methods that offered possible cost savings that were worthy of further consideration. Pindan Contraction’s Pty Ltd submissions provided an adequate level of Value Engineering, while Northerly provided a statement after tender closure that could not be considered. Therefore based on the information provided tenderers have been ranked as tabled below under this criterion:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

2

Northerly Group Australia

3

 

Final Price for the Works (40%)

Tenderers, as part of the Stage 2 verification process, confirmed their respective lump sum price. Two tenderers’ adjusted their lump sum price up and one adjusted its lump sum price down.

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

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

Northerly Group Australia

2

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

3

 

Tenderers’ Overall Weighted Score:

Stage 2 tender submissions were reviewed against weighted scores based upon an evaluation of each tenderer’s – Final Lump Sum price; detailed program of works; Value Engineering recommendations, reference checks and ability to undertake the construction of the tendered works.

 

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

 

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd

1

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

2

Northerly Group Australia

3

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel confirms and recommends that Council accepts the tender of Bistel Construction Pty Ltd for the construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works.

Consultation

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

 

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

 

The Club has been kept informed of the new tender process and the revised time schedule.

Comment

Following the Stage 2 evaluation, administration undertook interviews with the top two tenderers to ascertain and quantify risks associated with the tenderers’ submissions. From discussion held during the tender interviews, both Bistel Construction Pty Ltd and Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd were requested to provide further written clarifications to their respective submissions.

 

Bistel Construction Pty Ltd tender demonstrated a very good understanding of the issues with the existing works completed to date, and provided methodologies for rectification that have been included in its Stage 2 tender submission. Bistel Construction Pty Ltd has further clarified its submission, resulting in no outstanding issues.

 

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd identified their requirement for additional fees covering issue of the new building permit and costs associated with the temporary stair access, which required an adjustment to its tender price.  

 

The results of the interviews have provided a confidence in the submission from the highest ranked tenderer Bistel Construction Pty Ltd, with no changes required to the overall weighted score.

 

As the tender submission from Bistel Construction Pty Ltd achieved the highest ranked score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings, Bistel Construction Pty Ltd is therefore recommended as the preferred tenderer.

 

City engaged the services of an external Probity Advisor to monitor and report on the evaluation of the tender process and confirmed that the evaluation undertaken by the City for Tender 16200 did not indicate any non-compliance with the Probity principles of the City.

 

 

Works Programme

 

The construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works anticipated programme is outlined as follows:

 

Report to Council – Construction Tender Outcome

March 2017

Contract Award and Possession of Site

 March 2017

Construction Completion

September 2017

Practical Completion

September 2017

Handover and Yanchep Surf Club Establishment

October 2017

 

Following award of the tender, City’s appointed consultant will administer the contract during the construction to practical completion of the works, the maintenance & establishment period; and thereafter attend as required to complete the 12 month defects liability 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:

 “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

Enterprise 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.

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

Financial and Performance Risk

Financial Risk

 

During the tender evaluation for 16200 Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Building & Civil Works an updated report on Bistel Construction Pty Ltd was requested from Corporate Scorecard to ensure that they had the financial capacity to undertake both Contract 16188 Yanchep District Sports Amenities Building and the YSLSC projects.

Financial assessment of Bistel Construction Pty Ltd was undertaken by Corporate Scorecard, indicating that it has a satisfactory financial capacity to undertake the contracts in question.

In their assessment report dated 31 January 2017, Corporate Scorecard confirmed that Bistel Construction Pty Ltd is trading in a profitable manner and the size of its annual revenue indicates that the contract in question is within appropriate capacity and risk based thresholds.

 

Prior to the Corporate Scorecard report being received, the City awarded Contract 16188 Yanchep District Sports Amenities Building to Bistel and has received unconditional bank guarantees totalling 5% of the Contract sum.  The City has also received confirmation in writing from Bistel Construction Pty Ltd that should they also be awarded the Contract for YSLSC they would provide unconditional bank guarantees for 5% of the new contract value, including a confirmation letter issued by Commonwealth Bank.

 

Performance Risk

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

 

Independent reference checks have also indicated that the recommended tenderer has excellent to outstanding rating from the nominated referees.

 

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

Notwithstanding the considerations for the sustainable procurement in accordance with Section 15 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the tender document included this consideration as a non-weighted criterion. Bistel Construction Pty Ltd’s response identifies that the social benefits of this project will include:

·        Increase in community engagement;

·        Centralised location for groups and clubs to meet; and

·        Hire of local skilled and unskilled labour; and hire of small plant and equipment from local business.

 

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

The tender document included this consideration as a non-weighted criterion. Bistel Construction Pty Ltd identified in its Tender response that local suppliers will be provided with first opportunity to supply materials to the project, but not limited to:

·        Concrete supply;

·        Concrete placement;

·        Ceramic wall and floor tiles;

·        General labour; and

·        Second fix carpentry.

 

Policy Implications

 

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

Financial (Budget) Implications

Based on the tenderer’s lump sum price, the historic quantity, types of construction works carried out and the capital projects program, a calculation was made to determine the total annual estimated value of the works for the contract period which is predicted to be in excess of the 2016/2017 capital works budget.

 

PR-1048  Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Budget:

 

 

Allocated Capital Works Budget prior to 2015/16

 

$2,488,312

Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2016/2017

 

$4,344,977

Expenditure:

 

 

Actual Total Expenditure incurred prior to award of Contract No 01560

$1,149,154.00

Actual Expenditure incurred up to termination of Contract No 01560 (Contract Payments)

$1,978,450.48

 

Actual Other Expenditure (northern carpark; additional consult fees; security of the site and structure; temporary beach access; survey of existing conditions; project management costs)  

$645,212.52

 

Current Commitments

$116,793

 

Total Project Cost to Date –Subtotal (A)

$3,889,610

 

New Expenditure:

 

 

-     Tender No. 16200 for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club– Based on Recommended Tenderer’s (lump sum) price

$3,387,775.27

 

-     Contingency @10%

$338,777.53

 

-     Procurement of Mobile Lookout Tower (Estimate)

$75,000

 

-     Rehabilitation Cost Estimate

$200,000

 

Project Management (estimated)

$70,000

 

Total New Expenditure – Subtotal (B)

$4,071,552.80

 

Total Expenditure (A+B)

$7,961,162.80

 

Total Funding

 

$6,833,289

Funding Provision required in 2017/2018

$1,127,874

 

 

Yanchep Two Rocks DCP

 

At the meeting on 7 November 2016 (PS02-11/16), Council adopted revised cost estimates for the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP, thereby increasing the contribution rate from $2,070 to $2,780 per lot. The cost contribution amount is based on providing a number of facilities within Yanchep Two Rocks, including the cost to service the loan/s associated with the early delivery of the Yanchep Active Open Space and Surf Life Saving Building. Whilst the extent of any variation was not known at that time, it was noted in the report that there may be variations to the adopted Yanchep SLSC cost estimates ($6,833,289) given the recent cancellation of the contract and retendering process.

 

At the meeting of the Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee on 14 October 2016, the implications of the retendering process were discussed with the affected landowners, where they requested that, “the landowner group be engaged at the appropriate time to consider the implications of the cancelled contract on the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP”. In this regard, the total funding attributed to the landowners under the DCP for the surf lifesaving club (excluding loan borrowing and administration costs) equated to $4,515,793 (Total cost to the City $1,817,496, plus $500,000 in grants).

 

The additional funding required as a result of the re-tendering equates to $1,127,874 which will need to be fully pre-funded through municipal expenditure as an interim step until a review of the DCP is undertaken.  The review is scheduled to take place in mid-2017 prior to the project completion and will have regard to the ‘actual’ costs.  It should be noted that any increases to the original estimates will require consultation and validation through the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee.  

 

The annual DCP review process has been established to address these types of issues and to ensure that the DCP is always based on the most accurate and up-to-date cost estimates. In this regard, the November 2016 Council report (PS02-11/16) makes reference to the following; “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 to ensure that cost and dwelling estimates are as accurate as possible”.

 

It should also be noted that the review process can work in favour of the developers or the City alike depending on the cost of works at a point in time compared to the estimates. At the meeting of Council in November 2016, a number of reductions in estimated costs were adopted as part of the annual DCP review. These revised estimates do not necessarily translate into an underspend in DCP funded projects, and are utilised to establish a landowner cost contribution amount (contribution rate applied to the landowners based estimated costs) and are revised annually until the expenditure has been finalised.

 

This is evidenced in the comparison of the DCP from its adoption to current estimates.  The estimated cost of infrastructure projects at the time of the DCP adoption was 28.4 million.  Following the 2016 review of the DCP (having regard to income to date, revised income projections and project costs) the total cost for projects was deemed 27.3 million and as a result the proportion attributed to municipal funds and developer payments was adjusted accordingly. This adjustment was accepted by the developers despite the increased contribution rate per lot.  On the basis of current project estimates (as at February 2017), it is projected that the total project costs will be in the order of 28.2 million which again will inform the adjustment of proportional costs accordingly.

 

The Yanchep Two Rocks DCP annual review will be prepared in due course with specific consideration for funding and lot yield estimates, however until this has occurred, the DCP can only commit to $4,515,793 of the total funding cost.

 

Council has approved an allocation for project PR-1048 of $4,344,977 as part of the 2016/17 budget process; the budget provision currently includes part of the grant from Lottery West of $180,000 with an additional $320,000 yet to be claimed. The remainder budget is funded by Reserve and Loan Borrowing.

 

Following the award of this tender the City will undertake to initiate suitable action in relation to Contract number 01560.

 

It is noted that as part of the 2017/2018 budget the additional funds required will be listed in the 2017/2018 Capital Works Budget to enable the completion of this project.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Bistel Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No. 16200, for the Construction of Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works, Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep, for the fixed lump sum price of $3,387,775.27 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document;

 

2.       NOTES that a further $1,127,874 funding is required to be allocated in 2017/2018 Capital Works Budget to fully complete the works for the Construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works at Lot 520 Brazier Road, Yanchep; and

3.       NOTES that the increase in the forecast cost of construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club Building and Civil Works will be included in the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP review scheduled early in 2017.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        127

 

3.6    PT01-12/16 - Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Request for Traffic Treatments

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 17/44365

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a petition requesting additional traffic treatments along Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way, Girrawheen.

Background

Council received petition PT01-12/16 at its meeting on 6 December 2016. The petition was signed by 27 residents representing 21 properties from Girrawheen area and reads as follows;

 

“WE, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration on the construction of traffic treatments in the form of speed humps along Hudson Avenue, between Gummow Way and Templeton Crescent, Girrawheen.”

 

Of the 21 properties represented by the signatures on this petition, 17 were from residents along Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way, 2 were from residents on Gummow Way, 1 was from a resident along Koman Way and 1 was from a resident on Hudson Avenue outside of the section being considered as part of this petition.

 

For a locality map showing the extent of the section of Hudson Avenue in question, refer to Attachment 1.

Detail

Hudson Avenue is a local Distributor Road in accordance with the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed within a road reserve of 18 metres. Hudson Avenue has been constructed as a single carriageway for its entire length with varying pavement widths. The layout of the road is as follows;

 

Templeton Crescent to Koman Way

·    7.4m pavement width

·    2-lane, bi-directional single carriageway, with a 7.4m pavement width.

 

Koman Way to 100m east of Gummow Way

·    10m pavement width

·    2-lane, bi-directional single carriageway with a wide painted median

 

100m east of Gummow Way to Girrawheen Avenue

·    10m pavement width

·    2-lane, bi-directional single carriageway with a solid centreline and parking embayment’s on southern side adjacent to Our Lady of Mercy Primary School.

 

In response to concerns raised by residents along Hudson Avenue regarding the speeding issue on the road, the road was modified with the construction of traffic treatments in 2014/15. Two different traffic treatment schemes were applied over two sections of Hudson Avenue as follows;

 

Templeton Crescent to Koman Way

·    A 1.4m wide part raised / part flush median; and

·    A pre-deflected approach on the eastbound carriageway at Berwyn Road

 

Koman Way to Girrawheen Avenue

·      2x sets of speed cushions at 140m spacings

 

Refer Attachment 2 for a drawing detailing the traffic management constructed along Hudson Avenue.

Consultation

No consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Comment

Following the installation of the traffic treatment for Hudson Avenue, traffic counts were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the scheme overall. The results were as follows;

 

Hudson Ave - Templeton Cres to Gummow Way

 

2011

2016

Traffic Volume

3267

3333

Operating Speed

59km/h

57km/h

 

Hudson Ave - Gummow Way to Girrawheen Ave

 

2011

2016

Traffic Volume

3474

3374

Operating Speed

53km/h

46km/h

 

Traffic volumes along Hudson Avenue have overall experienced little change over the 5 year period between counts. This is to be expected given that the road exists in an area that experienced limited development growth during the 5 year period between counts. However, in April 2016 the Western Australian Planning Commission approved Amendment No. 119 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 which allows for increased density development within the Girrawheen Housing Precinct.  As higher density development occurs there is expected to be an increase in traffic volumes along the road networks within the Housing Precincts.  However, the Traffic Impact assessment produced by GHD in support of Amendment No. 119 did not identify Hudson Avenue as requiring any additional upgrades or treatments to accommodate the increase in density. The traffic counts recorded operating speeds along both sections of Hudson Avenue have experienced a reduction. While the reduction in speed for the section extending between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way is noted as only being 2km/h, it is considered that the part raised / part flush median treatment reduces the lane widths, provides a buffer between the traffic travelling in opposite directions and also acts as a refuge point for pedestrians choosing to cross the road.

 

A review of Main Roads WA recorded crash statistics for Hudson Avenue has indicated that by comparing the crashes occurring prior to the traffic treatment installation and post installation there has been a 25% reduction in the average number of crashes per year. Furthermore, prior to the traffic treatment being installed there were 3 recorded medical/hospital crashes along Hudson Avenue, however since the treatment installation there had been no crash requiring medical/hospital attention.

As the petition is requesting speed cushions on the section of Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent & Gummow Way, and given that speed cushions already exist on the section of Hudson Avenue between Gummow Way and Girrawheen Avenue, Administration has completed an assessment of Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way only as per the petition request. In order for Administration to objectively decide whether additional traffic management is required along Hudson Avenue, the road was assessed in accordance with the current Local Area Traffic Management Policy (Policy). The assessment considers a range of factors including:

·    Speed data;

·    Traffic volume including commercial vehicle volume;

·    Crash history;

·    Road design and topography;

·    Presence of vulnerable road users such as pedestrian/cyclists; and

·    Activity generators such as schools/retail/train stations etc.

