Proof_CouncilAgenda_Coverpage_Template_Governance

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 25 July 2017

Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo


PUBLIC QUESTION AND STATEMENT TIME

 

1.         TIME PERMITTED

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

 

2.         PROTOCOLS

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

 

Members of the public wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting are to register on the night at the main reception desk located outside of the Chamber.  Members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting (that is by noon on the day before the meeting).

 

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

 

3.         GENERAL RULES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

DEPUTATIONS

 

An informal session will be held on the same day as the Council meeting at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations relating to items on the current agenda. To present a deputation members of the public are required to submit a request for deputation in writing at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer.  A request for a deputation must be received by Council Support by 12 noon on the Friday before the Council Meeting.

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

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

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

 

Please ensure mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.

For further information please contact Council Support on 9405 5027.


Recording of Council Meetings Policy

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

 

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

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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


 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 25 July, 2017 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

21 July, 2017

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-07/17     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 June 2017  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

UP01-07/17     Petitioners Grievance and Request for a Delay to the Decision on the Installation of Shade Sails at Fred Stubbs Reserve  1

UP02-07/17     Petition Not Supporting the Building of 10 Units at 50A Frederick Street, Wanneroo  2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

Approval Services  2

PS01-07/17      Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep  2

PS02-07/17      Consideration of Development Application - Change of Use to a Residential Building at Lot 745 (126) Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks (DA2017/361) 11

PS03-07/17      Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development  25

PS04-07/17      Consideration of Development Application for Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site - Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks - DA2016/1208  46

PS05-07/17      Recommendation for Local Structure Plan Alkimos Coastal Node No.101  98

Assets  140

Asset Operations & Services  140

AS01-07/17      Petition PT02-04/17 - Parking Prohibitions During School Hours -  Cambourne Parkway, Butler  140

AS02-07/17      Installation of Children's Crossing Within the City of Wanneroo  147

AS03-07/17      Tender No 16231 - Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Buildings  163

Strategic Asset Management  179

AS04-07/17      Metropolitan Regional Roads Program - 2018/2019  179

Infrastructure Capital Works  184

AS05-07/17      Tender No. 17043 - Construction of Grandis Park Sports Pavilion and Oval Floodlighting  184

Parks & Conservation Management  193

AS06-07/17      Tender No 17006 - The Provision of Golf Course Maintenance Services for a period of Three Years  193

AS07-07/17      Tender No  17051 – Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch or Marri Woodchip Ground Cover  204

Waste Services  209

AS08-07/17      Future Use of the former Wangara Recycling Centre  209

Community & Place  215

Cultural Development  215

CP01-07/17     Strategic Library Services Plan 2017/18-2021/22  215

Place Strengthening  231

CP02-07/17     Community Engagement Policy  231

Corporate Strategy & Performance  240

Business & Finance  240

CS01-07/17     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 May 2017  240

People & Culture  264

CS02-07/17     OSH Policy  264

Transactional Finance  273

CS03-07/17     Change Valuation of Land Method - 55 Stoney Road, Gnangara  273

CS04-07/17     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 June 2017  277

 

 

Property Services  353

CS05-07/17     Proposed lease to Ngala Community Services over portion of Jenolan Way Community Centre  353

CS06-07/17     Proposed new Lease to Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club (Inc.) - portion of Crown Reserve 12439, Lot 520, Brazier Road, Yanchep  359

Council & Corporate Support  369

CS07-07/17     Donations to be Considered by Council - July 2017  369

Chief Executive Office  380

Governance & Legal  380

CE01-07/17     Revised Execution of Documents Policy  380

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 394

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 394

Item  11____ Confidential_ 394

CR01-07/17     Mindarie Regional Council Waste to Energy Tender Outcome  394

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 394

Item  13____ Closure_ 394

 


Agenda

 

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

 

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

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-07/17       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 June 2017

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 June 2017 be confirmed.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

Cr Cvitan presented a petitioners grievance of 1 signature requesting that a decision on installation of sails at Fred Stubbs Reserve at Quinns Rocks be delayed pending investigation as to how the height of the structure can be altered to mitigate the detrimental affect on views to the homes opposite the play equipment. (TRIM 17/203630)

 

Update

 

The petitioner has been advised that there will be a consultation process held with residents in proximity to Fred Stubbs park on an initial concept design for the shade sails in late July 2017.  Once the consultation has been undertaken and design changes made (if required), a report will be presented to the September Council meeting for consideration.

 

 

 

Cr Guise presented a petition of 114 signatures from the local community not supporting the building of 10 units at 50A Frederick Street, Wanneroo due to severe loss of amenity. This development will cause serious safety and traffic risks to our children, elderly and disabled of the local are whom depend on Frederick Street. (TRIM 17/194496)

 

Update

 

Amended plans for the proposed Multiple Dwelling development at 50A Frederick Street were received by Administration on Wednesday 19 July 2017.  Administration will assess the amended plans and the application will be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

Item  8      Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Approval Services

PS01-07/17       Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep

File Ref:                                              27936 – 17/228604

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4  

Previous Items:                                   PS02-02/17 - Amendment No.159 to District Planning Scheme No.2 - Lot 354  (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep - Ordinary Council - 07 Feb 2017 7.00pm      

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

TPG Town Planning and Urban Design

Owner

Water Corporation

Location

Lot 354 (25) Capilano Ave, Yanchep

Site Area

2473.5m2

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Public Use (Local Reserve)

 

 

Background

On 2 November 2016, TPG Town Planning and Urban Design submitted Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 on behalf of the Water Corporation for the City’s consideration. The application proposes to rezone Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep (subject site) from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Urban Development. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site was previously used as a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The subject site is adjacent to, but is not included, within Yanchep City Agreed Structure Plan No.68 (ASP 68). The structure plan map for ASP 68 indicates a 350m buffer around the WWTP, and Clause 6.1 of ASP 68 does not permit subdivision and/or development within the buffer until the WWTP has been decommissioned. A plan showing the subject site and surrounding ASP 68 zoning is included as Attachment 2.


The WWTP was decommissioned in 2015 and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has approved a number of subdivisions within the buffer zone, the first being on the 29 May 2015.

 

Council, at its meeting of 7 February 2017 considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS02/17):

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to rezone a portion of Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Urban Development.

 

2.         Pursuant to Section 47(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 is a standard Amendment because the proposed amendment:

 

a)    Would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment;

b)    Does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or    governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

c)    Is not a complex or basic amendment.

 

3.         Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); and

 

4.         Subject to EPA approval, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 for a period of 42 days.

 

Detail

Proposal

 

The amendment proposes to rezone Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Urban Development, and modify the DPS 2 map accordingly.

 

Attachment 3 contains the amendment plan showing the existing zoning and proposed scheme amendment zoning.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 7 March 2017, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.  The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 4 April 2017 and 16 May 2017 by way of an on-site sign, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. The City received two submissions from government agencies, who did not object to the proposal.

 

A summary of the submissions received, and Administration’s response to these is included as Attachment 4.

Comment

The WWTP was demolished and decommissioned by the Water Corporation in 2015 and on this basis the subject site is no longer required to be reserved Public Purpose (Local Reserve) under DPS 2. The subject site is also not required for other reserve purposes, including parks and recreation, as there is sufficient land within ASP 68 allocated to public open space. The applicant is therefore proposing to amend DPS 2 by rezoning the subject site to the same zoning as the adjacent land, being Urban Development.

 

As per Clause 3.14.2 of DPS 2, the objectives of the Urban Development zone are to:

a)   Designate land for future urban development;

b)   Provide for the orderly planning of large area of land for residential and associated purposes through a comprehensive structure planning process; and

c)   Enable planning to be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances throughout the development stages of the area.

 

Administration considers that the proposed amendment is consistent with these objectives for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed zoning will allow the subject site to be developed for urban purposes;

 

·    As per DPS 2, no subdivision or development shall occur within the Urban Development zone until a structure plan has been prepared and adopted. The applicant has advised that it is the intention of the Water Corporation to dispose of the subject site following the scheme amendment approval.

 

The Urban Development zoning will allow for a prospective purchaser to request that the subject site be included within the ASP 68 area, and be zoned appropriately under this structure plan prior to any development occurring on the site. Alternatively, the purchaser may prepare a separate structure plan, to be approved by the WAPC prior to any development commencing on the site.

 

Following the completion of the structure planning process, the ultimate development of the subject site would then be in accordance with the intent and provisions of the applicable structure plan; and

 

·    The Urban Development zone allows flexibility with respect to the ultimate land use to be pursued on the subject site, which will be determined during the structure plan process, be it an amendment to ASP 68 or a new structure plan.

 

In the event that the subject site is included within the Yanchep City area through an amendment to ASP 68. Administration anticipates that this would also include the removal of the provisions relating to the WWTP as they are now redundant.

 

Considering the above, and as no objections were received during the consultation period, it is recommended that proposed Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 be adopted without modification.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.

 

In accordance with Regulation 50(2)(a), Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 159 and in accordance with Regulation 50(3) must resolve to either support the amendment with or without modification, or not support the amendment.

 

Further, pursuant to Regulation 53(1), after passing a resolution under Regulation 50(3), the City must provide the WAPC with a schedule of submissions and Council's recommendation and response to the submissions, together with particulars of any modifications recommended to the amendment.

 

Administration recommends that Council supports Amendment No. 159 to DPS 2 in accordance with Regulation 50(3)(a) without modification.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.3  Enhance distinctive built form and spaces based on identity of areas

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(2)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 CONSIDERS the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 4;

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 SUPPORTS, without modification, Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to rezone Lot 354 (25) Capilano Avenue, Yanchep, from Public Use (Local Reserve) to Urban Development, as contained in Attachment 3;

3.       Pursuant to Regulation 53(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 , PROVIDES Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with a copy of Council’s resolution and all attachments to this report, for its consideration; and

4.       ADVISES the submitters to Amendment No. 159 to District Planning Scheme No.2 of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

17/14179

 

2.

Attachment 2 - ASP 68 Zoning

17/14185

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Existing and Proposed DPS 2 Zoning

17/14187

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Amendment No 159 Schedule of Submissions

17/205041

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                        7

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                        8

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                     9

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                      10

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                      11

PS02-07/17       Consideration of Development Application - Change of Use to a Residential Building at Lot 745 (126) Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks (DA2017/361)

File Ref:                                              DA2017/361 – 17/208362

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2017/361) for a Change of Use from a Single House to a Residential Building at Lot 745 (126) Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks (subject site).

 

Applicant

Ronald de Ruijter

Owner

Ronald de Ruijter and Valentina de Ruijter

Location

Lot 745 (126) Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks

Site Area

619m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R20

 

 

Background

A Single House was approved on the subject site in 2002, however, the subject site is currently being used as a Residential Building for the purpose of short term accommodation. The property is currently advertised on ‘Stayz’, which is a short term accommodation booking website, and has been used for short term accommodation since 2008, as advised by the applicant. Notwithstanding, the owner recently became aware of the City’s requirement for planning approval for short term accommodation, and on 17 March 2017, the owner lodged an application for a Change of Use to a Residential Building. It should be noted that the Residential Building was not brought to Administration’s attention as a compliance matter.

The issue of short term accommodation within the City of Wanneroo was presented to Council Forum on 16 May 2017. At this meeting, Administration discussed with Elected Members:

 

·    Administration’s intended approach for the consideration of current development applications submitted to the City for short term accommodation, in the absence of a formal policy position; and

·    Options in establishing the planning framework to deal with future applications.

 

Administration is currently preparing a Local Planning Policy and Local Law to guide future applications, and these will be presented to a Council Meeting for consideration in the near future. In the absence of a formal policy position, Administration has requested that the applicant provide additional supporting information such as a management plan (including a code of conduct for guests, parking and complaints management procedures), and justification in support of the proposal.

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 Santa Barbara Parade to the south, and residential lots to the north, east and west. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The subject site currently consists of a Single House (including four bedrooms), and a swimming pool. A site plan and floor plan of the dwelling as well as the proposed parking layout is included as Attachment 2.

 

The development application proposes a Change of Use from a Single House to a Residential Building, to allow the dwelling to be rented out for short term accommodation. As advised by the applicant, this consists of:

 

·     A maximum number of 6 guests at any one time;

·     No guests under the age of 23 years are permitted to stay at the property without parental guidance;

·     Parties, birthdays and social gatherings which could disrupt the community will not be permitted by the management;

·     Guests must not create noise which is offensive to occupiers of neighbouring properties between 10pm and 8am;

·     Guests are generally expected to stay for a period between 3 days and up to 3 months at a time; and

·     Car parking will be contained on site, with parking for four cars available.

 

The applicant has also advised that:

 

·     The owner does not live in the dwelling, and no meals are provided;

·     The Change of Use will apply to the entire existing house, and not to individual rooms or portions of the house; and

·     No extension to the existing dwelling, or additional building work, is proposed as part of this application.

 

The proposed application is considered to be consistent with the definition of a Residential Building. As per the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), a Residential Building is defined as:

 

“A building or portion of a building, together with rooms and outbuildings separate from such building but incidental thereto, such building being used or intended, adapted or designed to be used for the purpose of human habitation:

·    Temporarily by two or more persons; or

·    Permanently by seven or more persons, who do not comprise a single family, but does not include a hospital or sanatorium, a prison, a hotel, a motel or residential school.”

 

As the dwelling is intended to be occupied temporarily by more than two people, the proposal is considered to fall within the Residential Building use class. A Residential Building is a Discretionary (‘D’) use within a Residential Zone under DPS 2.

Consultation

The application was advertised to the adjoining landowners. Advertising was undertaken by the City on the City’s Website and in writing to the affected occupiers and landowners adjoining the subject site to the north (23, 25 and 27 Mokutu Court), east (124 Santa Barbara Parade) and west (128 Santa Barbara Parade). Advertising was undertaken for a period of 21 days between 27 April 2017 and 18 May 2017. Following consultation, two submissions were received which objected to the proposal. The submitters raised concerns over anti-social behaviour (including noise and safety). A summary of the submissions received, and Administration’s response is provided as Attachment 3.

Comment

In the absence of the City’s specific controls regarding short term accommodation, Administration has considered the proposal against the requirements of DPS 2 and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Planning Bulletin 99 – Holiday Homes Guidelines (Planning Bulletin 99). Although this Bulletin was released in 2009, it was developed to deal with issues of purchasing or building homes to be used as a holiday home and is still applicable to current short term accommodation proposals. Planning Bulletin 99 provides guidance for assessing applications for short term accommodation, including the appropriate location of holiday homes, the provision of a management plan to demonstrate how the property will be managed, and approval being granted for an initial 12 month period as a ‘trial’ of the use.

 

The main issues identified by Administration relate to the appropriateness of the land use, the management of the short term accommodation, approval timeframe, parking and the control of potential antisocial behaviour. These issues are addressed in greater detail below.

 

Appropriateness of Land Use

 

The appropriateness of the land use has been assessed against the objectives of the Residential Zone, outlined in DPS 2, and location requirements of Planning Bulletin 99. This is discussed in detail below.

 

Consistency with Objectives of Residential Zone

 

The relevant objectives of the Residential Zone are to:

 

a)   maintain the predominantly single residential character and amenity of established residential areas; and

d)  provide for compatible urban support services.

 

The proposed Residential Building will not physically change the existing dwelling and no further building work is required. As such, the residential character of the building will be maintained. To ensure that the residential amenity of the area is sustained, the applicant has provided a management plan. The management plan includes measures to manage guests and their behaviour to minimise any disruption to the locality. The management plan is discussed in further detail below.

 

The proposal will provide compatible urban support services as the Residential Building offers an alternative form of accommodation in the area. The applicant has advised that in addition to tourists, many of their previous tenants have been recent migrants and relocating families. Therefore, this Residential Building provides diverse accommodation opportunities to visitors of the area.

 

Administration considers the single residential character and amenity of the area will not be adversely impacted, and the proposal provides for compatible urban support services to visitors and therefore meets the objectives of the Residential Zone.

 

Location Requirements of Planning Bulletin 99

 

Planning Bulletin 99 outlines four key criteria to be used to determine whether the location and surrounding context of a site is suitable for short term accommodation land uses, such as a Residential Building. These four criteria relate to the zoning, proximity to amenities and transport, and the tenure of the property. An assessment against these criteria is undertaken below:

 

 

Criteria

Assessment of Subject Site

Zoning

 

Tourist accommodation should be located within preferred areas identified in the local planning strategy or a local planning policy.

The City’s planning framework does not provide any control or guidance on appropriate tourist accommodation locations. In the absence of this, it is acknowledged that a Residential Building is a “D” use within a Residential Zone and is capable of approval. In this regard, it is considered that the zoning is appropriate for the proposed use.

Amenities

 

Tourist accommodation should be located within close proximity to key tourism attractions such as the beach or town centre.

The subject site is located approximately 700m to the east of the beach, and is approximately 3km north of the Mindarie Marina. The subject site is also located approximately 2.3km south of the Butler Activity Centre, and approximately 1.3km south-east of the future Jindalee Village centre. In this regard, the subject site is considered to be located within close proximity of tourism attractions such as the beach and town centres. 

Transport 

 

Tourist accommodation should be located within close proximity to road links and public transport.

The subject site is located approximately 750m west of Marmion Avenue, and Lukin Drive, which provide key north-south and east-west linkages respectively. The subject site is located approximately 230m south of the nearest bus stop, adjacent to James Cook Park on Santa Barbara Parade, which is approximately a 3 minute walk. From this bus stop, public transport can be used to access the nearby centre, or local train stations in Butler and Clarkson. In this regard, the subject site is considered to be located within close proximity to road links and public transport.

Tenure

 

The use of Grouped or Multiple Dwellings will generally not be supported for holiday home accommodation given the potential impacts on adjoining residents, unless all owners are in agreement.

The site is a Single House, and is considered to have an appropriate tenure to accommodate short term accommodation.

 

Based on the above, the location of the proposed Residential Building is considered appropriate.

 

Management Plan

 

In order to ensure that the property is appropriately managed and maintained, the applicant has provided a management plan identifying how the short term accommodation is currently managed and will be managed with respect to:

 

·    A code of conduct detailing the behaviour and obligations of guests;

·    Management of complaints, and includes a contact number for the owner/managing agent;

·    Control of anti-social behaviour and noise from the Residential Building to minimise the impacts on surrounding residents;

·    Details of guest check in and check out procedures;

·    Management of car parking;

·    Waste management; and

·    The keeping of a guest register of all persons occupying the Residential Building.

 

As discussed in the management plan, the property will accommodate a maximum of six guests at any given time and all parking will be contained on site, which is proposed to be included as a condition of planning approval.

 

The management plan, which is recommended by Planning Bulletin 99, establishes the parameters of how the premises will be managed and maintained to minimise the impacts on the surrounding area. Key points of the house rules (code of conduct) within the management plan include:

 

·    The property will accommodate a maximum of six guests at any given time;

·    Parking to be fully contained on site;

·    Guests must not create noise which is offensive to occupiers of neighbouring properties especially between the hours of 10pm and 7am on Monday to Saturday, and 10pm and 9am on Sunday and public holidays and during arrival and departure at any time throughout the occupancy;

·    The swimming pool/spa must not be used between the hours of 10pm and 7am on Monday to Saturday, and 10pm and 9am on Sunday and public holidays; and

·    Managers shall provide general, after hours and emergency telephone numbers to guests and neighbours.

 

A copy of the house rules shall be displayed inside the house in a prominent position. Non-compliance with the conditions of planning approval will result in a breach of any planning approval. In accordance with Local Planning Policy 4.14: Compliance, compliance action can be undertaken if a complaint is submitted to the City and is substantiated. As the initial approval is proposed to be time limited, substantiated complaints will also be taken into consideration should the applicant apply to renew the approval. Time limiting the approval is discussed in further detail below.

 

Time Limited Approval

 

The applicant has advised that the dwelling has been used for short term accommodation since 2008. Planning Bulletin 99 recommends that short term accommodation should be approved for an initial period of one year. Following this initial year, the applicant will be required to renew the approval. This allows Administration to reconsider the application based on whether any substantiated complaints have been received based on the use. Administration recommends the imposition of a 12 month time limited approval condition, after which it must return to a Single House land use unless further approval is granted.

 

This approach enables flexibility for the City to observe the use for a trial period and assess the effectiveness of the management measures. Should the operation of the Residential Building be considered to be incompatible with the surrounding area in one years’ time, a further approval may not be granted.

 

Parking

 

In accordance with Clause 4.14 of DPS 2, a Residential Building requires one car bay per two people accommodated to be provided on site. The application proposes six guests, which requires three car parking spaces to be provided. Four parking spaces are provided on site.

 

The existing Single House has a carport located at the front of the subject site, which is capable of accommodating two cars. In addition to this, the driveway has a length of 5.8m and width of 5m). Administration considers that there is adequate provision of on-site car parking spaces provided.

 

 

 

Control of Anti-Social Behaviour

 

The key concern raised by the submitters was the control of anti-social behaviour, including noise and safety. It should be noted that Administration has not received any complaints relating to the short term accommodation. Notwithstanding, the submitter’s concerns are proposed to be addressed as outlined below.

 

Safety

 

A submitter raised concerns over their safety and that potential guests may not have genuine intentions during their visit. A management plan has been prepared and assessed as part of the application. The management plan outlines the expected behaviour of guests and consequences of non-compliance to be undertaken by management, which include potentially terminating the short term lease agreement, loss of rent paid or deduction of the security deposit. The owner has provided their contact details to the adjoining properties to the east (124 Santa Barbara Parade) and west (128 Santa Barbara Parade) of the subject site, and will provide their details to the adjoining properties to the north (23, 25 and 27 Mokutu Court). The owner has advised that they live within 10 minutes of the property, and can attend if the occupants of the adjoining properties have any concerns. The applicant has also advised that potential guests will be reviewed and bookings will be declined if there are concerns regarding the nature of the stay.

