Proof_CouncilAgenda_Coverpage_Template_Governance

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 22 August 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 22 August, 2017 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

17 August, 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

OC01-08/17     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 July 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

Item  8_____ Reports_ 1

Planning and Sustainability  2

Planning & Development Services  2

PS01-08/17      Alkimos Eglinton Developer Contribution Plan - Annual Review of Estimated Costs  2

City Growth  41

PS02-08/17      Waterwise Council Endorsement for the City of Wanneroo  41

Approval Services  48

PS03-08/17      Consideration of Retrospective Development Application for Place of Worship and Additions (Enclosed Patio, Patio Extensions and Carport Extension) at Lots 443 and 444 (32 and 34) Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen (DA2017/203) 48

PS04-08/17      Submission on WALGA Discussion Paper - Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning  63

PS05-08/17      Consideration of Amendment No. 8 to the Approved Structure Plan No. 57  90

PS06-08/17      Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure  119

PS07-08/17      Preparation of Amendment No. 144 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  166

PS08-08/17      Recommendation for Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 - Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton  179

PS09-08/17      Consideration of Development Application for 10 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo (DA2016/1810) 234

Assets  253

Asset Operations & Services  253

AS01-08/17      Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade, Merriwa Intersection Upgrade  253

AS02-08/17      Options for upgrading the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar  267

AS03-08/17      Petition No PT04-05/17 - Requesting the Installation of  Speed Humps and Speed Limit Signage on Charnwood Avenue, Two Rocks  276

AS04-08/17      State and Federal Government Black Spot Programs 2018/19 Submissions  281

Infrastructure Capital Works  338

AS05-08/17      Marmion Avenue Dualling to Yanchep - Consideration of State Government Funding  338

Parks & Conservation Management  343

AS06-08/17      PT01-05/17 Objection to the Removal of Trees on the Verge of Peaslake Street, Butler  343

Community & Place  364

Community Facilities  364

CP01-08/17     Speedway Motorcycle Club of WA - Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, Small Grant Application  364

Communication, Marketing and Events  368

CP02-08/17     Proposed Sponsorship Agreement for the Wanneroo Show - City of Wanneroo and the Wanneroo Agricultural Society (Inc.) 368

Place Strengthening  371

CP03-08/17     Reconciliation Action Plan - Request for Six Month Extension  371

Corporate Strategy & Performance  389

Business & Finance  389

CS01-08/17     Financial Activity Statement (Estimate) for the Period Ended 30 June 2017  389

Transactional Finance  414

CS02-08/17     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 July 2017  414


 

Property Services  478

CS03-08/17     Proposed Deed of Variation to Wanneroo City Soccer Club (Inc.) over a portion of Lot 555, Crown Reserve 28058, Madeley  478

CS04-08/17     Proposed excision and purchase of a 326m2 portion of Crown Reserve 39479, John Moloney Park, Lot 107736 (34) Highclere Boulevard, Marangaroo  485

Council & Corporate Support  496

CS05-08/17     Donations to be Considered by Council - August 2017  496

Chief Executive Office  504

Governance & Legal  504

CE01-08/17     Minor Amendments to Delegations  504

CE02-08/17     Adoption of the Parking Amendment Local Law 2017  512

CE03-08/17     Council Members' Code of Conduct - Complaint Procedure  519

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 522

MN01-08/17    Cr Brett Treby – Illegal Dumping of Waste During Bulk Waste Uplift Season  522

MN02-08/17    Cr Domenic Zappa – Northern Suburbs Men's Shed  526

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 531

Item  11____ Confidential_ 531

CR01-08/17     Acquisition of land for Gnangara Road road widening from Lot 336 (99) Gnangara Road, Wangara. 531

CR02-08/17     Chief Executive Officer Performance Review 2016/17  531

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 531

Item  13____ Closure_ 531

 


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

OC01-08/17       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 July 2017

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 25 July 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  

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

Planning & Development Services

PS01-08/17       Alkimos Eglinton Developer Contribution Plan - Annual Review of Estimated Costs

File Ref:                                              23155 – 17/224770

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the annual review of cost estimates for the Alkimos Eglinton Development Contribution Plan in accordance with the provisions of Schedules 14 and 15 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS No. 2).

Background

Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 was gazetted in September 2014, and introduced the Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) provisions into DPS No. 2. The Alkimos Eglinton Development DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule (refer Attachment 1) were subsequently adopted by Council in April 2015.

 

The DCP identifies various community infrastructure and provides estimates on the cost, estimated contributions and the timing for the delivery of infrastructure within Alkimos and Eglinton. The infrastructure costs include planning, design, project management costs, site, servicing, construction costs and land acquisition costs associated with the following infrastructure;

 

·    Surf Life Saving Club

·    Public Open Space (Active x2)

·    Multipurpose Hard Courts (x2)

·    Community Centre (x2)

·    Library (x2)

·    Indoor Recreation Centres (x2)

 

In accordance with Schedule 15 of DPS No. 2, the DCP has an operation period of 25 years and during this time period the City is required to review the various elements of the DCP at  one and five year intervals as per the following;

 

Annually

 

·    DCP Cost Estimates.

·    DCP Cost Indexation.

·    Contributing Land Area.

·    Cost per Hectare.

 

5-yearly

 

·    Community Facility Plan (CFP) Assumptions and Recommendations

·    Full DCP Review.

 

This report is only considering the annual review requirements of the DCP to ensure that the cost contribution amount is correctly set to ensure the collection of sufficient funds to cover the cost of approved infrastructure.

Detail

2017 – Annual Review

 

The following provides the outcomes of each element of the annual review. The Contribution Cost amount is calculated by estimating the total cost of the facilities (including Administration costs) then subtracting any contributions received and interest generated on the scheme accounts. The remaining estimated cost is then apportioned over the remaining net contributing area. The salient figures of the review completed in May 2017, include;

 

1.       Contributions received (including May 2017) - $10,582,868

 

2.       Interest Generated - $757,948

 

3.       Net Contributing Area (NCA) – Reduced from 630.56 hectares to 621.66 hectares. In this regard it should be noted that the City has actually recorded approximately 20 hectares of development since the adoption of the DCP in 2015, which does not align with the above NCA reduction (which only depicts 8.9 hectares reduction). This variation is primarily due to changes in the land use planning within the DCP area, which includes MRS Regional Reserve Amendments, Structure Plan Amendments and other factors affecting the NCA within the DCP.

 

4.       In accordance with Clause 11.3 of Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2 “The local government is to have such estimated costs independently certified by appropriate qualified persons and must provide such independent certification to an owner when requested to do so”. These documents have been attached to this memorandum (refer Attachments 2 and 3). The following points highlight the salient costs that form part of the review, including construction cost estimates provided by an independent quantity surveyor and valuer.

 

·   All Costs -  Estimates shall include the best and latest information available to the local government, until the expenditure on the relevant item of infrastructure or administrative costs has occurred. In this regard, the City engaged Donald Cant Watts and Corke (DCWC) to provide updated information on the facility costs, which has resulted in a reduction in the total cost of the facilities from $75,951,039 to $72,367,400 which is generally reflective of more competitive pricing for construction in the current market (refer DCWC Report – Attachment 2).

·   Land Acquisition - Estimates are required in accordance with Part 12 of Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2. The City engaged Brian Zucal and Associates and the valuation recommends a reduction from $130 per m2 (2015) to $101 per m2 (refer Attachment 3). In accordance with Clause 12.2, if an owner objects to a valuation made by the valuer, the owner may give notice to the local government requesting a review of the amount of the value. In this regard, Woodsome Management (on behalf of the landowner group) has confirmed that – “The AELOs agree to the reduction in land values based on the most recent land valuations (Brian Zucal & Associates March 2017)”.

 

The following table (also included as Attachment 4) includes a comparison of the previously adopted DCP costs and the revised costs along with the percentage change occurring. It should be noted that the ‘Total Cost’ is calculated by adding the estimated Administrative Costs to the revised cost estimates and then deducting total income (and interest). Overall this equates to a reducing DCP liability from $70,059,376 to $61,986,048 (since 2015).

 

 

 

Approval Process

 

In accordance with Clause 11.4 of DPS No. 2 “The local government's review of estimated costs, carried out in accordance with clause 11.2 (cost review), shall recommend that the estimated costs are to be:

 

(a) maintained;

(b) reduced; or

(c) increased”.

 

In this instance, Administration is recommending that the 2017 estimated costs be adopted and the contribution rate of $111,106.60 per hectare ($11.11 per/m2) be ‘reduced’ to a contribution rate of $99,710.53 per hectare ($9.97 per/m2).

Consultation

In accordance with Clauses 11.5 of Schedule 14;

 

“11.5 - Where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be maintained or reduced, pursuant to clauses 11.4(a) or (b), then the local government shall decide to either maintain or reduce the estimated costs and shall notify owners of its decision”.

 

The estimated costs have (overall) reduced and therefore consultation with affected landowners is not required. However, in the interest of open and transparent governance it was seen to be appropriate to engage with the landowners representative (Woodsome Management) in the preparation and formulation of the cost reviews. Woodsome Management has provided the following comments in relation to the revised cost estimates;

 

1.   The AELOs agree to the reduction in land values based on the most recent land valuations (Brian Zucal & Associates March 2017);

2.   The AELOs confirm their preference is to apply the new DCP rate (circa $100k / hectare) as a result of the annual review; and

3.   The AELOs confirm that they have been consulted through this annual review and further confirm that from their stand - point there is no need for a formal Advisory Committee meeting.

 

Alkimos Eglinton DCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

 

The Alkimos Eglinton DCP Technical Advisory Committee Meeting ‘Terms of Reference’ require that the Committee shall meet at least three times a year, or ‘as determined by the nominated committee members’. The last landowner meeting was held on 3 August 2016, however, all committee members have confirmed that there is no current need for the committee to meet.

Comment

The purpose of the annual DCP review process is to ensure that sufficient funds continue to be collected from developing landowners to meet the cost of delivering these facilities. Administration has worked with landowner’s representatives through the annual DCP review process and whilst formal consultation is not required under Clause 11.5 of Schedule 15, the landowners have provided their overall acceptance of the cost estimates. Should Council adopt the revised cost contribution amount, it will have immediate effect and will be applied to all future subdivision and development that is required to make contributions in accordance with the Alkimos Eglinton DCP. The adopted costs will remain in place until the next annual review, or until such time as Administration considers it to be necessary to revise the cost estimates for the DCP, as a result of any other factor.

 

Changes in Priorities and Infrastructure Timing

 

The timing for facility provision within the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks areas was established through the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (CFP). The CFP identifies facilities based on a facility hierarchy, which was developed to meet the ultimate needs of the communities based on population and demographic projections.

 

Administration has received numerous requests from the landowners to consider the early provision of the Eglinton North Indoor Recreation Centre (ENIRC), which is identified in the DCP as not being required until 2032/33.  The requests have been premised on the likely delay in land availability for other DCP funded projects, the establishment of a temporary surf lifesaving facility in Alkimos and potential changes to population projections and land releases across the DCP. At this stage there is inadequate information to consider any re-prioritisation of facilities identified in the Capital Expenditure Plan (CEP) of the DCP as listed in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Expenditure Plan (included in DCP 2015)

 

Whilst this report is only considering the revised cost estimates, the DCP requires the review of assumptions and recommendations every five years (next review scheduled for 2020). Initial discussions and requests from the landowner group suggests that a more holistic and flexible approach is required to allow the re-prioritisation (timing) of the infrastructure. At this stage, the landowners are working with Administration to investigate the suitability of re-prioritising the infrastructure ahead of the five year review. The landowners request will be premised on revised population projections for the DCP, which will include the latest (soon to be released) ID forecasts, however more information associated with a feasibility/needs analysis, the objectives of the Community Facility Plan (CFP) and DCP funding implications will be required. It is anticipated that further investigation will occur throughout the year and formal consideration being presented to Council in due course on this matter.

 

Delegation to Approve Revised Costings (For information Only)

 

At this stage there is no specific delegation that enables Administration to determine the revised cost estimates for a DCP. This is somewhat unusual given the scheme provisions do not require consultation with affected landowners when the cost estimates either remain the same or are reduced. In accordance with Clauses 11.5 of Schedule 14;

 

“11.5 - Where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be maintained or reduced, pursuant to clauses 11.4(a) or (b), then the local government shall decide to either maintain or reduce the estimated costs and shall notify owners of its decision”.

 

Administration will consider seeking delegation for determining revised DCP cost estimates to ensure the annual review of the City’s developer contribution schemes can occur in a more timely and efficient manner.

 

 

 

Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Update

 

It is anticipated that a review of the other community infrastructure DCP for the Northern Growth Corridor (Yanchep Two Rocks - YTR) will be presented to Council towards the end of this year. The YTR DCP will require a significantly more complex review to incorporate current and forecast market trends for lot creation (which determines DCP income) to ensure adequate funds will be received to meet the actual costs of delivering the infrastructure over the 10 year operational period of the DCP. Construction of  the Yanchep District Open Space and Surf Lifesaving Club will be completed shortly and the cost of these works will be included into the DCP review along with  recommendations of Administration and the Yanchep Two Rocks Technical Advisory Committee.

Statutory Compliance

The annual review of the Alkimos Eglinton Cost Estimates has been completed in accordance with Part 11 of Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2, which will bring the DCP into compliance with its annual review requirements.

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

ST-G09 Long Term Financial Plan

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

CEO

Manage

 

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

 

Policy Implications

 

Nil

Financial Implications

Further consideration and review of the community facilities timing will occur in due course. Any variations to the current priorities identified in the DCP’s Capital Expenditure Plan will have potential implications on community facility operational budgets, project management, the capital works programme and DCP funding opportunities.

 

The landowner group has been requested to provide an initial scoping document to enable Administration to fully consider the financial implications associated with the re-prioritising of any identified infrastructure.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the Revised Alkimos Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Cost Estimates in accordance with Clause 11.4 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as defined in Attachment 4, including:

 

1.       DCP Cost Estimates - $72,367,400

2.       DCP Cost Indexation – As reported in the cost estimates

3.       Contributing Land Area - 621.66 hectares

4.       Cost per Hectare - $99,710.53 (or $9.97 m2)

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Alkimos Eglinton DCP Report 2015

17/166678

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Facility Cost Estimates 2017

17/228999

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Valuation 2017

17/229028

 

4.

Attachment 4 - 2017 - Revised DCP Cost Estimates for Alkimos Eglinton

17/225133

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                              9


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                                20


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            26


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            35


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            40

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                41

 

City Growth

PS02-08/17       Waterwise Council Endorsement for the City of Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              6903 – 17/225612

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a proposal to participate in the Water Corporation’s Waterwise Council Endorsement program.

Background

The Water Corporation and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation launched the Waterwise Council Program in 2009 to build a cooperative working relationship with local governments to improve water use efficiency in local government and their communities. The Waterwise Council Program is free to join and is open to all Councils within Western Australia. There are currently 22 Councils in the Perth Metropolitan Region endorsed under the program.

 

The City has previously partnered with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation to prepare the North West Corridor Water Supply Strategy, which was underpinned by changes in the City’s approach to landscaping and irrigation design.  The City is progressively upgrading its older irrigation systems at its established parks to reflect hydrozoning principles and has developed a plan to install 35-40 Evapotranspiration Sensors by late 2017 to further improve water efficiency. In addition to watering practises, the City is in the early stages of making improvements to its older buildings in the area of water efficiency. Any equipment replaced is being exchanged with higher standard WELS rated products, where available.

 

Detail

 

There are 4 main steps to fulfilling endorsement as a Waterwise Council:

 

1.       Commitment.

 

1.1     The Mayor signs a Memorandum of Understanding confirming the Council’s commitment to participate in the Waterwise Council Program. The Water Corporation supplies a standard MOU template for this purpose (refer Attachment 1).

 

1.2     An employee is nominated as a point of contact for the Program and an internal water management team is established.

 

It is expected that co-ordination of the program would sit within the Strategic Land Use Planning Service Unit due to its strategic focus. The water management team is expected to comprise staff who work on water management activities across the City (including representatives from Strategic Land Use Planning, Land Development, Parks and Conservation Maintenance, and Strategic Asset Management).

 

2.       Review City water consumption and create a water efficiency action plan for potable and non-potable water sources for all City operations and the community.

 

2.1     Review the City’s water consumption over the last 3 years and identify the top water using buildings and grounds owned or managed by the City. 

 

This requirement aligns with an action of the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy (which was endorsed by Council in July 2016) to undertake a comprehensive assessment of water usage within City buildings and surrounds and identify key areas for savings.  Project scoping is planned to be undertaken by the Strategic Asset Management service unit in the 2017/18 financial year with a view to listing funds for consideration as part of the 2018/19 budget process.  Smaller community facilities can be audited by staff who have completed the relevant online training through the Waterwise program.

 

2.2     Set goals to improve water efficiency. For example, a suggested goal may be:

 

The City aims to achieve a percentage reduction in water consumption (per capita population) based on 2015/16 consumption data by 2019 and ensure no net increase in consumption over the same period, based on current developments within the City.

 

2.3     Establish a water efficiency action plan that outlines current and future actions to meet water efficiency goals.

 

It is anticipated that this work would be led by the City’s Strategic Land Use Planning Service Unit and developed by the water management team.

 

3.       Ensure that appropriate staff members complete free waterwise training.

 

All relevant staff involved in water management would be required to complete a range of on-line training modules, involving 2-3 modules with an estimated time commitment of 3-4 hours in total every four years. This would include all relevant staff employed during the City’s participation in the program. The training modules are relevant for some of the City’s building and facility management, parks and maintenance, and customer service staff. The modules relate to the principles of waterwise landscaping, irrigation and water use auditing.  The relevant manager would determine which staff members would need to undertake this training.

 

4.       No breaches of groundwater license terms or conditions set by the Department of Water, and no breaches of scheme water usage issued by Water Corporation in the past 12 months.

 

The City already meets this requirement.

 

Once all the above criteria have been met, the City will be eligible to be endorsed as Waterwise. Once endorsed, the City must continue to report annually to the Water Corporation to be able to retain its Waterwise status, which includes use of the program logo and promotional material.

Consultation

Representatives from Strategic Land Use Planning, Parks and Conservation Maintenance and Strategic Asset Management met with the Water Corporation in September 2016 to discuss the Council’s potential involvement in the program. The Water Corporation advised that the City is already an industry leader in Waterwise development and it made sense for the City to join the program to obtain the benefits of marketing itself as Waterwise.

Comment

There are a number of benefits to becoming a Waterwise Council, including:

·    A better understanding of water use in the City’s operations and the community;

·    Potential water and financial savings through improved efficiency;

·    Access to free Waterwise training for staff;

·    Access to Waterwise materials to promote water conservation to the community;

·    Access to Waterwise Council branding to promote the Council as a sustainable water manager;

·    Opportunities to participate in funded and co-funded water efficiency initiatives (e.g. the Waterwise verge incentive scheme whereby the Water Corporation will match any funding spent by the City on Waterwise verges up to $10,000 per Council per year); and

·    Water Corporation to provide access to services such as data logging free of charge.

 

Given that the City is already progressing many of the requirements of program, it is considered beneficial to work towards becoming formally accredited to allow the City to better market these initiatives under the Waterwise banner. Funds towards implementing this program will be considered as part of the 2018/19 budget process.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Climate Change

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning and Sustainability

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

As there may be a requirement to upgrade to more water efficient fixtures in the future, the City’s Purchasing Policy will be a relevant policy.

Financial Implications

There are budget implications to complete the minimum actions required for Waterwise Council endorsement.

 

The major cost associated with this program relates to the water auditing of high water using sites.  This is estimated at approximately $3,000 to $4,000 per site, in addition to any costs associated with implementing any viable recommendations that arise from the water audits.  More accurate cost implications will be determined through project scoping work planned to be undertaken by the Strategic Asset Management Service Unit in the 2017/18 financial year with a view to listing funds for consideration as part of the 2018/19 budget process.  As mentioned previously, Council has already committed to these works through its endorsement of the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy.

 

In addition to the above, there are in-kind staffing costs associated with:

·    Co-ordinating the program and completing the reporting requirements.  This is proposed to be managed by the City’s Sustainability Officer within;

·    Time for appropriate staff to complete water efficiency training (training is free, with a time commitment of 3-4 hours every 4 years); and,

·    Staff time for the completion of water monitoring activities within the Strategic Asset Management Service Unit.

 

It is difficult to quantify the exact total cost of program participation. However, it is anticipated that any costs associated with the Council gaining Waterwise Council endorsement would be able to be recouped over time through savings in water consumption and associated costs. 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES participation by the City of Wanneroo in the Water Corporation Waterwise Council Program; and

2.       AUTHORISES the Mayor to sign the Attached Waterwise Council Program Memorandum of Understanding.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Waterwise Council Memorandum of Understanding Template

17/213433

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            45

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                48

 

Approval Services

PS03-08/17       Consideration of Retrospective Development Application for Place of Worship and Additions (Enclosed Patio, Patio Extensions and Carport Extension) at Lots 443 and 444 (32 and 34) Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen (DA2017/203)

File Ref:                                              DA2017/203 – 17/224604

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2017/203) seeking retrospective approval for a Change of Use to a Place of Worship and Additions (Enclosed Patio, Patio Extensions and Carport Extension) at Lots 443 and 444 (32 and 34) Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen (subject site).

 

Applicant

Duoc Huynh

Owner

Nuh Son Hua, Duoc Van Huynh and Hoang Chan Vo

Location

Lots 444 (32) and 443 (34) Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen

Site Area

1,422m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R20/40

 

Background

On 11 December 2016, Administration received a request on behalf of the landowners to utilise Bardsley Park for overflow car parking for an event being held on the subject site. Whilst permission was given for the use of Bardsley Park, it was noted that a development application is required to be submitted to the City to change the use of the subject site from Single House to Place of Worship.

 

Subsequently, Administration contacted the landowners of 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen and advised that, should the landowners wish to continue operating the Place of Worship from the subject site, then a development application will need to be submitted to the City to seek retrospective planning approval. This approach is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.14 – Compliance (LPP 4.14).

 

It is noted that a retrospective development application incurs a fee of three times that of a standard development application. This increased fee is considered to encompass the processing fee of the development application and a penalty for developing without the required approvals first being obtained from the City.

 

On 16 February 2017, the City received a development application for a Change of Use to a Place of Worship at the subject site. However, it is Administration’s understanding, that the subject site has been operating for a number of years.  Furthermore, the City has no record of any complaints regarding the operations of the subject site. A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1

 

On 20 June 2017, the application was presented to Council at a Briefing Session.  The application was withdrawn to allow Administration to undertake an investigation to determine if the extensions to the original building were authorised structures. A site visit conducted by Administration has confirmed that some structures on-site are unauthorised. In light of this, the applicant was required to submit plans for these structures which now form part of this application and are discussed in further detail below.

Detail

The development application proposes a Change of Use to a Place of Worship which is an ‘A’ use, meaning it is discretionary subject to advertising, in the Residential zone. The details of the development are as follows:

 

·        A Place of Worship to operate from the existing dwellings on the subject site as follows:

 

A caretaker to attend the site every day to undertake maintenance, general cleaning and maintain the garden;

A praying session on the first day and in the middle of the Lunar month;

Saturday prayer session and a children’s class.

 

·        Additions to the Place of Worship as follows:

 

An enclosed patio that is 4.1m in width, 10.8m in length, 2.4m in height and has a total area of 32.7m2, at 32 Bardsley Avenue;

An extension to the existing patio that is 6.8m wide, 4.1m in length and 2.4m in height, at 32 Bardsley Avenue;

An extension to the existing patio that is 6.3m wide, 5.1m in length and 2.4m in height, at 34 Bardsley Avenue; and

An extension to the existing carport that 4.4m in width, 5.8m in length, has a wall height of 2.2m and a top of roof height of 3.0m, at 34 Bardsley Avenue.