 

This policy guides the decision making process to determine whether roads require infrastructure changes or increased policing. The Policy requires a score of over 60 to qualify for traffic management treatments, while scores between 30 and 60 points warrant attention to law enforcement and driver education.

 

The score for Hudson Avenue for the section extending between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way was 24. This score indicates that the construction of additional traffic treatments cannot be justified at this time ahead of other higher priority projects.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The installation of speed cushions as requested by the petitioners can cost in the order of $50,000 based on a preliminary investigation of considering a set of speed cushions for every 100m. Additionally, further street lighting might be required to meet the required Australian Standard. However, should Council agree with Administrations recommendation to not install additional traffic treatments along Hudson Avenue, there will be no further financial implications.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of additional traffic treatments along Hudson Avenue between Templeton Crescent and Gummow Way Girrawheen, at this time; and

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

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Hudson Avenue, Girrawheen - Locality Plan

17/43459

 

2.

Hudson Avenue - Traffic Management Scheme - 3008-1-1

17/45775

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       131


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       132

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        133

 

Assets Maintenance

3.7    Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment

File Ref:                                              28061 – 17/43856

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider beach access options along Sovereign Drive in Two Rocks.

Background

Two Rocks Coastal Management Options and Two Rocks Beach Access have recently been considered by Council in July 2015 and October 2016 respectively as detailed below:

·    IN02-07/15 – Two Rocks Coastal Management; and

·    AS04-10/16 – Sovereign Drive Two Rocks Beach Access.

 

The previous Sovereign Drive Two Rocks beach access staircase and platform structure was constructed in 2002 with a design life of 15 years. In recent years, this staircase had been closed to the public seasonally due to safety risks associated with seasonal beach erosion during winter resulting in an unsafe drop down into the water at the end of the stairs. Storm events in May 2016 resulted in significant beach erosion focussed around the Two Rocks beach access staircase. Pre and post-storm beach surveys indicated beach recession of up to 9m and collapse of 2.5m of dune which caused significant damage to the beach access structure and undermining of the piled foundations. 

 

These issues are a reflection of the fact that this section of coastline was identified as an area at risk of being impacted by coastal erosion and inundation in Part 1 of the City’s Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) – Coastal Vulnerability Assessment, which was finalised in 2015.  Administration is currently in the process of preparing Part 2 of the CHRMAP which involves the development of an adaptation plan that defines adaptation measures for vulnerable areas of the City’s coast.

 

While the CHRMAP process will aim to address these issues in the longer term, in the interest of public safety, access to the damaged staircase structure was closed off immediately while investigations and community consultation were undertaken. This process included a technical coastal/structural engineering assessment of the structure by M P Rogers, a coastal aquatic risk assessment by Surf Life Saving WA, community meetings and seeking of community feedback in relation to short term and long term beach access requirements.

 

Council considered a report at its Ordinary Meeting in October 2016 (AS04-10/16) and adopted the following Resolutions:

“1.     NOTES the petition received on 16 August 2016;

2.       ACCEPTS Coastal Engineering Recommendations to remove the staircase;

3.       In view of the community feedback, DOES NOT PROCEED with formalising the beach access track to the north of the staircase as a short term beach access measure;

4.       REQUESTS Administration to install a fenced observation point at the end of the pathway to the existing staircase and coastal safety signage at informal beach access locations to mitigate risks identified in the Surf Life Saving Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment;

5.       APPROVES, by ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, an unbudgeted expenditure of $40,000 to undertake a Feasibility Study and Concept Options Assessment for Beach Access at Two Rocks, subject to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 and in accordance with the City’s Accounting Policy Section 3(8)(a); and the following budget variation:

GL/PR Number

From

To

Description

733710-9399-229

$40,000

 

Foreshore Maintenance Operating Budget

PR-New

 

$40,000

Two Rocks Beach Access

6.       AUTHORISES Administration to engage a suitably qualified engineering consultancy to undertake a Feasibility Study and Options Assessment to determine long term beach access solutions to north of the Two Rocks Marina with consideration of all community feedback and design proposals in this regard;

7.       AUTHORISES Administration to hold a subsequent Community Information Session upon completion of the Feasibility Study and Options Assessment;

8.       NOTES that subject to the recommendations of the Feasibility Study and Options Assessment and necessary approvals, a replacement beach access can be installed and be available for use in the 2017/18 summer period;

9.       ACCEPTS and SUPPORTS the findings of the “Two Rocks Coastal Management Study – March 2015” that the coastal erosion issues at Two Rocks have been directly caused by the Two Rocks Marina;

10.     CONVEYS its significant concerns to the State Government for the State Government’s current lack of commitment to address the coastal erosion issues at Two Rocks either through implementation of long term recommendations in the “Two Rocks Coastal Management Study – March 2015”; and/or a re-design of the Two Rocks Marina to address the ongoing erosion issues;

11.     REQUESTS the Mayor to seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Transport to:

a)      express and detail the City’s significant concerns that the need to remove the structure is a direct result of the ongoing coastal erosion issues and that the State Government should provide funding for the removal, Feasibility Study and Options Assessment and subsequent design and construction of a replacement beach access way north of the Two Rocks marina; and

b)      seek an early implementation of the long term coastal management measures as recommended in the “Two Rocks Coastal Management Study – March 2015” and/or re-design the Two Rocks marina to address ongoing erosion issues;

12.     REQUESTS Administration to notify the petition organiser of Council’s  Resolutions; and

13.     THANKS the community for its feedback.”

Since October 2016, Council’s decisions have been implemented including the following main tasks:

 

·    A demolition contractor was appointed in October 2016 and the staircase structure was removed as per coastal engineering recommendations;

·    An observation point was installed at the termination point of the concrete pathway leading to the removed staircase and coastal safety signage was installed as per Surf Life Saving recommendations; and

·    M P Rogers was appointed, following a formal Request for Quotation process, to undertake the Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment.

 

The City is currently in discussion with the State Government regarding coastal management responsibilities and future requirements to manage the ongoing coastal issues north of the Two Rocks Marina. Further information relating to the Two Rocks Coastal Management Study and coastal engineering recommendations can be found in the July 2015 Council Report (IN02-07/15) or via the following link to the City’s Two Rocks Coastal Management web page:

http://www.wanneroo.wa.gov.au/info/20041/environment/236/coastal_management/3

 

Further information relating to the previous community consultation, technical assessments of the old staircase structure or the coastal aquatic risk assessment can be found in the October 2016 Council Report (AS04-10/16) or via the following link to the City’s Beach Access on Sovereign Drive, Two Rocks web page:

http://www.wanneroo.wa.gov.au/info/20041/environment/236/coastal_management/6

 

This report provides information relating to the Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment and recommendations for a new formal beach access point north of the Two Rocks Marina.

Detail

The Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment commenced in November 2016 with the appointment of coastal engineering consultant, M P Rogers. This assessment included all community feedback forms and design proposals received during and after the Community Meeting on 21 September 2016 and considered various options for both beach access location and beach access type. The following criteria were considered for each option in the Multi-Criteria Analysis:

·    Feasibility and Practicality;

·    Long Term Effectiveness;

·    Response to Shoreline Changes;

·    Environmental Impacts (i.e. dune clearing);

·    Safety;

·    Capital & Ongoing Cost;

·    Social Impacts and Community Values; and

·    Reversible/Adaptable in the Future.

 

A total of 11 feedback forms and 1 design proposal was received from the Two Rocks Community following the community consultation in September 2016. A summary of this feedback is provided below in terms of location and form of beach access:

·    Location:

7 respondents favoured the location of the existing stairs (northern location);

3 respondents favoured the location adjacent to the northern end of the marina (southern location);

1 respondents favoured a location mid-way between the northern and southern locations (mid-way location);

·    Form of Access:

7 respondents favoured stairs;

2 respondents favoured an Octunda; and

2 respondents favoured a ramp.

 

Based on this feedback, the following options were selected for further investigation in the Multi-Criteria Analysis; however there is a clear majority favouring replacement of the staircase at the old staircase location:

·    Northern Location – Ramp Options: Concept cost estimate ($300,000);

·    Northern Location – Stairs Option 1: Concept cost estimate ($210,000);

·    Northern Location – Octunda: Concept cost estimate ($600,000);

·    Northern Location – Modified Octunda: Concept cost estimate ($600,000);

·    Mid-way Location – Ramp Option: Concept cost estimate ($800,000);

·    Mid-way Location – Stairs Option: Concept cost estimate ($350,000);

·    Southern Location – Ramp Option: Concept cost estimate ($400,000); and

·    Southern Location – Stairs Option: Concept cost estimate ($380,000).

 

Note that the Octunda option as proposed by the Community was further investigated and modified to provide a similar additional option that accounts for predicted coastal erosion over its design life ensuring long term functionality of the beach access structure.

 

A meeting was held between the Mayor, North Coast Ward Councillors, Administration and representatives from the Two Rocks Community on 1 February 2017 to discuss the draft beach access options assessment. Following discussions around the advantages and disadvantages of various options, community representatives were in support of the recommended staircase option at the northern location. Comments were received regarding preferences for a viewing platform and this was then considered further by M P Rogers in two additional options as follows:

·    Northern Location – Stairs Option 2 (Piled Viewing Platform - Concept cost estimate $250,000); and

·    Northern Location – Stairs Option 3 (Piled Standalone Viewing Platform - Concept cost estimate $450,000).

 

These additional options improve on the ocean view gained from the proposed viewing platform in Option 1. Option 2 includes a viewing platform located further west to the start of the stairs and piled into bed rock to minimise the risk of damage to the structure from greater than predicted erosion. This will provide a similar view to 15 years ago when the original staircase structure was constructed and improves the view of the ocean and beach immediately in front of the staircase. Option 3 includes a separate viewing platform structure with consideration of dune contours to provide views not only in front of the structure but also to the north and south of the beach access. However, this comes with a significant additional cost in the order of $200,000.

 

All concept option sketches are provided in Attachment 1.

 

Based on the Multi-Criteria Analysis of all 10 options, the recommended beach access option is Northern Location – Stairs Option 2 due to the following benefits:

·    Low level of dune clearing and earthworks;

·    Community preferred location and beach access form;

·    Accounts for coastal erosion and is will remain functional over its design life;

·    Existing infrastructure (parking, shower, concrete path); and

·    Relatively low cost.

Results from the Multi-Criteria Assessment and advantages and disadvantages of each option are provided in Attachment 2.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of various staircase materials (timber, fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) and aluminium) for coastal applications have been assessed by M P Rogers and FRP has been recommended due to the following:

·    Longer design life and durability;

·    More resistant to fire than timber;

·    No corrosion issues; and

·    Minimal maintenance requirements.

 

Following completion of the Beach Access Options Assessment, a Community Information Session was held at the Phil Renkin Centre on 15 February 2017 to present and discuss the assessment and recommendations for a replacement beach access staircase and viewing platform at the original staircase location, but set back to accommodate for the predicted coastal erosion over the design life of the new structure. In general the recommended option was supported by the community with a strong desire to fast track the construction of the staircase to provide formal access as soon as possible. A summary of the main community comments and responses provided by the City of Wanneroo and M P Rogers are provided in Attachment 3.

Consultation

Prior to the removal of the damaged staircase in October 2016, the City undertook comprehensive community consultation including the following:

·    A community site meeting on 3 August 2016 to discuss safety risks associated with the staircase structure and intentions to remove the structure;

·    Consideration of a petition received from the community on 16 August 2016 resulting in further investigations, assessment and consultation prior to removal of the old staircase;

·    A Community Information Session on 21 September 2016 at the Phil Renkin Centre to present information relating to coastal engineering assessments, beach safety assessments and obtain community feedback in relation to long term beach access solutions. Feedback forms were distributed at this session along with reply paid envelopes and all received feedback forms and design proposals were considered by M P Rogers in the Beach Access Options Assessment; and

·    A further meeting between Administration, Elected Members and representatives from the Two Rocks community was held on 4 October 2016 to obtain further views on both short term and long term beach access requirements along Sovereign Drive.

 

As detailed above, a Community Information Session was held at the Phil Renkin Centre on 15 February 2017 to present and discuss the assessment and recommendations for a replacement beach access staircase and viewing platform.

Comment

Although the Northern Location Stairs Option 2 was generally supported in both the meeting with Two Rocks representatives on 1 February and the majority of community members at the Community Information Session on 15 February, further correspondence from community members indicate a desire for a larger beach access structure (Octunda or Modified Octunda) provided sufficient State Government funding is available. It is noted that the Octunda option as proposed by community representatives has been considered by M P Rogers to be not feasible due to the ongoing coastal erosion which will cause functionality and safety issues in the immediate future. As a result, the Modified Octunda was proposed by M P Rogers which sets the structure back from the ocean to ensure continued functionality and beach access safety over the design life of the structure.

 

Based on M P Rogers concept level cost estimates, the Modified Octunda option is expected to cost approximately $600,000 and the Northern Location Stairs Option 2 is expected to cost approximately $250,000. Without consideration of the cost criteria in the Multi Criteria Analysis, Northern Location Stairs Option 2 remains as the preferred option in the technical assessment undertaken by M P Rogers due to low environmental impacts and community support (7 out of 11 feedback forms). However, value for money of the options must still be considered in the analysis, even if external funding becomes available. Therefore the recommended beach access option based on the options assessment by M P Rogers is the Northern Location Stairs Option 2 which includes a replacement staircase structure including a piled viewing platform at the start of the stairs.

The recommended beach access staircase will be set back from the ocean based on coastal engineering assessment of potential coastal erosion allowing for functionality of the staircase structure for a minimum of 15 years. This includes consideration of the City’s CHRMAP, Part 1 (Coastal Vulnerability Assessment) and updated storm induced beach erosion modelling based on recent beach profile surveys taken adjacent to the staircase location. In order to provide a balance between dune clearing, distance from the staircase landing to the ocean and consideration of ongoing coastal erosion, M P Rogers have based the setback distance of the staircase on 5 years of shoreline retreat plus storm induced erosion for an extreme weather event. Additionally, all foundations of the structure will be piled into bedrock and provided ongoing maintenance is undertaken this will ensure that the structure will remain stable over a structural design life of 25 years (Australian Standard recommendations for marine structures) even if erosion occurs beyond the coastal engineering predictions.

 

The recommended staircase material is fibre reinforced plastic due the benefits associated with durability, design life and maintenance. This material is also more fire resistant than timber. 

 

Design and construction costs for the recommended staircase option is $250,000 based on concept level cost estimates produced by M P Rogers. Note that actual design and construction costs are subject to market conditions at the time of tendering and therefore may vary with concept level cost estimates. However, the relative costing between options are likely to remain accurate. Given that the need to remove the staircase is a direct result of the ongoing coastal erosion caused by the construction of the Two Rocks marina, it is recommended that State Government is approached, via a meeting between the Minister for Transport and the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, to discuss this matter further and request funding for the above works.