 

Noise

 

A submitter raised concerns over the level of noise generated by the guests and that this would adversely impact them. The management plan states that guests shall not use the pool and must not create noise which can be considered offensive to occupiers of neighbouring properties between the hours of 10pm and 7am on Monday to Saturday, and 10pm and 9am on Sunday and public holidays. To further enforce this, the use of the outdoor living area is not permitted between these hours. 

 

Additionally, noise is to be in compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times. If noise is at a level that becomes a nuisance to local residents, Administration would investigate the noise levels and if substantiated, require the property owner to undertake appropriate measures to ensure compliance. In light of the above, it is considered that the issues raised by the objection can be dealt with through the management plan or through the enforcement of the Noise Regulations.

 

It should be noted that in the event of antisocial behaviour, including excessive noise, the Police should be contacted and Administration should be notified in writing of the issue. Substantiated complaints will be taken into consideration by Administration when the applicant proposes to renew the planning approval.

 

Swimming Pool

 

It is noted that there is a swimming pool on the subject site for use by patrons of the short-term accommodation. The swimming pool is considered an ‘aquatic facility’ as per the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007, as the owner does not live at the property and operates its use as part of a business. Aside from the various planning requirements of Residential Buildings, swimming pools that are considered ‘aquatic facilities’ are also required to comply with the Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007. The Health (Aquatic Facilities) Regulations 2007 includes a number of requirements which must be satisfied, and stipulates that patrons are not permitted to use the swimming pool until a certificate of compliance regarding the aquatic facility is obtained and the Chief Health Officer has granted a permit to operate the aquatic facility. The matter of approving the use of the swimming pool as an ‘aquatic facility’ is subject to separate legislation which is required to be satisfied. It is also noted that in any planning approval granted, an advice note is included which states that it is the applicant’s responsibility to comply with all other applicable legislation and obtain all the required approvals, licenses and permits, prior to the commencement of the development.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application has been the subject of public consultation with two objections being received. The concerns of the submitters are addressed in the management plan. Overall, the application is considered satisfactory and it is therefore recommended that Council approves the Change of Use to a Residential Building at 126 Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks, subject to conditions.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.6    Housing Choice

3.6.1  Facilitate housing diversity to reflect changing community needs

 

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 application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 and WAPC Planning Bulletin 99 – Holiday Homes Guidelines.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:-

1.   Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, APPROVES the Development Application (DA2017/361), as shown in Attachment 2, for a Change of Use to a Residential Building at Lot 745 (126) Santa Barbara Parade, Quinns Rocks, subject to the following conditions:

 

a)    This approval only relates to the proposal to the proposed Change of Use to a Residential Building, as indicated on the approved plans. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

 

b)    The use of the approved premise shall conform to the District Planning Scheme No. 2 definition of a Residential Building which states:

 

“Residential Building: means a building or portion of a building, together with rooms and outbuildings separate from such building but incidental thereto, such building being used or intended, adapted or designed to be used for the purpose of human habitation:

 

·    Temporarily by two or more persons; or

·    Permanently by seven or more persons, who do not comprise a single family, but does not include a hospital or sanatorium, a prison, a hotel, a motel or residential school.”

 

c)    This planning approval is time limited and shall expire in 12 months from the date of this approval, unless a further approval is issued by the City. If a new approval has not been issued, the property shall only be used after the expiry date as a Single House.

 

d)    The maximum number of guests accommodated at any one time shall be six (6).

 

e)    Contact details of the manager of the property shall be provided to the owners and occupiers of the adjoining properties to enable the manager to be contacted in the event of any issues arising from the use of the property. If the property manager receives a complaint, they shall attend in the first instance and advise the City of any complaints received.

 

f)     A minimum of 3 car parking bays shall be provided on site. Parking shall be arranged to ensure that there is no parking on the road verge or obstructing of movement onto or along the road.

 

g)    The approval is valid from the date of the Council's decision and does not retrospectively authorise any other unapproved use of the premises.

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

3.   ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Location Plan

17/187459

 

2.

Attachment 2: Plans

17/92751

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3: Schedule of Submissions

17/191723

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                      19

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   20

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                      23

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                      25

PS03-07/17       Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development

File Ref:                                              4084 – 17/205888

Responsible Officer:                           Manager Approval Services

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider proceeding with Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development (LPP 2.4).

 

Background

The purpose of draft LPP 2.4 is to provide clarity and guidance for the development assessment of site works and retaining walls associated with residential development. At its meeting on 7 November 2016 (PS04-11/16), Council resolved to advertise a draft revised version of the policy for public comment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Detail

The key aspects of what the LPP 2.4 provides for are as follows:

 

·    An outline of objectives, application and purpose of LPP 2.4;

 

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

 

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

 

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

Consultation

In accordance with Council's 7 November 2016 decision (PS04-11/16), the draft revised LPP 2.4 was advertised for public comment between 22 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the 22 November 2016 edition of the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers;

 

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

 

·        Correspondence to the Department of Planning; and other relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability. The stakeholders determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability were Martin Dickie (architect at Dickie Architects), the Housing Industry of Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia and the Planning Institute of Australia.

 

No submissions were received during the consultation period.

Comment

As no submissions have been received during the public consultation period, Administration does not recommend any further substantial changes to the draft revised LPP 2.4 as advertised for public comment.

 

However, on review of the draft revised LPP 2.4, Administration considered that the provisions pertaining to ‘establishing building pad levels’ (Section 2.2) could be strengthened by way of a minor change to the wording and the provision of additional corresponding figures. The modifications are not considered to substantially change how the provisions pertaining to ‘establishing building pad levels’ are to be interpreted or applied, and therefore readvertising of the draft LPP 2.4 is not considered necessary.

 

The changes from the advertised draft LPP 2.4 compared to the draft LPP 2.4 that Administration is recommending Council proceed with are highlighted in the policy extracts included in Attachment 1. Administration particularly acknowledges that these modifications could be useful in assisting the City’s assessment of grouped dwelling development occurring in urban infill areas (such as in Wanneroo, Girrawheen and Koondoola), where many development sites are undulating.

 

A revised LPP 2.4 that Council could proceed with – incorporating the modifications highlighted in Attachment 1 – is included in Attachment 2.

Statutory Compliance

Preparation and Council’s further actions in respect to revisions to LPP 2.4 are to be in accordance with Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) Deemed Provisions.

 

Should Council resolve to proceed with a new LPP 2.4, Council can consider revoking the existing ‘Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy’ (adopted by Council at its 1 February 2005 Meeting). Revocation of the existing policy can be undertaken pursuant to Clause 6 of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions.

 

Pursuant to Clause 5 and Clause 4(4) of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions, if the local government (City) resolves to proceed with a policy, the local government must publish notice of the policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area. Should Council resolve to proceed with revisions to LPP 2.4 (as recommended by Administration), public notices must then be published in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.4  Improve local amenity by retaining and complementing natural landscapes within the built environmental

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Council proceeding with revisions to LPP 2.4 (as included in Attachment 2) will result in the existing ‘Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy being superseded. A new LPP 2.4 will however still provide for standards for the development assessment of site works and retaining walls associated with residential development.

Financial Implications

The cost of undertaking the necessary actions for Council to proceed with revisions to LPP 2.4 can be met from existing operational budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.   NOTES that there were no submissions received in respect to draft revisions for Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development;

 

2.    Pursuant to Clause 5 and Clause 4(3)(b)(ii) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions, PROCEEDS WITH Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development, as included in Attachment 2;

 

3.    Pursuant to Clause 6 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.  Deemed Provisions, REVOKES the ‘Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining Associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy’ as adopted by Council on 1 February 2005;

 

4.   Pursuant to Clause 5, Clause 4(4) and Clause 6 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions, PUBLISHES notices of the following in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers:

 

a)   Of Council proceeding with Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development (as outlined in Item (2) above); and

 

b)   Of Council revoking the ‘Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation, Fill & Retaining Associated with Residential Development Local Planning Policy’ (as outlined in Item (3) above); and

 

5.   FORWARDS a copy of Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development to the Department of Planning for its information.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Extent of Changes to LPP 2.4

17/159342

 

2.

Attachment 2 - LPP 2.4 for Council Adoption July 2017

17/159345

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   29


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   35


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                      46

PS04-07/17       Consideration of Development Application for Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site - Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks - DA2016/1208

File Ref:                                              DA2016/1208 – 17/205572

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for a paragliding and hang gliding launch site with associated clearing at Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks.

 

Applicant

Hang Gliders Association of Western Australia Inc.

Owner

Crown Land - City of Wanneroo Managed

Location

Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks (Reserve No. 48306)

Site Area

Proposed area of clearing – 100m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

MRS Zoning

Urban

 

 

Background

The Hang Gliding Association of Western Australia (HGAWA) approached the City in 2012 seeking approval to formalise the use of an area of land within Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks for the purpose of a paragliding (PG) and hang gliding (HG) launch site. It is understood that the subject site and surrounding land has been used informally for this purpose for numerous years.

 

Previous Consideration by Council

 

A report for the proposed launch site was previously prepared by Administration and considered by Council at the Briefing Session held on 22 March 2016. This report was requesting support from Council with regard to the proposed location of the launch site as well as noting a draft Agreement for Access and Indemnity that was prepared by the City in consultation with HGAWA in order to permit the use of the land as requested. A number of issues were raised by Elected Members at this Briefing Session and the report was withdrawn in order to seek more information with regard to the following:

 

·    Documentation outlining compliance with the relevant standards relating to the operation of PG’s and HG’s;

·    Local Law implications;

·    Implications with respect to Planning;

·    Public consultation prior to Council considering the proposal again; and

·    Detail with regard to the process for obtaining a clearing permit from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).

 

Submission of Development Application

 

Following this Briefing Session, it was determined that the applicant was required to seek development approval for the proposed clearing and use of the site, and the matter was referred to Approval Services for further action.

 

Following further consultation with the HGAWA, a development application was submitted on 12 July 2016. The development application proposes to clear an area of 100m2 within Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks for the purpose of a PG and HG launch site.

 

Site

 

The proposed launch site is located within land zoned Urban Development under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and located within Reserve No. 48306 which is Crown Land reserved for the purpose of Public Recreation and managed by the City of Wanneroo. The proposed launch site is located within the dunes to the north-west of the existing Quinns Dog Beach and covered by the Lot 12 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee Foreshore Management Plan (Jindalee FMP). This portion of land is not currently being used for any other recreational purposes and in accordance with the Jindalee FMP, is not intended to be developed for any other purpose in the future.  A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Administration presented the proposed development application for the PG and HG launch site for discussion with Elected Members at the 13 June 2017 Council Forum.

Detail

The application proposes clearing of land within Reserve No. 48306 for the purpose of PG and HG activities. The proposal incorporates the following:

 

·    The clearing of an area of 100m2 of vegetation within Reserve No. 48306 and installing ‘astro turf’ in this area;

·    The use of the site for PG an HG activities which will operate as follows:

Access to the proposed launch site will not be controlled and will be accessible to the public. However, only licensed PG and HG pilots or unlicensed PG and HG pilots who are under the supervision of a licensed instructor are permitted to launch from the subject site in accordance with specific regulations governing PG and HG pilots in Australia (further detail with regard to licensing is included within the Comment section);

PG and HG pilots will launch from the site during daylight hours only as controlled by the regulations governing PG and HG pilots in Australia;

PG and HG pilots will park vehicles at the existing car park located on Waterland Point and access the launch site using an existing cleared pathway within the reserve (see Attachment 1); 

Given that PG and HG activities are dependent on the weather conditions, the site is likely to be used on average once per month;

It is expected that there will be a maximum of 10 PG and HG pilots accessing the launch site at any one time with a maximum of six PG and HG pilots in flight at any one time;

PG and HG pilots will land on the beach in the vicinity of the proposed launch site; and

The site will be used for the purpose of unpowered PG and HG only. 

 

Attachment 1 includes the site plan indicating the location of the proposed launch site, existing car park, and existing pathway that will be used to access the launch site.

Consultation

Clause 64(1)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2 states that an application for development approval should be advertised if the proposed development relates to a use that is not specifically referred to in the zoning table of the Scheme.

 

As a result of the above, and given that the proposal is located within a public reserve managed by the City, the application was advertised. Advertising was undertaken for a period of 21 days in accordance with Clause 64(3) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2 by means of an advertisement placed in the Wanneroo Times and the North Coast Times newspapers, a notice on the City’s website, and a letter written to the surrounding landowners and occupiers (see Attachment 2 for a map indicating those landowners and occupiers who received advertising letters). At the conclusion of the public consultation period 75 submissions were received. Of these submissions, 62 were in support of the proposal, 12 objected to the proposal and one provided comment only. A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s responses to these submissions are included in Attachment 3.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period relate to the following: 

 

·    Managing potential risks associated with PG and HG activities;

·    The potential environmental impact resulting from the proposed clearing; and

·    Car parking.

 

These are further discussed within the Comment section of the report.

 

It is also noted that the submitters are located as follows:

 

·    Of the 62 submissions received supporting the proposal, four were received from submitters living in the Jindalee or Quinns Rocks area, 23 were received by submitters living outside of this area and 35 were received with no address provided; and

·    Of the 12 submissions received objecting to the proposal, seven were received from submitters living in the Jindalee or Quinns Rocks area and five were received with no address provided.

 

The application was also referred to the DER for comment in relation to the clearing of the land. The DER did not object to the proposal and made comments regarding the need to obtain a clearing permit for the proposed clearing as well as noting that the proposed launch site is not located within an environmentally sensitive area. These comments from the DER are discussed further in the Comment section of the report.

Comment

A discussion of the main issues raised during the public consultation period as well as those considered during the detailed assessment of the application is discussed below.  

 

Acceptability of Proposed Use

 

Based on the information provided as part of the application, it is considered that the proposed use of the site for PG and HG activities cannot reasonably fall within the interpretation of any of the land use categories under DPS 2. As such, the proposal has been treated as an Unlisted Use in accordance with Clause 3.3 of DPS 2 which requires consideration as to whether the use is consistent with the objectives and purpose of the particular zone.

 

The subject land is zoned Urban Development under DPS 2.The objectives of the Urban Development zone are as follows:

 

a)   Designate land for future urban development;

b)   Provide for the orderly and proper planning of large areas of land for residential and associated purposes through a comprehensive structure planning process; and

c)   Enable planning to be flexible and responsive to changing circumstances throughout the development stages of the area.

 

During the planning process for the area surrounding the subject site which included the adoption of the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan No. 36 (ASP 36) and the Jindalee FMP, the subject land, although zoned for Urban Development under DPS 2, was designated to be included within the foreshore reserve and not earmarked for any further development.

 

The subject site is located within a Crown Reserve which is reserved for the purpose of Public Recreation. It is considered that the planning for the subject site and the designation of the purpose of the land has already been undertaken in accordance with the objectives of the Urban Development zone. Furthermore, considering the land has been identified as Crown Reserve for the purpose of Public Recreation, the proposed use of PG and HG activities is consistent with the purpose of this reserve and as such the intent of the use of the land.

 

In accordance with Clause 3.14.3 of DPS 2, no development should take place within the Urban Development zone prior to a structure plan being prepared and approved over the land unless the decision maker is satisfied that the proposal can meet the following requirements within Clause 27 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2:

 

a)   The proposed development or subdivision does not conflict with the principles of orderly and proper planning; and

b)   The proposed development or subdivision would not prejudice the overall development potential of the area.

 

The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the Crown Reserve and the applicant will be required to obtain development approval as well as a clearing permit from the DER prior to undertaking the proposed works and use of the land. On this basis, the proposed development is not considered to conflict with the principles of orderly and proper planning. Furthermore, as noted above, the subject land is not intended to be further developed in the future and the surrounding land will be developed in accordance with ASP 36. As such, the proposal does not prejudice the development potential of the overall area. Given this, Administration considers the development application can be determined in absence of an agreed structure plan over the site. 

 

Local Law Implications and Licence to use the Land

 

Clause 3.1(1)(l) of the City’s Public Places and Local Government Property Local Law 2015, states that a person must not without a licence parachute, hang glide, abseil or base jump from or on to local government property.

 

On this basis, the City’s Legal Services team has prepared a draft Agreement for Access and Indemnity in consultation with the HGAWA which permits use of the proposed launch site for the purpose of PG and HG activities. This agreement will also indemnify the City against all claims which the City may receive in respect of any injury, loss or damage related to the use of the proposed launch site and associated area, as well as ensuring all maintenance costs for the site are the responsibility of the applicant.

 

This agreement allows the HGAWA to use the site for an initial period of five years, at which time; the agreement will be reviewed and renewed should it be deemed acceptable. Further to this, the City is provided with the ability to suspend or terminate the agreement, and hence use of the subject site by HGAWA should there be a breach of any of the conditions contained within the agreement or if it is considered to be in the interest of the public and/or safety.   

 

The Agreement for Access and Indemnity is required to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Minister of Lands. This is intended to occur directly following any approval of the development application and prior to any works being carried out on the site. This is also recommended to be imposed as a condition of any development approval issued.

 

Relevant Standards Governing Paragliding and Hang Gliding

 

Following the proposal for the launch site being considered by Council at its Briefing Session in March 2016, Council requested additional information in respect to the regulations governing the PG and HG pilots. Additional documentation has been provided by the applicant in respect to this request which notes the governing regulations and requirements pertaining to PG and HG pilots as follows:

 

Governing Bodies

 

·    Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA): this is the statutory authority responsible for controlling and regulating all civil aviation within Australia (PG’s and HG’s) and is responsible for the issuing of licences to this effect. CASA operate under the Civil Aviation Act 1988;

 

·    Hang Gliding Federation of Australia (HGFA): the HGFA are delegated certain responsibilities by CASA for all Australian powered and unpowered PG’s and HG’s, including but not limited to pilot training, instructor certification, and provision of flight training facilities.

 

All active PG and HG pilots are required to carry a current licence issued by HGFA or be under the supervision of a HGFA approved instructor.

 

Regulations Enforced by the Governing Bodies

 

·    Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR’s) and Civil Aviation Orders (CAO’s): The CAR’s issued under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, are the principle documents regulating powered and unpowered PG and HG operations. The CAR’s make provisions for CAO’s which provide further information and contain detailed mandatory operational, airworthiness and safety requirements relating to PG’s and HG’s. Breaches of the CAR’s and CAO’s can constitute a criminal offence and are enforced by CASA.

 

·    HGFA Operations Manual: this manual outlines specific rules and safety measures which all PG and HG pilots are required to follow as approved by CASA. The operations manual also specifies the theoretical and practical knowledge along with the required number of accumulated flying hours for which all PG and HG pilots at specific levels (supervised, intermediate, and advanced) are required to obtain prior to receiving a licence.

 

The CAO’s issued by CASA as well as the HGFA Operations Manual requires that PG’s and HG’s must only be flown within daylight hours and within Visual Meteorological Conditions which are determined by factors such as visibility and distance from cloud. In addition to these requirements, in order to ensure that the amenity of the surrounding residents is not impacted in accordance with the matters to be considered under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, it is recommended that a condition be imposed on any development approval issued for the proposal which restricts use of the proposed launch site to be between the hours of sunrise and sunset.

 

Risk Management

 

An issue that was raised during the advertising period relates to the potential risks to the public from the proposed launch site. 

 

The applicant has provided a detailed Risk Analysis and Risk Management Plan (see Attachment 4) in order to ensure that potential risks are identified and mitigation measures put in place in order to alleviate to possibility of these risks occurring.

 

With regard to the potential for collision with the public by PG and HG pilots, the applicant has provided the following additional information:

 

·    The licensing of pilots is the primary means of mitigating risk to the public at Quinns Beach. The compulsory licensing and training required and overseen by the HGFA on behalf of the Commonwealth Government ensures all pilots have the necessary training, experience and hazard avoidance skills when taking off from the proposed site and landing.

 

·    Should a collision occur, the risk of injury as a result is further mitigated because the flying speed of a PG or HG is approximately 35km per hour. Since landing is also conducted into wind, the speed over the ground is often much less than this and when landing on the beach, the glider is generally at minimal forward speed. Furthermore, with regard to take-off speed, this will generally be at a similar speed to landing speed and as such PG’s and HG’s will be passing over the existing pedestrian walkway at no more than a running speed.

 

·    With regard to the potential for an incident to occur with pedestrians using the pedestrian walkway directly to the west of the proposed launch site, the risk of this is low. The proposed launch site is located approximately 7m vertically above the pedestrian walkway with an unobstructed view from the launch site to the walkway below. The location of the launch site has been chosen in this regard so that PG and HG pilots can ensure that there are no pedestrians walking along the walkway below when a launch is occurring.

 

Concerns were raised during the public consultation period regarding potential conflict with the proposed launch site and the Quinns Dog Beach which is located approximately 90m to the south of the subject site. It is understood that the subject site has been used informally for the purpose of PG and HG activities for over 20 years. Within this time, there has been one incident made known to the City in which a dog at the Quinns Dog Beach became unsettled by an overhead PG and ran away from its owner. There were no injuries caused to the dog, dog owner, or PG pilot as a result of this incident.

 

As a result of the potential risks identified through the assessment of the proposal and raised during the advertising period, Administration engaged an independent risk consultant, LGIS, to undertake a Public Liability Site Risk Assessment for the proposed PG and HG launch site to form part of Administration’s considerations. The purpose of this risk assessment was to identify hazards or risks to the public who may access the area, how these risks may translate to the City of Wanneroo, to consider existing controls that may manage these risks, and to provide further risk treatment recommendations if required. LGIS has not provided their consent to release the Risk Assessment as a public document and as such, this document will remain confidential and circulated to Elected Members under separate cover. 

 

The key risks which were identified for the City of Wanneroo as a result of the approval of the proposed PG and HG launch site are as follows:

 

·    Failure to ensure appropriate measures are in place to protect persons recreating in the area and residences resulting in harm, injury or damage to third party property; and

·    Failure to ensure appropriate measures are in place to manage nuisances to residences in the area.

