Item PS04-03/20 Consideration of Amendment No. 4 to the East Wanneroo Cell 3 Approved Structure Plan

1.         Why has the Council not reviewed this submission by considering how the current R20 zoning aligns with the City's overall housing strategy and the potential impacts or improvements with R40 zoning, making a decision on what the proposal is for R40 zoning over current R20?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

At the time of formulating LPP3.1, Scott Road was not serviced by a bus route. Considering the provisions of LPP3.1, the applicant has requested an amendment to recode the amendment area from Residential R20 to R40.  

2.         How can the council make a recommendation without considering both R20 (current) and R40 (potential state) and making a recommendation in line with the facts regarding both? Some of the main supporting points raised by the council are also true, if not more so, when looking at R20 zoning. Particularly given the common Council comments of "fitting with the area" and "supplying a housing variety" are certainly more true for R20 considering new developments within Wanneroo. A clear differentiation is needed here.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The proposal was assessed under the provisions of the City’s LPP3.1 and the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy. The amendment area is located outside the housing precincts as identified in LPP3.1 and the proposal has therefore been assessed against the criteria listed in Table 3 of LPP3.1 which apply to other infill development outside the housing precincts.

At the time of adopting the structure plan in January 2001, Scott Road was not serviced by a high frequency bus route. Therefore the amendment area was coded R20.

One of the criteria to be satisfied by the proposal is that the amendment area being located within 250 metres of a high frequency bus route designated stop. In this regard the following matter was noted in the Council report:

“Although LPP 3.1 identifies higher density development may be appropriate within 250 metres of a high frequency bus route, regard should also be given to walkable catchment efficiency as outlined in Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN). LN considers that typically, most people will walk up to 400 metres for daily activities and up to 800 metres to a train station or town centre. The amendment area falls predominantly within a 400 metre catchment area of high frequency bus route 467 (designated stop on Scott Road) which demonstrates the land is in close proximity to public transport as required by Criterion No. 2.”  

3.         Based on commentary in both this agenda and February's agenda it is pretty clear a developer is already involved here as the proposed road layout change is very specific, and will ultimately define a block layout to optimally support R40 zoning. Otherwise, why doesn’t the Council reject this road proposal to be "considered during the subdivision stage" and only consider the rezoning proposal against its merits.  Furthermore, not one reply to this submission has been in support of this development (the two in support conditions to support have been completely rejected for consideration by the council). My local petition now sits at over 150 signatures. Are the views of the local's whom voted for elected members of the Council not even deserving of a mention?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

In regard to the road layout it was noted in the report as follows:

“The proposed amendment depicts a road across the site between High Road and Amos Road. This is only a concept and is not part of a typical structure plan. The applicant has amended the proposal to remove the road reserve and correctly show the entire site being recoded from R20 to R40. A road reserve will be created through a future subdivision application if one is necessary for future development.”

The City received 12 submissions during the first round of advertising and three during the second round of advertising. The City did not receive the 150-signature petition.

4.         The Council have still either not reflected at all or have partially reflected the concerns I have raised in my submission document in the summary items on page 45 of the March Briefing Agenda. Particularly around where I have outlined misalignment with the proposal against all 4 objectives of LPP 3.1 - not just around 'housing affordability' - which I haven’t even discussed. Additionally on page 47 discussing my commentary on LPP 3.1's objective 2 is only partially reflecting what I wrote to clearly weigh in favour for the proposal - this is deliberately misleading and shows a lack of transparency in itself. The other major item of concern raised being the lack of or incorrect facts or data in the Proposal document, discussed below in point 2. Can the council comment as to why they are omitting critical information from the public submissions?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

In regard to the objectives of LPP3.1 it was noted as follows in the report:

“The objectives of LPP3.1 are as follows:

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

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

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

·     To promote higher density development in appropriate locations.”

The proposed amendment supports the objectives of LPP3.1 as follows:

·      It addresses the WAPC’s State Planning Policy 3 – Urban Growth and Settlement by proposing higher density development in areas accessible to transport and services

·   The proposed R40 density addresses housing affordability by providing a variety of housing stock;

·   The proposed amendment would better utilise the existing infrastructure and amenities available in this locality; and

·    As demonstrated in Table 3 above the amendment promotes R40 density in an appropriate location.