 

·        Operating hours as follows:

 

Monday to Sunday from 10:00am to 8:00pm with a maximum number of 12 patrons; and

3 religious events per year with a maximum of 30 patrons.

 

Plans depicting the proposal are included as Attachment 2.

 

Upon assessment of the development application it was determined that the proposal is generally complaint with the provisions of the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) with the exception of:

 

·        Car parking when events are held (three times a year);

·        Landscaping;

·        Reduced setbacks to adjoining residential properties.

Consultation

Advertising of the proposal was undertaken by the City in writing to the affected landowners adjoining the subject site and a notice placed on the City’s website. Advertising was undertaken for a period of 25 days, commencing on 7 April 2017 to 2 May 2017. The advertising period was extended from the typical 21 day period as there were a number of public holidays such as Easter and Anzac Day in April. One submission was received, from an anonymous submitter, which objected to the proposal. The objection raised the following issues:

 

·        The proposal will add traffic congestion to the area;

·        Questions the number of people attending; and

·        Believes there are other areas appropriate for such a use.

 

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

Comment

The following issues have been identified as part of the assessment of the proposal.

 

Car Parking

 

Pursuant to Part 4 of DPS 2 a Place of Worship is required to provide one car parking bay for every four people accommodated. Given the maximum number of 12 attendees, the proposal is required to have three car parking bays. 32 Bardsley Avenue has a double garage and sufficient space to park two more vehicles in front of the garage and behind the street setback area. 34 Bardsley Avenue has sufficient space for two vehicles to park behind the street setback area thus, resulting in a total of six bays across the two lots. Furthermore, the front of the properties has been paved which will allow for additional car parking if required. This satisfies the car parking requirements of DPS 2.

 

It is noted that when the Place of Worship hosts its religious celebrations (three times a year) the applicant/landowner has previously and will continue to book Bardsley Park for overflow car parking. This has alleviated the potential for traffic congestion in the area and is considered to be an appropriate strategy to mitigate any future car parking issues when events are held. In order to ensure this it is recommended that a condition be imposed on any approval which may be granted as follows:

All car parking shall be contained on-site. The applicant/landowner shall ensure that suitable arrangements for overflow car parking are in place when more than 12 patrons are accommodated. 

The above condition will ensure that overflow car parking will be catered for and that all car parking is contained on-site and thus, avoiding parking on verges and obstruction of roads and pathways.

 

Traffic

 

The objection received raised concerns regarding potential traffic congestion as a result of the development.

 

In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines (Guidelines) the applicant did not submit nor were they required to submit a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA). This is because the WAPC Guidelines only require a TIS or TIA to be prepared and submitted when a proposed use generates traffic that exceeds a specified number of vehicle trips per day. Though a Place of Worship is not a use specifically identified in the WAPC Guidelines, it does include a specified standard applicable for ‘entertainment venues’. It is considered that this standard is appropriate to be used to determine whether or not a TIS or TIA is required for a Place of Worship. For an entertainment venue, a TIS is required where the development is proposed to cater between 100 to 1000 people. Given that the proposed Place of Worship caters for a maximum of 12 patrons, it is considered that a TIS is not required.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration has reviewed the anticipated traffic volumes on Bardsley Avenue. Whilst Administration does not have traffic counts for Bardsley Avenue, an indicative calculation has been undertaken for the dwellings gaining direct access from Bardsley Avenue and developments which are likely to use Bardsley Avenue such as dwellings located on Bures Court and Gameson Way (refer to Attachment 1). The traffic calculations are based on the WAPC’s Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines whereby, it is assumed that a single dwelling will generate up to eight (8) vehicle trips per day (VTPD). The estimated vtpd for Bardsley Avenue is captured in the table below.

 

Road Classification

Road Name

WAPC Liveable Neighbourhoods Indicative Volume (VTPD)

Estimated VTPD

Total Predicted VTPD (Including Proposed Development)

Access Road

Bardsley Avenue

3,000vtpd

712

760

 

The above table indicates that Bardsley Avenue is currently operating in accordance with its classification of an Access Road. It is estimated that the proposed development will generate a maximum of 48 vtpd, this does not include the religious events hosted three times per year. This is based on a maximum number of four vehicle trips per day per patron. Therefore, it is considered that the increased traffic as a result of the development can be accommodated within the existing access road.

 

In addition to the above, a search of the City’s records has indicated that there have been no previous complaints regarding traffic associated with the subject site.

 

Acceptability of Use

 

The objection received raised a concern regarding the use and believed there are more appropriate areas for such a use.

 

The use is considered to be acceptable in this location for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposal incorporates a maximum of 12 patrons at any one time with the exception of the three religious holidays per year and is therefore considered to be a low scale development; 

 

·        There are no proposed modifications to the façade of the existing dwellings and therefore, the development will be in keeping with the residential locality; and

 

·        The Place of Worship is considered to provide a compatible urban support service in accordance with objective d) of the Residential Zone as discussed in Part 3 of DPS 2.

 

It is noted that this Place of Worship has been in operation for a number of years and although there has been no approval issued, Administration has not received any complaints in regards to the development.

 

A Place of Worship under DPS 2 is an ‘A’ use meaning:

 

A use class that is not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted development approval after giving notice in accordance with Clause 64 of the deemed provisions.

 

Notice of the application in accordance with Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions was given as discussed in the Consultation section above. Furthermore, the application is generally compliant with the requirements of the general development standards contained in Part 4 of DPS 2 with the exception of landscaping which is discussed below.

 

Landscaping

 

As part of Administration’s assessment of the proposal it was noted that the application did not incorporate any landscaping plans for the subject site. A site visit undertaken by Administration showed that there is a considerable amount of landscaping in the setback area of the subject site (refer to photographs in Attachment 3). However, the road verge is not landscaped and has been paved.

 

In accordance the with City’s Nature Strip (Verge) Treatment Guidelines, where a footpath has been installed to a nature strip then hardstands may only be laid between the kerb and footpath. As can be seen from the photographs in Attachment 3, hardstand has been laid from the footpath to the boundary line and this is not supported. In this regard, Administration recommends the planting of one street tree per lot in a central location between the property boundary and the existing footpath. Furthermore, Administration recommends that detailed landscaping and reticulation plans are submitted for the subject site. The addition of street trees and landscaping within the road verge will serve to soften the hardstand area as well as contributing positively to the streetscape.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the verge area between the footpath and the property boundary exceeds the area which is permitted to be paved in accordance the with City’s Nature Strip (Verge) Treatment Guidelines. This matter will be further investigated by Administration and any action necessary will be undertaken to rectify the issue.

 

Setback of Structures

 

Clause 4.7.3 of DPS 2 requires a 3.0m side and rear boundary setback for non-residential developments which abut Residential zoned lots. The subject site abuts Residential zoned lots to the north, south and west. The proposal incorporates variations to Clause 4.7.3 of DPS 2 as discussed below.

32 Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen

 

There are two structures present at 32 Bardsley Avenue, which do not currently have development approval namely:

 

·        An enclosed patio (noted on the plans and referred to as Structure A) that is 4.1m in width, 10.8m in length, 2.4m in height and has a total area of 32.7m2. Structure A is setback 2.0m and 1.0m from the western and southern boundaries respectively; and

 

·        An extension to the existing patio (noted on the plans and referred to as Structure B) that is 6.87m wide, 4.10m in length and 2.4m in height. Structure B is setback 0.9m and 1.45 from the western and northern boundaries respectively.

 

34 Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen

 

·        An extension to the patio (noted on the plans and referred to as Structure C) that is 6.3m wide, 5.10m in length and 2.4m in height. Structure C is setback 10.6m from the western boundary, 6.3m from the northern boundary, 7.9m from the southern boundary and 21m from the eastern boundary. Structure C complies with all of the requirements of Part 4 of DPS 2; and

 

·        A carport extension (noted on the plans and referred to as Structure D) that is 4.4m in width, 5.8m in length, has a 2.2m wall height, 3.0m top of roof height and is setback 0.9m from the northernmost boundary.

 

Structures A, B and D, do not comply with the setback requirements of Clause 4.7.3 of DPS 2.

 

The subject site and the adjoining properties are separated by a 1.8m high fence (as confirmed through a site visit). Given that Structures A and B have a height of 2.4m, a total of 0.6m will protrude above the fence line. This is considered to be minor and will have a negligible impact on the adjoining landowners.

 

Structure D, has a wall height of 2.2m and therefore, a total of 0.4m will protrude above the fence line. Furthermore, Structure D is an open structure. Therefore, it is considered that Structure D will have a negligible impact on the adjoining landowners.

 

It is considered that all of the abovementioned structures have a negligible impact on the adjoining landowners and are therefore, supported.

 

Compliance

 

As noted in the Background section of this report, the application is seeking retrospective approval and the applicant has been required to pay a fee three times that of a standard application fee to penalise the landowners for the unauthorised development. Notwithstanding, LPP 4.14 provides discretion for Administration to take further compliance action such as prosecution, after development approval has been granted by the City for any retrospective development.

 

LPP 4.14 does not prescribe specific criteria for when further prosecution for a retrospective development should be undertaken following approval being sought. However, it is considered that in this instance prosecution should not be undertaken for the following reasons:

 

·        The operations of the subject site have been on-going for a number of years and Administration does not have any complaints regarding the Place of Worship;

·        The Place of Worship does not generate significant traffic throughout the locality (as discussed above) and therefore, has a negligible impact;

·        The Place of Worship incorporates a maximum of 12 patrons at any one time with the exception of the three religious holidays per year and is therefore considered to be a low scale development; and

·        The Place of Worship does not detract from the residential amenity of the streetscape.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the no further prosecution is undertaken by Administration should approval be granted.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Place of Worship at 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of Part 4 of DPS 2.

 

The objection received raised issues relating to traffic and appropriateness of the use. It is considered that the development will not and has not resulted in significant traffic impacts. Furthermore, the subject site can cater for car parking and the applicant has previously made arrangements for overflow car parking when required. The proposal does not propose any modifications to the existing façade and is of a relatively low intensity and therefore, will be in keeping with the residential context of the locality.

 

Administration recommends that Council approve the proposed Place of Worship at 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen subject to the conditions outlined below.

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:

 “1     Society

1.4    Connected Communities

1.4.3  Build strong communities through the strength of cultural and heritage diversity

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 against the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.14 – Compliance.

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 for a Change of Use to Place of Worship and Additions (Enclosed Patio, Patio Extensions and Carport Extension)  at Lots 443 and 444 (32 and 34) Bardsley Avenue, Girrawheen, as shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions:

a)      The use of the development subject to this approval shall only be for the purpose of a “Place of Worship”. A “Place of Worship” as defined in the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

          “Place of Worship: includes buildings used primarily for the religious activities of a church, but does not include an institution for primary, secondary or higher education or a residential training institution.”

b)      Stormwater and any other water runoff from buildings or paved areas shall be collected and contained on site;

c)      A maximum of 12 patrons are permitted within the Place of Worship buildings at any one time with the exception of the 3 religious events per year whereby the maximum number of patrons is 30;

d)      The operating hours of the Place of Worship shall be restricted to Monday to Sunday 10:00am to 8:00pm;

e)      All car parking shall be contained on-site. The applicant/landowner shall ensure that suitable arrangements for overflow car parking are in place when more than 12 patrons are accommodated;

f)       The landowner/applicant shall plant one street tree per site in a central location between the property boundary and the existing footpath, to the satisfaction of the Manager Land Development;

g)      Detailed landscaping and reticulation plans, for the subject site and adjacent road verges, shall be lodged for approval by the City within 60 days of this approval. Planting and installation shall be completed within 30 days of the approval and shall be in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plans; and

h)      This approval is only valid from the date of this decision and does not retrospectively authorise any previous unapproved development on the subject site.

2.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

3.       INSTRUCTS Administration that no further compliance action or prosecution is required for the retrospective Place of Worship.

4.       INSTRUCTS Administration to investigate the hardstand paved area within the road verge and undertaken any necessary compliance action. 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: Location plan 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue Girrawheen

17/185569

 

2.

Attachment 2:  Development Plan 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue Girrawheen(2)

17/182580

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3: Girrawheen site visit photos DA2017 203 - 32 and 34 Bardsley Avenue Girrawheen(2)

17/182578

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                                56

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            57


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            61

PDF Creator


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                63

PS04-08/17       Submission on WALGA Discussion Paper - Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning

File Ref:                                              30042 – 17/211853

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To provide a submission to the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) on the ‘Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning’ Discussion Paper (Discussion Paper), which WALGA has released for public comment.

Background

In October 2007, Dr Janet Woollard MLA sought feedback from all local governments in Western Australia on a Private Members Bill that Dr Woollard had drafted regarding Third Party Appeals.

 

WALGA considered this matter at its February 2008 State Council Meeting, and resolved (in part) that there is no justification for the proposed legislation and there are significant negative implications for Local Government, industry and the community, Local Government continues to be opposed to the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia.

 

The main arguments that formed WALGA’s Policy position at that time were as follows:

 

1.   The current strategic and statutory planning processes, and consideration of applications by Councils, already takes into account the views of affected parties and the community generally;

 

2.   Third Party Appeals could be lodged because of vexatious or commercial interests, not because of genuine planning matters;

 

3.   Such appeals would cause significant delays and additional costs for development, as even lodgement of an appeal would put a development on hold; and

 

4.   Additional planning appeals would place a further burden on already stretched Local Government resources. Local Governments would incur additional costs for new administrative steps in processing development applications, preparing for and responding to appeals lodged with the State Administrative Appeals Tribunal (SAT) and legal representation. This is particularly the case since the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal which has seen planning appeals become more legalistic, costly and resource intensive for Local Governments.

 

Administration also responded to Dr Woollard on 19 February 2008 on behalf of the City by advising that Council (through its representation in WALGA’s North Metro Zone) was supportive of WALGA’s resolution made on the matter at the time. A copy of that correspondence is included as Attachment 1. The matter was not presented to a Council Meeting at the time.

 

Since WALGA established its Policy position above, a number of changes have been implemented to the planning framework which has directly impacted the decision-making powers of local government. These changes include:

 

·    Changes to the structure planning process;

·    The introduction of Development Assessment Panels (DAPs); and

·    The introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which include the “Deemed Provisions” for local planning schemes.

 

Influenced by reforms to the planning framework in recent years, WALGA has recently resolved to undertake research on Third Party Appeals around Australia and further consult with members regarding its current Policy position. Upon completion of consultation, WALGA will prepare a report to be presented at the upcoming WALGA State Council.

 

Administration is proposing that the City prepare a submission to WALGA on the Discussion Paper. WALGA requested comment on the Discussion Paper by 14 July 2017. Although the due date for submissions has passed, WALGA has advised Administration that a late submission will be accepted, provided that the City’s submission is lodged immediately after this Council Meeting.

Detail

The Discussion Paper is included as Attachment 2. WALGA has advised that it welcomes feedback and comment on all aspects of the Discussion Paper, and in particular on the following:

·    Would you be in favour of the introduction of some form of Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia? Why or why not?

·    Do you feel your Council is likely to support some form of Third Party Appeal Right?

·    Any other comments relating to Third Party Appeal Rights.

 

The Discussion Paper has been prepared by WALGA and not by State Government. The previous State Government, through its 2015 review of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011, reiterated its 2009 position that there were no plans to introduce Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia.

Consultation

Administration presented the Discussion Paper to Elected Members at the 13 June 2017 and 1 August 2017 Council Forums. Following these meetings, Administration has considered the matters raised at the Forums and provides further comment on how Third Party Appeal Rights function in other states, the current rights for residents to object and appeal, and under which circumstances would the City support Third Party Appeal Rights.

Comment

Third Party Appeal Rights in other States

 

Third Party Appeal Rights are currently in place in all other states and territories, as outlined in pages 6-7 of the WALGA Discussion Paper included in Attachment 2.

 

The extent and circumstances that a third party can appeal a planning decision varies considerably between each state and territory. Any of the Third Party Appeal Rights that apply in other states or territories could potentially be replicated in Western Australia if legislation was introduced. Administration has provided its own table with comment on Third Party Appeal Rights that exist in each state and territory in Attachment 3.

 

Third Party Appeal Rights have also been embedded into planning or local government legislation in other states and territories for some time, and have become a part of their planning frameworks. Planning reform undertaken in Western Australia in recent years was made following the conclusion that the planning regime around appeals was appropriate; with planning reform then established around this position accordingly. Should legislation allowing Third Party Appeal Rights be introduced now, it could result in the changing or ‘reversing’ of the planning reforms that have been recently made by the State Government. In a 2015 Report released by the then State Government on the legislation relating to DAPs, it was noted that:

 

“the Government does not believe that the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia is consistent with the current attempts to simplify and streamline the planning approval process”

 

Local Government as a Third Party Appellant

 

A local government is a body that either makes a planning decision or provides a recommendation to facilitate a planning decision made by others (typically a DAP or the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)). Administration considers that:

·    Local government has ample opportunity to consider all the planning issues prior to determining a planning proposal;

·    If a planning proposal is to be determined by others (a DAP or the WAPC), local government has ample opportunity to identify and present the planning issues to these determining bodies, prior to a decision being made; and

·    If a local government were appealing planning decisions (that, a DAP or the WAPC may have made), the community may lose confidence in its local government’s ability to assess a proposal prior to formulating its determination or recommendation.

 

Administration considers that it would be inappropriate for local government to be a third party appellant of a planning decision – even a decision made by a DAP or the WAPC.

 

Current Rights for Third Parties

 

Prior to a decision-maker determining a planning proposal, community involvement on a planning proposal is invited through consultation processes with affected landowners and occupiers. Particularly in the case with development applications determined by the City, the City (as decision-maker) is required under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions to have due regard to the content of submissions that it receives.

 

In forming its current position, it was acknowledged by WALGA that the SAT system provides the following ways in which third parties may participate in SAT proceedings as follows:

 

·    Being called as a witness by the respondent;

·    Making a submission under section 242 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

·    Intervening under Section 37(3) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, whereby the third party acquires rights and responsibilities as a party under the act; and

·    Possible participation in mediation.

 

Application and Arguments in Discussion Paper regarding Third Party Appeal Rights

 

WALGA has not stated what circumstances Third Party Appeal Rights should apply or other details on how this can be implemented.

 

The key arguments presented in the Discussion Paper against Third Party Appeal Rights include:

 

1.    Third Party Appeal Rights, if not clearly defined, may allow individuals to take part in planning decisions in which they have no direct or legitimate interest. This may result in appeals lodged against a proposal on non-planning grounds (vexatious reasons or reasons of commercial interest) – rather than because of an issue concerning the merit or substance of a proposal.

 

2.   There are already opportunities for community members to participate in the planning process (consultation of planning proposals), which informs decision-making.

3.   Third Party Appeal Rights could result in increased delays and costs in undertaking development; which will create inefficiencies and uncertainty in the industry.

 

Key arguments presented in the Discussion Paper for Third Party Appeal Rights include:

 

1.   Neighbouring landowners and occupiers have an interest in what is being proposed. Whilst the developer can appeal any decision of Council, it could be argued that residents too should be afforded the right to appeal a decision.

2.   Third party appeal rights may encourage developers to become more engaged with the local community, which may place pressure on developers to concede or improve on design elements. 

 

WALGA’s Discussion Paper (Attachment 2) presents all the arguments both for and against third party appeal rights in detail.

 

Administration Opinion and Recommendation on Third Party Appeal Rights

 

Administration acknowledges that there are reasons for and against the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights. However on balance, Administration does not support the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights in Western Australia. Administration considers that although there have been significant reforms that have been implemented to the planning framework in recent years, those reforms are not considered by Administration to render WALGA’s current Policy position less relevant.

 

Administration considers that Third Party Appeal Rights would result in more appeals that Local Governments would be required to respond to. This could lead to additional cost and resources being utilised by Local Governments through increased engagement of both planning and legal representation.

 

One of the most significant planning changes that has occurred in Western Australia in recent years has been the introduction of the DAPs. Although the DAP process does take some decision-making away from local government, it does not take away the ability for community consultation to be undertaken for DAP applications and community opinion being considered.

 

Administration acknowledges that planning outcomes caused by decisions made by DAP’s are sometimes questioned by members of the community. However, Administration does not consider that the introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights (which would operate separately from the DAP process) is the appropriate mechanism to improve planning outcomes from development proposals presented to the DAP. Administration provides recommendations to the DAP, following assessments informed by the relevant planning instruments of the City (structure plans, District Planning Scheme No. 2, local planning policies etc). To ensure that the desired outcomes are achieved through the planning (and DAP) process, the City could explore the review and amendment of planning instruments as it considers necessary.

 

It is therefore recommended that the City provides a comment to WALGA outlining its position of not supporting Third Party Appeal Rights in the Western Australian planning system. Administration’s draft submission to WALGA is provided as Attachment 4.

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

4.1.3  Advocate and collaborate for the benefit of the City

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 introduction of Third Party Appeal Rights into the planning system would likely prompt the need for the City to introduce a new Local Planning Policy – or undertake a review to the current Local Planning Policy 4.17: State Administrative Tribunal.

Financial Implications

The City currently receives on average approximately 10 appeals per year. The introduction of third party appeal rights would likely increase the number of appeals the City responds to per year. This would also likely increase the demand for town planning and legal resources that the City requires in responding to appeals.

 

The cost to respond to each SAT appeal varies considerably. In some instances, appeals are responded to by Administration (without assistance from external consultants), and therefore costs responding to such matters are kept to operational costs. When the City does engage external consultants to assist in responding to a SAT appeal, monetary costs on the City typically vary from $10,000 to in excess of $200,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the draft submission that does not support Third Party Appeal Rights as per Attachment 4 of this Report and SUBMITS this as its submission to the Western Australian Local Government Association’s Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning Discussion Paper.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - 2008 Advice from City of Wanneroo to Dr. Janet Woollard MLA - Third Party Appeals

17/212158

 

2.

WALGA Third Party Appeals Discussion Paper

17/168211

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Table - Third Party Appeal Rights in other Jurisdictions and Administration Comment

17/220404

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Submission to WALGA - Third Party Appeal Rights Discussion Paper

17/219645

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            68

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            69


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                                84

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            88

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                90

PS05-08/17       Consideration of Amendment No. 8 to the Approved Structure Plan No. 57

File Ref:                                              3290-08 – 17/231728

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 8 to the East Wanneroo Cell 9 Approved Structure Plan No. 57 (ASP 57).

 

Applicant

Rowe Group

Owner

BMC Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd and Octangler Pty Ltd ATF Alexander Trust

Location

Lot 154 and 155 Alexander Drive, Landsdale

Site Area

4.2239 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

ASP 57 Zoning

Commercial and Residential Precinct

 

Background

On 30 May 2016, Rowe Group Town Planners submitted a proposal to amend ASP 57 for the City’s consideration.

 

In ASP 57,

 

·          Lot 1982, Alexander Drive, Landsdale located at the south-western corner of Alexander Drive and Gnangara Road is zoned Commercial (northern commercial site); and

 

·          Lots 154 and 155, Alexander Drive, Landsdale located at the north-western corner of Alexander Drive and Landsdale are zoned Commercial and Residential Precinct with a density coding of R20/R30 (southern commercial site).

 

Attachment 1 contains ASP 57 Zoning Plan indicating the zoning and proposed amendment area of the above-mentioned lots.

 

Clause 12.3.6 of Part 1 of ASP 57 contains the Commercial Design Provision applicable to the commercial zones. This provision requires the location of vehicular access and parking area on the western side of the commercial sites in order to minimise radio frequency interference to the Perth International Telecommunication Centre (PITC) located on the eastern side of Alexander Drive.

 

The amendment proposes to rezone Lots 154 and 155 entirely as Commercial, modify Clause 12.3.6 and introduce a new clause 12.3.7.

