Proof_CouncilAgenda_Coverpage_Template_Governance

 

 

 

Council Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 26 June 2018

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 26 June, 2018 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

20 June, 2018

 

 

 

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

OC01-06/18     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 29 May 2018  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

UP01-06/18     Request to Continue Footpath, 1 Brendale Place, Landsdale (PT01-05/18) 1

UP02-06/18     Request for Additional Upgrades to Belvoir Park, Darch (PT02-05/18) 2

UP03-06/18     Request a site for a Rider Education Centre and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward (PT03-05/18) 2

UP04-06/18     Request to Designate Meadowlands Drive, Mariginiup as a Local Road Only (PT04-05/18) 2

Item  8_____ Reports_ 3

Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget  3

CS01-06/18     Adoption of 2018/19 – 21/22 Corporate Business Plan and 2018/19 Annual Budget  3

 

 

Planning and Sustainability  3

Approval Services  3

PS01-06/18      Preparation of Amendment No. 163 to District Planning Scheme No. 2  3

PS02-06/18      Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Approved Structure Plan No. 80  29

PS03-06/18      Consideration of Development Application - Change of Use to Residential Building at Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos (DA2017/1642) 69

PS04-06/18      Consideration of Development Application (DA2018/177) for Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot (11) 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar  86

PS05-06/18      Consideration of Development Application (DA2017/282) for Nine (9) Multiple Dwellings at 50A Frederick Street, Wanneroo  100

PS06-06/18      SAT Reconsideration - Proposed amendment to Local Development Plan Zamia Rise Dunes and Development Application (DA2018/300) for retrospective approval of Single House Addition (Outbuilding and Retaining Wall) at Lot 787 (33) Cave Loop, Yanchep. 150

Assets  169

Asset Operations & Services  169

AS01-06/18      Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Strategy  169

Waste Services  212

AS02-06/18      Review of the WALGA Waste Levy Policy Statement 2009  212

Community & Place  238

Community Facilities  238

CP01-06/18     Appleby Park, Darch - Outcome of Community Consultation and Concept Approval  238

CP02-06/18     Petition PT02-05/18 Requested Upgrades at Belvoir Park, Darch  260

CP03-06/18     PT01-05/18 - Petition for Rider Education Centre and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward  265

Community Safety & Emergency Management Report  271

CP04-06/18     Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services  271

Place Activation  275

CP05-06/18     Draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2018/19 - 2021/22  275

Corporate Strategy & Performance  288

Transactional Finance  288

CS02-06/18     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 May 2018  288

Council & Corporate Support  368

CS03-06/18     Donations to be Considered by Council - June 2018  368

Chief Executive Office  373

Governance & Legal  373

CE01-06/18     Annual Delegated Authority Review 2017/2018  373

CE02-06/18     Council Members Code of Conduct Review   496

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 506

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 506

Item  11____ Confidential_ 506

CR01-06/18     Marmion Avenue - Dual Carriageway Construction  506

CR02-06/18     Processing of Commingled Recyclables Agreement  506

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 506

Item  13____ Closure_ 506

 


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

OC01-06/18       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 29 May 2018

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 29 May 2018 be confirmed.

Item  5     Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6     Questions from Elected Members

Item  7     Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

UP01-06/18       Request to Continue Footpath, 1 Brendale Place, Landsdale (PT01-05/18)

Cr Treby presented a petition of 15 signatures requesting the continuation of the concrete footpath in front of the unit complex at 1 Brendale Place, Landsdale. (Trim 18/209872)

 

Update

 

Prior to Council receiving the petition, Administration supported a request for the installation of a short section of pathway and crossing point to assist residents of Mossfiel Retreat to access Landsdale Shopping Centre. Construction works are being scheduled to have the pathway installed by 10 July 2018.

 


 

 

Cr Treby presented a petition of 169 signatures thanking the City for the basketball court and requesting additional upgrades to Belvoir Park, Darch (Trim 18/172680)

 

Update

 

Report being presented to Council 26 June 2018.

 

 

Cr Sangalli presented a petition of 287 signatures requesting a site for a Rider Education Centre and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward to provide a safe place for youth to learn to ride and learn the road rules away from traffic. (Trim 18/197875)

 

Update

 

Report being presented to Council 26 June 2018.

 

 

Cr Newton presented a petition of 148 signatures requesting that Meadowlands Drive, Mariginiup be designated as a local road only, with no logging or mining truck access to Silver Road allowed due to it being part of the SBS School Bus Service route and that it is located in a Special Rural Equestrian Estate which is a small, quiet, safe community where residents and their children and pets walk the streets, ride their bikes, catch the school bus and ride horses in a very safe environment (Trim 18/198379)

 

Update

 

Report being presented to Council for August 2018.

 

 


 

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.

 

Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget

CS01-06/18       Adoption of 2018/19 – 21/22 Corporate Business Plan and 2018/19 Annual Budget

File Ref:                                              32361 – 18/191919

Responsible Officer:                          Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Discosure of Interest                       Nil

Attachments                                      3

 

This report will be available under separate cover – please refer to Supplementary Agenda.

 

Planning and Sustainability

Approval Services

PS01-06/18       Preparation of Amendment No. 163 to District Planning Scheme No. 2

File Ref:                                              33312 – 18/131599

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider a request to amend the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) by including additional uses of Retirement Village, Nursing Home, Medical Centre, Pharmacy, Restaurant, Office and Child Care Centre at Lot 10 (170) Dundebar Road; Lot 11 (176) Dundebar Road; Lot 29 (107) Belgrade Road and Lot 28 (111) Belgrade Road, Wanneroo (subject site).

 

Applicant

Burgess Design Group

Owner

David Manners, Margaret Manners, Kathleen Coughlan, Thomas Coughlan, Marija Grubisin, Estate of Late Nikola Grubisin, Estate of Late Pasko Vulin and Neda Vulin

Location

Lot 10 (170) Dundebar Road, Wanneroo;

Lot 11 (176) Dundebar Road, Wanneroo;

Lot 29 (107) Belgrade Road, Wanneroo; and

Lot 28 (111) Belgrade Road, Wanneroo.

Site Area

8.09ha

MRS Zoning

Urban Deferred

DPS 2 Zoning

Rural Resource

 

 

Background

On 13 December 2017, Burgess Design Group, on behalf of Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd and Civcon Civil and Project Management Pty Ltd, and with the consent of the landowners, submitted Amendment No. 163 to the City. The subject site is currently zoned Urban Deferred under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Rural Resource under the DPS 2. The location of the subject land is shown in Attachment 1.

 

MRS Application

 

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) resolved to rezone the subject site from Rural to Urban Deferred as part of Amendment No. 1304/57 to the MRS. As part of this amendment, the City was invited to provide comments. Council, at its meeting of 2 February 2016, resolved to support the amendment for the following reasons;

 

a)         “The MRS amendment will facilitate further planning of the East Wanneroo area including the undertaking of district and local structure planning and preparation of Development Contribution Plans;

 

b)         The subject area is contiguous with the existing development in Wanneroo, and is in close proximity to the Wanneroo Town Centre and existing infrastructure; and

 

c)         In making this decision, the Council advises the landowners that support for this amendment to Urban Deferred does not necessarily mean that the Council will support lifting of Deferment, and this will only be considered following the comprehensive planning including the preparation of District Structure Plans, Developer Contributions Plans and conformation of the provision of necessary infrastructure.”

 

 On 18 May 2016, the Minister for Planning approved MRS Amendment No. 1304/57.

 

Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo

 

Council adopted Local Planning Policy 5.3 (LPP 5.3) in May 2014, which sets out how the City proposed to progress the further planning of the area, and how proposals would be dealt with while that planning is proceeding.

 

The Policy was prepared at a time when there was still uncertainty about how the urbanisation of East Wanneroo should be progressed; and who (i.e. the State, the City or landowners) would be responsible for the district structure planning for the area.

 

As it has now been resolved that the State Government will be undertaking the District Structure Plan (DSP), and much of the current Policy provisions relate to the implementation of the planning measures to urbanise the area, these are no longer required.  This means that the current LPP 5.3 is now outdated and as such Administration presented a draft amended LPP 5.3 to Council on 1 May 2018 (PS04-05/18). Council resolved to adopt the draft LPP 5.3 for the purposes of advertising, which is currently being undertaken.

 

The draft amended LPP 5.3 may be considered a ‘seriously entertained proposal’ of the City, and is considered relevant as it includes criteria for consideration of development prior to the preparation of the DSP which is discussed in the body of the report.

Detail

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.         Inserting the following additional uses at Lots 10 and 11 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo and Lots 28 and 29 Belgrade Road, Wanneroo into Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses of District Planning Scheme No. 2:

·                Retirement Village;

·                Nursing Home;

·                Medical Centre;

·                Pharmacy;

·                Restaurant;

·                Office; and

·                Child Care Centre.

 

2.      Amending Scheme Map by annotating Lots 28 and 29 Belgrade Road, and Lots 10 and 11 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo with Additional Use No. 1-40.

 

Attachment 2 contains the amendment plan showing the existing zoning and proposed scheme amendment zoning. Attachment 3 contains a concept plan for the development.

 

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

 

1.         The proposed Additional Uses of ‘Retirement Village’ and ‘Nursing Home’ are urban in nature and are consistent with the ‘Urban Deferred’ zoning under the MRS. The applicant does not consider the Amendment to be premature, and believes it will not prejudice future Structure Planning and rezoning of the land. The Additional Uses can be incorporated into future structure planning for the East Wanneroo area.

 

2.         A ‘Retirement Village’ and ‘Nursing Home’ development is a self-contained development and can be developed independently of the broader urban area. Neither use will prejudice the broader planning of the area as they do not generate requirements for public open space, schools or other district uses that form part of structure plan considerations.

 

3.         The proposed uses are not contrary to orderly and proper planning given the site is adjacent to existing urban development and can be readily serviced. Potential land use conflicts can be managed in the interim (including any necessary buffers to neighbouring land uses to minimise impacts of the development) until such a time that the surrounding land in the East Wanneroo Structure Plan Area is developed.

 

4.         The site is close to the existing urban front and can be developed ahead of the wider East Wanneroo area.

 

Through assessment of the application, it was noted that the proposal did not meet a number of criteria of the City. To justify this, the applicant has provided reasoning as to why the proposal should still be supported and highlighted an identified need for the development due to the shortage of accommodation of this type within the Wanneroo area  (Refer Attachment 4).

Consultation

Regulation 35 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) requires a scheme amendment to be classed as basic, standard or complex by a local government to determine the advertising requirements. Amendment No. 163 to DPS 2 is deemed by Administration to be a complex amendment in accordance with Regulation 34 for the reasons as set out below:

 

a)     The amendment would relate to a development that will have an impact that is significant to the development in the locality; and

b)     The amendment would require the preparation of a development contribution plan.

 

Under the provisions of the Regulations, prior to advertising a complex amendment, it is required to be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its consideration.  In accordance with Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the amendment will also need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to the approval of the WAPC and the EPA, the complex amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of no less than 60 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner consistent with the requirements of the Regulations by way of:

 

·                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

The application has been assessed against the MRS, DPS 2, LPP 5.3 and draft amended LPP 5.3 as detailed below.

 

Giving due regard to the above documentation and the applicants arguments regarding the initiation of the amendment, Administration will demonstrate below, that initiating Amendment No. 163 is not appropriate at this stage.

 

Metropolitan Region Scheme

The subject site is zoned Urban Deferred under the MRS.

 

As per the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Draft Lifting of Urban Deferment Guidelines, the transfer of land from the urban deferred zone to the urban zone is required to demonstrate that:

 

·                the land is capable of being provided with essential services and agreement has been reached between the developers and service providers with regard to the staging and financing of services;

 

·                planning is sufficiently advanced to depict an acceptable overall design to guide future development;

 

·                the proposed urban development represents a logical progression of development;

 

·                regional requirements (such as regional roads, open space and public purposes) have been satisfied or provision made for them; and

 

·                any constraints to urban development, including in relation to environmental, hazard and risk issues, can be satisfactorily addressed.

 

The Draft Lifting of Urban Deferment Guidelines also states that land zoned urban deferred under a region planning scheme should generally be zoned rural or, where appropriate provisions restrict development until urban deferment is lifted under the region planning scheme, urban development in the local planning scheme. The applicant considers that the proposal can be accommodated under the current urban deferred zoning and therefore does not intend applying for lifting of deferment.

 

However, the proposed land uses are considered to be of an urban nature and as such are considered to be premature prior to the lifting of the urban deferred zone under the MRS and a structure plan (and other associated documentation such as a developer contribution scheme) being prepared for the East Wanneroo Area.

 

District Planning Scheme No. 2

 

The subject site is zoned Rural Resource under the City’s DPS 2. The land uses of Retirement Village, Nursing Home, Medical Centre, Pharmacy, Office and Child Care Centre are ‘X’ or not permitted. Restaurant is ‘A’ use, which can be considered currently but must be advertised prior to any determination.

 

Given that a Restaurant is an ‘A’ use, it is not technically necessary to include it in this amendment. Notwithstanding this, as the proposal is looking to be viewed as a package there is no harm with including Restaurant as an additional use.

 

Local Planning Policies

 

Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo

 

The current LPP 5.3 is subject to a proposed amendment that was adopted as a draft for advertising by Council at its meeting of 1 May 2018 (item: PS04-05/18). The report considers the application against the current as well as draft amended LPP 5.3.

 

Current LPP 5.3

 

Clause 2.2 of LPP 5.3 states that planning proposals of an urban or related nature within the Policy Area shall only be entertained by the City if they will not prejudice the effective undertaking of the planning process set out in Table 1 of LPP 5.3, and the ability for urban and related development to be able to occur in the Policy Area in an orderly and proper manner.

 

In this regard, the applicant submits that:

 

“The Amendment is not considered to prejudice the future structure planning of the locality as a retirement village/nursing home will be entirely self-contained and is not a use that impacts on the issues that are dealt with during the structure planning process.  A structure plan seeks to ensure that an area is provided with sufficient public open space, schools, major transport links and relevant district and regional facilities.  The development of a retirement village and nursing home over the subject land will not impact on these broader district and regional level issues.”

 

The above view is not supported as the proposal would prejudice the orderly and proper planning of the East Wanneroo area in respect to the following:

 

·                It is possible that a portion of the subject land (which included remnant native vegetation) may be required to be protected for conservation purposes.

 

·                It is currently unclear as to the extent that Dundebar Road may need to be widened into the subject land.

 

·                The immediate provision of wastewater and water supply services to all of the subject land is not available.

 

·                It does not involve any provision for development contributions.

 

The above matters are dealt with in detail in the following section regarding the draft amended LPP 5.3.

 

Draft Amended LPP 5.3:

 

Clause 1 of draft amended LPP 5.3 includes a statement of an ‘overriding principle’ that “… there shall be a general presumption against subdivision and development that may detrimentally impact on the orderly and proper planning of the area, specifically prior to the finalisation of a district structure plan, a local structure plan and development contribution schemes”.

 

It then goes on to provide that “… the City shall not support any proposals that may compromise the preparation of a planning framework which will enable urban development to occur in the East Wanneroo area in an orderly and proper manner”.

 

The policy then addresses a number of particular matters, including clause 1.2 which is directly applicable to the current application:

 

          “1.2 The City shall not support any application for amendment of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) that is intended to facilitate any form of urban or similar development unless the subject land has first been zoned Urban under the MRS, with the various pre-requisites for Urban zoning detailed in 1.1 having been satisfied.”

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Retirement Village and Nursing Home land uses are typically self-sufficient and independent land uses, they are of an urban nature, and are considered to be premature without the preparation of a structure plan. The subject land has not been zoned Urban under the MRS, and the pre-requisite for urbanisation have not been satisfied, making the proposal contrary to Clause 1.2 of LPP 5.3.

 

Clause 1.5 then provides that notwithstanding Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4, the City may consider supporting applications, including applications for amendment of DPS 2 and applications for development, prior to meeting of the various prerequisites referred to in those clauses, subject to criteria  (a – j) being met. A list of these criteria, as well as Administration’s response related to the level each has been achieved, is included in Attachment 5.

 

Administration considers that a number of these criteria have not been met and therefore any amendment to DPS 2 is premature. The criteria which are not considered to be met are d, e, f, g & i. These criteria are discussed separately below.

 

The applicant has contested that the provision of this information is not necessary and would place undue financial and timeframe burdens on the client. This could lead to delays in granting of funding and may prevent any development of a retirement village, which is needed in the area.

 

Administration acknowledge the need for suitable housing for an aging population, however the requested information required through the LPP is necessary to ensure the development does not pre-empt orderly and proper planning in the locality and cause negative impacts on the environment, City of Wanneroo and existing and future residents.

 

If considering these points individually a case could be made to delay providing the assessment of this information until a later stage. Administration acknowledges that most of these matters could be conditioned to be provided at a later stage. However, the deferral of individual matters to latter planning stages is not in keeping with orderly and proper planning. Deferring the requirements to subsequent planning stages can result in a reduced ability for the City to require that these matters are completed by the applicant at that time.

The criteria of LPP 5.3 which have not been met are;

 

Criteria d – Impacts on the movement network and future infrastructure

 

The application proposes Additional Use zoning to extend to the existing Dundebar Road reserve boundary, and the Concept Plan (Attachment 3) shows development also extending to that boundary.

 

Dundebar Road has been nominated for future upgrades given the increase in traffic volumes associated with the development of the East Wanneroo area. Preliminary work has been undertaken by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) which identifies that the road will need to be an Integrator Arterial type. This will cater for between 28,000 and 32,000 vehicle trips per day.

 

The applicant has identified in their justification letter (Attachment 4) that this would equate to a road width of 30.6m. This would result in 5.3m being taken from the subject site, with the equivalent taken from the property opposite on Dundebar Road. The applicant has indicated a willingness to include this as a condition, to be fulfilled at a later stage.

 

The risk to the City is that the preliminary work that has been undertaken by DPLH is not sufficient. This could mean the road is either a higher order road type, or that the widening requirement is greater than 5.3m. Whilst unlikely, changes in road width may have impacts on surrounding properties and the land requirements that are needed.

 

This in itself is not considered a significant constraint and this matter could be considered as part of the initiation of the amendment to be addressed prior to the lodgement of a development application.

 

Criteria e – Provision of servicing infrastructure

 

The application submission includes an Infrastructure Servicing Report prepared by engineering consultants KCTT. This does not indicate that wastewater services can be immediately provided to all of the subject land.

 

The application report also does not include written confirmation from the Water Corporation (Corporation) regarding immediate provision of services as required under this criterion. 

 

Administration has referred the application to the Water Corporation for comment. The Water Corporation has advised as follows:

 

i)        While the Corporation’s preference is to see a District or Local Structure Plan over a larger area to allow for more thorough examination of water and wastewater capacity issues, the Corporation would have no objections to the rezoning of Lots 10 and 29 which face onto Steven Street, as these lots are already provided for in the Corporation’s water and sewerage planning.

 

ii)       The advice previously provided by the Corporation regarding site levels over Lots 28 and 11 (the ‘rear’ lots) falling to the east towards another long term wastewater catchment, is still relevant. The Corporation has not seen a detailed earthworks/cut-fill/retaining plan or a sewer reticulation plan from the proponents to demonstrate if/how the rear lots can be graded westwards towards the Wanneroo sewerage catchment.

 

iii)      The matters concerning the levels of the land relative to the supply limits of the Wanneroo High Level Water Zone are perhaps less critical at this stage of planning.  However, the Corporation would like a further opportunity to have the proposed water demands (particularly for a more dense aged care/nursing home development) assessed by Corporation water planners to see if there is sufficient capacity in the elevated tank to supply to the entire development and to determine what sized water main would be required, particularly if high flow demands are required for fire services.

 

The applicant has argued that undertaking the site works required by point ii) above would be costly at this stage and that any associated risk with the provision of wastewater is with the developer. If the wastewater cannot be collected, the development could not go ahead.

 

In considering the works that may need to be undertaken to render the site capable of servicing, earthworks and retaining would be needed. The extent of this is unknown and it may prove to have an impact on the surrounding sites, the detail of which at this stage is difficult to determine on the adjacent lots.  

 

Criteria f – Provision of public transport

 

This criterion has not been met as written confirmation has not been provided by the Public Transport Authority (PTA). Notwithstanding, the site is abutting an existing public transport route (389 along Steven Street) and therefore it is considered that the lot will be adequately serviced by public transport. This matter is therefore not considered by Administration to be a constraint to initiate the scheme amendment.

 

Criteria g – Agreement for developer contributions

 

This criterion has not been met, as a legal agreement is not in place relating to future payment of development contributions. The relevant criterion requires that a binding legal agreement is in place now, and that adequate security is provided to secure the agreement’s obligations.

 

The applicant has advised that their clients “…are happy to enter into a legal agreement with the City agreeing to pay applicable development contributions once the relevant DCP’s have been prepared.  We would however suggest that the City give significant consideration to the levels of contributions required under the DCP for retirement living landuses.”

 

The above advice is reassuring regarding the preparedness to enter into a voluntary agreement.  However, it should be noted that the comment regarding the level of contributions does also flag that the proponents may seek an approach which would mean them making a lesser level of contribution due to the nature of their development.  This indicates that any future agreement may involve some degree of negotiation regarding the level of contribution to be expected, rather than an agreement to make whatever contribution results from the DCP’s to be eventually prepared, which is the intent of the criterion on this matter.