5.         Like in the Proposal document, the spatial distance reference in this Agenda are not correct I have raised these concerns and highlighted the lack of consistency and definition around how distances have been calculated. As per Liveable Neighbourhoods distance people would generally walk is 400m using the pedestrian network. This should be the baseline to calculate all the distances by, or it should be clearly highlighted this is not the case. On page 48, as stated in my questions last month, direct line distances are compared to LN 400m criterion - this is not a like to like comparison. Using the possible block layout provided by in the proposal, well less than 50% of the block fall within a 400m walking distance. In fact the overall average walking distance, by block over the layout is approximately 500m, well outside the 400m definition. How can the council justify the proposal meets the LN criteria without doing a like for like comparison?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The Scott Road bus stop is located approximately 60 metres from the intersection of Scott Road and High Road. If the developer choose to undertake a conventional subdivision development, the walking distance between the farthest lot on Amos Road via Scott Road/High Road/Amos Road and the bus stop would be 479 metres and the closest lot on High Road would be 261 metres away. Therefore the average distance is 370 metres.

6.         It is not clear exactly what criteria the council are assessing this proposal against. Administration has stated that the "Council is required to make a decision on the planning merits of a proposal when considered against the City’s planning framework" however out of the 4 supporting points on page 49, one is referencing a WAPC policy and the others are factually untrue or unsupported. Can the council clearly define the assessment criteria for planning proposals and provide a fact based and supported recommendation?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

See response Item 4 above.

7.         Of the 4 supporting points outlined on page 49

- Point 1 provides no facts to support the statement. Does not define/ distinguish between a benefit of development in general or an R20 - R40 benefit.

- Point 2 - I have discussed this in my submission ( as outlined previously). R40 zoning is likely more expensive than existing R20 housing and the City already has countless R40 developments in progress. Point two also does not clearly define if it is addressing development in general or an R40 benefit over R20. R40 does not succeed in providing variety nor affordability.

- Point 3 - tied back to previous points, this does not define a benefit of R40 in excess of R20. Nor have the points regarding this in my submission in line with this been considered or raised.

- Point 4 - previously discussed. Is not an appropriate location as defined in LPP 3.1.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The submitter is referring to Administration’s response to the four objectives of LPP3.1. In this regard the following response is provided.

Objective 1 – This relates to the WAPC State Planning Policy on Urban Growth and Settlement which encourages higher density development in areas accessible to transport and services. In this instance the amendment area is within walking distance to the bus stop on Scott Road and the area is well serviced with power, water and sewerage.

Objective 2 relates to housing affordability. It was reported as follows in the Council report:

The submitter has stated that considering the recent Wanneroo land sales as available on a real estate website, an R40 3-bedroom house and land package could cost A$320-380,000, whereas a R20 4-bedroom house and land package would cost around A$425,000. Based on the lot area and the size of the house in both scenarios, the submitter believes that an R40 block is not affordable.

One of the objectives of LPP3.1 is to address housing affordability within the City to provide a variety of housing stock. In the discussion paper on Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing released by the former Department of Planning in 2013, affordable housing was referred to individual dwellings that are sold or rented to low to moderate income household at a rate they can afford. The above information has demonstrated that an R40 house and land package is more affordable than and R20 house and land package. Therefore the amendment proposal satisfies the objective of LPP3.1.

Objective 3 is to better utilise the existing infrastructure. The amendment proposal will better utilise the existing infrastructure such public transport.

Objective 4 is to promote higher density development in appropriate locations. The amendment area being located within walking distance to the bus stop on Scott Road, it is considered be an appropriate location for higher density development.

8.         The second advertisement of this proposal does not appear to have been circulated out to the same wider audience as in the first round given the agenda comments. Also the timing over the Christmas and New Years period meant that it may have been missed by many members of the public. Can the council confirm how many letters were sent on both advertisements and why the second did not get a mention in the local newspaper nor was a sign posted to inform a wider audience? I have since increased the petition to over 150 signatures, most of which were completely unaware despite being closer to the area that the supporting submission from Chicquita Place received during the first round of advertising.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

Under the provisions of the Planning  and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 the local government must advertise an amendment proposal in one or more of the following ways:

·         Notice to owners and occupiers; or

·         Notice in the local newspapers; or

·         Notice in the website; or

·         Sign on site,

For between 14 day and 28 days.

A notice was placed in the Wanneroo Times of 7 November 2019 and on the City’s website. The City wrote to all those one hundred residents and occupiers who were contacted during the first round of advertising.