 

Lots 154 and 155 being affected by the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s draft Green Growth Plan for Perth and Peel (GGP) meant that assessment of the amendment proposal could not be progressed until such time the issues relating to GGP were resolved by the applicant. This matter has since been resolved as explained in the Comment section below.

 

 

 

Detail

The details of the amendment proposals are as follows:

 

Rezoning

The applicant’s justification to rezone Lots 154 and 155 entirely as Commercial Zone is as follows:

 

ASP 57 originally proposed the northern and southern Commercial zones on,

 

·   The eastern part of Lot 1981 Gnangara Road and whole of Lot 1982 Alexander Drive; and

 

·   Portions of Lot 154 and 155 Alexander Drive.

 

Lot 1981 has since been rezoned entirely as Residential Precinct resulting in a loss of approximately 1.3 hectares of commercial land in East Landsdale. Therefore a consolidated commercial centre is required to meet the needs of the local community. 

 

As the amendment primarily relates to the southern commercial site, it is referred as the amendment area in the report.

 

Clauses 12.3.6 & 12.3.7

The amendment primarily relates to the southern commercial site. Therefore it is proposed to insert the words ‘Northern Site’ to the heading of Clause 12.3.6 and to introduce a new Clause 12.3.7 Commercial Design Provisions – Southern Site. The salient provisions of this clause are:

 

·    No direct vehicle access from Alexander Drive;

·    One row of parking bays between Alexander Drive landscaping and the future buildings with limited number of bays on the second row;

·    Treatment of all glazing fronting Alexander Drive with Radio Frequency shielding window film; and

·    A roof pitch of at least 10 degrees.

 

Road network

Mela Way, Sedona Glade, Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace terminate at the southern commercial site. As per ASP 57, these roads are proposed to extend into Lots 154 and 155 along with a north-south subdivisional road connecting Sedona Glade and Landsdale Road. The amendment proposes to replace the north-south subdivisional road with a 6-metre wide vehicular and pedestrian access easement setback 5 metres from the western boundary of the amendment area.

 

Attachment 2 is the proposed Part 1 document as submitted by the applicant.

Consultation

The Amendment was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper and the City’s website and letters to adjoining and affected landowners. The submission period closed on 26 July 2016, with 31 submissions being received. Attachment 3 is a summary of submissions and Administration’s responses. Five submissions were made by the government agencies not raising any objection to the proposal. Of the remaining 26 submissions four supported and 22 objected to the proposal. It is noted that those who supported the amendment proposal do not live in the vicinity of the amendment area. Those who objected, live on Sedona Glade, Melanzana Chase, Mela Way and Ravanello Terrace terminating at the amendment area.

 

The main issues raised in the submissions are:

 

·        Loss of amenity; and

 

·        Increase in traffic.

A detailed discussion on these issues is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

Discussion on the amendment proposals

 

Attachment 4 is a concept plan of the southern commercial site prepared by the applicant in consultation with Telstra to ensure that the proposed development minimises radio frequency interference to the PITC.  The concept plan depicts a community purpose (CP) site the details of which are discussed below.

 

As per the provisions of ASP 57, the southern commercial site is proposed to include a CP site of size 5,000m2 in area for future acquisition by the City. Under the provisions of DPS 2, acquisition of the CP site and the design and construction of a community centre on this site are listed as specific cell works.

 

The concept plan, however, earmarks a CP site 3,630m2 in area located on the northern boundary of the amendment area abutting Alexander Drive. The applicant has discussed with Administration the location and intended layout of the CP site.  Administration is satisfied with the location and extent of the CP site as it is considered to be sufficient for the City's needs.

 

As per the provisions of DPS 2, a CP site of 5,000m2 has been accounted for in the calculation of Infrastructure Cost Per Lot (ICPL) in Cell 9. Since the applicant is proposing a CP site 3.630m2 in area, in accordance with Clause 9.13.3 of DPS 2 any excess ICPL received by Council will be distributed amongst the owners who made the Infrastructure Cost payments to the Cell 9 Account.

 

GGP

 

Lot 155 in its entirety and a portion of Lot 154 are affected by the draft GGP. The City has been advised by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet that the vegetation in the site is Bassendean Complex Central and South (26% remaining) and there is no indication that this vegetation is being targeted for retention.  

 

The Department of Planning Land and Heritage officers have advised that the issues relating to GGP will be assessed by the WAPC when the amendment proposals are referred to it for its consideration.

 

Issues raised by the Submitters

 

The major issues raised by the submitters are discussed below.

 

Increase in Traffic

 

Melanzana Chase, Ravanello Terrace, Sedano Glade and Mela Way terminate at the southern commercial site. Residents on these streets were of the view that these roads will remain as dead-ends. ASP 57, which was initially adopted by Council in June 2009 subject to modifications, depicted these roads as extending further into the commercial site and connecting to Alexander Drive. The proposed amendment accords with the ASP 57.

 

 

 

ASP 57 does not allocate a maximum net lettable area (NLA) for the commercial site. This is consistent with the WAPC State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, which does not recommend a NLA for the commercial centres. However, for the purpose of calculating the volume of traffic generated by this centre, a NLA of 4,000m2 was assumed generating 4,840 vehicle trips per day (vpd).

 

The supporting traffic report to the proposed amendment is based on 7,000m2 NLA generating a traffic volume of 8,470 vpd. Therefore the proposal will generate an additional traffic volume of 3,630 vpd.

 

Of 8,470 vpd generated by the centre, 3,510, 2,250 and 2,000 vpd are expected to enter/exit via Landsdale Road, Sedano Glade and Mela Way respectively and the remaining 710 vpd via Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace.

 

In ASP 57 Sedano Glade and Mela Way are proposed as Higher Order Access Way capable of carrying an indicative traffic volume of 3,000 vpd. Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace are proposed as Lower Order Access Ways capable of carrying an indicative traffic volume of 1,000vpd.

 

The following table indicates the additional capacity available on Sedano Glade, Mela Way, Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace.

 

Name of Road

Indicative traffic volume (vpd)

Estimated Volume of traffic from the Commercial site (vpd)

Additional capacity (vpd)

Sedano Glade

3,000

2,250

750

Mela Way

3,000

2,000

1,000

Melanzana Chase

1,000

355

645

Ravanello Terrace

1,000

355

645

 

In ASP 57, the Sedano Grade and Alexander Drive intersection is shown as a left-in/left-out intersection. Therefore the south bound traffic generated by dwellings on Mela Way, Sedano Glade, Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace are likely to exit via Pomodora Avenue connecting Kingsway and Landsdale Road and located to the west of the commercial site. Attachment 5 is map locating the amendment and the surrounding areas. Bounded by Kingsway, Pomodora Avenue and Landsdale Road, there are 187 lots likely to generate 1,496 vpd at the rate of 8 vehicle trips per day per dwelling. Considering the additional capacity of the roads terminating at the amendment area, these roads will be able to carry the normal traffic as well as the traffic generated by the commercial site. 

 

In the absence of the current traffic count on Landsdale Road where it abuts the amendment area, the City’s traffic section has advised that it is possible that Landsdale Road could currently be carrying a traffic volume of 3,000 vpd. In addition to the traffic from the Centre, Landsdale Road would possibly carry a traffic volume of 3,000+3,510=6,510 vpd. The City’s Traffic section has further advised that Landsdale Road is listed as a Local Distributor Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy to carry a maximum desirable traffic volume of 6,000vpd. As the section of Landsdale Road abutting the centre is expected to carry more than 6,000vpd, this section of Landsdale Road may require to be upgraded to include a part raised / part flush median and pedestrian crossing facilities. This matter can be dealt with at the subdivision stage.

 

Loss of Amenity

 

Rezoning Lots 154 and 155 Alexander Drive entirely as Commercial will render the residential lots located at the end of Melanzana Chase, Ravanello Terrace, Mela Way and Sedano Glade as corner lots. The residents of these lots have advised that they purchased

 

their lots on the understanding that a row of residential lots along the western and northern boundaries of Lots 154 and 155 would act as a buffer between their lots and the commercial site. Therefore the proposed amendment would result in loss of amenity.

 

Corner lots are created with a 6x6 metre truncation to allow sight line and to accommodate underground services and footpath. By virtue of the amendment proposal, the objectors’ lots will become corner lots without a truncation. In Attachment 6 the applicant has demonstrated that in the absence of a corner truncation, it is still possible to accommodate a 1.5-metre wide footpath and to achieve the required sight-lines.

 

Clause 3.4.1 of DPS 2 states that the Residential Zone is intended primarily for residential development in the environment where high standards of amenity and safety predominate to ensure the health and welfare of the population. Administration is of the view that the affected residential lots together with the adjoining Residential Precinct within the amendment area as per the current ASP 57 could enjoy a higher standard of amenity and safety than if they were to abut a Commercial Zone. It is further considered that it is not desirable to enlarge the Commercial Zone at the expense of these residents. As the proposals do not meet the expectation of the residents of the adjoining residential lots it is recommended that the amendment proposal not be supported. 

 

Conclusion

 

Rowe Group Town Planners have requested an amendment to ASP 57 by rezoning Lots 154 and 155 Alexander Drive, Landsdale entirely as Commercial. This proposal would render the lots at the end of Melanzana Chase, Ravanello Terrace, Mela Way and Sedano Glade where they terminate at the amendment area, as corner lots. Although the issues raised by the submittors can be resolved, Administration is of the view that the proposed amendment would affect the amenity of this locality. Therefore it is recommended to not support the amendment proposal.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. Clause 20 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan amendment, Council must recommend whether the amendment should be approved by the WAPC. In this instance it is recommended that the amendment should not be approved by the WAPC.

Strategic Implications

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

 “2     Economy

2.2    Strategic Growth

2.2.4  Protect and increase availability of employment generating land

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 WAPC’s State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel and City’s Activity Centres Local Planning Policy 3.2.

 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme to the No. 2 RECOMMENDS to Western Australian Planning Commission TO NOT APPROVE Amendment No. 8 to East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Agreed Structure Plan No. 57 (ASP 57) submitted by Rowe Group on behalf of BMC Properties (Australia) Pty Ltd to rezone Lots 154 and 155 Alexander Drive, Landsdale entirely as Commercial Zone, modify Clause 12.3.6 of the Statutory Section of ASP 57 and to introduce a  new Clause 12.3.7 for the following reasons:

a)         Mela Way, Sedona Glade, Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace terminate at Lots 154 and 155 Alexander Drive, Landsdale. Clause 3.4.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 states that the Residential Zone is intended primarily for residential development in the environment where high standards of amenity and safety predominate to ensure the health and welfare of the population. Abutting a Commercial Zone instead of a Residential Precinct, the affected residential lots at the end of Mela Way, Sedona Glade, Melanzana Chase and Ravanello Terrace are not likely to enjoy a high standard of amenity and safety; and

b)        The proposals do not meet the expectation of the residents of the adjoining residential lots who purchased their lots on the understanding that they would be residing next to a residential area; and

2.       Advises the submitters accordingly.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 1

17/273245

 

2.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 2

17/205270

 

3.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 3

17/232644

 

4.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 4

17/231866

 

5.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 5

17/233725

 

6.

Amdt 8 - Attachment 6

17/230516

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                                96

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                            98


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          108


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          116


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          117


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          118


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              119

PS06-08/17       Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure

File Ref:                                              4088 – 17/232825

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider proceeding with revisions to Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5).

Background

The purpose of LPP 2.5 is to provide clarity and guidance for the City and telecommunication infrastructure providers regarding the development assessment of telecommunications infrastructure.

 

Council adopted the existing version of LPP 2.5 at its 23 July 2013 meeting (PS01-07/13). Revisions to LPP 2.5 have since been prepared by Administration, as the policy was due for review. At its meeting on 11 October 2016 (PS07-10/16), Council resolved to advertise a revised draft version of the policy for public comment. The outcome of that public consultation is provided later in this Report.

Detail

Administration drafted revisions to LPP 2.5, which have been subject to public consultation. The key features of what the revised LPP 2.5 provides for are as follows:

 

·    Outline of objectives, application and purpose of LPP 2.5;

 

·    Development application submission requirements;

 

·    A Policy Table outlining locational and design requirements for telecommunications infrastructure;

 

·    Community consultation requirements in respect to telecommunications infrastructure development applications;

 

·    A policy position outlining that the City is not responsible for the monitoring and control of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) that emanates or could potentially emanate from telecommunications infrastructure; and

 

·    A policy position that defines the difference between telecommunications infrastructure and structures considered to fall under the ‘mast and antenna’ use class of DPS 2.

Consultation

In accordance with Council's October 2016 decision, the draft revised LPP 2.5 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days from 1 November 2016 to 13 December 2016 by way of:

 

·    Advertisements placed in the 1 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, the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) and 55 telecommunication service carriers and retailers as identified by Administration.

 

Administration received three submissions, each providing detailed comment on certain aspects of the policy. A summary of the submissions (with Administration’s response to the comments made in the submissions) is included as Attachment 1. The key issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

·    The consultation requirements imposed in the draft LPP 2.5. In particular, the submitters argue that providing notice to all landowners and/or occupiers of land within 500 metres of proposed telecommunications infrastructure is unnecessary;

 

·    The setback that telecommunications infrastructure must be from adjoining Residential, Mixed Use, Special Rural, Rural Community, Landscape Enhancement or Special Residential zoned land;

 

·    For LPP 2.5 to better address the need to consider telecommunications infrastructure in preparing and assessing structure planning proposals;

 

·    Permissibility of Telecommunications Infrastructure under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2); and

 

·    Consideration to impose development approval exemptions for telecommunications infrastructure, when such proposals meet certain criteria.

 

Administration’s responses to the key issues are provided for in the Comment section below.

 

Administration also discussed the outcome of the submissions received with Elected Members at the 1 August 2017 Council Forum.

Comment

Consultation Requirements

 

Prior to the adoption of the current LPP 2.5, Council considered that the policy prescribes that consultation should involve giving notice to all landowners and/or occupiers of land within 500 metres of proposed telecommunications infrastructure (consultation radius). The submissions received argue that 500 metres in this instance is excessive.

 

As part of its review of the submissions, Administration inspected existing monopoles located on Badgerup Road in Wanneroo and adjacent to the Hepburn Avenue/Mirrabooka Avenue intersection in Darch, as well as the lattice tower at the Telstra site on Wanneroo Road in Wanneroo (just south of the Wanneroo Town Centre). Monopoles and lattice tower are terms that are defined in LPP 2.5. As part of the inspections, Administration took photographs of each facility at distances of (approximately) 100 metres, 200 metres and 500 metres, to gauge the visual impacts that telecommunications infrastructure may impose at such distances. Photographs are included in Attachment 2.

 

Administration considered that a 500 metre consultation radius was appropriate for lattice towers (the type of facility south of the Wanneroo Town Centre). Administration considers that lattice towers impose a greater visual impact compared to other forms of telecommunications infrastructure in terms of their bulk and scale. However, Administration also considered following those inspections that the consultation radius of 500 metres was excessive for other telecommunications infrastructure proposals (such as monopoles), based on their lesser visual impact. In light of these findings, Administration recommends that the draft policy be further revised to specify the following:

 

·    A consultation radius of 500 metres continue to apply in instances a lattice tower is proposed; and

 

·    A consultation radius of 200 metres instead be applied in all other instances.

 

Setback of Telecommunications Infrastructure to Residential and Rural zones

 

The advertised draft version of LPP 2.5 provides for a locational provision (Item L2 in the Policy Table) in that telecommunications infrastructure adjoining a lot (and offset greater than 75 metres) zoned Residential, Mixed Use, Special Rural, Rural Community, Landscape Enhancement or Special Residential will only be considered subject to consultation. The Policy provisions prescribe that an offset less than 75 metres would be unacceptable development.

 

All three submitters identified that providing an offset within the provision is inconsistent with SPP 5.2, SPP 5.2, prescribes that when preparing and reviewing local planning policies, local governments should ensure that buffer zones and/or setback distances are not included in local planning policies. Administration considers the offset provided for in the LPP 2.5 provision effectively is a setback provision in the context of SPP 5.2.

 

Administration is therefore recommending the removal of such offset provisions from LPP 2.5. These provisions are recommended to be replaced with a requirement to consult in instances where telecommunications infrastructure is proposed on land adjoining a lot zoned Residential, Mixed Use, Special Rural, Rural Community, Landscape Enhancement or Special Residential.

 

Consideration of Telecommunications Infrastructure in Structure Planning

 

SPP 5.2 makes provision for considering telecommunications infrastructure services in the preparation and assessment of structure plans at the local level.

 

However, it was identified when LPP 2.5 was being advertised that the policy did not affirm this SPP 5.2 position. The submissions identified that retrospective servicing of established residential development often causes land use conflicts and deployment delays. Administration agrees that conflicts could be minimised if telecommunications infrastructure sites were identified early in the planning process (through structure planning) if possible.

 

Therefore, Administration recommends that an additional policy provision be provided in LPP 2.5 (a new Section 6 of the General Policy Provisions) that outlines that the City should give consideration to demand and/or future need for telecommunications services in its preparation and assessment of structure planning proposals.

 

Permissibility of Telecommunications Infrastructure under DPS 2

 

The submissions received referenced a requirement of SPP 5.2 that prescribes that local governments should ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is not designated as a ‘use not permitted’ (or an ‘X’ use) by a local planning scheme in any zone. Administration agrees that DPS 2 is inconsistent with SPP 5.2, as DPS 2 prescribes that telecommunications infrastructure is an ‘X’ use in the Residential, Mixed Use and Special Residential zones.

 

However, Administration considers that the purpose of this advertising exercise is to seek comment on proposed revisions to LPP 2.5; and that land use permissibility of telecommunications infrastructure is a matter that could be considered as part of the City’s ongoing review and preparation of a new local planning scheme. However, should Council be mindful of the current land use permissibility for telecommunications infrastructure – and wish to address it prior to the preparation of a new local planning scheme – Council in its consideration to proceed with LPP 2.5 does have the option of requesting Administration prepare an amendment to the current DPS 2.

 

Development Approval Exemptions

 

As outlined in the draft LPP 2.5, some works on telecommunication infrastructure are exempt from development approval under Telecommunications Act 1997 (the ‘Act’); such as works that are deemed ‘Low-Impact’ in accordance with the Act and the Telecommunications (Low-Impact Facilities) Determination 1997. However, SPP 5.2 states that local government should, in addition to the exemptions under the Act, consider further exemptions from development approval for telecommunications infrastructure where:

 

a)   The infrastructure has a maximum height of 30 metres from finished ground level;

b)   The proposal complies with the policy measures outlined in this policy; and

c)   The applicant has undertaken notification of the proposal in a similar manner to ‘low impact facilities’ as defined and set out in the relevant Industry Codes.

 

The language used in SPP 5.2 is suggestive, and the City is not bound to put measures in place exempting approval of such development.

 

Schedule 2 (District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) states that the carrying out of certain works as specified in a local planning policy can be exempt from development approval. However, Administration considers that adding further development approval exemptions for telecommunications infrastructure into LPP 2.5 should not be contemplated for the following reasons:

·    Telecommunications infrastructure often generates significant community interest; and

·    The development assessment process provides the City (Administration) with an opportunity to liaise with the applicant to mitigate the amenity impacts that such proposals often present.

 

Conclusion

 

In addition to summarising the submissions (and providing Administration’s response to the comments made in the submissions), Attachment 1 also provides for all of Administration’s modifications (including those discussed above) it is recommending following the advertisement of LPP 2.5.

 

Administration has prepared a track-change version of draft LPP 2.5 (refer Attachment 3) with the modifications it is recommending now that LPP 2.5 has been advertised. An updated draft LPP 2.5 (incorporating the recommended modifications) is included as Attachment 4.

Statutory Compliance

Preparation and Council’s further actions in respect to revisions to LPP 2.5 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 2.5, Council can consider revoking the existing LPP 2.5 (adopted by Council at its 23 July 2013 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 2.5 (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 2.5 (as included in Attachment 4) will result in the current LPP 2.5 being redundant. A new LPP 2.5 will, however, still provide for clarity and guidance for the City and telecommunication infrastructure providers regarding the development assessment of telecommunications infrastructure.

Financial Implications

The cost of undertaking the necessary actions for Council to proceed with revisions to LPP 2.5 can be met from existing operational budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 1 in respect revisions drafted for Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

 

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 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure, as included in Attachment 4;

 

3.       Pursuant to Clause 6 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 Deemed Provisions, REVOKES the Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure as was adopted by Council on 23 July 2013;

 

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 a new Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (included as Attachment 4 and as outlined in Item (2) above); and

 

b)   of Council revoking a previous version Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure as adopted by Council on 23 July 2013 (as outlined in Item (3) above);

 

5.       FORWARDS a copy of Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (as included in Attachment 4) to the Department of Planning for its information; and

 

6.       ADVISE submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions and Recommended Modifications - Advertisement of Revisions to Local Planning Policy 2.5  Telecommunications Infrastructure

17/232419

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2 - Photographs of Telecommunications Infrastructure

17/232417

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Track Change Version of LPP 2.5 Following Advertising

17/232420

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Administration's Recommended Version of LPP 2.5 Following Advertising

17/232432

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              125

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 22 August, 2017                                                                                              141

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          147

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              153

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          157

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              163

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              166

PS07-08/17       Preparation of Amendment No. 144 to District Planning Scheme No. 2

File Ref:                                              20123 – 17/240238

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Planning & Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To prepare an amendment to the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), by zoning a 326 square metre portion of Crown Land which is part of John Moloney Park, Marangaroo.

 

Applicant

City of Wanneroo

Owner

Crown Land – City of Wanneroo Management

Location

Lot 10776 (34) Highclere Boulevard, Marangaroo

Site Area

6.86 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Parks and Recreation

 

Background

Lot 10776 (34) Highclere Boulevard, Marangaroo (John Moloney Park) which is subject to this amendment is located where indicated on the plan included as Attachment 1. John Moloney Park is 6.86 hectares in area, and contains facilities available to the public including car parking, a playground, cricket nets, a cricket/football oval and a baseball/softball field.

 

Lot 825 is owned in Freehold by the City and adjoins John Moloney Park. Lot 825 is zoned 'Civic and Cultural' under DPS 2, and contains a building known as the Marangaroo Family Centre (MFC). The MFC site is currently leased, with the occupants also utilising the land on the portion of Crown Reserve adjoining Lot 825, which is subject to this amendment. The portion of Crown Reserve is utilised exclusively by the MFC occupants, and is surrounded by a chain mesh fence that prevents public access from the remainder of the Crown Reserve.

 

In a process separate yet relevant to this amendment (and subject to a separate Report on this Agenda), Administration is seeking to excise this portion of John Moloney Park and amalgamate this land into Lot 825. The 326 square metre extent of the land that Administration is seeking the City excise is shown on the plan included as Attachment 2.

 

This DPS 2 amendment proposes to apply a 'Civic and Cultural' zoning on the portion of John Moloney Park that Administration is seeking to excise for the City.

Detail

Amendment No. 144 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 proposes to zone a 326 square metre portion of John Moloney Park subject to the excision as 'Civic and Cultural' (the extent of which is included as Attachment 2). The amendment document (which includes a plan showing how the DPS 2 map would be modified as a result from this amendment) is included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

In accordance with Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Amendment No. 144 will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), to assess the

 

 

environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to no objection being received from the EPA, Amendment No. 144 will be advertised for public comment in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations).