 

There were a number of suggested measures within the risk assessment which are recommended for consideration by the City. The suggested measures are as follows:

 

1.   Prior to pilots launching from the site, signage (temporary) should be placed on the pedestrian walkway, beach entrances and car parking providing warning of PG and HG activity;

2.   The City to agree with the applicant, appropriate hours of operation for use of the proposed launch site, providing this does not contradict other legislation governing PG’s and HG’s;

3.   The applicant should be required to advise the City of any near misses, public complaints or incidents that occur;

4.   Pilots should use on-ground spotters when launching to assist in keeping the launch pathway clear, and to ensure separation of PG’s and HG’s to the public using the beach; 

5.   Vegetation shall be managed within the surrounding area to maintain appropriate lines of sight;

6.   Prior to starting any development, the City to agree with the applicant any requirements to make the area free from obstacles that may cause pilots to take evasive/emergency actions;

7.   The provision of a locked gate at the northern end of the Waterland Point carpark, with keys or an access code provided to the applicant; and

8.   The City and applicant to agree on a defined beach landing area below the launch site. Where practical, this landing area should exclude the dog exercise area.

 

A summary of these recommendations including Administration’s comment on how these recommendations can be implemented and the applicant’s comment are included in Attachment 5. Administration is recommending that all of the LGIS recommended measures are implemented. This would be achieved through inclusion of the measures within the Agreement for Access and Indemnity and will ensure that the site is operated and maintained in a way that will mitigate and manage any potential risks to the public, the pilots and the City.

 

Following any approval of the proposed launch site and the execution of the Agreement for Access and Indemnity, the City’s Health and Compliance Service Unit will be responsible for ensuring that the conditions imposed on the development approval and the provisions included within the Agreement for Access and Indemnity are being complied with. As part of Planning and Sustainability’s Proactive Compliance initiative, the requirements that have been imposed as part of the development approval and the Agreement for Access and Indemnity will be flagged with Health and Compliance, who will then conduct scheduled inspections of the site to ensure that PG and HG pilots are operating in accordance with their approval and the provisions of the Agreement for Access and Indemnity. Further to this, Administration is recommending that a provision be included within the Agreement for Access and Indemnity which requires PG an HG pilots to notify the City’s Rangers prior to using the site for PG and HG activities. This will allow the City’s Rangers to visit the site at the time when it is being used for PG and HG activities to assist in monitoring the operation of the site in compliance with the requirements contained within the Agreement for Access and Indemnity. If the HGAWA do not comply with their requirements, there is opportunity to suspend or terminate the agreement for the use of the site.

 

On the basis of the Public Liability Site Risk Assessment undertaken by LGIS as well as the Risk Analysis provided by the applicant which both conclude that any potential risks that may arise out of the operations of the proposed PG and HG launch site can be managed and mitigated by the imposition of adequate measures, it is considered that there is a marginal risk of conflict occurring between PG and HG pilots and the public utilising the surrounding area. This is further reinforced by the knowledge that the site has been used informally for over 20 years by PG and HG pilots with one incident known to the City.

 

Furthermore, compulsory training and licensing required for PG and HG operations along with the extensive set of rules and regulations which are overseen by HGFA and CASA on behalf of the Commonwealth Government will ensure that there are minimal risks to the general public or pilots as a result of the proposed launch site. It is also noted, that there are a number of other formalised PG and HG launch sites within Western Australia including; Bunbury, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and York which have been operating without incident for a number of years.

 

Insurance

 

All PG and HG pilots operating under the HGFA are covered by third party insurance to cover and indemnify occurrences relating to PG and HG activities for members. 

 

The HGAWA (applicant) is a body operating under the HGFA and as such, is covered by this third party insurance.

 

The City’s insurer has confirmed that the applicant’s insurance is adequate and provides the necessary coverage in the event of an incident related to the proposed PG and HG launch site. The City’s insurance policy also provides coverage should any liability rest with the City. Notwithstanding this, the Agreement for Access and Indemnity ensures that the City is indemnified in any circumstance where the City may be subject of a claim relating to or as a result of the use of the proposed PG and HG launch site.

 

Acceptability of Proposed Clearing

 

With regard to the proposed clearing, the applicant has submitted a Botanical Survey of the area to determine the extent of plant species existing within and surrounding the proposed launch site area and to ensure that there will be no adverse impact on rare or threatened flora as a result of the proposal. This Botanical Survey is included in Attachment 6.

 

The Botanical Survey has identified that there are no species within the immediate area of the proposed launch site that are identified as threatened or rare species. Furthermore, the vegetation within the subject area predominantly consists of shrubs and ground cover with little ecological significance.

 

The findings of the Botanical Survey has been reviewed by Administration and the proposed clearing is consistent with the City’s Local Biodiversity Strategy 2011-2016 which seeks to retain and protect all threatened and priority ecological communities, rare flora, protected fauna and priority flora and fauna. Furthermore, the City’s Local Biodiversity Strategy also notes that sites contained within the foreshore reserve are likely to and are able to be cleared to accommodate recreational needs. Based on this, the proposal to clear 100m2 for the purpose of the PG and HG launch site is considered acceptable.

 

In addition to the above, the application, including the Botanical Survey, was referred to the DWER for comment. The DWER provided the following comment:

 

·    The DWER has not received any clearing permit applications within the subject lot;

·    The proposed paraglider launch site is not within an environmentally sensitive area; and

·    The clearing of native vegetation in Western Australia is prohibited unless the clearing is authorised by a clearing permit obtained in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986, or is of an exempt kind.

 

It is normal practice for a development approval to be obtained before the DWER will consider a clearing application.

 

With regard to the proposed clearing and as indicated by the DWER, prior to any clearing being undertaken at the subject site, the applicant is also required to submit an application for a clearing permit to the DER. A thorough assessment will be undertaken by the DWER at the time the clearing permit application is submitted to consider and determine any likely environmental impacts of an application in relation to the impact on both flora and fauna. Only following this approval from the DER can the applicant undertake the proposed clearing for the launch site.

 

If granted approval by Council, an advice note will be included in the decision letter informing the applicant of the need to apply for a clearing permit from the DER.

 

Car Parking and Access 

 

Users accessing the proposed launch site will park their vehicles on the existing public car park located on Waterland Point, with access to the site being gained by an existing cleared dirt pathway through the dunes which leads directly to the proposed launch site. This existing cleared pathway is considered to be acceptable to provide access to the proposed launch site given the expected infrequent use of the launch site and the limited number of users that will be using the proposed launch site at any one time.

 

It is considered that the existing car parking bays located on Waterland Point will be sufficient to cater for the expected users using the launch site for the following reasons:

 

·    The use of the proposed launch site for the purpose of PG and HG activities is particularly dependent on weather conditions. PG’s can launch when wind speeds are between 8 and 15 knots (between 15 and 27 kilometres per hour) and HG’s can launch when wind speeds are between 12 and 20 knots (between 22 and 37 kilometres per hour). The ideal weather conditions for operating a PG and HG occur mostly during winter, autumn and spring which are generally not considered ideal for beach users due to the strong winds. The use of Quinns Beach is at its highest during the summer months in which conditions are generally not ideal for PG and HG operations. As such, at times when the launch site will attract the highest number of PG and HG pilots will be when Quinns Beach will attract a lower number of patrons and as such there will not be a high demand for car parking on Waterland Point. 

 

·    Furthermore, it is expected that the site will be used on average approximately once per month and the applicant has indicated that in the best wind conditions it is likely that there will be a maximum of 10 pilots at the launch site with a maximum of six in flight at any one time. A desktop study undertaken on aerial images provided by Nearmaps between the years 2010 and 2016 has shown that of the 20 car parking bays provided in the car park on Waterland Point, the maximum number of cars seen at any one time on the aerial images is 10 with the average number of cars present being between three to five cars at any one time.

 

·    It is noted that the launch site and surrounding area has been used informally for PG and HG activities for over 20 years without any issues raised or identified relating to a lack of car parking within the Waterland Point car park. This development application is intended primarily to formalise the activity that has been occurring for the past 20 years and on this basis, the existing car parking along Waterland Point is sufficient to cater for the proposed launch site.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that there will be sufficient car parking provided within the existing car park on Waterland Point to cater for the expected number of PG and HG pilots that will be accessing the proposed launch site, and no additional car parking bays are required to be provided as part of this application given the reasonably infrequent use of the proposed launch site.

 

Coastal Considerations

 

It is noted that the City has not completed the Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Planning (CHRMAP) for the subject area of Quinns Rocks. Notwithstanding this, State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6) and the City’s Coastal Assets Land Planning Policy 4.21 (LPP 4.21) indicates that easily relocatable development is permitted to be located within coastal areas that are identified to be potentially impacted by coastal processes.  The proposed PG and HG launch site consisting of ‘astro turf’ only is considered to be easily relocatable and therefore is deemed acceptable should the City’s further CHRMAP studies indicate that the PG and HG launch site is located within the coastal processes line.

 

Beach Landing Area in Winter Months

 

It is recognised that the beach area adjacent to the launch site is reduced during the winter months which could reduce the beach landing area that is available for PG and HG pilots.

 

The City’s Assets team are currently leading a project relating to coastal management and beach access works along the Quinns Rocks coast line. The works that will be undertaken as part of this project should ensure that there is sufficient beach landing area for PG and HG pilots taking off from the proposed launch site during the winter months. The works are as follows:

 

·    The extension of two groynes and the construction of one groyne within the Quinns Rocks area. The construction of a groyne to the south of the proposed launch site is intended to trap sand in the winter as it moves southwards to maintain sufficient beach width for visitors to the beach area surrounding the groyne. This will also ensure sufficient landing area for PG and HG pilots;

·    In addition to the proposed groynes, the City will be undertaking beach renourishment to combat any further beach erosion within the area and to ensure ongoing beach amenity; and

·    A beach access staircase is also proposed from the Waterland Point car park which will allow PG and HG pilots to safely access the beach at all times of the year.

 

Further to the above, it is noted that there is clear evidence of a limestone rock outcrop along the beach area that PG and HG pilots will be landing on. This outcrop will limit any future beach erosion to the outcrop line and help to maintain sufficient beach area for PG and HG pilots to land.

 

The applicant has also provided additional comment in response to this as follows:

 

PG pilots have always planned their flights according to the state of the beach. They recognise it as a potential hazard. If in doubt, they land south of the groyne where the beach is wide and little used by the public. HG pilots' usual landing place is up at the launch site or occasionally on the beach south of the groyne. They do not aim to land in the dog exercise area.

 

On the basis of the above, the beach landing area available for PG and HG pilots to land in winter months is sufficient and will continue to remain as such as a result of the City’s ongoing works to maintain and renourish the beaches around the Quinns Rocks area. In the case that PG and HG pilots identify any potential risks relating to landing, either on the beach or on the proposed launch site, PG and HG flight will not occur at this time.

 

Time Limited Approval

 

Given the concerns that have been raised regarding the potential risks associated with the proposal, it is recommended that the proposed use of the PG and HG launch site be approved for an initial period of one year. Following this initial year, the applicant will be required to renew the approval. This allows Administration an opportunity to reconsider the application based on whether any substantiated complaints have been received or incidents have occurred as a result of the use of the subject site for PG and HG activities. Administration recommends the imposition of a 12 month time limited approval condition, after which PG and HG activities cannot continue on the site unless further approval is granted.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Following a detailed assessment of the application and due consideration to all submissions received during the public consultation period, it is considered that the proposal for a PG and HG launch site and the clearing of 100m2 of vegetation to facilitate this is acceptable and should be supported. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the land for Public Recreation and there is considered to be minimal risk or detriment to the surrounding residents and general public as a result of PG and HG operations from the site.

Furthermore, it is considered that by formalising the proposed launch site for its intended use, the City will be supporting and providing opportunity for additional sporting and recreational activities for residents of the City of Wanneroo as well as the PG and HG community within Western Australia. 

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.2  Provide safe spaces, centres and facilities through our infrastructure management and designs for community benefit and recreation

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O23 Safety of Community

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning option

Director Community & Place

Manage

The above risk identified within the City’s existing Corporate Risk register relates to the issue contained within this report. Action plans are in place to manage this risk.

In addition, a draft Agreement for Access and Indemnity has been prepared in consultation with the applicant. This agreement will indemnify the City against all claims which the City may incur in respect of any injury, loss or damage related to the use of the proposed launch site and associated area. This agreement is intended to be signed by the Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Minister of Lands and the applicant following approval of the development application. Use of the site will be required to be undertaken in accordance with the parameters specified within this agreement.

Furthermore, the applicant has undertaken a thorough Risk Management investigation as part of their proposal and Administration also facilitated an independent Public Liability Site Risk Assessment to be undertaken for the proposal as discussed in the Comment section. Risks will be further managed through the requirement to comply with all safety regulations and flight rules imposed and enforced by CASA and the HGFA.

Policy Implications

Consideration has been given to the requirements and intent of the City’s Coastal Assets Local Planning Policy 4.21 and the State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning with regard to the potential coastal implications of the proposed PG and HG launch site. The operation and location of the proposed PG and HG launch site is in accordance with the relevant requirements of these policies.

 

City of Wanneroo Coastal Management Plan

 

At the time that community consultation was undertaken for the City’s Coastal Management Plan Part 1 (CMP Part 1), which was adopted in 2012, a submission was received stating that a designated PG and HG launch area should be developed. In response to this submission, it was recommended that the development of a designated PG and HG launch area as well as other tourism ventures would be investigated in the CMP Part 2, in terms of feasibility, suitability and location. Whilst the CMP Part 2 has not yet been completed, a development application has been submitted for a designated PG and HG launch site which Council must make a determination on. Furthermore, an extensive assessment has been undertaken on the suitability of the proposed PG and HG launch site in terms of, amongst other things, location, potential risk, car parking availability and coastal implications. Based on this assessment the proposal is considered to be suitable. Should this development application be approved by Council, the PG and HG launch site can be considered for inclusion within the CMP Part 2 at the time that it is drafted and adopted by Council. 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple

 

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 for Unlisted Use (Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site) and Clearing at Lot 500 (231) Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks as shown in Attachment 1, subject to the following conditions:

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed Unlisted Use (Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site) and Clearing as highlighted on the approved plans. It does not relate to any other development or works on the lot.

b)      The approved use of the site for the purpose of a Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site is time limited and shall expire in 12 months from the date of this approval, unless a further approval is issued by the City. If a new approval has not been issued, the use of the site for a Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site shall not continue.

c)      The applicant shall enter into an Agreement for Access and Indemnity with the City in relation to the works to be undertaken on land managed by the City, permitting use of the land for the purpose of Paragliding and Hang Gliding activities and the implementation of signage. The Agreement for Access and Indemnity must include all measures recommended by LGIS and shall be prepared by the City in consultation with the applicant and must be executed prior to commencement of the approved works and use of the site.

d)      The approved paragliding and hang gliding launch site shall only be used between the hours of sunrise and sunset.

e)      The approved paragliding and hang gliding launch site shall be used for unpowered aircraft and shall not be used for the purpose of launching any powered aircraft. 

f)       Access to the approved paragliding and hang gliding launch site shall be gained from the access way as indicated in yellow on the approved plan.

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

h)      No burning of cleared vegetation shall be permitted without prior written approval from the City.

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

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Site Plan - Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site (DA2016/1208)

17/133140

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2 - COUNCIL - Map of Landowner Occupiers (DA2016 1208)

17/204836

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions following Advertising - Paragliding and Hang Gliding Launch Site - DA2016/1208

17/12818

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - COUNCIL - Applicant's Risk Analysis (DA2016/1208)

17/185475

 

5.

Attachment 5 - COUNCIL - Recommendations of risk assessment and comment (DA2016 1208)

17/206293

 

6.

Attachment 6 - COUNCIL - Botanical Survey (DA2016/1208)

17/185478

 

7.

Attachment 7 - Confidential Attachment (DA2016-1208)

17/228509

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   59

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   60

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                      61

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 Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   88

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                      92

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   95

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                   97

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                      98

PS05-07/17       Recommendation for Local Structure Plan Alkimos Coastal Node No.101

File Ref:                                              21840 – 17/228578

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Alkimos Coastal Node Local Structure Plan No. 101 (LSP 101) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability for final approval and forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

Creative Design and Planning

Owner

Water Corporation and LandCorp

Location

Lots 9001, 9002 and 9501 Alkimos

Site Area

86.77 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban, Parks and Recreation Reserve and Public Purpose Reserve

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

 

 

Background

The proposed LSP 101 was submitted on 21 March 2016 and on 14 June 2016 the Director, Planning and Sustainability forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, notifying the Structure Plan was to be advertised. Advertising of LSP 101 commenced on 21 June 2016 and closed on the 19 July 2016.

Following this, many months of discussion and negotiation has occurred between Administration and the applicant in order to resolve a number of outstanding concerns raised in the external submissions and as a result of the Administration’s assessment of LSP 101.

Detail

Site

LSP 101 area is 87 hectares and applies to the land bounded by the Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant (AWWTP) to the east, the Indian Ocean to the west, South Alkimos Local Structure Plan No.72 (LSP 72) to the south and North Alkimos Local Structure Plan 73 (LSP 73) to the north. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

This Structure Plan falls within the Alkimos Eglington District Structure Plan No.18 (DSP 18) which identifies an ocean outfall site, which is reserved for public purpose and connects the AWWTP and the ocean. DSP 18 also identifies a regional beach and associated coastal village south of this public purpose reserve.

 

The majority of the LSP 101 area is zoned ‘urban development’ under City’s District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2). A Structure Plan is required in order to facilitate the development and subdivision of the subject area in accordance with DPS 2. 

Proposal

LSP 101 has been prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DSP 2.  

 

LSP 101 will allow for the creation of the following:

 

·    Approximately 20 hectares of Residential zoned land enabling the development of approximately 2000 dwellings;

·    Coastal Village Activity Centre adjacent a to regional beach, consisting of approximately 6.0 hectares of commercial and mixed use zoned land with a maximum of 6000m2 retail net lettable area, high density residential and community facilities including a surf lifesaving club;

·    Approximately 4.5 hectares of public open space and additional regional foreshore reserve to accommodate coastal processes; and

·    Public Purpose Reserve for the Ocean Outfall site connecting the AWWTP to the ocean.

 

The advertised version of Part 1 of LSP 101 as well as the Structure Plan map is included in Attachment 2.

 

The revised version of Part 1 of LSP 101 as well as the Structure Plan map was submitted by the applicant on 28 June 2017 and is included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

The draft LSP was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Sun City newspaper and North Coast Times, the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowner. The submission period closed on 19 July 2016, with thirteen (13) submissions being received. A summary of submissions received and Administration responses are shown in Attachment 4.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period and following detailed assessment by Administration relate to:

 

·        Compliance with State Planning Policies, specifically SPP 2.6 State Coastal Planning and SPP 3.7 Planning in Bushfire prone areas; and

·        Impact of the proposed Structure Plan on the Lot 9017 to the north, specifically in relation to economic impacts, road connections and Bushfire Management requirements

·        Environmental matters relating to the need for an updated Flora and Fauna Assessment and the requirement for additional management plans.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 101 is provided in the Comment section.

Comment

Coastal Planning

 

LSP 101 is bounded by the ocean and coastal foreshore, being a Parks and Recreation reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). State Planning Policy 2.6 State Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6) provides guidance for land use and development along the coastline.  As mentioned above, DPS 18 identifies a Regional Beach and Coastal Village Activity Centre within LSP 101. SPP 2.6 guidelines provide the following comments on regional beaches:

 

Regional beaches attract numbers of people from the local area and region. They should provide large capacity car parks, cycle tracks, toilets, showers, a kiosk, parkland, lifesaving facilities and shade. Regional beaches have a relatively high level of facilities, infrastructure, commercial development and use. Examples include Hillarys, Scarborough and Cottesloe.

 

DSP 18 requires this Coastal Village Activity Centre provides an intensive lifestyle and recreation node where the coastal foreshore reserve is integrated with tourism and beachside facilities. A coastal village is not specifically defined within SPP 2.6, however the policy does refer to coastal nodes which are defined as ‘a distinct and discrete built area that may be located within a coastal foreshore reserve, excluding permanent residential development, it may vary in size from a grouping of recreational facilities to an area of commercial or tourism facilities or accommodation.’  SPP 2.6 provides scope for coastal nodes to be developed within the area affected by coastal processes, which is explained further in this report, given they provide for a range of facilities to benefit the broader public.

 

Coastal Processes

 

As LSP 101 adjoins the coastal foreshore reserve under SPP 2.6 a coastal process analysis is required to determine the area at risk of being affected by coastal hazards, including sea level rise, over a 100 year timeframe. MP Rogers and Associates, on behalf of the applicant, completed this analysis in 2013 and this coastal process assessment is included as an appendix in the Structure Plan. The 100 year coastal process line is identified in the Structure Plan Map in Attachments 2 and 3. MP Rogers and Associates were also responsible for conducting the City’s coastal process analysis in 2015. The different timeframes for each assessment has resulted in inconsistencies between the coastal process lines as indicated in Attachment 5. Given the City’s analysis is the most recent it is recommended this data should be applied to the Structure Plan.  This is consistent with Section 4.4 of the SPP 2.6 and Section 10 of the State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines (2013) that requires decision makers to act in response to the best available science, knowledge and understanding of the consequences of decisions.

 

Coastal Foreshore Reserve Width

 

SPP 2.6 and associated guidelines requires the coastal foreshore reserve to be an appropriate width to allow for coastal processes and a future coastal foreshore reserve if coastal processes are realised over the planning timeframe, being 100 years. SPP 2.6 does not prescribe a specific width for the future coastal foreshore reserve that is required beyond the 100 year coastal process line. However, the Policy does comment that this additional foreshore must be able to provide for the values, functions and use of the current foreshore, such as public access, recreation and conservation. SPP 2.6 also requires the future coastal foreshore reserve is ceded free of cost at the time of subdivision and development as Parks and Recreation Reserve under the MRS and is required over and above the required provision for public open space.