 

In order to provide some indication of the level of risk on this matter, a preliminary calculation has been made as to currently, what contribution this type of development shown in the Concept Plan would be required to make, if being carried out now in East Wanneroo Cell 4 (covering the Hocking/Pearsall area).  This mainly relates to costs associated to provision of regional roads and local open space.  The resulting figure is approximately $4,176,000.

 

A preliminary calculation has also been made if this type of development was now being carried out in the Alkimos/Eglinton area.  This relates to district community infrastructure.  The resulting figure is approximately $806,000.

 

The above totals to approximately $4,982,000, and is intended to provide an approximate possible ‘order of cost’ of what scale of funding is needing to be considered here, given that the future DCPs for the new East Wanneroo urban areas are likely to involve a combination of ‘hard’ infrastructure (like the current East Wanneroo ‘Cell’ DCPs), and community infrastructure (like the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP). This is a significant amount and is why the City needs to adequately mitigate any risks associated wirh this matter.  This is particularly considering that the infrastructure covered by this money will eventually be required to be provided, and if the cost of it is not met by the proponent, then it will need to be met by someone else.  In the first instance, this would be likely to be other landowners in the future DCP area, however if this is not able to be done, then it might be a cost required to be met by the City.

 

If a legal agreement is not entered into prior to the initiation of the scheme amendment, then it is most likely that it would be required to be entered into as a condition of the Additional Use zoning, in the scheme.

 

The risk with taking this approach is:

 

1.       Once the amendment has been initiated and submitted to the WAPC, it is possible that the WAPC or Minister for Planning might require that the condition be deleted as they may see it as contrary to State Planning Policy (SPP) 3.6: Development Contributions (Clause 5.7), which provides that development contributions are not to be imposed as a condition of rezoning. (In this instance, it is important to note that this agreement is being proposed as a ‘voluntary agreement’, which is acceptable under SPP 3.6, however it is possible that the WAPC or Minister might not view it this way).

 

2.       It is possible that notwithstanding the proponent’s consultant’s written advice that their client is happy to enter into a legal agreement, they might have a change of mind, and could make submissions seeking that the condition be deleted.

 

3.       Notwithstanding that the condition might be worded so as not to refer to it being required prior to development approval, there is a risk that it might still get viewed in these terms by either the WAPC or Minister, and therefore be required to be deleted.  (Clause 69 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides that local governments must not refuse development applications, only because a DCP is not in place, and must not condition development approvals, requiring that future development contributions be made).

 

Criteria j – Impacts on the environment

 

The Concept Plan (Attachment 3) for the subject land included in the application shows all of the subject land being developed for the proposed uses.

 

Approximately 2.3ha (28%) of the subject land contains remnant vegetation. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advice provided on the MRS amendment which rezoned the subject land to Urban Deferred advised that this remnant vegetation is identified as Karrakatta Complex Central and South (which currently has only 23.9% of its original extent remaining), and also provides potential habitat for Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos.

 

The EPA considered that potential impacts can be adequately managed through the development of district structure plans, local planning scheme provisions and associated management plans that specifically address the flora and vegetation and Carnaby’s cockatoo issues involved.

 

The applicants have reasoned that the amendment will need to be referred to the EPA to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal. At this stage the relevant environmental reports would need to be done and the EPA will determine if there is any environmental impact. Further, should there be an area identified for retention this can either be offset in surrounding local governments or partitioned as part of the development. Because of this, the majority of this risk is with the developer, in that additional offsets may need to be purchased or fewer units developed to cater for the vegetation.

 

Noting that the EPA approval is required, the City should also undertake an assessment of the environmental impacts on the site, which cannot be done without the appropriate environmental reports. If initiating Amendment No. 163, the Council is doing so without considering all the relevant information with the risk that vegetation is not retained for the broader community.

 

Consideration of Draft Amendment LPP 5.3

 

The application has raised a number of issues relating to the timing for the provision of certain information and at what stage. The draft amended LPP 5.3 is currently being advertised and can consider these matters prior to being reconsidered by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

Administration recommends that Amendment No. 163 is not initiated until the information is provided to the City’s satisfaction. The deferral of individual matters to latter planning stages is not in keeping with orderly and proper planning. Deferring the requirements to subsequent planning stages results in less statutory and discretionary ability for the City to require that these matters are completed by the applicant at that time. This presents a risk to the City and surrounding community with insufficient certainty or clarity regarding requirements for future developer contributions, service infrastructure, road upgrades and environmental management.

 

In particular, criteria relating to development contributions is considered to represent such a high level of risk to the City that it is considered that the only way of adequately mitigating this risk is to not initiate the amendment until the proposed voluntary agreement between the proponents and the City, and the associated security on fulfilment of obligations, is in place. The infrastructure that is intended to be funded by the development contribution (which might be in the order of $5 million) will need to be provided at some time, and if the cost of it is not met by the proponent, then it will need to be met by someone else. This will most likely be other landowners in the future DCP arear, however if this is not able to be done, then it might be required to be met by the City.

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

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

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning

Low

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 


 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-S04 Integrated Infrastructure & Utility Planning

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

ELT (Director P&S and Director Assets)

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O22 Environmental Management

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning & Sustainability

Manage

 

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

 

In addition to the above current risks, other potential risks to Council, including the removal of vegetation, road widening of Dundebar Road and provision of developer contributions, are discussed in the relevant sections of the report.

Policy Implications

This proposal is assessed under the provisions of the City’s East Wanneroo Local Planning Policy 5.3 and proposed amended LPP 5.3 as well as State Planning Policy 3.6.

Financial Implications

The main financial implications relate to provision for future Development Contribution Plans (DCP) for East Wanneroo.  The proposed amended LPP 5.3 will be requiring that DCPs are in place at the appropriate time, and that if an area is to be supported ahead of the prerequisites that would otherwise be expected to be first met, then adequate provision for future DCP contributions is to be made.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFUSES TO initiate proposed Amendment No. 163 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed additional uses are considered urban in nature and therefore are inconsistent with the urban deferred zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Draft Lifting of Urban Deferment Guidelines;

2.         The proposal is premature and contrary to Clause 2.2.2 of Local Planning Policy 5.3 in that it would prejudice the effective undertaking of the planning process set out in the policy, and the ability for urban and related development to be able to occur in the Policy area in an orderly and proper manner; and


 

3.         The proposal is premature as it does not meet the relevant criteria for planning proposals as required by Clause 1.5 of the Draft Amended Local Planning Policy 5.3. The City has particular concern regarding the high risk to the City in not having the proposed voluntary agreement in place to provide for payment of development contributions which are proposed to be required through future Development Contribution Plans to be prepared for the proposed East Wanneroo urban area..

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Amendment 163

18/190608

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Copy of Amendment 163

18/198489

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Concept plan associated with Amendment 163

18/198494

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Amendment 163 to DPS 2 - Amendment Extra Info Letter

18/232781

 

5.

Attachment 5 to Amendment 163 Council Report

18/182442

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       15

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       16

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       17

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       18

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             25

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       26

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                           29

PS02-06/18       Consideration of Amendment No. 6 to Approved Structure Plan No. 80

File Ref:                                              2957-06 – 17/303128

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 6 to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (ASP 80).

 

Applicant

Roberts Day

Owners

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth  & Department of Fire and Emergency Services who owns Lot 12462

Location

Lot 6 (43) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Lot 7 (53) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Lot 8 (61) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Lot 12462 (47) Drovers Place, Wanneroo

Site Area

Lot 6 – 2.9270 hectares

Lot 7 – 3.2959 hectares

Lot 8 – 3.0740 hectares

Lot 12462 – 0.3000 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

ASP 80 Zoning

Special Use

 

Background

On 12 July 2017, Roberts Day Town Planners, on behalf of Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth lodged Amendment No. 6 to ASP 80 for the City's consideration. The amendment area is described as Lots 6, 7, 8 and Lot 12462 Drovers Place, Wanneroo (subject land). Lot 12462 is owned by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and the applicant does not represent DFES. A location plan of the subject land is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject land is currently zoned Urban Development under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and Special Use in ASP 80. ASP 80 is divided into Western, Central and Southern precincts. The subject land is located in the Western Precinct. Educational Establishment and Low-scale tourism-related uses, as determined by Council, including tearooms, local arts and crafts, art galleries and restaurants/café are Discretionary uses on Lots 6 – 8 Drovers Place and all other uses are prohibited.

 

Attachment 2 is the current ASP 80 map.

 

Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80

 

The subject land excluding Lot 12462 was previously subject to Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80, which proposed to,

 

·        Rezone Lots 6, 7 and 8 to Residential with a density range of R20 to R60, to accommodate up to 450 dwellings;

 

 

·        Move the proposed location of traffic signals on Joondalup Drive from the western boundary of the ASP 80 area as shown in ASP 80 to opposite the Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive intersection, and to modify the responsibility of the subdivider/developer of the subject land to design and construct the traffic signals; and

 

·        Remove a requirement for the subdivider/developer to construct an emergency vehicle access from Joondalup Drive to the Fire Station on Drovers Place.

 

Council, at its meeting on 26 May 2015, considered the amendment and resolved as follows (PS06-05/15):

 

That Council pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 2 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80, included as Attachment 2, submitted by Roberts Day Group on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth is NOT APPROVED for the following reasons:-

 

a)      The proposed residential density is considered to be excessive in view of the environmental significance of Lake Joondalup and the Yellagonga Regional Park and midge management issues associated with the area; and

 

b)      The proposal is considered to generate excessive traffic that cannot be accommodated on the local road network and the arrangements for vehicle access are considered to be unsatisfactory.

 

Following a Council’s decision above, the applicant, requested Council to reconsider its decision. Council at its meeting on 21 July 2015 reconsidered Amendment No. 2 and resolved to affirm its 26 May 2015 decision (PS03-07/15).

 

Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2

 

The following matters are noted in regard to Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2 as it has some bearing on the subject matter as explained below.

 

The City had prepared Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2,

 

·        to rezone the entire ASP 80 area from Urban Development to Special Use, Residential, Business and Special Residential to accord with the zonings proposed in ASP 80;

 

·        to designate the amendment area as Special Control Area No.1; and

 

·        to introduce in DPS 2 a new Schedule 17 - Special Control Areas with special provisions.

 

The amendment also included provisions on signalising the intersection of Drovers Place and Joondalup Drive.

 

Following a public comment period, Council, at its meeting of 26 April 2016, considered the amendment and resolved to support it (PS14-04/16).

 

On 16 September 2016, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) advised that the Minister for Planning required the City to undertake extensive modifications to the amendment. Relevant to the subject land, the modifications required were as follows:

 

·        The removal of Lots 6, 7 and 8 Drovers Place;

 

 

·        The reservation of Lot 12462 Drovers Place as ‘Public Use’; and

 

·        The deletion of the design and construction of a three-way signal controlled intersection at Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection.

 

The amendment document was modified and forwarded to the WAPC for further action. The amendment was approved by the Minister and gazetted on 27 April 2018.

Detail

Attachment 3 is Part 1 of the proposed Amendment No. 6 to ASP 80 containing,

 

1.         the list of the proposed modifications to the ASP 80 text;

 

2.         the existing and proposed zoning of the subject land;

 

3.         consolidated ASP 80 structure plan map incorporating the proposed zoning of the subject land; and

 

4.       Plan No. 2 a subdivision concept plan designating the R30, R40 and R60 coded areas.

 

The key elements proposed in Amendment No. 6 are as follows:

 

·        To modify Part 1 of the amendment document to be consistent with the WAPC’s current Structure Plan framework.

 

·        The Western Precinct consists of the subject land and Lots 5 and 100 (formerly Lot 4 as indicated in ASP 80) Drovers Place. Amendment No. 6 proposes to split the ‘Western Precinct’ into two precincts, namely, ‘Drovers Place West Precinct’ relating to the subject land and the modified Western Precinct for Lots 5 and 100.

 

·        Rezoning Lots 6, 7 and 8 to ‘Residential’ and reserving Lot 12462 Drovers Place as Public Use (Fire Station) to be consistent with DPS 2. 

 

·        Plan No. 2 designating,

 

1.       R30, R40 and R60 areas;

2.       Public open space areas;

3.       Principle shared paths; and

4.       13 to 17-metre wide Asset Protection Zone.

 

It is estimated that the proposal would yield 225 dwellings.

 

·    Drovers Place West Precinct provisions relating to,

 

1.       The provision of a minimum 10% public open space (POS);

 

2.       Subdivision and development requirements relating to,

 

·        Proposing Residential Medium Density coding of R-MD 30 to R-MD 60;

 

·        Local Development Plans for laneway lots, lots fronting a POS, grouped and multiple dwelling lots and lots affected by Asset Protection Zone;

 

 

 

3.       The requirement of Landscape Management Plan, Dieback Management Plan, Midge Management Plan, Urban Water Management Plan and Transport Noise Assessment at the subdivision stage; and

 

4.       Modifying the Part 1 of ASP 80 to delete reference to the subject land.

Consultation

The amendment was advertised for a period of 28 days between 8 August and 5 September 2017 by way of an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times newspapers, notice on the City’s website and letters to relevant government agencies, community groups and adjoining and affected landowners. 14 submissions were received and they were from,

 

·       State government agencies namely,

 

1.       ATCO Gas,

2.       Department of Education,

3.       Transperth,

4.       Department of Health,

5.       City of Joondalup,

6.       Water Corporation of WA,

7.       Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions,

8.       Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage,

9.       Main Roads WA,

10.     Department of Transport,

11.     Department of Fire and Emergency Services, and

12.     Department of Water and Environmental Regulation;

 

·        Friends of Yellagonga Regional Park; and

 

·        A local resident.

 

None of the submitters objected to the proposal but provided comments. The local resident did not object to the amendment.

 

Attachment 4 provides a summary of submissions and Administration’s responses.

 

The main issues raised in the submissions are as follows:

 

·        The proposed grade separated interchange at Wanneroo Road and Joondalup Drive intersection and its impact on the access arrangements at the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection;

 

·        Preparation of Local Water Management Strategy;

 

·        To modify the Bushfire Management Plan in consultation with the DFES;

 

·        Increase in traffic at the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection in view of the amendment proposal; and

 

·        Adequate measures to minimise the impact of the midges and mosquitos on the proposed development.

 

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

 

 

Comment

 

Addressing Council’s concerns

 

As outlined above, Council, at its meeting of 26 May 2015, resolved to NOT approve Amendment No. 2 as,

 

1.       The proposed residential density was considered to be excessive in view of the environmental significance of Lake Joondalup and the Yellagonga Regional Park and the midge management issues associated with the area; and

 

2.       The proposal was considered to generate excessive traffic.

 

The applicant has addressed the above in Amendment No. 6 to ASP 80.

 

1.       Excessive Residential Densities

 

Whether the proposed density range of R30 to R60 is excessive or not is discussed below citing the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) and the comments made the relevant government agencies.

 

A.      LPP 3.1

 

Amendment No.6 proposes a density range of R30 to R60 with a maximum yield of 225 dwellings. Plan No. 2 is a guide to the future subdivision of the subject land (Attachment 3). This plan identifies the R30, R40 and R60 coded areas. Plan No. 2 has been assessed against the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1).

 

LPP 3.1 provides the framework to guide high density development within and outside the identified housing precincts. Drovers Place Precinct is not one of the housing precincts.

 

In considering applications outside the housing precincts, where the land concerned is subject of an approved structure plan, such applications need to satisfy the criteria listed in Table 3 of this Policy. The amendment has been assessed against the criteria listed in Table 3 as follows:

 

No.

Criterion

Policy Application

Administration’s comments

1.

Easy Access/Close proximity to Activity Centres.

This criterion has been applied based on walkable distances as follows:

 

·   R60 within 400 metres from an edge of an Activity Centre excluding Local Centres

 

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

The subject land is located about 300 metres from the edge of Drovers Market.

 

The WAPC’s State Planning Policy 4.2 - Activity Centres does not classify Drovers Market as an Activity Centre but as an Out of Centre development.

 

Although Drovers Market is an Out of Centre development, it does provide for a range of grocery and household items. Furthermore through Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2 that was gazetted on 27 April 2018, the use class Shop is allowed as an additional use on Lots 810 and 811 which form part of the Drovers Market with a maximum overall net lettable area of 3,000m2.

 

On this basis, it is considered that the proposed amendment satisfies this criterion.

2

Easy Access/Close proximity to public transport with priority towards rail notes and bus interchanges

This criterion has been applied based on walkable distances as follows:

 

R60 within 250 metres of a high frequency bus route designated stops (high frequency bus routes are defined as having a minimum of 4 services per hour during peak periods.

The subject land is located on high frequency bus routes 390, 391, 467 and 468 along Joondalup Drive.

 

Attachment 5 depicts the bus routes 390, 391, 467 and 486 running adjacent to the subject land with high frequencies between 7 and 9 a.m. and 5 to 7 p.m. These bus routes provide connection to Joondalup Shopping Centre, Wanneroo Shopping Centre and to Whitfords and Joondalup Train Stations. High frequency is defined in the WAPC’s  Residential Design Codes and in the City Local Planning Policy 3.1 Local Housing Strategy Implementation as a service at least every 15 minutes during week day peak periods. The above mentioned bus routes satisfy this criterion. For example. Bus route 467 provides 9 services each in peak AM and PM periods stopping at the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection.

 

As shown in Attachment 5 there are two bus stops each on the southern and northern side of Joondalup Drive to the west of Wanneroo Road. One set near Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection and the other near Wanneroo Road.

 

As part of the Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive grade separation interchange, it is given to understand that Main Roads WA (MRWA) is not proposing a pedestrian crossing on Joondalup Drive at Drovers Plaace/Joondalup Drive intersection. Therefore commuters alighting at the northern bus stop near Wanneroo Road will need to walk a distance greater than 250 metres, which is about 550 metres. If they choose to alight at the bus stop opposite Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection then the walking distance via

Wanneroo Road will be about 900 metres.

 

Despite the distance to be covered between the northern bus stops and the subject land, in general, Administration is of the view that the amendment satisfies this criterion.

 

It is noted that LPP 3.1 does not provide the criterion for the location of R30 and R40 developments.

 

Considering the above analysis Administration supports the proposed density range of R30 to R60 and it is not considered to be excessive.

 

B.      Environmental significance of the lake

 

The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER), Department of Health (DH) and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attraction (DBCA) in their submissions have required the following management plans to address the environmental significance of the lake.

 

Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS)

 

The DWER in its submission advised that due to the scale of the proposed development, a Local Water Management Strategy (LWMS) needs to be prepared to support the proposed amendment.

 

Currently ASP 80 is supported by a Water Management Framework (WMF) prepared by the City in 2009 to provide a framework for stormwater management practices. Since this framework did not detail any stormwater modelling which is now a requirement of an LWMS, at the request of Administration, the applicant submitted an addendum to the WMF addressing issues sufficient to support the amendment. Administration has perused the addendum and based on its finding it is considered that the subject land can readily accommodate all on-site drainage within the current proposal.

 

Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)

 

Although the above mentioned addendum addresses the issues relevant to the amendment proposals, from a subdivision point of view, there are some details required to be demonstrated on how public open space (POS) and stormwater can be integrated within the public realm. Pre-development water quality and quantity monitoring data are required to be provided in a UWMP to help inform the subdivision design. The sizing of stormwater treatment infrastructure and flood storage areas can lead to substantial redesign of the pre-calculation drawings for subdivision. Attempts to amend an approved subdivision layout after it is conditionally approved (i.e. to optimise POS design, useability, flood storage and stormwater treatment areas) will cause significant costs and delays for the developer.

 

The proposed approach of requiring a UWMP to be lodged with the subdivision application protects both the developer and the City from possible burdens while providing surety and proof of concept that allows subdivision construction to commence unhindered.

 

Therefore an UWMP will require to be lodged up front with a subdivision application rather than as a condition of subdivision approval as proposed by the applicant. The following is recommended.

 

Modification 1

 

Section 4.7 Additional Information in Part 1 of the amendment be modified to delete the words ‘Condition of subdivision approval’ against UWMP and be replaced with the word ‘Subdivision’.

 

The UWMP would generally address the following factors:

 

·        Demonstrated compliance with stormwater management criteria and objectives to the satisfaction of City of Wanneroo and Department of Water and Environmental Regulation;

 

·        Agreed/approved measures to achieve water conservation and efficient water use;

 

·        Detailed stormwater management design including refining the stormwater modelling detailed in the Addendum report;

 

·        Details of treatment trains to be implemented including their function, location, maintenance requirements, and management arrangements; and

 

 

·        Post development monitoring and reporting.

 

Mosquito Management Plan

 

The Department of Health in its submission advised that the amendment area is prone to mosquito prevalence and therefore a Mosquito Management Plan is required and should be implemented prior to the occupation of future development.

 

The Mosquito Management Plan would generally address the following:

 

·        The stormwater drainage at the development to not allow for the holding of water;

 

·        The type of lighting and possible screening to minimise the attraction of pests;

 

·        Notations on certificate of title to advise future residents of the proximity to the lake system and the potential for a higher than average presence of pests in the site;

 

·        Public education of all proposed residents on personal preventative measures; and

 

·        A survey of the subject land to determine any pre-development breeding sites and to determine post-development breeding sites.