 

The replacement beach access will not accommodate disabled access; however the path and viewing platform will still provide access for wheelchairs to look out over the beach and ocean similar to the old staircase structure. The construction of a disabled access ramp to the beach at the preferred location will not be feasible in terms of cost and environmental damage (dune clearing) due to the substantial height difference between the dune and beach. Formal universal beach access is available at Quinns Beach in front of the Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club.

 

Following Council approval to proceed with the recommended option, all necessary State Government approvals and consultation will be undertaken including:

·    Submission of a Clearing Permit to the Department of Environment and Regulation;

·    Consultation with the Department of Planning to confirm that this project is exempt from Development Application requirements as it is considered Public Works.

 

Preparation of tender documentation for the construction of a new beach access staircase is currently underway with tenders only being called once funding confirmation from the State Government has been confirmed.

 

Following confirmation of funding from State Government the tender process can be concluded shortly thereafter. If the State Government has not made a funding commitment by May 2017, the funding source will be reviewed as part of the 2017/18 budget development process.

 

The City’s CHRMAP study is currently underway which identifies areas of the City’s coastline that are potentially vulnerable to future impacts of climate change and identifies the risks and suitable adaptation measures for the management of these risks. Coastal vulnerability has been considered in positioning of the new beach access staircase back from the current shoreline, as detailed above. Future adaption plans to manage the coastal erosion issues along this section of the coast will subsequently consider the proposed new beach access structure as recommended by M P Rogers.

 

Note that the replacement of the beach access staircase is in line with the recommendations of the 2015 Two Rocks Coastal Management Study. This study confirms that the construction of the Two Rocks Marina in 1973 interrupted the longshore sand transport in the area, resulting in the accretion of sediment to the south and erosion of the shoreline to the north. This study also recommends the relocation of the staircase structure at such time that it became vulnerable to coastal erosion and this is included in both of the recommended coastal management options (Managed Retreat and Groyne Construction).

Statutory Compliance

Following Council approval to proceed into the design and construction phase, the City will consult with the Department of Planning regarding approval requirements. However, based on recent similar City of Wanneroo projects, it is believed that replacement of a beach access staircase is considered Public Works and is therefore exempt from the requirements of a Development Application.

 

Construction of the beach access staircase and lookout structure will require some clearing of existing dune vegetation and therefore a Clearing Permit will be required under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-S06 Climate Change

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning & Sustainability

Manage

 

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

Risks to public safety as a result of damage to the staircase structure are currently addressed through fencing and signage. This will remain in effect until formal beach access is re-instated.

Policy Implications

The City’s Local Planning Policy 4.21 – Coastal Assets Policy has been considered by coastal engineering consultant M P Rogers in the Beach Access Options Assessment through assessment of coastal vulnerability and positioning the structure landward of the existing shoreline to accommodate for ongoing coastal erosion over the lifetime of the structure.

 

Financial Implications

Based on concept level cost estimates provided by M P Rogers in the Beach Access Options Assessment, costs for the detailed design and construction of the recommended beach access structure and viewing platform will be approximately $250,000. Note that actual design and construction costs are subject to market conditions at the time of tendering and therefore may vary with the concept level cost estimate.

 

It is recommended that State Government is approached for funding of the design and construction works for the new beach access structure since the need to remove the structure is a direct result of the coastal erosion issues caused by the construction of the Two Rocks marina.

 

The Department of Transport’s Coastal Adaptation and Protection Grant Programme will be suitable for this purpose given that replacement of the beach access structure is essentially a form of “managed retreat” which complies with the short term coastal management recommendation in the Two Rocks Coastal Management study (M P Rogers 2015). However, this Grant Funding programme requires a 50% contribution from the applicant and therefore an alternative funding source should be utilised by the State Government to provide funding in full. This is recommended to be discussed at a meeting between the Minister for Transport, the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer. Subject to the outcome of this meeting, the City may still need to consider applying for a 2017/18 Coastal Adaptation and Protection Grant for the design and construction of the staircase.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the recommendations of the Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment;

2.       REQUESTS the Mayor to seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Transport to discuss the funding of the design and construction of the recommended beach access option given that the coastal erosion issues and subsequent loss of the previous staircase is a direct result of the construction of the Two Rocks Marina;

3.       AUTHORISES Administration to seek all approvals and prepare tender documents as per Item 1.

4.       REQUESTS Administration to notify the Two Rocks Action Group of Council’s Resolutions.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment  - Concept Options

17/47868

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Two Rocks Beach Access Options Assessment - MCA Results

17/47869

 

3.

Attachment 3 - 15 Feb 2017 Community Information Session - Comments and Responses

17/52721

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       141


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    152


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    156


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        158

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

3.8    Outcomes of the 2016 Community Sporting & Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Round

File Ref:                                              24973 – 17/7730

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   CP01-09/16 - Community Sports and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) - 2016/17 Funding Round - Ordinary Council - 13 Sep 2016 7.00pm       

 

Issue

To consider the outcomes of the Department of Sport and Recreation’s (DSR) Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) 2016 funding round.

Background

Through the CSRFF grant, DSR allocates approximately $12million on an annual basis to provide financial assistance to community groups and Local Governments to develop basic infrastructure for sport and recreation.  The program aims to increase participation in sport and recreation with an emphasis on increasing physical activity, through the development of sustainable, good quality, well-designed and well-utilised facilities.

 

At its meeting held on 13 September 2016, Council considered report CP01-09/16 and resolved the following:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       FORWARDS the following Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund applications to the Department of Sport and Recreation for the 2017/18 funding round with the following assessment, project rating and prioritisation, noting a total grant amount sought of $4,885,715:

Project

Assessment

Project Rating

Priority

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

1

PR- 2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

2

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

3

Leatherback Park

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

4

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

5

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

6

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the municipality

7

 

2.      NOTES that a further report will be presented to Council in March 2017 advising the outcomes of all CSRFF applications for the 2017/18 funding round and related funding implications for the City’s 20 Year Strategic Financial Management Plan; and

3.      NOTES a further report will be presented to Council in respect to the Lendlease proposal to fund two thirds of the Leatherback Park Floodlighting project, subject to a successful CSRFF grant application for one-third of the project cost.”

Detail

Administration has received advice from DSR in regards to the outcomes of the 2016/17 CSRFF grant round, with the results being as follows:

 

Project

Project Cost

CSRFF Requested

CSRFF Approved

(2017/18)

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space

$18,666,700

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

PR-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$3,221,000

$1,073,000

$1,000,000

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$1,849,000

$616,333

$0

Leatherback Park

$209,145

$69,715

$70,000

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms

$2,022,000

$700,000

$0

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

$652,783

$217,594

$0

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

$329,000

$110,000

$0

Total

$26,949,628

$4,786,642

$3,070,000

 

A summary of each project in respect to project status, impact of the funding outcome and recommended action is as follows:

 

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space: Received the full CSRFF grant amount and therefore no budget adjustment is required. This project was last considered by Council at its meeting held on 10 November 2015 [report CD03-11/15). Project is currently in design phase with Environmental Survey complete and Clearing Permit underway. Construction is anticipated to commence November 2018 and complete September 2020. It is recommended that the project continue as per the current project schedule.

 

PR-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting: Received a partial CSRFF grant and budget adjustment of additional $73,000 municipal funds required for project to continue. This project was last considered by Council at its meeting held on 26 April 2016 (report CP06-04/16).This Project is currently in detail design phase with the construction tender proposed to be advertised in March 2017, construction to commence in May 2017 and complete in April 2018. It is recommended that the project continue as per the current project schedule, noting that the final project budget position will be reported to Council as a part of the tender report.

 

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting: Unsuccessful for CSRFF and budget adjustment of an additional $616,333 municipal funds are required for the project to continue. This project was last considered by Council at its meeting held on 24 May 2016 (report CP03-05/16). Project is currently in detail design phase with construction proposed to commence July 2017 and complete March 2018. It is recommended that the project continue subject to the satisfactory rectification of drainage issues previously identified at the site and review of capital budget capacity (noting the additional funding requirements) as a part of the 2017/18 budget development process. This may result in a revised project schedule.

 

Leatherback Park: Received the full CSRFF grant and therefore no budget adjustment required. Project is currently in concept design phase with construction expected to commence and be complete within the 2017/18 financial year. It should be noted that this project will be fully funded by CSRFF and Developer contributions, so no municipal funding is required.

 

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms: Unsuccessful for CSRFF, budget adjustment of additional $700,000 municipal funds required for project to continue. Project is currently in design phase with construction tender proposed to be advertised in March 2017, construction to commence June 2017 and complete in February 2018. It is recommended that the project continue subject to the review of capital budget capacity (noting the additional funding requirements) as a part of the 2017/18 budget development process. This may result in a revised project schedule.

 

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics: Unsuccessful for CSRFF, budget adjustment of additional $217,594 municipal funds required for project to continue. This project was last considered by Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2016 [report CP02-06/16). Project is currently in design phase with construction tender proposed to be advertised in March 2017, construction to commence July 2017 and complete in December 2017. It is recommended that the project continue subject to the review of capital budget capacity (noting the additional funding requirements) as a part of the 2017/18 budget development process. This may result in a revised project schedule.

 

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building: Unsuccessful for CSRFF, budget adjustment of additional $110,000 municipal funds required for project to continue. Concept plan and initial costings have been completed as part of the Active Reserve Masterplan. It is proposed to undertake detailed design and construction in 2017/18. It is recommended that the project continue subject to the review of capital budget capacity (noting the additional funding requirements) as a part of the 2017/18 budget development process. This may result in a revised project schedule.

Consultation

Consultation has been ongoing with the relevant stakeholders/sporting clubs to ensure they are kept updated with the progress of the projects.

Comment

The City has been successful in obtaining one quarter of the total funding available from the 2016/17 Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund. However the remaining projects that were unsuccessful are still recognised as needed by the community although it is acknowledged that a review of funding capacity through the capital works budget will be required.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The projects are currently listed within the Long Term Financial Plan as follows:

 

Description

Municipal (3)

Cont.

CSRFF Funds (2)

Total

Cost (1)

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space (4)

$16,466,700

$0

$2,000,000

$18,666,700

PR-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$2,148,000

$0

$1,073,000

$3,221,000

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$1,232,666

$0

$616,333

$1,849,000

Leatherback Park Floodlights

$0

$139,430

$69,715

$209,145

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Changerooms

$1,348,000

$0

$700,000

$2,022,000

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

$435,189

$0

$217,594

$652,783

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

$219,000

$0

$110,00

$329,000

 

Notes:

(1) Total project cost estimate.

(2) CSRFF grant amount sought based on eligible project costs.

(3) Municipal contribution being two thirds of the total cost.

(4) Municipal figure is inclusive of Municipal, Department of Education and proposed Developer funding contributions.

 

As not all of the projects were successful in securing funding there exists a funding shortfall for the 2017/18 financial year as follows:

 

Project

Grant Requested

Grant Award

2017/18

Shortfall

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$0

PR-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$1,073,000

$1,000,000

$73,000

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$616,333

$0

$616,333

Leatherback Park

$69,715

$70,000

$0

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms

$700,000

$0

$700,000

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

$217,594

$0

$217,594

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

$110,000

$0

$110,000

TOTAL

$1,716,927

 

As a result, this report will note that a further review of funding capacity through the capital works budget will be required.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the City of Wanneroo's Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) applications for the 2016/17 funding round resulting in the budget shortfall as follows:

Project

Grant Requested

Grant Award

2017/18

Shortfall

PR-2955 Butler North District Open Space

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$0

PR-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$1,073,000

$1,000,000

$73,000

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

$616,333

$0

$616,333

Leatherback Park

$69,715

$70,000

$0

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms

$700,000

$0

$700,000

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

$217,594

$0

$217,594

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

$110,000

$0

$110,000

TOTAL

$1,716,927

2.       NOTES that the following projects are still considered to be needed by the community, however will be subject to a review of funding capacity through the 2017/18 capital works budget process (based on the prioritisation identified below), which may result in revised delivery timeframes:

Project

Priority

2017/18

PR-1290 Jimbub Reserve Sports Amenities Building & Floodlighting

1

$616,333

PR-2621 Kingsway Olympic Change Rooms

2

$700,000

PR-3086 Kingsway Little Athletics

3

$217,594

PR-4017 Lake Joondalup Sports Amenities Building

4

$110,000

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        163

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

3.9    Revenue Review Committee

File Ref:                                              21800 – 17/43837

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the draft Terms of Reference for the Revenue Review Committee.

Background

The proposed Revenue Review Committee has come about as a result of Administration’s consideration of the existing City of Wanneroo Facility Hire and Use Policy.

 

As a consequence of Administration’s consideration of the current policy, the City’s Executive Leadership Meeting (ELM) considered that a revenue review, (the review of fees and charges) as being the primary consideration and one which would then inform the balance of the policy review and subsequent management considerations. This was noting that the need for a review of fees and charges has been discussed at past budget workshops.

 

In seeking to have a Revenue Review Committee, Administration is proposing to amend the Terms of Reference of the existing Rating Strategy Review Committee. This committee was considered by Council at its meeting held on 28 April 2015 (CS05-04/15), in which Council resolved the following:

That Council:-

1.       RESOLVES to establish a Rating Strategy Review Committee to consider rating strategies including differential rating categories in preparation for the 2016/17 Budget; and

2.       REQUESTS Administration to develop terms of reference for adoption.

Carried Unanimously”

 

Council subsequently adopted the Terms of Reference for the Rating Strategy Review Committee at its meeting held on 18 August 2015 (CS01-08/15).

 

At the last meeting of the Rating Strategy Review Committee, the following was minuted in respect to future meetings:

“Item 5 Date of Next Meeting

There will be no further meetings for the Rating Strategy Review Committee as rating will be incorporated into the budget workshops.”

 

Given this, Administration is proposing to amend the Terms of Reference rather than establish a new committee. 

Detail

The draft Terms of Reference have been included as Attachment 1 and has been drafted in accordance with the City’s Management Procedure for Committees and Working Groups.

 

The purpose of the Committee has been identified as follows:

 

“To provide a forum to advise and make recommendations to Council on matters pertaining to the City’s revenue including consideration of current and potential sources of funding.”