In view of the Christmas season, the City re-advertised the amendment for a period of 35 days (seven days more than the statutory period of 28 days) from 5 December 2019 to 9 January 2020.

No sign was placed at the site. Administration concluded that the other consultation was adequate.

9.         The council has been quite adept in pushing questions aside referring to the "subdivision stage" regarding community concerns regarding capping block sizes, building covenants and driveways etc. Where it benefits the proposal but quick to push back on items such as enclosing the development and making in a private estate "not fitting in with the area". This is not operating with consistency or transparency. Ultimately the new proposed road layout will more or less determine the final block layout which ties to the community concern which has been disregarded. This being the case, the current road approval should be maintained and the council should reject the new road layout as it offers no value "until the subdivision stage". A road layout change can be considered at the "subdivision stage" and the council should only consider the zone recoding proposal against its merits.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The proposal is to consider an amendment to the structure plan to increase the residential density from R20 to R40. Many of the issues raised related to the next stage in the planning process which is the subdivision of the land. At the  subdivision stage the road layout will be determined as well as the size and location of lots. All of this has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes and the Liveable Neighbourhoods policy.

It was also noted in the report as follows:

The proposed amendment depicts a road across the site between High Road and Amos Road. This is only a concept and is not part of a typical structure plan. The applicant has amended the proposal to remove the road reserve and correctly show the entire site being recoded from R20 to R40. A road reserve will be created through a future subdivision application if one is necessary for future development.

10.      Pretty minimal work has been done to check off the engineering aspects of the rezoning, particularly around the traffic impact statement and the surface stormwater drainage. The current agenda references a study/ data collected by the City outside of the proposal regarding the Traffic impact statement on High Road only, this information is not included inside the proposal. The Amendment makes many statements such as "this would have been accounted for when the area was planned" - with no facts, statements or references to back it. Can the Council confirm of the area east of Amos Road to Leonore was always planned to be R40 density and that stormwater, power, water and footpath infrastructures as well as park facilities (including the access and facilities were designed for this area of Wanneroo was planned back in the 80/90s? This is what the amendment is stating as fact.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The area between Amos Road and Lenore Road is currently zoned Residential, Public Purpose and Special Rural in the District Planning Scheme No.2. The Residential zone falls within East Wanneroo Cell 3 and makes provision for 10% public open space. The amendment area was coded R20 in the originally approved structure plan. Considering the provisions of LPP3.1, the applicant has requested an amendment to the structure plan by recoding the area to R40. At the subdivision stage (the next stage in the development process) the developer will be required to address matters relating to stormwater and provide footpaths as required. The developer will also be required to provide all necessary infrastructure services including water and power and liaise with the relevant authorities to ensure this is delivered. This is normally a condition(s) of subdivision.

11.      In line with many of the above points, the advertisement of the planning proposal for the Ingham's Farm is much more factually sound. Why do the council not have a quality acceptance criteria for proposals? Why does the Council not consider the big picture over the whole City of Wanneroo rather than trying to check a few criteria via poor practice?

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

East Wanneroo Cell 3 Structure Plan No.3 was approved by the WAPC in 2001. Any development proposal within this cell will be assessed under the provisions of this structure plan, relevant District Planning Scheme No.2 provisions and planning policies. Each proposal at the various planning stage is required to provide satisfactory information to enable the City to determine the proposal.

12.      Why did my questions from February's meeting seem to disappear and not get answered? They did get acknowledged, but not answered.

Response by Director, Planning & Sustainability

The item was withdrawn from the February Council meeting Agenda.

The following are Mr Roberts questions to Council’s February Meeting and Administrations response as noted in the schedule of submissions.

1.There should be a covenant on housing relating to design criteria on minimum building verge/street offsets/ building height restrictions, roof materials, minimum lot sizes/widths etc.

Response:

The proposal is to recode the amendment area from Residential R20 to R40. The applicant intends to subdivide the land to create R40 lots. The design of the dwellings on each lot will be determined as per the provisions of the R-Codes, which prescribes development standards such as setbacks, minimum lot size (180m²) and building height. Therefore there is no need for a covenant to enforce the R-Code standards.

If the developer, however, wishes to impose design standards over and above the R-Codes standards, on colour of the roof, brick, boundary fence etc. then they may do so through a private restrictive covenant with the prospective purchasers and the City will not be a party to this covenant.