 

Regulation 35 (2) of the Regulations require a scheme amendment to be classed as basic, standard or complex by a local government to determine the advertising requirements. Amendment No. 144 is deemed by Administration to be a standard amendment, for reasons as set out below:

 

a)    The amendment is consistent with a region planning scheme that applies to the scheme area (Metropolitan Region Scheme);

 

b)    The amendment would have a minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment; and

 

c)    The amendment is not considered to align with the criteria applicable for ‘basic’ and ‘complex’ amendments, prescribed in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Prior to advertising of Amendment No. 144, notification must be provided to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) of Council’s intention to advertise the amendment as a ‘standard’ amendment in accordance with Regulation 47 (1) of the Regulations. On completion of that notification, advertising is proposed to occur in the following manner for a period of no less than 42 days, consistent with the requirements of 47 (2) to (4) of the Regulations:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper;

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

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

Comment

In late 2012, the City consulted with the (then) Department of Planning (DoP) on the proposal to excise land from John Moloney Park, for the purpose of amalgamating it into the MFC landholding. On 24 May 2013, the DoP provided the following comment:

 

·    Expression of no objection in principle to the proposed excision of the portion of Crown Reserve 39479 and subsequent amalgamation into adjoining Lot 825; and

 

·    Recommendation that the City of Wanneroo initiates an Amendment to DPS 2, to rezone the subject portion of land from a Public Recreation reserve to 'Civic and Cultural'.

 

A copy of the DoP's response is included in the amendment documentation included as Attachment 3. In response to the recommendation from the DoP, Administration has since prepared this DPS 2 amendment.

 

Administration has considered the potential impact on the amount of public open space in the locality that will remain, should the subject portion of John Moloney Park be amalgamated into adjoining Lot 825. Administration considers that:

 

·    Should the subject portion of John Moloney Park be zoned ‘Civic and Cultural’ and amalgamated into the adjoining Lot 825, there will be an insignificant change of public open space remaining in the locality;

 

·    The portion of John Moloney Park subject to this DPS 2 amendment contains facilities that are fenced from public access and are only available for the use of the occupants of the MFC. The remaining portion of John Moloney Park contains facilities such as a playground, a car park, a baseball/softball field, cricket pitch and cricket nets which will continue to be available to the public should the amendment be approved.

 

In light of the above, Administration recommends that this DPS 2 can be initiated and proceed to advertising.

Statutory Compliance

Actions arising in respect to Amendment No. 144 to DPS 2 are to be in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

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

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 costs in undertaking further actions in respect to Amendment No. 144 to DPS 2 can be met from the existing Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 144 to City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, to undertake the amendments to the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 as prescribed in the document included as Attachment 3;

 

 

 

 

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 144 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a standard amendment pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for the following reasons:

 

a)   The amendment is consistent with a region planning scheme that applies to the scheme area (Metropolitan Region Scheme);

 

b)   The amendment would have a minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment; and

 

c)   The amendment is not considered to align with the criteria applicable for ‘basic’ and ‘complex’ amendments, prescribed in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, REFERS Amendment No. 144 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

 

4.       Subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority and pursuant to Regulation 47(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, NOTIFIES the Western Australian Planning Commission of its intention to advertise Amendment No. 144 and ADVERTISES Amendment No. 144 for public comment for a period of not less than 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 47(2) and 47(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan for Amendment No. 144 to DPS 2

17/241318

 

2.

Attachment 2 for August 2017 Report - Extent of Proposed Excision

17/241573

 

3.

NEW Attachment 3 - August 2017 Report - Amendment 144 to DPS 2 - Report Prepared for Signing and Sealing

17/256490

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              170

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              171

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          172

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              179

PS08-08/17       Recommendation for Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 - Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton

File Ref:                                              29324 – 17/202284

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 for Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton (LSP 102) to determine the modifications required and its acceptability for final approval and forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant

CLE Town Planning and Design

Owner

Daws & Son Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 6 (19) Taronga Place, Eglinton

Site Area

28 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

 

Background

The proposed LSP 102 was submitted on 10 March 2017, and on 4 April 2017, the Director Planning and Sustainability forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, notifying of Administration’s intent to advertise the proposed Structure Plan. Advertising of LSP 102 commenced on 11 April 2017, and closed on 9 May 2017, in accordance with Clause 18 of the Deemed Provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

Following this, a detailed assessment was undertaken of the proposed LSP 102.

Detail

Site

The LSP 102 area relates to the western portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton and covers approximately 28 hectares of land. The site is bound by Marmion Avenue to the west, vacant land zoned Residential under the Eglinton Agreed Structure Plan No. 82 (ASP 82) to the north, the Mitchell Freeway reserve to the east and Bluewater Drive to the south. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.  

 

The subject site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and the Alkimos Eglinton District Structure Plan No. 18 (DSP 18) and Urban Development under DPS 2. In accordance with Clause 3.14.3 of DPS 2, a Structure Plan is required to be prepared and adopted prior to the commencement of subdivision or development within the Urban Development zone. 

Proposal

The draft LSP 102 has been prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area and to satisfy the requirements of DPS 2.

 

The LSP provides the framework for the creation of the following:

·    Approximately 17.6 hectares of Residential zoned land with a residential density code range of R-MD 25 – R-MD 60. This will enable the development of approximately 460 dwellings;

·    Approximately 2.9 hectares of Public Open Space (POS);

·    Proposed locations of Neighbourhood Connector roads within the site to enable a permeable movement network that connects into the existing surrounding road networks.

 

The advertised version of the LSP 102 Part 1 document and Structure Plan Map is included as Attachment 2.

 

A revised version of the LSP 102 documents and the Structure Plan Map was submitted by the applicant following discussion and negotiation with Administration on 5 July 2017. This version included predominantly minor administrative changes and did not modify the general intent of LSP 102. The revised Part 1 document and Structure Plan Map is included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

The draft LSP 102 was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days by means of a sign on site, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers, display on the City’s website and letters written to surrounding landowners and occupiers.  The submission period closed on 9 May 2017, with 17 submissions being received. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 4.

 

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

 

·    Clearing of vegetation and the effect on flora and fauna within the area;

·    Status of the Department of Environment and Energy’s (DEE) assessment of the proposal under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act);

·    Information contained within the Bushfire Management Plan; and

·    Increase in traffic on the surrounding road network.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 102 is provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

Referral under the EPBC Act

 

A number of concerns were raised during the advertising period and during the assessment of LSP 102 regarding the amount of vegetation being retained on-site as well as the quality and species of vegetation being retained. In particular, concerns related to the retention of high quality Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain Threatened Ecological Community (Banksia Woodlands TEC) and suitable foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo.

 

Both Banksia Woodlands TEC and the foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo are recognised as endangered under the EPBC Act and identified for protection. On this basis, the applicant was also required to submit an EPBC referral to the DEE for assessment and approval of any clearing within the landholding that has the potential to impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance. These matters include Banksia Woodlands TEC and the foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo. This assessment and approval undertaken by the DEE runs as a separate process to the assessment and adoption of the proposed LSP, however the City must still consider the potential impacts of the proposed LSP on significant vegetation within the site.

 

Upon review of the Environmental Assessment Contained within Appendix 2 of the Technical Appendices and additional information received from the applicant regarding the intended vegetation to be retained within the entirety of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton, Administration is satisfied with the proposed LSP 102 in terms of its environmental impact for the following reasons: 

 

The EPBC referral area is not limited to the LSP 102 area but covers the entirety of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton encompasses the land incorporated within LSP 102 as well as an additional 112 hectares of land to the east of the LSP 102 area located between the future rail reserve and Wanneroo Road, and bisected by the Mitchell Freeway reserve.

 

The breakdown of Banksia Woodland TEC and foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo within Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton is as follows:

·    There are 92.4 hectares of moderate and high value foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo within the entirety of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. Of this, 20.4ha is located within the LSP 102 area.

·    There are 49.29 hectares of Banksia Woodland TEC within the entirety of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. Of this, 10 hectares is located within the LSP 102 area. 

 

As identified in Attachment 5, the applicant is proposing to retain a minimum of eight hectares of Banksia Woodland TEC and foraging habitat for the Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo within Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. These areas of retention are proposed outside of LSP 102 and within the remaining portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. This is because, through the Environmental Assessment undertaken by Strategen and submitted by the applicant, it was determined that the areas of vegetation outside of the LSP 102 area and within the remaining portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton represented the highest value of vegetation encompassing the largest area of land.

 

By retaining these areas of vegetation, this will ensure that the vegetation being retained has the greatest ability to provide habitat connectivity and reduce fragmentation. Whilst there are areas of high quality vegetation within the LSP 102 area, these areas encompass a smaller portion of land and if retained would not provide the same amount of value as those areas that are proposed for retention outside of the LSP 102 area and within the remaining portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. It is noted that future detailed planning, including a separate Structure Plan, is required to be adopted over the remaining portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton prior to this area being developed. This future Structure Plan will identify and ensure the retention of this vegetation in accordance with any EPBC approval granted over the land. Furthermore, the EPBC approval runs with the land and as such, ensures that any future landowners of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton will be required to retain the vegetation as specified in the EPBC approval.

 

Furthermore, whilst the EPBC referral does not indicate any areas for retention within LSP 102, the applicant is required to provide 3% of the LSP area as Nature POS in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space. Nature (Conservation) POS is required for the purpose of conserving the significant natural assets within the site. The extent and location of Nature POS will be considered in further detail and determined at the time that a subdivision application is submitted and approved for the LSP 102 area.  Notwithstanding this, Attachment 6 identifies where the possible vegetation retention, hence Nature POS sites, could be located. On this basis, Administration is satisfied that the designated locations of POS within LSP 102 can facilitate the protection of the significant natural assets within the site and allow for the 3% Nature POS to be provided. Administration is also recommending a provision be included within the Part 1 text which requires the retention of existing vegetation within the Structure Plan area where possible. This will be determined at the time that an application is submitted for subdivision or development of the land.

 

Consideration has also been given to the City’s Draft Local Biodiversity Strategy (Draft LBS) in assessing the suitability of development and associated clearing within the LSP 102 area.

The Draft LBS identifies the LSP 102 area as a Local Natural Area (LNA) within the Alkimos Eglinton Planning Precinct and identifies the vegetation within the LSP area as Cottesloe Complex – Central and South with a low to medium priority for conservation. It has been acknowledged within the Draft LBS that the majority of land within the Alkimos Eglinton Planning Precinct is zoned Urban and as such, is intended for future development. Notwithstanding, the Draft LBS indicates areas within this precinct which are identified as a medium to high priority for conservation. Confirming the findings of the Environmental Assessment provided by the applicant, the areas of medium to high priority vegetation within Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton are predominantly located outside of the LSP 102 area. On this basis, there are no areas of vegetation within the LSP 102 area that have been specifically identified for protection under the Draft LBS. With regard to the remaining portion of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton, the areas of vegetation required to be retained for conservation will be determined through the future detailed planning for this land, being a separate Structure Plan, and will be in accordance with the Draft LBS and the outcome of the current EPBC referral.

 

Further to the above information, Administration also liaised with the DEE to determine the status of the EPBC referral as well as to confirm whether there were any significant issues identified within the assessment process which may affect the proposed LSP 102. The DEE is not able to provide certainty regarding whether the EPBC assessment will modify the proposed LSP 102 as a full assessment has not yet been completed. The DEE was able to advise that in terms of the status of the assessment, at this point in time, additional information has been requested from the applicant as follows:

·    Targeted Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo habitat surveys;

·    A discussion on proposed mitigation/management measures to protect Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos;

·    Mapping of the extent of the Banksia Woodlands TEC in areas adjacent to Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton to assess indirect impacts;

·    A Dieback assessment; and

·    Proposed offsets.

 

Following receipt of this information, the proposal will be published and public comment invited by the DEE. Following the period of public comment, the applicant will then need to provide responses to any public comments provided, submit this to the DEE and at this point, the DEE will commence its full assessment of the proposal.

 

On the basis of the above, the City cannot be certain of the outcome of the EPBC referral and the resulting areas of retention that are required within the LSP 102 area and the entirety of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton. Notwithstanding, Administration has undertaken an assessment of the LSP 102 and subject to the decision made by the DEE with regard to the EPBC referral, is satisfied with the proposal. There are strict guidelines which the landowner must adhere to with regard to retention of vegetation under the EPBC Act. Following the approval of the EPBC referral by the DEE, this will guide the future development of Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton and the landowner will be required to retain any areas of vegetation as specified under the EPBC approval. It is noted that should the outcome of the EPBC referral require additional or modified areas of vegetation retention within LSP 102, the LSP will need to be modified to reflect this outcome prior to any clearing or development commencing on-site. On this basis, the City can continue to progress LSP 102 without the need for the EPBC referral to be completed. 

 

As noted above, the EPBC referral process is a separate process to the adoption of LSP 102 and given the statutory timeframes within the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the City is required to provide a recommendation to the WAPC on the proposed LSP 102 in lieu of a determination being made by the DEE on the EPBC referral.

 

On this basis, Administration recommends that Council support the LSP and advise the WAPC to consider the potential outcome of the current EPBC referral during its assessment of LSP 102.

 

Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan

 

Throughout the advertising period and assessment of LSP 102, concerns were raised with regard to the impact of the future development and associated clearing on fauna that may currently be located within the LSP 102 area. 

 

The applicant has indicated that prior to any clearing being undertaken within the LSP 102 area, a fauna relocation campaign will be undertaken by a qualified expert for any fauna which may be affected by the clearing. Any affected fauna will then be relocated to a local conservation reserve based on advice from the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

 

In order to ensure that adequate consideration is given to the relocation of any fauna that may be affected by the development and associated clearing within the LSP 102 area, Administration is recommending that a provision be included within the LSP 102 Part 1 text which requires a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan to be prepared and submitted at the time of lodgement of any subdivision application within the LSP 102 area.

 

Bushfire Management Plan

 

As part of the consultation process, the proposed LSP 102 was referred to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) to review and provide comment on the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) that was submitted with the LSP.

 

At the conclusion of this consultation period, DFES provided comment on the BMP which raised a number of issues with the information included and which required further consideration.

 

In response to DFES’ submission, the applicant provided a detailed response to address the comments made by DFES. DFES has reviewed the applicant’s response and indicated that they now support the BMP, subject to additional information being included regarding the classification of vegetation within and surrounding the LSP 102 area (see Attachment 4 for a summary of DFES’ comments). These modifications will not affect the overall design of the LSP, however should be undertaken prior to subsequent stages of the planning process.

 

On this basis, Administration supports the BMP subject to modifications being made to address the additional information as requested by DFES in their correspondence to the City dated 4 August 2017.

 

Traffic

 

During the advertising period, concerns were raised by surrounding local residents regarding the potential impact that the proposed LSP 102 would have on traffic within the existing road network and the impact of vehicles using Bluewater Drive for access and egress onto Marmion Avenue.

 

The applicant has submitted a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) with the LSP which investigates the expected traffic volumes for the site at full build out in 2031 and considers how these additional traffic volumes will impact on the surrounding road network.

 

A concept plan of the LSP 102 area has been prepared to determine the potential future access points to and from the site with consideration being given to the existing and proposed development within the ASP 82 area to the west of the subject site and the North Alkimos Agreed Structure Plan No. 73 (ASP 73) area to the south of the subject site. The concept plan indicates 13 access points to and from the site, with three providing access and egress to and from Bluewater Drive. The TIA investigates how traffic will be distributed amongst these access points and concludes that whilst it is inevitable that traffic will increase as a result of the development of the LSP 102 area, the expected traffic generated can be accommodated within the future planned external road network in accordance with the indicative road capacities within the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhood’s policy.

 

Further to this, it is noted that during the assessment and adoption of ASP 73 located to the south of the proposed LSP 102 area, the TIA submitted considered the appropriate intersection treatment for the intersection of Bluewater Drive and Marmion Avenue. This TIA took into account the expected traffic demand associated with the future development expected within Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton as well as incorporating additional traffic created by a ‘Park and Ride’ site associated with a future rail station located within Alkimos and indicated within DSP 18. This ‘Park and Ride’ site is no longer proposed. As a result, the ultimate traffic volumes within the surrounding road network are estimated to be less than what was originally designed and forecast for throughout the planning of ASP 73 and the planned intersection treatment for the intersection of Bluewater Drive and Marmion Avenue is sufficient to cater for the additional traffic generated by LSP 102.

 

The City’s Traffic and Transport service unit has assessed the proposed LSP 102 and the TIA submitted with the proposal and confirmed that the information provided meets the requirements of the WAPC’s Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development. Furthermore, the expected traffic generated by LSP 102 can be safely accommodated within the existing surrounding road network in accordance with the indicative road capacities identified within the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy.

Amended LSP 102 Documents

Following the consultation process and assessment of LSP 102, the applicant agreed to make a number of the changes to LSP 102 and have updated Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and the Structure Plan Map to reflect these modifications. These modifications are predominantly minor administrative changes and did not modify the general intent of LSP 102.

 

As such, and due to legislative requirements, Administration is intending to recommend support for the proposed LSP 102 as submitted, subject to a modification to replace the Part 1 document and Structure Plan Map with that included in Attachment 3 to this report and replace the Part 2 and Part 3 documents with those submitted to the City, dated July 2017.

 

Following submission of the revised LSP 102 documents an error was identified within ‘Table 1 – Land Use Summary’ within both the Part 1 and Part 2 documents. Table 1 indicates that the LSP proposes 7.5 hectares of Residential land and 17.6 hectares of road reserve. The applicant has confirmed that this should actually indicate that there is 17.6 hectares of Residential land and 7.5 hectares of road reserve. On this basis, Administration recommends that the Part 1 and Part 2 documents be further updated to rectify this error.

Conclusion

Considering the above comments, the proposed LSP 102 has been assessed by Administration and is considered acceptable subject to the following modifications:

1.   Replacing the advertised LSP 102 with that provided to the City following further discussion and negotiation with the applicant;

2.   The inclusion of a provision within the Part 1 text requiring a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan to be prepared and submitted at the time of lodgement of a subdivision application within the LSP area;

3.   Additional information being included within the BMP as requested by DFES in its correspondence to the City dated 4 August 2017 and summarised in Attachment 3.

4.   ‘Table 1 – Land Use Summary’ of the Part 1 and Part 2 documents being modified to rectify errors regarding the amount of Residential land and road reserve proposed within LSP 102.

 

Further to the above, Administration recommends that the WAPC be advised that the City’s support of LSP 102 has not considered the requirements for retention of vegetation under the EPBC Act, as a decision has not been made by the DEE in respect to the EPBC referral submitted by the applicant. The WAPC should consider the potential outcome of the current EPBC referral during further assessment of LSP 102. 

Statutory Compliance

The Structure Plan will follow the statutory process as 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)

3.2    Enhanced Environment

3.2.3  Optimize retention of significant vegetation and habitat

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 102 has been undertaken in accordance with the following policies:

 

·    Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space;

·    State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas; and

·    WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy;

·    Draft Local Biodiversity Strategy.

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 Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 for Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton be approved subject to the following modifications:

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

b)      That the Part 2 and Part 3 be replaced by the updated documents submitted by the applicant dated July 2017.

c)      A provision to be included within the Part 1 text requiring a Vegetation and Fauna Management Plan to be prepared and submitted at the time of lodgement of a subdivision application within the Structure Plan area.

d)      The Bushfire Management Plan being modified to include additional information as requested by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services in its correspondence to the City dated 4 August 2017.

e)      ‘Table 1 – Land Use Summary’ within the Part 1 and Part 2 documents being modified to rectify errors regarding the amount of Residential land and road reserve proposed within the Structure Plan area.

f)       A provision to be included within the Part 1 text which states as follows:

Existing vegetation shall be retained within the structure plan area where possible and will be determined at the time that an application is submitted for subdivision or development of the land.” 

2.       ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that the City has not considered in full the Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 for Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton with regard to the requirements for retention of vegetation under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) as a decision has not been made by the Department of Environment and Energy in respect to the EPBC referral submitted by the applicant. The Western Australian Planning Commission should consider the potential outcome of the current EPBC referral during further assessment of the Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 for Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton.

3.       FORWARDS a copy of the report on the proposed Western Precinct Local Structure Plan No. 102 for Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

4.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - LSP 102

17/237952

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Part 1 Advertised - Local Structure Plan 102 - Western Precinct Lot 6 Taronga Place

17/99811

 

3.

Attachment 3: Revised Part 1 - LSP 102 - Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton

17/235511

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of submissions - Western Precinct LSP 102 - Lot 6 Taronga Place, Eglinton

17/235486

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Plan showing vegetation to be retained - LSP 102

17/264354

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Areas of POS and potential vegetation to be retained - LSP 102

17/264356

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              187

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              188

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 22 August, 2017                                                                                              201

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 22 August, 2017                                                                                              214

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 22 August, 2017                                                                                              232

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              233

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              234

PS09-08/17       Consideration of Development Application for 10 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo (DA2016/1810)

File Ref:                                              DA2016/1810 – 17/273475

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for 10 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo.

 

Applicant

Zegna Pty Ltd

Owner

MRF Civil Pty Ltd

Location

Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo

Site Area

1257m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R20/R40

 

Background

On 19 December 2016, the City received an application for 11 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo (subject site). A location plan of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

The proposal that was originally submitted and advertised for 11 Multiple Dwellings on the subject site proposed a total plot ratio of 0.66 in lieu of the 0.6 required under Clause 6.1.1 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Following discussion and negotiation with Administration, the applicant agreed to remove one dwelling in order to comply with the plot ratio requirements of Clause 6.1.1 of the R-Codes. As a result, the application requiring consideration is for 10 Multiple Dwellings on the subject site.

The subject site is zoned Residential under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and has a split residential density code of R20/R40 as approved through Amendment No. 119 to DPS 2.

Detail

The Development Application proposes 10 Multiple Dwellings which is a ‘D’ Discretionary land use within the Residential zone under DPS 2. The application incorporates the following:

 

·    10 two bedroom dwellings;

·    10 resident car parking bays; and

·    3 visitor car parking bays. 

 

Plans depicting the proposal are included in Attachment 2.

Consultation

In accordance with Clause 2.5.4 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.20: Split Coded Areas, where a proposal comprises Multiple Dwellings, the proposal shall be advertised to surrounding landowners in accordance with Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

 

Public consultation was undertaken by way of letters sent to the owners and occupiers of 12 surrounding properties for a period of 14 days between 3 February 2017 and 17 February 2017. At the conclusion of the advertising period, three submissions were received which objected to the proposal. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses is included in Attachment 3.

 

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

 

·        Traffic;

·        Boundary walls; and

·        Waste Management.

 

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

Comment

The proposal was assessed against the provisions of DPS 2, Part 6 of the R-Codes relating to Multiple Dwellings, Local Planning Policy 2.4: Establishing Building Pad Levels, Excavation and Fill Associated with Residential Development (LPP 2.4) and Local Planning Policy 4.20: Split Coded Areas (LPP 4.20). The proposal is compliant with these documents with the exception of the boundary wall requirements of the R-Codes. An assessment against the relevant provisions of the Western Australian Planning Commissions’ (WAPC) Draft Apartment Design Policy was also undertaken.

 

Assessment against Clause 4.5.4 of DPS 2

 

The subject site has a split residential density code of R20/R40 under DPS 2. Clause 4.5.4 of DPS 2 details that where a lot has a split density code under DPS 2, development shall conform to the lower density code applicable to the lot unless able to meet the requirements of Clause 4.5.4 (a) and (b) as follows:

 

(a)     Sufficient capacity exists in all necessary public utility services to adequately meet the needs of the development; and

(b)     The development has one consolidated vehicle access point with reciprocal access rights to serve all dwellings, and restricted vehicle access to other areas of road frontage.

 

The proposed development meets the requirements of Clause 4.5.4 of DPS 2 as follows:

 

(a)     The applicant has provided written confirmation from the Water Corporation to confirm that the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the proposed development. Confirmation has also been received from Western Power which relates to the split coded areas generally, stating that Western Power can accommodate the increase in demand for power expected as a result of the future development within the split coded areas; and

(b)     The development proposes one consolidated shared vehicular access point to accommodate the 10 Multiple Dwellings.

 

As a result of the above, the proposal meets the requirements of Clause 4.5.4 of DPS 2 and the development has been assessed according to the higher density code of R40.

 

Assessment against LPP 4.20

 

LPP 4.20 was adopted by the City in order to provide guidance on the redevelopment of areas subject to a split density code. An assessment of the proposal against the applicable requirements of LPP 4.20 is shown in the table below.