 

The aims and functions of the Committee are proposed as follows:

 

1.1     To research, review and advise Council on fees and charges setting strategies and management policy options;

1.2     To consider the implementation of such changes in fee strategies and management policy options, as required; and

1.3     To research potential revenue sources.

 

Membership of the Committee has been proposed as follows:

 

The Working Group shall consist of the following representation:

·        Mayor;

·        Two Councillors from each Ward;

·        Chief Executive Officer, Directors and Managers relevant to the fees and charges being reviewed as non-voting advisory representatives.

Consultation

The draft Terms of Reference have been considered by the City’s Executive Leadership Meeting and Council Forum on 6 February 2017.

Comment

One of the first areas in need of review is the fee setting strategy and facility management policy for the City’s Community Facilities, as per the City’s Facility Hire and Use Policy. The purpose of the Policy has been to provide a framework for the hire and use of community facilities and to ensure that the conditions related to the hire and use of the City’s facilities are applied in a consistent manner.

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 states –

“A local government may establish* committees of 3 or more persons to assist the council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees.

*Absolute majority required.”

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

CO-021 Competitive Service Costing 

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community & Place

manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O17  Financial Management

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

manage

 

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

Policy Implications

The Community Facilities Review undertaken by the Revenue Review Committee will result primarily in the development of a revised City of Wanneroo Facility Hire and Use Policy and potentially other policies as required.

Financial Implications

The financial implications will be considered and assessed during the process of the Community Facilities Review undertaken by the Revenue Review Committee.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the renaming of the Rating Strategy Review Committee to the Revenue Review Committee;  and

2.       APPROVES the updated Terms of Reference for the Revenue Review Committee, as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Revenue Review Committee - Terms of Reference

16/287967

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    166


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        169

3.10  Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 January 2017

File Ref:                                              25973 – 17/41433

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 31 January 2017.

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 the statement of financial activity will be presented 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 10% and a value greater than $10,000 will be used for the reporting of variances.

Consultation

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

Comment

The budget figures within this report incorporate approved budget amendments.

 

As per item 2 in Background, comments on material variances are provided below.

 

In reference to tables provided in the report, the following colours have been used to categorise three levels of variance:

 

·        Green >+10%,

·        Orange <+/-10%, and

·        Red >-10%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

OVERALL SUMMARY OF CURRENT MONTH FINANCIAL FIGURES

 

Result from Operations

 

 

Capital Program

 

 

OVERALL COMMENTS ON YEAR-TO-DATE (YTD) FIGURES

 

Result from Operations

 

 

Capital Program Progress

 

 

Investment Portfolio Performance

 

 

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (ATTACHMENT 1)

 

Comments relating to the Statement of Comprehensive Income are provided under the following two sections:

a) Current month comparison of actuals to budgets, and

b) Year to date and end of year comparison of actuals to budgets.

 

a)  Current Month Comparison of Actuals to Budgets

 

The below table highlights the operating performance for the current month and identifies variances of actual to budget for each category of Revenue & Expense. 

 

 

Total Comprehensive Income

 

The month of January produced a positive variance due mainly to Contributed Physical Assets budgeted for in December but were receipted in January.  Materials & Contracts have also contributed to the positive variance through lower Refuse Removal Expenses, Plant Vehicle Usage and Material Expenses.  The overall favourable position was somewhat offset by an adverse variance caused by Non-Operating Grants budgeted for January receipted in November from Main Roads and the Roads to Recovery grant.  Town Planning Scheme (TPS) Revenues also produced an unfavourable variance through various Cells having postponed or slowed development due to unfavourable market conditions.

 

Operating Revenues

 

The month of January displayed an unfavourable variance for operating revenues.  This is a result of the cessation of City of Joondalup bulk rubbish service income from Fees & Charges (-$363K).  Rates have also produced an adverse variance of $194K (-26%) due to interim rates budgeted for January being receipted in December.  However these were slightly offset by the favourable variance of Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions (+$198K).

 

 

Operating Expenses

 

The favourable variance for January is mainly a result of lower Material & Contracts expenses, which was caused by lower Refuse Removal Expenses (+$657K), Material Expenses (+$133K) and Contract Expenses (+$129K).

 

 

Other Revenue & Expenses

 

The favourable variance for January was almost entirely attributed to Contributed Physical Assets (+$8.5m) as Assets budgeted for in the December quarter was recorded in January. Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions produced an unfavourable variance of         -$1.3m.  In the month of January $120K of Developers’ Contributions was received for the Alkimos and Eglington Facilities, and $127K was transferred for Fire Services vehicle replacement, however no other progress payments relating to capital works were received. TPS revenues presented an unfavourable variance of -$1.7m.  This is a result of Cell 4 (East Road) now being completed in stages, driven by the downturn in the property market.  Contributions for Cell 6 have been received earlier than expected in prior months which also increased the unfavourable variance for January.  Adjustments will be made accordingly in the mid-year review to reflect these changes. It is noted that works undertaken are not under the City’s direct control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) Year to Date and End of Year Comparison of Actuals to Budgets

 

 

Details for the variances are outlined below.

 

Operating Revenues

 

Fees and Charges (Actual $9.9m, Revised Budget $12.6m)

 

·    The unfavourable variance to January mainly relates to lower bulk rubbish collection fees (-$2.2m) as a result of the cessation of the uplift of bulk waste with the City of Joondalup.  This will be amended in the Mid-Year Review.

 

Other Revenue (Actual $497K, Revised Budget $396K)

 

·    The favourable variance to January was a result of higher than expected street signage income (+$38K) as well as modification income for miscellaneous roads and footpath works (+$33K).  However, this was slightly offset by lower fire mitigation income (-$19K) due to seasonal conditions.

 

Operating Expenses

 

Materials and Contracts (Actual $27.1m, Revised Budget $34.1m)

 

·    The main contributor for the positive variance pertains to Contract Expenses which produced a YTD variance of (+$3.4m). This is a result of a number of factors including arterial road verge enhancements which is to re-commence in February of 2017, ongoing renovations to active sports fields due to the slow start of the growth season, and some cyclical works which are yet to commence for building maintenance and engineering maintenance.

 

·    Refuse removal expenses also produced a positive variance (+$1.3m) to January which was a result of lower bulk rubbish collection expenditure through the cessation of Joondalup services.

 

·    Consulting fee expenses has a favourable variance of +$876K due to various organisational reviews and planning consultancy which have yet to take place.

 

Interest Expenses (Actual $2.4m, Revised Budget $2.7m)

 

·    The positive variance to January is a result of only a portion of the loan being obtained for the Yanchep DCP whilst the interest expense budgeted was for the entire loan. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Revenue & Expenses

         

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (Actual $9.3m, Revised Budget $11.0m)

 

·    The unfavourable variance to January is attributed to the timing of progress payments for projects which are yet to be realised.  These grants are mainly related to Main Roads funding.

·    There were also substantial receipts received for the Roads to Recovery grant program ($2.6m) in relation to various road works identified as applicable for the Commonwealth grant.

 

Town Planning Scheme (TPS) Revenues (Actual $9.6m, Revised Budget $13.7m)

·    The YTD adverse variance is attributed to Lot Sale contributions across various TPS Cells.  The Cells with YTD unfavourable variances are Cell 9 (-$4.0m), Cell 4             (-$2.1m), Cell 1 (-$889K), Cell 7 (-$534K) and Cell 6 (-$108K) which are a result of lower lot creations due to current property market conditions.

 

·    It is also noted that the cell 4 (East Road) developers advised they will now be completing the project in stages and is driven by the downturn in the property market.

 

·    Cell 7 has also been postponed under advice from the developer for which no more revenue will likely be realised in this financial year. 

 

·    These unfavourable variances were partially offset by Cell 2 (+$614K), Cell 8 (+$368K) and Cell 5 (+$86K).

 

Town Planning Scheme Expenses (Actual $4.8K, Revised Budget $7.2m)

·    The positive YTD variance is due to payment for historical public open spaces for cell 1 which were budgeted for but not paid due to the lack of subdivisions within the cell.

 

·    The positive YTD variance is due to a payment amount for Cell 8 which has yet to be agreed.  This has not been paid and discussions relating to settlement amounts are ongoing.

 

·    The positive variance was partially offset by Cell 9 (-$1.1m) due to the finalisation of the interim arrangement with developers.

 

Profit / Loss on Asset Disposals (Actual $1.1m, Revised Budget $1.6m)

·    The unfavourable variance is a result of lower sale of asset activities than anticipated.  As the timing of asset disposals cannot be reliably estimated, results to budgets can be subject to variations.

 

Contributed Assets (Actual $28.6m, Revised Budget $25.0)

·    The year to January recognised a parcel of developer contributed assets totalling $28.6m. 

 

·    Historically this category of income is recognised at year end. However through requests to developers relevant interim data has been received and recorded. The budgets have now also been reflected quarterly.

 

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION (Attachment 2)

Net Current Assets

When compared to the opening position as at 01 July 2016 Net Current Assets have increased by $74.9m which largely reflects the timing of Rates receipts for 2016/17.

Non-Current Assets

Year to date Non-Current Assets have increased by $36.7m from 2015/16 which is attributed mainly to the recognition of contributed physical assets from developers in January as well as capital works in progress.

Current Receivables are largely related to collectable Rates income ($37.2m). Remaining current receivables relates to claimable GST tax offsets ($2.0m) and sundry debtor accounts. Non-Current receivables largely relate to Deferred Pensioner Rebates; being funds that cannot be collected until the Pensioner ceases to reside at the rateable property.

The year to date Work in Progress balance is largely contributed to Pathways, Purchase & Upgrade of Residential Land, Waste Domestic Plant and various Capital Infrastructure Projects.

Non-Current Liabilities

Year to date Non-Current Liabilities have increased by $3.2m which is mostly attributed to the new loan facility for the Yanchep DCP.  The existing loan with the Western Australia Treasury Corporation remains unchanged and when combined with the new loan make up 98% of total Non-Current Liabilities.

 

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

 

The table below presents data on relevant financial ratios, comparing the minimum standard expected per the Department of Local Government & Communities, status at beginning of financial year and year to date figures.

 

An explanation of the purpose of each ratio is also provided, together with commentary where a ratio does not meet the minimum standard (highlighted in Red).  A green highlight is used where the minimum standard is met or exceeded.

 

 

 

CAPITAL PROGRAM

 

The current status of the Capital Program is summarised below by Sub-Program category.

 

The year to date expenditure relating to Carry Forward Projects has increased by $0.6m from December to $12.1m as at 31st of January. A review of the actual spend indicates that key projects involved with this underspend include the Vehicle Replacement program for Domestic Waste Management, Enterprise Software Renewal Program and the Construction of Flynn Drive, Neerabup.

 

Construction of the Sports Floodlighting at Lake Joondalup Park has commenced with Shelvock Park Floodlighting and the Yanchep District Sports Amenities Building due to start in February.

 

To further expand on the Capital Works Program information above, key capital projects are selected to be specifically reported on, which are itemised in the Top Capital Projects attachment to this report (Attachment 3).

 

The mid-year review will address and refine any anticipated under/over spend on capital projects. 

 

 

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO (Attachment 4)

 

In accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (and per the City’s Investment Policy), the City only invests in the following highly secured investments in Australian currency:

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.

 

 

As at the current month end, the City holds an investment portfolio (cash & cash equivalents) of $365.3m (Face Value), equating to $369.1m inclusive of accrued interest.  YTD the City’s investment portfolio return has exceeded the Bank Bill index benchmark by 0.38% pa (2.72% pa vs. 2.34% pa), however it is noted that Interest Earnings were budgeted at a 3.00% yield.

 

RATE SETTING STATEMENT (Attachment 5)

 

The Rate Setting Statement represents a composite view of the finances of the City, identifying the movement in the Surplus/(Deficit) based on the Revenues (excluding Rates), Expenses, Capital Works and Funding Movements, resulting in the Rating Income required.  It is noted that the closing Surplus/(Deficit) will balance to the reconciliation of Net Current Assets Surplus/(Deficit) Carried Forward (detailed below).

 

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

·    Accounting Policy

·    Strategic Budget Policy

·    Investment Policy

Financial Implications

As outlined above and detailed in Attachments 1 - 5.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statements and commentaries on variances to YTD Budget for the period ended 31 January 2017, consisting of:

 

1.       2016/17 Annual Adopted and Revised Budget;

 

2.       January 2017 YTD Revised Budgets;

 

3.       January 2017 YTD Actuals;

 

4.       January 2017 Statement of Financial Position and Net Current Assets; and

 

5.       January 2017 YTD Material Financial Variance Notes.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

January Income Statement

17/46085

Minuted

2.

January Statement of Financial Position

17/46095

Minuted

3.

Top Projects 2016-17 - January 2017 - 20170214

16/151914[v11]

Minuted

4.

January Investments

17/41546

Minuted

5.

January Rate Setting Statement

17/46099

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       184


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    185


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       186


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       188


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       191

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        192

 

Strategic & Business Planning

3.11  Mid-Year 2016/17 Corporate Business Plan Performance Report

File Ref:                                              27336 – 17/56692

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the Mid-Year 2016/17 Corporate Business Plan (CBP) Performance Report.

Background

The Corporate Business Plan (CBP) 2016/17-2019/20 identifies the 51 priorities for the City over the next 4 years which align to, and operationalise the thirteen Strategic Objectives of the Strategic Community Plan 2013/14-2022/23 (SCP). In accordance with the published reporting arrangements, this report provides details of the status of the CBP priorities, and the progress made against these for the second quarter of 2016/17.

Detail

There are 51 Priorities listed in the CBP 2016/17-2019/20. Of these, 50 are due to commence in the 2016/17 financial year (1 remaining priority is scheduled to commence in 2018/19).  As at 31 December 2016:

 

·    34 of the Priorities are On Target;

·    15 of the Priorities are Under Target;

·    1 Priority has been Completed;

·    1 Priority has Not Yet Started.

 

Full details of the progress against the CBP Priorities can be found in the attached report (Attachment 1).

 

Performance of Top 17 Capital Projects and the Capital Works Program

Top 17 Capital Projects

From the Capital Works Program for 2016/17, 17 top capital projects have been selected for reporting on based upon their community significance and/or financial value. These projects are also listed in the Corporate Business Plan 2016/17-2019/20.

The status of the City’s top 17 capital projects as at mid-year is summarised in the table below in terms of progress and budget, together with the associated risk rating.  More detail relating to the individual projects can be found in ATTACHMENT 1.

Top 17 Capital Projects

Schedule Status

Budget Status

Risks and Issues

On Target – Baseline (<10% time increase)

On Target (variance 0-10%)

Low

17

12

14

Behind Schedule (10-20% time increase)

Almost on Budget (variance of 11-20%)

Medium

0

0

3

Behind Schedule (>20% time increase)

Under/over Budget (variance of 21% or more)

High

0

5

0

 

Capital Projects by Sub Program

 

There are 24 Capital Works Sub-Programs listed in the Corporate Business Plan, incorporating 229 capital projects.