2. The amendment does not consider any alternative scenarios such as area becoming a private estate.

Response:

The proposal is to recode the land from R20 to R40. There is no requirement for this level of detail to be provided at this stage of the planning process.

3. the amendment will increase traffic and also about the impacts of vehicles parked on the street, particularly given the proximity to Wanneroo Primary and Secondary schools.

Response:

The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which estimated that the amendment area could yield 64 R40 lots. At the rate of 8 vehicle trips per dwelling per day, the total volume of traffic generated would be 512 vehicles per day (vpd) of which, 40% (204 vpd) is expected to exit via Amos Road and 60% (308 vpd) via High Road.

The width of the road reserve and carriageway of Amos Road and High Road are 20 and 7.2 metres respectively. As per the provisions of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy, these roads have a capacity to carry an indicative traffic volume of 3,000 vpd. The 2018 traffic volumes on Amos Road and High Road were 419 and 1584 vpd respectively. The additional volume of traffic generated by the proposed development is not likely to impact on the normal flow of traffic on these roads.

The City’s Transport and Traffic section has assessed the TIA and advised that the traffic generated by this development would not impact on the normal movement of traffic on Amos Road and High Road.

In regard to vehicles parked on the street it is noted that every dwelling proposed when the land is subdivided will contain two parking bays as per the provisions of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Residential Design Codes.

4. The number of lots at R40 development could exceed the estimated 64 lot yield.

Response:

The submitter is concerned that the amendment area could yield 94 R40 lots at an average lot size of 220m² in area. The submitters calculations do not take into account the land required for a 15-metre wide internal road and any common property access way(s) that may be required. The exact number of lots can be determined only at the subdivision stage.

Item PS01-03/20 Petition PQ01-10/19 “Request for the City of Wanneroo to Declare a Climate Emergency”

If the WALGA Climate Change Declaration is passed, is it going to heavily influence and affect Council decision-making in the future and if so, to what extent?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Attachment 2 of the report sets out the Council’s declaration.  WALGA provides a template and Council has amended that to reflect the local circumstances that it sees and reflects the Council’s commitment to climate change which is in addition to a raft of measures that Council has in place such as Adaption and Mitigation Strategy; Energy Reduction Plan and other items referenced within the report.  It is a declaration of Council intent but also reflects the need for local governments to work collaboratively to address this issue as it is not just an issue for the City but it is a global issue.

Item PS01-03/20 Petition PQ01-10/19 “Request for the City of Wanneroo to Declare a Climate Emergency”

Great to see young people taking the initiative and raising the issue of climate change.  It is happening and time to take action so declaration of a climate emergency would be a great step by the Council.  A number of other institutions around the world have done this.  It sends a signal to State and Federal Government who could be doing more and showing the community that it is reflecting growing concern about our changing climate which is impacting on communities, the economy and the environment as highlighted by the events on the East Coast this summer.  IPCC highlight that the UN has said there is 10 years to take action to significantly reduce emissions by 2030 and zero emissions by 2050 but at the current rate we are not going to get there.  While this may be symbolic to some degree, it is a good step forward. 

Response by Mayor Roberts

Take that as a statement and like to acknowledge the good work you and the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group do in the community and thank you as the initiator of that group.

Moved Cr Huntley, Seconded Cr Baker

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 10 February 2020 be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

Welcome to our visitors from the Shire of Gingin, Shire President Cr Wayne Fewster and fellow Councillors plus the CEO Mr Aaron Cook and Executive staff who have come to view our Council meeting tonight. 

Deputy Mayor Cr Cvitan announced that at the WALGA State Council meeting Mayor Roberts was successfully appointed as President of WALGA.  He passed on everyone’s congratulations on the appointment and added that she would be a worthy representative for the State as well as for local Council.

Ladies and Gentleman, I am very proud this evening to present a Certificate of Appreciation from the Organisation of African Communities WA for our $5,000 sponsorship of the WA African Communities Awards 2019.

The City highly values its relationship with the Organisation of African Communities, a not-for-profit group that provides support, services and representation for all African people living in WA.

We are especially appreciative of the Organisation’s Executive President Joe Tuazama who gives up his time to chair of the City’s Multicultural Advisory Group. Joe’s advice was a contributing factor to the huge success of the Wanneroo Festival this year which attracted 10,000 people.

I am proud and honoured to be the Mayor of such a wonderful and progressive City that supports such an important community group.

In the Community News last week there was an article about the coastal path between Burns Beach and Mindarie, how is this progressing and when will it be completed?