 

 

Clause

Requirements

Compliance of Proposed Development

2.5

Multiple Dwelling Development

2.5.1

A maximum of one (1) vehicular crossover per street frontage shall be permitted to provide vehicle access to all dwellings.

Complies.

The proposal includes one consolidated shared vehicular access point to Winship Avenue. 

2.5.3

Crossovers shall not exceed 6m in width at the lot boundary.

Complies.

The proposed crossover is 6m in width.

2.5.4

Where a proposal comprises Multiple Dwellings, the proposal shall be advertised in accordance with Clause 64 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

Complies.

The proposal was advertised as detailed in the Consultation section of the report.

4

Street Surveillance

4.1.1

At least one balcony, verandah or major opening to a habitable room must face and have an uninterrupted view of each of the following:

·      Primary street;

·      Pedestrian approach to the dwelling; and

·      Vehicular approach to the dwelling.

Complies.

·      Major openings and a balcony faces the primary street.

·      Major openings and balconies are fronting both the pedestrian and vehicular approach to the dwellings.

5

Landscaping

5.1.1

No more than 50% of the front setback area shall comprise impermeable hardstand including synthetic turf, loose stone, compacted limestone or paving.

Complies.

49.6% of the front setback area is comprised of hardstand.

5.1.2

The remaining 50% of the front setback area shall comprise soft landscaping defined as turf, planting and/or trees.

Complies.

50.4% of the front setback area is comprised of soft landscaping. 

6

Crossover Design

6.1.1

Proposed new crossovers shall not exceed three metres in width at the lot boundary unless:

a)   The development proposes five or more dwellings on the parent lot.

Complies.

The proposed crossover is 6m in width as the development proposes 10 dwellings on the parent lot.

6.1.3

Approved crossovers shall be setback a maximum of 1.0m from the lot boundary to maximise landscaping and on street parking opportunities except where the development proposes a configuration of dwellings that is serviced by a central access way.

Complies.

The development proposes a configuration of dwellings that is serviced by a central access way.  

 

Traffic and Parking

 

Concerns were raised during the advertising period regarding the potential for increased traffic congestion on the surrounding road network as a result of the proposed development.

 

Winship Avenue is considered to be an Access Street C under the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy which is constructed to carry an average daily traffic volume of 3000 vehicle trips per day.

 

There are currently 42 dwellings which have direct vehicular access to their lots from Winship Avenue. Based on the Department of Planning’s Transport Data, a dwelling is assumed to generate an average of eight vehicle trips per day. Based on this data, the current daily vehicle trips per day generated by the existing dwellings with vehicle access from Winship Avenue is approximately 336. As a result of the proposed development, there will be an additional nine dwellings which gain vehicle access from Winship Avenue (there is already an existing house on the subject site). This will increase the total number of vehicle trips per day on Winship Avenue by 72 to equal a total of approximately 408 vehicle trips per day being generated by the dwellings with access onto Winship Avenue. This figure is considerably lower than the potential capacity of Winship Avenue for 3000 vehicle trips per day as indicated within Liveable Neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the increase of 72 vehicular trips per day on Winship Avenue and the surrounding road network is not considered to have a noticeable impact on the traffic and congestion of the surrounding roads.

 

It is likely that there will be additional traffic, other than that generated from the dwellings with vehicular access onto Winship Avenue that will use Winship Avenue for vehicular access onto the surrounding road network. However, this will not substantially increase the vehicular traffic on top of that generated by the residences in the street to a point which will exceed the 3000 vehicular trip per day indicative capacity.

 

At the time that Amendment No. 119 to DPS 2 was being prepared and considered, a Traffic Impact Assessme nt (dated January 2013) was undertaken for the Wanneroo, Girrawheen and Koondoola areas to ensure that the existing roads and infrastructure could accommodate the expected increase in traffic as a result of the expected future development. It was determined that the surrounding road network could safely accommodate the expected increase in traffic as a result of the adoption of Amendment No. 119.

 

Given the above, the potential increase in vehicular trips per day as a result of the proposed development will not generate traffic or create traffic congestion on Winship Avenue and the surrounding road network that is not able to be accommodated. 

 

Boundary Walls

 

The Deemed to Comply provisions of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes permit boundary walls to one side boundary only. The development proposes boundary walls to both the eastern boundary side and the south western boundary side. The eastern boundary wall is a total length of 9.8m and has a maximum height of 2.9 above natural ground level. The south western boundary wall is a total length of 12.5m and has a maximum height of 2m above natural ground level. Both boundary walls individually meet the maximum length and height requirements of the Deemed to Comply requirements of Clause 6.1.4 (C4.3) of the R-Codes, which permits boundary walls to be an average of 3m in height with a maximum of 3.5m and a maximum length of two thirds the length of the lot boundary. An assessment of the boundary walls has been undertaken based on the Design Principles of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes and is demonstrated in the table below.

 

Design Principles Clause

6.1.4 P4.1

Administration Comments

Ensures adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated with them.

The design of the development ensures that each dwelling within the development can achieve direct sun and ventilation.

 

Furthermore, the boundary walls are proposed for the storerooms and the bin storage area and as such do not affect the extent of daylight, direct sun and ventilation for the dwellings and their open spaces.

Moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property.

The proposed boundary walls are both single storey and comply with the maximum height and length requirements of the Deemed to Comply provisions of Clause 6.1.4. The R-Codes Explanatory Guidelines state that single storey walls are not considered problematic in terms of impact on adjoining properties and building bulk.

 

On this basis, the two boundary walls proposed will not create excessive building bulk on the adjoining properties.


 

Ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties.

The proposed boundary wall on the eastern side boundary will primarily cast any shadow into the subject site and not the adjoining properties. The proposed boundary wall on the south western side boundary will cast a shadow onto the adjoining property, however the shadow cast is minimal and will equate to approximately 3% of the adjoining lot’s site area.

The development complies with the requirements of Clause 6.4.2 of the R-Codes relating to Solar Access, which permits the development to cast a shadow on the adjoining property to a maximum of 25% of the adjoining lot’s site area. 

 

The second storey of the subject development is also setback from the boundary to allow for daylight and direct sun to the adjoining properties.

Assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.

The proposed boundary walls do not incorporate any major openings to habitable rooms and as such, there will be no impact on visual privacy to the adjoining lots as a result of the two boundary walls proposed.

 

Based on the above, the boundary walls are considered to meet the Design Principles of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes and are supported.

 

Waste Management

 

Concerns were raised during the advertising period and during assessment of the application by Administration, regarding the collection of waste and the number of bins that will be required to service the 10 dwellings proposed on-site. 

 

As a result of these concerns, the applicant submitted a Waste Management Plan for the subject site in order to outline the measures for waste collection from the site and ensure that the collection of waste does not negatively impact on the surrounding residential properties or the residents of the proposed development.

 

The Waste Management Plan includes the following measures:

·        Three 660 litre bins will be provided for general waste and one 660 litre bin will be provided for recycling for the residents of the development;

·        A caretaker will be appointed for the subject development to manage the storage and collection of bins for the site;

·        The bins will be stored in the designated bin store area as indicated on the proposed plans. The bin store is fully enclosed and only accessible by residents, the caretaker or the waste service provider. The bin store is to be designed in a manner to prevent smells and noise and will be designed in accordance with the Australian Standard 1668 to ensure effective ventilation and the City’s Health Local Law 1999; and

·        The caretaker will present the bins for collection on the designated bin collection days and the bins will be collected from the verge by a private waste service provider. The caretaker will then return the empty bins to the bin store area.

 

The measures included within the Waste Management Plan will reduce the number of bins required for the subject site and ensure that the waste collection occurring on-site does not impact on the amenity of the surrounding landowners. A condition is recommended to be placed on any approval, requiring the implementation of the measures of the Waste Management Plan as submitted by the applicant, dated 5 May 2017. 

 

WAPC’s Design WA and Draft Apartment Design Policy

 

The WAPC has released a Draft Apartment Design Policy as part of the Design WA initiative in order to provide design guidance for apartments and mixed use development. This document was released for public comment and the City has made a submission to the WAPC. This policy is currently in draft form and has not been finalised or formally adopted.

 

As recently discussed at Council Forum on 1 August 2017, in order to ensure better design outcomes for multiple dwelling (apartment) development within split coded areas a number of actions were proposed by Administration for future apartment applications, including the Office of the Government Architect reviewing apartment applications. Given this development application was lodged and assessed prior to this Forum the application has not been reviewed by the Office of the Government Architect.

 

Notwithstanding this, an assessment against the relevant provisions contained within Apartment Design Policy has been undertaken by Administration in order to ensure an acceptable design outcome. Administration is of the view that the development does provide an appropriate design outcome as it contributes positively to the streetscape, does not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties and provides sufficient areas for residents to recreate. A more detailed assessment against the relevant provisions of the Apartment Design Policy is discussed below.

 

Ventilation

 

The Design Criteria (comparative to the ‘Deemed to Comply’ provisions of the R-Codes) of Clause 4.2.2 of the Draft Apartment Design Policy requires at least 60% of apartments to be naturally cross ventilated, which equates to a total of six units within the subject development which are required to be naturally cross ventilated. The development proposes all units to be naturally cross ventilated.

 

Further to this, the Design Criteria of Clause 4.2.2 also states that the overall depths of cross ventilated apartments do not exceed 18m in depth. All units are proposed to be less than 18m in depth. In addition to this, all units are proposed to be less than 15m in depth which is considered to be the optimum outcome with regard to natural cross ventilation.

 

Based on the above, the development is considered to meet the requirements of Clause 4.2.2 of the Draft Apartment Design Policy. 

 

Deep Soil Areas

 

Deep soil area is defined within the Draft Apartment Design Policy as soft landscape area on a lot with no impeding building structure or feature above or below, which supports growth of medium to large canopy trees.

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 3.4 of the Draft Apartment Design Policy requires 12% of the site area to be provided as deep soil area with a minimum dimension of 3m. This equates to a total of 150.8m2 of deep soil area which should be provided for the subject site. The development provides a total of approximately 130m2 (10.3%) of the site area dedicated for deep soil landscaping, with approximately 90m2 (7.2%) of this landscaped area having a dimension greater than 3m.

 

The Design Guidance (comparative to the ‘Design Principles’ of the R-Codes) of Clause 3.4 notes that the deep soil area is intended to ensure that a development includes sufficient areas which can be used for planting of trees which can mature. Although the provision of deep soil areas has not been satisfied by the proposal, the proposal does incorporate landscaping areas within the site with dimensions ranging from 2m to 8m which can be utilised for the planting of trees which can mature.

 

Additionally, the applicant has provided a landscaping plan with the application which indicates the location of various shrubs and trees to be planted within the site in order to contribute to the amenity of the site and the presentation of the development to the streetscape.   

 

It is further noted that the R-Codes do not specify any requirements for the provision of deep soil areas within a lot. The R-Codes and the City’s LPP 4.20 do however, specify the requirement for 50% of the front setback area to be provided for soft landscaping, which as detailed above has been satisfied.

 

On the basis of the above, it is considered that although the development does not provide the 12% deep soil area as prescribed by Clause 3.4 within the Draft Apartment Design Policy, the landscaped deep soil areas provided can accommodate the planting and growth of mature trees within the site. Additionally, the landscaped areas within the front setback will positively contribute to the existing streetscape.

 

Communal Open Space

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 3.5 of the Draft Apartment Design Policy states that for development proposing up to 10 dwellings, there is no requirement for communal open space to be provided on the property. The development is proposing 10 dwellings, and as such is not required to provide communal open space on the site and complies with Clause 3.5 of the Draft Apartment Design Policy.

 

Conclusion

 

The application for 10 Multiple Dwellings at 40 Winship Avenue, Wanneroo has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the R-Codes, LPP 4.20 and LPP 2.4, with consideration given the WAPC’s Draft Apartment Guidelines. The proposal is considered to generally meet the requirements of the R-Codes, LPP 4.20, and LPP 2.4 and the intent of the relevant provisions within the Draft Apartment Design Policy. 

 

As detailed above, the variation to the Deemed to Comply provisions of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes relating to boundary walls is considered to meet the relevant Design Principles and is supported. Further, it is considered the proposed development generally provides a good design outcome as the building and associated landscaping positively contributes to the amenity of the locality.

 

Administration is of the view that the development is acceptable and therefore, it is recommended that the development application be approved subject to Administration’s recommended conditions.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the R-Codes, LPP 2.4 and LPP 4.20, with consideration given to the WAPC’s Draft Apartment Design Guidelines.

 

The development has largely been found to be compliant with the requirements of the R-Codes, LPP 2.4 and LPP 4.20.

 

As recently discussed at Council Forum on 1 August 2017, Administration is proposing to amend LPP 4.20 for split coded areas, with a view to addressing issues relating to ensuring Multiple Dwelling developments are designed to a high standard for occupants, they contribute to the overall streetscape and minimise their impact on adjoining properties.

 

Delegation to Determine Application

 

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

 

In this instance, Administration is of the opinion that the objections raised a number of relevant planning considerations; however Administration does not consider that these can be addressed by modification of the proposal or imposition of conditions. Therefore, the application cannot be considered under delegated authority and must be determined by Council.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 APPROVES the Development Application for 10 Multiple Dwellings at Lot 40 (40) Winship Avenue, Wanneroo as shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

d)      The applicant shall undertake adequate measures to minimise any impacts of dust and sand drift from the site.

e)      Residents and visitor car parking spaces shall be marked and clearly signposted as dedicated for residents and visitor use only respectively, to the satisfaction of the City.

f)       All refuse shall be stored within the designated bin enclosure and shall be collected from the site by a private contractor at the cost of the applicant/landowner in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Encycle Consulting, dated 5 May 2017.

g)      Lighting shall be installed in all car-parking areas, driveways and pedestrian pathways prior to the development first being occupied.

h)      Planting and Landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the plans as submitted prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Land Development.

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

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan - 40 Winship Avenue, Wanneroo (DA2016/1810)

17/241091

 

2.

Attachment 2: Development Plans  - 40 Winship Avenue, Wanneroo (DA2016/1810)

17/236060

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3: Summary of Submissions and Administrations Comments and Recommendations - DA2016/1810

17/238723

Minuted

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              243

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          244


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              249


 


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              253

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

AS01-08/17       Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade, Merriwa Intersection Upgrade

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 17/206640

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider an offer by Main Roads WA (MRWA) to provide the City with up to $2.4M to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade, Merriwa.

Background

Council received petition PT03-03/13 at its meeting of 5 March 2013, which read:

 

WE, the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration to allocate funds in the next budget to erect a sound barrier wall around the two roads bordering Cambrai Village; Hester Avenue and Connolly Drive, Merriwa, and to install traffic signals to the entrance to the village; Burton Drive and Hester Avenue, Merriwa. The increase in traffic is having a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of our residents and there is a real danger of serious accident occurring at the entrance to the village.  With the proposed extension of the Freeway to Hester Ave, these matters will only be exacerbated.”

 

In June 2013, Council considered Item No IN06-08/13 in response to this petition. Administration advised that:

 

Given the above traffic volumes and accident statistics, should traffic control signals be considered on Hester Avenue between Marmion Avenue and Connolly Drive, the most likely intersection would be at Baltimore Parade.  Traffic signals at that location would have the additional benefit of providing gaps in the Hester Avenue traffic stream that would assist users of both Renshaw Boulevard and Burton Drive.”

 

Administration has always supported the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue, rather than at the access to RAFFA Cambrai as signals at Baltimore would be able to service both the retirement village and the wider community and are considered more pedestrian friendly than roundabouts.

 

The extension of the Mitchell Freeway to Hester Avenue is expected to significantly increase traffic volumes on Hester Avenue and concerns have already been raised with the City regarding the operation of connecting roads between Connolly Drive and Marmion Avenue, these being Baltimore Parade, Renshaw Boulevard and Burton Drive. Refer Attachment 1 for a location plan. Currently, the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue operates as a give way controlled T-intersection as shown in Attachment 2.

 

The Public Transport Authority (PTA) is concerned regarding the difficulty buses will have turning right from Baltimore Parade and Renshaw Boulevard across the increased traffic flows on Hester Avenue, and concerns from the residents of RAAFA Cambrai Village which is bounded by Baltimore Parade, Hester Avenue and Connolly Drive. 

 

These issues have been raised and discussed with Main Roads WA over the past few months and recently MRWA has offered the City funding to construct a roundabout at Hester Avenue/Baltimore Parade intersection. This report considers the details of the traffic concerns, MRWA offer and the City’s proposed response.

Detail

The PTA operates the 483 bus route between Clarkson Train Station and Benenden Avenue in Alkimos.  On the southbound journey from Alkimos to Clarkson, this service passes through Merriwa and is required to turn right from Baltimore Parade into Hester Avenue.  Conversely, on the northbound trip, the 483 passes through Clarkson and is required to turn right from Renshaw Boulevard into Hester Avenue.  The PTA raised concerns with the City regarding the safety of both right turn manoeuvres following the opening of the Mitchell Freeway extension when traffic volumes on Hester Avenue are predicted to increase.

 

Through discussions between the City, MRWA and PTA, the City agrees with PTA’s request to install traffic signals at the intersection of Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade.  In support of this request, Administration undertook traffic analysis of the Baltimore Parade/Hester Avenue intersection to determine the most suitable means of control for this intersection.  The analysis considered the intersection in its current T-intersection configuration and how it would operate if works were undertaken to install a roundabout or traffic signals.  Analysis was done for three scenarios, 2016 before the freeway extension to Hester Avenue is complete, 2021 when the freeway terminates at Hester Avenue and 2031 when the freeway is extended beyond Hester Avenue.

 

Under the current T-intersection configuration, significant delays will be experienced by vehicles turning right from Baltimore Parade to Hester Avenue, especially during the afternoon peak.  The City’s traffic modelling showed that both a roundabout and traffic signals will reduce delays for these vehicles with a roundabout offering the greatest overall reduction in congestion over all of the scenarios considered (2016, 2021 and 2031).  MRWA has provided the City with its’ traffic modelling of this intersection conducted using a different software package.  The modelling conducted by MRWA differs in some respects but also comes to the conclusion that both a roundabout and traffic signal will improve congestion at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue.

 

Although a roundabout is more efficient in terms of reduction in traffic congestion at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue, Administration considers that there are other associated benefits favouring the installation of traffic signals including; improved safety and operational efficiency for PTA bus routes, traffic signals also provide gaps in traffic flow on Hester Avenue during phase changes (where no vehicles are permitted to move through the intersection). This would benefit motorists using Renshaw Boulevard and Burton Drive by providing gaps in traffic for them to move into and out of Hester Avenue and assist PTA buses in turning right from Renshaw Boulevard. 

 

Traffic signals are also preferred by pedestrians and cyclists who feel safer crossing where they are able to cross without conflicting traffic. Pedestrian/cycle crossings on Hester Avenue are limited to ‘at grade’ crossings with high levels of opposing traffic, except for a pedestrian underpass located east of Connolly Drive (requiring pedestrians to cross against high traffic volumes on Connolly Drive). The location of RAAFA Cambrai Village on Hester Avenue means that there is a high proportion of elderly residents who require larger gaps in traffic to cross safely, along with part of the catchment for Clarkson Community College being in Merriwa needing to cross Hester Avenue to access the school on foot or by bicycle.

 

Administration also considered potential queuing at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue.  There is approximately 560m east of the Marmion/Hester roundabout and approximately 440m west of the Connolly/Hester roundabout available to accommodate queuing traffic without impacting on the operation of these intersections.  Traffic modelling shows that queuing at a roundabout and at traffic signals can be accommodated in the space available without impacting on other intersections on Hester Avenue, Attachment 3 refers.

 

Based on all of these factors, the City fully supported PTA’s request for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue; however the installation of traffic signals requires approval from MRWA.  Although the City has been actively advocating for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue, MRWA has not agreed to the City’s requests, initially indicating that a roundabout should be installed at the City’s cost.

 

The City does not consider construction of a roundabout at the intersection as the optimal, whole of government solution. Administration will continue to liaise with PTA and MRWA to present a strong case for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue.

 

PTA indicated to the City and MRWA that they would be forced to make permanent changes to the 483 bus route if traffic signals were not installed at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue.  Given the grave impacts this would have on the local community, the Mayor directly approached the Minister for Transport on behalf of residents requesting the installation of traffic signals; however, MRWA did not change its position.  Given the continued refusal of MRWA to approve the installation of traffic signals, PTA implemented changes to the 483 bus route on Sunday 30 July 2017 as shown in Attachment 4.   The PTA indicated that this change will impact on approximately 130 passengers a day. 

 

The City have enquired whether PTA would be able to continue using the current 438 route by requiring buses to make a U-turn at the roundabout at the Connolly Drive/ Hester Avenue intersection. PTA has stated that they would not consider using the roundabout at Connolly Dr and Hester Ave for the following reasons:

 

·    This would lengthen the route incurring time penalties for passengers and making the service less attractive. This would be a poor outcome for the community given that this is one of the most successful bus routes in the northern suburbs feeder network.

·    It would increase the cost of the service provision. Transperth does not currently have resources available for this and thereby would need to make cuts to other services to fund the extension of the route.

 

The timing of this proposal creates a number of issues for the City.  With the Mitchell Freeway extension to Hester Avenue completed in August 2017, any works to this intersection will be done under increased traffic volumes which will significantly increase the cost and complexity of the project and create severe disruptions on the road network.  Administration is of the view the works should have been completed by MRWA as part of the freeway extension project and that the City will have to deal with the community concerns regarding the timing of these works.

 

MRWA has indicated that the offer of $2.4M is for the 2017/18 financial year but that there is the provision to carry forward unspent funding into 2018/19 if the works cannot be completed in this timeframe.  MRWA considers the $2.4M to be the total contribution towards the cost of construction and has indicated that all additional costs over this amount would need to be funded by the City.  It will be difficult for the City to accommodate a project of this complexity in addition to existing scheduled projects in 2017/18 & 2018/19.  As it would have been best for these works to be completed as part of the freeway project, Administration enquired about the possibility whether MRWA could undertake the proposed design and construction works on behalf of the City.  MRWA responded that they are facing similar resource constraints and that the City would be solely responsible for the management and implementation of this project. 

 

Administration considers that as the extent of civil work associated with the traffic signals option, offers the best whole of government solution which can be project managed and delivered by the City within the 12 month time period.  Administration supports PTA’s position that these works should have been undertaken as part of the Mitchell Freeway extension and based on the City’s delivery timeframe for traffic signals, it is recommended that the City request MRWA changes the offer of funding to allow the City to project manage the design and delivery of traffic signals.

 

Administration has conducted a brief feasibility study of the proposed roundabout and prepared a concept plan as shown in Attachment 5.  During this feasibility study, the following issues were identified:

 

·    Wester Power high voltage distribution poles on the southern side of Hester Avenue may require relocation or crash barrier protection.

 

·    The roundabout will need to be constructed over a gas high pressure main which severely impacts the project.  Vibrating equipment is not permitted within 25m of the gas main which will increase costs and time required for compaction. 

 

·    Significant drainage modifications may be needed to accommodate the extra cover required at the gas main and to rectify the existing 1m difference in level between the northbound and southbound carriageways of Hester Avenue.

 

·    Telecommunications and fibre optic installations run along Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade.  The depth of cables may need to be raised and pit lids levels adjusted.

 

·    There is a 500mm steel water main located on the northern side of Hester Avenue. 

 

·    Traffic management will be challenging under the high traffic volumes following the opening of the freeway extension.  Total traffic management costs could be as high as 20-30% of the project budget and the community will face ongoing delays to accommodate the works.

 

·    Due to traffic volumes on Hester Avenue the works may need to be scheduled outside normal working hours or night works.

 

·    Although no geotechnical investigations have taken place, previous work in the area has exposed limestone outcrops and cap rock.