 

The table below details the budget spend of the capital works program. As at 31 December 2016, 29% of the overall budget was spent; it is noteworthy that the Golf Courses and Roads sub programs have spent over 50% of their respective budgets.

Sub-Program

No. of Projects

2016/17 Adjusted Budget

($)

Actual Expenditure as at December 2016

($)

% Spent as at 31 December 2016

*Commitment 16/17

($)

Bus Shelters

1

60,000

0

0.0%

51,260

Community Buildings

23

12,370,992

3,644,297

29.5%

2,928,669

Community Safety

5

448,621

1,900

0.4%

0

Conservation Reserves

4

161,000

14,375

8.9%

28,283

Corporate Buildings

5

13,658,026

4,458,446

32.6%

8,803,181

Environmental Offset

4

545,000

141,474

26.0%

229,294

Fleet Management

7

4,300,783

1,014,243

23.6%

58,550

Foreshore Management

10

1,509,466

293,828

19.5%

546,143

Golf Courses

5

1,761,744

1,255,912

71.3%

63,000

Investment Projects

10

3,517,307

325,131

9.2%

154,484

IT Equipment and Software

6

2,881,920

726,801

25.2%

358,553

Land Acquisition

1

10,000

166

1.7%

0

Other Corporate Items

6

105,875

45,794

43.3%

0

Parks Furniture

11

2,198,323

735,512

33.5%

7,108

Parks Rehabilitation

1

1,951,000

228,809

11.7%

0

Passive Park Development

7

2,224,601

635,895

28.6%

9,338

Pathways and Road Reserves

8

817,875

71,207

8.7%

4,028

Roads

25

19,523,514

10,056,171

51.5%

2,892,242

Sports Facilities

43

19,347,852

3,240,072

16.7%

4,356,602

Stormwater Drainage

6

163,000

77,556

47.6%

0

Street Landscaping

7

738,605

104,125

14.1%

121,619

Street Lighting

9

287,510

35,493

12.3%

49,626

Traffic Treatments

22

2,241,896

501,396

22.4%

222,882

Waste Management

3

3,522,651

110,590

3.1%

64,740

Grand Total

229

94,347,561

27,719,193

29.4%

20,949,602

*The commitment value for 2016/17 is based on project status reports submitted as at 31 December 2016.

Consultation

The Executive Leadership Team, Operational Managers and Managers were consulted with and have provided input to this report.

Comment

This report provides Council with a snapshot of the mid-year performance status of Corporate Business Plan priorities; it also serves as a baseline for the annual review and development of the next Corporate Business Plan for the period 2017/18 – 2020/21.

Statutory Compliance

The City’s Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan are governed by Section 5.56(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act (1995) which requires that each local government is 'to plan for the future of the district' by developing plans in accordance with the regulations. This is supported by the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

 

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework and Guidelines recommend quarterly reporting on progress against the Corporate Business Plan.

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

Strategic Community Plan

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Integrated Planning and Reporting

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

There are no additional financial implications associated with these recommendations.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council RECEIVES the Mid-Year 2016/17 Corporate Business Plan Performance Report as at Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Corporate Business Plan Performance Report: Mid Year 2016 17_A&RC

17/43514

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    195

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        206

 

Transactional Finance

3.12  Differential Rating - 11L Syros Court, Mindarie

File Ref:                                              3113V12 – 17/43011

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider an application from Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd the owners of 11L Syros Court, Mindarie for the City of Wanneroo (the City) to adopt an additional differential rating category for the area of the sea-bed that is leased from the State of Western Australia.

Background

The property at 11L Syros Court, Mindarie is leased from the State of Western Australia by Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd for the purpose of operating the Mindarie Marina.  The City rates 11L Syros Court, Mindarie on the differential rating category of Gross Rental Valuation (GRV) - Commercial/Industrial Improved. 

 

On 7 December 2014 the City received an objection to the rates for 11L Syros Court, Mindarie based on the claim that the property was being used for a public purpose and therefore should be rate exempt.

 

The City responded to this request, rejecting the claim, as the property was being used for a commercial purpose being that of the Mindarie Marina.

 

Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd then lodged an objection with the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) in January 2015.  The grounds for objection raised were based upon Section 6.76(1)(a)(ii) the land being non rateable.  This matter was dealt with by SAT in August 2015 ruling that the property at 11L Syros Court, Mindarie is rateable.

 

Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd lodged another objection with SAT in 2015 after the City declined another request for a rate exemption when the 2015/16 rates were issued.  This matter is still being heard at SAT.

 

In September 2016 the City received a further objection to the rate record from Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd for the property at 11L Syros Court, Mindarie.  The request was declined as the matter was still being heard at SAT for the same objection submitted in 2015.

Detail

Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd has requested that the City adopt a differential rating category for the area of sea-bed that they lease from the State of Western Australia. Sanctus Nominees have requested that the differential rating category to be applied to the land be 50% of the rate in the dollar for residential improved.

 

Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd asserts that the land is not rateable land because the land is being used for a public purpose.  Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd has stated in their submission that they will undertake to:

 

(a)     Withdraw the applications that it currently has before SAT in respect of the land; and

(b)     Not to make any future objections to the City’s ability to issue rates assessments for the land.

The City currently does not rate the sea-bed in the Mindarie Marina.  The City rates the boat pens, which is the commercial operation being conducted on the lease by Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd.  The GRV as supplied by the Valuer General’s Office under the Land Valuation Act 1978 is based on the 250 pens, not the area of the land.  There are 258 pens at the Mindarie Marina encompassed by the lease Sanctus Nominees has with the State of Western Australia.

Consultation

No consultation required.

Comment

The use of the 11L Syros Court, Mindarie is that of a commercial nature and therefore the differential rating category of Commercial and Industrial Improved is appropriate for this property.

 

A Rating Strategy Review Committee was established in 2015 to research, review and advise Council on the rating strategy options and the impact on the City.

 

The key outcomes from the Rating Strategy Review Committee were endorsed by Council on 5 April 2016.  These are:

·        Combining of the Commercial and Industrial property categories.

·        Increase of Vacant Land rates to be in the top quartile over the next three years.

·        Continuance of the Domestic Waste Service being incorporated into Rates.

 

The City adopted following differential rating categories at the Council Meeting held 5 April 2016.  The rates in the dollar for the 2016/17 rating year were adopted as part of the 2016/17 budget.

 

Rate Category

Minimum Rate

Rate in $

Gross Rental Value

Rate in $

Unimproved Value

Residential Improved

With a lesser minimum for Strata Titled Caravan Parks

$1,305

$410

7.7581

0.3568

Residential Vacant

$745

11.8820

0.5283

Commercial & Industrial Improved

With a lesser minimum for Strata Titled Storage Units

$1,280

 

$640

6.3874

0.2697

Commercial & Industrial Vacant

$1,280

5.9420

0.2957

Rural & Mining Improved

$1,292

-

0.3500

Rural & Mining Vacant

$868

-

0.3809

 

The Department of Local Government and Communities have developed a Differential Rating Policy.  In making the decision to differential rate, local governments are required to align to the following principles: 

•        Objectivity;

•        Fairness and equity;

•        Consistency;

•        Transparency; and

•        Administrative efficiency.

 

In developing the Rating Strategy, the City has endeavoured to achieve equity and fairness by ensuring that the Minimum Rates and calculation of the General Rate (Rate-in-the-Dollar) only recovers an amount (referred to as the Budget Deficiency), which is considered essential to the running of Council activities and ensuring the Council’s long term financial sustainability.

 

The objects and reasons for each differential rating category are:

 

GRV & UV Residential Improved

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate have been set on the basis that ratepayers make a reasonable contribution to the cost of local government services and facilities available to residents.  Residential Improved properties receive a greater level of services than those in the Commercial/Industrial and Rural & Mining categories. eg. Rubbish removal service.

 

The lesser minimum for strata titled caravan parks is set recognising the unique purpose of these properties while still ensuring a reasonable contribution to the cost of local government services and facilities available to residents.

 

GRV & UV Residential Vacant

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate have been set in an effort to promote development of these properties thereby stimulating growth and development in the community.

 

GRV & UV Commercial/Industrial Improved

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate for all Commercial/Industrial Improved property has been set to provide an acceptable standard of infrastructure and parking needs due to the greater volumes of people and vehicular traffic.

 

The lesser minimum for strata titled storage units is set recognising the unique purpose of these properties.

 

GRV & UV Commercial/Industrial Vacant

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate for all Commercial/Industrial Vacant land has been set in an effort to promote the development of these properties by attracting business and industry to the City thereby stimulating growth and development in the community.

 

UV Rural & Mining Improved

The rate in the dollar and the minimum rate have been set with an intention to foster and encourage farming and horticultural activities in the City of Wanneroo thereby stimulating growth and development in the community. 

 

UV Rural & Mining Vacant

The rate in the dollar and the minimum rate have been set with an intention to encourage the development of vacant land thereby stimulating growth and development in the community. 

Statutory Compliance

Legislative Framework

Part 6, Division 6 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and Part 5 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 provides the head of power for the levying of local government rates.  The legislation is prescriptive in its application, with the following aspects of note:

·        Except as provided for in Section 6.26, all land within a district is rateable land (S6.26);

·        In order to make up the 'budget deficiency' a local government is to impose a general rate which may be imposed either uniformly or differentially.  A local government may also impose a specified area rate, a minimum rate and a service charge (S6.32);

·        A local government may impose a Differential General Rate (DGR) according to land zoning, land use, whether the land is vacant or not, or a combination of each characteristic (S6.33);

·        No DGR in each category (UV or GRV) is to be more than twice the lowest DGR, unless approved by the Minister (S6.33);

·        The amount shown in the Annual Budget as being the amount estimated to be yielded by the general rate is not to vary by +/- 10% of the budget deficiency, i.e. should essentially be a balanced budget (S6.34);

·        The local government can impose differential minimum rates, however it is not to be applied to more than 50% of the properties with a  district or within each category (S6.35);

·        A minimum rate is to be applied separately for each of the following categories (S6.35):

a)      to land rated on Gross Rental Value (GRV);

b)      to land rated on Unimproved Value (UV); and

c)      to each differential rating category where a differential rate is imposed.

·        If a separate DGR is imposed on the basis of vacant land status, a separate minimum rate can be imposed with the approval of the Minister not in accordance with the 50% requirement (S6.35);

·        A lesser minimum charge can be applied to not more than 50% of the properties on minimum rates (within the district or within each category).

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

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The proposal by Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd would result in a reduction of rates of $41,505.00 based on the current GRV.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council DECLINES the request from Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd for an additional differential rating category.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Submission of Sanctus Nominees Pty Ltd - 11.1.2017

17/43010

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    211


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        221

3.13  Sale of Land for Non Payment of Rates - 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola

File Ref:                                              2935 – 17/43397

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To seek authorisation to take further action against the owner of the property at 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola due to unpaid rates in excess of three years.

Background

The property at 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola, has outstanding rates and service charges of $11,793.72. Rates have been unpaid since 2010.  The property is in the name of Odene Pty Ltd.  The owner of Odene Pty Ltd died on 20 June 2010 intestate and was the sole Director of Odene Pty Ltd. 

 

The property has deteriorated into a state of disrepair.  In November 2015, the WA Police contacted the City regarding the property.  As a result of the enquiries made by the City at this time, it was discovered that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had control of the property.

Detail

All attempts by Administration to recover the outstanding rates and service charges through the debt recovery process have failed.

 

The City has received notification from ASIC (refer Attachment 1) that the company was deregistered on 11 December 2011 and all property that the company owned beneficially at deregistration was vested in ASIC.  ASIC have advised that they have no objection to the sale of the land.

 

The City has declared the property unfit for human habitation and erected temporary fencing around the property to make is safe.

 

The lot details are as follows:

·        Lot Type:                       Freehold

·        Area:                             701 m2

·        Certificate of Title:        Vol 1656 Folio 118

·        Zoning:                           Residential – R20/R40

·        Status:                           House Unfit for Human Habitation

 

Any additional costs incurred by the City in seeking to recover the debt can be recovered from the proceeds of sale.

 

There is no mortgage on this property.

Consultation

Schedule 6.3 – Provisions relating to the sale or transfer of land where rates or services charges remain unpaid of the Local Government Act 1995 governs the process involved in selling the land for non-payment of rates and service charges.

Comment

The sale of any property to recover unpaid rates and service charges is not a course of action Administration normally wishes to pursue, as other legal proceedings have generally proven to be successful.  However, as the City is unable to locate any further details for Odene Pty Ltd there appears to be no other option but to proceed with the sale.

 

Administration has used this course of action and proceeded to take possession of four properties on separate occasions in the past fifteen years.  On each occasion the land was not occupied, and in three instances the owners came forward and took their own action to sell the property and pay their outstanding rates and charges.  On the other occasion the City did proceed with the sale of the property. 

Statutory Compliance

Under Section 6.64(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), if any rates or service charges due to a local government have been unpaid for at least 3 years, the local government may take possession of the land and proceed to sell it.  Section 6.68(1) of the Act prevents the local government from exercising the power of sale unless the local government has at least once attempted to recover money due to it under Section 6.56 of the Act, through instituting proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.

 

Section 6.68 (2) goes on to state that:

 

          “6.68 Exercise of power to sell land

 

(2)  A local government is not required to attempt under section 6.56 to recover money due to it before exercising the power of sale where the local government  -

(a)  has a reasonable belief that the cost of the proceedings under that section will equal or exceed the value of the land: or

(b)  having made reasonable efforts to locate the owner of the property is unable to do so.”

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

Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Accept

 


 

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Safety of the Community

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community & Development

Manage

 

There is a risk to the City’s reputation if we do not sell 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola as the City is aware of the state of disrepair of the property.  If someone is injured due to them being on the property then this could reflect negatively on the City.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

There are no negative financial implications for the City.  Outstanding rates and service charges will be able to be recovered from the proceeds of sale together with any additional costs associated with further legal action plus the costs of the sale of the property or incidental to the sale of the property.