 

Coastal foreshore reserves were required in accordance with these provisions of SPP 2.6 by the WAPC for two other Structure Plans, being North Two Rocks and South Geraldton. The coastal foreshore reserve requirements are currently both the subject of appeals with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Decisions on these Structure Plans are expected to be made by SAT in the coming six months. These decisions may influence how SPP 2.6 is interpreted or even require the Policy to be reviewed.

 

Notwithstanding this, LSP 101 proposes to increase the coastal foreshore reserve up to the 100 year coastal process line to cater for coastal processes, identifying approximately 3 hectares of currently ‘urban’ zoned land that will be modified to Parks and Recreation reserve. However, LSP 101 does not propose any additional foreshore reserve beyond the 100 year timeframe. Further, in one section LSP 101 also proposes to modify a portion of the foreshore reserve to urban zoning in a section where the current foreshore reserve sits beyond the coastal process line.  Attachment 6 outlines the proposed modifications to the coastal foreshore reserve and the coastal process line.

 

The applicant contends that the future coastal foreshore reserve is not required beyond the 100 year coastal process line, for the reasons outlined below:

 

·    The width of the coastal foreshore reserve needs to be considered in the context of LSP 101, being identified within DSP 18 as regional beach and coastal village, therefore a coastal node under SPP 2.6, and also the overall viability of the Structure Plan.

·    The foreshore reserve width was previously considered as part of MRS Amendment 1029/33 in 2006 in which the width of the coastal foreshore reservation was rationalised and reduced within LSP 101 in order to provide for this coastal village (node) in association with a regional beach.

·    The coastal process analysis under SPP 2.6 is conservative and there is significant uncertainty about potential sea level rises and the effect of coastal processes and it is predicted that an appropriate foreshore will still be available within the 100 year coastal process line at the end of the timeframe.

 

In accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, the Department of Planning (DoP) extended the City’s timeframe to consider LSP 101 until May 2017. As the City has been seeking to resolve the coastal process matters, this timeframe has now passed and in order to expedite the matter the DoP has now requested Council’s report on the Structure Plan be provided by early August, necessitating the Structure Plan is considered at this Council Meeting.

 

It is acknowledged the coastal foreshore reserve requirements within SPP 2.6 are complex and ambiguous, especially in relation to the additional coastal foreshore reserve required beyond the 100 year coastal process line. As mentioned above, the City has conducted the coastal process analysis and is currently in the process of preparing a draft Adaptation Plan, which forms part of the Coastal Hazard Risk Management & Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) however this work is still be finalised and presented to Elected Members.

 

Given the following circumstances;

·    there is ambiguity around the implementation of the future coastal foreshore reserve;

·    The City has not finalised the City’s CHRMAP which would inform the Council’s position on the future coastal foreshore reserves;

·    the matter is currently being challenged through two SAT appeals which are yet to be resolved; and

·    the DoP has requested the City’s comment on the Structure Plan by early August.

 

Therefore it is recommended that Council does not comment on the extent of the coastal foreshore reserve and advises the WAPC to determine the matter in accordance with SPP 2.6 and in consultation with the applicant and the City.

 

Surf Lifesaving Club

 

In accordance with SPP 2.6, development within the coastal process area can be considered within one of the following circumstances: public recreation facilities with a finite lifespace; coastally dependent and easily relocated development; Department of Defence; Industrial and commercial development; Coastal nodes; and Surf lifesaving clubs.

 

As per City’s Local Planning Policy 4.21 Coastal Assets (LPP 4.21) permanent assets at regional beach locations, such as the surf lifesaving club, car parking area, dual use paths are permitted to be located within the coastal process area. The policy requires that all permanent assets within the foreshore reserve have an adaptation plan over the 100 year planning timeframe. LPP 4.21 required these assets are addressed through the adaptation options of ‘managed retreat’ which means the assets needs to be in accordance with the following:

 

·    Finite structural lifespan to align with the coastal process setback where it is intended to be located; and

·    A relocation site needs to be identified for the asset so at the end of its lifespan, and when coastal processes are realised, the facility can be rebuilt in a new location, albeit this may still be within the area affected by coastal processes.

 

The surf lifesaving club and associated facilities are indicatively proposed at the 42 year coastal process line. The applicant has submitted a CHRMAP as an appendix to the Structure Plan which recommends the surf lifesaving club and associated facilities should be designed and managed or appropriate measures taken to defend this asset against coastal hazards beyond the 42 year timeframe. The applicant argues this approach is reasonable given the surf lifesaving club is required for a regional beach and that the asset is fully funded by the Development Contribution Plan.  Administration is of the view that an estimate of the lifecycle of the surf lifesaving club building should be determined (eg. 50 years) and that the building is located landward of the appropriate timeframe for coastal processes, in accordance with SPP 2.6 and LPP 4.21.

 

Administration acknowledges the strategic importance of the surf lifesaving club and associated facilities being located within the coastal process area for the safety of the users of the regional beach and the function and development of the coastal village.  In accordance with SPP 2.6 and LPP 4.21, a suitable adaptation plan is required which identifies a suitable relocation site for this asset, should erosion from coastal processes eventuate. 

 

As explained above, it is recommended Council advise the WAPC to resolve the matter regarding the coastal foreshore reserve. Therefore, it also recommended that the Council advises the WAPC have due regard to LPP 4.21 when determining coastal process matters.

 

Public Open Space

 

The City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3 Public Open Space (LPP 4.3) requires a variety of parks are provided within a Structure Plan area to ensure a balance of sizes, types, functions and locations. The Structure Plan proposes twelve parks including two nature public open spaces, one local park and nine pocket parks as defined under LPP 4.3. Refer to Attachment 7 for a plan identifying all the proposed parks within the Structure Plan area. It is noted that the applicant has agreed to remove POS B and K since these will operate as pedestrian access ways (PAW) and not POS.

 

The applicant advises that LSP 101 proposes a functional and integrated open space network with key landscape linkage between AWWTP and the foreshore reserve. The applicant notes there is a series of local foreshore parks (POS E, G, I and J) that will be used in conjunction with the foreshore reserve. The applicant also advises that the parks, in addition to their amenity and intended recreational function, have a drainage function which is required to be provided in the specific locations currently identified for POS. 

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that some parks serve a drainage function, this should not be the only consideration when determining the size and location of parks. When having regard to LPP 4.3, Administration considers that given the number of pocket parks proposed, there is not a sufficient balance between the different POS hierarchy to sufficiently provide a level of amenity and recreation within LSP 101. In accordance with LPP 4.3 local and neighbourhood parks can accommodate greater facilities and assets and provide larger areas for recreation.

 

For this reason, as listed in Attachment 8, Administration recommends that the POS network is reviewed to rationalise and reduce the number of parks. It is recommended to consolidate POS sites A, C and D which are all located north of the public use land and provide a centralised neighbourhood park south of the public use land. This review of the POS network should also have regard for the provisions of LPP 4.3, specifically the type and function of each POS, drainage requirements and the retention of significant trees and vegetation.

 

In regards to the foreshore parks, it is acknowledged that these would function in conjunction with the foreshore reserve. However, as discussed in the coastal process section of this report, the coastal foreshore reserve width is still subject to review and this may impact the size and location of these foreshore parks. Therefore the modification to the POS network will be informed by the outcome of the coastal foreshore reserve requirements.

 

Coastal Centres

 

DSP 18 identifies a coastal village (centre) within LSP 101 adjacent to a regional beach. DSP 18 did not prescribe a retail net lettable area (NLA) for this centre; however the Retail Report prepared as part of DSP 18 identified it as accommodating approximately 3000m2 of gross leasable floor space (GLA). Retail NLA includes shops and restaurants and these land uses will assist in developing a tourist coastal village.

 

PEET Ltd the developer of Local Structure Plan No. 73 North Alkimos (Shorehaven LSP 73) objected to the proposed retail NLA for LSP 101 on the basis it would compromise the role of the Shorehaven coastal village. DPS 18 indicated Shorehaven coastal village could accommodate 1500m2 GLA. LSP 73 was adopted in 2015 with a retail NLA of 3577m2 and this subsequently increased to 6000m2 as part of a Structure Plan amendment in 2016.

 

The proposed retail NLA has been assessed by a consultant engaged by the City who utilised the City’s Gravity Model to determine the impact of the proposed 6000m2 Retail NLA on surrounding centres. This Model takes into consideration all the latest retail floor space allowances in both approved and draft structure plans in the City. The advice from the consultant concludes that 6000m2 retail NLA for the coastal village at LSP 101 will not have any substantial long term impacts on current planned and approved developments, including the Shorehaven coastal village and as a result the proposed retail NLA is supported by Administration.

 

Other Modifications

 

Following the consultation process and assessment of LSP 101, the applicant agreed to make a number of changes to the LSP 101 and have updated Part 1 and the Structure Plan map (Attachment 3) to reflect these modifications. Further to these agreed changes, Administration also recommends additional modifications which are tabled and discussed in Attachment 8.

 

As such, and due to legislative requirements, Administration is intending to recommend support to the proposal as submitted, subject to a modification to replace the Part 1 document and Structure Plan map with that included in Attachment 3, plus the additional modifications outlined in Attachment 8. In addition, Administration recommends the City advises the DoP to resolve the outstanding coastal processes matter outline in the report, in compliance with SPP 2.6 and having due regard for LPP 4.21.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.1    Resource Management

3.1.1  Minimise impacts of climate change

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Administration’s assessment of LSP P 101 has been undertaken in accordance with State Planning and Local Planning Policies specifically:

 

·    SPP 2.6 State Coastal Planning

·    SPP 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas

·    LPP 4.21 Coastal Assets

·    LPP 4.3 Public Open Space

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 Coastal      Node Local Structure Plan No. 101 be approved subject to the following   modifications:

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

 

b)      Part 1 text and plan, Part 2 and the technical appendices are modified as Attachment 8.

2.       ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission no recommendation is      provided on the coastal foreshore reserve requirements for the proposed      Alkimos Coastal Node Local Structure Plan No. 101 and RECOMMENDS the        Western Australian Planning Commission, in consultation with the applicant and     the City,     resolves this matter in accordance with State Planning Policy 2.6           Coastal Planning, having due regard to the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3        Coastal Assets.

3.       FORWARDS a copy of the report on the proposed Alkimos Coastal Node Local Structure Plan No. 101 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

4.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

17/219687

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Advertised Part 1 and Plan 1

17/216190

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Revised Part 1 and Plan 1

17/216192

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions

17/229753

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Coastal Process Lines

17/228514

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Foreshore area subjec to future MRS Amendment

17/228526

 

7.

Attachment 7 - POS Plan

17/217588

 

8.

Attachment 8 - Schedule of Modifications

17/229748

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 106


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 107


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 113


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    119


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 131


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 132


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 133


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    134


 


 


 


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    140

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

AS01-07/17       Petition PT02-04/17 - Parking Prohibitions During School Hours -  Cambourne Parkway, Butler

File Ref:                                              5597 – 17/206411

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider petition PT02-04/17 requesting the City to make Camborne Parkway a no parking zone during school hours.

Background

Petition PT02-04/17 requests that the City “make Camborne Parkway a no parking zone during school hours” and has 13 signatures representing 11 separate addresses from the western side of Camborne Parkway between Bridge Lane and Tollesbury Avenue, Butler.

 

Parking prohibitions at Butler Primary School were endorsed by Council in 2008, refer Item No IN03-02/09. Signage is installed to prohibit parking on road and verge along the southern side of Tollesbury Avenue and the eastern side of Camborne Parkway and for a kiss and drive area of embayed parking on Camborne Parkway.

 

Attachment 1 shows a location plan of Butler Primary School.

Detail

Butler Primary School is bounded by Camborne Parkway, a local distributor road to the west, Tollesbury Avenue, a local access road to the north and Kingsbridge Park to the east and south.  The 2017 full time student numbers at Butler Primary School is 708, down from 912 in 2013.

 

In response to the petition request, Administration prepared a preliminary parking prohibitions plan as shown in Attachment 2 for the purpose of consultation.

Consultation

Eight residents on the affected section of Camborne Parkway and the Butler Primary School were consulted.

 

The City received responses from six properties; of the two properties that did not respond; one had signed the petition and the other did not. Butler Primary School did not respond to the City’s community consultation, however when contacted on 29 June 2017; the school confirmed that they had no objections to the proposed parking prohibitions.

 

With 100% of those that responded supporting the changes to parking prohibitions, it is considered that community consultation clearly represents the wishes of the affected residents.

Comment

The installation of parking prohibitions during school times can have a negative impact on residents as all vehicles parked contrary to the parking prohibitions may be fined, thus restricting residents and visitors from parking on the verge during times when parking prohibitions are in operation. Administration considers that this has been adequately explained in the letter, and survey form, sent to residents.

 

The parking prohibition plan was finalised as per the preliminary plan, given the overwhelming support from affected residents for the proposed parking prohibitions. While the installation of parking prohibitions is usually considered by Director Assets under the delegated authority, in this case as a petition response, Administration recommends that Council endorses the parking prohibitions on Camborne Parkway to prohibit vehicles from stopping on the road and verge between 7:30 and 9am and 2:30 and 4pm.  Attachment 3 shows the extent of the proposed changes with the full parking prohibitions shown in Drawing 2315-1-6 (Attachment 4).

 

As parked vehicles can obstruct sight lines between drivers and school children, the City is generally proactive in installing parking prohibitions to improve safety around schools.  The proposed parking prohibitions will improve traffic safety in Camborne Parkway by improving pedestrian visibility.

 

Subject to Council’s decision on the recommendations made in this report, new signage will be installed during August 2017.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.5    Connected and Accessible City

3.5.1  Deliver local transport infrastructure including roads, footpaths and cycle ways to improve accessibility

 

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 signage is expected to cost in the order of $500 which can be funded from PR-2657 Parking Scheme Signage and Line Marking.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the revised parking prohibitions adjacent to Butler Primary School as shown on City Drawing 2315-1-6 (Attachment 4);

2.       REQUESTS Administration to inform the Principal of Butler Primary School of the Council’s decision with a request to circulate the information to the school community; and

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Butler Primary School Location Map

17/229129

 

2.

Camborne Parkway Parking Prohibitions - Sketch

17/155812

 

3.

2315-1-6 Layout1

17/229427

 

4.

Butler Primary School Parking Prohibitions - Drawing 2315-1-6

17/195879

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    143


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 144


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    145


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    146


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    147

AS02-07/17       Installation of Children's Crossing Within the City of Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              1446V03 – 17/206439

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a review of local government consultation and funding sources for the provision of children's crossings within the City of Wanneroo.

Background

Children’s crossings in Western Australia are assessed and approved by the Children's Crossing and Road Safety Committee (CCRSC) to provide a fair process for assessing all applications for children’s crossings and allocation of crossing guards. The Committee has representation from WA Police, Department of Education, Main Roads WA, WALGA, Association of Independent Schools Western Australia and Catholic Education Office of Western Australia. The Children’s Crossing Guidelines detailing the process of application and approval for children’s crossings within the City are available on the City’s website. The Children’s Crossing Guidelines have also been placed in the Elected Members reading room.

 

Although the City has no direct input to the CCRSC, it is required to endorse the application and fund the installation of associated infrastructure, i.e. pram ramps, pathway links, removal of parking bays and median islands if required during the application process. Local Governments at the point of receiving the application from a school can only approve or decline the application based on what is submitted but cannot recommend an alternative location as part of the application process. Children’s crossing installations can cost between $20,000 and $50,000 and need to be prioritised in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program.

 

Warrants for the installation of a children’s crossing are based on the number of vehicle movements and the number of children crossing both before and after school as observed by the school making the application.  Administration provides assistance in completing the application process and also uses the data from the City's traffic count database to help proactively identify schools where the number of vehicles satisfies the necessary warrants. When an application is submitted to CCRSC, the counts are independently confirmed by the Children’s Crossing Unit at WA Police as part of the consideration by the CCRSC, prior to an onsite meeting between the voting members of the CCRSC, the school and the City representatives.

 

Children’s crossing application is initiated by the school, through the principal or president/secretary of a recognised school/parent organisation, i.e. Parents and Citizens or Parent and Friends, refer to Attachment 1 for application form.

Detail

Pedestrian safety in the vicinity of schools is a key issue for the City and the broader community.

 

The City receives children’s crossings applications on an ad-hoc basis throughout the financial year requiring Administration to participate in the CCRSC assessment process, prepare consultation information and identify funding sources. As applications for children’s crossings are initiated by schools, the exact number of crossings the City will be responsible for is difficult to predict. Typically the City implements three to four children’s crossings per year.

Consultation

The Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group on 15 February 2017 considered this issue which resulted in the following recommendation in part;

 

" That RoadWise Working Group:

1.  REQUESTS Administration to submit a report to Council on the Installation of Children’s Crossings.

Comment

The current children’s crossings process through the CCRSC raises four significant issues for the City as noted below:

·    The growing number of schools within the City places a large and unpredictable financial burden on the City for the infrastructure works associated with the installation of Children’s Crossings;

·    The City can only approve or decline an application based on the application submitted but cannot recommend an alternative location as part of the application process. Additionally, if the City declines an application it poses a risk  to the  City relationship with the community as it may be viewed that the City is not addressing a road safety risk around a school; and

·    Although the City’s technical input is provided for proposed children’s crossings and advice is considered by the CCRSC, the City has no direct decision making role to ensure that technical recommendations will be implemented.

·    The warrants outlined by the CCRSC are difficult to meet for high schools and require a review to reflect the recent change of year 7 students moving from primary school to high school.

 

This process places pressure on the City to reactively install children’s crossings outside the normal budgetary cycle, potentially delaying other safety focused initiatives as funding is directed to the construction of children’s crossings.

 

As the City has no direct input to the CCRSC to address ongoing technical issues, WALGA provides the only route through which these concerns can be addressed.  To provide a stronger representation of technical issues to the CCRSC, Administration recommends the establishment of a working group to advise WALGA on issues related to the safe installation and operation of children’s crossings, allowing the City greater influence in ensuring that children’s crossings are installed in the safest and most appropriate location. Administration recommends that the Children’s Crossing Working Group will perform a similar function to the WALGA Local Government Cycling Reference Group which has the objectives of:

 

·    Identify and make recommendations on strategic and other cycling issues common to the Local Government sector; and

·    Provide a sector position for Local Government representation on cycling working groups, committees and relevant forums.

 

The City’s potential role in the working group will be similar to the role of members in the WALGA Local Government Cycling Reference Group:

 

·    Focus on issues common across Local Governments, rather than matters unique to an individual Local Government;

·    Work towards the development of policy positions, practice notes; and provide other strategic and technical feedback on appropriate documents; and

·    Make evidence based decisions on matters i.e. quantified feedback, data, studies, etc. rather than on anecdotal information.

 

The membership of the working group is suggested to be Local Government Officers across a range of Local Governments of different sizes, locations and resourcing levels to provide a balanced view across the local government sector. The City’s Roadwise working group can provide guidance to the City’s representative officer in this regard.

 

The Terms of Reference for working groups are usually determined by member’s consensus within the first meeting of a working group. It is also proposed that an officer from WALGA Chair the Working Group and provide administrative support to ensure impartiality and guidance to the working group.

 

Refer to Attachment 2 for the Terms of Reference for the WALGA Local Government Cycling Reference Group as an example of similar Terms of Reference that the Children’s Crossing Working Group could operate under.

 

To enable the establishment of a WALGA working group administration recommends a report is presented to the WALGA North Metropolitan Zone Meeting outlining the four issues noted earlier in this report. 

 

Additionally, Administration recommends that the Mayor writes to the Minster for Road Safety and Minister for Transport to establish a funding program for local governments to enable effective installation of children’s crossings.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.5    Connected and Accessible City

3.5.1  Deliver local transport infrastructure including roads, footpaths and cycle ways to improve accessibility

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O01 Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O23 Safety of Community

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community and Place

Manage

The above risks 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 to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Each application for a children’s crossing submitted by schools will have financial implications for the City as it is required to endorse each children's crossing application; acknowledging the City's responsibility to install associated infrastructure including connecting paths and pram ramps.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.   REQUESTS Administration to prepare a report to be presented at the WALGA North Metropolitan Zone meeting requesting the establishment of a Children’s Crossing Working Group to provide expert advice to WALGA; and

2.    REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Road Safety and Minister for Transport to establish a funding program for local governments to enable the effective installation of children’s crossings. 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Application for Type A childrens crossing

17/34347

 

2.

WALGA Cycling Reference Group Terms of Reference

17/209964

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 151


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 161


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    163

AS03-07/17       Tender No 16231 - Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Buildings

File Ref:                                              22683V02 – 17/211400

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 16231 for the Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Buildings.

Background

The Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension building (WCCE) is currently being constructed by Pindan under Contract No 01609.  As part of these works, Pindan is undertaking a forward works component necessary for the fitout of the WCCE Level 1 and works related to building services within the Civic Centre.

 

Following practical completion and certification of the works by Pindan the fitout works to Level 1 of the Civic Centre Extension can commence.

 

Spatial design consultant, MKDC, has produced the design for the internal fitout of the Extension building and for refurbishment of the Civic Centre.  These works were tendered as a separate contract and consist of the following:

·    Extension building first floor fitout;

·    Relocation of existing workstations and furniture from the Civic Centre first floor into Extension building ground floor (temporary fitout);

·    Modification and refurbishment of the Civic Centre ground and first floor administration areas;

·    Modification and refurbishment of the Civic Centre Banksia Room, Lobby and CRC administration area and Lechenaultia room; and

·    Removal of temporary fitout in Extension building ground floor;

 

Council considered a report at its meeting on 4 March 2014 and endorsed a project budget of $27M for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension project.