 

·    The project may take up to two years to fully investigate, design, consult with the community and complete the works.

 

Although the offer of $2.4M from MRWA represents a large sum for the construction of a roundabout, a number of potentially costly issues have been identified.  Administration is not in a position to confirm the proposed budget of $2.4M is adequate to cover the total costs of this project without preparing a detailed design and cost estimate. 

Consultation

No public consultation has been undertaken as part of preparing this report however, should Council decide to proceed with the construction of a roundabout the adjacent residents, Merriwa Primary School, Merriwa Shopping Centre, Peter Moyes Anglican Community School, Quinns Baptist College, Mindarie Senior College and RAAFA Cambrai Village will be consulted in regards to the project.

Comment

There are a number of risks associated with the City accepting the offer by MRWA for the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue.

 

·    As the footprint of a roundabout differs significantly from that of a T-intersection, the works required to install a roundabout at the Baltimore Parade/ Hester Avenue intersection are significantly more difficult than those involved in converting a T-intersection to traffic signals.  Construction of the proposed roundabout will be much more difficult and will impact the City’s ability to deliver the project in the timeframe required by MRWA.  Administration is confident that traffic signals could be delivered in a twelve month timeframe and that the overall cost of the project would be significantly lower than construction of the proposed roundabout;

 

·    The impact on the community in terms of congestion on the road network will be significantly larger during construction of a roundabout compared against installation of traffic signals. Although roadworks would be required for either project, the construction of a roundabout would have more severe impacts and will require Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade to be under temporary traffic management for a much longer period of time;

 

·    To ensure safe operation of the PTA buses and other vehicles, upgrading of the intersection is required now that the freeway is extended to Hester Avenue. It is however considered that a roundabout construction will take significantly longer time period than construction of traffic signals resulting in increased risk to the operation of buses and other vehicles during this period;

 

·    The additional time required to install a roundabout will prevent traffic patterns from stabilising following the opening of the freeway extension.  Delays on Hester Avenue would see additional traffic diverted to Connolly Drive and would increase the likelihood and severity of rat running, particularly in Ridgewood.  Without a stable traffic pattern, Administration will not be able to accurately assess the need for long term traffic management treatments and pedestrian crossing facilities within the local road network which will delay their delivery to the community;

 

·    Administration has detailed a number of construction risks above which may impact on the cost of delivering a roundabout for the $2.4M proposed by MRWA.  MRWA have indicated that any additional costs would need to be met by the City.  A detailed design and cost estimate would need to be completed in order for the City to adequately address this risk; and

 

·    In not accepting the offer by MRWA, the City risks the offer being withdrawn.  Although a roundabout would not improve traffic flows at Renshaw Boulevard and Burton Drive, or improve pedestrian facilities, modelling by Administration and MRWA suggests that the proposed roundabout at Baltimore / Hester would benefit the community by operating more safely and efficiently than the current T-intersection.

 

Based an assessment of the risks and benefits associated with this project, Administration considers the following actions provide the greatest overall benefit to the City:

 

·    Considering the extended timeframe for the construction of a roundabout and the associated consequences on the traffic flow on Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade the City should continue to engage with MRWA to install traffic signals at the intersection of Baltimore Parade and Hester Avenue;

·    The Mayor writes to the Minister for Transport accepting the $2.4M offer from MRWA to be used for installation of traffic signals at the intersection at the earliest possible time; and

·    The intersection is reviewed again when the Mitchell Freeway extends beyond Hester Avenue to select the best type of intersection control for the changed traffic pattern.

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

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 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 Strategic and Corporate risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

MRWA has indicated that the maximum of $2.4M offered for design and construction of the roundabout is not negotiable.  Any cost over this amount would need to be funded by the City and can only be determined after a detailed design is undertaken and the full extent of the underground service adjustments is known. No funding has been allocated in the Long Term Financial Plan for this proposed roundabout.

 

Considering the reduction in infrastructure works associated with the installation of traffic signals, Administration believes that the offered funding will be sufficient for the installation of traffic signals.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that it is necessary to upgrade the intersection of Hester Avenue/Baltimore Parade to allow the 483 bus route to operate safely on its original alignment and that the reduction in congestion and improvement in safety is also of great benefit to the broader community;

2.       NOTES that the upgrading of the intersection of Hester Avenue/Baltimore Parade should have been undertaken as part of the works to extend the Mitchell Freeway;

3.       NOTES that the construction of a roundabout can take between 24 months to 30 months whereas, installation of traffic signals will take significantly shorter time period;

4.       ACCEPTS  the offer of $2.4M from MRWA on the basis of a change to scope to construct of traffic signals at the intersection of Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade;

5.       REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Transport to advise the Minster of Council’s decision regarding funding and to seek approval for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Hester Avenue and Baltimore Parade advising that the City is available to project manage the design and construction of this project; and

6.       SEEKS a further report once the outcome of Resolution 5 is known.

 

Attachments:

1.

Locality Map - Hester Baltimore

17/203157

 

2.

Hester Avenue Aerial View

17/229004

 

3.

Baltimore / Hester Queue Lengths - T-Intersection, Roundabout and Traffic Signals

17/249788

 

4.

483 Bus Route Changes - Map

17/249757

 

5.

Hester Baltimore Roundabout Concept

17/228997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              260


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              261


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              262


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          265


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              266


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              267

AS02-08/17       Options for upgrading the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar

File Ref:                                              3000V02 – 17/206416

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the potential upgrade options for the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive in Carramar. Refer to Attachment 1 for a location plan.

Background

Council, at its meeting of 24 May 2016, considered Item No. AS03-05/16 on Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive intersection, Carramar regarding Agreement in Principle for the installation of Traffic Signals and resolved as follows:

 

“1.   NOTES that Main Roads WA (MRWA) does not support the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive, Carramar;

 

2.    NOTES that a letter has been received from Mr Paul Miles, Member for Wanneroo on 18 May 2016 reflecting Main Roads WA’s advice that a roundabout would be the best option and offering $200,000 in funding for the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive in Carramar;

 

3.    REQUESTS Administration to liaise with Main Roads WA and further review the options for the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive in Carramar and report back to Council;

 

4.    REQUESTS Administration to continue monitoring the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive for future reconsideration for traffic signals meeting the required Main Roads WA requirements; and

 

5.    NOTES that a portion of funds ($25,000) allocated under PR-2927 will be carried forward to 2016/17 for undertaking further review of the options and the remaining unexpended funds ($215,000) will form part of the surplus at the end of the financial year.”

 

Following Council’s resolutions, $25,000 was listed in the City’s 2016/2017 Capital Works Program for undertaking further review of the options for the intersection. 

Detail

The Joondalup Drive and Cheriton Drive intersection is currently constructed as a standard T-intersection with a seagull island in the median of Joondalup Drive. The south side of the intersection is predominantly residential with Carramar Village shopping centre, a primary school and a tavern located on the north side of the intersection. Joondalup Drive is a dual carriageway ‘District Distributor A’ road with two lanes in each direction, carrying about 30,000 vehicles per day and operating with posted speed limit of 70km/h. Cheriton Drive is a ‘Local Distributor’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and also constructed as a dual carriageway with one lane in each direction, carrying about 3,128 vehicles per day and operating under the default Built Up Area speed limit of 50 km/h.

 

 

As per the Council resolution 3, Administration has liaised with Main Roads WA (MRWA) as requested and concluded that installation of Traffic Signals at the intersection is not an option at this time. It was agreed that a roundabout is the most feasible option to be considered for detail design.  Administration has now completed a detailed design of the roundabout. Refer Attachment 2, Drawing No 3017-16-A.

 

While Austroads design guidelines recommends using a circular central island in a roundabout to manage the speed through the roundabout, this could not be achieved due to constraints in the road reserve width and an elliptical shaped central island has been considered for the roundabout design. The central island is 40m wide in East-West direction and 24m wide in North-South direction. This design positions the circulating lanes on the south side close to the shared path; however, allows the tree buffer to remain in place between Joondalup Drive and Palmerston Crescent to the south of the intersection.

 

Considering the non-standard shape of the roundabout, a third party independent Road Safety Audit has been undertaken to review the safety aspects of the detailed design and the recommendations of the audit have been incorporated as part of finalising the design. The estimated cost for the construction of the designed roundabout is $1.27M. Based on the cost estimate, Administration has undertaken a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) analysis which produced a result of $0.31, i.e. for the cost of $1 the benefit received will be $0.31. As a result, it does not qualify for external funding submission, such as Black Spot Grants.

 

A similar elliptical shaped roundabout has been constructed by MRWA at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and Mullaloo Drive as shown in Attachment 3.

Consultation

Consultation with relevant internal and external stakeholders including Western Power has been conducted in developing the roundabout design. No public consultation has been undertaken for the preparation of this report. If Council decides to proceed with the project, the adjacent affected residents and businesses will be informed about the decision and consultation/information sessions will be conducted during the project delivery stage, which is dependent on the allocation of funds in the Long Term Capital Works Program.

Comment

While a modified designed roundabout is constructible at the intersection, considering the low BCR result, Administration does not consider the construction of a roundabout at Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection to be a high priority given the number of projects in the area that are likely to affect the traffic pattern at this intersection.

 

Projects scheduled in the vicinity include:

1.   Grade separation of the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive with construction starting in mid-2018;

2.   Upgrading of Wanneroo Road between Joondalup Drive and Flynn Drive to 4 lane dual carriageway with construction starting in mid-late 2017;

3.   Mitchell Freeway extension to Hester Avenue opened earlier this month, and has new connections to the Freeway via Flynn Drive - Neerabup Road; and

4.   Pinjar Road extension to Flynn Drive with a tentative Developer given construction timeframe of 2017/18.

 

Administration considers that the extension of the Mitchell Freeway will provide an alternative route to the freeway via Flynn Drive and Neerabup Road and should reduce traffic demand on Joondalup Drive leading to a reduction in congestion. Additionally, the opening of Pinjar Road and Flynn Drive intersection and future grade separation at the Joondalup Drive/Wanneroo Road intersection is likely to change the traffic patterns surrounding

 

 

Carramar, Tapping and Banksia Grove. Furthermore, the upgrading of Wanneroo Road is likely to redistribute some traffic from Cheriton Drive/Joondalup Drive to Golf Links Drive/Wanneroo Road intersection. Some traffic is also expected to be redistributed through the intersection of Golf Links Drive/Pinjar Road.

 

Administration has been made aware that MRWA are undertaking a comprehensive traffic study/modelling for several intersections along Joondalup Drive including Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive to help inform the design development for the Wanneroo Road/ Joondalup Drive grade separation project. The study will include video surveys and SIDRA intersection analysis of Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive to model the anticipated effect of future increases in traffic demand along Joondalup Drive.  This traffic modelling will give the City insight into the potential impacts of the grade separation on Tapping Primary School, St Stephens School and Carramar Primary School. The traffic study is scheduled to be completed by the end of October 2017 and full details have been included in Attachment 4.

 

The traffic study is being undertaken as part of the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive grade separation project and may recommend some modifications at Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection. Should that be the case, it is recommended that such works could form part of the grade separation project to be undertaken by MRWA. If the traffic study does not recommend any modifications at Joondalup Drive/Cheriton Drive intersection, it is suggested that in view of the imminent changes in the road network and subsequent changes in the traffic flow pattern in the area that a report be presented to Council in February 2018 once Administration has analysed the results of MRWA’s traffic modelling.  Additionally, it is recommended that the City contact MRWA and request that they hold a community information session regarding the impacts of the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive grade separation project on the local road network.

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 cost for the construction of the designed roundabout is estimated at $1.27M. This project and funding is not listed in the City’s Long Term Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simply Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that Main Roads WA (MRWA) is conducting traffic modelling at Cheriton Drive in relation to the grade separation of Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive which is scheduled for completion in October 2017;

2.       REQUESTS Administration to analyse the results of MRWA traffic modelling and present a Report to Council in February 2018; and

3.       REQUESTS MRWA holds a consultation with the community regarding the impacts on the local road network as a result of the grade separation of Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive.

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Map - Joondalup Drive & Cheriton Drive  Intersection, Carramar

15/552024

 

2.

Joondalup Cheriton Drwg No 3017-16-A.pdf

17/230442

 

3.

Intersection of Marmion Avenue and Mullaloo Drive aerial photograph

17/207764

 

4.

MRWA Traffic Modelling - Joondalup Drive / Wanneroo Road Grade Separation

17/249809

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              271


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              272


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          273


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          274


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              276

AS03-08/17       Petition No PT04-05/17 - Requesting the Installation of
Speed Humps and Speed Limit Signage on Charnwood Avenue, Two Rocks

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 17/257082

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider Petition No PT04-05/17 requesting the installation of speed humps and speed limit signage on Charnwood Avenue, Two Rocks. Refer Attachment 1 for a location map of the area.

Background

Council received petition PT04-05/17 at its meeting on 30 May 2017. The petition has 59 signatures and reads as follows:

 

“We the undersigned are requesting immediate action to prevent the death or injury to the youngsters who use the park, known as Charnwood Park. The park has been there for over 25 years and since it was opened there has been a playground and a skate park added. Coupled with the increase in the population the park is now a very popular destination. There is a vehicle access running along the south side of the park that is Charnwood Avenue, it is approximately 400 metres long, the park runs for about half the length of the road. This roadway is frequented by many vehicles at all times of the day. There are three walkways that open onto Charnwood Avenue and they are on the South side of the roadway and are all uphill from the roadway, hence any person who uses these lanes to enter or cross Charnwood Avenue is going downhill.

 

The main traffic using these walkways is kids and frequently pets. When kids enter the walkways they are either on a pushbike or a skateboard, the latter going downhill and not always in full control. There is also a short Street, Daines Street which is also a very much used thoroughfare to the park. Fortunately we have only had two only minor mishaps with our kids that we are aware of.

 

On the weekends the is a very much frequented venue to parents who bring their kids to the playground for a family day out and picnic and as any parent would know kids can slip out of your grasp in a flash and there is no formal parking area, parents park on the grass verge a few feet from the road. There have been numerous “close calls” with vehicles travelling at speed. The writer has lived in Charnwood Avenue for 19 years and has seen many of these near disasters.

 

We suggest that two strategically placed speed humps with the appropriate 50 Km signs would be a very positive pro-active initiative. After all, a child’s life against a multimillion dollar land development, which is more important?”

Detail

Charnwood Avenue, Two Rocks operates as a Local Access road within the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy.  The roadway width varies from around 7.2m to 7.6m, with a 1.2m pathway constructed on the northern side between Lisford Avenue and Candler Way.

 

The petition raises two main areas of concern regarding Charnwood Avenue, speeding vehicles and pedestrian safety.  Administration has investigated these issues with respect to relevant standards, guidelines and policies.

 

There are three reserved PAWs on Charnwood Avenue which connect with Brodia Place, Emba Place and Orissa Place.  The accesses to Emba Place and Orissa Place have footpaths constructed and designated pedestrian crossing points on Charnwood Avenue.  On site, it was noted that both of these footpaths are steep and have U-rails installed at both ends.  U-rails were a common treatment at the time to prevent wheeled vehicles from transitioning between the pathway and road at speed.  The footpath linking to Emba Place is missing a connection on the northern side of Charnwood Avenue. 

 

No path has been constructed in the reserved PAW connecting to Brodia Place.  It is considered that the topography at this location would make it impossible to construct a pathway to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.

 

In addition to the PAWs, there is a 1.2m footpath connection on Daines Road which crosses Charnwood Avenue.

 

Pedestrian Crossing Sight Distance (CSD) was measured at the crossing points for each of the PAWs and at the Daines Road crossing.  All pedestrian connections were found to comply with the Crossing Sight Distance requirements of Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4 A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

Administration has undertaken a site investigation to measure the sight distance for all PAW’s and footpaths on Charnwood Avenue. All designated crossing points were assessed for adequate Crossing Sight Distance (CSD) as per Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections.  CSD requires that a clear view be maintained between approaching drivers and pedestrians on the crossing or waiting to cross.  All crossings were found to have adequate CSD based on the 85th percentile speed for Charnwood Avenue.

 

The petition raised concerns about children losing control on the PAWs and entering Charnwood Avenue at speed and out of control.  Although the two constructed PAWs connecting to Emba Place and Orissa Place are steep, U-rails have been provided to deter wheeled vehicles from approaching Charnwood Avenue at speed.

 

Administration considers that these crossing points operate with an appropriate level of safety and does not consider that significant upgrades are warranted at this time.  Administration does recognise the need for a footpath connection to be constructed on the northern side of Charnwood Avenue, connecting with the Emba Place PAW and recommends that these works be undertaken under PR-2707 Minor Pathway Projects – Unspecified 2017/2018.

 

Given the large number of requests that the City receives for the installation of traffic treatments, the City’s has developed a Local Area Traffic Management Policy (LATMP) which provides an objective assessment based a range of factors including:

 

·    Speed data;

·    Traffic volume including commercial vehicle volume;

·    Crash history;

·    Road design and topography;

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

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

 

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

 

An assessment of Charnwood Avenue was undertaken in accordance with this Policy with a Traffic Management Score (TMS) of 20 being calculated. According to the LATMP, traffic treatments are not warranted on Charnwood Avenue ahead of other high priority projects.

 

Regarding the request for the installation of 50 km/h speed signs, the City is not able to proceed with this request as Main Roads WA (MRWA) is the only State authority that installs regulatory signage.  MRWA has a long held policy not to install 50km/h speed signage where the default “built-up area” speed limit applies. 

 

Administration considers that Charnwood Avenue is operating safely, which is reflected in the available crash data which reveals that there were no reported crashes on Charnwood Avenue for the five year period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016.

 

Therefore, the provision of speed humps and speed limit signage is not supported by Administration.  It is recommended that works on Charnwood Avenue be restricted to the provision of a footpath connection linking to the Emba Place PAW.

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

The City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy was used to assess this request.

Financial Implications

The installation of a footpath connection on the northern side of Charnwood Avenue, linking to the Emba Place PAW would cost in the order of $2,500. This can be funded from the PR-2707 Minor Pathway Projects – Unspecified.

 

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT APPROVE the request made in Petition PT04-05/17 to install speed humps and speed limit signage on Charnwood Avenue.

2.       APPROVES the installation of a footpath connection on Charnwood Avenue between the Emba Place PAW and the Charnwood Avenue footpath to be funded from PR-2707 Minor Pathway Projects - Unspecified.

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

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Charnwood Park - Location Map

17/185282

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              280


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              281

AS04-08/17       State and Federal Government Black Spot Programs 2018/19 Submissions

File Ref:                                              3120V03 – 17/232381

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider projects submitted for funding through the 2018/2019 State and Federal Government Black Spot Programs.

Background

The State and Federal Governments have both committed to reductions in casualty crashes on Australian roads through Black Spot Programs.  These programs are primarily reactive and target road locations where crashes have occurred, although some allowance is made for proactive applications supported by a formal Road Safety Audit (RSA).

Detail

An invitation for submissions for the 2018/2019 State and Federal Government Black Spot Programs was issued by Main Roads WA (MRWA) in April 2017, with a closing date of 14 July 2017. To assist with the preparation of submissions, MRWA provided access to the Crash Analysis Reporting System and the crash data for the five-year period 2012 to 2016 in May 2017.  The crash data is provided to MRWA by the WA Police and the Insurance Council of Australia.

 

The Black Spot Program Development and Management Guidelines require Black Spot projects based on crash data to meet a minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to ensure the proposed remedial works are cost effective.  The BCR is the ratio of the benefit to the community of the expected reduction in crashes versus the cost of the proposed remedial treatment.

 

Successful State Government Black Spot projects are funded two-thirds by the Program and one-third by local government and are based on all recorded crashes, fatalities, casualties and property damage.  The criteria for the program are as follows:

·    For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is five crashes over a five-year period.

·    For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is average of two crashes per kilometre per five-year period.

·    Value of works between $2,000 and $3,000,000.

·    Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 1.0.

 

Successful Australian Government Black Spot projects are fully funded by the Program and are based on casualty crashes, fatalities or personal injury. The criteria for the program are as follows:

·    For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is three casualty crashes over a five-year period.

·    For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is 0.65 casualty crashes per kilometre per five years period.

·    Value of works between $2,000 and $2,000,000.

·    Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 2.0.

 

Administration has investigated the qualifying crash locations for both programs to determine the appropriate remedial treatments and associated costs. 

 

Dependent on the proposed treatment, cost and the resultant BCR, projects are nominated for either or both the State and Australian Government Black Spot programs. Funding for proactive projects, where potential hazards exist, is also available where supported by a Road Safety Audit.

 

It is anticipated that the Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) will assess nominations between July and October 2017 and that the Minister for Transport will announce the approved projects in May 2018 to allow Council sufficient time to finalise the 2018/19 budget.

 

The projects submitted to Main Roads WA for funding consideration by the 14 July 2017 deadline, including their traffic/road safety issues and the proposed remedial treatments are as follows:

 

1.    Kingsbridge Boulevard/Camborne Parkway/Shelford Boulevard Intersection, Butler (refer Attachment 1 page 1)

Concern

Kingsbridge Boulevard and Camborne Parkway are both ‘Local Distributor’ Roads and Shelford Boulevard is a ‘Access’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and are constructed as two-lane single carriageways.  All roads have a posted speed limit of 50 km/h.

The five year crash data indicates a high number of right angle crashes.  There have been a total of 10 crashes over five years of which 3 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

A Road Safety Audit was conducted at this intersection which recommended investigating methods to reduce vehicle speeds on approach to the roundabout and increase readability of the roundabout.  This project proposes to review landscaping and on-street parking to ensure readability of the roundabout, change the roundabout geometry to limit vehicle entry speeds and to provide on-ramps and off-ramps for cyclists. The project cost was estimated at $50,000 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

2.    Wesco Road, Nowergup (refer Attachment 1 page 3)

Concern

Wesco Road is a ‘Local Distributor’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a two-lane single carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 110 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of off-path crashes.  There have been a total of 8 crashes over five years of which 2 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install guideposts to improve delineation on Wesco Road. In addition, install edgeline marking and RRPM’s and remove vegetation from verge. The project cost was estimated at $220,000 with a BCR of 4.56 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

 

 

 

3.    Marmion Avenue/Hester Avenue/Anchorage Drive North Intersection, Merriwa (refer Attachment 1 page 7)

Concern

Marmion Avenue and Hester Avenue are both ‘District Distributor A’ Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and are constructed as four-lane dual carriageways. Anchorage North is classified as a Local Distributor Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated two-lane road with a short section on the approach and departure lanes at the roundabout constructed with four lanes.  The roundabout in question has two circulating lanes and an internal diameter of 50 m.  Marmion Avenue has a posted speed limit of 80km/h, Hester Avenue has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h and Anchorage Drive North has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h.

The five year crash data indicates a high number of rear end, right angle and off-path crashes.  There have been a total of 144 crashes over five years of which 23 have resulted in casualties. The City also received a number of enquiries from residents suggesting they experienced skidding off at the roundabout.

Treatment

Install skid resistant surface treatment to the Marmion Avenue approaches and the Hester Avenue approach, within the circulating lanes of the roundabout and for 30m on all departure lanes. The project cost was estimated at $350,000 with a BCR of 1.26 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding.

 

4.    Breakwater Drive, Two Rocks (refer Attachment 1 page 9)

Concern

Breakwater Drive is a ‘District Distributor B’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a two-lane single carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 110 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of off-path crashes.  There have been a total of 10 crashes over five years of which 3 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install guideposts to improve delineation on Breakwater Drive and remove vegetation from the verge. The project cost was estimated at $60,000 with a BCR of 5.82 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the casualty crash requirement of Australian Government funding.