 

The balance of funds from the Sale of the Property will be forwarded to ASIC.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       AGREES in accordance with Section 6.68 (3A) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), not to pursue further legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover unpaid rates in accordance with Section 6.56 of the Act for the property at 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola as a company search on the Australian Securities & Investments Commission has revealed that Odene Pty Ltd is no longer a registered company and the City is unable to locate the Directors of the Company;

2.       AGREES to serve notice in accordance with Schedule 6.3 of the Act requiring payment of outstanding rates on the property in 1. above and advising of the City’s intention to sell the property pursuant to Section 6.68(1) of the Act in the event of non-payment;

3.       AGREES to sell the property by public auction, not less than three months and not more than 12 months from the date of the notice issued under 2. above, if the outstanding rates remain unpaid;

4.       AGREES to transfer the land to the City of Wanneroo if at the expiration of 12 months from when the land was offered for sale a contract for the sale of the land has not been entered into; and

5.       NOTES that the City will distribute the proceeds of the sale of the land in accordance with Schedule 6.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 if the land is sold.

Attachments: 1.

ASIC - 18 Whitehouse Drive, Koondoola

17/43511

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    224


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        228

 

Council & Corporate Support

3.14  Donations to be Considered by Council - March 2017

File Ref:                                              2855V02 – 17/52145

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider requests for sponsorships, donations and waiver of fees in accordance with the City’s Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy (Policy).

Background

The Policy requires applications over $500 from individuals and organisations to be determined by Council. Consequently a report is prepared for Council meetings, coinciding with a period where applications of this nature have been received.

 

With respect to requests for sponsorships, the Policy specifies that for National Events the amount provided will be $200.00 per individual, capped at $600.00 per team, and for International Events the amount provided is $500.00 per individual capped at $1,500.00 per team.  Schools are capped at $2,000.00 per school per financial year.

Detail

During this period, the City has received three sponsorship requests, one community donation request and nil requests for a waiver of fees and charges, which are summarised as follows. Copies of the full applications are available from Council and Corporate Support upon request.

Comment

Sponsorship Donations

Applicant 1 – Ashdale Secondary College

Name of Individual/s

 

20 students (as shown at Attachment 1)

Reside in City of Wanneroo

18years of age or under

Yes

Yes

Event Details

Gold Coast Netball Carnival 2017, Southport Qld,
8 – 16 July 2017

Commitment to providing a written report regarding the event

Yes

Commitment to acknowledgement of the City of Wanneroo

Yes

Eligibility Level

National

Comments

In accordance with Policy Clause 5.4, selection of individuals by schools are subject to the following criteria:- “Funding will be to a maximum of $2,000.00 per school, per financial year to support students attending events.”

Recommendation

APPROVE a request for sponsorship in the sum of $2,000.00 to Ashdale Secondary College for the participation of 20 students (as shown in Attachment 1) to participate in the Gold Coast Netball Carnival 2017 to be held in Southport Qld from 8 – 16 July 2017.

Reason

This request is in accordance with Council’s Policy.

 

Applicant 2 – School Sport Western Australia Inc

Name of Individual/s

 

Mitchell Lees, Chloe Deeg and Indie Arbuckle

Reside in City of Wanneroo

18years of age or under

Yes

Yes

Event Details

School Sport Australia Triathlon Championship, Penrith NSW, 17 – 21 April 2017

Commitment to providing a written report regarding the event

Yes

Commitment to acknowledgement of the City of Wanneroo

Yes

Eligibility Level

National

Comments

As per the policy $200.00 per individual (capped at $600 per team to a maximum of four teams per event).

Recommendation

APPROVE a request for sponsorship in the sum of $600.00 to School Sport Western Australia Inc for the participation of Mitchell Lees, Chloe Deeg and Indie Arbuckle to participate in the School Sport Australia Triathlon Championship to be held in Penrith NSW from 17 – 21 April 2017.

Reason

This request is in accordance with Council’s Policy.

 

Applicant 3 – Perth Glory Football Club

Name of Individual/s

 

Manolo Veneracion, Matthew George, Daniel Iuliano and Lutfil Hadi

Reside in City of Wanneroo

18years of age or under

Yes

Yes

Event Details

National Skills Acquisition Program Tournament, Devonport Tas, 2 – 5 March 2017

Commitment to providing a written report regarding the event

Yes

Commitment to acknowledgement of the City of Wanneroo

Yes

Eligibility Level

National

Comments

As per the policy $200.00 per individual (capped at $600 per team to a maximum of four teams per event).

Recommendation

APPROVE a request for sponsorship in the sum of $600.00 to Perth Glory Football Club for the participation of Manolo Veneracion, Matthew George, Daniel Iuliano and Lutfil Hadi to participate in the National Skills Acquisition Program Tournament to be held in Devonport Tas from 2 – 5 March 2017.

Reason

This request is in accordance with Council’s Policy.

Community Group Donations

Applicant 4 – Wanneroo RSL Sub-Branch Inc

Request amount

$7,000.00

Description of request

Anzac Day Dawn Service, Wanneroo War Memorial, 25 April 2017

Criteria

Evaluation

Potential for income generation

Nil

Status of applicant organisation

Not for profit

Exclusivity of the event or project

Open to all members of the public


Alignment with Council’s existing philosophies, values and strategic direction

2.2 Healthy and active people We get active in our

local area and we have many opportunities to

experience a healthy lifestyle

Alternative funding sources available or accessed by the organisation

Nil

Contribution to the event or activity made by the applicant or organisation

$1,000.00

Previous funding assistance provided to the organisation by the City

Wanneroo/Joondalup RSL Sub-Branch received Hallmark Community Funding from 2002 to 2016 for an ANZAC Day event totalling $33,850.00.

Commitment to acknowledge the City of Wanneroo

Yes

Comments

Quotes have been provided for the cost of audio equipment ($4,160) and hire of stall and chairs ($1,250.15) on the day.  The group have indicated the remaining figure of approximately $1,590 may be used for advertising, portable toilets and food for the Gunfire Breakfast. 

Whilst the event does comply with the criteria of the Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy, it is considered that this event would be more appropriately supported in the future through the Community Funding Program as a Hallmark Event. The event organisers were encouraged to apply for the Hallmark Community Funding Round, however were not able to submit the application within the required timeframe. The City will continue to encourage the Wanneroo RSL to apply for Community Funding.

Recommendation

APPROVE a donation in the sum of $7,000.00 to Wanneroo RSL Sub Branch Inc to support the ANZAC Day dawn service to be held at the Wanneroo War Memorial on 25 April 2017.

Reason

This request is in accordance with Council’s Policy.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

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

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

The Policy states that sponsorship applications for attendance at National Events will be capped at $600.00 per team (up to four teams) and Regional or State capped at $600 per club.  International events will be capped at $1,500.00 per team and schools capped at $2,000.00 per school per financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

Budget 2016/2017

 

$90 000.00

Amount expended to date (as at 16 February 2017)

 

$77,984.04

Balance

 

$12,015.96

Total of requests for this round:

Donations (in this report):

 

Total this Round (recommended)

 

$10,200.00

 

 

$10,200.00

BALANCE

 

$1,815.96

 

The 2016/17 budget allocation for Donations and Sponsorships is almost exhausted. Based on the 2015/16 financial year, for the period from March to June 2016, a total of $19,842.30 was approved by Council and $9,300 approved under Delegated Authority for Donations and Sponsorships. To enable this support to be provided to the community, an increase of $20,000 was approved at the April 2016 Council meeting.  This trend is likely to continue this financial year and, with four months remaining, it is therefore requested that the budget again be increased by $20,000.00. To facilitate this, the Administration recommends that unspent funds from the “Elected Members Reimbursement Expenses” account be transferred to “Contribution Donations Sponsorship Expenses”.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES a request for sponsorship in the sum of $2,000.00 to Ashdale Secondary College for the participation of 20 students (as shown at Attachment 1) to participate in the Gold Coast Netball Carnival 2017 to be held in Southport Qld from 8 – 16 July 2017;

 

2.       APPROVES a request for sponsorship in the sum of $600.00 to School Sport Western Australia Inc for the participation of Mitchell Lees, Chloe Deeg and Indie Arbuckle to participate in the School Sport Australia Triathlon Championship to be held in Penrith NSW from 17 – 21 April 2017;

 

3.       APPROVES a request for sponsorship in the sum of $600.00 to Perth Glory Football Club for the participation of Manolo Veneracion, Matthew George, Daniel Iuliano and Lutfil Hadi to participate in the National Skills Acquisition Program Tournament to be held in Devonport Tas from 2 – 5 March 2017;

 

4.       APPROVES a donation in the sum of $7,000.00 to Wanneroo RSL Sub Branch Inc to support an ANZAC Day dawn service to be held at Wanneroo War Memorial on 25 April 2017; and

 

 

 

 

 

5.       APPROVES an increase of $20,000.00 to the ‘Contribution Donations Sponsorship Expenses’ account and NOTES the following budget variation:-

 

Cost Code

From

To

Description

717147.9399.330

$20,000.00

 

Support Elected Members: General Expenditure -Reimbursement Expenses

728937.9399.316

 

$20,000.00

Contributions Donations Sponsorship Expenses

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Ashdale Secondary College List of Attendees Gold Coast Netballl Carnival 2017

17/52141

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    234

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        235

 

Chief Executive Office

Governance & Legal

3.15  Annual Review of the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan

File Ref:                                              21712 – 17/54430

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the draft updated Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan (2016/17 – 2018/19) prepared by the City of Wanneroo’s (City) Internal Audit Service Provider - William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd (William Buck), after presentation to Council Forum on 14 February 2017 and the Audit and Risk Committee on 21 February 2017.

 

Background

The City's Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan (2015/16 – 2017/18) was adopted by Council on 1 March 2016. 

 

The Strategic Internal Audit Plan is required to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis or when considered necessary by the Audit and Risk Committee to ensure that Internal Audit Reviews are aligned with any critical strategic, corporate and operational risks identified within the City.

 

The draft updated Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan (2016/17 – 2018/19) was presented to Audit and Risk Committee on 22 November 2016 where it was recommended for further discussion and review to be conducted at a Council Forum on 14 February 2017. 

 

The draft Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on 21 February 2017 with the Audit and Risk Committee recommending that Council adopt the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan.

Detail

The Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan was recently reviewed and updated by William Buck and a draft plan for Financial Year 2016/17 – 2018/19 was presented for consideration by the Audit and Risk Committee on 22 November 2016.  Some amendments were made to the plan to consider the following:

 

·        the most recent risk registers provided by the City’s Enterprise Risk Management team;

·        observations from attending the City’s Audit and Risk Committees;

·        discussions with the Audit and Risk Committee Chair; and

·        discussions with the CEO and relevant Management.

 

The major changes are listed below:

 

·        The Environmental Regulation Review was rolled over from the late 2015/16 to the beginning of 2016/17 due to the prioritising of the Swimming Pool Inspection ad-hoc review.

·        The Finance Audit was moved from 2016/17 to early 2017/18 as the Emergency Services Levy ad-hoc review was requested by Management in October 2016.

·        The Events Audit was moved from 2017/18 to 2016/17.

·        The Project Management Audit was moved from 2016/17 to 20107/18.

Consultation

The amendments were made based on discussions held between William Buck, the CEO and Audit and Risk Committee Chair in consultation with relevant Management.

Comment

The proposed changes to the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan make provision for both the conduct of internal audits and the development of Policy and Frameworks to assist the City with improving management of risk, internal control and compliance. 

 

The Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan is developed and prioritised by Internal Audit in consultation with the City’s management based on a consideration of the City’s risk management framework, strategic objectives and priorities, and outcomes from the previous internal audits.

 

After discussion with Elected Members during Council Forum, the Events audit which was scheduled to be undertaken in the 2017/18 financial year has now been rescheduled to be undertaken in the 2016/17 financial year.  Subsequently, the Project Management audit which was scheduled to be undertaken 2016/17 financial year has now been rescheduled to be undertaken in the 2017/18 financial year.  This was determined as an appropriate change to the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan as the risks to the public associated with undertaking large events need to audited in the winter months as such events are predominately conducted in the summer months.

 

The Audit and Risk Committees recommends that Council adopt the updated Strategic 3- Year Internal Audit Plan.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

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

4.3    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

Amendments to the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan were made by William Buck using a risk-based approach with consideration towards targeting areas of high risk and where there was a need to improve management of risk, internal control and compliance.

Policy Implications

The proposed Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan includes provision for new policy development as a result of the outcomes of the planned internal audit work.

Financial Implications

The cost of implementing the Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan will be met through the City's operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council CONSIDERS the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee and ADOPTS the updated Strategic 3-Year Internal Audit Plan (2016/17 – 2018/19).

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Updated Strategic 3 Year Internal Audit Plan

16/385066

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    238

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        248

3.16  Delegation of Authority - Public Health Act 2016

File Ref:                                              9167 – 17/40545

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a delegation of authority to designate authorised officers under the Public Health Act 2016.

Background

Historically, under the provisions of the former Health Act 1911, all Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were approved by the Executive Director Public Health (EDPH) to perform specified functions of the Act. The EDPH was a specified role within the former Health Act 1911 and the person assigned to that role was an employee of the Western Australian Department of Health (DoH).

 

Each time a local government appointed an EHO, it had to seek approval from the EDPH for that EHO to undertake the duties of the former Health Act 1911. This application process could take several weeks with the EHO ultimately being issued with an authority card from the DoH.

 

The former Health Act 1911 is now known as the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911.

Detail

The new Public Health Act 2016 (the Act) provides modern legislation to regulate public health in Western Australia. The Act repeals much of the outdated Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and is designed to better protect and promote the health of all Western Australians.

 

The Act provides a flexible and proactive framework for the regulation of public health. Key features of the Act include the following:

 

·        Promoting public health and wellbeing in the community.

·        Help prevent disease, injury, disability and premature death.

·        Inform individuals and communities about public health risks.

·        Encourage individuals and their communities to plan for, create and maintain a healthy environment.

·        Support programs and campaigns intended to improve public health.

·        Collect information about the incidence and prevalence of diseases and other public health risks for research purposes.

·        Reduce the health inequalities in public health of disadvantaged communities.

 

Under section 16 of the Act, local governments have the following functions in relation to the administration of the Act:

 

a)      To initiate, support and manage public health planning for its local government district;

b)      To develop and implement policies and programmes to achieve the objectives of this Act within its local government district;

 

c)      To perform the functions that are conferred on local governments by or under this Act; and

d)      To administer and enforce this Act within its local government district in accordance with the objectives and principles of this Act.

 

Local governments are recognised as an enforcement agency under the Act. Authorised Officers, typically EHOs, will be responsible for investigating any public health matter within their local government boundaries.

 

The introduction of the Act will see EHOs be referred to as ‘authorised officers’ and as such are to be designated and authorised by the local government that employs them, no longer relying on approvals from the DoH.  Section 312 of the Act provides transitional provisions for persons who are currently appointed as EHOs to be deemed to be designated as authorised officers for the purposes of the Act.  However the appointment of new EHO’s must be undertaken by a designated officer. 