 

At its meeting of 24 May 2016, Council considered Item AS09-05/16, and resolved to:

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Pindan Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01609 for the Provision of Services for the Construction of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension Building located at 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo for the fixed lump sum price of $15,990,642.41 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document; and

2.       NOTES that $12.0M has been listed in the draft 2016/17 Capital Works Program and $11.328M will be listed in the 2017/18 ($10.0M) and 2018/19 ($1.328M) Capital Works Program to fully complete the works for the construction of Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment located at 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo.

Detail

Tender No. 16231 for the Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Buildings was advertised on 8 April 2017 and closed on Tuesday 9 May 2017.

 

Due to the size of the tender documentation, a CD is available in the Elected Members Room for review.

 

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

 

Item

Detail

Contract Form

AS4000-1997 Major Construction

Contract Type

Lump Sum

Contract Duration

10 Months

Commencement Date

31 July 2017

Site Possession Date

Tentatively October 2017

Actual date to be negotiated with the appointed tenderer

Expiry Date

Practical Completion 9 May 2018

Extension Permitted

No

Rise and Fall

Does not apply

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

Legal Entity Tendering Name

Short Name

Aurora Project Group Pty Ltd

Aurora

Broad Construction Services (QLD) Pty Ltd

Broad

Broad Construction Services (QLD) Pty Ltd

Broad (Alternative Tender)

Candor Contractors

Candor

Construct360 Pty Ltd

Construct360

Hoskins Contracting Pty Ltd

Hoskins

Byte Construct Pty Ltd t/as Northerly Commercial

Northerly

Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd

Pindan

RHG Contractors Pty Ltd

RHG

Scope Interiors (1997) Pty Ltd

Scope

Shape Australia Pty Ltd

Shape

Shelford Constructions Pty Ltd

Shelford

Stylecraft Australia Pty Ltd

Stylecraft

Probity Oversight

Given the size and complexity of the project; the City appointed an external probity advisor, William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd to oversee the procurement evaluation process and to ensure fairness, equity and compliance with the Tender Evaluation Plan.

 


 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation panel comprised of:

 

Evaluation Panel Member

Function

Project Manager Major Buildings

Undertake the technical assessment and qualitative scoring of all tender submissions

Manager Infrastructure Capital Works

Provide input and oversight to the qualitative (technical) assessment

Coordinator Building Projects

Provide input and oversight to the qualitative (technical) assessment

Senior Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) Officer

Oversee the OSH qualitative (technical) assessment

Director MKDC (Spatial Design Consultant)

Provide input and oversight to the qualitative (technical) assessment

Associate Director Ralph Beattie Bosworth (Cost Consultant)

Oversee the Cost qualitative (technical) assessment

A Contracts Officer provided an oversight to the process for statutory compliance and verify the value for money assessment (price versus non-price ratings).

Tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP), which included the following selection criteria:

Item No

Category

Score

1

Price for the Works offered

40%

2

Demonstrated Experience

15%

3

Methodology

15%

4

Resources & Capacity

10%

5

Occupational Health & Safety Management

20%

Total Weighted Score

100%

 

Twelve submissions were received, plus an (Alternative Tender) submission from Broad Construction. 

After initial assessments for administrative compliance; the tenders from Candor and Stylecraft were found to be non-conforming, and were subsequently excluded from further evaluation:

·    Candor failed to submit its tender form and any signed schedules; and

·    Stylecraft submitted a price schedule for the loose furniture only.

During the tender evaluation process; further clarifications were sought from Pindan regarding their priced specification and provider of workstations. Pindan clarified that they had not allowed for the conforming Schiavello workstation system and instead had proposed an (Alternative Tender) workstation from the outset.

Pindan’s submission was ruled to be non-conforming as Pindan had proposed to supply an alternative system.  Pindan was excluded from the tender evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria 1 - Pricing for the Goods/Services/Works Offered (40%)

An assessment was made to determine the tenderer ranking based on the lump sum pricing/schedule of rates provided with the tender documentation.

A schedule of lump sum pricing has been prepared (Attachment 1 refers) which resulted in the following ranking under this criterion:

Tenderer

Ranking

Broad (ALTERNATIVE TENDER)

1

Construct360

2

Aurora

3

Shelford

4

RHG

5

Hoskins

6

Scope

7

Shape

8

Broad

9

Northerly

10

Evaluation Criteria 2 - Tenderer’s relevant experience with achievement of meeting client expectations (15%)

The tenderer’s relevant experience in demonstrating the achievement of meeting client expectations as presented in their tender submission were assessed in order to evaluate their capability to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tendering entity’s credentials to fulfil the requirements of the contract.

Shape specialises in fitout projects, and their submission demonstrated excellent examples of completed fitout projects with similar scope and size.  Their experience included a range of projects for the Australian Tax Office, Department of Education and Network Ten studios. The panel considered Shape’s submission very convincing and met the requirements of this criterion.

Broad’s submission provided relevant examples of fitout projects with similar value and complexity, undertaken for Department of Finance, Department of Child Protection and Lotterywest.  Their experience also included the recently completed Quinns Mindarie Community Centre project; which demonstrated working on a small complex refurbishment project with minimal disturbance to occupants and its surroundings.  Their submission met the requirements of this criterion.

Aurora’s submission provided good examples of completed fitout projects with similar scope and size.  Their experience included a range of office fitout projects for the private developers, Mainroads, local government agencies in Karratha, the City of Perth and Murdoch University. The Panel considered this submission provided relevant examples, which met the requirements of this criterion.

Hoskins submission provided good examples of completed fitout projects with similar scope and whilst some were slightly smaller value; they included a range of complexity including Audio Visual.  Projects included were Edith Cowan and Curtin Universities, offices and retail for private developers and Department of Human Services. 

Northerly’s submission provided examples of fitout that were relevant in size and scope They provided a good standard of experience within office fitouts for South32, Wesfarmers, HBF, Arup, CERI/The Bass Group, and MRA.

RHG provided an adequate submission however examples presented lacked office fitout experience.  Their experience included apartments in Chermside QLD and Fremantle, Mixed-Use/medical/retail developments in Secret Harbour, Berrigan Drive and Bunbury,

Scope demonstrated experience in fitout projects listing projects for DSC Armadale, WA Police, Kelmscott Library, Curtin University, and Department of Child Protection, upto a value of $2M. No images were provided.

Shelford’s submission demonstrated their building capabilities as well as smaller fitout projects, and one office fitout to the value of $1M. Their experience included a wide range of community sports facilities for City of Gosnells, City of South Perth, City of Fremantle, City of Cockburn, and City of Gosnells.  Shelford also provided further examples of their commercial and office building experience for private developers.

Construct360 provided examples of construction work they are undertaking.  Whilst this included a larger construction project in South Hedland, their fitout projects were smaller in size and scope.  Examples included fitout for St John of God in Subiaco and Midland, retail fitout, and offices for Bethanie Aged Care.  Their submission also included the recently completed small fitout project undertaken for the City.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Shape

1

Broad

2

Broad (ALTERNATIVE TENDER)

2

Aurora

4

Hoskins

4

Northerly

4

RHG

7

Scope

7

Shelford

7

Construct360

10

Evaluation Criteria 3 – Tenderer’s Proposed Methodology (15%)

Broad provided a clear considered approach to this criteria advising how they would manage the construction process and address specific issues such as maintaining access in order that the City could continue to operate during the construction period, and management of the relocation process.  Broad’s submission included a detailed Gantt chart construction program that provided concise and considered construction timeframes to meet project deadlines for the phasing of the works and staff moves.

 

Shape demonstrated a clear understanding of the project constraints, and their approach to managing the construction process, staff relocations, access and maintaining City operations during the construction period.  Shape submitted a detailed Gantt chart construction program providing a well-considered construction schedule incorporating phasing of the works and staff moves.

 

Hoskins gave thought to project constraints and phasing, providing generic information on the construction methodology, however there appeared to be some misunderstanding in assuming they would do the relocation.  Hoskins included a Gantt chart which highlighted the phased operations and moves.

Northerly provided a well thought out response and outlined the construction process with detailed site access design, and undertaking works in maintaining operations of the Civic Centre. Northerly submitted a Gantt chart construction program providing detailed consideration of construction timeframes and the phasing of the works and staff moves.

 

Other tender submissions had some shortcomings in demonstrating an understanding of the project requirements, or their submissions lacked sufficient detail and clarity in their construction methodologies.

RHG incorporated more generic information and a brief overview of construction methodology and minimal information on the impact on Civic Centre operations.  RHG included a Gantt chart which highlighted the phased operations and moves. 

Shelford incorporated generic statements and general information regarding methodology but did not provide information on coordinating the construction with existing operations and the staff relocation.  Shelford provided a high level overview Gantt chart. 

Construct360 provided a high-level overview of methodology and site constraints in minimising impact on the impact on Civic Centre operations; and noted that further development of this would be required following discussions with the City.  Construct360 included a Gantt chart which provided an overview of the sequencing of the phased works. 

 

Scope’s response provided a brief overview of construction methodology and a Gantt program which provided an overview of the sequencing of the works. 

 

Aurora did not present any statement on methodology, with general comments only, and no Gantt chart program.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking

Tenderer

Ranking

Broad

1

Broad (ALTERNATIVE TENDER)

1

Shape

1

Hoskins

4

Northerly

4

RHG

6

Shelford

6

Construct360

8

Scope

9

Aurora

10

Evaluation Criteria 4 - Tenderer’s resources and capacity to meet the requirements of the Contract (10%)

The tenderer’s resources as presented in their tender submission were assessed in order to evaluate their capacity to meet the requirements of the contract and considered staff resources, vehicles, plant/equipment and workshop support to manage the contract.

 

Shape nominated an extensive team who has experience in managing fitout and building projects.  CV’s were included which provided an overview of relevant experience of proposed staff.  Shape also provided a WA organisation chart demonstrating further depth in providing back up from Head office.

 

Broad provided a capable and experienced team.  CV’s were included which further illustrated the competence of proposed staff in managing fitout and relocation projects and to meet the requirements of this project.  Broad identified allocation of the proposed delivery team, with further back up of the team from Head office.

 

Northerly’s proposed team is experienced in managing large fitout and building projects, however, their CV’s did not clearly present details of past involvement managing fitout and relocation projects.  The allocation of time and availability to the project was not detailed.

 

Hoskins submission demonstrated capability and the roles of personnel on the project; however, the CV’s listed projects with minimal detail on past involvement managing fitout and relocation projects.   The allocation of time and availability to the project was not detailed.

 

Aurora provided an extensive and experienced team.  CV’s were included which further illustrated the competence of proposed staff in managing fitout and relocation projects and to meet the requirements of this project.  However, Aurora’s submission was lacking in detail on capacity and availability.

 

RHG proposed team is experienced in managing building projects; however, their CV’s did not clearly present details of past involvement managing fitout and relocation projects.  The allocation of time and availability to the project was not detailed.

 

Shelford provided an adequate response with a team experienced in larger construction projects however, their CV’s did not clearly present details of past involvement managing fitout and relocation projects.  The allocation of time and availability to the project was not detailed; however, Shelford did include contingency measures for key personnel if allocated to other projects.

 

Scope’s submission included a small team and deemed inadequate for a complicated project.  CV’s were not included and the allocation of time and availability to the project was not detailed.

 

Construct360 submission included a small team and their CV’s demonstrated capability with small fitout and building projects.

 

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Shape

1

Broad

2

Broad (Alternative Tender)

2

Northerly

4

Hoskins

5

Aurora

6

RHG

6

Shelford

6

Scope

9

Construct360

10

Evaluation Criteria 5 - Tenderer’s Safety and Quality Management Systems (20%)

Evidence of safety and quality management systems was assessed from the tender submissions.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

The Tender Evaluation Panel’s OSH officer carried out a more detailed scrutiny of each tender submission, focussing on how tenderers address the particulars of this project and how its systems, policies and practices are embedded within the organisation.

Broad was assessed having provided a very clear and integrated OH&S Management System and risk management procedures.

Other submissions assessed by the panel demonstrated varying degrees of capability, capacity and experience in regards to Occupational Health and Safety Management.

Aurora demonstrated awareness of legislation and proactive approach.  The submission provided reasonable evidence of use of Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and permits provided, plus other reports with no actual examples.

Construct360 have subcontractor policy, OSH templates, risk management processes, SWMS and site safety management plan provided. 

Hoskins have extensive policy and OSH templates, however, there were some legislative errors (referencing) within their submission.  Hoskins provided evidence of OSH Plan from previous project, project risk assessments, and JSA templates.

Northerly’s submission provided evidence of an effective Incident Report, SWMS and permit systems in place, but parts of their submission provided minimal information such as inclusion of a contents page as evidence of OSH Management System.

Shape’s WHSE system summary suggested extensive systems including subcontractor management, and they provided staff training matrix, sample SWMS and JSA; however, there were also some limitations noted in their submission.

Shelford provided evidence of good systems in place, various templates, SWMS, permits and handbooks and completed example documents.  Shelford provided examples of Safety Management Plans developed for each site and Risk Management principles were recognised.

RHG provided an adequate response with generic templates but no actual examples.  An OSH Management Plan was provided with evidence of permit systems; however, they provided limited reference to risk management principles.

Scope’s OSH Management System was not audited or reviewed on a regular basis and lacked clarity on accountability. Their Site Safety Management Plan included a very limited hazard/risk assessment form and the permit system lacked detail.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Broad

1

Broad (Alternative Tender)

1

Aurora

3

Construct360

3

Hoskins

3

Northerly

3

Shape

3

Shelford

3

RHG

9

Scope

10

 


 

Overall Weighted Assessment and Ranking

Tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan with the following key observations:

·    The key component of the tender evaluation is price (40%); and

·    The tenderers’ bids were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, capability and safety and quality management systems to undertake the tender.

The overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Broad (Alternative Tender)

1

Broad

2

Shape

3

Hoskins

4

Northerly

5

Shelford

6

Aurora

7

RHG

8

Construct360

9

Scope

10

Consultation

Conceptual planning for the Extension building commenced in December 2014 and a project team consisting of stakeholders from each of the City’s Directorates has liaised through a series of workshops with the consultant team to agree to the physical form, operational function, energy and green star ratings, and nature of the office building extension. 

Following the tender process for the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension in February 2016; the construction contract was awarded to Pindan on 24 May 2016, with construction commencing on 20 June 2016 and Practical Completion scheduled for 5 October 2017.

 

The same project team/stakeholders liaised through a series of design workshops in January and February 2016 with the interior consultant to agree the physical form of the fitout and refurbishment design. The stakeholders/project team continued to meet throughout the delivery of the project in agreeing and finalising the scheme, prior to completing the project’s fitout design documentation in October 2016.

 

During the fitout documentation phase, cost consultants provided pre-tender estimates for the project, which was reviewed by the project team/stakeholders. This culminated in the project team and design consultants undertaking a value management review between October 2016 and February 2017 in identifying further cost savings for implementation within the final design.  The basis of this finalised documentation was issued for Tender in April 2017.

William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd were appointed to provide probity advisor services to the City in relation to this tender and have provided a report with regard to the probity aspects of the tender evaluation process, refer Attachment 2.

Comment

During the tender evaluation process, further clarifications regarding aspects of the higher ranked tenderers submission were sought that were assessed as having impact upon the evaluation of each individual submission. 

Broad was consulted on program critical path items, disposal of assets, proposed services subcontractors, confirmation of addendum incorporation and verification of its proposed (Alternative Tender) workstation solution was a like-for–like with its conforming tender offer. Responses were deemed to provide satisfactory clarification.

 

Shape was consulted on program critical path items and working hours, proposed services subcontractors, and disposal of assets.  Responses were deemed to provide satisfactory clarification.

After responses were received and further evaluation was conducted, the overall weighted scores were refined where appropriate.

The overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Broad (Alternative Tender)

1

Broad

2

Shape

3

Hoskins

4

Northerly

5

Shelford

6

Aurora

7

RHG

8

Construct360

9

Scope

10

 

The tender submission from Broad (Alternative Tender) achieved the highest overall ranking and satisfied the overall value for money assessment in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings as detailed in the Tender Evaluation Plan.

The quantity surveyor’s assessment of the Broad (Alternative Tender) tender provided the following comments:

·    Broad (Alternative Tender) tender is highly competitive and represents value for money;

·    There is no arithmetical error in the breakdown of Broad (Alternative Tender) tender;

·    Broad (Alternative Tender) costs are reasonable in relation to the other tenders;

·    Broad (Alternative Tender) tender is highly competitive and represents value for money; and

·    Subject to the City of Wanneroo and the Design team being satisfied with the alternative proposed, Broad (Alternative Tender) tender should be considered for acceptance.

Broad’s submitted Lump Sum Price is lower than the quantity surveyor’s pre-tender estimate.

Testimonials within Broad’s submission indicate that this tenderer has constructed major building projects for past clients, and that it has successfully constructed an extensive and varied range of large construction and fitout projects in Perth.  In April 2017, Broad also successfully completed the Quinns Mindarie Community Centre (PR-1121) project for the City.

After a detailed evaluation, Broad (Alternative Tender) has been determined as the highest ranked tenderer and it is recommended to accept the Broad (Alternative Tender) tender for Tender No 16231 - Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Building.

Works Programme

The fitout of the WCC Extension and refurbishment of the WCC works programme is outlined as follows:

Tender Award by Council

25 July 2017

Contract (letter of award) by

27 July 2017

Contract commencement

31 July 2017

Possession of Site (To be negotiated with the appointed Tenderer)

Tentative October 2017

Staff moves are phased to tie in with completion of fitout and refurbishment as they are progressed

25-26 November 2017

7-8 January 2018

15-16 April 2018

Practical Completion

9 May 2018

 

Following tender award the City’s Project Manager along with appointed consultants will administer the contract during the construction and after practical completion of the works; and thereafter attend upon the 12 month defects liability period.

The current program also allows for:

·    Completion of the Civic Centre Extension building construction and for any potential construction issues to or defects to be resolved prior to commencement of the fitout and refurbishment works contract; 

·    The issuing of an occupancy certificate so that the Fitout Refurbishment Contractor can take possession of Extension building to commence the fitout works; and

·    The Fitout and Refurbishment Contractor to place orders that have a long lead-in time, and or seek approvals for works requiring shop-detailing approvals prior to site possession. 

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 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.3    Progressive Organisation

4.3.2  Ensure excellence in our customer service

 

 

 

Enterprise Risk Management Considerations

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O07 Purchasing

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O08 Contract Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

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

 

Financial and Performance Risk

Financial Risk

A financial risk assessment was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd advised that Broad Construction Services (QLD) Pty Ltd has been assessed with a satisfactory (Broad achieved a very strong rating) financial capacity to meet the requirements of the contract,

Cost Risk

The Quantity Surveyor will continue to manage payment certification and cash flow during the construction of the tendered works by employing the recommended tenderer’s priced Bill of Quantities as the basis for progress payments and pricing contract sum adjustments.

Performance Risk

Broad has recently completed a building project for the City; Quinns Mindarie Community Centre (PR-1121).  There were no performance issues during the works and completion of the contract was approximately 3 months ahead of schedule.  Broad has also demonstrated that it has successfully constructed an extensive and varied range of large construction and fitout projects in Perth.

 

Operational Risk

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

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

In accordance with section 19 of the City’s Purchasing Policy, the tender document included social and environmental considerations as non-weighted criteria Broad stated that:

 

We [Broad] understand the City of Wanneroo’s specific objectives in ensuring environmental performance within the delivery of this project.

 

We [Broad] have identified the re-use of furniture, fixtures and fittings within the project documentation and are aware of the particular Waste Targets including a target of over 90% recycling in construction.

 

We [Broad] note the specific comments in relation to this target, ‘Careful consideration of demolition to facilitate high capture of materials from existing facility’ and ‘Use of high efficiency resource recovery facility to sort waste in construction’.

 

Also of fundamental importance to the environmental targets for this project are the Greenstar targets and the Contractors particular responsibility in this area including;

·    Ensuring the Greenstar performance targets during the Test & Commissioning phase for the fit-out and refurbishment stage of the project.

·    Ensuring we are ISO 14001 certified and have implemented a site specific environmental management plan

·    Ensuring that 80% of waste by weight is reused or recycled for all construction waste

We [Broad] have carefully studied the project documentation and identified those items that are designated for reuse or disposal by MKDC for this project.

Upon contract award, we [Broad] propose to use the mobilisation period to establish a detailed asset inventory for this project to clearly identify those assets that are earmarked as surplus and, through collaboration, design a recycling strategy for these items.

This recycling strategy will include options for sending materials to a recycling centre and/or re-distributing assets such as furniture to other organisations for use. Once a recycling plan has been developed, this will be incorporated into our Relocation Plan to ensure that items on the inventory are disposed or relocated as agreed during the demolition and relocation stages of project delivery.

Methodologies we [Broad] employ onsite in order to meet our environmental targets include:

·    Providing separate bins to enable waste segregation onsite.

·    Engaging a specialist contractor to implement our waste management strategies

On completion of the works a consultant will audit the extension building compliance in meeting the environmental and energy ratings endorsed by Council (refer Item No IN02-05/15), to ensure that measures implemented by the Bollig Design Group (BDG), into the Extension building design are within the parameters required to meet:

·    5 Star – NABERS energy rating; and

·    5 Star – (version 2) Green Star Office Design ratings. 

It should be noted that compliance with the stipulated environmental and energy ratings can only be verified by a physical audit, this is normally undertaken after a year’s total occupation of the constructed facility.

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

The tender document included broader economic impact implications as a non-weighted criterion through the use of a “Buy Local” questionnaire. The response from Broad is summarised below:

·    23 out of 51 WA employees live locally.

·    Broad intends to solely engage with Western Australia sub-contractors, in particular with a preference towards local businesses in or within close proximity to the City of Wanneroo and the City of Joondalup.

·    Broad’s Local Content Policy Statement outline’s its commitment to supporting Western Australia. 

·    Confirmation of sub-contractors locations can be confirmed upon award.

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, historic expenditures, previous works carried out and the capital projects program, the project total cost /estimated expenditure is summarised below.