 

5.    Ocean Reef Road/ Hartman Drive/Lenore Road Intersection, Wangara (refer Attachment 1 page 15)

Concern

Ocean Reef Road and Hartman drive are both ‘District Distributor A’ Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and are constructed as median separated four-lane dual carriageways. Lenore Road is classified as a ‘District Distributor B’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four-lane dual carriageway.  Ocean Reef Road has a posted speed limit of 80km/h and Hartman Drive and Lenore Road have posted speed limits of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of rear end crashes.  There have been a total of 103 crashes over five years of which 13 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install skid resistant surface treatment and mast arms to all approaches. The project cost was estimated at $360,000 with a BCR of 2.84 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

6.    Beach Road and Alexander Drive Intersection, Koondoola (refer Attachment 1 page 17)

Concern

Beach Road and Alexander Drive are both ‘District Distributor A’ Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and are constructed as median separated four-lane dual carriageways.  Both roads have a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of rear end and slope related crashes.  There have been a total of 132 crashes over five years of which 26 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install skid resistant surface treatment on through and left movement and mast arm on the west approach. The project cost was estimated at $100,000 with a BCR of 2.41 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

7.    Marangaroo Drive Between Callison Way and Shelvock Crescent, Alexander Heights (refer Attachment 1 page 19)

Concern

Marangaroo Drive is a ‘District Distributor A’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four-lane dual carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of off-path crashes on a straight in the wet.  There have been a total of 9 crashes over five years of which 2 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

A Road Safety Audit was conducted at this section of road. This project proposes to install skid resistant surface treatment on the through lanes on the west approach. While the Road Safety Audit did not specifically recommend the installation of skid resistant treatment, it highlighted the existence of a dip within the road profile which obstructs drainage. This issue will be addressed before installation of the skid resistant treatment by asphalting the existing road.  The project cost was estimated at $105,000 with a BCR of 1.24 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding.

 

8.    Gnangara Road and Alexander Drive Intersection, Gnangara (refer Attachment 1 page 21)

Concern

Gnangara Road and Alexander Drive are both ‘District Distributor A’ Roads in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and are constructed as median separated four-lane dual carriageways.  Gnangara Road has a posted speed limit of 80 km/h and Alexander Drive has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of rear end crashes.  There have been a total of 38 crashes over five years of which 4 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install skid resistant surface treatment and mast arms on the east and west approaches. The project cost was estimated at $180,000 with a BCR of 1.50 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding.

 

 

 

9.    Kingsway Stage 3 – Between Sovrano Avenue/ Bellerive Boulevard and Hartman Drive, Madeley (refer Attachment 1 page 23)

Concern

Kingsway is a ‘Local Distributor’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a two-lane single carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 60 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of rear end crashes.  There have been a total of 23 crashes over five years of which 7 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install a raised central median and indented right-turn slip lanes. In addition, upgrade existing street lighting and remove road side hazards. The project cost was estimated at $492,000 with a BCR of 2.57 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding. In accordance with the Council resolution of AS04-05/16, this project is listed in the City’s Draft Long Term Capital Works Program (LTCWP) for 2018/19.

 

10.  Prindiville Drive Between Wanneroo Road and Hartman Drive, Wangara (refer Attachment 1 page 25)

Concern

Prindiville Drive is a ‘Local Distributor’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated two-lane single carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 50 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of pedestrian crashes.  There have been a total of 91 crashes over five years of which 25 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install a shared path on the north side between Wanneroo Road and Chokolich Street and both sides from Irwin Road to Hartman Drive. In addition, upgrade the existing footpath to a shared path on the south side from Wanneroo Road to Ismail Street and on the north side from Chokolich Street to Ismail Street. Additionally, install a Pedestrian refuge between Mackie Street and Ismail Street and between Hartman Drive and Berriman Drive. The project cost was estimated at $690,000 with a BCR of 2.22 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

11.  Wanneroo Road Between Ocean Reef Road and Hepburn Avenue, Madeley/ Woodvale (refer Attachment 1 page 28)

Concern

Wanneroo Road is a ‘Primary’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four-lane dual carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of pedestrian crashes.  There have been a total of 798 crashes over five years of which 149 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install a 3m wide red asphalt shared path on the west side between Hepburn Avenue and Ocean Reef Road and install a 2.5m wide concrete shared path on the east side between Kingsway and Hepburn Avenue. The project cost was estimated at $1,300,000 with a BCR of 2.4 and applied for both State and Australian Government funding.

 

The following three projects will be staged, with funding allocated over the two financial years 2018/19 and 2019/20.The staged approach was chosen due to the amount of work involved with each of the projects. During 2018/19 funding will be allocated for the design and documentation of the projects with construction taking place during 2019/20.

 

12.  Wanneroo Road Between Elliot Road and Ocean Reef Road, Wanneroo/Pearsall (refer Attachment 1 page 38)

Concern

Wanneroo Road is a ‘Primary’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four-lane dual carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of pedestrian crashes.  There have been a total of 330 crashes over five years of which 67 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Install a 2.5m wide concrete path on the east side between Villanova Street and East Road, install a 3 metre wide red asphalt shared path on the west side between East Road and Scenic Drive. Also install a 2.5m concrete shared path on the east side between Scenic Drive and Kirkstall Drive and a 2.5m shared path on the east side form Gungurru Avenue to Jacaranda Drive. In addition, install a Pedestrian crossing point north of the Villanova Street and Wanneroo Road intersection. The project cost was estimated at $950,000 with a BCR of 1.55 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding. During 2018/19 an estimated $108,000 of the estimated total cost is for the design and documentation of the project. Construction during 2019/20 is estimated to cost $842,000.

 

13.  Wanneroo Road Between Conlan Avenue/Hasting Street and Elliot Road, Wanneroo (refer Attachment 1 page 43)

Concern

Wanneroo Road is a ‘Primary’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four-lane dual carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of pedestrian crashes.  There have been a total of 117 crashes over five years of which 21 have resulted in casualties.

Treatment

Upgrade the existing footpath to a 3m shared path on the west side and install a pedestrian crossing at Sinagra Street. The project cost was estimated at $550,000 with a BCR of 1.38 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding. During 2018/19 an estimated $227,000 of the estimated total cost is for the design and documentation of the project. Construction during 2019/20 is estimated to cost $323,000.

 

14.  Templeton Crescent Between Liddell Street and Marangaroo Drive, Girrawheen (refer Attachment 1 page 46)

Concern

Templeton Crescent is a ‘Local Distributor’ Road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated two-lane single carriageway.  The road has a posted speed limit of 70 km/h.

 

The five year crash data indicates a high number of pedestrian crashes.  There have been a total of 25 crashes over five years of which 1 has resulted in a casualty.

Treatment

Upgrade the existing footpath to a shared path on the north and west side between Liddell Street and Allison Drive, and between Balgonie Avenue and Hudson Avenue. The project cost was estimated at $175,000 with a BCR of 1.25 and applied for State funding only. This project does not meet the BCR requirement of Australian Government funding. During 2018/19 an estimated $12,000 of the estimated total cost is for the design and documentation of the project. Construction during 2019/20 is estimated to cost $163,000.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The projects selected have been identified as these best meet the grant funding programs’ selection and assessment criteria and enables the City to maximise the opportunity for funding under the competitive process. Where the qualifying crash location involved a distributor road already listed for major upgrade and where the Black Spot treatment would

PROJECT

BCR

Project
Cost 2018/19

CoW
Cost 2018/19

State
Cost 2018/19

Project
Cost 2019/20

CoW
Cost 2019/20

State
Cost 2019/20

Federal
Cost

1.    Kingsbridge Boulevard/ Camborne Parkway/ Shelford Boulevard Intersection

RSA

$50,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$50,000

2.    Wesco Road

4.56

$220,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$220,000

3.    Marmion Avenue/ Hester Avenue Intersection

1.26

$350,000

$116,667

$233,333

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

4.    Breakwater Drive

5.82

$60,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$60,000

5.    Ocean Reef Road/ Hartman Drive/ Lenore Road Intersection

2.84

$360,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$360,000

6.    Beach Road/ Alexander Drive Intersection

2.41

$100,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$100,000

7.    Marangaroo Drive Between Callison Way and Shelvock Crescent

1.24

$105,000

$35,000

$70,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

8.    Gnangara Road/ Alexander Drive Intersection

1.5

$180,000

$60,000

$120,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

9.    Kingsway Stage 3 Between Sovrano Avenue/ Bellerive Boulevard and Hartman Drive (Listed in Draft LTCWP)

2.57

$492,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$492,000

10. Prindiville Drive Between Wanneroo Road and Hartman Drive

2.22

$690,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$690,000

11. Wanneroo Road Between Ocean Reef Road and Hepburn Avenue

2.4

$1,300,000

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

$1,300,000

12. Wanneroo Road Between Elliot Road and Ocean Reef Road

1.55

$108,000

$36,000

$72,000

$842,000

$280,667

$561,333

N/A

13. Wanneroo Road Between Conlan Avenue/ Hastings Street and Elliot Road

1.38

$227,000

$75,667

$151,333

$323,000

$107,667

$215,333

N/A

14. Templeton Crescent Between Liddell Street and Marangaroo Drive

1.28

$12,000

$4,000

$8,000

$163,000

$54,333

$108,667

N/A

TOTAL:

$4,254,000

$327,333

$654,666

$1,328,000

$442,667

$885,334

$3,272,000

have a life of less than five years then these Black Spots was not considered justified.

 

Based on previous years Black Spot grant funding submissions, the projects listed for 2018/19 have a medium to high potential of success. Should the City be unsuccessful in receiving grant funding for the Black Spot projects, these will be continue to be monitored, listed in the City’s Draft LTCWP for consideration and prioritized accordingly.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Society

1.2    Safe Communities

1.2.1  Enable community to be prepared and to recover from emergency situations

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

A summary of the estimated costs of the proposed Black Spot treatments is tabled above.  It should be noted that the full cost of the project is reflected under ‘Federal Cost’ on the assumption that it will be approved. 

Projects approved under the Australian Government Black Spot Program are fully funded by the program, however, those projects that don’t receive Federal Government funding may be successful for State Black Spot funding.  Successful project nominations in the 2018/2019 State Black Spot Program are required to be funded one-third by the City.

Subject to the City being successful with all its applications through either the Federal or State Black Spot Program, City will be required to contribute a maximum amount of $1,418,000, towards the total cost of $4,254,000, in 2018/2019 and $442,667 in 2019/2020.  The current funding allocation for Black Spot projects listed in the current Draft LTCWP for 2018/2019 includes a total amount of $4,304,000 with $589,333 from municipal funds, with $445,000 required funding made available for 2019/2020. Depending on the success of the project applications under these programs, the City may need to allocate a maximum of $1,418,000 municipal funding in 2018/2019 Capital Works Budget and an additional $445,000 in municipal funding in 2019/2020 Capital Works Budget.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the submission of the following City of Wanneroo projects for funding consideration as part  of the 2018/19 State and Australian Government Black Spot Programs:

a)   Kingsbridge Boulevard/ Camborne Parkway/Shelford Boulevard Intersection, Butler - Review landscaping and on-street parking, change the roundabout geometry and provide on-ramps and off-ramps for cyclists;

b)   Marmion Avenue/ Hester Avenue/Anchorage Drive North Intersection, Merriwa - Install skid resistant surface treatment;

c)   Wesco Road, Nowergup - Install guideposts, edgeline marking and RRPM’s and remove vegetation from verge;

d)   Breakwater Drive, Two Rocks - Install guideposts and remove vegetation from verge;

e)   Ocean Reef Road/ Hartman Drive/ Lenore Road Intersection, Wangara - Install skid resistant surface treatment and mast arms;

f)    Beach Road and Alexander Drive Intersection, Koondoola - Install skid resistant surface treatment and mast arms;

g)   Marangaroo Drive Between Callison Way and Shelvock Crescent, Alexander Heights - Install skid resistant surface treatment;

h)   Gnangara Road and Alexander Drive Intersection, Gnangara - Install skid resistant surface treatment and mast arms;

i)    Kingsway Stage 3 – Between Sovrano Avenue/ Bellerive Boulevard and Hartman Drive, Madeley - Install a raised central median and indented right-turn slip lanes, upgrade street lighting and remove road side hazards;

j)    Wanneroo Road Between Ocean Reef Road and Hepburn Avenue, Madeley/ Woodvale - Install a 3m wide red asphalt shared path on the west side between Hepburn Avenue and Ocean Reef Road and install a 2.5m wide concrete shared path on the east side between Kingsway and Hepburn Avenue;

k)   Prindiville Drive Between Wanneroo Road and Hartman Drive, Wangara – Install a shared path on the north side, upgrade the existing footpath to a shared path on the south side and install a Pedestrian refuge;

l)    Wanneroo Road Between Elliot Road and Ocean Reef Road, Wanneroo/ Pearsall - Install a 2.5m wide concrete path on the east side between Villanova Street and East Road, install a 3m wide red asphalt shared path on the west side between East Road and Scenic Drive. Also install a 2.5m concrete shared path on the east side between Scenic Drive and Kirkstall Drive and a 2.5m shared path on the east side form Gungurru Avenue to Jacaranda Drive. In addition, install a Pedestrian crossing point;

m)  Wanneroo Road Between Conlan Avenue/Hasting Street and Elliot Road, Wanneroo - Upgrade existing footpath to 3m Shared path and install pedestrian crossing;

n)   Templeton Crescent Between Liddell Street and Marangaroo Drive, Girrawheen - Upgrade existing footpath to shared path; and

 

 

 

2.       NOTES that the draft 2018/19 Traffic Treatments Program in the Long Term Capital Works Program will require amendment to reflect the funding of projects approved through the 2018/19 State and Australian Government Black Spot Programs.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Black Spot Funding Applications 2018 to 2019

17/273725

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          291


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              292


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          297


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              298


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          305


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              306


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          307


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              308


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          309


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              310


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          311


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              312


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          313


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              314


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          318


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              336


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              338

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

AS05-08/17       Marmion Avenue Dualling to Yanchep - Consideration of State Government Funding

File Ref:                                              29045 – 17/246190

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider State Government $23M funding for the dualling of Marmion Avenue to Yanchep.

Background

Council considered a report at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 December 2016 (Item AS01-12/16 refers) on the reclassification of Marmion Avenue and Ocean Reef Road as Primary Distributors roads under State Government control.

 

The report recognised the importance of Yanchep as a Strategic Centre and detailed traffic concerns, including the need to advance the dualling of Marmion Avenue to Yanchep Beach Road, refer to Attachment 1. In considering this report, Council resolved to:

 

“That Council:-

1.       RECOGNISES the importance of Yanchep as a Strategic Metropolitan Centre and SEEKS the reclassification of Marmion Avenue Ocean Reef Road and Gnangara Road as Primary Distributor Roads by the State Government;

2.       SEEKS a timely dualling of Marmion Avenue to Yanchep Beach Road by the State Government or alternately the provision of State funding to the City to undertake the dualling as a high priority;

3.       RECOGNISES the importance of Ellenbrook as a Secondary Centre and SEEKS the reclassification of Ocean Reef Road and Gnangara Road as Primary Distributor Roads by the State Government;

4.       REQUESTS that the Mayor writes to the Honourable Premier and Minister for Transport on Items 1, 2 and 3; and

5.       REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to write to Cities of Joondalup and Swan, seeking their support for these road reclassification requests.”

Resolutions 4 and 5; letters were written to the then Premier and the Minister for Transport. As a consequence, prior to the State election held in March 2017, the WA Labor Party promised funding of $23M for the dualling of Marmion Avenue as an election commitment.

 

This report considers the details of funding now provided to the City and the proposed program to develop and deliver this project.

Detail

Marmion Avenue is constructed as a four-lane dual carriageway between Tamala Park and Camborne Parkway and the remaining 11.5km section is a two-lane single carriageway between Camborne Parkway and Yanchep. Traffic volumes for Marmion Avenue range from a peak Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) of 18,000 vehicles per day south of Alkimos to around 12,000 vehicles per day in Yanchep.  Works to upgrade Marmion Avenue to a four-lane dual carriageway between Lukin Drive and Butler Boulevard have recently been completed.

 

Following the State Election in March 2017, Administration wrote to the Minister for Transport and requested information on the allocation of this funding to enable the City to prepare the project schedule. Main Roads WA requested a tax invoice during the last week of June 2017 and a payment of $23M was received by the City prior to 30 Jun 2017. The $23M funding has been received by the City and accounted for as “restricted cash”.

 

Subject to Council’s consideration of, and acceptance of this funding, Administration has progressed the preparation of a project mandate/plan to enable the completion of a detailed design, consultation and other project development work in 2017/2018 with construction completion by December 2019. The project development will consider the following key items:

 

·    City of Wanneroo standard design layout for a dual carriageway inclusive of traffic modelling, drainage, shared paths and cycle lanes,  bus bays and bus shelters,  pedestrian crossings, street lighting including an investigation of LED Lighting and a holistic landscape plan with themed tree species in the median and complementary verge planting;

 

·    Stakeholder identification and consultation; and

 

·    Planning/Policy constraints, opportunities or risks.

Administration is working with Main Roads WA to determine any project specific or reporting requirements in relation to the State Government funding.

 

It is also noted that the project development and delivery will be undertaken by following the City’s Project Management Framework and will require a new fixed term resource (Project Manager).

Consultation

Initial consultation has been held with the relevant service units and Main Roads WA. Subsequent consultation with all identified stakeholders will occur during the project development and delivery of this project.

Comment

In view of the importance of Yanchep as a rapidly growing Strategic Centre and anticipated high traffic volumes using Marmion Avenue, the dualling of Marmion Avenue to Yanchep is an important project with the design phase scheduled to be complete by September 2018 and the construction phase scheduled for completion by January 2020.  

 

The City is working in partnership with State Government to deliver the key infrastructure and will continue to liaise directly with Main Roads WA regarding finalisation of project reporting and budgetary parameters.

 

Administration will write to MRWA seeking its approval for the reallocation $3.34M of current and planned MRRG funds to augment the $23M project budget. 

 

It is therefore recommended that Council accepts the $23M State Government funding to upgrade Marmion Avenue to a four lane dual carriageway from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep (subject to funding availability).

Statutory Compliance

Potential external approvals by Government agencies and utility providers.

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

ST-S04 Integrated Infrastructure & Utility Planning

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O20 Productive Communities

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community and Place

Manage

The above risks 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 improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The project development will give due consideration to appropriate policies including Local Planning Policy 3.8 - Marmion Ave Arterial Road Access adopted on 21 July 2015.

Financial Implications

The upgrade of 11.5km section of Marmion Avenue to a four lane dual carriageway from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep is estimated to cost $23M and with the provision of State Government funding of $23M, plus the City will be seeking from Main Roads, the retention of the current Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) funding allocation of $3.34M

 

In line with the project noted earlier in the report and to manage the cash flow, funding is required to be allocated over two financial years as noted below:

 

2017/18      Design and project development              $700,000

2018/19      Civil construction works                            $20M

2019/20      Landscaping and ancillary works              $2.3M

 

Marmion Avenue dualling from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep is not listed in the approved 2017/2018 Capital Works Budget. A budget variation to allocate an unbudgeted expenditure of $700,000 (funded from the $23M funding received from the State Government) for this project is necessary for Council to authorise Administration to commence the procurement process for the design and development of the project. The remaining $22.3M State Government funding will be held as “restricted cash” and will be included in the Long Term Capital Works Program for allocation in the annual budgets accordingly.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS $23M State Government funding for the upgrade of Marmion Avenue to a four lane dual carriageway from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep (subject to funding availability);

2.       APPROVES, BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, the unbudgeted expenditure of $700,000 in 2017/2018, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 for the Upgrade of Marmion Avenue to a four lane dual carriageway from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep;

3.       Administration WRITES to State Government seeking approval to reallocate current MRRG funding to augment the $23M budget for the four lane dual carriageway from Camborne Parkway to Yanchep; and

4.       NOTES the following budget amendment to reflect receipt of additional funds from the State Government:

Description

GL Account/

Capital Project

Current Budget

Revised Budget

Design the dual carriageway between Camborne Parkway to Yanchep in 2017/2018.

TBC

$0

$700,000

Restricted Cash Account

TBC

$0

$22,300,000

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan - Marmion Avenue

17/264220

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          342

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              343

 

Parks & Conservation Management

AS06-08/17       PT01-05/17 Objection to the Removal of Trees on the Verge of Peaslake Street, Butler

File Ref:                                              3570 – 17/213195

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider PT01-05/17, Objection to the Removal of Trees on the verge of Peaslake Street Butler.

Background

At its meeting on 9 May, Council received a petition with 11 signatures requesting that the City reconsiders its proposal to remove the four Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) trees from the City’s verge of Peaslake Street. The petition read:

 

“We the undersigned residents of Peaslake Street, Butler, whole heartedly disagree with your plan to remove the trees from our street.  This is a mistake that was decided upon to rectify a grievance or previous decision and we don’t feel we should have to endure the consequences”.

 

Earlier in the year, the City received a complaint from a resident on Peaslake Street, Butler, regarding an ongoing problem with the tree located on the verge adjacent to their property causing damage to infrastructure, lifting concrete footpaths, resident’s driveway and retaining wall. The resident was also concerned with the ongoing costs to the City to continually replace the sections of footpath should all four trees remain within the street.

Detail

All 11 petitioners are residents of Peaslake Street and 3 of the residents have a London Plane tree on the verge adjacent to their property.

 

Administration undertook site investigations in February 2017 which identified that there were only four verge trees in the street - refer to Attachments 1 and 2 for the photos of the individual trees and location map. The inspection identified that sections of footpath adjacent to each tree had recently been replaced. A number of trees appeared to have suffered root damage during the footpath construction; which may be detrimental to the future health of these trees. A decision was made to remove the four trees to alleviate future damage to infrastructure and engage with residents in the replacement of the trees and increasing the tree canopy within Peaslake Street, Butler.

 

A letter drop was undertaken on 29 March 2017 advising residents that due to damage being caused to the infrastructure within the streetscape, the City had made the decision to remove the four London Plane trees. Residents were also informed that the trees would be replaced and that the City would engage with the residents on replacement and additional tree planting within the streetscape. 

 

Administration met on site with the petitioner on 7 April 2017 to discuss the rationale behind the proposed tree removal. During this meeting, Administration carried out a secondary inspection of the trees and informed the resident that an independent arboriculture inspection of the trees would be undertaken prior to any removal. A separate meeting was held with another resident on 6 April 2017 that did not support the removal of the trees, however was supportive of the planting of additional trees within the street.

Administration engaged an independent arborist to inspect the four London Plane trees on Peaslake Street, assess the trees’ health and overall structural condition and the associated risks of the trees in this environment using the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment methodology; and provide recommendations accordingly. The arborist made the following recommendations:

 

·        No tree removal at this time in Peaslake Street;

·        Undertake formative pruning to improve the structure of the trees; and

·        Undertake annual inspections of the four trees to monitor any potential stability issues and adverse growth habits of the trees.

 

Consultation

 

Residents of Peaslake Street were initially advised of the proposal to remove the four London Plane trees in the street. A consulting arborist has been consulted who has provided advice on the ongoing management of these four trees.

 

The residents have since been advised that removal of the trees has been put on hold pending the outcome of this report to Council.

 

Comment

In view of the arborist’s recommendations, it is recommended to not remove the four London Plane trees which were initially proposed to be removed and implement the tree management practices. In addition to address the original complainant’s concerns, the City will continue to monitor the condition of the infrastructure in Peaslake Street and undertake necessary maintenance works as required.

 

In line with the current annual tree planting program aimed at increasing the number of residential street trees within the City, Administration will conduct further consultation with the residents of Peaslake Street to identify potential infill planting opportunities along the residential verges to ensure that the existing tree canopy is increased. 

 

A review of the tree removal process has been undertaken, and administration has developed a more robust process for all future street tree removals.  This process adheres to the Draft Street Tree Policy with its main objectives being:

 

·        Provide guidance for the care, control, management, protection and preservation of City trees;

·        To increase the City’s canopy cover;

·        To enhance the amenity of the City’s streetscapes and reserves through planting of new trees: and

·        To define the circumstances under which the City’s trees may be removed or pruned.