 

Section 21 of the Act allows the delegation of any power or duty conferred or imposed on an enforcement agency to the CEO or an authorised officer designated by the local government.  Administration seeks Council to delegate to the CEO the authority to appoint authorised officers being EHOs.

Consultation

The DoH has recommended that local governments take the necessary steps to ensure relevant delegations and processes for approving authorised officers are in place, thereby minimising disruption to local government and public health processes. The City is represented on the Public Health Act Reference Group (PHARG), comprising local and state government officers. The role of the PHARG is to provide advice and feedback on the development of subsidiary legislation and review information resources prepared by the DoH, prior to distribution of those resources to local governments.

Comment

Implementation of the Act will occur over a three to five year timeframe. Stage three contains primarily administrative impacts for local governments and commenced operation on 24 January 2017. The recommendation to appoint the CEO as the designated office to appoint EHO’s will ensure that the City has adequate powers and capacity to implement, monitor and enforce its powers and duties of the Act.

Statutory Compliance

Public Health Act 2016

Part 2 Administration

Division 3 Functions of enforcement agencies

 

21.     Enforcement agency may delegate

 

(1)     A power or duty conferred or imposed on an enforcement agency may be delegated —

(a)     if the enforcement agency is the Chief Health Officer, in accordance with section 9; or

(b)     if the enforcement agency is a local government, to —

 

(i)      the chief executive officer of the local government; or

(ii)      an authorised officer designated by the local government;

or

 

(c)     if the enforcement agency is a person or body, or a person or body within a class of persons or bodies, prescribed by the regulations, to an authorised officer designated by the agency.

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

Decision Making

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Mayor & CEO

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. The adoption of the proposed delegation will provide the appropriate authority for the CEO to designate authorised officers under the Act.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council DELEGATES to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with Section 21 of the Public Health Act 2016, the authority to appoint Authorised Officers under that Act.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Proposed Delegation of Authority - Public Health Act 2016 - Administration

17/40668

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    251


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        252

3.17  Amendment to Delegation 8.3 - District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Development Control

File Ref:                                              9167 – 17/37062

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the proposed amendment to Delegation 8.3 - District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Development Control.

Background

Condition b) of Council’s Conditions on Delegation in Delegation 8.3 – Development Control delegates authority to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to determine any application where an objection has been received during the course of advertising provided it does not raise relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed by modification of the proposal or imposition of appropriate conditions on any planning approval issued.

 

It is noted that the CEO has sub-delegated authority to the Operations Manager, Planning and Sustainability Services and the Director, Planning and Sustainability.

 

A report on this matter was presented to Elected Members at Council Forum on 14 February 2017 for discussion purposes and is now being presented to Council for approval.

Detail

Condition b) of Council’s Conditions on Delegation in Delegation 8.3 – Development Control states as follows:

 

“Any application that has been advertised for public comment shall be referred to Council for determination if any objection has been received that in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer raises relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by modification of the proposal or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.”

 

It is proposed to amend this to read as follows:

 

Any application that has been advertised for public comment shall be referred to Council for determination if any objection has been received that, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer raises relevant planning considerations that cannot be specifically addressed or overcome by:

·    modification of the proposal;

·    imposition of appropriate conditions of approval; or

·    compliance with the applicable deemed-to-comply provisions and/or design principles of the R-Codes.

 

This amendment would, in addition to the current delegations, allow the CEO to determine development applications that comply with the State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) where an objection raising relevant planning considerations is received in respect to a development application.

 

 

 

Attachment 1 contains the amended Delegation 8.3 – Development Control with all amendments shown in mark-up.

 

It is noted that the CEO sub-delegated authority under Delegation 8.3 – Development Control to specified employees in Administration, consistent with Clause 83 of the Deemed Provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). It is intended for the CEO to similarly sub-delegate authority for the proposed changes to Delegation 8.3 – Development Control to specified employees in Administration. This sub-delegation will be subject to a separate process by Administration with the CEO that does not require a resolution by Council.

Consultation

There is no requirement to advertise Council’s delegation to the CEO under Clause 82 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

Comment

Council’s Delegation to the CEO

 

Development applications received by the City commonly relate to the construction of single houses and supporting structures, such as patios and sheds, where the R-Codes apply and which include variations to these standards. Applications such as these are assessed in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions and/or design principles of the R-Codes, and advertised where there may be a possible impact on the adjoining landowners and occupiers.

 

Quite often where an objection is received during consultation for a variation, it relates to another planning consideration that complies with the applicable standards of the R-Codes. In these instances, though the proposal may comply with the applicable standards of the R-Codes, the application is required to be presented to Council for determination. This is because the current Conditions on Delegation in Delegation 8.3 – Development Control to the CEO is limited to deal with objections that can only be addressed or overcome by modification of the proposal or imposition of appropriate conditions of approval. Therefore, proposals that receive an objection that satisfies applicable standards of the R-Codes cannot be determined by Administration.

 

In 2015, 2016 and 2017 (to date), ten, eleven and three development applications have been presented to Council for its determination, respectively, where the applications related to development associated with single houses that had received objections, however, were compliant with either the deemed-to-comply provisions or design principles of the R-Codes. All of these applications were approved by Council in accordance with Administration’s recommendations. As such, it is recommended that the delegations be amended to include reference to compliance with R-Codes’ provisions in the delegations provided to the CEO by Council.

 

It is considered that the proposed changes to the Conditions on Delegation in Delegation 8.3 – Development Control will result in the following efficiencies:

 

1.   Streamlining the planning approval process by providing clarity and certainty for customers and Administration when objections are received for applications that comply with applicable provisions of the R-Codes.

2.   Undertaking decision making at the appropriate level in the organisation.

3.   Delivering improved customer service by reducing timeframes in dealing with development applications.

 

 

Ability for Council to Determine Development Applications

 

In amending Delegation 8.3 – Development Control, it is important to note the following:

 

·     Council in delegating a power does not transfer that power to the delegate, it merely replicates it and Council retains the ability to exercise any power or duty delegated to the CEO, as per section 59 of the Interpretation Act 1984. In addition, Condition a) of Council’s Conditions on Delegation in Delegation 8.3 – Development Control sets out that any application is to be referred to Council for determination if one or more Elected Members requests such referral by written request to the Manager Approval Services. Therefore Elected Members retain the power to request determination of any development application.

·     An application will be required to be determined by Council where the proposal is advertised and an objection is received that relates to a planning consideration that has no applicable deemed-to-comply provisions and/or design principles in the R-Codes (such as concerns relating to an increase in traffic volumes on adjoining streets). This is because the proposed delegation to the CEO only extends as far as where deemed-to-comply provisions and/or design principles of the R-Codes apply.

Statutory Compliance

Clause 82 of the Deemed Provisions in the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 allows Council to delegate functions to the CEO.

 

Section 59 of the Interpretation Act 1984 establishes the power to delegate. This is supported by the Department of Local Government and Communities’ Local Government Operational Guidelines No. 17 – Delegations that sets out the essential elements of a Council delegation are the correct and accurate identification of the following:

·    power or duty to be delegated;

·    office to whom or which the power or duty is to be delegated;

·    circumstances in which the power or duty can be exercised or discharged; and

·    conditions on the exercise of the power or duty. 

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

Decision Making

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Mayor & CEO

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. The adoption of the proposed amendments to the delegations will provide the appropriate authority for Administration to make decisions on affected planning applications in a timely manner. 

 

 

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council BY ABSOLUTE  MAJORITY APPROVES the amendment to Delegation 8.3 - District Planning Scheme No. 2 – Development Control to the Chief Executive Officer as set out in Attachment 1 accepting all marked-up amendments.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Proposed Amendment to Delegation 8.3 - Development Control

16/358728

Minuted

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    256


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        258

3.18  Amendment to Public Place and Local Government Property Local Law 2016

File Ref:                                              25242 – 17/36794

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a proposed amendment to the City of Wanneroo’s Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2016 (Public Places LL) to regulate unauthorised access and use of vehicles on City beaches.

Background

At its meeting held on 2 February 2016, Council resolved to make a new Public Places LL which was gazetted on 29 February 2016.   

 

For some time now, the City has been dealing with the illegal access of four wheel drive vehicles on its beaches posing a significant risk to public safety and beach users.  As part of a broader strategy to control and discourage this illegal activity, Administration considers it appropriate to increase the infringement penalties for such offences.   

 

It is prohibited (and illegal) for vehicles to access or travel along the beaches within the City of Wanneroo district.  It has been an ongoing concern that 4-wheel drives and other off-road vehicles constantly access and travel on the City’s beaches and foreshore reserves.  Such access poses a safety risk to beach users and has been exacerbated by the development of new estates along the City’s coastal corridor.  City officers have met with respective landowners and other stakeholders to develop a strategy to combat this issue.  A draft amendment to the Public Places LL proposes a new provision and offence that specifically addresses the problem that allows for the maximum infringement penalty (being $500) for any non-compliance.  This amendment was presented to Council on 6 December 2016.

Detail

The Amendment Local Law is set out at Attachment 1 and a summary is provided below. 

 

1.       New definitions for “beach” and “dune” to ensure that there is no ambiguity when determining whether the vehicle is in a prohibited area.

 

2.       A new prohibition relating to vehicles on beaches and dunes to be inserted after 5.8 in the local law:

 

“5.9 Unauthorised vehicles on beaches and dunes

 

A person must not cause a vehicle to be or drive a vehicle, on a beach or dune unless otherwise authorised or approved by the local government or any other public authority.”

 

3.       A corresponding prescribed penalty of 50 penalty units (being $500).

Consultation

The draft amendment to the Public Places LL was advertised for comment for a 7 week period closing on 3 February 2017 and no submissions were received from the public.

 

The Department of Local Government and Communities has recommended a number of minor administrative changes which are shown in mark-up in Attachment 1

Comment

The Public Places LL has now been finalised and after adoption by Council will come into effect 14 days after its publication in the Government Gazette.

 

The Act requires the person presiding at a Council meeting to give notice of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law by ensuring that the purpose and effect is included in the agenda for the meeting and that the minutes of the meeting include the purpose and effect of the proposed local law:

 

Purpose

To amend the City of Wanneroo Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law to include a provision specifically prohibiting use of vehicles on beaches and dunes.

 

Effect

To address a significant risk to the safety of beach users by providing a deterrent to offenders for non-compliance with the Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law within the City of Wanneroo district

Statutory Compliance

Section 3.12 of the Act sets out the requirements for making a local law.

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

Compliance Framework

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Mitigate

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate Operational risk register.  Action plans have been developed to mitigate this risk to support existing management systems. The proposed amendments to the local laws to increase the penalty units applicable to the prescribed offences will provide effective deterrents for non-compliance.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

There are costs associated with making the local law, including advertising and eventual Gazettal which are included within the current budget allocations.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ADOPTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the City of Wanneroo Public Places and Local Government Property Amendment Local Law 2017 as set out in Attachment 1 subject to acceptance of amendments displayed in ‘mark-up’;

 

2.       NOTES the purpose and effect of the local law as:-

 

Purpose

To amend the City of Wanneroo Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law to include a provision specifically prohibiting use of vehicles on beaches and dunes.

 

Effect

To address a significant risk to the safety of beach users by providing a deterrent to offenders for non-compliance with the Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law within the City of Wanneroo district.

 

3.       REQUESTS Administration in accordance with s3.12(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 publish the Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2017 in the Government Gazette and sends a copy to the Minister for Local Government and Communities;

 

4.       NOTES that after Gazettal, in accordance with s3.12(6) of the Local Government Act 1995, local public notice be given —

 

a)      stating the title of the local law;

 

b)      summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

 

c)      advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the City office; and

 

5.       NOTES that following Gazettal, in accordance with the Local Laws Explanatory Memoranda Directions as issued by the Minister on 12 November 2010, a copy of the local law and a duly completed explanatory memorandum signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be sent to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

 

Attachments:

1.

DRAFT - Public Place and Local Government Property Amendment Local Law

16/378093[v2]

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    261


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        263

3.19  2016 Compliance Audit Return

File Ref:                                              2887 – 17/37014

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider adoption of the City of Wanneroo's (the City) Compliance Audit Return (CAR) for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016.

Background

Local government authorities are required to carry out an annual compliance audit against specific requirements of the Local Government Act and relevant regulations that are set out in the CAR which must then be submitted to the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department) by 31 March 2017.

 

The Audit & Risk Committee reviewed the completed CAR (Attachment 1) and the audit of the CAR process and responses provided by management, which was undertaken by the City’s contract internal auditor William Buck.  The Audit & Risk Committee recommends Council adopt the CAR for submission to the Department.

Detail

Compliance Audit Return

 

The Department advised the City that the CAR (Circular No 03-2017, published on 10 January 2017) was available on the Department’s website for completion.  The CAR has once again been provided in a reduced format, with the areas of compliance restricted to those considered high risk.

 

In January 2017, relevant sections of the CAR were circulated to Managers for completion with responses collated by Governance and provided to the City’s Internal Auditor William Buck for review.

 

Internal Audit

 

An internal audit of the CAR was undertaken by the City’s Internal Audit service provider William Buck during January 2017 which included limited risk-based sample testing of the 36 questions from the CAR (Audit). 

Consultation

Managers were requested to complete those CAR questions relevant to their service unit with approval and sign-off by the Director responsible for the function prior to being amalgamated into the final CAR.

 

The City’s Internal Auditor consulted with the relevant stakeholders to review the processes supporting the CAR responses and any management concerns were discussed and documented.

 

The Audit & Risk Committee at its meeting on 21 February 2017 reviewed the CAR and the Audit report and recommends Council adopt the CAR for submission to the Department.

 

Comment

There were three Performance Improvement Opportunities (PIO) identified which related to controls around the appropriate referencing of compliance registers kept by the City as well as controls around the new contract management system that is currently being deployed. These PIO’s will form part of the internal audit review on Procurement and Contract Management which is scheduled to be conducted in the last quarter of the 2016/17 financial year.

 

Overall based on the limited testing performed on the 36 requirements, there were no areas identified where management responses to the CAR questions contradicted the supporting evidence tested on the current processes for the City.

Statutory Compliance

The compliance programs of a local government are a strong indication of attitude towards meeting legislative requirements.  A function of the Audit & Risk Committee in regard to monitoring compliance programs typically includes monitoring compliance with legislation and regulations, reviewing the Annual Compliance Audit Return and reporting to Council the results of that review.

 

Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 refer:-

"14.   Compliance audits by local governments

 

(1)     A local government is to carry out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December each year.