 

The following is recommended.

 

Modification 2

 

Section 4.7 Additional Information in Part 1 of the amendment to be modified to include Mosquito Management Plan as a condition of subdivision.

 

Midge Management Issues

 

In regard to the midge management issues associated with this area it is considered appropriate to condition the requirement for a Midge Management Plan at the subdivision stage. This is because this plan would not guide the planning and development of the subject land except for cautioning the future residents of the impact of the midges on the residents.

 

The Midge Management Plan would generally address the following:

 

1.       To provide tree planting as a barrier between the waterbody and the development to reduce the impact of the midges;

 

2.       To keep the residents informed of midge problems present in the area by placing a notification in the certificate of Title, public displays and signage and education packages advising about midge biology and information on planting native vegetation gardens and reducing fertiliser use; and

 

3.       Appropriate lighting to lessen the attraction of midges.

 

Landscape Management Plan

 

The Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attraction (DBCA) has recommended in its submission that the applicant be required to prepare the Landscape Management Plan in consultation with DBCA. The applicant has currently proposed to prepare this plan in consultation with the City only. The following modification is recommended.

 

Modification 3

 

Section 4.7 Additional Information of Part 1 of the amendment to be modified to include DBCA under the column ‘Consultation Required’.

 

 

Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES)

 

DFES had asked the applicant to modify the Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) by re-assessing the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and Bushfire Attack Level (BAL).

 

Plan No. 2 shows 13 and 17-metre wide APZ along the western and southern boundaries respectively (Attachment 3). As per the modified BMP, the width of the APZ along the western and southern boundaries has been increased to 24.1 and 26.7 metres respectively. It is recommended to modify Plan No. 2 accordingly as follows:

 

Modification 4

 

To modify Plan No. 2 by indicating the width of the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) as 24.1 and 26.7 metres along the western and southern boundary respectively and amending the design to avoid residential development within the APZ to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

In view of the modification to Plan No. 2, it is noted that the dwelling yield may be reduced from 225 as proposed by the applicant and therefore less traffic generated by the development.

 

Attachment 6 is the BAL map showing the BAL ratings. By modifying Plan No. 2 it will be ensured that the proposed lots are not affected by BAL 40 and BAL FZ (flame zone) as the construction cost of a dwelling in these areas is quite high. DFES has indicated that it is not advisable to propose lots in areas affected by a BAL rating of 40 and FZ.

 

BAL 40 means increasing levels of ember attack and burning debris ignited by windborne embers together with increasing heat flux with the increased likelihood of exposure to flames.

 

BAL FZ means direct exposure to flames from fire front in addition to heat flux and ember attack.

 

It should be noted that although the applicant has provided a BMP to consider the amendment, at the subdivision stage the applicant will be again required to provide a BMP addressing each lot proposed in the subdivision. Again at the building construction stage under the Building Act 2011 the builder will be required to assess the BAL rating of the building.

 

2.       Excessive Traffic

 

Drovers Place is currently a cul-de-sac providing access to the Drovers Market, Leap Frog restaurant, Botanical Golf Course and Regent Gardens Residential Retirement Resort. The City’s Transport and Traffic (T&T) section has advised that the traffic count on 15 August 2017 on Drovers Place was 2,183 vehicles per day (vpd).

 

The amendment is likely to create 225 dwellings. At the rate 8 vehicle trips per dwelling per day, it is expected that 1,800 vpd will be generated. Hence the total volume of traffic on Drovers Place is likely to be in the vicinity of 4,000vpd.

 

At present, the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection also allows right-in/right-out movement. As per MRWA’s Wanneroo Road/Joondalup Drive grade separation proposals, access to Drovers Place from Joondalup Drive will be restricted to left-in/left-out only with right turn movement only to be allowed for Fire and Emergency Services vehicles. MRWA in designing the interchange had factored in the estimated volume of traffic generated by the subject amendment and considered it appropriate to restrict the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection to left-in/left-out movement only.

 

The applicant modified the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) by considering the MRWA proposals. The City’s T & T section has assessed the revised TIA and has advised that in view of the proposed controlled intersection at the intersection of Clarkson Avenue and Wanneroo Road as per ASP 80 (Attachment 2), the Drovers Place/Joondalup Drive intersection will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the forecast traffic demand.

 

The City’s T & T section has also advised that in the event the subject land is developed before the Joondalup Drive/Wanneroo Road interchanged is constructed, in view of the proposed controlled intersection at the intersection of Clarkson Avenue and Wanneroo Road, the traffic generated by the subject land will still not impact on the normal flow of traffic at the current Joondalup Drive/Drovers Place intersection.

 

Shared Path

 

The amendment proposes a shared path within and to the south of the amendment area. While the shared path within the amendment area will be constructed by the developer at the subdivision stage, the developer does not intend to construct it on the adjoining land (Lots 20, 22 and 28 Drovers Place) to the south which is owned by the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure as per Council records (now Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage).

 

It should be noted that at the subdivision stage the applicant will be required to construct the shared path along Drovers Place as shown on Plan No. 2. Although the road reserve is vested in the Crown and maintained by the City, the developers are required to construct the shared path within the road reserve as the need for it is generated by the development. On similar grounds, it is considered appropriate to require the developer to construct the shared path on the adjoining land where it abuts the amendment area subject to approval from the WAPC. It is recommended that following provision be included in Section 4.5 Subdivision and Development Requirements in Part 1.

 

Modification 5

 

4.5 (c)        Design and construction of the proposed shared path where it abuts the amendment area within Lots 20, 22 and 28 Drovers Place, Wanneroo owned by the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Western Australian Planning Commission to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo.

 

 

 

Other Matters

 

R-MD Codes

 

The applicant has proposed Residential Medium Density Code (R-MD) codes R-MD 30, R-MD 40 and R-MD 60 but has not designated as such in Plan No. 2 of the amendment document. Therefore the following is recommended.

 

Modification 6

 

Plan No. 2 be modified to depict the densities as R-MD 30, R-MD 40 and R-MD 60.

 

Local Development Plan

 

As per Table A – General Planning Requirements of ASP 80 which is applicable to the Western, Central and Southern precincts, a LDP (formerly Detailed Area Plan) is a prerequisite for the subdivision or development of land in these precincts. By proposing Drovers Place West Precinct the applicant has removed this precinct from Table A and has proposed the requirement of a Local Development Plan (LDP) addressing the following site specific design criteria:

 

·        Lots with vehicle access from a laneway;

·        Lots with direct access with public open space/regional open space;

·        Lots proposed for grouped/multiple development; and

·        Lots affected by Asset Protection Zone.

 

Transportation Noise Assessment

 

The applicant has submitted a revised Transport Noise Assessment considering the MRWA proposals (March 2018). This assessment is prepared in accordance with the WAPC’s State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. The report recommends

 

·        2.4 metre high noise walls in limited locations; and

·        Façade Packages A, B and C to dwellings near Drovers Place.

Please refer Attachment 7 for the layout map locating the noise wall and the noise packaged lots.

 

The Traffic Noise Assessment is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Lot 12462

 

Lot 12462 Drovers Place, Wanneroo is owned by DFES and is now reserved as Public Use through Amendment No. 150 to DPS 2. Although the applicant does not represent DFES, since it is zoned Special use in ASP 80, the applicant has proposed to reserve this lot as such in ASP 80. DFES in its submission did not object to this change.

 

Conclusion

 

Council, at its meeting on 26 May 2015, considered Amendment No. 2 to ASP 80 to rezone Lots 6, 7 and 8 Drovers Place, Wanneroo from Special Use to Residential (R20-R60) and resolved not to approve as the proposed residential density range was considered to be too excessive due to the environmental significance of Lake Joondalup and Yellagonga Regional Park generating excessive traffic. The applicant Roberts Day Town Planners has submitted Amendment No.6 to ASP 80 addressing these issues and the concerns raised by DFES in determining APZ and BAL ratings. It is recommended that the amendment be supported subject to modifications and forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2.

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.4  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.

Policy Implications

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Local Housing Strategy Implementation.

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 No. 2 recommends APPROVAL to Western Australian Planning Commission of Amendment No. 6 to Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80 (ASP 80) submitted by Roberts Day on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth and included as Attachment 3 subject to the following modifications:

 

ASP 80 Map

 

a)      To modify Plan No. 2 by indicating the width of the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) as 24.1 and 26.7 metres along the western and southern boundary respectively and amending the design to avoid residential development within the APZ to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

b)      To depict the densities as R-MD 30, R-MD 40 and R-MD 60 on Plan No. 2.

 

Part 1 – Implementation

 

a)      To include in Part 1 of the amendment document the following additional provisions:

 

4.5 (c)        Design and construction of the proposed shared path where it abuts the amendment area within Lots 20, 22 and 28 Drovers Place, Wanneroo owned by the Ministry for Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Western Australian Planning Commission and the City of Wanneroo.

 

b)      To add the following in Clause 4.7 Additional Information:

         

Additional Information

Approval Stage

Consultation Required

Landscape Management Plan etc.

Condition of Subdivision

City of Wanneroo and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions

Urban Water Management Plan

Upfront along with the Subdivision application

Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and the City of Wanneroo

Mosquito Management Plan

Condition of subdivision

Department of Health

 

2.       ADVISES the applicant and the submitters of this decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location map

18/123412

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Current ASP 80 map

18/174083

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Part 1 amendment document

18/173657

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Amdt 6 Schedule of submissions

18/213063

 

5.

Attachment 5 - Bus routes

18/173669

 

6.

Attachment 6 - BAL map

18/193063

 

7.

Attachment 7 - Noise wall and packages

18/123858

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             42

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             43

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       44

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             49

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       50

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             52

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 26 June, 2018                                                                                             63

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       64

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             65

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                           69

PS03-06/18       Consideration of Development Application - Change of Use to Residential Building at Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos (DA2017/1642)

File Ref:                                              DA2017/1642 – 18/181509

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2017/1642) for a Change of Use from a Single House to a Residential Building at Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos (subject site).

 

Applicant

Matthew Buttsworth

Owner

Yanhuai Liang & Matthew Buttsworth

Location

Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos

Site Area

526m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

ASP 72 Zoning

Residential R40

 

Background

On 6 December 2017 the City received a development application for a Change of Use from Single House to Residential Building at the subject site. The subject site is bounded by Graceful Boulevard to the north, Whipbird Road to the west and residential properties to the east and south. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

A Single House was approved on the subject site in January 2015, and it is noted that the landowner previously lodged a Development Application for a Change of Use from Single House to Residential Building in December 2016 (DA2016/1808). The application was advertised to the affected landowners and five submissions were received. Several items of additional information were also requested including a Bushfire Management Plan however, the applicant advised that the Residential Building was no longer in operation and the application was withdrawn by the applicant in March 2017. In November 2017 the City’s compliance team investigated the property and found the subject site was being used as a Residential Building for the purpose of short term accommodation. Subsequently, the landowners submitted the subject development application in December 2017.

Administration has prepared a draft Local Planning Policy and Local Law that was adopted by Council for advertising on 14 November 2017. Council also approved initiation of a scheme amendment. Whilst the draft LPP is not a formally endorsed policy of council, it should still be given due regard in the assessment of this application. On this basis Administration has requested the applicant comply with the requirements of the draft LPP, including provisions of a management plan (including a code of conduct for guests, parking and complaints management procedures), and justification in support of the proposal

Compliance History

In November 2017, the City’s Compliance Services inspected the property and noted that the Residential Building was still in operation. Subsequently, the subject Development Application was lodged in December 2017 (DA2017/1642) in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.14: Compliance (LPP 4.14). Clause 4.3 identifies that the City may use its absolute discretion to defer the commencement of compliance action where an application for development approval has been submitted. In this instance, the City’s Compliance Services applied Clause 4.3 of LPP 4.14, on the basis that the use was considered capable of approval, and have deferred compliance action pending the determination of this application. As a result, the Residential Building has remained in use throughout the application process. 

Detail

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

 

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

 

·        Onsite car parking for two vehicles is provided for guests within the existing garage;

 

A site plan (including the location of car parking), elevation plan and floor plan of the dwelling as well as the proposed parking layout is included as Attachment 2.

 

The applicant has also advised that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        Temporarily by two or more persons; or

 

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

 

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

Consultation

It is noted that the previous Development Application (DA2016/1808) was advertised to the adjoining and affected landowners and occupiers adjoining the subject site. A total of five submissions were received as part of the consultation period for the previous Development Application. The application was withdrawn without the City making a determination and the submitters were notified of this outcome.

 

Advertising of the subject proposal was undertaken by the City in writing to the same affected landowners adjoining the east (21 Woodswallow Way) and (19 Woodswallow Way), south (26 Whipbird Road) and west (141 Graceful Boulevard). Advertising was undertaken for a period of 21 days commencing 20 March 2018 and closing 10 April 2018. It is noted that one letter was returned to the City, as Australia Post stated that the address did not exist. Administration noted that this was incorrect, and subsequently contacted the affected landowner and provided them with a copy of the advertising letter. The advertising period was extended to 20 April 2018 to allow this landowner to provide comments. A submission objecting to the proposal was received from the landowner of 141 Graceful Boulevard, Alkimos.

 

The landowner raised concerns that the proposal is:

 

·        Incompatible with the land use within the area;

 

·        Inconsistent with relevant legislation;

 

·        Unable to respond to bushfires;

 

·        Lacking sufficient car parking; and

 

·        Likely to encourage anti-social behaviour (including noise and safety).

 

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

 

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

Comment

The application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of DPS 2, the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Planning Bulletin 99 – Holiday Homes Guidelines (Planning Bulletin 99), and Draft LPP 4.22. Although this Bulletin was released in 2009, it was developed to deal with issues of purchasing or building homes to be used as a holiday home and is still applicable to current short term accommodation proposals. Planning Bulletin 99 provides guidance for assessing applications for short term accommodation, including the appropriate location of holiday homes, the provision of a management plan to demonstrate how the property will be managed, and approval being granted for an initial 12 month period as a ‘trial’ of the use.

 

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

 

Appropriateness of Land Use

 

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

 

Consistency with Objectives of Residential Zone

 

A Residential Building is a ‘D’ land use within the Residential Zone, and as such requires the City to exercise its discretion when considering the application. As such, the land use has been considered against the objectives of the Residential Zone. The relevant objectives of the Residential Zone are to:

 

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

 

·        provide for compatible urban support services.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Location Requirements of Planning Bulletin 99

 

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

 

Criteria

Assessment of Subject Site

Zoning

 

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

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

Amenities

 

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

The subject site is located approximately 1.2km east of Alkimos Beach, and approximately 5km south of Yanchep National Park.

 

The subject site is also approximately 800m west of the Alkimos Gateway Shopping Precinct, 1.3km north west of the Trinity Shopping Centre, approximately 2.4km south of the future Alkimos North Coastal Village, approximately 2.4km north of the Butler Activity Centre and approximately 1.7km north of the future Jindalee Village Centre. In this regard, the subject site is considered to be located within close proximity of tourism attractions such as the beach, Yanchep National Park and town centres. 

Transport 

 

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

The subject site is located approximately 1km west of Marmion Avenue, which provides key north-south link to the area. The subject site is located approximately 800m west of the nearest bus stop (Stops 490 & 491), near the Alkimos Gateway Shopping Precinct, which is approximately a 12 minute walk. From this bus stop, public transport can be used to access the nearby centres, Yanchep, Two Rocks and Butler Train Station. While distance may not necessarily be considered as ‘close’, the subject site is accessible by car and public transport. 

Tenure

 

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

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

 

Alkimos-Eglinton District Structure Plan

 

The submitter states that the application does not meet the following guiding principle of the Alkimos-Eglinton District Structure Plan 18 (DSP18):

 “Facilitating the creation of healthy communities in terms of lifestyles and social cohesion.”

 

In regards to this, the provision of short term accommodation offers an alternative form of accommodation in the area, as discussed above, and this Residential Building provides diverse accommodation opportunities to visitors of the area. To ensure that the proposal operates with minimal disruption to the existing community, the applicant has provided a management plan as discussed in further detail below. On this basis, Administration considers that the proposed Residential Building will facilitate the creation of healthy communities.

 

Based on the above, the location of the proposed Residential Building is considered appropriate with Planning Bulletin 99 (PB99) and DSP 18.

 

Management Plan

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        Details of guest check in and check out procedures;

 

·        Management of car parking;

 

·        Waste management; and

 

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

 

As discussed in the management plan, the property will accommodate a maximum of six guests at any given time and all parking will be contained on site. Administration also recommends that these be included as a condition of planning approval.

 

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

 

 

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

 

·        Parking to be fully contained on site;

 

·        Guests must not create noise which is offensive to occupiers of neighbouring properties especially between the hours of 10pm and 8am and during arrival and departure at any time throughout the occupancy; and

 

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

 

A copy of the house rules shall be displayed inside the house in a prominent position. Administration recommends that should the application be approved, a condition requiring the proposal to be operated in accordance with the management plan be included. In accordance with LPP 4.14, compliance action can be undertaken if a complaint is submitted to the City and is substantiated. As the initial approval is proposed to be time limited, substantiated complaints will also be taken into consideration should the applicant apply to renew the approval. Time limiting the approval is discussed in further detail below.

 

Time Limited Approval

 

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

 

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

 

Parking

 

In accordance with Clause 4.14 of DPS 2, a Residential Building requires one car bay per two people accommodated to be provided on site. The application proposes six guests, which requires three car parking spaces to be provided. Two parking spaces are provided on site within the garage. It is noted that the garage is setback 4.5m from the lot boundary, with a footpath setback approximately 0.3m from the lot boundary. Given that a car bay is required to be 5.4m in length, parking is not permitted on the driveway as it would overhang and obstruct the footpath. However, the applicant has advised that the majority of patrons have been families or guests travelling together. In this case, the ratio would take children who are unable to drive into consideration. It is also noted that there are two on street bays to the north of the subject site which may be used for overflow parking and visitor parking, if required. As such, a variation of one bay to the requirement is considered acceptable.

 

Control of Anti-Social Behaviour

 

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

 

 

 

 

Safety

 

The submitter raised concerns over their personal safety and with unknown guests staying at the property, given they would not be properly vetted. A management plan has been prepared and assessed as part of the application. The management plan outlines the expected behaviour of guests and consequences of non-compliance to be undertaken by management, which include potentially terminating the short term lease agreement, loss of rent paid or deduction of the security deposit.

 

The owner/property manager will provide their contact details to the adjoining properties to the east (19, 21 Woodswallow Way), south (26 Whipbird Road) and west (141 Graceful Boulevard). The owner/property manager has advised that they will attend the property if the occupants of the adjoining properties have any concerns. The applicant has also advised that potential guests will be reviewed and bookings will be declined if there are concerns regarding the nature of the stay.

 

Noise

 

A submitter raised concerns over the level of noise generated by the guests and that this would adversely impact them. The management plan states that noise must be kept to a minimum between the hours of 10pm and 8am.

 

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

 

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

 

State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning for Bushfire Prone Areas

 

The subject site is identified as Bushfire Prone. In accordance with State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning for Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7), a Bushfire Attack Level assessment (BAL) was provided which identified that the site had a BAL rating of BAL-12.5. As a Residential Building is considered to be vulnerable land use which has a BAL rating higher than BAL-Low, a Bushfire Management Plan is required. The Bushfire Management Plan was referred to the Department of Fire and Emergency Services and a number of modifications were required. These modifications have been undertaken and the development application is considered to meet the requirements of SPP 3.7.

 

Conclusion

 

The development application has been the subject of public consultation with one objection being received. Administration considers that the issues raised in the letter of objection have been addressed as discussed in Attachment 3 and no modification to the proposal is required. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the Change of Use to a Residential Building at 28 Whipbird Road, Alkimos.

 

 

 

 

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.6    Housing Choice

3.6.1  Facilitate housing diversity to reflect changing community needs

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the following:

·        City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2

·        State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes

·        State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas

·        Local Planning Policy 4.14: Compliance

·        Draft Local Planning Policy 4.22: Short Term Accommodation

·        Planning Bulletin 99: Holiday Home Guidelines

·        District Structure Plan 18: Alkimos Eglington

·        Agreed Structure Plan 72: South Alkimos

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, APPROVES the Development Application (DA2017/1642), as shown in Attachment 2, for a Change of Use to a Residential Building at Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

·        Temporarily by two or more persons; or

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

e)      The use shall be operated in accordance with the “Management Plan” dated 16 March 2018, to the satisfaction of the City.

 

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

 

g)      A minimum of 2 car parking bays shall be provided on site. Parking shall be arranged, so as to ensure that there is no parking on the road verge or parking on the road that will obstruct movement onto or along the road, to the satisfaction of the City.

 

h)      The use shall be implemented in accordance with all recommendations of the Bushfire Management Plan prepared by Bushfire Ready Consultants, dated 15 December 2017.

 

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

 

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

3.       ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1: DA2017/1642 Location Plan

18/172143

 

2.

Attachment 2: DA2017/1642 - Lot 406 (28) Whipbird Road, Alkimos

18/106025

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3: DA2017/1642 - Schedule of Submissions

AD222952

Minuted

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       78

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                       79

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             81

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

 

 

 

CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             83

 

CITY OF WANNEROO

DA2017/1642 CHANGE OF USE TO A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

   SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

 

(Advertising Closed 20 April 2018)

 

 

No.