 

The purpose of the Policy is to provide a framework for the development of high quality streetscapes that require minimal resource input, thereby increasing environmental values. The Policy will also assist the City of Wanneroo in moving toward a greener, more liveable City by increasing tree numbers and ultimately canopy coverage across the City.

 

The Draft Street Tree Policy also considers requests from residents for the removal of street trees; these shall be in writing and will be considered on their merits by the City on the following criteria:

 

·        Safety, health and conditions of the trees;

·        Reasons highlighted by the residents;

·        Value of the tree within the streetscape/landscape;

·        Potential for significant nuisance actions in the street;

·        History of requests and associated actions in the street.

 

The City will deal with street tree removal requests based on the above criteria. Where an entire street tree replacement program is implemented, staged removal of existing trees shall be the preferred option - refer to Attachment 3 for the Draft Street Tree Policy. 

 

Additionally administration has developed a tree management removal document to be completed for all tree removals - refer to Attachment 4.  A process map has also been developed for all tree removals, the procedure can then be better managed with administration conducting regular reviews of its processes – refer to Attachment 5.  

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.2    Enhanced Environment

3.2.3  Optimize retention of significant vegetation and habitat

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 Draft Street Tree Policy addresses the care and management of all City owned trees including requests for tree removal and retention.

Financial Implications

Costs for the arborist report and remedial pruning works are accommodated within the Parks Maintenance Operating Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the petition PT01-05/15 objecting to the removal of four Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) trees, from the verge of Peaslake Street, Butler;

2.       DOES NOT APPROVE the removal of four Platanus acerifolia (London Plane) trees in Peaslake Street, Butler; and

3.       AUTHORISES the Director Assets to advise the petition organisers of the outcomes of this report.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Peaslake Street Butler, Tree Images

17/216735

 

2.

Peaslake Street Butler Aerial Image

17/216732

 

3.

Draft Street Tree Policy

17/247851

 

4.

Updated Tree Management Document

17/254548

 

5.

TREE REMOVAL REQUEST PROCESS

17/254719

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          347


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          349


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          350


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          361


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              363

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              364

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

CP01-08/17       Speedway Motorcycle Club of WA - Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, Small Grant Application

File Ref:                                              30193 – 17/236295

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider submissions to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for the 2017 small grants round of the Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF).

Background

Each year the State Government through the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) (formerly Department of Sport and Recreation) makes funding available to community/sporting groups and Local Governments to assist in the development of fixed sport and recreation infrastructure. The aim of Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) is to increase participation in sport and recreation through an emphasis on well-planned and well-utilised facilities.

 

A total of $12million is made available in three categories, which are based on the size and complexity of the proposed projects:

 

·        Small Grants: Projects up to $200,000 can apply for a third of the cost and must be claimed in the same financial year of approval. There are two rounds each year in February and July. For projects with a grant request below $2,500 it is expected that the applicant should be able to fully fund these.

 

·        Annual Grants: Projects $200,001 - $500,000 can apply for one third i.e. $66,667 - $166,666 and must be claimed in the financial year following the date of approval.

 

·        Forward Planning Grants: Projects over $500,001 can apply for one third i.e. $166,667 - $2,000,000 and have three financial years to complete.

 

Contributions made through CSRFF must be matched by the applicant's own contribution (can include cash, donated materials and volunteer labour) with any balance of the funds being provided by an alternate funding source. This may be provided by the applicant, alternative grants, or by the Local Government. The Local Government is not required to contribute to any external CSRFF grant application.

 

All applications from within the City of Wanneroo are required to be submitted to the City for assessment and prioritisation - including those being submitted by the City itself. Applications are required to be endorsed by Council prior to their submission to DLGSC.

 

The 2017 CSRFF Small Grants funding round opened 1 July 2017 for projects up to $200,000 to be acquitted by 15 June 2018. Approved applications are required to be submitted to DLGSC no later than 4pm Monday 31 August 2017 in order for DLGSC assessment to be completed in September.

Detail

The City has received one external CSRFF application, from the Speedway Motorcycle Club of WA (SMCWA) to install transportable first aid and toilet facilities.

 

SMCWA are located at the Pinjar Motorcycle Park on Pederick Road in Neerabup. The site is Crown land, vested with the City of Wanneroo. The SMCWA’s current lease is until 2023.

 

Since the mid 1970’s the site has been utilised as a motorcycling racing venue. In 2006 a junior circuit was added and in 2015 a larger senior track was added. The club has been working to develop the larger track to allow senior national and international championship events, which are currently not provided for in WA.

 

The installation of first aid and toilet facilities along with the recently completed safety upgrades are required for SMCWA to obtain a track licence from the governing body, Motorcycling WA.

 

A breakdown of project costs and funding sources is as per the tables below.

 

Project Breakdown

Amount ex GST

Water bore and tanks

$20,295

Toilet block

$23,100

First aid block

$13,100

Electrician

$28,000

Donated Materials

$28,165

Volunteer Labour

$14,082

Total

$126,742

 

Funding Sources

Amount ex GST

Local government

$0

Applicant cash

$42,248

Volunteer labour

$14,082

Donated materials

$28,165

CSRFF requested

$42,247

Total

$126,742

 

The project was assessed using the following philosophy and exclusion criteria established as a part of the CSRFF Review Process:

 

Philosophy

 

·        Meets a clearly demonstrated need within the community;

·        Support the City of Wanneroo’s Strategic Plan;

·        Provide maximum benefit and value for money for the community by providing multipurpose facilities and allow for general community uses (i.e. other community-based activities);

·        Financially viable, with the applicant able to demonstrate the ability to meet the financial commitment;

·        Increases participation;

·        Include a clear management plan; and/or

·        Facility provision to meet all relevant Australian Standards.

 

The project is considered to be in keeping with the City’s philosophy and does not contravene the exclusion criteria set out in the CSRFF guidelines. The project has been designated the assessment level of “satisfactory” in relation to the CSRFF Assessment Principles and has been rated as “well planned and needed by the applicant”. The CSRFF Review Panel recommends that the application be forwarded to DLGSC.

 

On this basis this report recommends that the CSRFF grant application of $42,247 be submitted on behalf of the SMCWA.

Consultation

Administration has previously, and continues to, consult directly with representatives from the SMCWA.

Comment

The SMCWA has been the successful recipient of a previous CSRFF Annual Grant. In 2015/16 they received $76,356 to construct a perimeter track safety fence. This project was undertaken and recently acquitted in line with all CSRFF requirements.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles

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

As the project is proposed to be funded by CSRFF and SMCWA there is no financial implication for the City. Should the CSRFF application not be successful the club has indicated that it will still carry out the works and fund the full amount from club reserves.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council SUBMITS the Speedway Motorcycle Club of WA’s CSRFF application to install transportable first aid and toilet facilities to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for the 2017 Small Grants Funding Round with the following assessment, project rating and prioritisation:

 

Project

Assessment

Project Rating

Priority

Install transportable first aid and toilet facilities

Satisfactory

Well planned and needed by the applicant

1

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              368

 

Communication, Marketing and Events

CP02-08/17       Proposed Sponsorship Agreement for the Wanneroo Show - City of Wanneroo and the Wanneroo Agricultural Society (Inc.)

File Ref:                                              8380V02 – 17/244813

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider entering into a new five year Sponsorship Agreement between the City of Wanneroo (City) and the Wanneroo Agricultural Society (Inc.) (WAS) for the annual Wanneroo Agricultural Show.

Background

The Wanneroo Showgrounds (the Showgrounds) is located on Crown Reserve 12990, known as Lot 501 on Deposited Plan 55751 being the whole of the land comprised in Qualified Certificate of Crown Land Title Volume LR3147 Folio 366.

 

The Showgrounds provide a significant resource for active and passive leisure opportunities within the Wanneroo area, as reflected in its "Recreation" vesting under the current Management Order (registered at Landgate as dealing K285714). 

 

The Management Order authorises the leasing or licensing of the Showgrounds for periods of up to 21 years, and in this respect portions of the Showgrounds are leased to:

 

·        The WAS:  The building known as the "Agricultural Poultry Shed"; and

·        Wanneroo Amateur Football Club, Wanneroo Cricket Club Inc, Wanneroo Junior Football Club Inc, Wanneroo Junior Cricket Club:  The clubroom and change rooms building.

 

Portions of the Showgrounds are also regularly hired by community and sporting groups under hire agreements administered by the Community and Place Directorate.

 

The Wanneroo Show (the Show) is an annual event that takes place at the Showgrounds that showcases agricultural, horticultural and other associated industries within the Wanneroo area.

 

During the period since the first annual Show was held in 1909, the WAS and the City have had informal arrangements in place to support the Show, extending to aspects such as regulatory compliance, waste collection and grounds maintenance.  

 

In May 2015 Council approved a Sponsorship Agreement with the WAS to the value of approximately $30,000 per year for a period of three years, meaning that this year’s Wanneroo Show will be the last covered under this arrangement.

Detail

The terms of the proposed new five year Sponsorship Agreement between the WAS and the City, are similar in nature to the existing Agreement and include:

 

 

 

City’s Contribution

 

Waste Management Services (including litter collection and the delivery, servicing and collection of waste bins and recycling carts)

$15,500

Cleaning Services (including toilet cleaning and maintenance)

$4,200

Health Services Approvals (including inspection of food traders and temporary structures prior to the Show and as required during the Show)

$2,800

Advertising and Graphic Support (marketing the Show including online and in displays at City Libraries)

$5,500

Provision of a driver and flat tray truck for up to 6 hours on both Show days and two eight-seater community buses for patron transport

$4,000

Contribution towards show entertainment and community marquee

$2,000

 

WAS Contribution

 

Acknowledgement that the City is a major sponsor of the Show on all advertising including electronic publications

Ground allocation for a City marquee, providing the City has an interactive display

 

Ticket provision for the Show to staff and Elected Members as required

 

VIP invitation to the CEO and Mayor to include parking

 

Consultation

The proposed new Sponsorship Agreement has been developed in consultation with the Wanneroo Agricultural Society.

Comment

The Sponsorship Agreement has been developed to streamline the Show process, improve communication between the parties and specify each party’s respective responsibilities.

 

The Sponsorship Agreement does not fetter either party's legal obligations, nor crystallise a party's contribution to the Show (which may vary due to future considerations including legislative and budgetary requirements, and operational capacities). 

 

Both parties have met their obligations under the existing Agreement with the City gaining considerable benefit from being able to promote a broad range of its services through staff participation in displays and presentations in the dedicated marquee. Last year’s Show presented an opportunity to promote, and engage patrons with, the Connect Wanneroo campaign.  

 

Notwithstanding that the Chief Executive Officer is permitted under delegation 10.5 to approve the proposed new Sponsorship Agreement, the proposal is submitted to Council for approval in recognition of the longstanding importance of the Show to the Wanneroo community.

Statutory Compliance

The Agreement has been drafted in accordance with the City’s Sponsorship Policy.

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

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

Policy Implications

The proposed Agreement conforms with the City’s Sponsorship Policy.

Financial Implications

The City will make a financial contribution to the 2018 Wanneroo Show in accordance with the “City’s Contribution” as detailed in the “Background” section of this report and on an annual basis thereafter for a period of five years. The total contribution will be $34,000 for 2018/19 and is subject to determination as part of the City’s annual budgeting process.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AGREES in principle to the terms of a five year Sponsorship Agreement commencing in 2018 with the Wanneroo Agricultural Society (Inc.) for the annual Wanneroo Show.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              371

 

Place Strengthening

CP03-08/17       Reconciliation Action Plan - Request for Six Month Extension

File Ref:                                              6382 – 17/208209

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community & Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

Approval is being sought to extend the current City of Wanneroo Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) 2015-2017 by six months, to 30 June 2018.

Background

The current City RAP 2015 - 2017 is due to expire on 31 December 2017 (Attachment 1).

 

The purpose of the extension is to enable more actions within the current RAP to be completed prior to development of a new plan, and to align with review and development of several other strategic documents over the next two years. The revised timeline would also reduce the impact experienced due to recent staff changes associated with delivery of the plan.

 

The extension would change the current RAP delivery to 30 June 2018, rather than the current timeline of 31 December 2017. As Council endorsed the previous RAP, there is a requirement to seek Council approval for a revised timeline.

Detail

Of the 27 Actions in the RAP, 23 are partially completed and ongoing (reported annually), three have been fully completed and one is on hold due to being linked to another action. The proposed six month extension of the RAP would ensure the partially completed Actions, in particular RAP Action 15 have adequate time to be completed.

 

RAP Action 15 is to ‘Produce and display signs in location of cultural significance that outline Noongar history and culture in the area’.

Consultation

Administration has consulted with the City’s RAP Working Group and Reconciliation Australia who both support the proposed extension.

 

Reconciliation Australia has advised that the City of Wanneroo should continue to implement outstanding deliverables of the current RAP until 30 June 2018, without amending the existing RAP. The RAP Working Group is in agreement with an extension to the current RAP in order to execute the 27 Actions, and then begin evaluation and development of a new RAP.

 

Elected Members were provided a Briefing Note on 25 July 2017 requesting feedback on the proposed extension. One Elected Member supported this approach, while one requested further information that was subsequently provided. No other responses from Elected Members were received.

Comment

Providing a six month extension for delivery of the City’s RAP will enable Administration and the RAP Working Group further opportunity to complete existing actions, and to align the engagement and plan development processes for other strategic documents over the next two years.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST – S20 Strategic Community Plan

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO – 001 Relationship 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 Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Expenditure related to delivery of RAP actions has been incorporated into the 2017/18 City budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES a six month extension of the City of Wanneroo Reconciliation Action Plan 2015 – 2017, with a revised end date of 30 June 2018.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Reconciliation Action Plan Booklet 2015-2017

17/249744

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          373


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              389

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

CS01-08/17       Financial Activity Statement (Estimate) for the Period Ended 30 June 2017

File Ref:                                              25973 – 17/233519

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the Financial Activity Statement (Estimate) for the period ended 30 June 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 June produced a favourable variance of $14.3m reflecting receipt of an unbudgeted grant from Main Roads of $23.0m for the duelling of Marmion Avenue.  However this favourable variance was reduced by Employee expense, due in part to an accrual error in Salaries and in part due to the reallocation of Contract Labour expenses which were previously charged to Materials and Contracts.  This change is to improve overall transparency of total staff costs. 

 

Materials and Contracts also produced an unfavourable variance due to Valuer General Assessment services.  This cost was budgeted to be incurred throughout the year but the service was not undertaken until June.  Parks Maintenance Consulting expense was higher due to environmental studies.

 

Contributed physical assets were below expectation and as a result an unfavourable variance has arisen.  This continues to reflect lower development activity given market conditions.  Town Planning Schemes also produced an unfavourable result due to the charging of additional Administration costs and a payment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for reimbursement of land as part of the Gnangara realignment.

 

Operating Revenues

The month of June produced a positive variance for Total Operating Revenue of $144k.  The main contributors were pre-paid Rates which in error was not taken to the Balance Sheet as a liability, and an unbudgeted grant received from the Department of Transport.  These were partially offset by lower Fees and Charges from Health Assessment Services which was budgeted for June but received in prior periods.

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Expenses

 

The unfavourable variance for June relates to higher Employee costs as a result of an accrual error identified and corrected as part of the year-end process, and the reallocation of Contract Labour costs from Materials and Contracts designed to improve overall transparency of staff costs.  These accounts previously included Contract Labour expenses which relate to the employment of staff through approved agencies as well as salary/wage expense reimbursements from capital works to operating activities. It is noted that there was a favourable variance observed within Town Planning Scheme recoveries due to adjustments from under recoveries related to employee costs in prior years being recognised in June.

 

Materials and Contracts also resulted in an unfavourable variance.  Within Contract Expenses, Valuer General GRV assessments were predominately undertaken in June however budgets recognised this as a monthly cost throughout the year.  In addition Consulting Fees proved unfavourable given environmental studies charged to Parks Maintenance as well as conducting transport modelling analysis through special projects which were incurred in June however budgeted throughout the year.

 

 

Other Revenue & Expenses

 

A favourable variance of $17.0m was observed due to a Main Roads grant relating to duelling works to be on Marmion Avenue.  This was partially offset by unfavourable variances in Contributed Physical Assets being an impact of adverse property conditions.  In addition Town Planning Schemes also produced an unfavourable variance due to the review of Administration costs and a payment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for reimbursement of land as part of the Gnangara realignment.

 

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

 

 

Details for the variances are outlined below.

 

Operating Revenues

 

Other Revenue (Actual $1.0m, Revised Budget $0.8m)

 

The positive year to date result primarily relates to receipt received in May regarding reimbursement for a legal matter.  Additionally in June there was recognition of unbudgeted income relating to a pathway project with the City of Joondalup. 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Expenses

 

Materials and Contracts (Actual $49.0m, Revised Budget $53.6m)

 

Within Contract expenses we observed a positive variance of $1.5m which relates to various maintenance and conservation savings.  These include improved turf maintenance practices as well as favourable weather conditions resulting in reduced reactive maintenance to sporting fields.

 

There was a provision for open public space maintenance expenses relating to assets handed to the City from developers.  Due to market conditions development has reduced and consequently these assets have been postponed to be handed over leaving reductions in maintenance expenditure.

 

Weed spraying programs were started in June however due to rain delays a large portion of those works are still being conducted after June.

 

Building Maintenance expenditure was reduced due to savings in reactive costs through cheaper than expected quotations as well as some work being delayed through to next financial year.

 

Insurance Expenses (Actual $1.4 Revised Budget $1.6m)

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 $37.0m, Revised Budget $15.7m)

The favourable variance is attributed to a Main Roads grant received in June for $23.0m which was not budgeted for.

 

Contributed Physical Assets (Actual $46.7m, Revised Budget $60.0m)

The year to June recognised a parcel of developer contributed assets totalling $46.7m however this was below budget due to suppressed market conditions.

 

Profit / Loss on Asset Disposals (Actual $1.3m, Revised Budget $1.8m)

 

The unfavourable variance is mainly a result of lower contributions from Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) due to the suppressed property market.  As the timing of asset disposals cannot be reliably estimated results to budgets can be subject to variations.

 

Town Planning Scheme (TPS) Revenues (Actual $14.7m, Revised Budget $21.9m)

The variance is attributed to lower sales in Cell 1 (-$1.1m), Cell 4 (-$3.8m), and Cell 9           (-$2.0m) all reflecting current market conditions.

 

Cell 1 has now been confirmed that the developer is only developing half of the site (commercial portion) and the remainder won’t be developed until subsequent financial years.  Therefore, nil income is now expected to be realised in the 2016/17 financial year.

 

Cell 4 income is now anticipated within 2017/18 due to a delay in the subdivision clearance.  In this regard, subdivisional works were not completed by the developer before 30 June 2017, and therefore the income will not be received in the 2016/17 financial year. 

 

Within Cell 9 a deed of agreement has been executed with the landowner of Lot 1981 Gnangara Road Lansdale, which defers the contribution of $1,255,995 for up to 12 months.  Income will now be received in 2017/18. Lot 152 Lansdale Road incurred delays in finalisation of its subdivisional works and therefore will now occur within 2017/18.

 

Town Planning Scheme Expenses (Actual $7.2m, Revised Budget $18.4m)

The main contributor for the positive variance is a result of Lot 22 East Road POS development. The subdivisional clearance was delayed due to incomplete subdivision works preventing the vesting of POS in the Crown. Therefore the expense will be receipted in 2017/18. 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 the City is awaiting the decision to be handed down.  Costs are estimated at $3.6m.

 

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION (Attachment 2)

Net Current Assets

When compared to the opening position Net Current Assets have increased by $35.3m which largely reflects the timing of Rates receipts for 2016/17 as well as an additional grant being received late in the financial year.

Current Receivables are largely related to collectable Rates income ($11.6m).  Remaining current receivables relates to Emergency Services Levy collections ($1.1m) and sundry debtor accounts.

Non-Current Assets

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.

Year to date Non-Current Assets have increased by $72.5m 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 attributed 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 the 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.

 

 

$11.11m of works were progressed during the calendar month of June. Significant capital works undertaken for the month included:

•             $1.2m Civic Centre extension

•             $1.2m Yanchep Active Open Space - Oval Ground Works (inclusive of practical

               completion of the first contributed oval)                                                                                                         

•             $1.0m Fleet management

•             $1.0m Multiple roads in the Roads sub-program

•             $942k Yanchep District Playing Fields Yanchep       

•             $823k Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club                    

•             $656k Marmion Avenue (Lukin Dr to Butler Blvd)

•             $438k Old Yanchep Road (Trandos Road to Wattle Avenue)

•             $379k Irrigation infrastructure replacement

•             $361k Riverlinks Park, Clarkson                        

•             $339k Yanchep District Sports Amenities Building

•             $218k Quinns Surf Life Saving Club

           

For 2016/17 84% of the Capital Works Program was completed which equates to $67.7m.  The amount carried forward is $12.8m of works that will be progressed and it is anticipated that 60% will be expended in the first quarter of the 2017/18 financial year.

 

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 $355.6m (Face Value), equating to $360.3m inclusive of accrued interest.  The City’s year to date investment portfolio return has exceeded the Bank Bill index benchmark by 0.94% pa (2.76% pa vs. 1.82% 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 National Australia Bank 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 30 June 2017, consisting of:

1.       2016/17 Annual Adopted and Revised Budget;

2.       June 2017 YTD Revised Budgets;

3.       June 2017 YTD Actuals;

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

5.       June 2017 YTD Material Financial Variance Notes.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

June 17 Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type

17/237437

Minuted

2.

June 17 Statement of Financial Position

17/237456

Minuted

3.

Top Projects 2016-17 - June  2017 - 20170720 - Query on PR-4032 - PMO17084 Yanchep Active Open Space Oval Groundworks

16/151914[v16]

Minuted

4.

June 17 Rate Setting Statement

17/237458

Minuted

5.

June 17 Investments Report

17/237463

Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              405


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                          406


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              407


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              410


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                                                                              411


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 22 August, 2017                                              414

 

Transactional Finance

CS02-08/17       Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 July 2017

File Ref:                                              1859 – 17/251185

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

Presentation to the Council of a list of accounts paid during the month of July 2017, including a statement as to the total amounts outstanding at the end of the month.

Background

Local Governments are required each month to prepare a list of accounts paid for that month and submit the list to the next Ordinary Meeting of the Council.

 

In addition, it must record all other outstanding accounts and include that amount with the list to be presented.  The list of accounts paid and the total of outstanding accounts must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Detail

The following is the Summary of Accounts paid in July 2017:

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – July 2017

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

Manual Journal

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

109940 - 110164

2938 - 2973

 

 

$325,791.23

$18,587,858.58

$18,913,649.81

 

($7,569.50)

($400.00)

($1,025,765.40)

$17,879,914.91

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – July 2017

Municipal Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$17,879,914.91

$31,453.36

$3,580,564.94

$21,491,933.21

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – July 2017

                           Cell 7                       

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$400.00

$400.00

 

At the close of July 2017 outstanding creditors amounted to $740,339.33.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The list of payment (cheques and electronic transfers) and the end of month total of outstanding creditors for the month of July 2017 is presented to the Council for information and recording in the minutes of the meeting, as required by the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Statutory Compliance

Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to list the accounts paid each month and total all outstanding creditors at the month end and present such information to the Council at its next Ordinary Meeting after each preparation.  A further requirement of this Section is that the prepared list must be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting.

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Warrant of Payments Information Only

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Transactional Finance Manager

Accept

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of July 2017, as summarised below:-

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – July 2017

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

Manual Journal

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

109940 - 110164

2938 - 2973

 

 

$325,791.23

$18,587,858.58

$18,913,649.81

 

($7,569.50)

($400.00)

($1,025,765.40)

$17,879,914.91