 

PR-2332

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Budget:

 

 

Budget up to 30 June 2016

 

$2,709,827

Budget for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

 

$14,041,502

Adopted Capital Works Budget for 2017/18 (PR-2332)

 

$10,000,000

Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2018/19 (PR-2332)

 

$132,283

Expenditure:

 

 

Expenditure incurred up to 30 June 2016

$2,709,827

 

Expenditure for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

$14,041,502

 

Expenditure for the period 1 July 2017 to date

$599

 

Commitment to date

$2,845,932

 

Project Management and Administration Fees

$500,000

 

Professional Fees & Disbursements

$200,000

 

Other Works (incl. Public  Art and Fees, Water and Power Fees, Relocation Fees)

$471,000

 

Fit-out and refurbishment Costs based on recommended tender price

$5,196,854

 

Construction & Fitout Contingency

$700,000

 

 

 

 

Total Estimated Expenditure

$26,665,714

 

Total Funding commitment for PR-2332

 

$26,883,612

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the alternative tender submitted by Broad Construction Services (QLD) Pty Ltd for Tender No. 16231, for the Fitout of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Extension and Refurbishment of the Wanneroo Civic Centre Buildings, at the Fixed Lump Sum of $5,196,854 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Tender #16231 Lump Sum Pricing

17/229980

 

2.

Tender 16231 - William Buck Probity Report

17/231694

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 177


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 178

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    179

 

Strategic Asset Management

AS04-07/17       Metropolitan Regional Roads Program - 2018/2019

File Ref:                                              6923 – 17/175979

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

To consider submissions for grant funding from the 2018/2019 Metropolitan Regional Road Program for Road Improvement and Road Rehabilitation Projects.

 

Background

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

 

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

 

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

 

Road Improvement Projects

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

 

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

 

Road Rehabilitation Projects

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

 

A number of conditions have to be met for a project to be considered in the program.  Projects qualify only if the road has a classification of a local distributor road or higher and its Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) exceeds 2,000 vehicles per day or the design traffic exceeds 1 x 106 Equivalent Standard Axles (a measurement that relates to the commercial vehicle content).  Each project is assessed using the approved accumulative points scoring system that considers road condition, surface age and volume of traffic with a minimum score of 700 points for the condition assessment.

Detail

Road Improvement Projects

GHD Pty Ltd was commissioned to prepare the City's Road Improvement Grant submissions. The multi-criteria analysis adopted by MRWA was used to evaluate roads in the City. The higher the points score the better the chance the project has in being funded. The Road Improvement projects listed below have been submitted for the 2018/19 program:

 

 

 

 

 

YEAR

ROAD

SECTION OF PROPOSED DUAL CARRIAGEWAY

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

GRANT

MUNI

POINTS SCORE

2018/19

Hartman Drive, Darch/Madeley

Hepburn Avenue to Gnangara Road

$4.5M

$3.0M

$1.5M

4.05

2018/19

Connolly Drive, Butler

Lukin Drive to Benenden Avenue

$3.65M

$2.43

$1.22M

10.13

2018/19

Joondalup Drive, Banksia Grove

Pinjar Road to Old Yanchep Road

$3.4M

$2.27M

$1.13M

2.50

 

The contributing factors to the points score of each project are traffic volumes to 2031, crash history, congestion improvement and project cost. In this instance, reduction in congestion over the 2016-2031 period has been the main contributing factor influencing the large variance in the points score. In general, most of the intersections assessed over the three projects yield moderate scores below 5.  The assessment of Connolly Drive indicated that the McCormack Boulevard/Kahana Parkway intersection and the Kingsbridge Boulevard/ Landbeach Boulevard intersection would have significant congestion reduction over the longer term resulting in section scores of 20.46 and 40.00 respectively.

 

Funding available for Road Improvement Projects to each Council is limited to $4M per financial year.  Where the value of successful projects exceed this limit, the City coordinates with Main Roads WA to fund the projects over multiple years.

 

Road Rehabilitation Projects

Opus International Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd was commissioned to undertake the road rehabilitation visual assessment and mechanical study of various roads, and to provide technical details and recommendations to comply with the criteria for the assessment of road rehabilitation projects. The table below lists the rehabilitation projects that were submitted for consideration in the 2018/2019 program. All the rehabilitation projects are asphalt reseal.

 

Item

Road

Locality

Section

Estimated Project

Cost

Grant

Muni

Points Score

1

Caporn Street

Mariginiup

Franklin Road to 250m east of Green Park Drive

$145,500

$97,000

$48,500

2,287

 

2

Franklin Road

Wangara

40m north of Dundebar Road to 50m south of Caporn Street

$328,900

$219,267

$109,633

3,315

3

Mirrabooka Avenue (NorthBound)

Girrawheen

Beach Road to Marangaroo Drive

$428,800

$285,867

$142,933

2,209

 

The deadline for Road Rehabilitation submissions was 28 April 2017 while the deadline for Road Improvement submissions was 26 May 2017. The above projects were submitted to MRWA by their respective due dates subject to Council endorsement. Following Council’s endorsement, a follow up letter will be sent to MRWA advising of the outcome.

 

The tight timeframe for the preparation of the grant submissions from the date of invitation (which was 9 February 2017) to the associated deadlines meant that reporting to Council prior to the deadline was not feasible. The City engaged specialist consultants to collate data, evaluate and prepare the submissions in accordance with the criteria set out in the invitation. The scheduling of the work and the time taken to complete these submissions could not be aligned with Council’s reporting cycle and as a result, the submissions could not be presented to Council prior to the specified deadlines.

 

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

 

Final audited projects are then collated by MRWA and a priority listing developed based on the audited points score. It is anticipated that this list of audited projects will be distributed to all Councils by September 2017.

 

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

 

Councils would expect to receive advice from MRWA early in 2018 of the successful projects for the 2018/19 financial year. The final listing of the successful projects in subsequent years’ budgets will be considered by Council as part of the annual budget process.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

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

 

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

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

 

                   2.5     Improve transport options and connections

 

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The maximum annual grant allocation for Councils is $4M for Road Improvement Projects and $750K for Road Rehabilitation Projects. A condition of the grant under the MRRP is that the City must contribute at least one third of the project cost to secure the State Government funding.

The City's current Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) makes provisions for Metropolitan Regional Road Program projects in the 2018/19 financial year, comprising the State government’s grant allocation and the City’s one third contribution. Should the funding submission for projects submitted to the Road Improvement and Road Rehabilitation Program be successful, the exact matching funding requirements would be adjusted as part of the 2018/19 annual budget deliberations.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the submission of the following projects to Main Roads WA for grant funding consideration as part of the 2018/2019 Metropolitan Regional Road Program: -

 

1.       Road Improvement Projects:-

YEAR

ROAD

SECTION OF PROPOSED DUAL CARRIAGEWAY

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

GRANT

MUNI

2018/19

Hartman Drive, Darch/Madeley

Hepburn Avenue to Gnangara Road

$4.5M

$3.0M

$1.5M

2018/19

Connolly Drive, Butler

Lukin Drive to Benenden Avenue

$3.65M

$2.43M

$1.22M

2018/19

Joondalup Drive, Banksia Grove

Pinjar Road to Old Yanchep Road

$3.4M

$2.27M

$1.13M

2.       Road Rehabilitation Projects:-

Year

ROAD

LOCALITY

SECTION

ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

GRANT

MUNI

2018/2019

Caporn Street

Mariginiup

Franklin Road to 250m east of Green Park Drive

$145,500

$97,000

$48,500

2018/2019

Franklin Road

Wangara

40m north of Dundebar Road to 50m south of Caporn Street

$328,900

$219,267

$109,633

2018/2019

Mirrabooka Avenue (NorthBound)

Girrawheen

Beach Road to Marangaroo Drive

$428,800

$285,867

$142,933

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    184

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

AS05-07/17       Tender No. 17043 - Construction of Grandis Park Sports Pavilion and Oval Floodlighting

File Ref:                                              23805 – 17/219410

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 17043 for the Construction of Grandis Park Sports Pavilion and Oval Floodlighting.

Background

Council, at its meeting on 26 April 2016, considered Item No CP06-04/16 and adopted a number of recommendations including the concept plan for the Banksia Grove Changerooms Facility and Floodlighting:

1.   ENDORSES the Banksia Grove District Open Space – Changerooms and Floodlighting Concept Plan shown in Attachment 5 of this report; and

2.   NOTES that a CSRFF Grant Application for $660,000 is scheduled to be submitted in September 2016, for the Sports Amenities Building and Floodlighting projects, with notification of the grant outcome expected in  February 2017;” and,

Following the announcement from the Department Sport and Recreation (DSR), Council, at its meeting on 7 March 2017, considered Item No CP01-03/17 and resolved to:

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-2819 Banksia Grove Sports Amenities Building and Floodlighting

$1,073,000

$1,000,000

$73,000”

The project was subsequently named the Grandis Park Sports Pavilion. A grant funding agreement was signed-off by DSR on the 18 March 2017. The detailed design phase was completed by Site Architectural Studio and included the preparation of technical specification and documentation for the construction tender. This report now considers a recommendation to award tender for the construction phase to proceed.

Detail

Tender No. 17043 for the Construction of Grandis Park Sports Pavilion and Oval Floodlighting was advertised on Saturday, 8 April 2017 and closed on Tuesday, 16 May 2017.

A copy of the Tender document has been placed in the Elected Members’ reading room for perusal.

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

Item

Detail

Contract Form

Major Works – AS4000

Contract Type

Lump Sum

Contract Duration

8 months from site possession plus 12 months Defects Liability Period 

Commencement Date

2 weeks after receipt of Letter of Award

Expiry Date

12 months after Practical Completion

Extension Permitted

No

Rise and Fall

Does not apply

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

BE Projects (WA) 

BE Projects

Bistel Construction 

Bistel

Buildon Construction

Buildon

Candor Contractors 

Candor

Classic Contractors

Classic

Geared Construction 

Geared

Metrocon 

Metrocon

RHG Contractors 

RHG

Shelford Construction 

Shelford

Solution 4 Building 

Solution 4

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprised of Project Officer Building, Coordinator Building Projects, Coordinator Community Facilities Planning, Occupational Safety and Health Officer, Project Architect, Project Quantity Surveyor, and Contracts Officer.

Probity Oversight

Oversight to the tender assessment process was undertaken by the City’s Contracts Officer.

Tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan which included the following selection criteria:

Item No

Description

Weighting

1

Lump Sum Price Submission

40%

2

Organisation Experience in similar works

15%

3

Key Personnel Experience in similar works

15%

4

Methodology (Understanding of Tender)

15%

5

OSH, Quality & Risk

15%

Evaluation Criteria 1 - Pricing for the Goods/Services/Works Offered (40%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the lump sum pricing provided with the tender documentation. Refer Attachment 1.

Tenderer

Ranking

Solution 4

1

Buildon

2

Shelford

3

Metrocon

4

Classic

5

Bistel

6

RHG

7

Geared

8

BE Projects

9

Candor

10

Evaluation Criteria 2 - Organisational Experience in similar works (15%)

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

BE Projects’ demonstrates very good local government experience and presented relevant projects of similar size including work of higher complexity. Its portfolio included details of projects for the Shire of Goomalling and the Cities of Rockingham and Belmont.

Metrocon’s response demonstrated very good capability and capacity. Their experience included a range of projects for the Anglican School Commission, Catholic Education Office WA, Cities of Swan and Kwinana. The projects presented were similar in complexity and scale.

Shelford’s submission demonstrated adequate capability, varying experience and capacity. Projects demonstrated included works for the Cities of Gosnells, Kwinana, Rockingham, Fremantle, Cockburn, and South Perth. It also included construction type information, scale of works, and complexity.

Bistel’s demonstrated adequate capability and experience with local government by including past project delivered for the City of Wanneroo as well as the Cities of Rockingham and Armadale. Bistel’s submission did not expand on successes, lessons learnt, issues and how it was resolved.

Classic, Geared and RHG’s submissions demonstrated marginal capability, capacity and experience relevant to the requirement of the evaluation criterion. Past experiences include extensions, refurbishments, upgrades, commercial projects and limited local government experiences.

Submissions from Solution 4 and Candor did not provide sufficient information to validate capability and capacity. The majority of their experience is refurbishment type works and did not address the criterion in terms of demonstrated projects of similar scale, cost or complexity.

Buildon’s submission was ranked the lowest as there were deficiencies in the submission. The TEP considers the respondent’s experience limited. The submissions main shortcoming was the lack of relevant project examples, lessons learnt and the lack of demonstrated experience in resolving issues on projects.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

BE Projects

1

Metrocon

1

Shelford

3

Bistel

4

Classic

5

Geared

5

RHG

5

Solution 4

8

Candor

9

Buildon

10

Evaluation Criteria 3 - Key Personnel Experience (15%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' team members allocated for the project and the relevant experiences in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances.

Shelford’s submission is demonstrates very good capability, capacity and experience. The inclusion of CVs for the nominated key personnel and resource commitments further illustrate compliance to the requirements of this criterion.

BE Projects, Bistel and Metrocon’s submission complies and the information of key personnel put forward by each respondent demonstrates adequate capability, capacity and experiences relevant to the requirement of the criterion.

RHG’s submission has minor omissions, lacked detail for; the proposed key personnel, relevance of past roles and involvement in demonstrated projects was not clearly presented. The response was not clear on the involvement of proposed personnel deployment for the tendered project.

Buildon, Classic, Geared and Solution 4’s responses have omissions. Some submissions did not include further breakdown of individual relevant past experience, history of employment and/or previous roles held that may be relevant to the requirement of the criterion. Overall, the responses demonstrating limited capacity and experience.

Candor’s submission did not include further details on key personnel, past experiences to demonstrate relevance to the requirement of the criterion. Overall response has shortcomings and could not be considered further. The TEP has reservations that the respondent is able to demonstrate capability and capacity.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Shelford

1

BE Projects

2

Bistel

2

Metrocon

2

RHG

5

Buildon

6

Classic

6

Geared

6

Solution 4

6

Candor

10

Evaluation Criteria 4 - Methodology (15%)

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

Bistel’s submission demonstrates a very good understanding of the requirements and included detailed project specific assumptions, identification of critical issues for success, program, cash flow statement, and identification of associated risk to be addressed.

BE Projects’ detailed submission demonstrated good capability, capacity and experience. Their submission included a construction program, Gantt schedule, procurement and risk assessment.

Geared, Shelford and Solution 4’s submission were compliant and demonstrated adequate capability, capacity and fair understanding of the tender requirement by providing information on safety, program, breakdown of tasks, reporting requirements, quality management and generic indication of responsibilities.

Metrocon’s submission demonstrates a marginal capability, capacity and experience relevant to the requirement of the evaluation criterion. Their submission has minor omissions and the proposed construction management plan is general with insufficient detail considering the complexity of the work required.

Classic’s submission demonstrates marginal capability, capacity and experience. The Gantt chart provided lacked details on handover, inspection, familiarisation or site restorative works and the methodology statement was generic.

Buildon and RHG’s submission had shortcomings and deficiencies in demonstrating the respondents’ capability, capacity, experience and understanding of the requirements of the scope of work.

Candor’s submission demonstrated an incomplete Gantt chart, and lack of detail indicating limited experience in understanding of the requirements of the criterion.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Bistel

1

BE Projects

2

Geared

3

Shelford

3

Solution 4

3

Metrocon

6

Classic

7

Buildon

8

RHG

8

Candor

10

Evaluation Criteria 5 - Tenderer’s Safety and Quality Management Systems (15%)

Evidence of safety and quality management policies and practices was assessed from the tender submissions. The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

All tenderers provided details of their safety management systems with the following ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

BE Projects

1

Bistel

2

Shelford

2

Solution 4

4

Geared

5

Buildon

6

Candor

6

Classic

6

RHG

6

Metrocon

10

Overall Weighted Assessment and Ranking

Tenderers’ submissions were reviewed in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, capability and safety and quality management systems to undertake the tender.

 

The overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Shelford Construction 

1

Bistel Construction 

2

BE Projects (WA) 

3

Metrocon 

4

Solution 4 Building 

5

Geared Construction 

6

Classic Contractors

7

RHG Contractors 

8

Buildon Construction

9

Candor Contractors 

10

Consultation

The consultation on the concept for this project was conducted during February March 2016 and the feedback was considered in preparing the design and tender documentation.

Comment

The tender submission from Shelford achieved the highest ranking and satisfied the overall value for money assessment in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings as detailed in the TEP and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.

Key characteristics of Shelford’s submission are:

·    Competitive lump sum price;

·    Relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Experienced and suitably qualified key personnel for successful delivery

·      Sound  recommendations through reference checks

Based on the tender analysis, a number of queries were raised with Shelford to ensure that its price reflects the full scope of works as documented and are related to concrete paving, metalwork, hardware, carpentry, joinery and cabinetworks. The response was both timely and positive in confirming their tender allowances. Similar queries were also raised with the other two tenderers being considered, who also responded positively.

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 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.2  Provide safe spaces, centres and facilities through our infrastructure management and designs for community benefit and recreation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enterprise Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O07 Purchasing

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O08 Contract Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

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

Financial and Performance Risk

Financial Risk

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

Performance Risk

Shelford is responsible for the delivery of the City’s Sports Amenities and Carpark at Riverlinks Park, Clarkson and was recently awarded the contract for the Ridgewood Reserve Sports Amenities Building multipurpose room extension. There are no performance issues to date and delivery for both projects is on schedule.

Operational Risk

Operational risk and mitigation will be addressed through the risk assessment process of the project management framework.

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

In accordance with section 19 of the City’s Purchasing Policy the tender document included social and environmental considerations as non-weighted criteria. Shelford’s submission informs the following:

·    Shelford develops site specific Management Plans for all projects which includes an Environmental Management Statement (EMS) prior to the commencement of work;

·    Shelford environmental and sustainability initiatives includes compliancy with commercial energy efficiency rating as per National Construction Code (NCC, Volume 1 Section J), utilisation of materials management software to minimise excess, waste management systems through third party service providers, and procurement policies that promotes cleanliness and environmental responsibilities; and

·    Shelford works to minimise negative social impact from its activities by working during prescribed work time, minimising airborne contaminants, and managing noise impact.

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

The tender document included broader economic impact implications as a non-weighted criterion through the use of a “Buy Local” questionnaire. Shelford’s response advises;

·    Shelford allocates work to locally based subcontractors within close proximity to the City of Wanneroo and, goods and services purchased from locally based suppliers will constitute approximately 16% of the total value of the contract;

·    Shelford will procure all supplies, manufactured products and services from locally based companies or, in the case of national or international companies, deal with local distributors; and

·    All products purpose-built for the project will be manufactured in Western Australia and locally sourced materials will be used in the construction of the building and floodlighting.

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, historic expenditures, previous works carried out and the capital projects program, the project total cost /estimated expenditure is summarised below.

 

PR-2819  Sports Ground - Banksia Grove

Description

Expenditure

Budget

Budget:

 

 

Cumulative Budget up to 2016/17 (PR-2819)

 

$252,924

Allocated Capital Works Budget for 2017/18 (PR-2819)

 

$2,816,401

Expenditure:

 

 

Expenditure incurred to date 2016/17

$252,924

 

Commitment to date

$53,760

 

Project Management & Administration Fees

$90,000

 

Construction Costs based on recommended tender price

$2,329,324

 

Construction Contingency

$230,000

 

 

 

 

Total Estimated Expenditure

$2,956,008

 

Total Funding

 

$3,069,325

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Shelford Constructions for Tender No. 17043, for the Construction of Grandis Park Sports Pavilion and Oval Floodlighting, at a Fixed Lump Sum of $2,329,324.20 (+GST) in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender documentation.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Grandis Park report - Attachment 1

17/230833

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 192

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    193

 

Parks & Conservation Management

AS06-07/17       Tender No 17006 - The Provision of Golf Course Maintenance Services for a period of Three Years

File Ref:                                              28832 – 17/207051

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 17006 for the Provision of Golf Course Maintenance for a period of Three Years.

Background

Maintenance of the City’s two golf courses, Marangaroo Golf Course and Carramar Golf Course, has previously been addressed by the awarding of term contracts. The provision of golf course maintenance is considered a specialised service which has previously been contracted out and it is likely to continue to be contracted out into the foreseeable future.

 

The services are currently provided by Turfmaster under Contract No 01509 awarded for the period 1 July 2015 to 15 May 2017 which was extended to 17 September 2017 to enable any new tenderer sufficient time to mobilise and procure equipment to service the new contract.

 

The previous specification and scope of the works was reviewed, with a view that improvements should be made to raise the overall standards of the City’s golf courses. An industry specific consultant was employed to assist the City’s Principal Technical Officer – Parks to develop a new specification and scope of works. Key amendments to the specification include:

 

·    The requirement of all machinery to be less than three years from date of manufacture;

·    Higher fertility of plant and soil requirements;

·    High level pest, disease and weed control;

·    Increased turf renovation practices; and

·    Increased reporting.

 

Exclusions to this contract which are carried out under a separate contract are:

·    Management of the pro shop and golf course food and beverage;

·    Management of golfing commitments; and

·    Cleaning of on course toilets and buildings.

 

The amendments to the specification and scope of works will increase the overall aesthetic, performance and standard of the City’s two golf courses; thus increasing the playing numbers and revenue collected by the City.

 

It is proposed that a new contract be awarded for a period of three years with an option of two x 12 month extension periods. This will provide the City’s golf course maintenance programs with continuity over an extended period and ensure that the procurement of new machinery and plant for the successful tenderer is economically viable.

Detail

Tender No. 17006 for the Provision of Golf Course Maintenance Services at Marangaroo and Carramar Golf Courses was advertised on Saturday 18 March 2017 and closed on Wednesday 19 April 2017.

A copy of the Tender document has been placed in the Elected Members’ reading room for perusal.