 

(2)     After carrying out a compliance audit the local government is to prepare a compliance audit return in a form approved by the Minister.

 

(3A)  The local government's audit committee is to review the compliance audit return and is to report to the council the results of that review.

 

(3)     After the audit committee has reported to the council under sub-regulation (3A), the compliance audit return is to be –

a)      presented to the council at a meeting of the council; and

b)      adopted by the council; and

c)      recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which it was adopted."

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

Compliance Framework

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 Operational risk register. Action plans have been developed to mitigate this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council on the recommendation of the Audit & Risk Committee:-

 

1.       ADOPTS the Local Government Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 as set out at Attachment 1; and

 

2.       NOTES that the Local Government Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 will be submitted to the Department of Local Government and Communities.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

2016 Compliance Audit Return

17/41916

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    266


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        275

3.20  Function and Operation of the Audit and Risk Committee - Terms of Reference

File Ref:                                              7312 – 17/54408

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To endorse the revised Audit and Risk Committee Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Audit and Risk Committee (Committee) in accordance with the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 and the Model Terms of Reference included within the Local Government Operational Guidelines – Number 09 (revised September 2013) issued by the Department of Local Government and Communities.

 

Background

The Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) outlines under clauses 16 and 17 the functions for the Committee and the Chief Executive Officer respectively in relation to oversight of the results of reviews pertaining to the systems and procedures related to risk management, internal controls and legislative compliance.

 

A review of the ToR was previously conducted in August 2014 and presented to the Committee in February 2015. The revised ToR was then adopted by Council on 3 March 2015.

 

The further revised ToR was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on 21 February 2017 with the Committee endorsing the ToR and recommending that Council adopt the ToR.

Detail

In the introduction of the revised Operational Guidelines Number 09 ("the Guidelines"), it states that 'An audit committee plays a key role in assisting a local government to fulfil its governance and oversight responsibilities in relation to financial reporting, internal control structure, risk management systems, legislative compliance, ethical accountability and the internal and external audit functions.'

 

This submission revises the ToR to provide a clear guideline on the purpose, membership, appointment and the duties and responsibilities of the Committee.    

 

Revisions to the existing ToR have been captured in tracked changes as detailed in (Attachment 1). 

 

In summary key revisions have been made in the following sections of the ToR and include:

 

1.   Purpose

·    The overall purpose of the Committee aligns with the Guidelines has been added to the ToR. 

 

2.   Membership

·    Membership of the Committee has been amended to detail the minimum requirements of the Guidelines.  This will allow the Committee to exercise judgement in the member composition of the Committee to ensure it is effective in discharging its responsibilities and can be amended to align with changes to Council operation. 

 

Currently the Committee comprises all 15 Elected Members. 

 

The Committee may consider a smaller more focused membership to allow for more robust discussion of agenda items to assist the Committee in discharging its responsibilities.

 

·    Membership of the Committee has been amended to allow for the appointment of an External Independent Member.  This will allow the Council to appoint an External Independent Member as and when considered appropriate.  The Guidelines recommend an external appointment with the requisite knowledge and experience to add differing perspectives, improve governance and compliment the Council in discharging its responsibilities.  

 

Below is a comparison with peer metropolitan local governments as at January 2017 in respect of external members:

 

Local Government

No. of Elected Members within the Audit Committee

No. of External Members

City of Perth

    3 out of 9 Elected Members

1

City of Stirling

8 out of 14 Elected Members

 

1

City of Joondalup

7 out of 13 Elected Members

Nil (Charter allows for an external member)

City of Rockingham

4 out of 10 Elected Members

Nil

City of Melville

7 out of 13 Elected Members

1

 

3.   Meetings

·    Administration support continues to be provided by the Director Corporate Strategy & Performance or the Executive Manager Legal and Governance.

·    The frequency of reporting provided to the Committee has been reviewed and defined as quarterly.

 

4.   Corporate Reporting

·    Listing of corporate reports that are presented to the Committee every quarter ie Contract Status Report, CEO Exemption approvals quarterly (on purchasing policy) and oversight on the progress of key strategic capital works projects quarterly.

Consultation

The ToR has been redrafted in consultation with the City's Internal Auditors (William Buck) and discussions were also held with peer metropolitan local governments in January 2017 to draw comparisons and to consider the merits of alternative practices.

Comment

The review of the ToR which is conducted every 2 years provides the opportunity to review the structure and operation of the Committee to further enhance the oversight and scrutiny of the City’s operations.

 

Key areas of consideration open for discussion include:

·    Membership of the Committee

·    Meeting Minute and

·    Corporate Reporting

 

Statutory Compliance

The ToR has been reviewed to ensure conformance with the Local Government Act 1995 Division 1 A [7.1A] and clause 16 and 17 of the Local Government (Audit) 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

Reviewing and updating the ToR will reduce the relevant compliance risks and further enhance the Committee's governance and oversight of the City's operations.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Should Council determine to include an External Independent Member to the Committee, the City would be required to pay meeting fees to the External Independent Member with such fees to be negotiated and agreed. 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council CONSIDERS the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee and ADOPTS the revised Terms of Reference – Audit and Risk Committee as set out in Attachment 1 accepting the marked-up amendments set out within.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Terms of Reference Audit and Risk Committee - updated pdf version

17/40044

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    278


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        283

3.21  Corporate Governance Framework

File Ref:                                              3877 – 17/54417

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the draft Corporate Governance Framework (Framework) that provides an overarching framework for the City of Wanneroo (City) to practice good governance.

Background

Whilst the City has implemented robust policies, management procedures and processes in respect of ensuring that the City practices good governance, the City does not have an overarching framework that encapsulates all of the City’s governance tools or provides high level direction in respect of the City’s good governance practices.

 

The absence of the overarching framework has also been identified through the Local Government (Audit) Regulations, Regulation 17 gap analysis audits undertaken by both KPMG and William Buck (the City’s contracted internal auditors). 

 

To address this, the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2015/16 – 2018/19 includes a priority item to implement an Organisational Governance Framework that establishes strong leadership and responsible, accountable management to achieve the City’s corporate objectives effectively and with efficiency and probity.

 

The Framework has been developed and was considered by Audit and Risk Committee on 21 February 2017.  The Audit and Risk Committee recommends Council to adopt the Framework.

Detail

It is fundamental in practicing good governance that there is a clear understanding of responsibility and accountability.  The draft Framework provides:

 

·    an outline of the governance principles;

·    clarity in relation to the City’s vision, values and culture and how they interact;

·    clear definition of the role of the Council, Elected Members, the Mayor, CEO and Administration;

·    delineation of the roles of Council, Elected Members and Administration including their respective responsibilities and duties;

·    current effective governance arrangements; and

·    requirements for ethical leadership and decision making, accountability,

 

all of which underpin the City’s governance controls to ensure the practice of good, effective governance and integrity at the City.  

 

The approach adopted in developing the Framework recognises the linkages between the City’s corporate planning and performance management processes, strategic and operational planning, risk management and accountability frameworks.

 

Consultation

The Framework has been circulated to key Governance and Legal officers and the Executive.  The Framework has also been provided under separate cover to Elected Members on 20 January 2017. 

Comment

The Framework will be implemented through an implementation plan which will include but not be limited to the following:

 

1.   Conducting mandatory training and awareness activities in respect of the Framework and the referenced poicies.

 

2.   Conducting mandatory induction program for Elected Members and City officers on the critical and most pertinent aspects of the Framework.

 

3.   Undertaking a review of the City’s Code of Conduct for City officers, its accessibility, how it is promoted and how it is used, accepted and enforced by the City.

 

4.   Undertaking a review of the City’s Council Members Code of Conduct and conduct workshop with Elected Members.

 

5.   Examining the City’s processes for legislative compliance and making sure that there are appropriate processes and structures to ensure that legislative requirements are complied with.

 

6.   Timely review of the City’s policies and procedures.

 

7.   Examining risk management activities and strategies and the level of acceptance of risk management by the City and the integration of risk management into the day-to-day activities and processes of Council.

 

8.   Examining the Council decision making process, including committees to ensure effective and ethical decision making and that appropriate delegations are provided to the CEO to improve efficiencies.

 

Whilst the Framework will provide guidance for Elected Members and City officers, it will be made available to the general public through the City’s website and will contain hyperlinks to referenced policies.  This will ensure that the City is open, transparent and accountable in respect of the City’s governance practices. 

 

It is also important for Council to note that the Framework is a dynamic document that will be updated regularly by Administration as governance policies and procedures are adopted so that it remains up to date.  Any change to intent or when the Framework is reviewed biennially, the Framework will be presented to Council for adoption.

Statutory Compliance

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 requires that the CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local governments systems and procedures in relation to risk management; internal controls and legislative compliance.  A robust Governance Framework will support this requirement.

 

 

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

The risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers in a number of areas as Governance functions are broad across the City.  The Framework has been developed to manage this risk.

Policy Implications

Policies and procedures to support the Framework are noted within the Framework however further review and gap analysis will be undertaken so that all required policies and procedures are developed, or where currently operational, reviewed to ensure that they support efficient and effective governance practices. 

Financial Implications

Costs associated with developing and implementing training sessions to support the Framework.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council CONSIDERS the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee and ADOPTS the Corporate Governance Framework.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Corporate Governance Framework - draft

16/372981

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    286

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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                        338

3.22  Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Framework

File Ref:                                              20275 – 17/54424

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the draft Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Framework (Framework) that provides an overarching framework to minimise opportunities for fraudulent and/or corrupt activities within the City of Wanneroo (City).

Background

A review undertaken by RSM Bird Cameron (as engaged by the Corruption and Crime Commission) in relation to local government procurement practices identified that the City needed to undertake an assessment of the City’s susceptibility to fraud and misconduct across all service units and integrate the fraud and misconduct risk assessment into the City’s Operational Risk Registers.

 

In accordance with that recommendation the City undertook an initial fraud and misconduct risk assessment which was completed in 2015 and fraud and misconduct risk was included in the City’s Corporate Risk Register.  Notwithstanding that fraud and misconduct risks have been identified and that the RSM Bird Cameron recommendation has been satisfied, it was determined that the absence of an overarching framework to minimise, control and build resilience to fraud and misconduct was an issue that needed to be addressed.

 

The Framework has been developed and was considered by Audit and Risk Committee on 21 February 2017.  The Audit and Risk Committee recommends Council to adopt the Framework.

Detail

The Framework has been developed considering a risk based approach to establish systems, practices and supporting policies and procedures for a proactive approach to effective prevention, detection, and response to fraud and corruption at the City. 

 

It is acknowledged that local governments and the City in particular operate large complex businesses in an ever changing environment.  There is extensive contracting of goods and services, decentralisation of management control and authority, increased decision-making powers of City officers and the provision of increasing access to confidential information through computer technology.

 

The Framework forms an integral part of the City’s overall enterprise risk management strategy, seeking to minimise the opportunities for fraud and corruption and enhancing the integrity and effectiveness of its operations.  In adopting the fraud and misconduct control strategies set out in the Framework, consideration was given to the Australian Standard AS 8001-2008 – Fraud and Corruption Control and the Australia National Audit Office’s conditions for a sound control environment which are:

 

1.   Ethical leadership and culture – strong ethical values and high standards of ethical behaviour;

2.   Legislation and governance – legislation and policies that promote accountability, are transparent, and incorporate robust governance structures; and

 

3.   Control strategies – actions to prevent, detect and respond to fraud, misconduct and corruption, which are reviewed and continuously improved.

                                                  

Further, the Framework is supported by robust policies and procedures and includes a requirement for regular fraud and misconduct risk assessments to be undertaken on a biennial basis.  Elected Members to note that the next fraud and misconduct risk assessment is scheduled for March 2017 to be undertaken by the City’s contracted external auditor, William Buck.

Consultation

The Framework has been circulated to key Governance and Legal officers and the Executive for comment.  The Framework has also been provided under separate cover to Elected Members on 20 January 2017. 

Comment

A Fraud and Misconduct Control Plan will be developed to support and implement the Framework which will include but not be limited to the following:

 

1.   A clear and integrated suite of relevant policies and management procedures.

 

2.   Effective and continuing fraud and corruption risk management.

 

3.   Implement internal controls with clear accountability and responsibility structures.

 

4.   Effective internal reporting systems and procedures.

 

5.   Effective system of external notification and reporting.

 

6.   Robust Public Interest Disclosure mechanisms.

 

7.   Clear Codes of Conduct and disciplinary standards.

 

8.   Comprehensive staff awareness and appropriate training programmes.

 

9.   Competent investigation processes and standards.

 

10. Effective stakeholder and community awareness programmes.

 

To achieve Council’s fraud and misconduct risk management goals, ongoing reviews of this Framework and the City’s risk exposure to fraud and misconduct will be regularly undertaken. Such reviews will focus on improving systems and procedures, changing the attitude of and making City officers aware of such risks and improving the overall integrity and performance of the City.

 

A dedicated intranet and extranet page will also be developed to provide City officers and the public with information in relation to fraud and misconduct risks, the City’s fraud and misconduct control and resilience strategies and the tools and mechanisms for reporting.

 

It is also important for Council to note that the Framework is a dynamic document that will be updated regularly by Administration as relevant policies and procedures are adopted so that it remains up to date.  Any change to intent or when the Framework is reviewed biennially, the Framework will be presented to Council for adoption.

Statutory Compliance

Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003

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

CO-012 Fraud and Misconduct

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

The above risk/s relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate Risk register.  Action plans have been developed to manage this risk through the development and implementation of the Framework. 

Policy Implications

Policies and procedures will be developed to support the Framework and those already adopted will be reviewed to ensure they meet the requirements of the Framework.

Financial Implications

Costs associated with training and development of employees.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council CONSIDERS the recommendation of the Audit and Risk Committee and ADOPTS the Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Framework.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Framework - draft

15/600585

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    341

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                                                       377

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 28 February, 2017                                    380

 

Item  4      Motions on Notice

Nil

Item  5      Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover)

5.1    Warrant of Payments for the Period to 28 February 2017

 

Item  6      Public Question Time

Item  7      Confidential

7.1    KPMG Investigation

File Ref:                                              5642V02 – 17/54442

Responsible Officer:                           Executive Manager Governance and Legal

 

This report is to be dealt with in confidential session, under the terms of the Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.23(2), as follows:

(a)          a matter affecting an employee or employees

(b)          the personal affairs of any person

(d)          legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting (Investigation   )  

Item  8      Date of Next Meeting

The next  Ordinary Council Meeting  has been scheduled for 7:00pm on Tuesday 7 March 2017, to be held at Council Chambers, 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo.

Item  9      Closure