Summary of Submission

Administration Comment

Recommendation

1.

Kimberly Swift

141 Graceful Boulevard, Alkimos

1.1

Objects to the proposal

Noted.

 

No modification required.

1.2

Considers that the application is in breach of approval from Lendlease who will be responsible for ongoing works in the estate.

This is not a relevant planning consideration. The City is not a party to any agreements between the landowner and Lendlease regarding these approvals. It is the landowner’s responsibility to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation and requirements.

No modification required.

1.3

Does not consider the applicants reasoning for providing accommodation in Alkimos to suit those driving to Geraldton (or further) as justifiable given the distance.

The Residential Building is located within metropolitan Perth and is considered to be suitable for long distance accommodation.  The application has been assessed against the criteria set out in the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Planning Bulletin 99 – Holiday Homes Guidelines (Planning Bulletin 99), which includes zoning, proximity to amenities and transport. The application is considered to meet the requirements of the relevant provisions. In addition to this, a Residential Building is a Discretionary’ land use within the Residential Zone under the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2), and is capable of being considered in the location.

No modification required.

1.4

The Alkimos Eglington District Structure Plan 18 (DSP 18 lists the guiding principal of

‘Facilitating the creation of healthy communities in terms of lifestyles and social cohesion.’ The objector considers that the addition of short term accommodation will not encourage a healthy community with the Estate being so new.

 

The Residential Building offers an alternative form of accommodation in the area. The applicant has advised that in addition to tourists, many of their previous tenants have been recent migrants and people visiting friends or family who live nearby. Therefore, this Residential Building is considered to provide diverse accommodation opportunities to visitors of the area and as such will facilitate the creation of healthy communities, and therefore the subject application is considered acceptable.

No modification required.

1.5

The submitter states that the property is currently being used as a single home with additional ancillary accommodation. Adds that there is an existing fence separating the yard with an additional gate labelled “28B” facing Graceful Boulevard.

Noted. The City has not received or approved an application for Ancillary Accommodation. The applicant also has advised that Ancillary Accommodation is not provided on site. Notwithstanding, the use as a residential building is being considered for the whole house, not for individual areas. Should guest numbers and parking requirements still be satisfied, is would be considered to meet compliance.

Recommended that a condition is applied applying the use to the whole house, in lieu of individual spaces.  

1.6

The submitter states the property has little to no landscaping and no privacy fencing to the front of the lot meaning the rear yard is exposed to the street.

Noted. The Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) do not require landscaping to the front or rear of the property for Single Houses. Privacy screening is required between adjoining properties for outdoor living areas which have a floor area of more than 0.5m above natural ground level. Privacy fencing or screening is not required to the secondary street.

No modification required.

1.7

Safety concerns with entry and exit points for up to 6 people given the home is located within a bushfire zone.

Noted. The applicant has provided a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) in accordance with the requirements of State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning for Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7). As part of the BMP, the access requirements of SPP 3.7 have been satisfactorily addressed.

No modification required.

1.8

Safety concerns with unknown persons staying at the property; not properly screened

Noted. This is not a relevant planning consideration. Anti-social behaviour or criminal activity is a matter for the Western Australian Police who can enforce and infringe where non-compliance with the law occurs. The applicant has advised that guests will be reviewed and future bookings will be declined if there are concerns regarding the nature of their stay. Approved guests need to comply with the code of conduct which is available on premises.

No modification required.

1.9

Concerns with parking arrangements should there be up to 6 guests in the home. Also noted that there are limited public transport options which would further increase the use of a vehicle.

Car parking is to be compliant with the Management Plan. The application provides two on-site car parking bays within the existing garage. The applicant has advised that the majority of patrons have been families or guests travelling together. In this case, the ratio takes children who are unable to drive into consideration. It is also noted that there are two on street bays to the north of the subject site which may be used for overflow parking and visitor parking, if required. Should parking become an issue for the site, substantiated complaints will be taken into consideration should the applicant reapply for planning approval following the initial 12 month approval period.

No modification required.

1.10

Concerns with loss of ‘family friendly’ concept of the estate which Lendlease has aimed at creating. Also worried that those living in the area will not interact with each other should short stay accommodation be allowed.

The City is not affiliated with Lendlease’s concept for the estate. Notwithstanding, a Residential Building is a discretionary (‘D’) land use within the Residential Zone which can be considered.

No modification required.

1.11

Concerns that those staying at the property may engage in anti-social behaviour and increased noise levels.

In regards to anti-social behaviour refer to comment 1.8. In regards to noise, approved guests need to comply with the code of conduct. Noise shall be limited between 10pm and 8am, as noted in the management plan provided by the applicant and the noise regulations.

No modification required.

1.12

The submitter states that the property is already being advertised on various lodging sites.

It is noted that the Residential Building is currently in operation as such, the applicant is currently seeking approval for the Change of Use to a Residential Building.

No modification required.

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                           86

PS04-06/18       Consideration of Development Application (DA2018/177) for Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot (11) 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar

File Ref:                                              DA2018/177 – 18/178393

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2018/177) for Telecommunications Infrastructure (30m high monopole) at Lot (11) 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar (subject site).

Applicant

Aurecon Australasia Pty Ltd

Owner

City of Wanneroo

Location

Lot (11) 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar

Site Area

51.3 hectares

MRS Zoning

Parks and Recreation

DPS 2 Zoning

Regional Parks and Recreation

 

Background

On 12 February 2018, the City received a development application to erect Telecommunications Infrastructure (Monopole) on the subject site. 

The use of the subject site is currently for a Golf Course (Carramar Golf Course). The site is bounded by Tranquil Drive to the west, Wildflower Drive to the north, Rustic Gardens to the east, and Lot 12553 (2) Tranquil Drive to the south, which forms part of the Carramar Golf Course site. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

The subject site is owned by the City of Wanneroo in freehold and is reserved for Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). As such, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is the determining authority for the application. The purpose of this report is to request the Council to provide the City’s recommendation to the WAPC, pursuant to Clause 29(3) of the MRS which requires;

‘Where under sub-clause (1) a local authority forwards an application to the Commission, the local authority may, within 42 days of the date of receipt of the application by local authority (or such further period as the Commission may allow) make recommendations for consideration by the Commission in respect of the application’

Detail

The development application proposes the construction of Telecommunications Infrastructure. The subject site is zoned as Regional Parks and Recreation under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and as such, does not have a land use classification. The application proposes:

 

·        The construction of a 30m high monopole, to be erected on the western portion of the subject site, approximately 33m from the western side boundary and 163m from the southern lot boundary;

 

 

 

·        The construction of a compound surrounding the proposed monopole. The compound is approximately 14m x 7m (98m2 in area), and is surrounded by a 1.8m high security fence. The compound is proposed to be setback approximately 28m from the western side boundary and approximately 157m from the southern boundary;

 

·        The construction of a limestone access track which is approximately 4m wide and 14m long. The track will provide vehicle access to the compound for maintenance purposes. Vehicle access to this limestone track will be via the existing 3m wide firebreaks around the permitter of the subject site; and

 

·        The clearing of the existing vegetation to make way for the monopole and compound. The vegetation being cleared includes three grass trees to facilitate the construction of the limestone access track, and five grass trees to facilitate the construction of the compound and monopole. No loss of other native vegetation is proposed as part pf this application.

 

As a result of the residential expansion in Carramar, Banksia Grove and Tapping, an adequate and reliable Telecommunications Infrastructure is required to accommodate this additional demand. However, the applicant has advised that the monopole cannot be relocated as the further away the proposed infrastructure is from residential properties, the weaker the signal and data transfer rate is received. As such, the proposed location is considered to be the optimal position to capture a wide range of residential dwellings without compromising mobile signal strength. Plans of the proposal are included in Attachment 2.

Consultation

The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5) outlines that if an application does not satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ criteria of the Policy, variations may be considered subject to consultation. Upon assessment it was determined that the proposal does not meet criteria L2 and D2 of LPP 2.5 and therefore public consultation is required (this will be discussed in the Comment section below). The proposed variations are discussed in the Comment section of the report.

 

The application was advertised for public consultation for a period of 21 days between 3 April 2018 and 24 April 2018 in accordance with LPP 2.5 and Clause 64(3) of DPS 2. Advertising was undertaken by way of a notice placed on the City’s website and in the Wanneroo Times, a sign erected on site and landowners within a 200m radius of the subject site notified in writing. The current leasees of the Carramar Golf Course were not included in the public consultation process, as the applicant confirmed that they had undertaken a preliminary consultation with them. At the conclusion of the comment period (21 days) four submissions were received, all objecting to the proposal. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses are included in Attachment 3.

 

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

 

·        The visual impact of the proposed monopole;

 

·        Potential health impacts caused by the proximity to the monopole; and

 

·        Impact on property values caused by the monopole.

 

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

 

Comment

 

The development application has been assessed against the following:

 

·        State Planning Policy 5.2: Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2);

 

·        Development Control Policy 5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space (DC 5.3);

 

·        Local Planning Policy: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5); and

 

·        District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) in particular, the Matters to be Considered by Local Government, included in Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2;

 

Following this assessment, the variations proposed by the application to these various requirements are not supported by Administration. The reasons for not supporting the proposal are discussed in further detail below:

 

Assessment against LPP 2.5

 

The following variations to LPP 2.5 to the ‘deemed-to-comply’ criteria have been identified and are discussed below.

 

Column A

Column B - Deemed-to-Comply Provisions acceptable without consultation

Column C – Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply Provisions that may be acceptable subject to community consultation.

L2

Proposed telecommunications infrastructure is not located on a lot where an adjoining lot is zoned ‘Residential’, ‘Mixed Use’, ‘Special Rural’, 'Rural Community', 'Landscape Enhancement' or ‘Special Residential’.

The proposal is located approximately 50m from Special Rural zoned properties. As discussed further in ‘D2’, the monopole will be visible from these properties, and will have a negative impact on the streetscape as a result of its height. Accordingly, the location of the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure is not considered to be appropriate and does not satisfy this criterion.

D2

The applicant demonstrates that the telecommunications infrastructure is:

a)   Located where it will not be prominently visible from significant viewing locations such as scenic routes, lookouts and recreation sites;

 

b)   Located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a landmark, streetscape, vista or panorama whether viewed from public or private land;

Although the compound and the base of the monopole is screened by the existing vegetation, approximately half (15m) of the monopole is visible above the vegetation. As a result, the monopole will be prominently visible to users of the Carramar Golf Course. Given this, the location of the Telecommunications Infrastructure in such a visible location is not considered to be appropriate and does not satisfy this criterion.

Similarly, the visible nature of the monopole above the vegetation is not in keeping with the existing streetscape, which currently consists of mature vegetation. The erection of the monopole in the location proposed is considered to detract from the view of the streetscape from the properties located on the western side of Tranquil Drive, and is not considered appropriate within this location.

An indicative street view of the proposed monopole from Tranquil Drive is included in Attachment 4.

 

LPP 2.5 identifies that applications which do not satisfy the ‘deemed-to-comply’ criteria may be supported following consultation. In this instance, the proposed variations are not supported for the reasons outlined above, and therefore Administration recommends that the application is not supported.

 

Assessment against SPP 5.2

 

Policy Measure 5.1.1(ii) of SPP 5.2 is similar to the ‘Deemed-to-Comply’ criteria ‘D2’ of LPP 2.5, in that Telecommunications Infrastructure should be located and designed to minimise visual impact and whenever possible:

 

a)      be located where it will not be prominently visible from significant viewing locations such as scenic routes, lookouts and recreation sites;

 

b)      be located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land;

 

c)      not be located on sites where environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values maybe compromised; and

 

d)      display design features, including scale, materials, external colours and finishes that are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.

 

For the reasons outlined previously, the monopole will be visible to both users of the Carramar Golf Course and residents along the western side of Tranquil Drive, and is therefore not considered to be within an appropriate location of the subject site. An indicative street view of the proposed monopole from Tranquil Drive is included in Attachment 4.

 

Assessment against DC 5.3

 

Development Control Policy 5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space (DC 5.3); identifies that land reserved for Parks and Recreation may be used for:

 

·        Passive recreation;

 

·        Active sporting pursuits;

 

·        Cultural and/or community activities;

 

·        Activities actively promoting community education of the environment; and/or

 

·        Uses that are compatible with and/or support the amenity of the reservation (i.e café or restaurant) where specific facilities for such purposes have been approved by the WAPC.

 

The proposal is not considered to facilitate or to contribute towards the use of the site for passive recreation, active sporting pursuits, cultural and/or community activities, or the promotion of community education of the environment. The proposal is considered to have a negative impact on the amenity of the reservation for the reasons outlined previously, and is not compatible with the existing use of the reservation for the Carramar Golf Course. Therefore, the use of the subject site for the proposal is not considered to be appropriate.

 

Assessment against Clause 67 of Deemed Provisions of DPS 2

 

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the following Matters to be Considered by Local Government under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, for the reasons discussed below.

 

 

Matters to be Considered by Local Government

Administration Comment

c

Any approved state planning policy

As noted previously, the proposed development is not consistent with Policy Measure 5.1.1(ii) of SPP 5.2, as the monopole is considered to detrimentally impact the visual amenity of the existing users of the Carramar Golf Course and the residents on the western side of Tranquil Drive.

e

Any policy of the Commission

As noted previously, the proposed development is not consistent with DC 5.3, as the proposal does not facilitate the use of the site for recreation pursuits, community activities, or community education, and is considered to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the reservation due to its height.

g

Any local planning policy for the Scheme area

As noted previously, the proposed development is not consistent with criteria L2 or D2 of LPP 2.5, as it will negatively impact the amenity of nearby Special Rural zoned properties and adjacent Carramar Golf Course.

m

The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including,  but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development

The proposed development is considered to not be compatible with development on adjoining land, as its height and appearance is not in keeping with the established streetscape.

 

As the proposal is not consistent with the Matters to be Considered by Local Government under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure is not supported.

Conclusion

Following a detailed assessment of the application and due consideration to all submissions received during the public consultation period, it is considered that the proposal for a Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot 11 (30) Tranquil Drive, Carramar does not meet the abovementioned requirements and therefore should not be supported.

 

It is acknowledged that there is demand for the proposed monopole within the area to accommodate the residential expansion however, the proposed location is not considered appropriate for the reasons outlined above. The proposal could be supported in an alternative location where it does not conflict with the requirements of DPS 2, LPP 2.5, SPP 2.5 and DC 5.3.

 

 

 

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s DPS 2, LPP 2.5, SPP 5.2 and DC 5.3.

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

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O01 Relationship Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O20 Productive Communities

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community & Place

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O22 Environmental Management

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning & Sustainability

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the following;

 

·        State Planning Policy 5.2: Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2); and

 

·        Development Control Policy 5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space (DC 5.3).

 

·        District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

·        Local Planning Policy: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5);

Financial Implications

Land upon which the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure is to be located would have been leased by the City to the proponent. If the proposal does not proceed, there will be a potential loss of income for the City.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 29(3) of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) NOT SUPPORT the development application for a Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot 11 (30) Tranquil Drive, Carramar for the following reasons;

a.       The proposal is not consistent with the use of the Parks and Recreation Reserve as per Development Control Policy 5.3: Use of Land Reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space (DC5.3);

b.      The proposal does not comply with Criteria L2 or D2 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5), or Policy Measure 5.1.1(ii) of State Planning Policy 5.2: Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2); and

c.       The proposal does not satisfy Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 for Matters to be Considered by Local Government in determining a development application.

2.       Pursuant to Clause 29(3) of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) FORWARD the development application for a Telecommunication Infrastructure at Lot 11 (30) Tranquil Drive, Carramar, and a copy of Council’s report and recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

3.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision and ultimately advises the submitters of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s decision.

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Lot 11 (30) Tranquil Drive, Carramar

18/158868

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Plans of the Proposal - Telecommunications Infrastructure~ 30 Tranquil Drive CARRAMAR

18/183756

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions - DA2018 177 - Telecommunication ~ 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar

18/184900

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Indicative Street View from Tranquil Drive - DA2018 177 - Telecommunication ~ 30 Tranquil Drive, Carramar

18/221040

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             93

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             94

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             97

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                             99

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         100

PS05-06/18       Consideration of Development Application (DA2017/282) for Nine (9) Multiple Dwellings at 50A Frederick Street, Wanneroo

File Ref:                                              DA2017/282 – 17/397671

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

To consider a development application for nine (9) Multiple Dwellings at Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo.

 

Applicant

Michael Gilbert

Owner

Doris Audisho

Location

Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

Site Area

1158m2

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R20/R60

 

Background

On 19 December 2016, the City received an application for ten (10) Multiple Dwellings at Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo (subject site). A location plan of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

 

It is noted the proposal was originally submitted for 10 Multiple Dwellings. Administration identified a number of variations through the initial assessment of the proposal, including a five car bay variation to the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.3.3 – Parking of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

 

Following several discussions with Administration, the applicant amended the plans to remove one dwelling in order to comply with the car parking requirements of Clause 6.3.3 of the R-Codes. The revised application (nine dwellings) is the subject of this report.

 

Administration has also requested additional information from the applicant to demonstrate how the proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Draft State Planning Policy 7.3 Design of the Built Environment (Design WA) and Draft Apartment Design Policy (DADP). During the assessment, the applicant has not provided any of the requested additional information. Notwithstanding this, the City engaged an external design review consultant on 30 April 2018 for an assessment of the application against the provisions of the DADP. Further detail of the consultant’s assessment is discussed within the Comment section of this report.

Detail

The application proposes nine Multiple Dwellings which is a ‘D’ Discretionary land use within the Residential Zone under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). The application incorporates the following:

 

·        A two-storey development with a total of nine two-bedroom and two-bathroom dwellings;

 

·        12 resident car parking bays; and

 

·        Two visitor car parking bays. 

 

The proposal incorporates the following variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes and Local Planning Policy 2.4: Site Works and Retaining for Residential Development (LPP 2.4):

 

·        A clearly definable entry point into the building, as viewed from the street has not been provided. This is required by Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes;

 

·        0.8m high retaining wall setback 1.3m to the north-eastern boundary in lieu of the minimum required 1.5m as required Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes; and

 

·        Retaining walls greater than 0.5m within 1m of the lot boundary (north and south) in lieu of the maximum 0.5m height as required by Clause 6.3.6 and 6.3.7 of the R-Codes and Clause 2.4 of LPP 2.4.

 

Further to the above, the development application was assessed against the provisions of the DADP. Administration’s assessment determined that the proposal incorporated the following variations:

 

·        The proposal includes 2.5% of the site area (31.8m2) of deep soil areas in lieu of the 12% (139m2) as required by Clause  3.4 Deep Soil Areas;

 

·        The proposal does not provide a clear and definable entry with direct access into the building as required under Clause 3.8 Pedestrian Access and Entries;

 

·        The application provides significantly high levels of screening surrounding each of the dwellings’ private open spaces which decreases the amenity of each dwelling and impedes the quality of these spaces. To note, the screening was provided to address the adjoining landowner’s concerns pertaining to visual privacy. This is further discussed within the Comment section. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is not considered to meet the provisions of well-designed balconies and private courtyards to enhance residential amenity as required by Clause 4.5 Private Open Spaces and Balconies.

 

·        The application does not provide any diversity to the apartment types and sizes as required by Clause 4.10 Apartment Mix; and

 

·        It is considered the development does not produce a visually appealing design that is in keeping with the current and future context of the locality as required by Clause 4.12 Facades.

 

Plans depicting the proposal are included in Attachment 2.

Consultation

In accordance with Clause 2.5.4 of the City’s LPP 4.20, 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. Administration notes the application was advertised to the adjoining owners and occupiers on two separate occasions.

 

The first period of public consultation was undertaken by way of letters sent to the owners and occupiers of 11 surrounding properties for a period of 21 days from 15 May 2017 to 5 June 2017. At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of 10 submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. In addition to the submissions, a petition with a total of 114 signatories objecting to the proposal was received by Administration. The petition was previously presented to Council at its meeting on 27 June 2017 (PT02-06/17). Administration provided an update on the application to Council at its meeting on 25 July 2017, which advised Council that amended plans for the proposed Multiple Dwelling development at 50A Frederick Street were received by Administration on Wednesday 19 July 2017.

 

The main issues which arose during the initial advertising period and petition related to:

 

·        Overdevelopment of the site;

·        Loss of amenity from the development;

·        Safety and traffic issues to residents of the local area;

·        Visual privacy;

·        Car parking;

·        Noise and antisocial behaviour; and

·        Waste management.

 

A summary of the submissions received from the first consultation period and Administration’s responses is included in Attachment 3.

 

Following the initial consultation period, the applicant was provided with a copy of the summary of submissions and provided with the opportunity to amend the plans. Amended plans were provided to Administration on 10 October 2017. The plans were assessed and were found to be generally compliant, with the exception of the items as discussed within the Detail section of the report.

 

In regard to the retaining wall variations, these arose from an amendment to LPP 2.4 in July 2017 which required all retaining walls over a height of 0.5m within 1m of a lot boundary to be advertised to the adjoining landowners for comments. It should be noted that the retaining wall variations were not included within the initial consultation period as Clause 4.1.2 of the R-Codes regarding consultation requirement states that a variation to the deemed-to-comply provisions does not require advertising if the variation is considered to meet the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes. These variations to the retaining wall heights and its compliance with the Design Principles are discussed in further detail in the Comment section below.

 

In light of the above, the application was readvertised to those who previously made a submission, and also to those affected by the retaining wall height variation. The second consultation period was for a period of 21 days from 20 October 2017 to 10 November 2017. At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of five submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. A summary of the submissions received from the second consultation period and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 4.

 

The main issues raised during the second advertising period related to:

 

·        Waste Management issues; and

·        Traffic.

 

These variations and the major issues identified above are discussed in further detail within the Comment section below.

 

Comment

 

The proposal was assessed against the provisions of DPS 2, LPP 4.20, Part 6 of the R-Codes relating to Multiple Dwellings and LPP 2.4. The proposal is compliant with these documents with the exception of the street surveillance requirements within Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes and retaining wall requirements of LPP 2.4 and Clauses 6.3.6 and 6.3.7 of the R-Codes. The application was also assessed against the relevant provisions having due regard to the DADP, and the draft amended LPP 4.20. It is noted that although the above policies are in draft form only, they can still be afforded due regard as they apply several planning principles. Compliance with the relevant provisions of the DADP and draft amended LPP 4.20 is discussed in further detail below.

 

Assessment against Clause 4.5.4 of DPS 2

 

The subject site has a split residential density code of R20/R60 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 stating 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 vehicular access point to accommodate the nine 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 R60.

 

Assessment against Draft Amended 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 Frederick Street. 

2.5.3

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

Complies.

The proposed crossover is 5m 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.

Each dwelling provides at least one major opening from a habitable room and a balcony facing which faces towards the primary street or the common property driveway, being the vehicular approach to the development.

 

Clause 4.1.1 of LPP 4.20 does not negate the requirements of Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes as discussed below in further detail.

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.

A total of 47.7% (20.4m²) 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.

A total of 53.4% (23.4m²) 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 5m in width as the development proposes nine 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 crossover is setback 0.5m from the side lot boundary.

 

Assessment against Draft Amended LPP 4.20

 

On 1 May 2018, Council considered a draft amendment to LPP 4.20 for the purposes of advertising for public comment (PS06-05/18). The policy is currently being advertised for a period of 42 days which commenced on 15 May 2018 and will conclude on 26 June 2018. A full assessment of the application against the draft amended LPP 4.20 is included as Attachment 5. The policy has been revised to better align with the provisions of the DADP. The requirements of the draft amended LPP 4.20 are mostly compliant, however a link to the DADP requirements are discussed in various elements below.

 

Due to the presentation of the item to Council in May 2018, Administration has not requested the applicant to address any of the provisions of the draft amended LPP 4.20. These provisions are included for comparison to the DADP requirements only.

 

Assessment against the R-Codes

 

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions, the City is to exercise its judgement to consider the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant design principle. The revised proposal only includes variations to the street surveillance of the development and retaining walls which are proposed to the northern, north-eastern and southern lot boundaries. The variations are discussed in further detail below.

 

 

 

 

 

Street Surveillance

 

Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes requires developments to provide a clear and definable entry point to the building, as viewed from the street. The proposal incorporates a pedestrian gate as the main principle access into the building. Administration is of the view that the pedestrian gate does not satisfy the requirement as a clear and definable entry point as viewed from Frederick Street. As the proposed development does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of Clause 6.2.1, it has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principles, as detailed in the table below.

 

 

Design Principles – Clause 6.2.1 P1.1

Administration Comments

 

Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.

Although the pedestrian gate is not a clearly definable entry point as viewed from Frederick Street, Clause 6.2.1 Design Principles does not mention this provision and only requires buildings to be oriented to provide surveillance to the street and common areas. The street elevation of the building provides for passive surveillance from the Unit 1 (Bed 2) and Unit 4 (Bed 1) major openings facing towards Frederick Street and the vehicular approach to the building. As the openings are orientated to both the street elevation and pedestrian approach to the building, Administration considers the variation satisfies the Design Principles of Clause 6.2.1.

 

Although the proposal complies with the Design Principles of Clause 6.2.1, the proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 3.8 of the DADP which requires developments to provide sufficient pedestrian entry-ways which are easy to identify from the street. Administration considers the design of the pedestrian gate by way of size and materials makes it difficult to distinguish between the adjacent sliding gate designed with the same materials. Compliance with Clause 3.8 of the DADP is further discussed in this report.

 

Retaining Walls

 

Two retaining wall variations are proposed as part of this application which includes;

 

·        The lot boundary setback of the north-eastern boundary as required by Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes; and

 

·        The height of the retaining wall within 1m of the north-western and south-eastern boundary walls are to be less than 0.5m as required by LPP 2.4.

 

Assessment against the R-Codes

 

As retaining walls fall within the definition of development under the R-Codes, the provision of Clause 6.1.4 Lot Boundary Setbacks and Table 2a apply. Assessment against Table 2a requires the retaining wall to be set back 1.5m while a setback of 1.3m is proposed. As the proposed retaining walls do not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements, it has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principles, as detailed in the table below.

 

Design Principles – Clause 6.1.4 P4.1

Administration Comments

Buildings setback from boundaries or adjacent to buildings so as to:

·    ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space associated to them;

·    moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property;

·    ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and

·    assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.

The proposed 0.8m high retaining wall setback 1.3m to the north-eastern boundary in lieu of 1.5m is considered to meet the Design Principles of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes and can be supported for the following reasons:

 

·    The retaining wall will not impact access to daylight or direct sun any shadow from the retaining wall will be cast onto the car parking area. Ventilation will not be impacted as the retaining wall is 0.8m high and is not an enclosed structure;

 

·    The 0.8m retaining wall will not be visible from the adjoining property, as the top of retaining wall height will be level with the natural ground level of the adjoining property;

 

·    The R-Codes assessment of overshadowing measures the shadow cast to the south. Therefore, any shadow cast by the retaining wall will be on the subject site, and adjoining properties will not be impacted; and

 

·    The top of the retaining wall is the same height as the natural ground level of the adjoining property. As such, the retaining wall will not result in any loss of privacy.

 

Administration considers that the development satisfies the Design Principles of Clause 6.1.4 of the R-Codes.

 

Assessment against LPP 2.4

 

The deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.3.6 and 6.3.7 of the R-Codes and Clause 2.4 of LPP 2.4 allows for retaining walls within a maximum height of 0.5m to be constructed within 1m of a lot boundary. The application proposes two retaining walls to the northern and southern boundaries with a maximum height of 0.9m and 0.8m respectively in lieu of 0.5m.

 

The previous revision of LPP 2.4 permitted retaining walls to a maximum height of 1m within 1m of the lot boundary. Nevertheless, the amended LPP 2.4 was adopted by Council in July 2017, which requires retaining walls over 0.5m within 1m of the boundary to be advertised irrespective of its compliance with the relevant Design Principles. The variations to the retaining wall heights were included within the second advertising period and no submissions relating to the retaining wall heights were received.

 

Notwithstanding, LPP 2.4 requires variations to the permitted 0.5m to be considered against the relevant Design Principles of the R-Codes. An assessment against the Design Principles of Clause 6.3.6 and Clause 6.3.7 are detailed in the table below:

 

Design Principles – Clause 6.3.6

Administration Comments

P6.1: Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill.

 

P6.2: Where excavation or fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the boundary of the site and the adjoining properties and as viewed from the street.

The development requires a retaining wall greater than 0.5m in height for a small area of the subject site. As the retaining walls are located towards the rear of the lot, it is considered the levels of the retaining wall do not require excessive fill on the site and respect the natural ground level at the lot boundaries and as viewed from Frederick Street.

 

Administration considers that the development satisfies the Design Principles of Clause 6.3.7 of the R-Codes.

 

Design Principles – Clause 6.3.7 P7

Administration Comments

Retaining walls that result in land which can be effectively used for the benefits of residents and do not detrimentally affect adjoining properties and are designed, engineered and adequately landscaped having regard to Clauses 6.3.6: Site Works and 6.4.1: Visual Privacy.

The retaining walls allow for use of the subject site, which is lower at the front than the back, and lower on the north-western side than the south-eastern side. The retaining walls will allow for effective use of the site by levelling the site. The levels of the proposed retaining walls respect the natural ground levels of the adjoining properties and therefore will not detrimentally affect adjoining properties.

 

The proposal is compliant with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 6.3.6, as no more than 0.5m fill is proposed and Clause 6.4.1 as the relevant setbacks or screening have been provided.

Administration considers that the development satisfies the Design Principles of Clause 6.3.7 of the R-Codes.

 

Administration Responses to Objections Received

 

Waste Management

 

Concerns were raised regarding the collection of waste and the number of bins that will be required to service the nine dwellings proposed on-site. 

 

Due to the frontage of the property (21.89m), insufficient room is available to accommodate for a total of 18 of the City’s standard sized bins (240L). As such, the applicant has provided a Waste Management Plan (WMP) which proposed a total of 10 bins including six general waste bins and four recycling bins to be shared amongst all the dwellings. The City’s Waste Services has advised that this would be sufficient in accordance with Western Australian Local Government Association’s (WALGA) Multiple Dwelling Waste Management Plan Guidelines and that a total of 10 bins can be collected from the verge area from the City’s Waste vehicles. A summary of the waste generated and capacity of the bins provided is detailed in the table below.

 

Bin Type

Ratio

Waste Generated

Bins Provided

General

160L / week

1440L / week

1440L (6 x 240L bins)

Recycling

80L / fortnight

720L / fortnight

960L (4 x 240L bins)

 

Should Council support the development application, it is recommended that conditions be recommended to restrict the number of waste bins to a maximum of 10 and for the implementation of the WMP to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the City.

 

Traffic

 

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. Submitters also questioned why a traffic impact statement was not provided.

 

The WAPC’s Transport Assessment Guidelines specify that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) is required for moderate or high impact development. A moderate impact development is where 10-100 dwellings are proposed (and generate 10-100 vehicle trips in the peak hour). A high impact development is greater than 100 dwellings, while a low impact development is less than 10 dwellings. Given the development proposes nine dwellings, it is considered to be low impact and no TIS is required. In this regard, the development will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network.

 

In addition to this, Amendment No. 119 to DPS 2 is the amendment which recoded areas of Wanneroo, Girrawheen and Koondoola in accordance with Local Planning Policy 3.1: Housing Strategy Implementation. At the time that Amendment No. 119 to DPS 2 was being prepared and considered, a Traffic Impact Assessment (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 significant traffic or create traffic congestion on Frederick Street or the surrounding road network.

 

WAPC’s Design WA - Draft Apartment Design Policy

 

The WAPC, as part of the Design WA initiative released the DADP in order to provide design guidance for apartments and mixed use development. The draft document was released for public comment but has not been finalised or formally adopted. As discussed previously, draft policies can still be afforded due regard as the DADP applies several planning principles which align with the R-Codes and LPP 4.20.

 

An assessment against the relevant provisions contained within the DADP has been undertaken by Administration in order to ensure an acceptable design outcome. In addition, Administration engaged a design review consultant to prepare a report demonstrating the proposal’s compliance with the relevant provisions of Design WA. A copy of the design review report can be found as Attachment 6.

 

The report covers the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal which included some of the following key elements:

 

Strengths of the proposal:

 

·        The orientation of the proposal is successful in providing opportunity for northern light to living spaces.

 

·        100% of the units can obtain cross flow ventilation.

 

·        The store rooms and bin storage areas are well laid out, well located, and functional.

 

Elements of the proposal that can be improved upon:

 

·        Lack of deep soil areas throughout the subject site;

 

·        The pedestrian access leading into the building and the arrangement of the front entry gate as viewed from the street;

 

·        The development providing high levels of screening along the private courtyards, upper level balconies, staircases and adjacent access-ways which may impact on safety and privacy of the residents;

 

·        Lack of diversity of apartment types and sizes; and

 

·        The development does not produce a visually appealing design that is in keeping with the current and future context of the locality.

 

 

Administration is of the view that the development does not provide an appropriate design outcome resulting in an undesirable impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the streetscape. Furthermore, the proposal does not provide for well-designed private open space areas of balconies which would increase the residential amenity of the overall development.

 

A more detailed assessment against the relevant provisions of the DADP and the associated provisions of the draft amended LPP 4.20 are discussed below.

 

Deep Soil Areas

 

A deep soil area is defined within the DADP as a soft landscape area on a lot with no impeding building structure or feature above or below, which can support growth of medium to large canopy trees.

 

The Design Criteria (comparative to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the R-Codes) of Clause 3.4 requires 12% of the site area to be provided as a deep soil area with a minimum dimension of 3m. This equates to a total of 139m2 of deep soil areas which should be provided for the subject site. The development provides a total of approximately 2.7% (31.8m2) of deep soil landscaping as defined by the policy.

The Design Guidance of Clause 3.4 seek to ensure that a development includes sufficient areas with a minimum dimension of 3m to allow for sufficient space for planting of trees which can mature. It is noted that the total amount of landscaping provided on site, which includes the deep soil areas and landscaping areas lesser than 3m in dimension, equates to approximately 8.9% (103.9m²) of the site area. Therefore, the provision of total landscaping on the site does not achieve the required 12% for deep soil areas.

 

A recommendation from the consultant’s report identified the proposal could reduce the amount of hardstand and marginally increase the amount of deep soil areas. These modifications will not bring the proposal into compliance and likely increase the deep soil areas by approximately 2.5% (30m²). It is considered that the development provides for limited opportunity and areas for the planting and growth of mature trees within the site.

 

As discussed previously, the provisions within the draft amended LPP 4.20 have been modified to better align with the DADP. In this regard, Clause 3.2 of the draft amended LPP 4.20 allows for a reduction of deep soil areas to 8% of the lot area where existing vegetation of a particular size and significance is retained. As the proposal does not retain any vegetation on site, this reduction is not applicable.

 

Therefore, Administration is of the view that the variation to the deep soil areas does not satisfy the Design Criteria for Clause 3.4 of the DADP and draft amended LPP 4.20.

 

Pedestrian Access and Entries

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 3.8 of the DADP requires developments to provide entries and pathways which are easily accessible and identifiable from the street. This requirement is consistent Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes as discussed above.

 

The report prepared by the design review consultant states that the pedestrian gate as the principle pedestrian entry point is not sufficient against the Design Criteria of Clause 3.8. Furthermore, Administration considers the design of the pedestrian gate by way of size and materials makes it difficult to distinguish between the adjacent sliding gate designed with the same materials. As detailed within the R-Codes section above, the application is not considered to meet the Design Criteria of Clause 3.8 of the DADP nor Clause 6.2.1 of the R-Codes.

 

 

Clause 4.1.1 of the draft amended LPP 4.20 requires pedestrian entry ways to be clearly recognisable from the street through the use of colours, materials and building form. Furthermore, Clause 4.1.3 requires a separate pedestrian entry for the ground floor of the dwelling closest to the primary street (i.e. Unit 1). As detailed above, the pedestrian gate does not provide for a clearly recognisable entry point as viewed from Frederick Street. Additionally, no separate pedestrian entry way has been provided into Unit 1.

 

Therefore, Administration is of the view that the proposal above does not satisfy the Design Criteria for Clause 3.4 of the DADP and draft amended LPP 4.20.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies

 

Clause 4.5 of the DADP requires developments to provide well-designed private courtyards and balconies to enhance the residential amenity of the dwelling. The report prepared by the design review consultant identified the application proposes a high amount of screening along the balconies, courtyards and stairways, which would lead to restricted visual surveillance and potentially unsafe corridors. Administration considers the design of the external stairways combined with excessive screening does not provide for a high residential amenity for each dwelling as required under Clause 4.5.

 

Administration acknowledges that there are no applicable deemed-to-comply provisions within the R-Codes nor within the adopted or draft amended LPP 4.20 that relates to minimum width distances for the external staircases or level of screening used. Although there are no deemed-to-comply provisions being applicable, Administration is of the view that the development can provide for reduced levels of screening to increase amenity of these spaces.

 

As discussed previously, the applicant proposed extensive screening along the balconies and stairways upon request of the adjoining landowner as means to minimise overlooking. The deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.4.1 only required screening along the Unit 4-9 balconies as these balconies did not achieve the minimum required 6m visual privacy setback to the north-western lot boundary. Screening was not required along the external stairways as stairways are not considered to be active habitable spaces as defined under the R-Codes.

 

While visual privacy was raised as an issue through the first and second consultation periods, the plans within Attachment 2 illustrate a minimum 6m visual privacy setback for the upper floor Unit 4-9 balconies to the north-western lot boundary. In this regard, there is scope for the majority of the screening to be removed and for the proposal to comply with the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.4.1 of the R-Codes.

 

Therefore, Administration is of the view that the proposal above does not satisfy the Design Criteria for Clause 4.5 of the DADP. Should Council support the development application, it is recommended a condition be included for the removal of screening to increase the amenity of these spaces.

 

Apartment Mix

 

Clause 4.10 of the DADP relates to developments providing a mix of apartment types. Whilst it is noted that a minimum number of apartment types or mix is not specified, the proposal does not incorporate any diversity in apartment types (each unit provides for two bedrooms and two bathrooms). Furthermore, the proposal does not provide a diversity in the apartment sizes with the minimum internal area ranging from 64.85m² (Unit 8) to a maximum 67.13m² (Unit 9).

 

 

 

The deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.4.3 of the R-Codes relating to dwelling sizes requires a mix of apartment types for 12 or more dwellings however, the application proposes nine dwellings. In light of the above, the apartment mix for this application is considered to be acceptable against the Design Criteria of Clause 4.4 of the DADP and Clause 6.4.3 of the R-Codes.

 

Facades

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 4.12 of the DADP and Clause 4.2 of the draft amended LPP 4.20 require building façades to provide visual interest along the street which are keeping in character of the local area and streetscape. The façade of the development facing Frederick Street proposes a two storey development with no front pedestrian entry, alternating materials or colours.

 

The report prepared by the design review consultant noted there are opportunities to improve the façade of the dwelling through the use of larger openings, alternating building materials and colours and through the use of a pedestrian entry (as detailed above).

 

Administration considers that the application does not propose a façade which provides visual interest to Frederick Street and therefore, the proposal does not satisfy Clause 4.12 of the DADP.

 

Ventilation

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 4.2.2 of the DADP requires at least 60% of apartments to be naturally cross ventilated, which equates to a total of five units. 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 should not exceed 18m in depth. 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 DADP. 

 

Communal Open Space

 

The Design Criteria of Clause 3.5 of the DADP 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 a total of nine dwellings, and as such is not required to provide communal open space on the site, therefore complying with the requirements of Clause 3.5 of the DADP.

 

Assessment against Clause 67 of Deemed Provisions of DPS 2

 

The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the following Matters to be Considered by Local Government under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, for the reasons discussed below.

 

 

Matters to be Considered by Local Government

Administration Comment

f)

Any policy of the State.

As discussed previously, the proposed development has not been designed with due consideration to the DADP, as the proposal does not satisfy the Design Criteria and/or Design Guidance relating to deep soil areas, pedestrian access and entries, private open space and balconies and building facades.

p)

whether adequate provision has been made for the landscaping of the land to which the application relates and whether any trees or other vegetation on the land should be preserved;

As discussed previously, the proposed development does not provide for sufficient landscaping on the subject site as the proposal does not satisfy the Design Criteria and/or Design Guidance relating to deep soil areas.

m)

The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including,  but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation. and appearance of the development

The proposed development is not considered to be compatible within the character of the locality, by way of its appearance and potential impact on the streetscape and adjoining residential properties.

n)

the amenity of the locality including the following —

(ii) the character of the locality;

As discussed above in m)

 

As the proposal is not consistent with a number of the Matters to be Considered by Local Government under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, the proposed application is not supported.

 

Conclusion

 

The application for nine Multiple Dwellings at 50A Frederick Street, Wanneroo has been assessed against the relevant requirements of the R-Codes, LPP 4.20, draft amended LPP 4.20 and LPP 2.4. The proposal is considered to generally meet the requirements of the R-Codes, LPP 4.20, and LPP 2.4 including the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 6.1.4, Clause 6.2.1, Clause 6.3.6 and Clause 6.3.7 of the R-Codes relating to street surveillance and retaining walls. These variations are considered to meet the relevant Design Principles and are supported.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Administration considers that there are elements of the proposal which do not achieve compliance with the DADP as detailed above. In this regard, Administration is of the view that the development is unacceptable and therefore, recommends that the development application be refused.

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 DADP Policy and draft amended LPP 4.20.

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

1.       That Council, pursuant to Clause 68(2)(c) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 REFUSES the Development Application (DA2017/282) for Nine Multiple Dwellings at Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo as shown in Attachment 2 of this report, for the following reasons:

 

a.       Approval of the application would be contrary to the following matters to be considered by Council in exercising its discretion under Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2:

 

i.       Clause 67 (f), as the proposal does not have due consideration for the Draft State Planning Policy 7.3 Design of the Built Environment and associated Draft Apartment Design Policy.

 

ii.      Clause 67(p), as the proposed landscaping provided is considered inadequate for the development.

 

iii.     Clause 67(m) and Clause 67(n)(ii), as the proposal does not demonstrate how it is compatible with the character of the locality, by way of its appearance, and potential impact on the streetscape and adjoining residential properties;

 

b.      The application has not had due regard to the Draft State Planning Policy 7.3 Design of the Built Environment and associated Draft Apartment Design Policy as the application does not satisfy the Design Criteria and/or Design Guidance, including but not limited to, Deep Soil Areas, Pedestrian Access and Entries, Private Open Space and Balconies and Building Facades.


 

 

2.         ADVISES the submitter(s) of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

18/192470

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Development Application Plans - Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

18/192456

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submission following First Period of Public Consultation - Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

18/192470

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submission following Second Period of Public Consultation - Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

18/192471

 

5.

Attachment 5 – Assessment against Draft LPP 4.20

18/207062

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Design Review Report prepared by Gresley Abas - Lot 16 (50A) Frederick Street, Wanneroo

18/192477

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           115

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           120

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           126

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           131

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     137

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     140

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 26 June, 2018                                                         150

PS06-06/18       SAT Reconsideration - Proposed amendment to Local Development Plan Zamia Rise Dunes and Development Application (DA2018/300) for retrospective approval of Single House Addition (Outbuilding and Retaining Wall) at Lot 787 (33) Cave Loop, Yanchep.

File Ref:                                              3389-D2 – 18/176277

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       10         

Issue

To:

 

1.       Reconsider the proposed amendment to Local Development Plan - Zamia Rise Dunes, Yanchep (LDP) in response to an invitation from the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA); and

 

2.       Consider a development application for retrospective approval of Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Retaining Wall) at Lot 787 (33) Cave Loop, Yanchep (subject site).

 

Applicant

Michael Bruno

Owner

Mathew and Denise Arrigoni

Location

Lot 787 (33) Cave Loop, Yanchep

Site Area

2,024m2

MRS Zoning

Urban Development

DPS 2 Zoning

Residential R5

 

 

Background

On 9 May 2017, Michael Bruno on behalf of Mathew and Denise Arrigoni requested the City to consider an amendment to the LDP to modify the building envelope of the subject site.

 

The LDP area is bound by Seagrass Street to the north, unconstructed Marmion Avenue to the east, Cave Loop so the south and Beachside Parade to the west. Attachment 1 is the context plan locating the LDP area and Attachment 2 is the location plan. In the Capricorn Coastal Village Approved Structure Plan No.44 (ASP 44), the LDP area is coded Residential R5 wherein the minimum lot area is 2,000m2

 

In accordance with the provisions of ASP 44, the LDP designates building envelopes for each lot to ensure the retention of the natural dunal landform and native vegetation. The LDP also establishes built form provisions relating to finished floor level, retaining wall height and building setbacks.

 

The LDP was originally endorsed by the City in March 2008. The LDP was amended on 23 September 2015 to modify the building envelope of Lot 780 Seagrass Street, Yanchep (Attachment 3). As per the LDP, the building envelope of the subject site is setback approximately 16.2 metres from the rear boundary, 4.8 metres from the eastern boundary and 5.5 metres from the western boundary. The total area of the building envelope is 624m2.

 

In October 2014, the previous owners of the subject site were granted building approval (BA2014/5533) for the construction of a single house. Due to the terrain of the site with an east-west cross fall of about 5 metres, the earthwork of the site was extended beyond the approved building envelope. Attachment 4 is the approved building plan which depicts the originally approved building envelope and the proposed earthwork extending beyond the limits of the building envelope.

 

In November 2016 building approval (BA2016/3183) was granted for the construction of a swimming pool and limestone retaining wall around the swimming pool (Attachment 5). They were contained within the ‘extended’ building envelope as a result of the previous building approval.

 

The amended LDP modifying the building envelope as originally proposed by the applicant is included as Attachment 6. This amendment proposes to reconfigure the building envelope in an irregular shape to contain the dwelling, the swimming pool, the retaining wall and the proposed outbuilding with approximately a minimum setback of 1.5 metres from the rear boundary. The applicant without approval had partially constructed the outbuilding within the modified building envelope with a minimum 1.5-metre rear setback. The wall and ridge height of the outbuilding are 4 and 5 metres respectively.

 

Administration undertook public consultation by way of writing to the owners of the property at 18 Seagrass Street, Yanchep adjoining the rear boundary of the subject site. In response the City received a submission objecting to the proposal for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposed building envelope extension and the semi-constructed outbuilding are located too close to the rear boundary. The building bulk of the outbuilding is excessive as viewed from the alfresco area; and

 

·        The rear setback of the proposed building envelope does not allow sufficient space for the planting of vegetation, which may help to reduce the impact of the outbuilding.

 

Council, at its meeting of 5 December 2017, considered the subject matter and resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons (PS04-12/17):

 

1.       A large area of vegetation has been cleared outside the existing building envelope, which is contrary to the purpose of the Local Development Plan and the provisions of Approved Structure Plan No. 44 – Capricorn Coastal Village, Yanchep; and

 

2.       The proposed extension of the building envelope is considered to adversely impact the amenity of the rear adjoining property.

 

State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Mediations

 

Aggrieved by the Council’s decision, on 22 January 2018, the applicant appealed to the
SAT requesting it to review the decision. SAT mediation was held on two occasions where the following matters were considered:

 

·        Increasing the setback of the proposed building envelope from the rear lot boundary, and planting of native species between the building envelope and the rear boundary;

 

·        Additional information supporting the proposed amendment to the LDP; and

 

·        The submission of a development application for the outbuilding and retaining wall.

Detail

LDP

 

As per the SAT orders, the applicant submitted the following:

 

·        A revised LDP amendment proposal showing the building envelope setback between 3.020 and 4.520 metres from the rear boundary (Attachment 7);

 

·        A retrospective development application for the outbuilding and retaining wall (Attachment 8). It is proposed to reduce the wall and ridge height of the outbuilding to 3 and 4 metres respectively from 4 and 5 metres;

 

·        Revegetation plan prepared in consultation with Administration (Attachment 9); and

 

·        A photo showing the view of the outbuilding from the rear property screened by vegetation. This photo is to show the approximate alignment of the ridgeline of the outbuilding at a height of 4 metres (Attachment 10)

 

DA2018/300

 

A development application to seek retrospective approval of the following:

 

·        The partially constructed outbuilding with a revised wall and ridge height of 3.0m and 4.0m respectively and setback between 3.0m and 4.5m from the rear lot boundary; and

 

·        The constructed 2.4 metres high retaining wall around the swimming pool. .

Consultation

In accordance with Clauses 50(2) and 64(3) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, the revised LDP along with the revegetation plan and the development application were advertised inviting comments from the owners of the rear property at 18 Seagrass Street, Yanchep, for a period of 14 days. The advertising period commenced on 8 May and closed on 22 May 2018. The City received a submission from the residents of 18 Seagrass Street stating that they were willing to negotiate if the following points were followed and strictly adhered to:

 

1.       Maximum shed wall height of 2.4m.

 

2.       Maximum Ridge line or Apex height of 3.4m.

 

3.       The soil and sand that is falling onto rear fence line and into their block is to be physically retained with block form and not mulch and ground cover, hence fixing the issue of sand rolling through the fence line and bringing the land back to its original levels as shown on the LDP.

 

4.       Plant a minimum of 10 Cottonwood Trees (Hibiscus Tiliaceus) at a minimum height of 3 metres to totally screen the shed wall from view and reduce the impending noise from inside the outbuilding. These trees must be secured, maintained and irrigated to ensure their establishment. If the tree fails to establish and dies it must be replaced within 14 days with the same size tree as the surrounding trees. This condition must be monitored and adhered to for minimum 7 years. 

 

5.       Move the current gated dog kennels closer to the applicants’ house rather than to the rear property.

 

6.       The colour of the shed walls and roof to be dark green or matte black to minimise the reflection/glare into the entertaining areas.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment

The following comments are made in response to the issues raised in the submission.

 

Outbuilding height

 

Clause 5.4.3 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) prescribes a wall and ridge height of 2.4 and 4.2 metres respectively. The applicant proposes a wall and ridge height of 3 and 4 metres. The wall height can be varied under the provisions of the R-Codes provided the outbuilding does not detract from the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

 

As the applicant proposes to screen the outbuilding from the rear property by planting vegetation species as recommended by Administration, the outbuilding is less likely to impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties. Therefore Administration supports the proposed variation to the wall height of 3 metres.

Vegetation type

 

The submitter has suggested the planting of ten 3-metre high Cottonwood Trees between the outbuilding and the rear fence. The applicant already has Cottonwood Trees on site. It was at the recommendation of Administration that the applicant proposed to plant Rottnest Island Pine (advance plant) and Black Paperbark trees as they were adequate to screen the outbuilding from the rear property and were species endemic to the area. Administration does not support planting of the Cottonwood trees suggested by the submitter. With respect to the submitter’s concern about maintenance of the vegetation, it is recommended that a condition to that effect be imposed on the development application.

 

The submitter has suggested that the rear setback area be retained with block form. This is not necessary as it is proposed to revegetate the rear setback area.

 

Dog Kennels

 

The submitter has requested the applicant to move the kennel. This issue is not within the scope of the subject application and therefore it is not intended to deal with this matter through the consideration of this application.

 

Colour of the Outbulding

 

The submitter has suggested that the colour of the outbuilding to be dark green or matte black. The outbuilding is made of colorbond sheets. The applicant has advised that the colour of the colorbond walls and roof are dark and light grey respectively. It is noted that neither DPS 2 nor the LDP prescribe provisions regarding colour of a structure.

 

Other matters

 

LDP

 

In the current LDP, the building envelope of the subject site is 624m2 in area and is oriented east-west towards the front of the lot. If the applicant were to consider the originally approved building envelope and wish to construct the outbuilding it would be located alongside the dwelling and fronting Cave Loop. An outbuilding fronting the primary street is likely to affect the streetscape of Cave Loop. Hence there is some merit to locate the outbuilding behind the dwelling with sufficient rear setback.

 

In the revised LDP the building envelope is proposed to be 635m2 in area, an increase of 11m2 from the originally approved area of 624m2.

 

Considering the above and the response provided by the submitter, Administration supports the proposed amendment to the LDP.

 

It is noted that the applicant has re-vegetated the subject site outside the modified building envelope as shown in Attachment 2.

 

DA2018/300

 

Outbuilding

 

In accordance with the ‘deemed-to-comply’ provisions of clause 5.4.3 of the R-Codes, an outbuilding should not exceed 2.4m wall height, 4.2m pitched roof height and 60m2 in area. The outbuilding is proposed with a wall and ridge height of 3.0m and 4.0m respectively and a floor area of 96m2. Therefore a variation is requested for the wall height and the area of the outbuilding

Since the outbuilding is located at the rear of the dwelling and is proposed to be screened from the rear property by planting vegetation species as recommended by Administration, the outbuilding is not likely to impact on the streetscape or on the amenities of the adjoining properties.

The LDP states that the boundary setback provisions of the R-Codes shall only apply if the cone of vision from major openings of structures proposed overlooks part of a designated building envelope of a neighbouring property. The outbuilding does not incorporate any major openings.  Therefore the setback provisions of the R-Codes do not apply. 

As the proposed variations are considered reasonable, it is recommended that the outbuilding as amended be retrospectively approved.

Retaining Wall

Retrospective approval is also requested for the existing 2.4m-high retaining wall around the swimming pool area. The purpose of the retaining wall was to retain the sand dune outside of the swimming pool area. 

The top of the retaining wall is at a lower level than that of the adjoining eastern property at 37 Cave Loop and therefore it is not visible from 37 Cave Loop, Yanchep.

The retaining wall is setback a minimum of 13m from the rear lot boundary. Therefore it cannot not seen from 18 Seagrass Street, Yanchep. In light of the above, the retaining wall is not considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties and therefore it is recommended that it be retrospectively approved.

Assessment against State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7)

 

The subject site is located within a bushfire prone area. The applicant has provided a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment. As per this assessment the site has a BAL rating of BAL-19, which means increasing levels of ember attack and burning debris ignited by windborne embers together with increasing heat flux. This does not prevent development, but requires construction of a higher standard, which will be dealt with at the building permit stage.

 

Modification to the building envelope of 18 Seagrass Street

 

The applicant had brought to the City’s attention that the resident of 18 Seagrass Street had constructed a retaining wall outside the approved building envelope. This matter is being considered separately by Administration as it is not within the scope of the subject application.

 

Conclusion

 

Following SAT mediation the applicant has submitted a revised LDP with a minimum rear setback of 3 to 4.5 metres  The applicant has also submitted a revegetation plan which proposes to plant vegetation between the rear boundary and the outbuilding to screen it from the rear property. The applicant has already revegetated the previously cleared and re-contoured garden area with predominantly native vegetation. Administration recommends that Council sets aside its previous decision of 5 December 2017 and approves the amended LDP. It is also recommended to approve the development application (DA2018/300) as it satisfies the LDP and R-Codes provisions.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Environment (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

Local Planning Policy 4.14 – Planning Compliance

Local Planning Policy 4.17 – State Administrative Tribunal

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Section 31(2)(c) of the State Administrative Act 2004 (WA) RESOLVES to SET ASIDE its previous decision of 5 December 2017 to refuse the amended Local Development Plan Zamia Rise Dunes, Yanchep, and APPROVES under Clause 52(1)(a) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) the revised Local Development Plan as shown in Attachment 7.

 

 

2.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2 APPROVES the Development Application (DA2018/300) seeking retrospective approval for Single House Additions (Outbuilding and Retaining Wall) at Lot 787 (33) Cave Loop, Yanchep, as shown in Attachment 8, subject to  the following conditions:

a)      This approval relates only to the proposed Single House Addition (Outbuilding and retaining wall) as indicated on the approved plans. It does not relate to any other development on the lot.

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

c)      The outbuilding shall be used for purposes that are ancillary to the residential use of the property, and shall not be used for commercial or industrial purposes or for human habitation.

d)      The approved revegetation plan contained in Attachment 9 of this report shall be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Land Development.

3.       ADVISES the State Administrative Tribunal and the submitter of the above decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Context Plan

18/181330

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Location Plan

18/179366

 

3.

Attachment 3  - Endorsed LDP

17/402508

 

4.

Attachment 4 - Approved DA- Single House

18/180268

 

5.

Attachment 5 - approved Swimming Pool and retainng wall

18/180272

 

6.

Attachment 6  - Amended LDP

17/144630

 

7.

Attachment 7 - Amended LDP with correct signature block

18/178775

Minuted

8.

Attachment 8 - Development Application

18/114082

Minuted

9.

Attachment 9 - Revegatation plan

18/178819

Minuted

10.

Attachment 10 - View from the rear property

18/178788

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     157

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           158

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           159

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           160

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     161

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           162

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           163

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     164

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           165

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     167

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           168

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         169

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

AS01-06/18       Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Strategy

File Ref:                                              6671 – 18/211243

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider the new draft Asset Management Policy (AM Policy) and the draft Asset Management Strategy (AM Strategy) to supersede previous versions of these documents.

Background

The Infrastructure Asset Management Policy was initially adopted in 2006 with reviews undertaken in 2010 and 2013. The last 2013 version, which was renamed Asset Management Policy, was adopted at Council in February 2013 (Item No CS06-02/13 refers).

 

The AM Strategy was first adopted on 25 June 2013 as part of a suite of documents presented to Council that made up the City’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework (Item No CE01-06/13 refers).

 

On adoption by Council, the new draft AM Policy and draft AM Strategy will supersede the previously adopted AM Policy (2013) and AM Strategy (2013) respectively. The review of these strategic documents and the development of a Strategic Asset Management Framework is part of CBP Action no. AA077. 

Detail

The Asset Management Framework (AM Framework) that supports and informs the City’s Integrated Planning Framework (IPF) from an Asset Management (AM) perspective is shown in the Figure 1 which consists of the following key documents:

·        AM Policy;

·        AM Strategy and AM Implementation Plan;

·        Asset Management Plans (AMP) for major asset classes and major facilities;

·        Operational Plans and Maintenance Plans; and,

·        Asset Evaluation and Performance Reporting.


 

 

Figure 1: Alignment of the AM Framework to the IPF

 

 

The purpose of the AM Policy is to ensure that:

·        Assets are provided to service the needs of current and future communities in the most economical manner, optimising their long term return on investment. This will be achieved by building or acquiring quality, fit for purpose and long lasting assets, and managing these effectively over their complete lifecycle.

·        The City has the systems, people, resources, capability, knowledge and understanding of its assets to effectively provide the intended services to meet the objectives of the Strategic Community Plan (SCP) and Corporate Business Plan (CBP).

·        As a growth Council, the City will seek to balance the need to provide for new services and assets to meet growth demands while maintaining and optimising the use of its existing asset portfolio.

The AM Policy also defines the key principles and requirements which the City will apply to its planning and management of assets to ensure that these are effective and safe to meet the needs of its community, customers and stakeholders. It has been developed to ensure that:

·        Service delivery forms the basis of asset acquisition to meet the needs of the community, customers and stakeholders.

·        Assets are acquired with consideration to; optimised whole of asset lifecycle costs, associated risks, financial sustainability, quality and reliability.

·        Assets are managed effectively over their complete lifecycle in a safe, effective, efficient and coordinated manner.

·        Adequate resources, capability and management systems are in place to sustainably support the management of assets.

·        Strong leadership, accountability and commitment at senior management level to drive effective AM practices.

Whilst in the short term, the current asset performance measures and observed AM practices are considered adequate to service the City’s current needs, projected growth and predicted asset performance results highlight a greater risk to City operations in the future. Proactively seeking continual improvement of our AM capabilities and practices will enable the City to continue to make informed decisions ensuring sustainable outcomes now and into the future.

 

The high level strategic actions detailed in the AM Strategy in support of the AM Policy seeks to deliver the following:

·        better alignment of the AM objectives to the corporate objectives;

·        better integration of AM planning, community service planning, financial management planning and the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP);

·        more effective AM processes, accountability and governance for assets;

·        greater accountability and commitment to improving AM practices at senior management level;

·        the acquisition and implementation of a dedicated corporate Asset Management Information System (AMIS);

·        a consistent City wide AM culture;

·        a City Asset Management System (AMS) that is aligned to industry best practice; and,

·        Asset Management Plans (AMP), Asset Class Plans (ACPs), Maintenance Management Plans (MMPs) and Annual Plans that optimise performance of assets at a level of service and risk the community is willing to support and meet corporate and organisational objectives.

An AM Implementation Plan (2018-2022) has also been developed to address the short to medium term goals of the AM Strategy seeking initially to:

 

·        Define and document the City’s AMS including documenting management procedures and processes;

·        Identify any potential resourcing or servicing gaps in the AMS and develop strategies to address these;

·        Establish a corporate governance structure for AM supported with clear accountability at all levels of management;

·        Acquire and implement an AMIS to support and improve effectiveness and efficiencies in AM processes and data management;

·        Develop AMPs, ACPs and MMPs in alignment with the key principles and requirements set out in the AM policy;

·        Improve integration between AM planning and other City community and financial planning functions in developing the LTFP; and,

·        Develop and measure KPIs to monitor asset performance and guide improvements in AM practices.  

A copy of the new draft AM Policy is included as Attachment 1 and the draft AM Strategy is included as Attachment 2. A copy of the AM Implementation Plan is also attached for information as Attachment 3.

Consultation

Internal stakeholders from all Directorates have been engaged in developing these documents.

Comment

Assets are fundamental to the City’s overall service delivery and holding stewardship of a large asset portfolio and complexity brings with it, considerable responsibility and associated risks. They require strong and informed Council and Executive oversight in order to achieve and maintain sustainable asset performance outcomes for the community now and into the future. Financial planning for the ongoing maintenance and operating effort of assets over their life cycle is therefore critical to ensure that they continue to sustainably provide the intended services at the agreed levels of service.

 

The increasing challenges the City faces include:

·        continued growth and managing the corresponding rate of acquired assets received from land development via Administration;

·        increasing community demands for new infrastructure and services across a wide geographical area of varied development maturity;

·        ongoing need to maintain and/or upgrade existing assets to support services;

·        financial planning to ensure intergenerational equity and equity across the City’s geographical area;

·        need to consider creative solutions to meet the increasing diverse nature of the City’s community;

·        climate change considerations;

·        limited funds to meet current and ongoing asset management and community needs; and,

·        increasing legislative requirements for the local governments to demonstrate how services will continue to be delivered to the community in a financially and sustainable manner.

The practice of AM is what is needed to ensure sustainable outcomes now and into the future. The integration of decision making across the organisation is one of the key principles of good AM. In conjunction with other Informing Strategies and Plans such as, the Workforce Plan and LTFP, the AM Strategy guides and informs the CBP in meeting the City’s strategic goals within the IPF approach.

 

The high level strategic actions detailed in the AM Strategy are proposed to be implemented over a number of years. A number of actions are proposed to be undertaken simultaneously where many others will be implemented following the successful implementation of a number of earlier actions. These actions will be reviewed every four years to ensure alignment with the strategic objectives.

 

The short term to medium term actions detailed in the AM Implementation Plan will be reviewed annually to ensure continued focus and alignment with the AM Strategy.

 

The City‘s current level of AM practice generally follows elements of IPWEA’s, ‘International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM)’. In parallel to the IIMM, the AM Strategy and Implementation Plan seeks to continuously improve AM practices throughout the organisation in alignment with the IPF and AS/ISO 55001 AM System Standards.

 

It is also recognised that AM is a corporate whole of organisation responsibility and achieving the objectives of the AM Strategy is a long term journey of improvements. It is not the City’s intention at this stage to seek accreditation to the AS/ISO Standard. However the City will utilise the standards as a guide for improvements. This AM Strategy seeks to achieve basic alignment to ISO 55001 by 2022 with future iterations aiming to achieve core alignment thereafter.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

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

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

4.2.3  Ensure return on investment and well maintained assets through development and implementation of a strategic asset management framework

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-018 Inherited Assets

High

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Planning & Sustainability

Manage

 

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-O04 Asset Management

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

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

 

The AM Policy and AM Strategy is intended to provide guidance, direction and the impetus to improve the City’s AM System and practices to better align to both strategic and corporate objectives and address the above risks identified

Policy Implications

The AM Policy will guide improvements and development of the City’s AM practices and AM decision making in line with the corporate objectives.

Financial Implications

This AM Policy will be a key internal reference point for guidance in the development of budgets, ensuring consistency and transparency in approach. This Policy provides guidance to the community, Elected Members and City staff with respect to AM Planning and its impact on financial planning.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ADOPTS the Asset Management Policy as shown in Attachment 1; and,

2.       ADOPTS the Asset Management Strategy as shown in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Draft 2018 Asset Management Policy

16/106984

Minuted

2.

Draft 2018 Asset Management Strategy

16/279441

Minuted

3.

Draft 2018 Asset Management Implementation Plan

18/209973

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     175

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     181

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     200

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           207

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         212

 

Waste Services

AS02-06/18       Review of the WALGA Waste Levy Policy Statement 2009

File Ref:                                              30257 – 18/202129

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To provide comment to the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) on the ‘Review of the WALGA Waste Levy Policy Statement 2009’ Discussion Paper.

Background

WALGA’s Municipal Waste Advisory Council developed a discussion paper; refer Attachment 1, outlining key issues for consideration by the local government sector. This paper reviews the policy statement, providing background information on the current situation, then discusses each section of the policy statement and identifies if there is a need for change.

 

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Levy (the Levy) is an economic instrument which has the potential to incentivise waste diversion from landfill and fund strategic waste management initiatives. The Levy operates in a complex environment and is not the only mechanism which should be relied upon to achieve these outcomes.

 

The Levy is payable for every tonne of waste delivered to landfill.

Detail

WALGA is currently reviewing its policy statement on the Waste Levy. There have been a number of changes to the levy since WALGA’s last review of the policy statement in 2009; these include a schedule of levy increases, a move away from charging different levies for inert and putrescible waste, a State Waste Strategy and the Auditor General’s Report on the Implementation of the State Waste Strategy. The Minister for Environment has also requested that the Waste Authority undertake an economic analysis of the Levy. These factors present Local Government with an opportunity to discuss and reaffirm, or amend, the sector’s Policy Position on the Waste Levy.

 

Local Government has long argued that the Levy should only be expended on strategic waste management initiatives. However, this is currently not the case – with only 25% of funds allocated to the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Account (WARR Account). Given the current fiscal environment, it is unlikely that this situation will change in the near future.

 

The discussion paper reviews the WALGA Waste Levy and Strategic Waste Funding Policy Statement. The paper first provides background information on the current situation regarding the Levy, then discusses each section of the Policy Statement and identifies if there is a need for change.

Consultation

WALGA has produced this discussion paper and is the subject of this report and requests feedback and comment by 29 June 2018, extended from Friday 25 May 2018.

Comment

Administration has reviewed the discussion paper and considered the cases for change to the policy statement on the Levy.

 

Attachment 2 outlines the City’s review and proposed feedback as a response to WALGA. Administration supports the position presented by WALGA.

 

Administration’s rationale is outlined below.

 

1.       The proposed question regarding the amendment of the Policy Statement to focus only on the portion of the Levy that is allocated to the WARR Account.  Administration does not agree that there should be any amendment to the below Policy statement:

 

Considering that a significant portion of the Levy is already being diverted from the WARR Account, the City agrees that it would be logical to focus on the practical management of the funds that are currently hypothecated to waste management initiatives. This said, there should always be an expectation that at least a majority of the Levy raised is committed to funding strategic waste management initiatives. Further, given the current challenges and opportunities facing the local waste management industry, commitment of a greater percentage of the Levy to investment in local solutions could have far reaching, positive economic outcomes beyond adding to State Government general revenue.  

 

2.       There may be cases for the application of the Levy to waste generated in the non-metropolitan area; WALGA presents several such arguments in the Discussion Paper. Administration agrees that the benefits of applying the Levy across all of Western Australia could be negated by resulting consequences. However, it could be argued that if more than 25% of the Levy raised in non-metropolitan areas is dedicated to the implementation of strategic waste management initiatives in those areas then that could have a positive effect in non-metropolitan WA. That is to say, there is some support for the Levy to be applied to licensed landfills outside the metropolitan area, provided it is managed in such a way that it is not detrimental to non-metropolitan communities.

 

The Administration’s position is that, as a metropolitan council, the City of Wanneroo does not support the application of the Levy to the non-metropolitan area while only a fraction of the Levy is hypothecated to strategic waste management by the State Government.

Statutory Compliance

N/A

Strategic Implications

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

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.2    Enhanced Environment

3.2.2  Collaborate with relevant State agencies with a focus on the enhancement of the natural environment

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 changes to WALGA’s Policy Statement on the Waste Levy does not impact on the City’s Waste Management Services Policy or other associated documents.

Financial Implications

N/A

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the City’s response to WALGA’s ‘Review of the WALGA Waste Levy Policy Statement 2009’ Discussion Paper, as contained in Attachment 2.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Discussion_Paper_Levy_Policy_December_2017

18/211913

 

2.

Response to WALGA Discussion Paper Review of the WALGA Waste Levy Policy Statement 2009

18/211645

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     215

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     235

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         238

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

CP01-06/18       Appleby Park, Darch - Outcome of Community Consultation and Concept Approval

File Ref:                                              28103 – 18/178797

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept plan for the development of Appleby Park, Darch.

Background

Appleby Park (the Park) is an existing passive reserve located across five parcels of land on Appleby Drive, Darch totalling an area of approximately 3.1 hectares (Attachment 1). There are a further two parcels located to the north of the Park (Lots 12 and 9500) which are yet to be handed over to the City of Wanneroo. The intention of the Developer of Lot 12 is to develop the site as a passive park, with plans currently being reviewed by Administration taking into account the proposed concept as outlined within this report. No plans for the development of Lot 9500 have been progressed.

 

Lot 501 on the eastern side of the park is listed as Conservation & Passive Recreation. The remaining four Lots (500, 121, 32 and 944) are crown land vested to the City of Wanneroo for the purpose of public recreation. Lot 121, on the western side of the park, includes a small playground with a set of swings and a large combination unit, which was constructed by the developer in 2004.

 

The area being considered for development as a part of this project includes Lots 500 and 32, with the extent of the proposed development seeking to complement the existing level of amenity provided on Lot 121. These three Lots combined provide a total land area of 1.56 hectares, which under Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space would be considered as a Neighbourhood level park. A GIS investigation of this area indicates the following:

 

Item

Current Status

Park Size / Hierarchy

1.56 ha / Neighbourhood Passive Park

Reserve No.

47248 & 47405

Lot No.

32, 121 & 500

Property Type

Public recreation

Ownership

Crown Land – City of Wanneroo managed

Aboriginal Sites

None listed on GIS

Water Restrictions

Park sits within the Whitfords groundwater sub-area which is currently over allocated. No additional groundwater resources are available in this area.

Bush Forever

None listed on GIS. Lot 501 to the east of the park does however listed as Conservation & Passive Recreation.

Other existing public open spaces within a walkable catchment of the Park (400m - 800m or 5-10 minute walk) include:

Park

Location

Comment

Monaghan Park

82 Monaghan Circle, Darch. 438m north

Kingsway Road is a major barrier to accessing this park.

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex

100 Kingsway, Madeley. 942m west.

This is not considered to be a walkable distance.

Landsdale Park

120 Landsdale Road, Landsdale. 161m south

Undeveloped park, listed as Conservation and Passive Recreation.

Bowood Park

2 Bowood Road, Darch. 426m west

Undeveloped park. Majority of park is in private ownership with no plans for development within the foreseeable future.

Detail

Administration has prepared two concept design options (Attachment 2) for consideration by the community, which include the following key elements:

 

·        3 on 3 basketball court;

·        Path network;

·        Play equipment items (net play, bird’s nest swing, flying fox);

·        Nature play areas (balancing log, boulder, log steppers); and

·        Picnic setting and seating areas.

 

The design philosophy for the two concepts is to activate the undeveloped section of the park, providing access and connection to a series of activities whilst considering existing amenities, trees and topography.

 

There are a number of different features across the two designs as outlined below.

 

Option 1

This option aims to provide a more centralised play hub with an open kick about space. The 3 on 3 basketball court is located to the north of the site with a seating area, and is connected to the balance of the park by a path network which runs from the north west corner (Lot 32) through the centre of the park and through to Appleby Drive. There is a small tree grove orchard located next to the playground area in the centre of the park, a turf / kick about area and some nature play elements amongst the existing trees. The proposed kick-about space will require the installation of irrigation to support the new turf and an upgrade to the existing park bore, which has been included within the concept cost estimates.

 

Option 2

This option aims to maximise park activation through the provision of a series of “activity nodes” throughout the site, connected via an internal path network which runs from the north- west corner through the centre of the park. The basketball court is located in the north-west corner, with a bird’s nest swing in the north east. In the centre of the park there is a net play unit located next to a picnic setting and native garden, with a small cycle track running around the outside, connecting to the path network. A larger double flying fox is located to the south of the site as the third “activity station” along the path network.

 

Both draft concept design options allow for the development of the park as a single stage and with a budget of $300,000 for construction as part of the draft 2018/19 Capital Works Budget. The proposed schedule will see construction commence in February 2019 and be completed by June 2019.

Consultation

The consultation process has been undertaken in line with the City’s Community Engagement Policy. Community consultation was conducted for a period of four weeks from 16 April until 14 May 2018 for a period of four weeks and included the following consultation strategy:

 

·        Distribution of an information letter and overview of the two concept design options (Attachment 3) to 495 residents and landowners within 400m of the Park;

 

·        A community meeting at the Park on 9 May 2018 allowing residents to view the plans onsite and speak to Elected Members and Officers directly; and

 

·        Inclusion of the concept designs and online survey link (Attachment 4) on the City’s website.

 

Public Comment Outcomes

 

At the close of the community consultation period, Administration received a total of 104 responses to the survey, which is a return rate of approximately 21%, with 100% of respondents indicating their support for the development of Appleby Park.

 

The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the two design options they preferred, with 17 submissions (17%) received for Option 1 and 81 submissions (83%) for Option 2.

 

A full list of the comments received through the survey can be found in (Attachment 5), however a summary of these comments has been included below:

 

·        Install barbeque facilities;

·        Inclusion of a drinking fountain;

·        Inclusion of a small water play area;

·        Security lighting to deter anti-social behaviour and increase community safety;

·        Toilet facilities need to be included;

·        Additional bins and dog waste bags;

·        Fencing around play equipment areas;

·        Include some fitness equipment;

·        Shaded seating areas; and

·        Inclusion of both an open kick about space and cycle track.

 

Onsite Community Consultation

 

Elected Members and officers attended an onsite meeting on 9 May 2018 to present the designs to interested residents. Those in attendance at the meeting had the opportunity to review the two concept designs side by side, compare the various elements, and raise any questions or concerns with City officers in attendance. Feedback provided by residents on the day was consistent with some of the comments received through the survey, relating to such matters as security lighting and toilet facilities.

Comment

In considering the responses noted above, the following advice is provided:

 

Comment

Response

Install barbeque facilities

Under Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space (the Policy), the standard requirements for a neighbourhood park lists a BBQ as optional. The costs to install a BBQ (inclusive of power connection costs) are estimated at $40,000. This cost has not been allowed for within the project budget or Long Term Financial Plan.

Inclusion of a drinking fountain

A drinking fountain is already installed near the existing playground.

Inclusion of a water play area

Under the standard requirements of the Policy, a water play area would be an overprovision of amenity. The Park sits within the Whitfords groundwater sub-area which is currently over allocated. No additional groundwater resources are available in the area.

Security lighting to deter anti-social behaviour

Both design options include the provision of security lighting.

Toilet facilities need to be included

Under the standard requirements of the Policy, toilet facilities would be an overprovision of amenity.  The costs to install a toilet (inclusive of power, water and sewerage connection costs) are estimated at $90,000.

Additional bins and dog waste bags

There is currently one bin installed at the Park near the existing playground, with an additional bin included in each of the concept design options.

Fencing around play equipment areas

The costs for fencing around the play area are estimated at $40,000. These costs have not been allowed for within the project budget or the Long Term Financial Plan.

Include some fitness equipment

Under the standard requirements of the Policy, the inclusion of fitness equipment would be an overprovision of amenity. The costs for fitness equipment are estimated at $45,000.

Shaded seating areas

Both concept design options include the provision of shade sails over play equipment, a picnic shelter/setting, and plenty of natural shade provided by existing trees.

Inclusion of both the open kick about space and the cycle track

These items were provided as options across the two designs on the basis of an either/or and cannot be accommodated as two installations within the project budget.

 

Both options within the Appleby Park Concept Plan have been designed in line with the standard requirements of Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space and within the allocated project budget. The consultation undertaken for this project revealed that option 2 was the preferred design, which includes a cycle track, native garden, and activity stations spread throughout the park along the path network.

Statutory Compliance

The City will be required to secure the necessary Development Approvals prior to the commencement of construction.

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-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

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 have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The City's Local Planning Policy 4.3 Public Open Space was used as the guiding framework for the development of the two concept design options. The community consultation process was undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

The design of the proposed park development will also take into account the City’s Access and Inclusion Plan.

Financial Implications

A budget of $25,750 was allocated in 2017/18 and was used for the completion of the design, with a further $300,000 proposed for the construction of Appleby Park as part of the draft 2018/19 Capital Works Budget. The 3 on 3 basketball court component will be partly funded through a budget allocation from PR-2568 New Playground Installations recurring program.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Appleby Park Concept Plan (Option 2), as shown in Attachment 2 of this report;

2.       NOTES that a budget of $300,000 for construction of Appleby Park is proposed as part of the draft 2018/19 Capital Works Budget;

3.       NOTES that construction of the proposed development is planned to commence in February 2019 and be concluded by May 2019; and

4.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

Attachments:

1.

Appleby Park, Darch - Location Plan

18/190516

 

2.

Appleby Park Concept Plan - Design Options 1 & 2

18/190519

Minuted

3.

Appleby Park, Darch - Design and Construct Passive Park - Letter to residents

18/190551

 

4.

Development of Appleby Park, Darch - Public Comment Form

18/190542

 

5.

Development of Appleby Park, Darch - Survey Results Summary

18/181558

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           243

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           244

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     246

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           247

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     248

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                     250

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 26 June, 2018                                                         260

CP02-06/18       Petition PT02-05/18 Requested Upgrades at Belvoir Park, Darch

File Ref:                                              1498 – 18/207182

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider petition PT02-05/18 presented to Council at its meeting held on 29 May 2018 seeking the provision of additional upgrades at Belvoir Park, Darch.

Background

Belvoir Park (Attachment 1) is located at 80 Belvoir Parkway in Darch. The park is approximately 2.1 hectares and is classified as a Neighbourhood Park for the purpose of public recreation. The park currently has the following infrastructure on site:

 

·        Play Space

·        Path network

·        Basketball pad and hoop

·        Benches

·        Picnic settings

·        Bins.

 

Existing public open spaces within a walkable catchment of the park (400m - 800m or 5-10 minute walk) include:

 

Park

Location

Comment

Ashdale Park

99 Ashdale Boulevard, Darch. 280 east.

Shared with Ashdale Primary School. Developed park with playground and seating.

Wicklow Park

15 Blackheath Place, Darch. 180m west.

Undeveloped local park.

Monaghan Park

82 Monaghan Circle, Darch. 620m south east.

This is not considered to be a walkable distance.

Longford Park

3 Longford Circuit, Darch. 620m east.

This is not considered to be a walkable distance.

Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex

100 Kingsway, Madeley. 765m south west.

This is not considered to be a walkable distance.

Rufus Park

7 Rufus Parkway, Madeley. 950m west.

Undeveloped park as it is listed for Conservation and Passive Recreation.

 

The petition requests that the City consider providing a number of upgrades to Belvoir Park to complement the existing infrastructure and encourage greater use of the space by local children and families.

Detail

Petition PT02-05/18 states that the Darch community would like the City of Wanneroo to consider providing the following upgrades to the thriving community park area of Belvoir Park:

 

·        Drink fountain

·        Bike racks

·        More bins

·        Barbeque

·        Lighting and expansion to the basketball court

·        Expansion of the existing shelter

·        Expansion to the playground including:

o   Bird’s nest swing

o   Net play unit

o   Flying fox

o   Monkey bars

o   Rocker (rocking boat)

o   Trampoline

o   Sandpit

·        Additional seating

·        Football / soccer goals

·        Field markings

·        Small skate park / half pipe

·        Four square court.

 

The petition also notes that the only upgrade provided at the park in recent years has been the addition of a basketball pad and hoop.

 

The petition contains 178 signatures, of which 141 reside within the City of Wanneroo; 128 of these individuals live within a 400m radius of the Park.

Consultation

Consultation in regards to this matter will be undertaken in line with the City’s Community Engagement Policy at the appropriate time.

Comment

There are a number of items listed within the petition which are beyond the standard set by the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space (the Policy), and would therefore be considered as an overprovision of amenity. As a result these have not been considered for future implementation. These items include the following:

 

·        Expansion to the basketball court

·        Trampoline

·        Football / soccer goals

·        Field markings

·        Small skate park / half pipe

·        Four square court.

 

The balance of the items listed are consistent with the standard set by the Policy and can be considered as a part of the future development of the park. These items include the following:

 

·        2 x pieces of play equipment

·        2 x benches

·        BBQ

·        Drinking fountain

·        Bike rack

·        Security lighting

·        Bin/(s).

 

 

In considering the requested upgrades, it should be noted that Ashdale Park in Darch, which is located approximately 280m east of Belvoir Park, is a fully developed neighbourhood level park which provides much of the above mentioned items, including four pieces of play equipment and some sporting infrastructure. Provision of the above mentioned items at Belvoir Park will be duplicating what is already available within a walkable distance.

 

The items that align with the standard set by the Policy will be listed for consideration within the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

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-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

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 have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The City's Local Planning Policy 4.3 Public Open Spaces is used to guide the level of development within the park.

Financial Implications

To be listed for consideration within the City’s Long Term Financial Plan.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority


 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       NOTES the petition PT02-05/18 tabled at its Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 May 2018;

2.       NOTES that he following items will be listed for consideration in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan;

·        2 x pieces of play equipment;

·        2 x benches;

·        BBQ;

·        Drinking fountain;

·        Bike rack;

·        Security lighting; and

·        Bin/(s).

3.       NOTES that the following items are above the standard set by the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3 – Public Open Space and as a result have not be considered for future provision:

·        Expansion to the basketball court;

·        Trampoline;

·        Football / soccer goals;

·        Field markings;

·        Small skate park / half pipe; and

·        Four square court.

4.       AUTHORISES the Director Community and Place to advise the petition organisers of the outcomes of this report.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Belvoir Park, Darch - Location Map

18/207234

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           264

PDF Creator


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         265

CP03-06/18       PT01-05/18 - Petition for Rider Education Centre and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward

File Ref:                                              30235 – 18/211277

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

Issue

To consider petition PT01-05/18 presented to Council at its meeting held on 29 May 2018 seeking the provision of a Rider Education and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward.

Background

Council has previously considered the provision of cycling facilities on two occasions in recent years, as outlined below.

 

Water Corporation Waste Water Treatment Plant

 

At is meeting in September 2015, Council considered a Motion on Notice MN01-09/15 which considered the commencement of dialogue with the Water Corporation on the intended use of the Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant Buffer Zone. This was with a view to advocate on behalf of local groups, with a particular emphasis on the provision of cycling facilities in support of the Northern Beaches Cycling Club.

 

As a result Council resolved:

 

“That Council APPROVES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer commencing a dialogue with the Minister for Water and Chief Executive Officer of the Water Corporation in regards to the future use of the Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant Buffer Zone.”

 

As noted within the Motion on Notice the Northern Beaches Cycling Club has been very active in the development and promotion of the Alkimos Beach “Bike Town” proposal. This proposal sought the development of facilities to cater for cycling at a recreational and organised sport level, with the Waste Water Treatment Plant buffer zone being a key component of this plan.

 

Based on the Bike Town Proposal, Administration sought to work with the Water Corporation, developers and the then Department of Sport and Recreation to undertake a jointly funded study to assess the needs and feasibility of the proposed development of cycling facilities within Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant Buffer Zone and the broader Alkimos/Eglington area.

 

The primary outcomes of this process would be to determine the appropriateness of the proposed activities within the Alkimos WWTP Buffer Zone and adjacent outflow area and to identify suitable opportunities for cycling facility provision (at a community level) within public open space provision within Alkimos and Eglington, and the broader northern coastal corridor. It was intended that the outcomes of this assessment would form the basis of design development and future delivery of the identified facilities.