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

 

Item

Detail

Contract Form

The Supply of Goods and the Provision of Services

Contract Type

Lump Sum

Contract Duration

For a period of three years with Two x 12 Month options to extend

Commencement Date

18 September 2017

Expiry Date

17 September 2020

Extension Permitted

Yes, Two x 12 months.

Rise and Fall

Maximum Perth All Groups CPI increases upon extensions.

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·      DC Golf;

·      Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd;

·      Green Options;

·      LD Total;

·      Skyline Landscaping;

·      Turfcare WA; and

·      Turfmaster Pty Ltd.

 

The Tender Evaluation panel comprised of the following:

·      Principal Technical Officer;

·      Manager Contracts & Procurement;

·      Technical Officer Contract Administration; and

·      Occupational Health and Safety Officer

Probity Oversight

Oversight to the tender assessment process was undertaken by an external Probity Advisor from William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd. The City’s Contracts Officer facilitated the tender evaluation process.

Tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP).  The TEP included the following selection criteria:

Item No

Description

Weighting

1

Price

30%

2

Demonstrated experience of key personnel in managing and producing high quality golf courses in Western Australian conditions

25%

3

Demonstrated knowledge and ability to provide and follow golf course maintenance programs

25%

4

Occupational health and safety

20%

All tender submissions received were conforming and evaluated.


 

Evaluation Criteria 1 - Pricing for the Goods/Services/Works Offered (30%)

An assessment was made to determine the tenderer ranking based on the lump sum pricing provided with the tender documentation.

Price was assessed as a lump sum total of combined schedules 1A and 1B for the three year period of the contract.

A schedule of lump sum pricing has been prepared (Attachment 1 refers) which resulted in the following ranking under this criterion:

Tenderer

Ranking

Skyline Landscaping

1

Turfcare WA

2

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

Green Options

4

DC Golf

5

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd

6

LD Total

7

Evaluation Criteria 2 - Demonstrated experience of key personnel in managing and producing high quality golf courses in Western Australian conditions (25%)

The tenderer’s relevant experience in demonstrating the achievement of meeting client expectations as presented in their tender submission were assessed in order to evaluate their capability to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tendering entity’s credentials to fulfil the requirements of the contract.

Turfcare WA, Turfmaster Pty Ltd and DC Golf all demonstrated that key personnel have good experience in managing and producing high quality golf courses in Western Australian conditions. Their submissions included in-depth overviews and resumes of all proposed key personnel and their experience on Western Australian Golf courses, thus demonstrating knowledge and experience.

Green Options provided in-depth overviews of key personnel, but only one member of the proposed key personnel had any experience working on golf courses under Western Australian Conditions and it was unclear as to whether that experience was in managing golf courses. LD Total did not provide in-depth overviews and resumes of proposed key personnel and while it was stated that key personnel had relevant experience it was not demonstrated adequately through the submission. LD Total and Green Options did not adequately demonstrate relevant experience.

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd provided overviews of their State Manager and the proposed Superintendent for Carramar Golf Course with little information provided on proposed Superintendent at Marrangaroo Golf Course. While the proposed Superintendent at Carramar has demonstrated experience relevant to the criteria, Global Turf’s State Manager has limited experience in Western Australian conditions with the majority of his experience being in construction and not maintenance.

Skyline Landscaping did not demonstrate that any key personnel had experience working or managing golf courses under Western Australian conditions.

The assessment of this evaluation criterion has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

1

DC Golf

1

Green Options

4

LD Total

4

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd

6

Skyline Landscaping

7

 

Criteria 3 - Demonstrated knowledge and ability to provide and follow golf course maintenance programs (25%)

The tenderer’s resources as presented in their tender submission were assessed in order to evaluate their capacity to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources, vehicles, plant/equipment and workshop support to manage the contract. Tenderers were also asked to provide a detailed golf course forward maintenance plan based on Western Australian conditions.

 

Turfcare WA and DC Golf both provided high level maintenance programs with in-depth analysis of individual turf surfaces with timing of good pest and disease preventative programs suited to Western Australian conditions. Both tenderers also provided staffing flow charts and plant and equipment lists that demonstrated adequate staffing and equipment to carry out the planned maintenance programs.

 

Turfmaster Pty Ltd provided high level maintenance programs with in-depth analysis of individual turf surfaces with timing of appropriate pest and disease preventative programs suited to Western Australian conditions, although there were some minor omissions in forward maintenance programs.

 

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd and Green Options both provided adequate demonstrated knowledge and ability, but lacked information in their submissions.

 

LD Total and Skyline Landscaping both provided insufficient forward maintenance programs that were difficult to interpret and were not convincing. Examples of this included planning high level mowing programs in summer months while demonstrating low staff and equipment levels.

 

The assessment of this evaluation criterion has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA

1

DC Golf

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd

4

Green Options

4

LD total

6

Skyline Landscaping

6

 

Evaluation Criteria 4 - Tenderer’s Safety and Quality Management Systems (20%)

Evidence of safety and quality management policies and practices were assessed from the tender submissions.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

Both Turfcare WA and Green Options submissions were assessed as demonstrating very good to excellent capability, capacity and experience in regards to Occupational Health and Safety, with both tenderer’s providing in-depth safety management documentation.

Turfmaster Pty Ltd submission was assessed as having some minor uncertainties and shortcomings in the documentation provided. LD Total and Skyline Landscaping’s submissions were not completely convincing with some gaps in documentation provided.

The submission provided by Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd was assessed as demonstrating only a marginal to adequate understanding of the requirements. DC Golf’s submission was also assessed as having a marginal understanding of the requirements with some major gaps in documentation provided.

All tenderers provided details of their safety management systems with the following tenderer ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA

1

Green Options

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

3

LD Total

4

Skyline Landscaping

4

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd

6

DC Golf

7

Overall Weighted Assessment and Ranking

Tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan with the following key observations:

·    the key component of the tender evaluation is price (30%); and

·    the tenderers’ bids were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, capability and safety and quality management systems to undertake the tender.

 

The overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

Turfcare WA

1

Turfmaster Pty Ltd

2

DC Golf

3

Green Options

4

Skyline Landscaping

5

Global Turf Projects Pty Ltd

6

LD Total

7

Consultation

The City engaged the services of a golf course consultant Trevor Strachan (trading as Amlet Trust) to provide advice in the development of the specification and scope of works for the contract to ensure continuous improvement in the standards and playability of the City’s golf courses. 

William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd were appointed to provide probity advisor services to the City in relation to this tender and have provided a report with regard to the probity aspects of the tender evaluation process (Attachments 2 and 3 refer).

Comment

The tender submission from Turfcare WA achieved the highest ranking in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings as detailed in the Tender Evaluation Plan and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.

 

Turfcare WA demonstrated a very good understanding of the requirements of this golf course maintenance contract which has been demonstrated in their submission and responses to relevant weighted criteria. They have proven their ability to conduct similar services for the City and other local government authorities as well as in the private sector. They have an excellent safety record and appropriate safety management plans in place to continue with this record. They have therefore been assessed to have the required experience staff, demonstrated knowledge and equipment to meet the contract requirements.

 

The current golf course maintenance contract (contract 01509) includes leases for caretaker’s cottages located at each golf course. These cottages are utilised by maintenance staff employed by the current contractor and the City collects no rent.

 

This contract (Contract 17006) will be awarded solely as a golf course maintenance contract and the lease and use of the caretaker’s cottages will not form part of that contract.

 

Should any lease for the cottages be deemed necessary it will be through further negotiation between the City and the successful contractor following the award of the contract at the total discretion of the City.

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.

 

Any existing lease termination or future lease agreement for the caretaker’s cottages will be in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 and Local Government Act 1995 on the same terms of the Contract for the Provision of Golf Course Maintenance Services.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.2  Provide safe spaces, centres and facilities through our infrastructure management and designs for community benefit and recreation

 

Enterprise Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O08 Contract Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O04 Asset Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 


 

Financial and Performance Risk

Financial Risk

A financial risk assessment was undertaken against the recommended tenderer by Equifax Credit Rating Pty Ltd (Equifax). Turfcare WA received a “Marginal” rating against the financial information provided.

Given the significance of the Contract, to gain a further understanding of Turfcare’s cash flow /resources for the provision and upkeep of plant and equipment, staff resources, materials and associated services, financial representatives from Turfcare were interviewed by the City. Turfcare provided an in depth financial overview prior to being interviewed that included financial statements as of 31 March 2017, a budgeted income statement, balance sheet and cash flow forecast for the 2017/2018 financial year which demonstrated its’ financial capability to service the needs of this maintenance contract.

 

Turfcare WA has also agreed to provide a $100,000 bank guarantee to the City and has agreed to a regular financial monitoring regime during the term of the Contract. Financial risks are further mitigated as the payment for the work undertaken under this contract made after the verification of work at the end of the month.

 

Performance Risk

A high level of service to carry out this Contract is integral to maintaining the playability of the City’s golf courses, whilst maintaining current playing numbers and attracting new players to the courses. Turfcare WA currently service three maintenance contracts for the City in the area of turf maintenance as well as currently servicing a golf course construction contract at Carramar Golf Course. During the time of servicing these contracts Turfcare WA have maintained an excellent safety record and have conducted all works in a timely manner to a high standard that meets the City’s satisfaction.

 

Independent reference checks were obtained from three Local Government sources at the City of Canning, City of Armadale and the City of Bayswater and these reference checks indicated that Turfcare WA has always completed works in a timely manner to a high standard of workmanship while having open lines of communication. All referees stated that they would happily work with Turfcare WA again in the future.

 

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

Turfcare WA has stated that they are committed to the sustainable management of the City’s Golf courses through the use of technology to reduce the environmental effects of pesticides and fertilisers that are used on the golf courses, whilst procuring 90% of materials locally.

 

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

Turfcare WA is a Western Australian owned business based within the City of Wanneroo in Landsdale with 20 staff members residing locally.

Policy Implications

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

Financial (Budget) Implications

The costs associated with the Provision of Golf Course Maintenance are included in the Annual Operational Budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

1.   That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Turfcare WA for Tender No. 17006, for the Provision of Golf Course Maintenance Services, at a lump sum of $3,629,853 for both golf courses over the initial 3 year term of the Contract and in accordance with the conditions of tendering;

 

2.   AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a lease between the City of Wanneroo and Turfcare WA for the caretakers cottages at Marangaroo Golf Course and Carramar Golf Course for a period applicable to the contract term;

 

3.   AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a lease for each caretakers cottage between the City of Wanneroo and Turfcare WA in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy;

 

4.   AUTHORISES the publication of a local public notice of the intention to enter into the lease for each cottage in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

 

5.   NOTES if any submissions are received a further report will be presented to Council.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Tender 17006 - Lump Sum Pricing Att 1

17/220679

 

2.

Tender 17006 - William Buck report Att 2

17/220685

 

3.

Tender 17006 William Buck supplementary report

17/230969

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 201


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 202


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 203


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    204

AS07-07/17       Tender No  17051 – Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch or Marri Woodchip Ground Cover

File Ref:                                              29529 – 17/214058

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 17051 for the Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch or Marri Woodchip Ground Cover for a period of 24 months.

Background

Historically the City has sourced untreated mulch from the Wangara Recycling Centre through Western Tree Recyclers under Contract No. 16132. However there is a need for higher quality treated mulch for application in high profile areas within the City.  Such mulch is not available through the Western Tree Recyclers contract with the City.

 

The City will continue to utilise untreated mulch from Western Tree Recyclers for other applications in the City where appropriate.

Detail

Tender No. 17051 for the Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch and Marri Wood Chip Ground Cover was advertised on 20 May 2017 and closed on Tuesday 6 June 2017.

 

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

 

Item

Detail

Contract Form

Goods and/or Services

Contract Type

Schedule of Rates

Contract Duration

2 years

Commencement Date

1 August 2017

Expiry Date

31 July 2019

Extension Permitted

Yes, 2 periods of 1 year

Rise and Fall

Maximum Perth All Groups CPI increases upon extensions

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·      D & TL Barker Nominees, T/A WA TreeWorks

·      Fitonia Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Silverspring Trust, T/A  T J Depiazzi and Sons

 

The Tender Evaluation Team comprised of the following:

·      Coordinator Parks - Contracts;

·      Parks and Conservation Project Officer;

·      Technical Officer – Horticulture; and

·      Occupational Safety and Health Officer.

 

 

Probity Oversight

Oversight to the tender assessment process was undertaken by the City’s Contracts Officer.

Tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan (TEP).  The TEP included the following selection criteria:

Item No

Description

Weighting

1

Price for the services offered

40%

2

Demonstrated Experience

15%

3

Resource and Capacity

15%

4

Methodology

15%

5

Safety Management

15%

On review of the tender submissions by the TET, it was confirmed that all tender submissions were deemed to be conforming tenders.

Evaluation Criteria 1 - Pricing for the Goods/Services/Works Offered (40%)

A detailed spreadsheet was prepared to evaluate the expected costs over the initial 2 year contract period for each tenderer based on the individual tenderer’s submitted schedule of rates. A calculation based on the City’s estimated requirement was used to provide a projected cost over the initial 2 year contract period. 

Based on the information provided, tenderers have been ranked as per the table below under this evaluation criterion:

Tenderer

Ranking

WA TreeWorks

1

T J Depiazzi & Sons

2

Evaluation Criteria 2 - Tenderer’s relevant experience with achievement of meeting client expectations (15%)

WA TreeWorks provided some examples of recent projects, however these were not necessarily related to the supply of high quality mulch in large quantities.

 

T J Depiazzi and Sons has previously provided the City with pine bark mulch, and provided examples of substantial current projects including the supply of high quality mulch to other local government organisations.

 

T J Depiazzi and Sons was therefore assessed to have demonstrated greater relevant experience.

 

The assessment of this evaluation criterion has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

T J Depiazzi & Sons

1

WA TreeWorks

2

Criteria 3 - Tenderer’s resources and capacity to meet the requirements of the Contract (15%)

The tenderer’s resources as presented in their tender submission were assessed in order to evaluate their capacity to meet the requirements of the contract.  Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s staff resources, vehicles, plant/equipment and workshop support to manage the contract.

 

WA TreeWorks indicated that supplying large volumes of high quality pine bark mulch at short notices could not be guaranteed. The list of resources, including staff and equipment, was not extensive.

 

T J Depiazzi and Sons is a large company with significant resources and have provided information in their submission of existing and past contracts demonstrating their ability and experience in supplying large volumes of high quality mulch.

 

T J Depiazzi and Sons was ranked to have shown greater resources and capacity.

 

The assessment of this evaluation criterion has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

T J Depiazzi & Sons

1

WA TreeWorks

2

Evaluation Criteria 4 - Methodology (15%)

Assessment of this evaluation criterion considered whether the submissions were compliant with the scope and specification. 

 

The submission from T J Depiazzi and Sons detailed extensive commitments and relevant plans including Environmental Management, Water Management and Fire Management.

 

The Scope of Services for this Tender specified that the contractor must provide mulch certified to Australian Standard 4454-2012 Composts, soil conditioners and mulches. T J Depiazzi and Sons forwarded a current certificate.

 

WA TreeWorks indicated that their pine bark had not yet been certified but was willing to arrange for certification if requested. The submission from WA TreeWorks was not as extensive as the submission from T J Depiazzi and Sons.

 

Whilst both T J Depiazzi and Sons and WA TreeWorks both submitted a methodology,
T J Depiazzi and Sons was ranked to have displayed the better methodology.

 

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following tenderer ranking:

 

Tenderer

Ranking

T J Depiazzi & Sons

1

WA TreeWorks

2

Evaluation Criteria 5 - Tenderer’s Safety and Quality Management Systems (15%)

Evidence of safety and quality management policies and practices was assessed from the tender submissions.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers’ responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

T J Depiazzi and Sons submission included a completed incident form, induction booklet, Safety and Health Policy, Job Safety Analysis for delivery of mulch, registrations, Lost Time Injuries were listed and truck maintenance sheets supplied.

WA TreeWorks provided certificates to show they were compliant with AS4801 (Safety), ISO9001 (Quality) and ISO 114001 (Environmental Management) however these had all expired 15/06/2017. They also provided an OSH policy and completed examples, the questionnaire was completed with attachments, Safe Work Method Statements and Lost Time Injuries were listed and also a blank accident document included.

T J Depiazzi and Sons and WA TreeWorks were ranked equally for Safety Management:

Tenderer

Ranking

T J Depiazzi & Sons

1

WA TreeWorks

1

Overall Weighted Assessment and Ranking

Tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan and the overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer

Ranking

T J Depiazzi & Sons

1

WA TreeWorks

2

Consultation

Nil

Comment

T J Depiazzi and Sons’ tender submission achieved the highest ranking/satisfied the overall value for money assessment in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings as detailed in the Tender Evaluation Plan and is therefore recommended tenderer.

Statutory Compliance

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

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.1    Resource Management

3.1.3  Proactively manage the scarcity of water through sustainable local water management strategies

 

Enterprise Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O08 Contract Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

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

 

The following are considered as part of the Tender process:

 

Financial and Performance Risk

T J Depiazzi & Sons have successfully completed works for the City of Wanneroo in the past and have previously provided a good product and service to the City. They are listed as a supplier on the WALGA panel and no further independent financial assessment was considered necessary. In addition, it is noted that under this supply of goods/services contract, payment will be made only after the receipt of goods/services.  

 

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

The submission from T J Depiazzi & Sons included current certification for mulch to Australian Standard 4454-2012 Composts, soil conditioners and mulches. The Pinebark mulch itself utilises waste materials from forestry to be repurposed as landscape and garden products. The company has an Environmental Policy which includes Water and Fire Management Plans. The company uses late model trucks with low emissions. T J Depiazzi & Sons hold accreditation from Main Roads, Landscape Industries Association and Nursery Industry Accreditation Scheme.

 

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

T J Depiazzi & Sons are based in Dardanup, however they have indicated that 20% of the goods they supply are purchased locally.

Policy Implications

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

Financial (Budget) Implications

The annual costs associated with the Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch or Marri Woodchip Ground Cover udner this contract are estimated to be in the order of $400,000 per annum and are accommodated within the Annual Parks Operating Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by T J Depiazzi and Sons for Tender No. 17051, for the Supply and Delivery of Pinebark Mulch or Marri Woodchip Ground Cover as per the schedule of rates in the tender submission.

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    209

 

Waste Services

AS08-07/17       Future Use of the former Wangara Recycling Centre

File Ref:                                              4254 – 17/216701

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the Future Use of the former Wangara Recycling Centre (WRC), located at 86 (Lot 552) Motivation Drive Wangara.

 

Background

The WRC is located within a 24,456m2 parcel of land on Motivation Drive, Wangara (Lot 9046), owned in freehold by the City of Wanneroo and comprises of a Materials Recycling Facility shed, an ablutions/first aid room, a weighbridge and an administration building. Refer Attachment 1.

 

In 2008 the WRC facility was commissioned as a tripartite agreement between the Cities of Wanneroo, Joondalup and Swan; it processed approximately 40,000 tonnes of comingled domestic recyclable material per annum. In 2012 the plant’s performance was reviewed, highlighting that the aging equipment required a large investment to remain viable, potentially estimated in the millions of dollars to upgrade. This research also determined that the WRC would be unable to handle the projected increased tonnage requirements of the urban expansion to the north and east of the Cities of Wanneroo and Swan.

 

A tender was advertised requesting responses on either upgrading the recycling plant and equipment or outsourcing the processing of the comingled recycling waste. Cleanaway was nominated as the successful tenderer, and the City outsourced the processing of recycling waste in November 2014. The WRC subsequently closed and the plant and equipment has remained unused. Both the Cities of Joondalup and Swan also entered in to similar independent agreements with the successful tenderer at that time. Communications surrounding the facility around the time of closure inferred that the plant and equipment would be decommissioned and the site would be made available for lease or sale. The City’s waste is currently processed at Cleanaway’s site in South Guildford, under a three year contract which runs until November 2017, with options to extend for two further one-year periods

Detail

In October 2016, the City advertised Expression of Interest 01639 (EOI) for Decommission of Plant and Equipment and alternative submissions at Wangara Recycling Centre. Three submissions were to the EOI; all deemed competent to undertake decommissioning work. The City also received one alternative which discussed retaining some of the current plant and equipment to utilise the WRC as a transfer station, and which highlighted the potential to reduce travelling time for the City’s fleet when delivering materials to the City’s recycling contractor in South Guildford.

 

The WRC is one of only two sites in the northern corridor earmarked for municipal recycling operations, the other is Suez’s Landsdale Transfer Station, which is small and fully utilised by that company’s commercial operations. Most other waste management operations in the Perth metropolitan area are currently condensed in the central/southern regions of Perth, and most major projects proposed/ongoing are also centred in that area.

 

In recent months, Administration has undertaken a complete review of operations with a view to developing business cases for future operations. As part of that process, discussions with the industry took place, suggesting that there is an interest by a number of commercial entities in the future of the Wangara facility. This has prompted discussion within Administration as to whether the waste management market should be formally tested on its interest or an option to publish a general EOI on the future use of the WRC facility, rather than limiting the process to waste management uses only.

 

The WRC is situated on 86 (Lot 552) Motivation Drive, Wangara.  Access to the WRC is via a gate and bitumised driveway situated on 70 (Lot 9005) Motivation Drive, Wangara.  Lot 552 (with an area of 17,924m²) is owned freehold by the City under Certificate of Title Volume 2706 Folio 99. Lot 9005 (with an area of 115,930m²) is also owned freehold by the City under Certificate of Title Volume 2800 Folio 396.  Both parcels of land are adjacent to each other.

 

Lot 9005 - investigations are still ongoing by the City as to the level of contamination, as the site was previously used as a landfill site.