Response by Director Assets

The coastal dual use path from Burns Beach to Mindarie is a joint project between the City of Wanneroo, the City of Joondalup and the Western Australian Planning Commission.  This project received $2m funding from WAPC with both Cities contributing the remainder of funds.  There are three sections of this dual use path with the middle section of 2.5km being fully complete.  Tamala Park Regional Council has contributed  approximately $730,000 to the 550m section to the north joining the Catalina development and we are awaiting a clearing permit approval for that section, after which time construction will commence and take about 3-4 months.  City of Joondalup is project managing the project on behalf of all three organisations and have been working with Peet Development for a number of years to complete  the section to the South, adjoining the Burns Beach development, but there is no firm confirmation of when that will be completed.   

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 24 signatories requesting the City of Wanneroo to provide more effective traffic control measures to slow the speed of traffic in Dalecross Avenue, Madeley.

File Ref:                                              26259 – 19/421108

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Sangalli, Seconded Cr Parker

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the City of Wanneroo becoming a signatory of the Western Australian Local Government Association Climate Change Declaration;

2.       NOTES the continuation of the City’s integrated approach to climate change through implementing existing measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change, within the City’s jurisdiction and ability, including the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy, Energy Reduction Plan, and Waterwise Council Action Plan; and

3.       NOTES that the City will continue to improve data collection and management associated with greenhouse gas emissions to allow for setting baselines and targets and setup ongoing monitoring.

Motion to Amend

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Treby

To add a new recommendation 4.

4.     REQUESTS the City establish a “Youth Forum on Climate Change” for Wanneroo residents to seek feedback and input into the City of Wanneroo’s commitments as stated in the Western Australian Local Government Associations Climate Change Declaration.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Substantive Motion as Amended

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the City of Wanneroo becoming a signatory of the Western Australian Local Government Association Climate Change Declaration;

2.       NOTES the continuation of the City’s integrated approach to climate change through implementing existing measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change, within the City’s jurisdiction and ability, including the Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy, Energy Reduction Plan, and Waterwise Council Action Plan; and

3.       NOTES that the City will continue to improve data collection and management associated with greenhouse gas emissions to allow for setting baselines and targets and setup ongoing monitoring.

4.      REQUESTS the City establish a “Youth Forum on Climate Change” for Wanneroo residents to seek feedback and input into the City of Wanneroo’s commitments as stated in the Western Australian Local Government Associations Climate Change Declaration.

The substantive motion as amended was put and

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              34620 – 19/481019

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Sangalli, Seconded Cr Baker

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Subclause 5 (2) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, ADOPTS the final draft revised Local Planning Policy 3.3: Fauna Management included in Attachment 1;

2.       Pursuant to Subclause 4 (4) of the deemed provisions of DPS 2, PUBLISHES notice of its adoption of the Policy in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times Community newspapers; and

3.       FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              23156V02 – 20/62008

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Sangalli

That Council:-

As RECOMMENDED by the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 18 February 2020:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the annual review of the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan as depicted in Attachment 1;

2.       ENDORSES the revised Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan cost estimates in accordance with Clause 11.4 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as outlined in Attachment 1, including:-

a)      A decrease in the total infrastructure costs from $27,871,906 to 27,153,086 as outlined in Attachment 1;

b)      An increase in the cost per dwelling from $3,175.25 to $3,398.77, as depicted in Attachment 1; and

c)      Pursuant to Clause 11.6 of Schedule 14 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 NOTIFIES affected landowners of the recommendations of the Annual Review and INVITES comment in writing from those landowners for a period of 28 days, including the request for the termination of the Yanchep Two Rocks Technical Advisory Committee; and 

3.       NOTES that the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Technical Advisory Committee SUPPORTS the approach set out in 2 above.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              20608-04 – 20/52101

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Parker

That Council:-

1.      Pursuant to subclause 20(2)(e) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RECOMMENDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the proposed Amendment No. 4 to the East Wanneroo Cell 3 Approved Structure Plan No. 5 as contained in Attachment 2 to the report be approved WITH MODIFICATION to recode the entire amendment area as Residential R40 and to delete the road reserve shown in the amendment plan;

2.      Pursuant to subclause 20(2) of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 PROVIDES a copy of the report on the proposed amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission including the schedule of submissions and the City’s response and recommendations; and

3.      ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3446 – 20/65760

Responsible Officer:                           Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Newton