 

Despite extensive work being undertaken by the City, the advocacy of the Mayor and Administration was not successful in securing the use of the Alkimos WWTP Buffer Zone, nor a joint approach in progressing the suggested Needs and Feasibility assessment.

 

 

City of Wanneroo Cycle Plan

At its meeting in held in October 2014 (Item IN04-10/14 refers), Council considered report IN04-10/14 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program 2014/2015 – Outcomes. As a result of this consideration, Council resolved in part to:

1.       NOTES that the only project approved by the Department of Transport as part of the 2014/2015 Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program was the preparation of a new Cycle Plan for the City of Wanneroo.

2.       NOTES Administration will appoint a consultant to project manage the development of the new Cycle Plan for the City, with a report to be presented in April/May 2015 on the draft City of Wanneroo Cycle Plan.

As a result, Jacobs Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (Jacobs) was appointed to develop the City’s cycle plan in collaboration with Administration and key stakeholder groups. Importantly this study was to align with the City’s Strategic Transport Plan to make cycling an integral part of daily life in Wanneroo so that persons of all ages and abilities can utilise bicycles safely for all types of trips. The Northern Beaches Cycling Club have been included within the stakeholder consultation for this study.

Detail

Petition PT01-05/18 specifically seeks the following:

 

provide a suitable site for a Rider Education Centre and Bike Park in the North Coast Ward (Clarkson to Two Rocks). The facility should provide a SAFE place for youth to learn to ride, and learn the road rules away from traffic. Children and adults of all abilities should have greater access to a safe place for sport and recreation.”

 

The petition contains 290 signatures, of which 188 (65%) are identified as being residents from the City of Wanneroo, 7 (2%) from outside of the City and 95 (33%) which did not list a suburb.

 

In respect to the provision of cycling facilities of this nature, the City is progressing the following projects, which ultimately seek to deliver the type of facilities identified within the petition request:

 

Cycle Wanneroo Plan

 

As noted above, Administration appointed external consultant Jacobs Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (Jacobs) to undertake the development of this plan.

 

The purpose of the plan is as follows:

 

“As the City continues to grow, the demand for active transport facilities, such as pathways and cycle lanes, continues to grow and will require an appropriate mechanism to manage the development of an effective bicycling network for the City. The development of alternative transport networks within the City is a key requirement in addressing the growing congestion issues by shifting people’s mode of transport away from vehicles to bicycles and public transport. Additionally, the amendment to Road Traffic Code to allow cyclist on footpath would allow the cyclists to utilise the City’s current assets.”

 

As part of Cycle Wanneroo study process, three community workshops were held, as identified below; 

 

1.       24 March 2015, Hainsworth Community Centre;

 

2.       25 March 2015, Butler Community Centre; and

 

3.       30 March 2015, Wanneroo Library and Cultural Centre.

 

These workshops were well attended by various age groups with varying levels of cycling abilities and interests. Key issues raised at these workshops included:

 

·        Cyclist safety, particularly at numerous roundabouts within the City;

 

·        Education – both for cyclists and motorists;

 

·        Training and racing facilities;

 

·        Mountain biking facilities;

 

·        The need to differentiate between commuting/sporting cyclists and recreational cyclist/pedestrians;

 

·        Maintenance of existing infrastructure, in particular dealing with debris; and

 

·        Connectivity of cycle paths, including the Freeway PSP and connecting Jindalee to Yanchep.

 

The Northern Beaches Cycling Club participated in the consultation process.

 

Implementation of the Cycle Wanneroo plan is expected to occur over a 16 year horizon at an estimated value of $48.5M.

 

Cycling Master Plan for Northern Coastal Corridor

 

As mentioned earlier in this report, Administration had previously sought to undertake a joint Needs and Feasibility Study for the provision of cycling facilities within the Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant Buffer Zone and the broader Alkimos/Eglington area. As a result of this approach not being supported, Administration has progressed with a separate Cycling Facilities Master Plan for Northern Coastal Corridor.

 

The primary outcome sought from this process is to identify suitable opportunities for cycling facility provision (at a community level) within public open space provision within Alkimos and Eglington, and the broader northern coastal corridor.

 

The overall scope of the study is as follows:

 

·        To investigate opportunities for cycling facility provision within the planned district and regional POS provision within the Alkimos area and the broader norther coastal corridor;

 

·        To investigate opportunities for the Alkimos Waste Water Treatment Plant buffer zone and therefore the appropriate level of facility development; and

 

·        To investigate opportunities for the outflow area to the west of the plant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specifically this study will address the following areas:

 

·        Needs Assessment – consolidation of existing data, report on contemporary trends as they relate to recreational and competitive cycling, review of current and future demographics and  identification of current and future needs;

 

·        Identify and confirm functional requirements of the facilities as outlined within the Northern Beaches Cycle Club ‘Bike Town proposal’;

 

·        Undertake an assessment of feasibility based on technical aspects (operational and environmental), facility design, management, financial, prioritisation of needs and hierarchy of use;

 

·        Develop a suggested functional brief for the facilities identified;

 

·        Identify potential program and service delivery opportunities utilising the facilities;

 

·        Determine appropriate prioritisation and staging of any proposed facility development and program and service delivery utilising these facilities;

 

·        Development of a cost report for the development of the proposed facilities;

 

·        Identification of a suitable funding model for the development of the proposed facilities, including the maximisation of external funding opportunities (ie Lotterywest) and partnership opportunities with State and Federal Government.)

 

Stakeholder consultation associated with the development of the Master Plan has been undertaken and has included the Northern Beaches Cycling Club. The City has appointed an external consultant to develop concept and cost estimate for the development of a criterion track facility, which has been identified as the priority facility as a result of the process to date.

 

It is anticipated that an update on the Master Plan process will be reported to Council within the next few months. 

 

Other Facilities

 

In addition to the two planning projects identified above, Administration has also incorporated the provision of a cycling specific path within the master planning for the Butler North District Open Space. The incorporation of this facility within the master plan was undertaken by Administration in consultation with the Northern Beaches Cycling Club, with the facility being available by 2021.

 

A rider education facility is currently being developed at Leatherback Park, Alkimos by the land developer and the provision of BMX and mountain bike facilities has also been identified within the Wanneroo Raceway Master Plan.

Consultation

As outlined in the report above, separate consultation processes have been undertaken in respect to the development of the specific planning process, all of which have included the Northern Beaches Cycling Club, being a key stakeholder within the cycling community in the Northern Coastal Corridor. 

 

 

 

 

Comment

Nil

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-S23 Stakeholder Relationships

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Executive Leadership Team

Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

As noted within the report, the Cycle Wanneroo Plan identifies expenditure of approximately $48.5M over a 16 year horizon. The Cycling Master Plan for Northern Coastal Corridor is not currently sufficiently progressed to be able to identify specific facility costs at this time.

 

The costs associated with the development of the Cycle Wanneroo Plan and the Cycling Master Plan for Northern Coastal Corridor have been met through existing operating budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the petition PT02-05/18 tabled at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 May 2018;


 

 

2.       NOTES the continued development of the Cycle Wanneroo Plan and the Cycling Master Plan for Northern Coastal Corridor, being the two primary planning projects to inform the future development of cycling facilities within the City of Wanneroo; and

3.       AUTHORISES the Director Community and Place to advise the petition organisers of the outcomes of this report.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         271

 

Community Safety & Emergency Management Report

CP04-06/18       Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services

File Ref:                                              33004 – 18/210830

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Issue

To consider the need to negotiate a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the City of Wanneroo and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for the management of bushfire services and emergency management responsibilities and note that the City has sought an extension of the existing MoU while these negotiations take place.

Background

The City of Wanneroo and DFES have a MoU to identify and document the respective roles and responsibilities of the City and the Chief Bush Fire Control Officer/Community Emergency Services Manager (CBFCO/CESM) as considered necessary to manage the City’s bushfire services and emergency management responsibilities.

 

The current MoU is due for renewal on 30 June 2018 however the City is not satisfied that this document meets our governance and accountability requirements given that the respective roles and responsibilities between DFES and the City are ambiguous. This is particularly the case with regard to response and safety which potentially has political and reputational risks, as well as compromises both employee and volunteer safety and potentially leaves the City exposed in a high risk environment. 

Detail

Administration is currently reviewing the City’s preferred emergency management model, with presentations previously provided to Elected Members on 3 February and 20 April 2018. Consultation is currently underway with DFES and the City’s Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades (VBFB), with a further report to be presented by September to consider the outcomes from that consultation. 

 

As well as the City’s review of the emergency management operational model, the State Government has recently announced the implementation of the Rural Fire Division under DFES which may have implications for the City of Wanneroo through various proposals including the establishment of a Centre for Excellence in Bushfire Management that will offer training and support to relevant stakeholders, and the introduction of Volunteer Liaison Officers. These changes may impact on the articulation of the roles provided through the existing MoU. The Executive Director of the new Rural Fire Division is scheduled to provide a presentation on the Division to Elected Members on 10 July 2018.

 

Further, the City commissioned an independent investigation into a major peat fire incident that occurred earlier this year.  The formal investigation report has highlighted further critical amendments are required to the MoU.

 

The City has also exchanged correspondence with DFES on a number of occasions over the past 12 months seeking to establish clarity on response activities and safety responsibilities for the CBFCO and VBFB members and City staff, particularly when on a fire ground, with limited success.  The negotiation of a new MoU with DFES will provide an opportunity to strengthen the definitions of who is responsible for the provisions under the MoU and define who is responsible for the CBFCO and the VBFB members when undertaking response activities.      

 

In the meantime and whilst the future direction is determined, the existing MoU needs to be extended as it expires on 30 June 2018 and an overarching governance framework needs to remain in place.  Administration is seeking from DFES agreement to extend the existing MoU for three months.  This will allow time to negotiate a stronger governance instrument for both parties. 

 

Once these negotiations are completed and the City’s Chief Executive Officer is satisfied with the new MoU it will be presented to Council for consideration.

 

At this point in time, the proposed key changes include:

 

·        Updating the City’s values section;

 

·        Additional definitions;

 

·        Inclusion of CBFCO responsibilities throughout the document;

 

·        Clarification of CBFCO and CESM responsibilities and how these jointly operate;

 

·        Additional wording to the MoU objectives to strengthen roles and responsibilities particularly in reference to the appointment of the CBFCO, the role of the FES Commissioner in appointing the CBFCO and greater emphasis on OSH responsibilities;

 

·        Delineation of responsibilities for the CBFCO and the CSEM;

 

·        Greater detail and clarity with regard to CBFCO and CESM obligations across the spectrum of Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery (PPRR);

 

·        OSH obligations to the City and DFES, and VBFB management of these responsibilities.

Consultation

Consultation and negotiation will occur with DFES on a new MoU.  Input will be sought from the City’s Bush Fire Advisory Committee.

Comment

The review of the City’s Emergency Management model, the implications of the creation of a Rural Fire Division of DFES, the previous endeavours by the City to seek clarity on roles and responsibilities under the existing MoU with limited success, and the findings from an independent review of a recent peat fire necessitates the City undertaking a major review of the existing MoU with DFES for the management of bushfire services and emergency management responsibilities.

 

The preferred emergency management model if endorsed will potentially change the nature of this role for the City.  As the negotiations are likely to take some time, this creates the requirement to extend the existing MoU for a period of three months.  It is proposed that this time will be used to negotiate a new MoU with DFES to take effect from 1 October 2018.  It is envisaged that the outcomes of the negotiations with DFES will determine the term of the new MoU.  Once the Chief Executive Officer is satisfied with the content of the new MoU, this will be presented for Council consideration.

Statutory Compliance

There is a requirement through the Bush Fires Act 1954 section 38 that the Local Government or the FES Commissioner appoints a CBFCO.

 

The CBFCO role is as stipulated in legislation and discharges any statutory obligation in respect of the Bush Fire Act 1954.

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

Risk Title

Risk Rating

CO-023 Safety of Community

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community and Place

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/mitigate/accept this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City jointly funds the position of CBFCO/CESM to the value of 50% through a service contract.  These funds have been allowed for in the draft 2018/19 budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to enter into negotiations with the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) in regard to a new  Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and to present this new MoU to Council once the CEO is satisfied with the content;

2.       NOTES that Administration is seeking a three month extension to the current MoU from 1 July 2018 – 30 September 2018 whilst these negotiations take place; and

3.       REQUESTS the assistance of the WA Local Government Association to advocate on the key issues identified by the City necessitating the review and amendment of the City’s current MoU with DFES on the basis that these may being experienced across the Local Government sector.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                         275

 

Place Activation

CP05-06/18       Draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2018/19 - 2021/22

File Ref:                                              20779V02 – 18/210373

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider the draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22.

Background

The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) requires all Local Governments and selected State Government agencies to develop, implement and regularly review improvement to Disability Access and Inclusion Plans (otherwise known as Access and Inclusion Plans). The City of Wanneroo’s (the City) current Access and Inclusion Plan 2015/16 – 2017/18 is due to expire at the end of the 2017/18 financial year and a review has recently been conducted of this Plan.

 

The review was conducted in alignment with the seven legislative outcomes:

 

1.       Services and events;

2.       Buildings and facilities;

3.       Information;

4.       Quality of service;

5.       Complaint process;

6.       Public consultation; and

7.       Employment.

 

The draft Access and Inclusion Plan (AIP) 2018/19 – 2021/22 (Attachment 1) has been developed as a result of this review as well as feedback received through consultation with the community and other stakeholders.

Detail

The current AIP has seen the completion or ongoing implementation of 53 actions, with seven to be completed by 30 June 2018, and three to be carried over to the new Plan. Examples of some of the significant actions achieved include:

 

·        Facilitation of a Welcome Day for new refugees in partnership with City of Stirling and City of Joondalup and engagement activities at the Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony;

 

·        Development of the City’s Multicultural Advisory Group;

 

·        Collaborative work with Senses Australia to update the Kingsway Regional Playground (Dinosaur Park) to make it more accessible and become a training site for children with vision impairment.  This ‘training site’ is a first for the City and a first for local governments in Perth;

 

·        Re-introduction of the Beach Trekker to Quinns Beach;

 

·        Celebration of the Harmony Day message through facilitation of a Living Books event at the Wanneroo Library. Volunteers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds told their stories, allowing participants to interact with them, challenging labels and preconceptions about others; and

 

·        People and Culture and Library Services collaborated to host three work experience students who live with a disability.

 

The aim of the review was to gain feedback on current AIP objectives and identify community priorities in order to build on the achievements accomplished through 2015/16 – 2017/18.

 

In developing the current plan, the City chose to move towards an AIP rather than a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan to ensure the City was able to meet access and inclusion priorities for all population groups, including those with a disability and multicultural groups. Following this addition, the need to develop an additional outcome area has been recognised in order to assist in informing and supporting the City on multicultural issues. This outcome area is entitled Cultural, Social and Economic Development and includes identified priorities such as:

 

·        Improving awareness about the value of diversity and celebrating culture;

 

·        Improving communication with the multicultural community; and

 

·        Building community confidence and capacity to participate in all aspects of community life.

 

Inclusion of this additional outcome area has received in-principle support from the Department of Communities.

 

Based on the draft AIP 2018/19 – 2021/22, the top three priority areas of focus for disability access and inclusion include:

 

·       Increasing employment opportunities;

 

·       Provision of more accessible buildings and facilities; and

 

·       Provision of more accessible services and events.

 

The top three priority areas of focus for multicultural access and inclusion include:

 

·       Better communication with the multicultural community about programs and services;

 

·       Celebration of multicultural significant events; and

 

·       Improving job readiness skills for the multicultural community.

 

The AIP has previously been a three year strategy. However, to provide consistency with other strategic plans within the City and to ensure more time is spent implementing actions rather than reviewing the plan, it is proposed that the 2018/19 – 2021/22 AIP be a four year plan. This has been supported by the Department of Communities.

Consultation

The AIP review process involved extensive consultation with external and internal stakeholders. 

 

External consultation has taken place through two on-line community surveys; face to face engagement at City programs and events; and meetings with the City’s Multicultural Advisory Group (MAG) and Disability Access and Inclusion Reference Group (DAIRG). The two surveys and the face to face engagements attracted over 600 responses from the community.

Comment

The draft AIP will be complemented by an internal implementation plan that details specific measurable outcomes to meet the outlined objectives and strategies. The implementation of access and inclusion actions is the responsibility of the whole organisation.

 

As part of the implementation process, actions will be regularly reviewed by internal and external working groups to ensure the plan is responsive to prevailing issues and remains current in terms of providing strategies for addressing access and inclusion issues within the City.

 

The City’s Draft Access and Inclusion Plan aligns with multiple strategic documents including (but not limited to) the City’s Youth Strategy, People and Culture Strategy, Coastal Management Plan, Local Planning Policies and the recently adopted Place Framework.

Statutory Compliance

The Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) requires all Local Governments and selected State Government agencies to develop, implement and regularly review improvement to Disability Access and Inclusion Plans (otherwise known as Access and Inclusion Plans).

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

 

1 Society

 

1.4 Connected Communities

 

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

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title

Risk Rating

Productive Communities

Moderate

Accountability

Action Planning Option

Director Community and Place

Manage

Policy Implications

A review of the City’s Access to Information and Services for People with Disabilities and their Families and Carers Policy is planned once the AIP is adopted.

Financial Implications

The AIP 2018/19 – 2021/22 will have financial and budgetary planning implications. The financial implications will be considered as part of the process for developing the City’s budget.

 

External funding opportunities exist for access and inclusion strategies in WA, and where relevant, will be actively pursued to support the delivery of key actions to reduce the financial impact on the City.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ADOPTS the draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 as shown in Attachment 1;

2.       ENDORSES the registration of the draft Access and Inclusion Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 with the Department of Communities.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Access and Inclusion Plan 18/19 - 21/22 DRAFT actions

18/113098

Minuted

 

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Ordinary Council Meeting 26 June, 2018                                                                                           279

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 26 June, 2018                                                         288

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Transactional Finance

CS02-06/18       Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 May 2018

File Ref:     1859 – 18/210555

Responsible Officer:    Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:   Nil

Attachments:       Nil        

Issue

Presentation to the Council of a list of accounts paid for the month of May 2018, 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 May 2018

 

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – May 2018

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

Manual Journal

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

112780 - 113214

3207 - 3239

 

 

$1,347,320.82

$16,728,732.22

$18,076,053.04

 

($33,803.66)

 ($6,199.99)

($724,796.24)

$17,311,253.15

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – May 2018

Municipal Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$17,311,253.15

$21,575.30

$3,491,982.30

$20,824,810.75

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – May 2018

                           Cell 2

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 6

                           Cell 8

                           Cell 9

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$600.00

$1,816.67

$1,996.66

$1,666.66

$120.00

$6,199.99

 

At the close of May 2018 outstanding creditors amounted to $2,266,112.78.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The list of payments (cheques and electronic transfers) and the end of month total of outstanding creditors for the month of May 2018 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 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

 

4.3    Progressive Organisation

 

4.3.2  Ensure excellence in our customer service”

 

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 RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of May 2018, as summarised below:-

Funds

Vouchers

Amount

Director Corporate Services Advance A/C

Accounts Paid – May 2018

   Cheque Numbers

   EFT Document Numbers

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

Less Cancelled Cheques

Town Planning Scheme

Manual Journal

RECOUP FROM MUNICIPAL FUND

 

 

112780 - 113214

3207 - 3239

 

 

$1,347,320.82

$16,728,732.22

$18,076,053.04

 

($33,803.66)

 ($6,199.99)

($724,796.24)

$17,311,253.15

Municipal Fund – Bank A/C

Accounts Paid – May 2018

Municipal Recoup

Direct Payments

Payroll – Direct Debits

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

$17,311,253.15

$21,575.30

$3,491,982.30

$20,824,810.75

Town Planning Scheme

Accounts Paid – May 2018

                           Cell 2

                           Cell 5

                           Cell 6

                           Cell 8

                           Cell 9

TOTAL ACCOUNTS PAID

 

 

 

 

$600.00

$1,816.67

$1,996.66

$1,666.66

$120.00

$6,199.99

 

WARRANT OF PAYMENTS MAY 2018

 

 

 

 

PAYMENT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT

00112780

01/05/2018

Q Design & Construct Pty Ltd 

$2,000.00

 

 

  Refund - Street & Verge Bond

 

00112781

01/05/2018

Dorothy Dean 

$540.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112782

01/05/2018

Bibiana Correa 

$360.00

 

 

  Vehicle Crossing Subsidy

 

00112783

01/05/2018

Srebra Todorovski 

$30.00

 

 

  Refund - York - Gold Program

 

00112784

01/05/2018

Cancelled

 

00112785

01/05/2018

Rates Refund

$88.40

00112786

01/05/2018

Nicole Adams 

$100.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112787

01/05/2018

Carmen Martins 

$100.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112788

01/05/2018

Brittany Nguyen 

$540.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112789

01/05/2018

Melissa Wilson 

$100.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112790

01/05/2018

Kristijan Belcovski 

$850.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112791

01/05/2018

Doanh Kinh Le 

$540.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112792

01/05/2018

Mr H M Dubal 

$100.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112793

01/05/2018

Manish Parmar 

$540.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112794

01/05/2018

West Coast Cricket Club 

$100.00

 

 

  Bond Refund

 

00112795

01/05/2018

Vietnamese Community In Australia WA Incorporated 

$540.00

 

 

  Bond Refund