 

Lot 552 - consists of various structures as described earlier in this report.  A portion of Lot 552, being approximately 660m² portion of the loading hall, a transportable building nearby being the old first aid building with an area of approximately 30m² and an old sea container, approximately 15m², is subject to a current lease arrangement between the City and Great Lakes Community Resources (trading as Soft Landing).  The lease commenced 23 December 2016 for a term of one year and is due to expire 22 December 2017

 

Soft Landing operates in the loading hall within the building from approximately 8 am until 5pm. To ensure safety of the building when it is not in use the building is locked and alarmed and electrical feed to plant was isolated following the plants closure to mitigate any future safety risks. The site Supervisor completes a weekly review of the site to ensure there are no nesting birds or untoward damage of the plant.

 

Consultation has taken place internally with relevant Service Units, as well as externally with various commercial and not-for-profit organisations and the Cities of Swan and Joondalup

Comment

The WRC is situated in a general industrial area. It is likely that the site could be leased after decommissioning, thus providing a return for the City.

 

Issuing an EOI which offers the general industrial use of the WRC facility could determine the best option for the City. The site’s waste management potential at this time is, however seen as a potential opportunity. With an already approved and accepted recycling history it is likely that any future operations would be approved by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) (recent industry applications for new sites have proved to be a challenge given a predisposition by the DWER against the approval of new landfill sites on the Swan Coastal Plain), alongside a current dearth of waste management activity in the northern corridor; as described previously.

 

The cost associated with disposal/reprocessing of waste materials is increased when the receiving facility is farther from where the waste is produced. Waste tonnages increase in line with the City’s growth; this has a direct impact on transport and subsequent costs to manage such increase. This increased cost of operation is well understood within the City, given the current transport distances incurred in disposing of materials at Cleanaway’s recycling facility in South Guildford, and the resultant increase in transport fleet required to service this demand and is a good reason to locate/establish processing or transfer facilities within the City’s boundaries, if possible.

 

In reality, all waste management industry operators are currently required to transport all materials uplifted in the northern corridor, to facilities which are a considerable distance away, reducing transport efficiencies and increasing costs. It is logical to assume that having access to a facility closer to a greater portion of industry’s business could be seen as advantageous to those operators and in so doing the City may be able to benefit as owner of that site.

 

The City could advertise an EOI seeking submissions from suitably experienced and resourced parties interested in leasing Lot 552 with the intention to:

 

·    refurbish the site to continue use as a waste recycling facility or similar waste management options; or

·    redevelop the site for other commercial uses in accordance with the existing zonings and statutory planning and development regulations.

 

Further options for the commercial uses of the site may include:

·    subdivision and sale of smaller industrial lots;

·    development of commercial or industrial units; and/or

·    commercial/industrial lease opportunities such as attracting businesses capable of running a sporting complex, gym, factory/warehouse etc.  

 

Should the City proceed with an EOI for waste management purposes and depending on its outcome, other possible commercial use options can be explored under a separate process.

 

Informal discussions with the WA waste management industry have reinforced the City views regarding industry interest. The development potential of the site, the fact that there are no other of its nature in the northern corridor and the fact that the DWER is taking an ever more restrictive view on the licensing of new waste management sites in general, means that this could be an advantageous time to test industry to see whether there is an appetite to develop operations. This will benefit the community in the medium to long term, without the need to bear any risks other than those of owner of this industrial land.

 

The City could therefore issue an EOI to investigate further any alternative options available from the waste management industry that have the ability to reduce travelling time for the City’s Waste Operations fleet, cope with forecast population growth and maximise recycling without the City accepting any operational risk, e.g. a waste transfer station, materials recycling facility, bulk waste sorting shed, community drop-off centre, etc. The option of a land lease of the WRC site to industry, if possible, is proposed with a view to promoting the City’s ability to recycle materials within its own boundary. An EOI, concentrating on the use of the site for waste management purposes, has been prepared and will be finalised subject to Council’s decision on the recommendation made in this report. The City has recently become aware of other options for the site therefore raher than there being two expressions of interests it is suggested that any option be accepted with waste management purposes being a preference.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.3    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Waste

3.3.1  Treat waste as a resource

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-022 Environmental Management

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning and Sustainability

manage

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-017 – Financial Management

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

manage

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O13 Workplace Health & Safety

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

manage

 

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

Policy Implications

National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources (2009), Western Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment (2012), City of Wanneroo Waste Management Services Policy and City of Wanneroo Strategic Waste Management Plan 2016-2022 recommendations have been considered in preparing this report.

Financial Implications

Expenditure of $13,000 has been incurred to date for preparation and issuing an EOI for the Decommission of Plant and Equipment and alternative submissions at Wangara Recycling Centre

 

An amount of $25,000 has been included in the 2017/2018 operating budget for the progression of the EOI -Future use of Wangara Recycling Centre.

 

Subject to the outcome of the EOI process, there is a potential that the City may receive financial revenue or a reduction of its own waste transport expenses.

 

Any further implications would be discussed and disseminated after the proposed EOI closes.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES the invitation of an Expression of Interest for the Future Use of the former Wangara Recycling Centre (WRC), located at 86 (Lot 552) Motivation Drive Wangara, for waste management purposes or any other alternatives.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Wangara Recycling Centre Drawing

17/203556

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    213

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    214

 

Community & Place

Cultural Development

CP01-07/17       Strategic Library Services Plan 2017/18-2021/22

File Ref:                                              19883 – 17/218097

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the Draft Strategic Library Services Plan (Attachment 1).

 

Background

The City of Wanneroo’s (the City’s) Corporate Business Plan for 2016/17 includes a priority (21) to “Plan for library services provision”.  The attached Plan has been developed to guide and prioritise operations and improvements for the library service over the next five years.  The Plan has been informed by comprehensive research and analysis of library and societal trends and the City’s demographics, extensive consultation with internal and external stakeholders as well as the evolving needs of our customers and the wider community.  This has informed new ways of thinking about how we provide relevant and sustainable library services today and in the future.

Detail

Public libraries make an important contribution to the social, cultural, learning and economic needs of our community through providing access to information and technology, enabling opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge, reading and literacy activities and welcoming spaces that connect people with each other and their community.  The future of the City’s library service is full of opportunity and challenge and five drivers of change inform this Plan.

 

1.       Growth: As the fastest growing local government in Western Australia, the City is faced with many challenges including a high demand for services and infrastructure.  New planned infrastructure including the Yanchep Strategic Metropolitan Centre and the Alkimos Secondary Centre along with existing facilities and services in established communities in the Central and South Wards, will offer opportunities to showcase integrated models incorporating library services with other services.

2.       Collaboration: With a tight economic environment and the expectations of the community continuing to evolve, there is increased fiscal pressure on all services including libraries.  To address this and ensure sustainability, there is a need to develop different service models with increased collaboration and convergence.

3.       Learning and skill development: In today’s constantly evolving world, we need to continually update our skills and knowledge for both work and life.  Community members of all ages are seeking learning experiences that build on their aspirations and interests and are participatory and self-directed to enhance their personal and professional lives.  There are opportunities to engage in new thinking and explore prospects to build strong partnerships and share resources to create sustainable new learning pathways.

4.       Place activation: Communities in the City of Wanneroo have distinct physical, cultural and social identities. With almost 500,000 people using the City’s library service each year, there is considerable scope to better position libraries in integrated hubs.

5.       Technology: The impacts of technology on people’s lives and libraries’ business continue to drive change and offer alternative delivery models. Transitioning the business of our libraries from transactional tasks to information provision, facilitation and relationship building is imperative.

Consultation

Extensive consultation has informed this plan.  Four community focus groups, one in each ward and another with young people at Butler College, were held and over 2,500 library users and non-users have been surveyed as to the value they place on their public library.  A workshop was conducted with staff from across the City to seek a fresh perspective on how our library service might evolve to better support the community.

Comment

Given the rapid economic and social changes of the 21st century, the City’s library service faces a dramatic shift in the customers we serve and the communities in which we operate.  The attached draft plan focuses on actions to address these changes across four key areas – Fostering Connected Communities; Stimulating Learning, Discovery and Creativity; Evolving Our Digital Environment and Transitioning the Way We Work.

Statutory Compliance

The Library Board of Western Australia Act 1951 and its Registered Public Libraries Regulations 1985 provide the governing legislation in which local governments operate public libraries in partnership with the State Government represented by the Library Board of Western Australia.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.4    Connected Communities

1.4.2  Strengthen community and customer connectedness through community hubs

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 delivery of the actions contained in the Plan will be supported through the annual operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the Strategic Library Services Plan as per Attachment 1.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Future Library Services Strategy (Draft)

17/120261

Minuted

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 217


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    230

 

Place Strengthening

CP02-07/17       Community Engagement Policy

File Ref:                                              8802V02 – 17/220518

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public comment period of draft Community Engagement Policy and adoption of the policy.

 

Background

The draft Community Engagement Policy was presented to Council on 9 May 2017 with recommendation to endorse the Policy for the purpose of public advertising for 28 days (CP04-05/17).  This process has now concluded with the proposed final draft version of the Community Engagement Policy presented for Council endorsement.

Detail

One public submission was received during the advertised public comment period.  A submission table that lists the public submission, administrative comments and recommended amendment is included as Attachment 1.  An overview of the issue raised is outlined below.

 

·        Consultative Groups to review and develop Community Engagement Policy.

 

The public submission noted that the development of the Community Engagement Policy needs to engage consultative groups for discussion, development and changing the policy, rather than presenting a change of policy to the public with the option to either approve or disapprove of the change. 

 

Administration Response

 

The policy was developed in consultation with internal staff and the wider community.  The Policy has been developed with reference to the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder Engagement, and as such has reflected best practice in community engagement. 

 

The advertised 28-day public comment period asked specifically for public comment and did not ask for the public to approve or disapprove of the changes. 

 

If Consultative Groups (assuming community member based) were to partake in the development and amending the Community Engagement Policy, the participants would need to be well informed and understand the IAP2 Standard in addition to the City of Wanneroo requirements for Policy development and scope.  

 

To address the query presented, Administration recommends acknowledging that the Policy is based on an International Quality Assurance Standard, as presented below.

 

Page 1       CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

This Policy has been developed in consultation with internal service units and the wider community, and is based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) model and ‘Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder Engagement’.

 

There are other minor amendments to the previous draft version presented to Council based on further internal consultation which is presented in the track changed version available as Attachment 2.

Consultation

The draft Community Engagement Policy was promoted and made available for public comment for a 28-day period being 22 May to 18 June 2017.

 

Public promotion included:

·        Two consecutive weeks public notification in Wanneroo Times;

·        Two consecutive weeks public notification in North Coast Times;

·        City of Wanneroo Website ‘Your Say’ consultation page (linking to online Survey); and

·        A4 Flyer promotion:

o   City of Wanneroo Libraries including Wanneroo, Girrawheen, Clarkson and Yanchep/Two Rocks;

o   Civic Centre Customer Service Area; and

o   Community Centres including Yanchep, Girrawheen Hub, Hainsworth, Aquamotion and Kingsway Indoor Stadium.

 

Public comment was able to be provided by completing an online survey, requesting a hard copy of the survey to complete and return, or by sending comment to City of Wanneroo’s postal address.

Comment

The one submission made by the public raised no objections to the draft policy but rather questioned the process for development, suggesting engagement of consultative groups. Considerations in engaging consultative groups would include the participant’s commitment to the process and undertaking capacity building in community engagement best practice and City of Wanneroo requirements for policy development and scope.  Furthermore adequate resourcing and time allocation would need to be factored into planning for policy development.  Public advertising of the draft Policy requested public comment for the City’s consideration and as such all feedback was encouraged including collective responses. 

 

Due to the minor nature of the proposed changes arising from the comment period, the final Community Engagement Policy is now presented for Council endorsement.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.1    Working with Others

4.1.2  Engage, include and involve community

 

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

CEO

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O01 Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Management Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-020 Productive Communities

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community & Place

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

All relevant engagement projects will be required to comply with the adopted Policy.

Financial Implications

Financial contributions towards community engagement activities are included as part of the City’s operating or capital budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submission received regarding the draft Community Engagement Policy and ENDORSES Administration’s responses and recommended modifications, as included in Attachment 1; and

2.       ENDORSES the marked up Community Engagement Policy, as included in Attachment 2.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Community Engagement Policy - Submission Table Public Comment 2017

17/206720

Minuted

2.

DRAFT Community Engagement Policy

12/148824[v3]

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    233


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 234


 


 


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    239

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

CS01-07/17       Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 May 2017

File Ref:                                              25973 – 17/221212

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 May 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.

Detail

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 May produced a favourable variance (+$402K) mainly as a result of lower employee expenses through lower salary and wages as well as higher Town Planning Scheme income (Mainly through a receipt in Cell 2 being higher than budgeted) and less substantially through a receipt from the City of Joondalup for Greenwaste processing fee income. It is noted that areas where an unfavourable variance impacted on the overall variance were Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (Where we are yet to receive progress payments on capital works) and Town Planning Scheme expenses through higher than expected expenditure in various cells.

 

Operating Revenues

The month of May produced a positive variance for operating revenues of +$302K.  The main contributors were a receipt from City of Joondalup for Greenwaste processing which was not anticipated as well as a receipt for legal expense reimbursements through the City’s insurance provider.

 

 

Operating Expenses

 

The favourable variance for May relates to lower Employee costs through lower salary and wage expenses being partially reduced by the recognition of increased annual and long service leave. Material & Contracts expenses however produced an unfavourable variance through higher contract expenses in May through asset maintenance and general material expenses.

 

 

 

Other Revenue & Expenses

 

The month of May produced an unfavourable variance of -$379K due to lower progress payments made on capital works through contributions, higher Town Planning expenses in various cells and lower profit on asset recognition through sales volume.

 

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

 

 

Details for the variances are outlined below.

 

Operating Revenues

It is noted that all income categories present a balanced result when compared to budget to May and thus fall within the threshold for reporting purposes.

 

Operating Expenses

Materials and Contracts (Actual $43.1m, Revised Budget $49.0m)

·        The main contributor for the positive variance relates to Contract Expenses which produced a YTD variance of (+$2.8m). Within Engineering Maintenance outstanding works relating to jetting and sweeping commitments are anticipated to be undertaken which will align much closer to budget by year end. There are also outstanding commitments for Building Maintenance in relation to cleaning works which are being monitored to ensure contractors deliver on current commitments. 

 

·        Consulting Fee expenses has a favourable variance of +$1.2m due to various organisational reviews and planning for consultancy which have yet to take place.

 

Insurance Expenses (Actual $1.3 Revised Budget $1.5m)

·        The positive variance relates to lower than expected premiums on Public Liability Insurance and Professional Indemnity Insurance.

 

Other Revenue & Expenses

 

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions (Actual $12.7m, Revised Budget $15.7m)

·        The unfavourable variance to May 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.

 

Contributed Physical Assets (Actual $36.2m, Revised Budget $45.0m)

·        The year to May recognised a parcel of developer contributed assets totalling $36.2m. 

 

·        Whilst the next anticipated recognition of contributed assets is July 2017, market conditions are anticipated to continue slowing and accordingly variances will remain unfavourable.

 

Profit / Loss on Asset Disposals (Actual $1.5m, Revised Budget $2.2m)

·        The unfavourable variance is a result of lower sale of asset activities than anticipated as well as lower Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) contributions due to lower lot sales.  As the timing of asset disposals cannot be reliably estimated, results to budgets can be subject to variations.

 

Town Planning Scheme (TPS) Revenues (Actual $11.4m, Revised Budget $17.4m)

 

·        The YTD adverse variance is attributed to Lot Sale contributions across various TPS Cells.  The Cells with YTD unfavourable variances are Cell 1 (-$851K), Cell 4 (-$3.4m), Cell 6 (-$81K), Cell 7 (-$125K), Cell 8 (-$638K), Cell 8 (-$404K) and Cell 9 (-$2.5m) which are a result of lower lot creations due to current property market conditions.

 

·        Cell 1 has now been confirmed that the developer is seeking a deed for deferment and no income is now expected to be realised this year.

 

·        Cell 4 has been confirmed and income is expected to be realised shortly when final signatures for contracts have been attained.

 

·        Within Cell 9 53 lots were reported to be able to be developed upon DFES provided confirmation regarding the bushfire management plan. The number of lots now indicated for development has reduced to 39.  Works on these lots is now valued at approximately $1.2m

 

·        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 (+$2.0m).

 

Town Planning Scheme Expenses (Actual $5.0m, Revised Budget $17.8m)

·        The main contributor for the positive variance is a result of Lot 22 East Road POS development. All civil works are now completed and awaiting final signoff for payment. Estimated costs are $7.0m.

 

·        The positive YTD variance is also contributed by Cell 5 and 8 land acquisitions which are awaiting pending decisions from the Supreme Court. The matter has been heard but we are awaiting the decision to be handed down. Costs are estimated at $3.6m across the Cells pending this outcome.

 

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 $28.6m which largely reflects the timing of Rates receipts for 2016/17.

Current Receivables are largely related to collectable Rates income ($13.6m). Remaining current receivables relates to Emergency Services Levy collections ($1.2m) 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.

Non-Current Assets

Year to date Non-Current Assets have increased by $55.1m from 2015/16 which is attributed mainly to the recognition of contributed physical assets from developers as well as capital works in progress.

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 $5.8m 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 present’s data on relevant financial ratios, comparing the minimum standard expected as per the Department of Local Government & Communities, status at beginning of the 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.

 

 

 

$7.79m of works were progressed during the calendar month of May. Significant capital works undertaken for the month included:

•             $1.87m Civic Centre extension

•             $1.22m Yanchep Active Open Space - Oval Ground Works    

•             $557k Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club                    

•             $476k Marmion Avenue (Lukin Dr to Butler Blvd)

•             $468k Multiple roads in the Roads sub-program

•             $450k Parks Asset Renewal Program                      

•             $389k Riverlinks Park, Clarkson                        

•             $280k Yanchep District Sports Amenities Building Stage 1

•             $274k Irrigation infrastructure replacement

•             $248k Yanchep District Playing Fields Yanchep       

•             $248k Traffic treatments

•             $233k Sports facilities

•             $160k IT Equipment and Software

•             $154k Community and corporate buildings

 

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).

 

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 $340.8m (Face Value), equating to $345.1m inclusive of accrued interest.  YTD the City’s investment portfolio return has exceeded the Bank Bill index benchmark by 0.87% pa (2.71% pa vs. 1.84% pa), however it is noted that Interest Earnings were budgeted at a 3.00% yield.

 

The current investment portfolio does not hold an investment in NAB and Suncorp as more competitive rates were attained in other institutions.

 

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).

 

 

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%.

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 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

4.2.2  Provide responsible resource and planning management which recognises our significant future growth

 

 

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 Requirement

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

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

1.       2016/17 Annual Adopted and Revised Budget;

2.       May 2017 YTD Revised Budgets;

3.       May 2017 YTD Actuals;

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

5.       May 2017 YTD Material Financial Variance Notes.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

May 2017 Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature & Type

17/194492

Minuted

2.

May 2017 Statement of Financial Position

17/194494

Minuted

3.

May 2017 Top Projects

16/151914[v15]

Minuted

4.

May 2017 Rate Setting Statement

17/194495

Minuted

5.

May 2017 Investments Report

17/194511

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    254

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 255

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    256

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    258

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                                                    260

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    263

 

People & Culture

CS02-07/17       OSH Policy

File Ref:                                              23337 – 17/221280

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

The Occupational Safety and Health Policy was developed in 2010 as a Council Policy and was last reviewed in 2014 (Attachment 1).  The Policy has recently been reviewed pending its re-issue.

 

Background

The revised Occupational Safety and Health Policy is now set out as a succinct one-page Policy Statement (Attachment 2).  The Policy incorporates the City’s more holistic intentions regarding the commitment to ensuring a safe workplace;  employee health & well-being; and the responsibility of all workers’ to ensure their own fitness for work.  The revised Policy’s inclusion of health & well-being and fitness for work within the one Policy will enable the City to better align these processes, and result in streamlined safety documentation. 

 

The creation of a more succinct Safety Policy, results in two Policies (Fitness for Work Policy and the current OSH Policy being rescinded, and the adoption of this new revised Policy.

 

Detail

The City’s Occupational Safety and Health Policy is a strategic Policy that establishes the City’s governing safety and health principles, aligned with the City's Strategic Community Plan (Civic Leadership), and its obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

 

Consultation

People and Culture have consulted with Legal and Governance regarding the most appropriate governance approach to ensure the Occupational Safety and Health Policy drives a corporate culture of commitment to occupational safety and health.  

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Policy has been circulated for comment to all of the City’s Occupational Safety and Health Representatives, the City’s Occupational Safety and Health Officers and senior / specialist staff within the People & Culture team.

 

Comment

It is noted that the scope of this Policy includes City employees; Contractors and Volunteers due to the City’s obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

 

Statutory Compliance

Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

4.2.1  Provide transparent and accountable governance and leadership

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O013 Workplace Health and Safety

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVE the revised OSH Policy as detailed in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Council OSH Policy Feb 2014

14/18367

 

2.

Corporate OSH Policy

16/331234[v2]

Minuted

3.

OSH Policy changes from 2014 to 2016

16/293380

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 265


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 267


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                                 269


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 25 July, 2017                                                    272

 

Transactional Finance

CS03-07/17       Change Valuation of Land Method - 55 Stoney Road, Gnangara

File Ref:                                              2093V03 – 17/196742

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider making a recommendation to the Minister of the Department of Local Government and Communities that the basis for rating Lot 10 D33000, 55 Stoney Road, Gnangara be changed from unimproved value (UV) to gross rental value (GRV).

Background

Section 6.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the Minister to determine the method of valuation of land to be used by a local government as the basis for a rate and publish a notice of the determination in the Government Gazette.

 

In determining the method of valuation to be used by a local government, the Minister is to have regard to the principle that the basis for a rate on any land is to be either: -

a)      Where the land is used predominantly for rural purposes, the UV of the land; and

b)      Where the land is used predominantly for non-rural purposes, the GRV of the land.

 

Each local government has a role in ensuring that the rating principles of the Local Government Act 1995 are correctly applied to rateable land within their district.