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2, resolves to PREPARE the following Local Planning Policies, as contained in Attachments 1, 2 and 3:

a)      Local Planning Policy 4.25: Substantial Commencement;

b)      Local Planning Policy 4.11: Variations to Building Envelopes;

c)      Local Planning Policy 2.10: Sea Containers; and

2.       ADVERTISES the Local Planning Policies, as shown in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 for a period of 42 days by way of the following:-

a)      An advertisement published in the Wanneroo Times newspaper at the commencement of the advertising period;

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

c)      Letter to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              32966 – 19/357186

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Baker

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Bistel Constructions Pty Ltd for Tender No.19192, for the provision of Major Works for Construction of Leatherback Park Sports Amenities Building and Multipurpose Room at the Fixed Lump Sum Price of $1,420,772.28 in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document and subject to the City receiving all necessary permits and approvals; and

2.       NOTES the addition of $155,667 of Municipal Funding in the draft 2020/2021 capital budget to cover the shortfall of the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) grant for the construction of Leatherback Park Sports Amenities Building and Multipurpose Room.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1458V02 – 20/65987

Responsible Officer:                           Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Huntley, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Funding Agreement for Better Bins Kerbside Collection Program between the City and the State of Western Australia as referenced in this report; and

2.       AUTHORISES, BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Funding Agreement for Better Bins Kerbside Collection Program between the City and the State of Western Australia.

Carried by Absolute Majority

File Ref:                                              35395 – 19/470455

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Huntley, Seconded Cr Miles

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES, for the purposes of public comment, the draft Wanneroo Raceway Master plan, as shown in Attachment 1 of this report; and

2.       NOTES that the draft Wanneroo Raceway Master Plan will be released for a 42 day public comment period from 30 March 2020 to 10 May 2020, with the outcome to be reported to Council at its meeting held on 30 June 2020.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              37000 – 20/52741

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6  

Previous Items:                                   PS02-02/12 - Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan - Ordinary Council - 07 Feb 2012      

Moved Cr Sangalli, Seconded Cr Parker

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES, for the purposes of public comment, the draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan Review, as shown in Attachment 1 of this report;

2.       NOTES that the draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan Review will be released for a 42 day public comment period from 30 March  to 10 May 2020, with the outcome to be reported to Council at its meeting held on 30 June 2020; and

3.       REQUESTS that the Chief Executive Officer meet with the Directors General of the relevant State and Federal Government agencies to discuss and advocate for funding assistance to deliver on the Community Facilities Plan for the Northern Coastal Corridor.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              21392V02 – 20/56944

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   CP01-09/19 - Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) - 2020/21 Funding Round - Ordinary Council - 24 Sep 2019  

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Parker

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the City of Wanneroo's Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund applications for the 2019 funding round resulting in the budget shortfall as follows:

2.       NOTES that the following projects are still considered to be needed by the community, however will be subject to a review of funding capacity through the 2020/21* budget process (based on the prioritisation identified below), which may result in revised delivery timeframes:

3.       REQUESTS that the Mayor write to the Minister for Sport and Recreation seeking an increase in the allocation for the CSRFF Fund and the establishment of a separate funding allocation, available to Local Government for the development of regional sport and recreation infrastructure.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              32950 – 20/21656

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7  

Previous Items:                                   CP02-12/19 - Hinckley Park - Passive Park Development and Concept Design - Ordinary Council - 10 Dec 2019     

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Newton

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Hinckley Park Concept Plan, as shown within Attachment 2;

2.       NOTES that a budget of $1,346,227 for the construction of Hinckley Park has been listed for consideration in the draft 2020/21 budget;

3.       NOTES that Administration will investigate car parking options and toilet facilities for inclusion in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan;

4.       NOTES that construction of the proposed development is planned to commence in October 2020 and be concluded by April 2021; and

5.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              30724V05 – 20/45295

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Treby

That  Council:-

1.       RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statement and commentaries on variances year to date Budget for the period ended 31 January 2020 consisting of:

a)      January 2020 year to date Actuals;

b)      January 2020 year to date Statement of Financial Position and Net Current Assets; and

c)      January 2020 year to date Material Financial Variance Notes.

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the following changes to the 2019/20 Capital Work Budget:

Carried UnanimouslY & by absolute majority

14/0

File Ref:                                              1859V02 – 20/42667

Responsible Officer:                           Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of January 2020, as summarised below: