That the minutes of the Ordinary Council
Meeting held on 19 March 2002 be confirmed.
New Petitions
Presented
Update on Petitions
Cr Steffens presented a petition at the 19 March 2002
Ordinary Council Meeting signed by 314 residents opposing the proposal to build
houses on land between Dalvik Park and the Kingsway Christian College site on
the grounds that this land had been set aside for public recreational use on
the original Merriwa Local Structure Plan 15. The petition was forwarded to
Planning & Development for action.
ACTION
The above petition is being presented to Council at the
02 April 2002 Council meeting at Item PD06-04/02.
Cr Loftus presented a petition at the 19 March 2002
Ordinary Council Meeting signed by 329 residents and users of Yanchep Beach
Lagoon requesting Council to provide larger facilities for the Yanchep Surf
Life Saving Club in order that the Club can meet the growing demands for safety
and beach patrols. The petition was forwarded to the Community Development
Directorate for action.
ACTION
A report on the above petition was presented to Council at
the 19 March 2002 Council meeting at Item CD03-03/02
Reports
Declarations
of Interest by Elected Members, including the nature and extent of the
interest. Declaration of Interest forms to be completed and handed to the
Chief Executive Officer.
Planning and
Development
Town Planning
Schemes and Structure Plans
File Ref: 02373
File Name: BARevofE.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 22 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by T W Neale Date 18 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 1
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
To review the estimated cell costs for East Wanneroo Cell 6
in the light of objections received following notification of adopted costs.
|
Applicant
|
N/A
|
|
Owner
|
Multiple
|
|
Location
|
Generally bounded by Wanneroo Road, Gnangara Road,
Hepburn Avenue (future) and Mirrabooka Avenue (future)
|
|
Site Area
|
598.35 hectares (approximately)
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Predominately Urban Development
|
Background
At its meeting on 18 December 2001 (item PD06-12/01)
Council adopted the modified East Wanneroo Cell 6 Local Structure Plan. At
this time, Council also adopted the figure of $26,971,523 as the current
estimated cell costs and $5,897.01 as the current infrastructure cost per lot
to be applied in East Wanneroo Cell 6. Council also authorised notification of
the estimated cell costs pursuant to Clause 10.11 of District Planning Scheme
No. 2.
Detail
Clause 10.11 of DPS 2 requires Council to notify the
estimate of cell costs to all landowners within the Cell by way of
advertisement in a newspaper on at least two occasions. A period of 42 days is
to be allowed for an owner to lodge an objection in writing to the estimate.
Council is required to assess all objections within 60 days
of the close of the advertising period and if the objection is not upheld, it
is to be referred to arbitration of a single arbitrator in the manner provided
by the Commercial Arbitration Act, 1985.
Consultation
The estimated cell costs and the infrastructure cost per
lot were advertised on two consecutive Wednesdays in the Local Government
Notices of the “West Australian” newspaper. Furthermore, all landowners within
Cell 6 who had previous direct communication with the City on matters
pertaining to cell costs were advised of the estimates in writing.
The advertised period has now ended and seven objections
were received within the time allowed. The issues raised by the submissions
relate to the following:
1. The valuation figure the
City has applied to areas of historic public open space. This issue was raised
in all the submissions.
2. The application of solatium
to historic public open space credits. This issue was raised in four of the
submissions.
3. The interpretation of market
value in DPS2. This issue was raised in one submission.
Comment
Valuation applied to historic
public open space areas
The costs associated with the acquisition of land for
public open space (POS) is included in the cell costs, and therefore the
infrastructure costs applicable to each new lot within Cell 6. The owners of
land-holdings containing the actual POS areas identified in the structure plan,
are entitled to a credit for this POS against their respective infrastructure
cost.
In calculating the cell cost estimates, the City applied a
rate of $370,000 per hectare, as the average value for cell purpose land that
is to be acquired. This rate was based on qualified valuation advice for
selected sites throughout the cell area. The rate is accepted as being a
representative value for cost estimation purposes and the quantum as it is
applied to new public open space and road alignments is not the subject of any
of the objections.
Cell 6 however contains three historic POS areas that were
given up by the past subdivision of the rural land-holdings over the last 40
years. These areas are identified as B, C and E on the locality plan shown on Attachment
1. The land-holdings that contributed to these areas of historic POS represent
approximately half of the Cell area. Until December 2001, when Council adopted
the current estimated cell costs, the approach taken in respect to the
valuation of both new and historic POS land was that it should all be valued at
the same rate and that rate should reflect current market conditions. However,
in reviewing this principle at the time of calculating the final cell costs, it
was considered that this was not the most equitable approach. This was because
the current owners of land-holdings that contributed to the historic POS, never
had the use or enjoyment of that land and therefore could not be considered to
incur a loss in the same manner as an owner who is required to cede new areas
of open space under current market conditions. Accordingly the City, after
some discussion with valuation professionals, applied a nominal rate (ie.
approximately one tenth of the current average value) to the historic open
space areas.
This resulted in the landowners that are entitled to
historic open space credits being credited at the rate of $37,000 per hectare,
as opposed to the rate of $370 000 per hectare. It is this change that is the
subject of the objections. The objectors (being owners of land, or their
representatives, from which the historic open space originated) argue that
under these circumstances they are disadvantaged, as they are required to
contribute to the total cost of the open space in the cell at the same rate as
the other owners, even though their land-holdings had made a previous historic
contribution.
Whilst the equity principle that the City was seeking to
establish in respect to historic POS credits is sound, this approach did not
recognise that people have bought land in the area over the last few years
based on an expectation that they would receive a credit based upon full market
value. This will have the effect of altering the status quo and will have
significant financial implications for these landowners. The City sought
advice from its legal advisor which confirmed that under the circumstances,
reverting back to the original position was an appropriate course of action.
It is therefore considered appropriate that the objections on this matter are
upheld, and Council apply current market valuations for credits toward both new
and historic areas of POS.
Recalculating the estimated cell costs and infrastructure
cost per lot using the rate of $370, 000 per hectare to all areas of historic
and new POS credits, will have the effect of increasing the total estimated
cell costs from $26,971,523 to $31,248,091, and the infrastructure cost per lot
from $5,897.01 to $6,832.04. These rates reflect both previous assumptions and
the cost of actually acquiring the land for cell works as well as the
constructions costs for the cells works and are based on recent valuations
which have not been the subject of objection.
Whilst there is no obligation on Council to re-notify
landowners of these new costings, given the significant change in cell costs
and to maintain the principles of natural justice, it would be prudent for
Council to again notify cell owners of these rates and the reasons for the
change.
Solatium for Historic Public Open Space Credits
The submissions argue that solatium should be applied to
historic public open space credits on the grounds that the owners who are
entitled to those credits are contributing a solatium allowance to other owners
as part of their infrastructure payments and therefore are entitled to the same
solatium. The City’s estimates do not include a solatium allowance in relation
to the historic open space credits, but provision has been made to apply
solatium to new areas of open space in certain circumstances.
The objectors argument is fundamentally flawed and fails to
recognise that the solatium provision of DPS2 is intended to ensure that
Council will receive sufficient funds to acquire land for cell works and meet
its obligations for payment to the effected owners. That is to say that the
solatium provision is intended to cover the circumstances where Council might
be forced to resume land, in which case it is probable that a solatium
allowance would be applied to a compensation award handed down by a
compensation court. The fact that in order to avoid the need for resumption,
solatium is paid voluntarily to owners who provide more than ten per cent of
their holding as open space, does not imply that the payment of solatium should
be extended to include historic open space that is not being acquired.
Furthermore, the City’s Scheme recognises this and makes
provision for payment of solatium for new POS acquisition. It does not in the
case of historic POS credits and any consideration in this regard by the City
would be without legal basis.
Council will also note that the comment that those owners
entitled to an historic POS credit are contributing to the solatium being
received by others is correct and quite appropriate as this is a legitimate
cell cost that all cell owners must contribute toward. In view of the above,
this objection is not considered valid and is therefore not upheld.
Interpretation of Market Value
This objection argues that the intent of DPS2 is to apply
the market rate that is current from time to time to the historic open space
credits. Legal advice taken by the City on this issue confirms that the
current market value is the correct interpretation of the historic open space
credit provisions of DPS 2.
Conclusion
Based upon the submissions received, the City has reviewed
its approach to the calculation of historic open space credits strictly in
accordance with the provisions contained in DPS 2. On this basis, submissions
1 and 3 relating to the basis of valuation applied have been upheld.
Submission No. 2 which relates to payment of solatium is not upheld as it is
considered to have no legal foundation.
Whilst it is intended to give further public notice in
regard to the revised cell costs, it should be noted that as no submission was
received in regard to any other element of the cell costs (except as outlined
herein) and the changes being proposed are strictly in accordance with the
Scheme, the increased cell cost is purely a reflection of this and in itself
not considered to be a valid reason for any future objections that may be
received.
Statutory Compliance
The provisions of Part 10 of DPS2 have been complied with.
Strategic Implications
The adoption of the estimated cell costs and infrastructure
costs per lot will assist with establishing the planning framework for the
equitable provision of infrastructure which is contained in Objective 2.6.1 of
the draft Planning and Development Directorate Strategic Plan.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Whilst the revision of the credit rate for historic open
space will have a direct impact on the estimated cell costs and the
infrastructure cost per lot to be paid by all subdividing landowners within
Cell 6, this revision is simply a reflection of the cost that has been
estimated to undertake the cell works.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council having considered the objections:-
1.
ADOPTS a revised valuation rate of $370,000 per hectare for the historic
open space credits within East Wanneroo Cell 6.
2.
ADOPTS a figure of $31,248,091 as the current Estimated Cell Costs and
$6,832.04 as the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot to be applied in East Wanneroo
Cell 6.
3.
AUTHORISES the notification of the revised estimated cell costs for Cell
6 in a newspaper pursuant to Clause 10.11 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 and
by letters to landowners of Cell 6 who have had previous direct communication
with the City in regard to cell costs.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 06014
File Name: BAProRez.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 21 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 20 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
Consideration of an application to amend District Planning
Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) to rezone Swan Location 8654 (8) High Road, Wanneroo, from
Local Scheme Reserve -Public Use to Residential Zone.
|
Applicant
|
SJB Town Planning and Urban Design
|
|
Owner
|
Water Corporation of Western Australia
|
|
Location
|
Swan Location 8654 (8) High Road, Wanneroo
|
|
Site Area
|
1.5226 hectares
|
|
MRS Zoning
|
Urban
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Public Use Reserve R20
|
Background
The subject site is located on the south - eastern corner
of the intersection of Quarkum Street and High Road, Wanneroo. The site
adjoins Reserve 34300, which contains the Wanneroo Senior High School and the
East Wanneroo Primary School, and Reserve 18643, which contains two
communication towers (refer Attachment 1).
A water treatment plant and a water tank were previously
located on the subject site. These facilities were decommissioned in 1995 and
have since been removed. The site is currently vacant and no longer required
by the Water Corporation.
Detail
The applicant has requested that
District Planning Scheme No 2 be amended to rezone Location 8654 from Public
Purpose Reserve to Residential.
A preliminary concept plan to support the amendment has
been prepared by the applicant. This concept is shown on Attachment 2
and depicts the following:
1. 16 single residential lots ranging in size from
544 square metres to 651 square metres;
2. A group housing site of 3085 square metres; and
3. Two new roads (cul-de-sacs) entering from High
Road.
Consultation
The Town Planning Regulations provide that where an
amendment is consistent with State plans, policies etc, then the local
authority may proceed to advertise the amendment without the Western Australian
Planning Commission’s consent.
Comment
The proposed residential zoning of
this site is consistent with the urban zoning of the land under the
Metropolitan Region Scheme.
The concept plan which supports the amendment raises a
number of concerns including matters such as the interface with the school
site, the creation of an uncontrolled four way intersection along High Road and
provision for drainage. The applicant is also seeking to satisfy its public
open space obligation through the provision of a cash payment in lieu of the
open space. If the amendment proceeds, then a subdivision
approval will be required before the land can be subdivided. It is appropriate
that these design issues be addressed at the subdivision application stage.
WAPC Policy allows cash-in-lieu of open space if the
subdivision is small and if there are sufficient open space areas already
available in the locality. In this regard the 10 % requirement would only
yield an open space area of 1523 m2, which is less than the minimum
of 3500 m2 recommended in the City’s Public Open
Space Policy. In addition, there are also two areas of public open space
measuring 5348 m2 and 2.5436 hectares situated approximately 100
metres (Barndie Way) and 300 metres (Nolyang Crescent) respectively from the
subject site. On this basis a cash-in-lieu payment would be considered
reasonable.
Council will note that the subject land is adjacent to
communication towers to the east. Council’s Mobile Telephone Base Station
Planning Policy requires a minimum separation of 500 metres between new mobile
telephone base stations (of which the tower is one component) and sensitive
land uses, which include residential. However, the policy does not stipulate a
minimum buffer distance between existing communication towers and new
residential developments. Nevertheless, the intent of the policy is to minimise
any possible health impacts to residents from such towers. On this basis, it
is considered appropriate that the applicant be requested to provide a detailed
report justifying the appropriateness of the proposed residential zoning of the
subject land in view of the proximity of the communication towers, in order for
the Council to properly assess the subject amendment proposal.
Statutory Compliance
A proposed residential zoning would be consistent with the
Metropolitan Region Scheme zoning. If the Council were to ultimately initiate
an amendment, this would follow the statutory process outlined in the Town
Planning Regulations.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
A request for a detailed report in relation to the likely
impact from the existing telecommunication towers upon proposed residential
development on the subject land is consistent with the intent of the Council’s
mobile telephone base station planning policy.
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council ADVISES SJB Town Planning and Urban
Design acting on behalf of Water Corporation of Western Australia that it will
require a detailed report addressing the possible health impacts resulting from
the adjacent telecommunication towers prior to considering the proposed
amendment to the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2 to rezone
Location 8654 (8) High Road, Wanneroo, from Local Scheme Reserve - Public Use
to Residential Zone.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed
File Ref: 06135
File Name: BADraNee.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 5 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 21 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 20 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments 6
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
Consideration of a Draft Neerabup Industrial Area Structure
Plan (NIASP).
|
Applicant
|
Taylor Burrell on behalf of LandCorp
|
|
Owner
|
Various
|
|
Location
|
Various properties north of Flynn Drive, Neerabup
|
|
Site Area
|
1,000 ha (approx)
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Industrial Development, General Industrial, Public
Purpose Reserve
|
|
MRS Zoning
|
Industrial, Public Purpose Reserve
|
Background
Subject Land
The location of the subject land is shown on Attachment
1. A small first stage of partially serviced industrial lots was developed
in the mid 1970’s. Other existing land uses include limestone and sand
quarries, market gardens, turf farm and a poultry farm.
Planning Context
The proposed Neerabup Industrial Area (NIA) is designated
as an important strategic industrial area to serve the North West Corridor
(State Planning Strategy 1997, Metroplan 1990, North West Corridor Structure
Plan 1992).
Previous Studies
The planning of the NIA has been the subject of studies
over the past 10 years. The key studies undertaken have been:
·
“Flynn Drive Industrial Area District Structure Plan” study
undertaken in 1995 by Richard Pawluk & Associates and others for the
landowners involved. This study was considered by Council, which decided that
a number of issues required further investigation:
-
delineation of the boundary between the industrial zone and the
Lake Neerabup Parks and Recreation reserve;
-
major road structure, particularly north-south roads;
-
future levels (following mining);
-
implications of mining and industrial development on groundwater,
and vice versa;
-
traffic modelling, particularly in respect to projected
employment densities;
-
environmental assessment requirements;
-
developer contributions
·
“Flynn Drive Structure Plan” Study undertaken in 1999 by Planwest
and others for the City of Wanneroo. This study was commissioned by the City
to seek to address the issues arising from the 1995 study as referred to above.
·
“Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan Review” study undertaken
in December 1999 by SMEC consultants for LandCorp.
This study arose from a desire
by LandCorp to play a more prominent role in the planning and development of
the NIA, acknowledging its role as the government agency responsible for
facilitating such major projects. The study reviewed the key planning issues
affecting the area and recommended approaches to those issues.
Detail
Current Draft NIASP
The current Draft which has now been submitted by Taylor
Burrell on behalf of LandCorp for consideration under Part 9 of District
Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) involves an attempt by LandCorp to seek to resolve
the planning issues affecting this area as soon as possible to enable further
industrial development to proceed in this area at the earliest opportunity.
A copy of the Draft has been placed in the Elected Members’
Reading Room.
The following summarises the key elements of the Draft:
1. Part 1 – Statutory Planning Section
This section would have statutory effect under DPS2. Its
provisions do the following:
a) Provide for a Structure Plan Map (refer Attachment
2) which shows:
·
a major road structure;
·
General Industrial, Service Industrial, Business and Open Space
precincts;
·
Bush Forever sites which are ‘subject to negotiation’;
·
‘Mandatory Road Interfaces’ to two of the Bush Forever sites;
·
an annotation on the western portion of the NIA land which states
“Future Structure Plan and final surface contour levels for Lot 21 to be
adopted as an amendment to the NIA Structure Plan prior to any extraction,
subdivision or other development being considered or carried out”.
b) Provide
for a “Final Surface Contour Plan” (refer Attachment 3) with the
following associated provisions:
·
the final surface levels shown on the plan must be achieved prior
to subdivision and/or development on-site;
·
any resource extraction must comply with the levels shown at the
completion of extraction;
·
where final surface levels are not shown on the plan (ie. over
the western portion of the NIA land), no subdivision should, or resource
extraction or other development shall, be commenced or carried out until a
Final Surface Contour Plan is prepared and adopted as an amendment to the NIASP
c) Provide
the following provision in respect to its proposed General Industrial, Service
Industrial and Business Precincts:
·
General Industrial: Permissibility of uses and development shall
be in accordance with the provisions of the General Industrial zone under DPS2,
except that Hazardous Industry shall be an ‘X’ (not permitted) use in this
precinct (it is otherwise a ‘D’ [discretionary] use under DPS2);
·
Service Industrial: Permissibility of uses and development shall
be in accordance with the Service Industrial zone under DPS2;
·
Business: Permissibility of uses and development shall be in
accordance with the Business zone under DPS2, except that Shop shall be an ‘A’
(discretionary, with mandatory advertising) use in this precinct, and the
maximum floorspace per shop use is 300m² Net Lettable Area (NLA). (Shop is
otherwise an ‘X’ [not permitted] use in the Business Zone under DPS2).
2. Part 2 – Explanatory Section
This section of the Structure Plan is for explanatory
purposes only and would not have effect under DPS2. It does however include a
number of recommendations (which are dealt with later in the report) and
provides, at an indicative level, further detail for the Structure Plan. In
particular, it includes an ‘Indicative Development Concept’ plan for the
subject land (refer Attachment 4).
Consultation
The consultants have consulted with landowners in the area
and key government agencies involved in the preparation of an earlier Draft
Structure Plan document which was submitted to the City by LandCorp in May
2001.
The City referred this first Draft to the landowners and
key agencies for comment. Comments received from agencies were forwarded onto
the consultant for consideration. Referral of the first Draft to the
landowners led to further rounds of consultation between the consultant and the
owners. The main outcome of this has been the deletion of detailed structure
planning proposals from most of the Cockburn Cement land at the west of the NIA
(Lot 21) to accommodate that owner’s desire to retain a substantial degree of
flexibility for when it is in a position to put forward its own detailed
proposals for that area.
The current Draft has again been referred to key agencies
for comment. It has not been referred to the landowners involved as the
consultant has advised that they have thoroughly consulted with the landowners
in its preparation.
Comment
Use Permissibility for Business
Precinct
The Draft proposes that use permissibility in the Business
Precinct be as per the Business Zone under DPS2, except that ‘Shop’ be an ‘A’
use, and that the maximum floorspace per shop use be 300m² NLA. While it is
accepted that there will be a need for some shops to be provided in the NIA to
serve the immediate needs of that area, it is unclear at this stage as to
whether this is the best way of providing for it. It is therefore recommended
that this matter be further considered by Council at the time that it considers
submissions received on the Draft.
Basic Raw Material Extraction and Future levels.
The Draft has attempted to achieve a balance between, on
the one hand, ensuring that important basic raw materials (limestone and sand)
are extracted from the land, and on the other, ensuring that industrial
development is able to proceed and support the economic development of this
region and provide an important focus of employment.
The Draft was referred to the Department of Mineral and
Petroleum Resources (DMPR) for comment and a copy of its response is attached (Attachment
5). It may be noted that this includes a copy of comments provided by
Whelans consultants on behalf of Cockburn Cement. At this stage, it is
considered that the approach adopted in the Draft plan is reasonable in seeking
to achieve a balance as referred to earlier, and in providing flexibility in
respect to Cockburn Cement’s land. The matters raised by DMPR and Whelans
should be considered further following formal advertising of the Draft, at
which time Whelans will have had opportunity to fully assess the Draft, and
comments from all relevant agencies will be available for consideration.
In respect to compliance with the future levels shown on
the Final Surface Contour Plan, it may be noted that the Part 1 provisions of
the Draft are quite rigid. However, Part 2 (section 6.2.2) of the Draft sees
that there should be some flexibility in being able to permit some variations,
where considered acceptable on its merits. The Part 1 provisions should be
modified prior to advertising to reflect this flexibility.
The final levels plan generally shows a significant
reduction in the levels in the central part of the site, and some major areas
of ‘fill’ being required in some lower eastern parts of the site to bring those
lower areas up to the higher levels shown on the levels plan. The high and low
areas are in different ownerships so there may be a need for some sort of
co-operative arrangement to facilitate this. It would be desirable for the
consultant to provide some comment on this issue during the advertising period
of the Draft.
The Draft refers at a number of points to the need to
ensure that mining levels keep an adequate distance above the expected maximum
water table level. It would be desirable that an actual separation distance is
stipulated in the Draft.
Karst Landforms (Caves)
The Draft refers to the likelihood of karst landforms,
particularly in the western part of the NIA. However, the Draft does not refer
to any significant detailed karst surveys having been undertaken to-date, and
places emphasis upon such detailed surveys being undertaken at
subdivision/development stage. This may not properly address the issue, and it
may be preferable that, during advertising of the Draft, the consultant is
required to give consideration to a more thorough level of assessment of the
matter during the earlier phases of planning, perhaps adopting a similar
approach which the Minister for Environment has required in respect to the Yanchep-Two
Rocks area (future Urban and Rural Community areas). This would also include
consideration of any fauna which may be associated with karst features.
Bush Forever
The NIA land is affected by two Bush Forever Sites (BFS):
·
BFS 295 relates to an area on the north east corner of Flynn
Drive and Mather Drive (on City-owned land) and also at the south-eastern
corner of the NIA (on the Borello family’s land).
·
BFS 293 relates to the north west corner of the NIA, on Cockburn
Cement land.
Bush Forever proposes that protection of these bushland
areas be implemented through ‘Strategic Negotiated Planning Solutions’, and
notes that the status of implementation is ‘To be determined’.
The Draft NIASP shows the areas concerned as ‘Bush Forever
Site Subject to Negotiation’. It also refers to a possible opportunity for the
City to negotiate with the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI)
regarding the possibility of an exchange arrangement between the BFS on Mather
Drive, and the Public Reserve area on the City-owned land in the north-east
corner of the NIA, which is currently proposed for rezoning to Industrial under
North West Districts Omnibus Amendment No. 5 to the MRS (section 5.8 of Draft).
DPI officers (in the Bush Forever Office) have previously advised
that they will be seeking that the acquisition of the BFS concerned be included
as a ‘Cell Work’ in the developer contribution arrangement for the NIA. The
Draft NIASP presently does not include it as Cell Work.
The process of finalising the NIASP and its other
associated implementation mechanisms will provide the vehicle for completion of
the negotiations which will be involved in resolving this issue.
At this stage, however, it should be noted that it is not
considered reasonable that local governments be expected to be responsible for
developer contribution systems for acquisition of regionally significant
bushland required for protection under Bush Forever. Rather, the more
appropriate mechanism is for such bushland requiring protection to be reserved
under the MRS for Parks and Recreation purposes and purchased from the owners
concerned by the WA Planning Commission pursuant to normal reservation and
compensation procedures.
Flora and Vegetation Surveys and Fauna
The Draft advises that threatened ecological communities
(TEC’s) may exist within the NIA and therefore recommends that flora and
vegetation surveys be undertaken prior to development (section 5.4.3). Should
such surveys identify TEC’s within particular areas and their significance is
such as to warrant their protection, this would obviously have significant
implications for the planning of land in the vicinity, particularly in respect
to future ground levels. It would therefore be appropriate that such surveys
be undertaken at this present structure planning stage to ensure that the
outcome can be properly responded to and accommodated in the final Structure
Plan.
The Draft also advises that if it is identified that there
is a priority or threatened species located within the NIA, it will be
necessary for owners to liaise with CALM regarding their development timeframes
to ensure that there is ample opportunity to develop appropriate management
and/or preservation strategies (section 10.3.6). It is recommended that this
matter be included as a provision of Part 1 of the Draft to ensure its
implementation.
Leachate Plume from Old Pinjar Tip Site
The Draft notes that there is a leachate plume extending
generally westwards from the old Pinjar tip beneath the eastern part of the
NIA. The Draft recommends that the City undertake a detailed assessment of
groundwater quality to determine the extent of the plume and undertake
remediation where necessary (section 10.3.5). The City has previously
undertaken monitoring of this plume and this matter is now being further
investigated in light of the imminent development of this area.
The Draft also notes that the plume should not prevent most
industries from operating in the NIA as the estate will be serviced with
reticulated water. It advises however that it does present an issue of future
liability for future industries, and that this liability will need to be fully
disclosed between the industries, landowners/developers and the City (section
4.5). It is recommended that a provision is included in Part 1 of the Draft to
ensure that this matter is properly addressed.
Pinjar Motor Sports Area – Barbagallo Raceway – Noise
Issues
The Draft raises a number of matters which require
addressing:
·
it advises that the Australian Touring Car Championship is
unlikely to return to Barbagallo Raceway after 2001 (section 5.21, para 5).
This is incorrect and should be corrected.
·
the Draft includes advice provided by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) regarding noise and risk issues (Appendix 5 of
Draft). This advice states that the Environmental Protection (Noise)
Regulations 1997 will need to be complied with. The regulations stipulate a
maximum acceptable noise level of 65 dB (A) for industrial land uses. Past
studies have shown that a substantial area adjacent to the Barbagallo Raceway
is occasionally subject to noise from the raceway which exceeds this level.
DEP advises that to comply with the regulations, applications in respect to
each proposed industry in the affected area will need to be made to the
Minister for Environment (under Regulation 17) to vary the assigned level (ie.
grant an exemption).
Such exemptions would only be
granted in respect to uses which were not considered noise sensitive premises.
The Draft has not really addressed this DEP advice and it would be appropriate
that Part 1 of the Draft include a provision to ensure that this DEP advice is
implemented.
The City’s Co-ordinator Health
Services has considered this issue and recommended that works (eg. bunding) be
undertaken near the boundary of the raceway (within the raceway reserve) to
assist with reducing noise levels. Such bunding can be grassed and also
provide good viewing areas for spectators at the raceway. This is something
which can be separately negotiated with the WA Sporting Car Club and other
owners in the area.
·
the Draft considers the issue of noise impacts from the NIA upon
the future residential areas to the south. It recommends that consideration be
given to the use of memorials on title notifying residential purchasers of
their proximity to a strategic industrial area. It also recommends that
consideration be given to applying for a ‘Regional Factor’ under the
Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations to allow for noise emissions from
the NIA (as received by the residential areas) to be a number of dB(A) higher
than the assigned noise levels under the Regulations (section 5.2.2). It is
recommended that these matters be considered further at the time of considering
submissions following advertising of the Draft.
·
the Draft refers to the importance of providing a second road
access to the Barbagallo Raceway, particularly for emergency evacuation
purposes. (This matter was considered at Council’s meeting of 18 December 2001
– item CD08-12/01). The Draft identifies Wattle Avenue (West) as a likely
suitable route. However, as determined recently by Council, the Wattle Avenue
(West) option is not feasible in the short term, and routes to the south
(either as a extension to Mather Drive or Orchid Road) need to be considered.
The WA Sporting Car Club has
recently sought the City’s approval to the Mather Drive option. This has been
accepted as a temporary arrangement (at no expense to the City), having regard
for the complications which are associated with the Orchid Road option in
respect to its dependence upon progressing of the Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL)
Plant project. The Draft should be modified to reflect this road proposal.
Servicing
The Draft includes ‘preliminary service layouts’ in order
to establish broad service planning. It recommends however that following
adoption of the NIASP, ‘service concept plans’ be prepared for sewer, water,
electric power, drainage, gas and communication services and submitted and
agreed with the service authorities (section 9.7). These concept plans will
provide a basis for individual lot owner developments and will enable forward
planning by the service authorities for capital works funding for the external
site service connections.
The issue of who is to prepare these concept plans and who
is to pay for them needs to be addressed. In this regard, it is considered
that as these plans need to be prepared in respect of the whole NIA (and
therefore not able to be prepared at subdivision stage by each landowner), they
really need to be a ‘Cell Work’ and Part 1 of the Structure Plan should be
modified to provide for this.
Design Guidelines and Landscape Master Plan
The Draft recommends (section 10.3.1) that Design
Guidelines and a Landscape Master Plan be prepared for the NIA, to include:
·
main estate entries;
·
the core business area;
·
areas adjacent to the Lake Neerabup Parks and Recreation reserve;
·
Service Industrial areas fronting Flynn Drive.
As this work will be benefiting the whole NIA, it should be
a ‘Cell Work’ and it is recommended that Part 1 of the Draft be modified to
include a provision to this effect.
Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) Project
The Westbeam Company and the State Government are now close
to finalising the proposed State Agreement to facilitate the LVL Project. In
the meantime, LandCorp has submitted a subdivision application to create the
property to be used for the factory (near the present western end of Pederick
Road). The road system and levels plan of the Draft can accommodate the early
development of this project.
Views of the Landowners Involved
As noted earlier in this report, Taylor Burrell consulted
with the landowners in the preparation of an earlier draft Structure Plan.
This earlier draft was forwarded by the City to the landowners and this led to
further consultation between the owners and Taylor Burrell.
Cockburn Cement’s current views are included in Attachment
5.
The other private landowners are understood to be generally
satisfied with the present Draft, although the effect of Bush Forever is of
concern to the owners who are affected by that issue.
When the Draft is advertised, this will allow owners to
formally submit their views to the City.
The City is also a landowner in this area however this
report has been prepared from the perspective of the local government
responsible for administering DPS2 and its structure planning provisions. When
the Draft is advertised, that will be an appropriate time for the City to
address this matter also from a landowner’s perspective.
Staging
The Draft includes a Staging Plan (section 7.9) which shows
short, medium and long term development areas, and two possible first stage
areas (refer Attachment 6). The Draft emphasises that this staging plan
is basically a composite reflection of known landowner intentions and
development practicalities (eg. servicing), and should not be construed as a
recommended staging programme to be used in controlling the timing of
development
Road Junctions on Flynn Drive
It would be desirable that prior to advertising, the
Structure Plan map be amended to show the proposed roads intersecting Flynn
Drive from the south, to ensure a proper co-ordination of road junctions along
this road.
Main Central Roundabout
The Structure Plan includes as an important basic design
feature, a major roundabout at the intersection of two main east-west and
north-south roads, and the diagonal main road from the south west. It would be
desirable that this feature is demonstrated as being indeed technically
acceptable prior to the Draft being advertised.
Implementation
The Draft recommends that the developer contribution
mechanism to be used for this project be essentially the same as that currently
used for the East Wanneroo urban and industrial cells. This would mean that in
due course, a number of further actions be undertaken:
·
the preparation of an amendment to DPS2;
·
the determination of what is to constitute Cell Works;
·
the preparation of cost estimates of the Cell Works and the
resultant estimated developer contribution rate to be charged.
The Draft currently includes, on an indicative basis and
for discussion purposes only, an itemisation of Cell Works. It is recommended
that this matter, together with the above actions, be considered further
following advertising of the Draft.
Comments Received from Government Agencies
The Draft has been referred for initial comment to a number
of key agencies, acknowledging that they will have opportunity to provide full
comments at the time that the Draft is released for comment pursuant to the
scheme provisions.
The comments received from the Department of Mineral and
Petroleum Resources have been previously referred to (refer Attachment 5).
The following summarises comments received to-date from
other agencies:
·
Main Roads WA: the Draft is acceptable to Main Roads WA
·
Water Corporation: No objection in principle to the Draft. A
number of detailed technical comments are made regarding service provision.
·
Water and Rivers Commission:
-
generally no objection to the Draft;
-
the area is located within the proposed Perth Coastal Underground
Water Pollution Control Area (UWPCA) which is proposed for Priority 3 source
protection. (Draft incorrectly states that land located within proposed
Gnangara UWPCA – this should be corrected). Information regarding land use
compatibility in P3 areas is provided.
-
advice provided regarding drainage management
-
Neerabup groundwater management sub-area has reached sustainable
groundwater allocation limits. New well applications are therefore unlikely to
be approved. Groundwater required for new development would therefore need to
be purchased or leased from existing license holders in this sub-area.
Conclusion
The Draft NIASP is considered to be satisfactory for
advertising, subject to a number of modifications being first made to it, and
to a number of other issues being further addressed by the applicant during the
advertising period, and by the City during the course of consideration of
submissions received.
Statutory Compliance
Under clause 9.4.1 (b) of DPS2, Council may, in the
exercise of its discretion to determine that the Structure Plan should not be
advertised until specified matters have been included in it or have otherwise
been attended to by the proponent.
It should be noted that Clause 9.4.2 of DPS2, provides that
if within 60 days of receiving a Structure Plan, Council has not made a
determination pursuant to Clause 9.4.1, the proponent may deem that Council has
determined that the Structure Plan should not be agreed to. (The Structure
Plan was received on 14 January 2002). Although the 60 days has expired, the
proponent has advised it is prepared to await Council’s decision.
The City of Wanneroo has a major commercial interest in the
Structure Plan however the Council is not required to disclose a financial
interest in this matter as the provision relating to financial interest in the
Local Government Act 1995 relate purely to Elected members and Staff. Council
will however need to mindful of the implications of the National Competition
Policy.
Strategic Implications
Progression of this Draft NIASP is consistent with a number
of initiatives under the City’s current draft Strategic Plan:
“3. Economic Development
To
maximise opportunities for balanced economic growth and development within the
City. …
3.2 Identify,
support and respond to the needs of existing and new industries: …
·
Facilitate the provision of suitable land and infrastructure. …
3.3 Encourage the employment of growth
within the community: …
·
Pursue a diversity of employment opportunities.”
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Finalising this Structure Plan and its associated
implementation mechanisms will entail costs to the City, however these should
be able to be recouped through the developer contribution arrangement proposed
to be introduced.
This Draft also holds financial implications for this City
as a landowner in the area concerned, however this aspect will be more
appropriately addressed at the time that the City considers the Draft,
specifically from a landowner perspective, at the time the Draft is advertised.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme
No. 2, DETERMINES that the Draft Neerabup Industrial Area Structure Plan dated
January 2002 and submitted by Taylor Burrell on behalf of LandCorp should not
be advertised until the following matters have been included in it or have
otherwise been attended to by the proponent:
a) Provision
3.0 of Part 1 of the Structure Plan being modified to introduce the degree of
flexibility regarding compliance with future levels proposed under section
6.2.2 of Part 2;
b) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision (to this City’s satisfaction)
stipulating the separation distance required between mining levels and the
expected maximum water table level;
c) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision to ensure implementation of the
recommendation contained in section 10.3.6 of Part 2, concerning liaison of
owners with CALM to develop management and/or preservation strategies in the
event that priority or threatened species are located;
d) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision to ensure adequate disclosure of
liability regarding the leachate plume emanating from the old Pinjar Tip Site;
e) Part
2 (section 5.21) being corrected regarding its reference to the future of the
Australian Touring Car Championship at Barbagallo Raceway;
f) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision to ensure implementation of the
Department for Environmental Protection’s advice regarding the need for
exemptions to be applied for, seeking variation of assigned noise levels under
the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;
g) Part
2 of the Structure Plan being modified to reflect the current proposal for a
temporary access road to be provided to Barbagallo Raceway from Mather Drive;
h) The
Structure Plan including a plan which shows proposed road junction points from
Flynn Drive to the areas south of Flynn Drive;
i) The
Structure Plan including information which demonstrates that the proposed major
central roundabout can be constructed in a manner which satisfies all relevant
technical standards and requirements;
j) Section
4.5 of Part 2 of the Structure Plan being modified to refer to the proposed
Perth Underground Water Pollution Control Area (UWPCA) rather than the Gnangara
UWPCA;
k) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision requiring that Service Concept
Plans be prepared following approval of the Structure Plan, and prior to
subdivision and development of the NIA, and that the preparation of those plans
be a Cell Work under the developer contribution arrangement for the NIA (with
Figure 10.1 in Part 2 also being modified accordingly);
l) Part
1 of the Structure Plan including a provision requiring that the Design
Guidelines and Landscape Master Plan (recommended in section 10.3.1 of Part 2)
be prepared following approval of the Structure Plan and prior to subdivision,
and that the preparation of those plans be a Cell Work under the developer
contribution arrangement for the NIA (with Figure 10.1 in Part 2 also being
modified accordingly).
2. Once
the matters referred to in 1. above have been satisfactorily addressed,
ADVERTISES the Draft Structure Plan (with the necessary modifications) under
the provisions of clause 9.5 of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.
2;
3. REQUIRES
the applicant to provide advice to the City for further consideration on the
following matters during the course of advertising of the Draft Structure Plan:
a) Whether
some form of cooperative arrangement between owners may be required to
reconcile significant cut required on the central part of the subject land,
with significant fill required on the eastern areas;
b) Whether
a more thorough level of assessment of karst issues (and related fauna) should
be undertaken at an earlier stage of the planning and development process,
having regard for the approach adopted on this subject for the Yanchep and Two
Rocks areas through the Minister for the Environment’s statement relating to
that area;
c) The
outcome of flora and vegetation surveys to be undertaken as recommended in
Section 5.4.3 of Part 2. (These surveys are considered to be best undertaken
at the present stage of planning of this area, so that the Structure Plan,
particularly its levels planning, may effectively respond to the outcomes of
these surveys).
4. GIVES
FURTHER CONSIDERATION to the following matters at the time it considers
submissions received following advertising of the Draft Structure Plan:
a) The
Draft Structure Plan’s recommendations regarding memorials on title of new
residential lots created to the south of Flynn Drive, and a Regional Factor
being applied for under Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations, in
respect to noise impacts on the area south of Flynn Drive;
b) The
implementation mechanisms related to this project, including possible new
provisions required for inclusion into District Planning Scheme No. 2, the
determination of Cell Works and how their cost is to be apportioned, and the
estimation of the cost of those works.
c) Whether
the Draft’s proposal regarding use permissibility in the Business Precinct is
the best way of enabling shops to be approved within this Precinct.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT 5 - PAGE 5 OF 6
|
|
ATTACHMENT 5 - PAGE 6 OF 6
|
|
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 07369
File Name: BARecof4.doc This line will not be printed
Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by CB Date 20 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 4
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
Adoption of the Revised East Wanneroo Cell 4 Local
Structure Plan (Hocking/Pearsall), incorporating modifications requested by the
Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and other minor changes.
|
Applicant
|
City of Wanneroo
|
|
Owner
|
Multiple
|
|
Location
|
Bounded by Wanneroo Road, Elliot Road, Lenore Road and
Ocean Reef Road
|
|
Site Area
|
393.72 hectares
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Urban Development / Residential / Special Residential
|
Background
The preparation and ongoing assessment of the East Wanneroo
Cells 1-8 Local Structure Plans has a considerable history and background. The
plans were originally prepared by BSD Consultants in 1997 and have been
modified and advertised on two occasions previously.
The Joint Commissioners, at their meeting of 28 September
1999 (W361-09/99) considered the East Wanneroo Local Structure Plans (LSP) in
respect of Cells 1 to 8, and resolved to endorse the structure plans with
modifications and submit them to the WAPC for its adoption. The WAPC
considered the LSP for Cell 4 (refer Attachment 1) and resolved to adopt
Part 1of the structure plan subject to modifications (refer Attachment 2).
Detail
The modifications that have been incorporated into the
revised LSP are a result of requested changes by the WAPC, subdivision
approvals granted by the WAPC and road and landuse rationalisation by City
administration.
The modifications required by the WAPC can be summarised as
follows:
Revisions to Land Valuation and Infrastructure
Contributions
New independent valuation advice is required regarding the
current values of the land required for acquisition. This will lead to revised
and more accurate infrastructure costs per lot (ICPL) for Cell 4.
Amendments to the Zoning Map
There is a need to remove the Buffer Precinct on the zoning
plan around the former turkey farm on Lot 53 Wyatt Road, which was not
operational upon gazettal of DPS2. The modifications of the ‘Buffer Precinct’
as it relates to Lot 39 Mary Street is also required to reflect the reduction
granted by the WAPC via the subdivision approvals dated 23 December 1997 (WAPC
reference 104705), 13 September 1999 (WAPC reference 111049) and 27 October
1999 (WAPC reference 109793)).
Modifications to the Structure Plan Map, addressing
·
The word ‘Revised’ being replaced with the word ‘Agreed’ in the
title of the Structure Plan Map;
·
Consistency between the Structure Plan and recent subdivision
approvals, development approvals, new houses and the poultry farm buildings at
Lot 28 Kemp Street, which have been removed;
·
Inclusion of several additional R30 and R40 sites;
·
The road design to improve permeability and legibility of the
street network for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians;
·
Modifying street blocks to provide for appropriate lot sizes;
·
Those lots along Wanneroo Road (south of East Road) being coded
R10/R40;
·
The row of Special Residential lots along Lenore Road in the
southern portion of the Cell being deleted and the land included within the
Residential Precinct.
Given changes to land use requirements and adjoining
structure planning since Council last considered the plan, the following
additional modifications were also considered appropriate by the City’s
officers:
a)
Inclusion of a ‘Special Zone’ at Lot 50 Mary Street, based on previous
Council approvals for use of the site as a vet and service station /
convenience store;
b)
Introduction of additional POS within the Cell.
c)
Modifications to the alignment of Lenore Road.
d)
Modifications to the proposed street layout within the Cell.
The City is also currently reviewing the construction
details for the Regional Roads associated with this Cell. Although some minor
changes may be required, the construction detail and alignment of the future
road reserves will have only minor implications on land acquisition
requirements and the associated costs of construction.
Modification of the Buffer Precinct Provisions
There is a need to modify the Buffer Precinct provisions to
refer to the Commission’s Statement of Planning Policy No. 5 – Poultry Farms
and details of the use requiring the buffer.
Modification of Clause 4.4
Clause 4.4 – ‘Special Residential Zone’ to be modified to
refer to the ‘Special Residential Precinct’ as per the Zoning Plan.
Modification of Provision 4.3
Provision 4.3 to be modified to insert the words ‘for the
land included in the Centre Zone’ between the words ‘a Structure Plan’ and ‘has
been prepared’.
The Inclusion of Environmental Provisions
The WAPC requested that environmental provisions relating to
former Town Planning Scheme No 1 Amendment No 773 be included, where
appropriate within the LSP. These former considerations relate to issues of
soil contamination and remediation.
The WAPC has also sought the inclusion of an environmental
provision relating to the appropriate disposal of surface water drainage within
the Cell and to minimise any impacts on water quality in nearby significant
wetlands, including potential surface water contamination.
Consultation
The LSP has been modified largely as a result of the
requests of the WAPC. There have also been minor adjustments made as a result
of subdivision approvals granted by the WAPC. Other variations generally
relate to modification of the proposed street layout. No major modifications
to landuse locations are proposed in the revised LSP. On this basis, it is
appropriate that the proposal is considered as a minor modification and public
advertising be waived in this instance in accordance with Part 9.4.1 (a) of the
Scheme.
Comment
Attachment 3 reflects the modified Cell 4 LSP. The
proposed modifications are discussed below. Where relevant, the modifications
suggested by the City officers are considered along with the modifications
required by the WAPC.
Revisions to Land Valuation
The cell costs contained in the Draft Cell 4 LSP were based
on valuations undertaken in 1996/97 and therefore have required review. The
City commissioned the independent licensed valuation firm of Egan National
Valuers (WA), to undertake a current fair market valuation of selected parcels
of land required for cell works.
The valuation of these parcels on a frontal englobo basis
provides a range of values from which an average value per hectare can be
established. This average value when applied to the aggregate area of land for
cell works that is still to be acquired is included in the estimate of cell
costs for the purpose of establishing the infrastructure cost per lot.
The valuations advised for the individual land holdings
that comprise the selected open space sites and road widening, range between
$260,000 and $400,000 per hectare. An average rate of $320,000 per hectare has
been recommended.
The average per hectare value should be increased by a
margin of 10% to provide for claims of solatium.
Solatium is the allowance made in the compensation process
to avoid disadvantage to an owner whose land is required for a public work who,
as a consequence, has lost the opportunity to deal with the land on the open
market in the same manner as other landowners.
If $320,000 is adopted as the base rate per hectare and a
solatium allowance of 10% ($32,000) is applied, the average estimated net value
for the cell purpose land is $352,000 per hectare.
The total estimated value of the public open space in the
cell is $12,524,579, which equates to $3,410.77 per lot. The total estimated
value of the land acquisition for road widening purposes is $4,541,449.
When factored into the overall cell costs, the total cell
cost estimate is $20,559,530 and an infrastructure cost per lot (ICPL) of
$5,526.31.
Amendments to the Zoning Map
The zoning plan has been modified at the request of the
WAPC (refer Attachment 4). The turkey farm at Lot 53 Wyatt Road
has ceased operation, and significantly, was not operational upon gazettal of
DPS2. This means that the farm does not have non-conforming use rights. As
such, the deletion of the buffer around Lot 53, and the introduction of the
‘Residential Precinct’ in this area are appropriate. Also, as requested by the
WAPC, the Buffer Precinct associated with the existing Egg Farm on Lot 39 Mary
Street, Pearsall has been reduced to reflect the subdivision approvals issued
for the land to the north (WAPC references 104705, 109793 and 111049). In this
regard, the applicants have received endorsement by the Department of
Environmental Protection to reduce the buffer, where the impact of the
operation is considered to be minimal. The Buffer Precinct (which is
incorporated into the LSP Zoning Map) has been modified to reflect this
approval and introduce the ‘Residential Precinct’ over the balance land.
The ‘Special Residential’ Precinct along Lenore Road has
been deleted, in accordance with the WAPC’s recommendation. This land has been
incorporated into the ‘Residential Precinct’.
The ‘Special Residential’ precinct on the northern boundary
of the Cell has been expanded west into Lot 22 Elliot Road and east into Lot 25
Elliot Road. This proposed ‘Special Residential’ precinct provides a buffer
between the urban area of Cell 4 and the existing special rural area to the
north.
Modifications of the LSP Design
a) Renaming
of LSP
The LSP has been modified to reflect the title of ‘Agreed
LSP’ and not ‘Revised LSP’ as previously identified in the advertised LSP.
b) Subdivision
and Development Approvals
The structure plan has been modified to reflect all
subdivision and development approvals within the cell. The poultry farm
buildings at Lot 28 Kemp Street have been deleted from the Structure Plan.
The revised LSP design has taken into account all houses
that have been built since the plan was last advertised, through the assessment
of aerial photography of the structure plan.
c) Modifications
to Road Design
The Structure Plan has been modified to be consistent with
the Commission’s Policies, in respect of road design, footpaths and dual use
paths and the spacing between street blocks being modified to provide for
appropriate lot sizes, where required. The modified LSP depicts a road network
that would achieve improved permeability and legibility for motorists, cyclists
and pedestrians. The modifications were required primarily to achieve more
sufficient lot module depth between subdivisional roads and to reflect /
integrate with approved subdivisions (which represents approximately 40% of the
Cell’s developable area).
d) Inclusion
of Additional R30 and R40 Sites
Additional R30 and R40 sites have been incorporated for
lots fronting POS areas to promote overlooking and surveillance of these
recreational areas. Efforts have been made to introduce higher densities at
points of difference within the residential areas, which may be conducive to
medium and higher density living.
e) Recoding
of lots along Wanneroo Road
Those lots along Wanneroo Road, south of East Road, have
been recoded R10/R40, in accordance with the requirements of the WAPC. The R40
coding will apply when the newly subdivided lots gain access from the internal
subdivisional roads (but not Wanneroo Road) and satisfy the relevant design
criteria included in the Structure Plan.
Special Zone at Lot 50 Mary Street
Council previously considered this matter at its meeting of
12 June 2001 (Item W199-06/01). At this meeting, Council resolved to support a
modification to the LSP, to identify Lot 50 (154) Mary Street as a Special Zone
(Restricted Use) Veterinary Establishment and Convenience Store. These
modifications were considered to be minor in nature and reflective of current
Development Approvals for the site.
Minor POS Additions within the Cell
Minor variations have been made to the POS provisions
throughout the Cell. These changes have been necessitated through the
amendments to road design throughout the Structure Plan area. Where possible,
POS provisions in the revised Cell 4 LSP are in accordance with the previously
advertised LSP, however as the proposed road layout has changed as part of the
Plan review, minor modifications have been made to the POS areas, where
required. Importantly, no POS areas have been introduced to lots which
previously had POS provision allocated to them.
Modification to the Lenore Road alignment
In the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Lenore Road is zoned
‘Rural’ while under the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2, Lenore Road is
zoned ‘Rural Resource’, ‘General Rural’ and ‘Urban Development’.
The revised LSP incorporates the latest alignment design
for Lenore Road. When constructed, Lenore Road will be a major north-south
distributor road, providing a connection between the Cell 4 area and Ocean Reef
Road and Hartman Drive. Under the North-West Corridor Structure Plan (March,
1992), Lenore Road is classified as a Regional Road. Given this, and
considering Lenore Road’s role in the road hierarchy of East Wanneroo, it is
appropriate that Council resolves to request that the WAPC resolve to initiate
an amendment to the MRS to reserve Lenore Road an ‘Other Regional Road’
reservation.
The City’s review of the Lenore Road alignment has
concluded that access to the future Lenore Road from within the Cell 4 area be
restricted to Elliot Road, Nicholson Road and Kemp Street.
Modifications to Street Layout Design
The revised plan has necessitated a review of the layout of
several portions of the Cell 4 LSP area. These modifications have been
required to ensure coordination with current subdivision approvals,
coordination with revised regional road requirements, and the provision of more
easily developable lot modules. The main areas of design modifications have
been north of Elliot Road and south of Mary Street. It is considered that
these proposed modifications are suitable and will facilitate quality urban
development in the Hocking / Pearsall localities, whilst also meeting the
strategic objectives of the East Wanneroo Structure Plans.
Statutory Compliance
Under the provision of Sub Clause 9.6.3 (c) of DPS2, the
City shall make the modifications requested by the WAPC and resubmit the LSP to
the WAPC.
Strategic Implications
The adoption of this LSP will provide the planning
framework for the future development of East Wanneroo Cell 4. This is
consistent with objective 2.6.1 of the Draft Planning and Development
Directorate Strategic Plan.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Financial Implications
The revision of the ICPL as a result of the land valuations
will impact upon the Cell Costings and financial modelling for Cell 4. This
revision and its implications will not impact on any other aspect of the City’s
operation.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council:
a)
Pursuant to Clause 9.6 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS, SIGNS
AND SEALS the modified East Wanneroo Cell 4 Local Structure Plan;
b)
FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Local Structure Plan for Cell 4 to the
Western Australian Planning Commission;
c)
ADOPTS the figure of $20,559,530 as the current Estimated Cell Costs and
$5,526.31 as the current Infrastructure Cost Per Lot to be applied in East
Wanneroo Development Cell No.4;
d)
AUTHORISES notification of the current Estimated Cell Costs for Cell 4
in a newspaper pursuant to Clause 10.11 of District Planning Scheme No.2;
e)
REQUESTS the North West District Planning Committee to request the
Western Australian Planning Commission to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme
to designate Lenore Road as an ‘Other Regional Road’ reservation.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 03373
File Name: BABAEwc8.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 3
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
Adoption of the revised Local Structure Plan (LSP) for East
Wanneroo Cell 8 incorporating the modifications requested by the Western
Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).
|
Applicant
|
N/A
|
|
Owner
|
Multiple
|
|
Location
|
Generally bounded by Hartman Drive (realigned), Ocean
Reef Road (future), Mirrabooka Avenue and Gnangara Road
|
|
Site Area
|
Approx. 260 hectares
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
General Industrial and General Rural
|
|
MRS Zoning
|
Industrial & Rural
|
Background
The preparation and on going assessment of the East
Wanneroo Cell LSP’s has a considerable history and background. The plans were
originally prepared by BSD Consultants in 1997 and have been modified and
advertised on two previous occasions.
The Joint Commissioners at their meeting of 28 September
1999 (W361-09/99) considered the East Wanneroo LSP’s in respect of Cells 1 to 8
and resolved to endorse the structure plans with modifications and submit them
to the WAPC for its adoption. The WAPC considered the LSP for Cell 8 (refer Attachment
1) and resolved to adopt Part 1 of the structure plan subject to
modifications (refer Attachment 2).
Detail
The modifications requested by the WAPC are summarised
below:
Revisions to Land Valuation and infrastructure
contributions
New independent valuation advice is required regarding the
current values of the land required for acquisition. This will lead to revised
and more accurate infrastructure costs per square metre of nett developable
land for Cell 8.
The inclusion of Environmental Provisions
The WAPC requested that environmental provisions relating
to Amendment No 773 to the City’s former Town Planning Scheme No 1 be included
(where appropriate) within the LSP. These provisions relate to soil
contamination and associated remediation, the protection of sensitive nearby
uses from the impact of industrial development and surface water drainage.
Modifications to the LSP design
The WAPC also requested the LSP be modified to reflect
recent subdivision approvals, to include reference to Bush Forever Site 463 (in
the north eastern portion of the Cell), to increase the width of various
existing roads to 25 metres, amend the title to reflect the agreed status of
the LSP and to amend its boundary to reflect the Industrial zone boundary in
the Metropolitan Region Scheme (the land at the south east corner of Gnangara
Road and Hartman Drive).
Consultation
As the required changes are considered to be minor
modifications which do not alter the intent of the LSP, it is not recommended
that the LSP be further advertised. Clause 9.7 of DPS2 provides that
advertising may be waived in these circumstances.
Comment
Revisions to Land Valuation
In January 2002, the City commissioned the
independent valuation firm of Egan National Valuers (WA), which had given
valuation advice previously in the cell, to undertake a current fair market
valuation of selected parcels of land required for cell works.
The valuation of these parcels on a frontal englobo basis
provides a range from which an average value per hectare can be deduced. This
average value when applied to the aggregate area of land for cell works that
are to be acquired is included in the estimate of cell costs for the purpose of
establishing the infrastructure cost per square metre (ICPM2).
The new alignment for Hartman Drive between Gnangara Road
and Luisini Road is a cell cost. It forms the boundary between Cell 7 (service
industry and business) and Cell 8 (general industry) and the cost of
acquisition and construction is to be shared equally between the cells. The
valuer advises a rate of $265,700 per ha, which includes a 10% solatium
allowance. The total cost of the new alignment is estimated at $1,063,000 which
is slightly lower than the previous valuation estimates. However, the valuer
does advise that the current estimates are based on indicative values and costs
only and more detailed analysis when information becomes available could
indicate stronger values. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to
maintain the previously advised rate of $275,000 per ha, which includes a 10%
solatium allowance.
The same rate can be applied to the Ocean Reef road
alignment.
The aggregate of these values is $5,781,508. When factored
into the overall cell costs they result in a total cell cost estimate of
$10,701,953 and an infrastructure cost per square metre (ICPM2) of
$5.56.
The inclusion of Environmental Provisions
The WAPC requested that environmental provisions relating
to the City’s former Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be included within the LSP.
These provisions relate to issues of soil contamination and associated
remediation, the protection of sensitive nearby uses from the impact of
industrial development and surface water drainage.
It is considered appropriate that relevant conditions be
included in the statutory component of the LSP to address this matter (refer Attachment
2).
Modifications to the LSP design
The modifications requested by the WAPC are considered
minor and there is no objection to them being undertaken. The revised version
of the Structure Plan has been included as Attachment 3.
Sydney Road Wetland
In regard to the Sydney Road wetland situated at the
eastern end of the LSP area it is noted that the City undertook a detailed
assessment of the wetland to arrive at a suitable zoning. The study concluded
that the most appropriate zoning would be General Industrial subject to the
preparation of a management plan in consultation with the Department of
Environmental Protection. As the wetland is in private ownership, some of the
landowners were requested to initiate an amendment to the DPS2. However, to
date they have not responded to this request.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
The adoption of the LSP will provide the planning framework
for the future development of East Wanneroo Cell 8. This is consistent with
Objective 2.6.1 of the draft Planning and Development Directorate Strategic
Plan.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The revision to the cell costs as a result of the revised
land valuations will form the basis of the cell costings and financial
modelling for Cell 8. This revision and its implications will not impact on any
other aspect of the City’s operations.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council:
1.
Pursuant to Clause 9.6 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2,
ADOPTS, SIGNS and SEALS as modified the East Wanneroo Cell 8 Local Structure
Plan;
2.
FORWARDS a copy of the adopted East Wanneroo Cell 8 Local Structure Plan
to the Western Australian Planning Commission;
3.
ADOPTS the figure of $10,701,953 as the current Estimated Cell Costs and
$5.56 as the current Infrastructure Cost Per square metre of nett developable
land to be applied in East Wanneroo Development Area Cell 8;
4.
AUTHORISES notification of the current Estimated Cell Costs for Cell 8
in accordance with Clause 10.11 of District Planning Scheme No. 2.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 46007
File Name: BACloofA.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments 2
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
Consideration of submissions received during the public
advertising period in relation to the proposed modifications to the Merriwa
Local Structure Plan (LSP).
|
Applicant
|
Taylor Burrell
|
|
Owner
|
Caversham Property
|
|
Location
|
Part Lots 904, 905, 906 and 907 Baltimore Parade, Merriwa
|
|
Site Area
|
44 hectares (approx)
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Residential
|
Background
The City received an application from Taylor Burrell
Planning Consultants on behalf of Caversham Property Pty Ltd to consider
proposed modifications to the Merriwa Local Structure Plan. The application
area covers approximately 44 hectares of land and is located north of the
existing residential area in the suburb of Merriwa (refer Attachment 1).
Council initially considered the application at its meeting
on 6 November 2001 (Item No. PD13-11/01), and resolved to publicly advertise
the proposed modifications for a period of 42 days.
Following the initiation of public advertising the
applicant submitted a revised plan at the request of City officers, which now
forms the basis for consideration of LSP modifications (refer Attachment 2).
Detail
The applicant is promoting the modification to the LSP, in
part, as a result of the Education Department advising that it no longer
requires a planned 4 hectare (ha) public primary school site.
The application proposes the following main elements:
1. A
reconfiguration of the central area land uses.
2. The
introduction of residential lots where the existing LSP shows public open space
(POS).
3. The
relocation of the displaced POS to a site adjacent to the private primary
school site.
4. An
additional 330 lots (approximately) in the north-eastern portion of the LSP
area generally consistent with the existing LSP.
The central area (bounded by Dalvik Avenue, Baltimore
Parade and Seagrove Boulevard) was originally identified as a central community
node of approximately 12 ha, consisting of a private primary school (2 ha),
public primary school (4 ha) and POS (6 ha). Given that the 4 ha public primary
school site has been deleted, some modification to the LSP is required to
replace the primary school with an alternative use.
The applicant has suggested that the separation of the POS
area into two separate reserves (south and north) promotes a more equitable
distribution of POS and is in accordance with agreements previously made
between the private primary school, the Education Department and Smith
Corporation (the previous developers).
At Council’s meeting on 6 November 2001, a number of issues
were identified as requiring additional information prior to final adoption of
the LSP. The additional information included:
1. A
vegetation assessment of the site.
2. An
ethnological and archaeological assessment of the site.
3. Detail
of the proposed pedestrian/cyclist network.
4. The
identification of appropriate bus stop locations.
5. A
demonstration of the accuracy of the projected traffic volumes.
6. Engineering
justification and documentation to enable proper assessment of the downgrading
of Connolly and Lukin Drives.
7. The
location of any future school-in-houses sites.
An assessment of each of these items is outlined in the
comment section of this report.
Consultation
Public advertising was carried out in accordance with the
provisions of part 9.7 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and
involved the erection of two advertising signs on the site (in prominent
locations), letters to approximately 60 residents directly overlooking the
application area (Baltimore Parade and Dalvik Avenue) and an advertisement in
the Wanneroo Times newspaper. The advertising period was 42 days and concluded
on 5 March 2002.
At the conclusion of public advertising, 37 submissions
objecting to the proposal and 1 submission supporting the proposal were
received. A 314 signature petition objecting to the proposal was also
received. All submissions and the petition signatories have been identified as
being located within a 1 kilometre radius of the application area. A copy of
all submissions received has been placed in the Councillors reading room. A
summary of the main points of objection and a response to each is outlined in
the following table.
|
Point of Objection
|
Frequency of Point Raised
|
Response
|
|
Loss of Amenity by
introducing residential development into an area previously identified as
Public Open Space
|
27
|
Consideration for the loss
of amenity to existing residents represents the greatest objection to the
proposed modifications. The public consultation period for structure planning
amendments enables Council to give due consideration to amenity concerns.
However it should be noted that the structure planning process is, by its
very nature, intended to be a flexible mechanism for land settlement patterns
to respond to changing market demands, planning philosophy and other factors
affecting development. Whilst the relocation of the POS to the northern
portion of the site is not considered to be a significant decrease in the
standard of amenity that could otherwise be expected within a residential
area, consideration must be given to the expectation that residents have
previously gained from the identification of the POS in both the City’s LSP
and the developers marketing of the site.
|
|
Not enough POS in the area
|
16
|
The applicant generally
has an obligation to provide 10% POS within the locality and has submitted a
schedule demonstrating this. City administration is satisfied that the
schedule is generally acceptable and consistent with the Western Australian
Planning Commissions DC Policy manual and other state policy.
|
|
Negative impact on the
native Flora and Fauna
|
3
|
Refer Comment section of
report.
|
|
Contrary to council’s
previous advice on landuse.
|
1
|
The City provides the best
information available to the public in good faith, and is not bound to the
detail of the information distributed when variations have been considered
through established processes. Until such time as an amendment has been
adopted, the approved Local Structure Plan is the guide for all future
development in a locality. It needs to be recognised that the structure plan
modification process involves public consultation to ensure public awareness
of proposed changes and opportunity for the public to comment on proposals.
|
|
Not enough Public
consultation
|
3
|
Public notification was carried
out in accordance with the provisions of part 9.7 of the City’s District
Planning Scheme Number 2 and involved the erection of two advertising signs
on the site (in prominent locations), letters to approximately 60 residents
directly overlooking the application area (Baltimore Parade and Dalvik
Avenue) and an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper.
|
|
Potential drainage
problems
|
1
|
The applicant has provided
conceptual detail on the ultimate drainage management within the POS area.
All previous LSP’s have identified a drainage sump within the POS area. The
current detail reduces the size of the sump from 7000 m2 to 4000 m2 and incorporates
gross pollutant traps before releasing excess water during storm events into
the existing park. This latest concept represents a more effective use of the
POS area and effective techniques for storm water management within the area
of POS.
|
|
Increased traffic volumes
and impacts on road safety.
|
5
|
The traffic generation
assumed for the Merriwa subdivision is in the order of that forecast by MRWA
in its transport modelling for the arterial road network. The ultimate
volumes appear within acceptable levels for distributor roads with a 7.4
metre pavement as identified on Dalvik and Baltimore Parade.
|
|
Decrease in property
values
|
3
|
The submission did not
provide any evidence to substantiate a reduction in property value would
occur as a result of the LSP modification.
|
|
Impact on local commercial
centre by the reduction in traffic volumes along Baltimore Parade.
|
1
|
The applicant has
indicated that the traffic projections included in the Structure Plan
document are incorrect. Revised projections have been submitted, and are
being reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer for confirmation of the
ramifications for existing commercial centres.
It should be noted that
the existing commercial centres are locally based, and originally created to
service a local catchment within the Merriwa locality and not primarily
dependant upon passing trade.
|
Comment
Vegetation Survey
The applicant engaged ATA Environmental to carry out a
vegetation survey of the LSP area. This report identified that the vegetation
on the site was extensively degraded by the impacts of land clearing and weed
invasion. The remaining native vegetation is typical of the Spearwood Dune
System and in particular, the Cottesloe-Central and South Vegetation Complex.
The vegetation was not considered to be regionally significant and as result
the site has not been identified in the State Government’s ‘Bush Forever’
program.
The best quality vegetation on the site was identified as
being in the north-eastern portion, near the intersection of Connolly and Lukin
Drives. In the report, this vegetation was described as ‘Good’ quality Acacia
Rostellifera, where ‘the vegetation group has been significantly altered by
very obvious signs of multiple disturbance but retaining the basic vegetation
structure or ability to regenerate’.
The City explored the opportunity of retaining the good
quality vegetation within the north eastern portion of the LSP. Constraints
associated with the coordination of the future residential lot levels and
Connolly Drive/Lukin Drive, combined with the steep grade of the land
compromise any reasonable opportunity to preserve the remnant vegetation within
this area.
Ethnographic and Archaeological Survey
The applicant engaged R O’Connor to prepare a report on
Ethnographical significance, and G Quartermaine to report on the Archaeological
significance of the subject area. The studies were carried out in accordance
with the provisions of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 and involved the
investigation of the site through site visits, research and consultation with
Aboriginal people.
The recommendations of these reports indicate that the
development may proceed, however it was noted through consultation with the
Aboriginal people that a large portion of the development area had already been
predominately cleared of vegetation and levelled before the survey took place
and that had there been any Aboriginal sites, they would have been destroyed in
advance of the consultative process and survey. It was also noted that any
archaeological material that is uncovered as a result of the development should
be immediately reported to the W.A Museum and that the proponent take adequate
measures to inform project personnel of this requirement.
Pedestrian Cyclist Networks
The applicant has provided a proposed footpath/dual use
path plan in support of the LSP. No on road facilities have been identified in
the proposal which is consistent with the pedestrian/cyclist movement system
already developed for the Merriwa locality. The proposed network is considered
to be in accordance with current policy and integrates well with the existing
network.
Identification of Bus Stops
The applicant has liaised with Transperth to resolve the
requirement for identifying bus stops within the LSP area. It is apparent that
Transperth have not adequately completed any thorough investigation into the
ultimate routing and design consideration for bus movement systems in the
area. Whilst Transperth has provided indicative locations for bus stops, it is
considered to be premature to formalise these locations in the LSP until
Transperth (whom will undertake its own passenger demand analysis) has
formulated an overall strategy.
Traffic Volumes
A revised traffic report prepared by Klyne’s Consulting has
recently been submitted to the City for assessment. Discussions on the report
are underway between the City’s Technical Services and Klyne’s although, at the
time of writing this report, had not been finalised. Whilst it is anticipated
that no changes will result from the assessment of this information, any
variations can be accommodated through a subsequent revision to the plan.
Justification for the Reduction in the Connolly Drive and
Lukin Drive Road Widths
The ‘downgrading’ of Lukin and Connolly Drives to
accommodate a lesser road reserve is not considered to be appropriate at this
time and may ultimately compromise the provision of regional road
infrastructure. The traffic figures provided by the applicant cannot be
regarded as providing a definitive measure for ultimate traffic volumes along
these roads. However, in recognition of the previous subdivision approval for
the site, clarification will be sought from the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure upon further subdivision applications for the land abutting Connolly
Drive.
Schools in Houses
The applicant has liaised with the Education Department
with a view to identifying a possible site for a ‘schools in houses’ project.
The ‘schools in houses’ program looks at the creation of temporary classrooms
in residential buildings to accommodate increased demands on existing school
facilities within developing areas. Whilst this facility may not be required
(dependent on the timing of construction of the Ridgewood primary school), the
applicant has identified a possible location for the ‘school in houses’ within
the proposed central residential node.
Summary
Whilst the applicant has addressed most of
the issues required by Council to be addressed prior to final adoption of the
LSP, the proposal has attracted significant public opposition from local
residents in the Merriwa area. A number of concerns have been raised, mainly
related to the impact on amenity that the proposal represents for residents
living within the vicinity of the existing public open space area.
Council has also been presented with a
314-signature petition, signed by local residents opposing the proposed
amendment. This petition was tabled at Council’s meeting of 19 March 2002 and
demonstrates considerable public opposition towards the proposal.
During negotiations with the applicant over the proposed
modifications to this LSP, the City raised concern over the proposed design.
In particular, concerns were raised over the lack of flexibility that would
result by fragmenting the POS and the likely community concern that may result
from redesigning the central uses.
The level of public opposition that has
now resulted confirms the City’s previous advice to the applicant. In view of
this opposition and the City’s own doubts over the likely advantages such a
change to the POS would provide, it would be inappropriate for Council to
support the proposed modifications.
It should be noted that the proposed
residential subdivision in the north eastern portion of the application area
generally reflects previous subdivision approvals and structure planning. The
applicant has indicated that a current land shortage exists within the Merriwa
locality and it may need to pursue further subdivision prior to the LSP being
finalised. Under the circumstances, this is considered reasonable, provided
that it can be demonstrated that the future stages in the north east of the
site do not compromise the central area planning.
Statutory Compliance
The application has been pursued in accordance with the
provision of Part 9 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 for Amendment or
Revocation of an Agreed Structure Plan.
Strategic Implications
Consideration of this proposal is consistent with Strategy
2.2 of the City’s Strategic Plan, which seeks to provide for a cohesive system of
integrated land use planning.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planing Scheme No. 2, RESOLVE that
the structure plan is satisfactory subject to a revised plan being submitted
showing the central POS area as a single large reserve consistent with the
current Local Structure Plan for Merriwa;
2.
Subject to Point 1 above, SUBMITS the revised Local Structure Plan to
the Western Australian Planning Commission for adoption and certification;
3.
ADVISES Taylor Burrell that it does not support the proposed
modifications to the central area of the Merriwa Local
Structure Plan for the following reasons:
a.
The proposed modifications do not represent a significant benefit to the
residents of Merriwa, and the relocation of the open space will impact on the
amenity of residents living in the vicinity of the application area.
b.
The proposal represents a significant variation from the originally
approved Local Structure Plan, and would be unreasonable for residents who have
purchased property in this locality with an expectation that Merriwa will be
developed in accordance with the previously approved LSP.
c.
The City considers that the provision of a large central area of open
space provides greater flexibility for the utility of this reserve.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 08560
File Name: BAPreAgr.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 21 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 1
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
To consider pre-funding the upgrading of a section of
Dundebar Road, Wanneroo.
|
Applicant
|
Beamish Property Group
|
|
Owner
|
Beamish Property Group
|
|
Location
|
Generally bounded by Dundebar Road, Steven Street, High
Road and Scott Road Wanneroo.
|
|
Site Area
|
N/A
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Urban Development
|
Background
The agreed structure plan for East Wanneroo Cell 3 came
into operation in January 2001. The cell covers an area of 42.42 hectares and
has been subdivided and developed to about 78 % of its 406 residential lot
capacity. The greater part of the remaining area is owned by a syndicate
managed by the Beamish Property Group (refer Attachment 1).
The properties along the entire Dundebar Road frontage of
the cell are controlled by the Beamish Property Group. This group is progressively
developing its land and has proposed incorporating the upgrading of Dundebar
Road into its civil engineering works contract. The cost of acquiring the land
for the ultimate road reserve and constructing the full earthworks, one
carriageway and all associated structures for Dundebar Road are designated as
Cell 3 works under Schedule 9 of District Planning Scheme No. 2.
Part 10 of DPS 2 provides for the pre-funding of cell works
by a landowner with the prior consent of Council, in circumstances where it is
expedient for the purpose of achieving the objectives of the agreed structure
plan.
Detail
The section of Dundebar Road to be pre-funded is the length
between Griffiths Road and Steven Street. It is intended to be the subject of a
separate lump sum contract to be awarded by public tender, but would most
appropriately be carried out in conjunction with the private subdivisional
works to be carried out on the Beamish Property Group land.
It is intended that the City will make progress payments as
they fall due under the awarded contract subject to it being satisfied with the
extent and quality of the work performed. The pre-funding owner is required to
maintain itemised records of all relevant expenditure and produce these to the
City.
In the event that the cost of the works exceeds the amount
originally agreed by Council, Council may accept or reject the additional cost.
Comment
Acceptance of this pre-funding agreement will achieve the
construction of Dundebar Road between Griffiths Road and Steven Street
considerably ahead of the time it would otherwise be achieved. This will
produce a benefit to the local community in the form of an improved road
system. The construction of Dundebar Road, either ahead of or concurrent with
the Beamish Property Group subdivision, will also alleviate any difficulties in
co-ordinating land levels. This will ultimately lead to a reduction in the
cost of construction works.
The City is currently reconstructing the rural road section
of Dundebar Road between Steven Street and Franklin Road. The prefunding of
the section between Griffiths Road and Steven Street will enable completion of
the upgrading of Dundebar Road between Griffiths Road and Franklin Road.
Statutory Compliance
The full cost of the acquisition of land and construction
of full earthworks, one carriageway and all associated structures for Dundebar
Road, between Griffiths Road and Steven Street, is a designated cell work in
Cell 3 under Schedule 9 of DPS 2. Authority to enter into a pre-funding
arrangement to achieve cell works is contained in clause 10.12 of DPS2.
Strategic Implications
Acceptance of the pre-funding agreement is consistent with
Strategy 2.6 of the current draft Strategic Plan which aims to provide and
maintain infrastructure to meet the needs of our community. It is also
consistent with Objective 2.6.1 of the current draft Planning and Development
Directorate Strategic Plan which seeks to ensure an appropriate planning
framework for the equitable provision of community infrastructure.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The applicant has estimated the construction cost for
Dundebar Road will be in the order of $700,000. The current cell account has
well in excess of that amount available.
The funds to meet the progress payments under the
pre-funding arrangement can therefore be fully funded from the Cell 3 Overdraft
Account and there will not be any draw on the City’s municipal fund.
The Cell 3 Overdraft Account funds are raised by the
levying of an infrastructure cost per lot against each new lot that is produced
by subdivision within the cell. The level of available funds will reflect the
infrastructure contributions to be paid by the Beamish Property Group on its
staged development and the compensation for public open provision to be paid to
it.
The cost of the Dundebar Road works will be determined
through the public tender process and will be reported separately to the
Council following the tender closing date.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council AGREES to the pre-funding by Beamish
Property Group of the upgrading of Dundebar Road abutting East Wanneroo Cell 3,
subject to, the costs associated with these works being determined through a public
tender process.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 69924
File Name: BACloofP.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 3
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
The consideration of submissions received during the public
advertising period and other issues outstanding from Council’s previous
consideration of the Two Rocks Northern Precinct Local Structure Plan.
|
Applicant
|
Masterplan Consultants
|
|
Owner
|
Tokyu Corporation
|
|
Location
|
Part Lots 220 and 207 Breakwater Drive Two Rocks
|
|
Site Area
|
240 Hectares
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Urban Development
|
Background
The land is currently zoned ‘Urban Development’. Part
3.14.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) specifies that, “The Urban
Development zone provides for the orderly planning of larger areas of land or
districts in an integrated manner within a regional context, whilst retaining
flexibility to review planning with changing circumstances”.
The proposed Two Rocks Northern Precinct Local Structure
Plan (LSP) has been prepared as a guide for the future urban expansion of this
locality and generally reflects the ‘Enquiry by Design’ (EBD) Workshop held in
October 2000. The outcomes report on the EBD workshop has been prepared by the
Department for Planning and Infrastructure and was released in March 2002 (copy
previously provided to all Councillors).
A further EBD workshop was held from 5 to 8 March 2002 at
the City of Wanneroo Administration Centre to contemplate a regional planning
framework for the Yanchep Two Rocks area.
It is anticipated that the LSP will accommodate the
creation of approximately 1500 residential lots (approximately 4,500 people)
consistent with the Residential R20 coding, with pockets of R40 medium density
residential housing. The principles of design include those embodied in the
‘Community Codes’, however, the design has been based on suggested central
community focal points including recreational and community nodes rather than a
retail focus. Attachment No. 1 reflects the report previously presented
to Council in November and provides additional background information.
Detail
The LSP was prepared in support of a ‘Superlot’ subdivision
application submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for
consideration. The subdivision application has been subsequently deferred by
the WAPC pending consideration of the structure plan.
The LSP was considered by Council at its meeting on 6
November 2001 (PD02-11/01). At this meeting, Council resolved to advertise the
LSP and required the applicant to satisfactorily resolve some 18 outstanding
issues prior to the final adoption of the LSP.
Consultation
The LSP was advertised for a period of 42 days between 30
November 2001 and 11 January 2002. Advertising was undertaken by way of two
advertising signs on the site (in prominent locations), letters to
approximately 350 residents, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times Newspaper
and a public forum held at the Phil Renkin Centre on 4 February 2002 (attended
by approximately 120 members of the public). The advertising process resulted
in 19 submissions being received.
Comment
Issues Arising from Advertising
The points of concern raised in the submissions and at the
public forum, the frequency the issue was raised and a comment on each point is
outlined in the following table:
|
Point of Objection
|
Frequency Raised
|
Comment
|
|
1. The
LSP should better identify, reflect and preserve the natural vegetation on
the site.
|
7
|
The applicant has demonstrated
that the proposed areas of POS generally accord with the better quality areas
of remnant vegetation within the LSP. However it should be noted that further
opportunity through the rationalisation of several of the small pocket parks
and the introduction of the full 10% POS would provide a better opportunity
for the preservation of vegetation within larger areas of POS. It has also
been suggested that the exact detail of the proposed areas of POS can only be
provided at the detailed design stage.
|
|
2. Proposed
lot sizes are too small and would detrimentally affect the character of the
Two Rocks fishing village.
|
13
|
The majority of proposed lots
sizes are considered to be consistent with the minimum lot sizes promoted
under the Residential R20 coding. The R20 coding is consistent with the
existing coding over the Two Rocks Village. Although several small pockets of
medium density (R40) housing have been promoted within the LSP, these areas
can form the basis for community nodes/focus and have been identified away
from existing residential areas. The provision of medium density sites (where
smaller lots sizes can be accommodated) is considered to be consistent with
the provisions of the ‘community codes’ and established planning policy where
a range in lots sizes is promoted
|
|
3. Super
lotting of the subject land provides a ‘quick buck’ for the developers but
does not provide any essential infrastructure or gain to the existing or new
community (i.e. schools still will not be available for many years).
|
1
|
The City is currently assessing
the suitability of the LSP in regard to the absence of local community
facilities, shopping facilities etc. and will ultimately require
modifications if the applicant cannot demonstrate that these facilities will
be provided outside of the application area and within proximity to
residential catchments. Ultimately the provision of these types of facilities
will be provided in conjunction with the development of the land for
residential use.
|
|
4. Objection
to Charnwood Place becoming a through road
|
1
|
Charnwood Place is outside of
the application area and although the indicative design over this parcel of
land reflects a through road, consideration to the suitability to this
connection will be given through subsequent structure planning processes and public
consultation relating directly to this area.
|
|
5. Karst
formations located within the application area.
|
2
|
This
was one of the issues that the Council required the applicant to resolve
prior to the final adoption of the LSP. Refer to point (h) of this report
for further details.
|
|
6. Impacts
on groundwater drinking supply and sewer/servicing
|
8
|
The site is within the Perth
Coastal Underground Water Pollution Control Area (UWPCA), which is identified
as a Priority 3 Public Drinking Water Supply area. These areas are defined to
minimise the risk of pollution to the water source and are declared over land
where water supply sources need to co-exist with other land uses such as
residential, commercial, and light industrial developments. Generally the requirements
to protect groundwater within Priority 3 areas are through the provision of
appropriate wastewater treatment by the implementation of Deep Sewer to
remove liquid wastes away from the Priority 3 catchment areas.
The Water Corporation (WC) is
responsible for assessment and implementation of strategies for the removal
of liquid wastes. The WC is satisfied that the wastewater strategy proposed
for the Two Rocks area is suitable, subject to the resolution of funding and
subdivision staging. It is anticipated that the Two Rocks area will
ultimately connect to the proposed treatment plant at Alkimos via a main
sewer system linked to local pumping stations and gravity sewers. This
requirement will ultimately be resolved through consultation with the relevant
servicing authority.
The provision of drinking water
within the application area shall be determined in consultation with the WC.
The WC has indicated that the report prepared by Masterplan generally covers
the capability of the Water Corporation’s existing water supply system for
the Two Rocks area and the requirements for further upgrade to the existing
system to supply the overall northern precinct.
|
|
7. Appropriate
beach access should be provided
|
8
|
Beach access will be considered
as part of the Foreshore Management Plan for the Two Rocks area. A Foreshore
Management Plan was recently submitted to the City for consideration.
Ultimately this foreshore plan will require formal public consultation and be
the subject of a separate Council consideration.
|
|
8. Increased
traffic
|
3
|
The projected traffic volumes
are considered to be within reasonable limits of local distributor roads. The
LSP design has been prepared with consideration for minimising the impacts on
existing residents where possible.
|
|
9. Lack
of local employment within the LSP
|
7
|
The applicant has adopted a
philosophy within the LSP to remove local community and retail facilities and
promote them in the Two Rocks Town Centre area. The issue of economic and
employment initiative was a Council requirement which was to be resolved by
the applicant prior to the final adoption of the LSP. Further consideration
of this issue is made in points (k) and (l) of this report.
|
|
10. Boat
launching facilities should be upgraded
|
7
|
It is considered unreasonable
to impose an obligation on the landowner to implement additional or upgrade
works on the Two Rocks boat launching facilities in the content of this
application.
|
|
11. The
important ridge should be preserved
|
9
|
The LSP identifies the
preservation of the large ridge. This ridge contains vegetation identified
in the vegetation survey plan prepared by ATA Environmental as ‘poor’
quality. The ridge was originally considered and incorporated into the
Enquiry By Design workshop for preservation.
|
|
12. Telecommunication
towers should be identified in the LSP
|
1
|
The City’s Policy on Mobile
Telephone Base Stations recommends the identification of base stations at an
early stage of the structure planning process. However, given the extent of
the Tokyu landholding it is preferable that regional consideration to the
provision of Telecommunication Towers be made in consultation with the
applicant. Consideration for these types of facilities may be provided within
this LSP area as part of an overall strategy.
|
|
13. Unexploded
Ordinance
|
1
|
This was one of the issues
that Council required the applicant to resolve prior to the final adoption of
the LSP. The applicant has since agreed that a provision should be included
in Part 1 of the LSP to require that no subdivision or development should
proceed until the land has been searched and cleared for unexploded
ordinance. In any case, this is a standard subdivision requirement for land
in this area.
|
Council’s Conditions on Final Adoption of LSP
Council’s resolution on 6 November 2001 required
that prior to final adoption of the LSP, resolution of the following
regional/district and local level planning issues will be required. Attachment
2 represents the applicant’s overview of how
these issues have been addressed and was submitted to the City at a meeting
held with Council officers in late February with further information from the
EBD workshop being provided on 19 March 2002. The following comments are made
on the suitability of the applicant’s response. Council will note that many of
the requirements have either not been satisfactorily addressed or insufficient
time has been provided to the City Administration to properly consider the
issues. Notwithstanding this, Council will note that this report has been
prepared as a result of a request by Tokyu representatives made at meeting held
on 7 March 2002 with the City’s Chief Executive Officer and Council staff.
a) Further detail and justification for the
location and reduction of the POS from 10% to 8% consistent with the principles
of Liveable Neighbourhoods.
The applicant has suggested that a reduction in POS
down to 8% was introduced at the Enquiry By Design workshop (EBD) by the
Department for Planning and Infrastructure, and that the outcomes report
embraces the 8% provision within the principles of the Liveable Neighbourhoods.
It is not considered appropriate to consent to a
reduction in POS in this instance, as it has not been adequately demonstrated
that the criteria in the Community Codes has been accommodated. The Codes
suggest that a discount of 2% can be considered where parks are developed to at
least a basic level of landscaping including earthworks, grassing, tree
planting and irrigation. Given the application is to facilitate the on selling
of the land as super lots, the City would have no guarantee that the new
landowners would carry out these works to justify this reduction. Further to
this, there would be inequities between landowners as to the extent of POS
provided within each lot and the costs associated with the required works. On
this basis, the reduction in POS down to 8% is not supported.
b) Identification and preservation of
remnant vegetation within proposed areas of POS and the specification of the
exact land areas of the proposed POS areas (including dimensions to ensure
active oval requirements can be satisfied).
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed
areas of POS generally accord with the better quality areas of remnant
vegetation within the LSP. However it should be noted that further opportunity
through the rationalisation of several of the small pocket parks and the
introduction on an additional 2% POS (as mentioned above) would provide a
better opportunity for the preservation of vegetation within larger areas of
POS. It has also been suggested that the exact detail of the proposed areas of
POS can only be provided at the detailed design stage. It is important that the
City Administration has the exact dimensions for the purposes of calculating
the suitability of POS for active recreation ovals. This information remains
outstanding and should be provided along with the other requested variations,
particularly as it has already been acknowledged that there is an uneven spread
of POS between the proposed super lots.
c) The preparation of a Foreshore Management
Plan for the foreshore area between the Two Rocks Marina and the northern
boundary of the Local Structure Plan area to comply with ecologically
sustainable development principles as recommended by Environmental Australia Standard.
The applicant has recently submitted a Foreshore
Management Plan to address this issue, however City Administration has not had
the opportunity to properly consider the submission.
d) The preparation of a ‘Drainage Management
Plan’ with water sensitive design, minimised impacts on the function and
operation of POS and maintenance implications.
A drainage management plan has recently been
provided by Cossill and Webley Consulting Engineers, however City
Administration has not had the opportunity to properly consider the submission.
e) The identification and provision of
Community facilities within the LSP area.
This obligation primarily relates to the provision
of local community facilities. The applicant has suggested that the provision
of these facilities within the LSP would be detrimental to the growth of the
Two Rocks Town Centre. The applicant has indicated that should local community
facilities be required within the LSP then they could be accommodated,
preferably within the neighbourhood focal points.
Given the uncertainty with the function of the Two
Rocks Town Centre area and the substantial time frame expected before
development occurs, the local community facilities should be identified
‘up-front’ to ensure that these types of facilities can be provided if
ultimately required.
f) Improved pedestrian links to existing
residential areas and further assessment of public transport routes to proposed
school sites in consultation with the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure.
The applicant has suggested that the detail
originally submitted as part of the LSP report adequately addresses the
pedestrian links and that further consideration to the public transport routes
will be made through the EBD workshop project. City Administration has not had
the opportunity to properly re-consider the LSP detail and no information
regarding public transport routes in relation to the EBD workshop (which was
held between 5 and 8 March 2002) has yet been made available.
g) The preparation of a traffic management
study that adequately considers the volumes of traffic associated with
development outside of the LSP area and rationalisation of traffic volumes
identified within the North West Corridor Structure Plan.
The applicant has suggested that the report prepared
by ERM Mitchell McCotter, originally submitted as part of the LSP report
adequately addresses the local and district traffic issues and that regional
issues will be addressed at the EBD workshop. The City’s Technical Services
Directorate is further considering the suitability of the original data
provided by the applicant in relation to outcomes of the EBD workshop. A number
of landuse variations in relation for the land north of the application area
have been suggested in the EBD Plan from that previously identified in the
design provided by the applicant for the land north of the application area and
formed the basis for traffic volume projections. The location of the
neighbourhood centres have been varied and may impact on the suggested traffic
volumes for local distributor roads with further implications on the most
appropriate distribution of school sites etc (which were not considered as part
of the EBD workshop). On this basis, further rationalisation of traffic volumes
identified in the LSP in regard to the EBD outcome design should be required
and further considered.
h) The assessment needed to identify areas
of potential karst and future management controls are in place to prepare them.
The
applicant has suggested that ATA Environmental has undertaken an additional
study of the karstic features within the application area. These additional
details have not been provided to date.
The
level of detail provided within the LSP report was not considered appropriate
to enable a thorough consideration of the likelihood of karstic features within
the application area. DPS2 prescribes that further karstic assessment should be
considered at the District level of structure planning (which has not occurred)
and prior to the finalisation of a LSP. Further to this, DPS2 requires the
landowner to prepare a Karst Management Strategy to the requirements of the
responsible authority, on advice from the Department of Environmental
Protection. This has not occurred and as such, this issue is not considered to
be satisfied. To satisfy this requirement the applicant should pursue further
clarification from the Department of Environmental Protection as to the extent
of works required.
i) Demonstrated measures for controlling
off-road vehicle use.
The applicant has indicated that the current methods
of preventing off-road vehicle use would be maintained and that future super
lot landowners would be included into the current strategies. DPS2 requires
that the applicant protects and preserves the regionally significant bushland.
The only regionally significant bushland in proximity to the application area
is the foreshore area. Tokyu Corporation has been proactive in the controlling
of off road vehicle use, however greater clarification on the implementation of
these obligations on subsequent land owners is required.
j) The deletion of the eastern most school site
from the LSP (affected by the rail buffer).
The applicant has indicated that the eastern school
site will most likely not be affected by the ultimate alignment of the railway.
This position has been formed on the plan presented at the EBD workshop held in
March 2002. The plan presented at the EBD workshop currently has no status and
whilst it may ultimately guide future planning, does not justify a variation to
this requirement. The Metropolitan Region Scheme and the associated addendum to
the North-West Corridor Structure Plan Report for the Yanchep locality
identifies the rail line in close proximity to the LSP area, and as such,
proper consideration for rail precinct planning, pedestrian/vehicle movement
systems into rail stations and the ultimate alignment of the rail line requires
further consideration. It should be noted that the EBD is a non-binding process
formulated for the investigation of issues and objectives which ultimately will
guide, but not regulate the future development patterns of a locality or
region.
The LSP should be modified to delete the eastern
most school site from the LSP, as reflected in Council previous resolution.
k) The
preparation and incorporation of an economic and employment initiatives report
to address the provision of employment throughout the structure plan area.
An economic initiatives report associated with the
IDEA project was provided to satisfy this obligation. The City’s Administration
has not yet had the opportunity to properly consider the submission.
l) The
applicant demonstrating that the allocation of land uses has been addressed as
part of a district framework and that the City’s support for the LSP will not
compromise the effective planning and implementation of district
infrastructure/facilities and services including;
i) The
location and future provision of Regional Roads
ii) The
location and future provision of Recreation and Community facilities and
services
iii) Tourism
and related land uses and opportunities
iv) Broader
Commercial and Employment Strategies.
In regard to the outstanding
Regional/District issues, the applicant has provided justification as
identified in Attachment No. 2, including a submission from the Chairman
of the Saint Andrews Enquiry By Design Workshop, Mr Bill Burrell, held between
5 and 8 March 2002, which is outlined in Attachment No. 3.
The outcomes of the EBD
workshop are likely to influence the regional planning required for the Two
Rocks/Yanchep locality, which ultimately will be considered and implemented by
the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI). The DPI has not provided
comment in regard to the LSP, however was involved in the EBD workshops.
The EBD plan submitted by the
applicant (endorsed by the Chairman of the EBD) has no statutory basis and is
not considered to have enough detail to consider that all regional/district
issues have been addressed. For example the EBD plan does not address such fundamental
elements as the disposition of school sites and district open space. In
addition the officers of the DPI attending the workshop prepared a different
plan than that produced by the landowners consultants and this may have an
influence on the ultimate outcome of the regional/district structure planning
for this area.
To accept that all district
/regional facilities will be provided outside of the LSP (based on the EBD) at
this time and therefore not impact on this area, would not be considered sound
planning consideration and a proper planning process.
Whilst the applicant has
strongly suggested that it is unlikely that the adoption of the LSP would
compromise the provision of regional/district facilities, the fundamental
question is whether it is appropriate for the local authority to make
regional/district assumptions on the provision of essential infrastructure,
educational institutions, regional open space, employment, retail, tourism and
transport networks on the basis of the EBD plan.
m) Commitments
towards the ultimate development and nature of the Two Rocks Town Centre and
surrounding areas.
The applicant has suggested that
the Two Rocks town centre is not owned by the Tokyu Corporation and it can
therefore cannot commit to its development. The role of the Town Centre area
will need to be established with some degree of certainty to enable the
consideration of the level of retail and services that will be provided in the
centre. Further clarification from Tokyu Corporation is required to establish
what commitments the current landowners, the Fini Group, have under the
purchase contract to establish this as an important retail/community focus. It
should also be noted that the EBD plan now identifies a substantial retail
centre approximately 1 kilometre east of the Town Centre which may ultimately
result in the down grading of the Town Centre as a substantial node of retail
focus. This land is owned by the Tokyu Corporation.
n) Provision
of an appropriate mechanism to ensure that future contributions by the owners
toward such infrastructure are adequately addressed.
The applicant has suggested that a commitment on
super lot purchasers could be made through contractual documents. This process
may be acceptable and provide opportunity to transfer current obligations of
Tokyu under the Deed of Infrastructure onto subsequent landowners. Further
consideration for the detail of the agreement will ultimately be required,
however, it is most likely necessary that the City will need to be party to such
arrangements to ensure that such commitments are honoured.
o) Provision
within Part 1 of the local structure plan to restrict development or
subdivision occurring within the subject land until such time as the land has
been assessed and cleared for unexploded ordinance.
The applicant has agreed that this provision could
be incorporated into the Part 1 provisions of the LSP. This is considered
appropriate and is consistent with normal development practice.
p) Clarification
from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as to whether further assessment and
preparation of a management plan is required, in accordance with the provisions
of the City’s Scheme.
The applicant has not satisfied
this requirement. DPS2 requires that a management strategy be prepared at the
local structure planning stage to ensure public safety and the protection of
biodiversity and cultural values. Although the applicant suggests that no
further study is required, the EPA report and recommendations (as prescribed in
DPS2) clearly indicate that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs raised
concerns in relation to the possibility of further sites within the Two Rocks
area.
Conclusion
The City has progressed the implementation of the LSP to
this point on the basis that a list of issues be satisfactorily resolved prior
to final adoption of the LSP. The applicant has premised the absence of
regional /district facilities and infrastructure within the application area on
the basis that such facilities can be provided outside of the study area in
positions to be determined by the Enquiry By Design workshop and within
established/future community nodes.
Whilst the applicant has argued that it is unlikely that
the adoption of this LSP would compromise the provision of facilities such as
District Open Space, Hospitals, Public High Schools, Community Facilities and
Retail, the proper planning at the regional and district level is at its early
stages and support for the LSP in the absence of a more defined overall
regional/district framework is a significant concern.
Tokyu Corporation should be requested to provide additional
information in response to the issues that have not been adequately addressed.
The proposed LSP should be deferred until such information has been received.
Statutory Compliance
Pursuant to Clause 9.6.2 of DPS2, where Council is not able
to make a decision within the 60 day period prescribed by Clause 9.6.1 of the
Scheme, by reason of the need to obtain more information or facts, it may
extend the period for the consideration of the structure plan for a further 60
days. The period for a deemed refusal under subclause 9.6.4 of the Scheme
shall not begin to run until this period has expired.
Strategic Implications
Consideration of this proposal is
consistent with Strategy 2.2 of the City’s Strategic Plan, which seeks to
provide for a cohesive system of integrated land use planning.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple majority
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. Pursuant
to Clause 9.6.2 of District Planning Scheme No 2,
DEFERS consideration of the proposed Two Rocks Northern Precinct Local
Structure Plan submitted by Masterplan Consultants on behalf of the Tokyu
Corporation to provide it with further opportunity to consider the additional
information submitted;
2. ADVISES
the applicant that the requirements of Council’s previous resolution as
outlined in this report and in particular, the Environmental Conditions of
District Planning Scheme No 2 in relation to management plans for drainage,
karst and Aboriginal Heritage, have not been adequately addressed, and will
require this information prior to the matter being further considered by the
Council;
3. ENDORSES
the comments included in the response to public submissions section of this
report and advises the various submittors accordingly.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
PD02-11/01 Proposed
Two Rocks Northern District Local Structure Plan
File Ref: 69924
Responsible Officer: Acting
Director Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 4
Issue
Consideration of the proposed Two Rocks Northern District
Structure Plan.
|
Applicant
|
Masterplan Consultants
|
|
Owner
|
Tokyu Corporation
|
|
Location
|
Lots 207 and Part Lot 220 Two Rocks
|
|
Site Area
|
Approximately 240 hectares
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
Urban Development
|
Background
The City has received an application by Masterplan
Consultants on behalf of the Tokyu Corporation to consider a structure plan
over a 240 hectare (approximate) parcel of land located north of the existing
Two Rocks residential area (refer Attachment 1). The structure plan has been
prepared in support of a ‘Superlot’ subdivision application recently submitted
to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for consideration. The
subdivision application has been subsequently deferred by the WAPC pending
consideration of the structure plan.
Detail
The land is currently zoned ‘Urban Development’. Part
3.14.1 of District Planning Scheme Number 2 (DPS 2) specifies that, “The Urban
Development zone provides for the orderly planning of larger areas of land or
districts in an integrated manner within a regional context, whilst retaining
flexibility to review planning with changing circumstances”.
The proposed Two Rocks Northern District Structure Plan has
been prepared as a guide for the future northern urban expansion of this
locality (refer Attachment 2). It is anticipated that the structure plan can
accommodate the creation of approximately 1500 residential lots (approximately
4,500 people) consistent with the Residential R20 coding, with pockets of R40
medium density residential housing. The principles of design include those
embodied in the ‘Community Codes’. The design has been based on central
community focal points including recreational and community nodes with some
retail abutting the foreshore area.
Regional Context
‘Metroplan’ and the Urban Expansion Policy Statement set
the strategic direction for metropolitan growth in the early 1990’s. Structure
Plans, to various levels of detail, determine the physical land use arrangements
required giving effect to these strategies. In January 1993, the then
Department of Planning and Urban Development released the ‘North West Corridor
– Structure Plan for Yanchep’ (NWCSP), (refer Attachment 3).
The NWCSP addressed the extent and location of urban land,
regional open space, the regional transportation network, the location of major
commercial, industrial and other employment areas. It also addressed the
location of major regional institutions such as regional hospitals, universities
etc. within the Yanchep /Two Rocks Region. The NWCSP formed the basis of
rezoning of the land under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and the City’s
former Town Planning Scheme Number 1 (TPS 1).
In 1996, an Omnibus (MRS) amendment set in place the current
MRS zoning for the area introducing Urban, Urban Deferred, Central City Area,
Industrial and Parks and Recreation Reserves. In May 2000, TPS 1 Amendment 787
was gazetted rezoning large portions of land from Rural to Urban Development,
Industrial Development, Centre Zone, Regional Road and reserved areas of
regionally significant bushland (later identified as Bush Forever).
Amendment 787 also required an Environmental Review under
Section 48A of the Environmental Protection Act. As a result of this, the
City’s scheme includes provisions to ensure that more detailed environmental
investigations shall be carried out as part of future structure planning at the
district and local levels.
Two Rocks Enquiry by Design Workshop
In October 2000, the former Ministry for Planning (MFP)
co-ordinated an ‘Enquiry by Design’ (EBD) Workshop where land planning and
development options, particularly for shorter term development, were evaluated
and ‘work shopped’. Key representatives of the major players in the planning
process attended including Council representatives. Because of uncertainty
about the future railway alignment and other key regional district planning
issues, the workshop focused on the Two Rocks Marina and surrounding area
including the subject site (Lot 207 and Part Lot 220).
It is currently anticipated that another EBD workshop will
again focus on the land south-east of the Two Rocks area early next year
(scheduled for March 2002).
As a result of the first EBD workshop, a conceptual town
and neighbourhood structure was designed for the Two Rocks Marina and Lots 207
and Part Lot 200. This design has formed the basis for this structure plan
(refer Attachment 4).
Corporate Context
Council and the State Government have been pro-active in
encouraging and facilitating the planning and development of the Yanchep / Two
Rocks district. This includes the 1995 ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MOU)
which was signed between Tokyu Corporation, Yanchep Sun City, the WAPC and
Landcorp and established a set of agreements for the future development of the
district. The MOU was supplemented by the Deed of Infrastructure, which related
to Tokyu Corporations obligation to contribute towards regional road
construction, land vestings and the provision of social infrastructure.
In July 1999 a Strategic Cooperation Agreement (SCA)
between the WAPC, the City, Tokyu Corporation and Yanchep Sun City was signed.
The Agreement defines a series of principles and objectives for urban and
economic development and established commitments between these organisations.
One aspect of particular relevance is that the City would ‘use
its best endeavors to expedite the approval of structure plans and amendments
to its town planning scheme for the district, whilst recognising that these are
subject to normal statutory processes including public consultation and the
outcome can not be guaranteed’.
SCA also included a focus and a commitment from Tokyu
Corporation and Yanchep Sun City for the preparation and implementation of the
outcomes of the IDEA Project (an acronym for - Innovation, Development,
Employment, Applications). The main aims of the IDEA project are to create
employment opportunities ahead of residential expansion to allow the area to be
as self sufficient as possible in respect to employment of its workforce,
rather than it becoming an area of commuter based suburbs whose workforce
mainly are employed in the inner regions of Perth (to the south), creating
unmanageable transportation problems.
Consultation
Preliminary comments have been received from various
government agencies including Education Department of WA, Department of
Environmental Protection, Department of Planning and Infrastructure, Main Roads
WA, Water Corporation and Waters and Rivers Commission. These authorities have
raised no major objections (in principle) to the public advertising of the
structure plan.
Comment
The consideration of issues in regard to this proposal can
be classified into regional/ and local issues. There is considered to be key
concerns at both levels of planning which must be addressed during
consideration of this application. Significant concerns relate to the absence
of a district framework addressing the sizes and distribution of key land uses
with important consequences at the local level.
The detailed internal design of the structure plan is based
on assumptions and criteria established through the EBD workshop, however, the
‘draft outcomes report’ is yet to be finally endorsed by the WAPC and has no
statutory basis. Further, it is not clear at all whether these assumptions
relate properly to the wider regional/district framework already established by
the NWCSP in the early 1990’s. Should these key assumptions change, then this
may significantly impact on the more detailed local structure plan design.
As an example, the structure plan does not, in the main,
allocate any commercial / business uses at key road intersections that are the
centres of the ‘walkable’ neighbourhoods. Rather, the planning is seeking to
create a sense of neighbourhood centre via combinations of higher density
housing, POS and roundabouts. The detailed structure plan design (and the
allocation of POS in particular) is based on this approach that has some
differences to other Liveable Neighbourhood proposals where neighbourhoods
often have some retail/commercial or community focus.
The approach itself is premised on the assumption that the
Two Rocks Marina and immediate surrounds is to be a major town centre and that
the vast majority of commercial and business land uses should focus on the
centre. Whilst the Two Rocks EBD workshop identified the Marina as a potential
Town Centre, there remains no detailed assessment of the workshop proposals,
its district implications, and no adopted district framework for assessment.
It should be noted that the Marina area is largely owned by the Fini Group who
have no obligation at this time to develop this land as a key town centre.
Many of the local level detailed land
use proposals for the structure plan are affected by assumptions made at the
broader district level. Should the key district level assumptions change then
this will probably require changes to the detailed local structure planning
(i.e. POS allocation, areas of higher residential density, commercial floorspace).
The following comments are made for local issues in respect to the structure
plan with particular emphasis on requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods
applications.
It is important that the applicant demonstrate to the City
that ‘Neighbourhood Centres’ based on a mix of higher density residential
development/parkland rather than a more retail/commercial focus will be the
most effective and beneficial approach.
The following local structure planning issues identify
issues that require further consideration and discussion with the applicant.
Public Open Space/Drainage
1. Justification
for the reduction in the 10% POS obligation down to 8% through a demonstrated
commitment to parkland development, management and locality vegetation
enhancement programs.
2. A
POS schedule that identifies individual parkland sizes will be required to
enable investigation into the suitability and usability of the sites for the
nominated use and function.
3. Preparation
of a Foreshore Management Plan for the area between the Two Rocks Harbour and
the northern boundary of the LSP in conjunction with reviewing the Two
Rocks-Yanchep Management Plan, 1997.
4. The
POS areas being modified to better reflect the protection of areas of locally
significant vegetation.
5. With
regard to POS allocation it should be noted that the City’s POS Policy requires
that lots to be set aside for active recreation be a minimum of 4.5 hectares.
The City does not support the function of the POS lots as entry statements. The
City will generally not accept any drainage or battering into foreshore areas
as a result of lot or road design levels. It should be demonstrated that the
proposed lineal ridge can provide a beneficial contribution towards passive
recreation and will not result in inappropriate level differences between
proposed adjoining lots and roads.
6. A
drainage management plan justifying the drainage philosophy and its location,
its impact on POS areas and credit being sought in the POS schedule. These
details should be provided to enable an accurate consideration of water
management issues and its impact on proposed areas of POS (active and passive).
Traffic and Transportation
The method for charging developer contributions towards
Regional Road Infrastructure has been identified in the ‘Deed of Infrastructure
Agreement’ and the Memorandum of Understanding between Tokyu Corporation and
the WAPC.
The principles of the deed directly relate to the
construction of specified sections of District Distributor Road to specific lot
development. For instance, the sections of road to be constructed for existing
lots 220 and 207 are 50% of Shearwater Avenue from the northern boundary to the
future rail reserve and 100 % of Lisford Avenue between Shearwater Avenue and
Dame Pattie Drive (Breakwater Avenue).
The agreement will need to be reviewed to ensure that the
contributions for existing lots translate to any new lots. This work must be
undertaken by Tokyu Corporation in conjunction with the City and the WAPC.
Other specific issues requiring attention are:
1. Identification
of Pedestrian/cyclist links not only across the site but also into existing
residential areas.
2. Identification
of appropriate bus movements adjacent to proposed school sites and LSP.
3. Clarification
of the District Public Transport Network in consultation with the Department of
Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) and demonstrate that the proposed LSP road
hierarchy can accommodate access and movement of vehicles/buses associated with
the future developments to the north of the LSP, including detail relating to
the future district modeling and the Saint Andrews Access Study.
4. It should be demonstrated that the
existing and proposed road network is sufficient to accommodate the potential
impact of traffic generated from the proposed mixed business zone and railway
station including any road upgrading associated with the development of the LSP
area.
5. Clarification
of traffic volume variations between the proposed LSP and the NWCSP.
Employment and Sustainability
Under normal circumstances the local neighbourhood centres,
mixed-use precincts and other similar areas provide opportunity for employment
within the community. The LSP has not identified any opportunity within the LSP
area for employment and relies upon the provision of employment initiates
within the Town Centre itself. The Town Centre area has been on-sold by the
Tokyu Corporation to the Fini Group, who have no obligation under the SCA to
implement the outcomes of the IDEA Project.
Clarification by Tokyu as to the status of the feasibility
studies to be undertaken under the SCA and in particular in relation to the
outcomes of the IDEA project and the local employment generation initiatives is
required. This obligation extends to an implementation of the commercial retail
strategy for the district and should include the focus on the future provision
of retail within the Fini Groups Landholding.
It is critical that a determination about the future of the
Town Centre in respect to retail/commercial uses, mixed use, tourism,
recreation and community uses be required to determine the status of the Town
Centre as a place for employment. It is also important that the applicant
prepare an economic and employment initiates report for the study area. These
issues should be resolved prior to Council supporting the LSP.
Commercial Strategy
Only concept planning has been undertaken for the proposed
Two Rocks Town Centre. It will be necessary to identify the format and landuse
allocation across the proposed town centre (i.e. the extent of
commercial/business/mixed uses, educational, recreational, tourism or
potentially light industrial). The timing and nature of development for the
land south of Breakwater Drive (portion of Tokyu landholding) which is shown as
retail/business in the EBD workshop is unclear and whilst forming part of the
EBD plan, has been excluded from the structure plan (probably due to the
uncertainty of the ultimate nature of the proposed town centre development).
Uncertainty surrounding the future of the proposed town
centre raises concern as to the planning philosophy of the proposed structure
plan. Commercial uses have been all but excluded from the plan to reinforce the
future town centre and formal consideration of the proposed retail structure of
the centre and the broader district has not been undertaken.
Heritage Issues
The applicant has advised that no ethnographic or
archaeological sites of any significance have been identified in the study
area.
Although no sites have been identified within this area by
the applicant, clarification should be obtained from the Department of
Aboriginal Affairs as to whether further assessment and preparation of a
management plan is required, in accordance with the provisions of the City’s
Scheme.
Recreation, Tourism and Community Facilities
Consideration of regional and district recreation and
community requirements and issues. It will need to be satisfactorily addressed
in the LSP not to compromise the effective planning for facilities. It should
be noted that the two proposed private high school sites and proposed primary
school sites could benefit significantly from the provision of nearby district
recreation facilities. Opportunities for tourism and associated activities
require further consideration at the district level to ensure that the
development of this land (which is in close proximity to the coast and Marina)
will not compromise the opportunity to promote the Town Centre and coastal
areas for tourist activities.
Sites for facilities such as community centres, meeting
halls, branch libraries and kindergartens, preschools and daycare centres which
are becoming increasingly important for community development have been
excluded from the LSP. The Deed of Infrastructure requires that some of these
facilities be provided free of cost. Without proper consideration for the
requirements for local community facilities these opportunities may be lost.
Further investigation into community facilities should be required, as the
applicant has suggested that the LSP has been prepared to complement and
enhance the existing facilities at the Town Centre by not providing facilities
within the LSP area. Given that the LSP could facilitate the ultimate creation
of 1500 residential lots (4,500 people) further consideration should be given
to the suitability of providing these types of facilities.
Environment
It needs to be satisfactorily demonstrated that the
environmental provisions incorporated into the City’s scheme as a result of
Amendment 787 have been addressed or will not be compromised as a result of
introducing this structure plan. The finalisation of the LSP will be subject to
the further investigation of Karstic features and the identification and
accurate reflection of locally significant vegetation within POS and other
compatible landuses. Further to this, it should be demonstrated that
appropriate measures of controlling off-road vehicle use and the dumping of
rubbish within the application area have been addressed in the structure plan.
School Sites
The LSP identifies an additional primary school site and
two additional private high school sites than were originally depicted by the
EBD. The eastern most private school lot should be excluded from the
application as it protrudes into the proximity buffer to the railway alignment
(subject to variation). The applicant has suggested that the government, in
accordance with current legislation should acquire the public school sites.
This would contradict the provisions of the Deed of Infrastructure that relates
to the provision of Social Infrastructure and requires Tokyu Corporation to
provide the sites free of cost to the WAPC. The Education Department has raised
no objections to the City initiating advertising of the structure plan, however
it was recommended that a secondary school site will be required outside of the
application area in a position just north of the application areas northern
boundary. It is anticipated that further regional planning and structure
planning will consider the most suitable location for these facilities.
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)
It is likely that portions of the site have been used for
munitions training and that UXO may occur within the application area. The
applicant has suggested that the required assessment of the study area will be
undertaken prior to the commencement of more detailed planning by the land
owners and that this responsibility will be included in the purchase contracts
and via memorials on title of the proposed superlots.
To date, UXO searches are usually carried out as a
requirement of subdivision approval and imposed by the WAPC. In this instance,
it is considered to be appropriate to include a requirement into the local
structure plan to ensure that this obligation is addressed as a statutory
requirement (Part 1 provision) prior to the City considering any development or
subdivision of the subject land.
Proposed Superlot Subdivision
The applicant has submitted a subdivision proposal to the
Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration and is intended to
compliment this structure plan. The subdivision proposal has been deferred by
the WAPC pending the consideration of this LSP. The proposed lots represent the
fragmentation of the LSP area into 7 areas. Each lot has been identified
containing components of the overall LSP including public open space,
residential land (various density codes) and several lots with school sites.
This superlot subdivision will fragment ownership of the
structure plan area and will make the provision of physical infrastructure more
difficult to co-ordinate (i.e. Regional Road contributions, Pedestrian
Crossings, District Open Space, etc.) unless an appropriate mechanism is
established to ensure that future considerations/obligations of owners are met.
Conclusion
Many of the issues raised can be associated with the
absence of a district framework addressing the sizes and distribution of key
land use requirements.
It is recognised that this land provides a good opportunity
for land release and future superlotting. Many of the fundamental principles of
land development need to be addressed at the regional/district levels such as a
regional transportation networks (i.e. train), major commercial centres (i.e.
Town Centre), employment initiatives, major regional institutions, regional
hospitals and universities, district community and recreational facilities. The
resolution of these issues may well, in turn, effect detailed planning at the
local level.
In this respect, it could be questioned whether it is
appropriate to proceed with public advertising of the plan at this time.
However, the applicant is confident that the City’s concerns can be
satisfactorily addressed and is eager to progress the assessment process. As
resolution to the City’s district concerns may take some months, and in the
interests of facilitating the process of assessment, it is considered
appropriate that the proposed Two Rocks Local Structure Plan be made available
for initial public comment.
The applicant should be advised that Council will need to
consider the issues raised in this report following the public consultation
process. It is expected that the applicant would be able to resolve these
issues prior to Council giving consideration to the adoption of the plan
following advertising.
Statutory Compliance
The structure plan has been submitted for consideration as
a ‘Part 9’ structure plan under the provisions of DPS 2. As such, the
applicants are required to prepare the appropriate statutory provisions in the
form of a ‘Part 1” document to accompany the explanatory structure plan
proposal. Further, it is considered appropriate for the structure plan boundary
to be extended to include Tokyu’s land south of Breakwater Drive as far as
University Boulevard. While this area may fall within an area of influence
buffer to the future railway alignment and a detailed design may not be
feasible at present, its inclusion at present would enable a fuller
consideration of local structure planning issues within the Two Rocks area.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning
Scheme No 2, DETERMINES that the draft Two Rocks Northern Precinct Structure
Plan is SATISFACTORY and make it available for public advertising for a period
of 42 days, subject to the following modifications
a) The
applicant including a satisfactory ‘Part 1’, statutory section into the Local
Structure Plan.
b) The
proposed structure plan being renamed to the “Two Rocks Northern Precinct Local
Structure Plan.
2.
ADVISE Master Plan consultants acting on behalf of Tokyu Corporation
that PRIOR to final adoption of the draft Two Rocks Northern Precinct Local
Structure Plan that it will require resolution of the following
regional/district and local level planning issues to the satisfaction of
Council.
a) Further
detail and justification for the location and reduction of the POS from 10% to
8% consistent with the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods.
b) Identification
and preservation of remnant vegetation within proposed areas of POS and the
specification of the exact land areas of the proposed POS areas (including
dimensions to ensure active oval requirements can be satisfied).
c) The
preparation of a Foreshore Management Plan for the foreshore area between the
Two Rocks Marina and the northern boundary of the Local Structure Plan area.
d) The
preparation of a ‘Drainage Management Plan’ with water sensitive design,
minimised impacts on the function and operation of POS and maintenance
implications.
e) The
identification and provision of Community facilities within the LSP area.
f) Improved
pedestrian links to existing residential areas and further assessment of public
transport routes to proposed school sites in consultation with the Department
for Planning and Infrastructure.
g) The
preparation of a traffic management study that adequately considers the volumes
of traffic associated with development outside of the LSP area and
rationalisation of traffic volumes identified within the North West Corridor
Structure Plan.
h) Further
investigation of Karstic features within the LSP area.
i) Demonstrated
measures for controlling off-road vehicle use.
j) The
deletion of the eastern most school site from the LSP (affected by the rail
buffer).
k) The
preparation and incorporation of an economic and employment initiatives report
to address the provision of employment throughout the structure plan area.
l) The
applicant demonstrating that the allocation of landuses has been addressed as
part of a district framework and that the City’s support for the LSP will not
compromise the effective planning and implementation of district
infrastructure/facilities and services including;
i)
The location and future provision of Regional Roads
ii)
The location and future provision of Recreation and Community facilities
and services
iii)
Tourism and related land uses and opportunities
iv)
Broader Commercial and Employment Strategies
m) Commitments towards
the ultimate development and nature of the Two Rocks Town Centre and
surrounding areas.
n) Provision
of an appropriate mechanism to ensure that future contributions by the owners
toward such infrastructure as listed in (k) are adequately addressed.
o) Provision
within Part 1 of the local structure plan to restrict development or
subdivision occurring within the subject land until such time as the land has
been assessed and cleared for unexploded ordinance
p) Clarification
from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as to whether further assessment and
preparation of a management plan is required, in accordance with the provisions
of the City’s Scheme.
3.
ARRANGE a meeting between the Two Rocks Town Centre landowners to
facilitate the advancement of a detailed longer-term land use planning concept
for the Town Centre and surrounds with a view to implementing the outcomes of
the Enquiry by Design workshop.
4.
REQUEST the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to URGENTLY
finalise its Enquiry by Design Report which has now taken over twelve months to
be considered.
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
Sub-Division
Applications
File Ref: 71176
File Name: CAProRur.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 03 April 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 03 April 2002
Responsible Officer: Director
Planning and Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments 2
StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Issue
To consider a revised proposal to subdivide Lot 1 (119)
Ziatas Road, Pinjar, into two lots.
|
Applicant
|
J Bodycoat
|
|
Owner
|
K & B Nguygen
|
|
Location
|
Lot 1 (119) Ziatas Road, Pinjar
|
|
Site Area
|
10.7039 Hectares (ha)
|
|
Proposed Lot Areas
|
6.7ha and 4.0ha (approx)
|
|
MRS Zoning
|
Rural
|
|
DPS 2 Zoning
|
General Rural
|
Background
At its meeting on 5 February 2002 (item PD02-02/02),
Council considered an application to subdivide Lot 1 into three lots of
approximately 6.7ha, 1.9ha and 2.1ha (refer Attachment 1). At this
meeting, Council resolved to not support the application for the following
reasons:
1.
The application is inconsistent with Council’s Subdivision of Rural
Zoned Land Policy, which specifies a minimum lot size of 15-20 hectares for
this locality;
2.
Approval for the subdivision may create an undesirable precedent for the
further subdivision of other lots of a similar size in the Rural zone in this
locality.
Council however recognised the fact that the lot was
already bisected by Ziatas Road and therefore also resolved to advise the
applicant that it would be prepared to consider an application to subdivide the
lot into two lots along the natural boundary of Ziatas Road.
The application was refused by the WAPC on 27 February 2002
for essentially the same reasons as those indicated above.
On 22 March 2002, Council received notice that the
applicant had written to the WAPC requesting reconsideration of its decision to
refuse the application and seeking approval to a revised proposal to subdivide
the lot into two lots, one on each side of Ziatas Road, measuring approximately
6.7ha and 4.0ha respectively. The request for reconsideration is based on the
following grounds:
1. The property is already
split into two parts by Ziatas Road.
2. Compassionate grounds
relating to financial difficulties being experienced by the landowners in
establishing their strawberry farm on the western side of Ziatas Road.
3. The City’s advice that it
would be willing to consider the subdivision of the land into two lots.
4. The fact that several
properties in the area are already smaller than the minimum.
Detail
Lot 1 is approximately 10.7 ha in area and is bisected by
Ziatas Road to create two distinct portions, one measuring approximately 6.7ha
and the other measuring approximately 4.0ha. The revised proposal seeks
approval to subdivide the property along the Ziatas Road alignment (see Attachment
2).
A strawberry farm is currently operated on the western
portion of the land and the owners’ house is located on the eastern portion.
The majority of the remaining part of the eastern portion of the lot is also
covered by native vegetation. As part of a development application to clear
the western portion of Lot 1 for the strawberry farm in 2001, the WAPC required
the landowners to enter into a restrictive covenant to protect much of the
better quality vegetation on the eastern portion of the lot from being cleared.
Consultation
Under the provisions of the Town Planning and Development
Act, the WAPC is the responsible authority for determining subdivision
applications. This Act does not require the WAPC to advertise subdivision
applications.
Comment
Interim Local Rural Strategy
Council’s Interim Local Rural Strategy recommended that Lot
1 be incorporated into the General Rural Zone. This recommendation was
implemented when the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 was gazetted in July
2001.
Water Allocation
The Water and Rivers Commission (WRC) has informally
advised the City that Lot 1 currently has a water license for 118,150
kilolitres per annum, valid until October 2003. This water allocation is
sufficient for 7.8ha of strawberry farm and a domestic house and garden. The
WRC has also advised that Lot 1 is located in the Pinjar sub-area and there are
currently no restrictions that would prevent the owners of Lot 1 from either
renewing their licence or increasing their allocation.
Soil Category
Under the “Coastal Land and Groundwater for Horticulture
from Gingin to Augusta’ study, which was undertaken in 1997 by a number of
government agencies (including WRC and Agriculture WA), Lot 1 is included in an
area rated as low capability land for horticulture (Class 4 and 5).
However, it should be noted that the landowners have
established a strawberry farm on the western portion of the lot, indicating
that reasonable opportunity exists for this property to sustain horticultural
uses.
Planning Control Area 45
The subject land is located within Planning Control Area
(PCA45). This control was introduced by the WAPC in 2001 as an interim
planning measure, pending the finalisation and implementation of Bush Forever
and the Gnangara Land Use and Water Management Strategy proposals, affecting
the Lake Pinjar area. PCA45 is primarily an instrument that requires referral
of development applications to the WAPC for determination and consequently does
not directly affect subdivision applications.
Groundwater / Flooding Issues
The Wetland Classification and Management Plans, prepared
by the then Water Authority of Western Australia and EPA in 1993, identifies
the majority of the western portion of Lot 1 as a ‘sumpland’. This
classification indicates that seasonal inundation may occur with overflow from
Lake Pinjar. If the proposal is supported, a flood secure area will be
required to the western lot to contain all buildings, effluent disposal systems
and driveways. Any effluent disposal systems will also need to be located to
achieve the vertical and horizontal distances from the groundwater and adjacent
wetland. These matters could be adequately dealt with by a condition of
approval and enforced by way of a restrictive covenant and the development
approval process.
Statutory Compliance
Under Section 24(5) of the Town Planning and Development
Act, an applicant may, within 28 days of being notified of a decision of the
WAPC, make a written request for the decision to be reconsidered. In this
instance, the WAPC has requested the City’s comments before making a
determination on the reconsideration request.
Strategic Implications
Nil.
Policy Implications
The City’s Rural subdivision policy provides that Council
may support the subdivision of land to a minimum of 15 to 20 ha in this area,
provided there are appropriate controls in place to ensure protection of the
groundwater resource and the environmental quality.
Whilst a restrictive covenant already exists to protect
much of the better quality vegetation on the eastern portion of Lot 1 and
controls could be put in place by way of a further restrictive covenant to
ensure appropriate land uses and location of development of each lot, the
proposed lot sizes are considerably smaller than the 15-20ha minimum lot size
indicated in the policy. In this case however, there are several lots zoned
General Rural in the vicinity of the subject land, with sizes down to 3.2ha and
Council has already recognised that the lot is bisected by Ziatas Road with the
two resultant portions of the lot being developed, and currently operating,
largely independently of each other. On the basis of these points, it is
considered that a special case exists in respect to this proposal that would
warrant Council’s support. As the instance of roads bisecting rural properties
are rare in Wanneroo, it is not considered that Council’s support to this
proposal would create a precedent for the further fragmentation of rural land.
Financial Implications
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Recommendation
That Council SUPPORTS the revised proposal to
subdivide Lot 1 (119) Ziatas Road, Pinjar, into two lots as submitted by Mr J
Bodycoat on behalf of K and B Nguygen, subject to the following conditions:
1.
The
preparation of a Management Plan, implemented by way of a Restrictive Covenant
under Section 129BA of the Transfer of Land Act in favour of the City of
Wanneroo. The Management Plan shall address permitted land uses, the
siting of buildings, effluent disposal systems and driveways on each new lot.
The Management Plan shall include a site plan that accurately indicates the
extent of native vegetation, the maximum estimated water table levels as
determined by the Water and Rivers Commission, site contours in relation to
AHD, the extent of the wetland and the 50 metre buffer, proposed building
envelopes and driveway locations.
2. Both
lots being provided with an area of at least 1000m2 and a vehicular
access from a public road thereto, located to the satisfaction of the City of
Wanneroo at a level which provides for flood protection and the construction of
an effluent disposal system with vertical and horizontal separation from both
the groundwater and adjacent wetland, in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Protection Authority.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
Other Matters
File Ref: 39870
File Name: HASafCit.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by ch Date 22 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by ch Date 22 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Consideration of Draft Urban Design Guidelines and a Draft
Case Study on the Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre prepared by Taylor Burrell
consultants for the City pursuant to its Safer Citizens Programme. Also,
consideration of a pedestrian access point (which is currently temporarily closed)
between Bathgate Loop and Meldrum Way, Koondoola.
Background
Taylor Burrell consultants was engaged in April of last
year to undertake a study in line with Council’s Safer Citizens Programme to:
·
prepare urban design guidelines aimed at crime prevention, the
intention being that these would be submitted to Council for approval for
implementation as a Local Planning Policy under District Planning Scheme No. 2,
and
·
undertake a Case Study on the application of those guidelines for
the Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre.
The consultant has undertaken the Koondoola Centre Case
Study in consultation with the local community and the owners of the Koondoola
Plaza shopping centre (which forms part of the total Neighbourhood Centre
precinct). This has involved a Capeoria Workshop*, two public meetings held at
the Koondoola Community Hall, several meetings with the Strata Owner Council
associated with Koondoola Plaza, and several briefings to the Safer Citizens
Working Group.
*(Capoeira is a Brazilian acrobatic non-contact martial
arts set to music. It attracts and engages young people and facilitates their
input into workshops which would generally not occur in a more typical public
meeting setting).
Detail
Draft Urban Design Guidelines
Several copies of the Draft Guidelines have been placed in
the Elected Members’ Reading Room.
The Draft has been divided into a number of sections which
relate to each type of urban environment dealt with, being residential, public
domain (ie streets, pedestrian access ways, public open space, town squares),
centres and industrial areas. An easy-to-use format has been adopted which
involves the information being presented in tabular form comprising the
following columns:
·
Guideline statements applicable to each Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principle (natural surveillance, access control
and territorial reinforcement);
·
Examples (diagrams);
·
Rationale: explaining the reasoning being the policy
statements. This is also intended to allow flexible application in instances
where the proponent may seek to satisfy the objective of the guidelines through
alternative means.
Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre Case Study
Several copies of the Draft Case Study report have been
placed in the Elected Members’ Reading Room.
The Draft includes the following information:
·
The planning context to the Centre (land use, zoning, policies,
standards etc.);
·
An overview of CPTED principles;
·
An analysis of the residential area immediately around the Centre
in terms of ease of access to the Centre and safety of the area generally;
·
Overview of the consultation undertaken;
·
Improvement plans and strategies for Koondoola Plaza and the
Neighbourhood Centre as a whole;
·
Preliminary estimate of development costs and revenue.
The Draft (in section 8.0) includes a number of suggestions
for improvements which can be made to Koondoola Plaza in the short term and do
not involve any radical change to the Centre:
·
Windows should be ‘cleaned up’ (unboarded, stripped of excessive
overpainting and signage);
·
Windows should be refitted with openable shuttering (eg,
‘Rollershutters’);
·
Gating into the central square/mall should be installed;
·
Gating into the loading area should be installed;
·
Landscaping should be ‘cleaned up’ (pruned to remove low tree
branches, or to remove eye-level bushes);
·
Additional landscaping should be planted;
·
Lighting of external areas should be improved;
·
Seating and paving should be upgraded;
·
Shade structures (in the central square) should be installed;
·
Shop fronts should be given a facelift;
·
Murals and other public/community art should be encouraged; and
·
Activities such as al fresco (or special events) should be
encouraged.
The Draft then includes an Improvement Plan for the
Neighbourhood Centre as a whole (refer Attachment 1), which includes a
number of major changes to the Centre, including:
·
Introduction of two housing areas into the Centre to make better
use of presently unused car parking area on the shopping centre site, and
unused freehold Council land to the east of the Community Hall. This housing
would also create a safer environment (eyes on the street), and provide revenue
to assist funding of the Centre Improvement Plan;
·
A number of new streets being introduced through the Centre;
·
The existing Chinese Restaurant building being demolished to make
way for one of the new roads, and being rebuilt to the north-east of its
present site;
·
A town square being built between the Hall and the shopping
centre buildings;
·
Opening of the road between Bathgate Loop and Meldrum Way (to
also facilitate access to proposed new residential lots on the existing sump
site which would be relocated to just north of the tavern);
·
Possible opening of the road between Bathgate Loop and the
community purpose land (just to the north of the Hall).
Comment
Urban Design Guidelines
The Draft Guidelines are considered generally sound and
suitable for release for public comment, as a Draft Local Planning Policy under
DPS 2.
Upon finalisation as a Local Planning Policy, it is likely
that further consideration may need to be given at that time to possible other
actions necessary to implement the guidelines, such as amendments to some parts
of DPS 2 and some local laws.
Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre Case Study
The Draft Case Study and its suggested Improvement Plan design
has been generally regarded as having considerable merit by those who have
viewed it to date. As a design, it is therefore considered to constitute a
good Case Study to refer to other centre owners/developers for consideration
for application to their centres.
The difficulty which the Improvement Plan design presents
in the case of this particular Centre however, is that it is presently far from
viable. The preliminary costing and revenue estimates which have been provided
by the consultant indicate that it would cost approximately $2.94m to develop,
but only yield a gross return of approximately $1.48m from the sale of the new
residential lots shown.
The Draft was recently discussed with the Strata Council of
Owners and their main points were:
1. They
were not in a position to make up the significant difference in cost and
revenue.
2. They
were concerned about the impact such a plan would have on the operation of the
Chinese Restaurant.
3. They
were, however, keen to still pursue the possibility of participating with the
City in some form of Improvement Plan for the Neighbourhood Centre as a whole,
particularly to enable some use of the presently unused car parking area, but
require the plan to be closer to cost-neutral and consequently to delete some
of the expensive items such as demolition and rebuilding of the Chinese
Restaurant.
4. They
liked the idea of a new east-west road passing along the northern side of the
shopping centre.
5. They
are already beginning to carry out some of the short term improvements included
in Section 8.0 of the Draft (eg. Improved lighting and colour coordination for
the Centre).
6. They
agree that in light of the present unfeasibility of the Draft’s Improvement
Plan design, it would not be appropriate to release this Draft for public
comment as previously intended.
It should be noted that this Case Study did present
somewhat of a dilemma. On the one hand, it was intended to enable an
application of the principles and guidelines recommended in the Guidelines
component of the consultant’s study in such a manner that other centre owners
and developers could better appreciate the potential of their application. On
the other hand, it was desired that the Case Study also be implementable for
this Centre. It transpired that a compromise position was necessary, being one
which resulted in:
·
A design which involved a full application of the relevant
principles and would serve as a good Case Study for other centres, but not
fully implementable for this particular Centre;
·
A design which had the potential to be subsequently ‘trimmed’ to
be more feasible for this Centre;
·
A range of improvements which could be made in the short term
(Section 8.0 of the Draft).
The following course of action is recommended in respect to
this Case Study:
1. It
be finalised as is (and not be released as a draft for public comment), with a
statement being included at its front, clearly describing its status and effect
2. The
final Case Study be referred to other centre owners and developers in the district
for consideration for application to their centres and proposals;
3. The
City continue to work with the Strata Owners of Koondoola Plaza toward a
possible revised Improvement Plan for the Neighbourhood Centre (including the
Council land) which retains as far as feasible the design principles of the
present Draft. This would involve a staged design approach, first developing
and seeking agreement upon a broad Concept Plan, and then moving toward a
detailed design. Close consultation with the local community will need to be
maintained in this process. It will also need to be acknowledged that a
significant number of statutory approvals will also be involved, including
rezoning under DPS 2, probably Structure Plan under DPS 2, and a Business Plan
under the Local Government Act.
Bathgate Loop – Meldrum Way Pedestrian Access Point
At its meeting of 24 October 2000 (Item W320-10/00),
Council considered requests it had received for the closure of two pedestrian
access points adjacent to the Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre. These access
points were not actually PAW’s but rather road reserves which had bollards
placed in them to allow pedestrian but not vehicular access through them. The
access points were a road from Bathgate Loop to Meldrum Way (proposed closure
“A” on Attachment 2) and a road from Bathgate Loop to the Council land,
near the Community Hall (proposed closure “B” on Attachment 2).
Council resolved to close off access point “B” by extending
the fence of the community purpose site across it (this has been done) and to
support a temporary closure of access point “A” for a period of 6 months, at
which time the local community would be consulted to determine whether
permanent closure should be pursued and road closure procedures commenced under
Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.
The temporary closure of point “A” was implemented and City
Administration subsequently consulted the local community on this matter. A
letter in explanation of the current position regarding the temporary closure,
inclusive of a self explanatory form requesting approval or not regarding
permanent closure, was forwarded to all the residents of Bathgate Loop and
Jolly Court, and to the resident at 35 Meldrum Way located immediately adjacent
to the proposed closure. A Prepaid envelope was also provided.
In summary, 11 returns from the sixty letters forwarded
were received (ie: an 18% response rate). Of the returns, 7 approve of the
permanent closure and 4 disapprove. A summary of the comments made in support
of the returns are as follows:
Approve of the Permanent Closure:
·
One entry/exit to the estate.
·
Better security/safer environment.
·
Less disturbances at night as a result of noise, crime, rubbish
(cans and bottles) and pedestrian movements from the tavern in particular.
Disapprove of the Permanent Closure:
·
The access is a convenient way of accessing by foot the shopping
centre, bus stop, other facilities and streets in the immediate vicinity, etc.
·
Closure will result in a “box” effect with only one entry/exit
for the estate.
A draft report had originally been prepared on this matter
in September of last year, however it was decided that it would be preferable
to await the outcome of the present consultant’s study prior to reporting to
Council.
It may be noted that the Improvement Plan (refer Attachment
1) shows this road reserve as remaining open and providing lot frontage to
a number of new residential lots created on the present sump site (which would
be relocated as a drainage swale to just north of the tavern).
Although there is some doubt as to whether this element of
the design is feasible in terms of cost and some concerns regarding the size of
the swale actually required to accommodate the drainage involved, it is
recommended that the temporary closure arrangement remain in place (ie that
permanent closure not be considered at this time) until the City and shopping
centre owners have had opportunity to further examine the planning of the
Neighbourhood Centre, to keep all options open at this stage.
Statutory Compliance
In respect to the implementation of the Design Guidelines
as Local Planning Policy under DPS 2, Clause 8.11.3 of DPS 2 requires that
Council adopt and advertise the Draft for a period of not less than 21 days.
In respect to the possible closure of portion of Bathgate
Loop (should Council decide to choose this path), permanent closure of the road
reserve can be achieved under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act (LLA)
1997.
In addition to the local resident consultation by mail drop
that has already taken place, the City is required, under Section 58 of the LAA
1997, to publish a notice of its intention to consider the closure in a
newspaper circulating in the district and to allow a period of 35 days for the
lodging of objections. A resolution to close the road cannot be passed until
Council has considered any objections received.
Notification of the intended closure must also be given to
the public utilities and the Western Australian Planning Commission.
A Council resolution to close the road must be delivered as
a request to the Minister for Lands. Copies of all submissions and objections
received, and comments on the Council’s decision on them, must be provided to
the Minister.
Strategic Implications
The draft Strategic Plan for the City highlights safety and
security as a key component contributing to the overall goal of creating
healthy communities. Urban design projects that aim to minimise anti-social
behaviour relate directly to this goal.
Policy Implications
Adoption of the Urban Design Guidelines would involve the
introduction of a new Local Planning Policy under DPS2.
Financial Implications
The undertaking of an improvement plan for the Koondoola
Neighbourhood Centre which includes Council-owned land would have significant
financial implications for the City. The nature of those implications would
become apparent as part of the process of preparation of the Plan, and would be
required to be properly scrutinised through the Business Plan procedures which
would be required to be complied with under the Local Government Act.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
1. Pursuant
to Clause 8.11.3 of City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the
Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) prepared by Taylor Burrell dated March 2002 and ADVERTISES the Draft
Policy for a 30 day public comment period;
2. REQUESTS
Taylor Burrell to finalise the Koodoola Neighbourhood Centre Case Study report
by inclusion at the front of the document of a statement prepared by this City
which clearly describes the status and effect of this Case Study document;
3. ENCOURAGES
the Koondoola Plaza owners to continue to implement suggestions made in Section
8.0 of the Case Study report;
4. ADVISES
other owners and centre developers in this district regarding the Case Study
undertaken and ENCOURAGES them to consider implementation of the principles
involved to their centres and future proposals.
5. ADVISES
the Koondoola Plaza owners that it is pleased to see the improvements already
being made by the owners to their centre, and it wishes to work further with
the owners to explore the possibility of developing a revised Improvement Plan
for the Koondoola Neighbourhood Centre which retains key elements of the Case
Study design, but will be economically feasible for the owners and the City and
acceptable to the local community;
6. RETAINS
the temporary closure of the pedestrian access point between Bathgate Loop and
Meldrum Way, Koondoola and FURTHER CONSIDERS the matter once the work to be
undertaken pursuant to 5. above has been adequately progressed.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT deleteThat Council:-
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 23513
File Name: CPriProL.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by sb Date 04 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by sb Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by sb Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by hw Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by hw Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
That Council consider the submissions made as a result of
the public advertising period and consider the formal adoption of the City of
Wanneroo Private Property Local Law 2001 and the deletion of Clause 5.13 of the
Shire of Wanneroo Health Local Law 1999.
Background
The Council at its meeting on 18 December 2001 resolved to:
“That
Council in accordance with section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995,
resolves BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to:
1. ADVERTISE
the proposal to make a local law (City of Wanneroo Private Property Local Law
2001) as set out in Attachment 1 for the purpose of providing for the
regulation, control and management of street numbering, fencing, tennis court
floodlighting, vehicle wrecking, fibreglassing & Spraypainting, private
swimming pool inspections, sand drift, rubbish and litter control, driveways
and vehicle crossover gradients generally on private property within the
district so as to protect the amenity of the area, and
2. REPEAL
the Shire of Wanneroo Private Property Local Law 1998 and clause 5.13 of the
Shire of Wanneroo Health Local Law 2001.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY &
BY
ABSOLUTE MAJORITY”
The proposed Private Property Local Law was detailed as an
Attachment in the agenda of the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 18th
December 2001 commencing on page 209.
The proposals were advertised by giving local and state
wide public notice as required by the Local Government Act (1995) with the
42-day notice period expiring on 15th March 2002. In addition a copy
of the Local Law was forwarded to the Minister for Housing and Works; Local
Government and Regional Development and the Minister for Health for comment.
Detail
At the conclusion of the public consultation period, no
formal submissions were received from the community.
After receiving information from Australia Post, Council
ought to give consideration to further amending the local law to include
reference to a letterbox along with the wording “building, fence or gate”. The
purpose of this amendment is to ensure that street numbers can be easily
identified by users of street numbering systems, eg Australia Post.
The local law provided for public comment stated as
follows:
“9.2 (1) The
owner or occupier of land in the district shall paint or affix and maintain, to
a standard not less than that established by the local government, the current
street number assigned by the local government, in a conspicuous place on the
front of the building, fence or gate adjacent to the street fronting the land.
(2) A
sign painted on a kerb, adjacent to a property used for residential purposes,
depicting the house number and in accordance with specifications approved by
the local government is satisfactory for the purposes of sub-clause (1)”.
The local law as detailed in the recommendation now states:
9.2 (1) The
owner or occupier of land in the district shall paint or affix and maintain, to
a standard not less than that established by the local government, the current
street number assigned by the local government, in a conspicuous place on the
front of the building, fence, letterbox or gate adjacent
to the street fronting the land.
(2) A
sign painted on a kerb, adjacent to a property used for residential purposes,
depicting the house number and in accordance with specifications approved by
the local government is permitted.”
A second
submission was received from the Department of Health which has suggested
several formatting improvements to clarify the title of the local law to
reflect the current status of the City of Wanneroo.
Comment
All of the amendments are considered minor and do not
affect the intent of the proposed local law. As a result, it is suggested that
Council proceed with the formal adoption of the local law without further advertising.
Statutory Compliance
The Local Government Act requires Council to consider any
submissions relating to the proposed local law and if the submissions are
considered minor, Council may adopt the local law with amendments and without
further advertising.
The Local Law is then placed in the Government Gazette and
then Statewide public notice of the local law is provided. Copies are again
forwarded to the Minister and to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated
Legislation who may instruct Council to further amend the local law.
The Local law comes into effect on the 14th day
after the day on which it is published in the gazette.
Strategic Implications
The local laws, if adopted, will provide for a greater
measure of policing and assist with resolving matters of long running community
concern.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Special Majority.
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. DETERMINES
that the suggested amendment to Clauses 3.9 and 9.2 of the City of Wanneroo
Private Property Local Law 2001 as detailed below is considered minor:
“Street number to be displayed:
9.2 (1) The
owner or occupier of land in the district shall paint or affix and maintain, to
a standard not less than that established by the local government, the current
street number assigned by the local government, in a conspicuous place on the
front of the building, fence, letterbox or gate adjacent to the street fronting
the land
(2) A
sign painted on a kerb, adjacent to a property used for residential purposes,
depicting the house number and in accordance with specifications approved by
the local government is permitted.”
2. Having
advertised the proposal and considered the submissions received resolves BY
SPECIAL MAJORITY to ADOPT the City of Wanneroo Private Property Local Law 2001
as detailed below:
CITY OF WANNEROO
DRAFT PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
ARRANGEMENT
PART 1 - PRELIMINARY
Clause
1.1
Title
1.2
Commencement
1.3
Purpose and intent
1.4
Repeal
1.5
Application of local
law
1.6
Definitions
PART 2 – APPROVALS
2.1
Approval requirements
2.2
Planning and other
approvals
2.3
Application for
approval
2.4
Determination of
application
2.5
Approval
2.5
Fees and charges
PART 3 - FENCING – GENERAL
3.1 Dividing and boundary fences
3.2
Sufficient fence
3.3 Fences within front setback -
approval requirement
3.4 Boundary fences on secondary
frontages
3.5 Sightlines at vehicle access points
3.6 General discretion of the local
government
3.7 Maintenance of fences
3.8 Fencing materials
3.9
Prohibited fencing
materials
3.10
Gates in fences
3.11
Fences across right of
ways, pedestrian access ways or road reserves
PART 4 - GRAFFITI
4.1
Graffiti protection and
removal
4.2
Record of graffiti
protection
PART 5 - ESTATE FENCES
5.1
Estate fencing
5.2
Repairs to estate
fencing
PART 6 - TENNIS COURT FENCING
6.1
Tennis court fencing
PART 7 - SECURITY AND FLOODLIGHTING
7.1
Security and
floodlights
7.2
Lighting exclusion
7.3
Tennis court
floodlighting
7.4
Tennis court floodlight
use and other restrictions
PART 8 - ELECTRIFIED AND RAZOR WIRE FENCES
8.1
Requirement for an
approval
PART 9 - STREET NUMBERING
9.1
Assignment and standard
of street numbers
9.2
Street number to be
displayed
9.3
Location of number not
to be misleading
PART 10 - VEHICLE WRECKING, FIBREGLASSING AND SPRAY
PAINTING
10.1
Commercial wrecking of
vehicles
10.2
Wrecking and storage of
vehicles generally
10.3
Disposal of vehicles,
parts and machinery
10.4
Fibreglassing and
spraypainting
PART 11 -
PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS:
11.1
Private swimming pool
inspections
PART 12 - SAND DRIFT AND LITTER CONTROL
12.1
Wind blown sand
12.2
Soil to be retained
12.3
Litter control on
building sites
PART 13 - DRIVEWAYS AND DRAINAGE
13.1
Road verge and driveway
gradients
13.2
Property drainage
PART 14 - REMEDY FOR BREACH
14.1 Works on private property
14.2 Limit on liability
PART 15 - PENALTIES
15.1 Offences
15.2 Infringement and infringement withdrawal notices
15.3 Offence description and modified penalty
15.4 Prosecution for offences
15.5 Records to be kept
SCHEDULES
Schedule 1 – Specifications for a
sufficient fence on a residential lot.
Schedule 2 – Specifications for a
sufficient fence on a commercial lot and an industrial lot
Schedule 3 – Specifications for a
sufficient fence on a rural lot and special rural lot
Schedule 4 – Maximum vehicle driveway
gradients
Schedule 5 – Offences and modified
penalties
PART 1 - PRELIMINARY
Title
1.1 This local law may be
referred to as the City of Wanneroo Private Property Local Law 2001.
Commencement
1.2 This local law comes
into operation 14 days after the date of its publication in the Gazette.
Purpose and intent
1.3 (1) The purpose
of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of
street numbering, fencing, tennis court floodlighting, vehicle wrecking,
fibreglassing, spraypainting, private swimming pool inspections, sand drift,
rubbish and litter control, driveways and vehicle crossovers generally on
private property within the district so as to protect the amenity of the area.
(2) The
effect of this local law is to establish the requirements for erecting street
numbers, fencing and tennis court floodlighting, vehicle wrecking,
fibreglassing, spraypainting, private swimming pool inspections, sand drift,
rubbish and litter control, driveways and vehicle crossovers generally on
private property within the district.
Repeal
1.4 The Shire of
Wanneroo Private Property Local Law 1998 and clause 5.13 of the Shire of
Wanneroo Health Local Law 1999 are repealed on the day this local law comes
into operation.
Application
of local law
1.5 This
local law applies throughout the district.
Definitions
1.6 In
this local law unless the context requires otherwise:
“Act” means the
Local Government Act 1995;
“application” means
the completed form lodged by a person seeking an approval as required by this
local law;
“approval” means a
favorable decision of an application which may be subject to conditions issued
in writing by the local government which allows a proposal to proceed;
“authorised person”
means a person authorised by the local government under section 9.10 of the Act
to carry out functions with respect to this local law;
“boundary fence”
means a boundary fence referred to in section 16 of the Dividing Fences Act
1961;
“commercial lot”
means any lot situated within a commercial zone as classified by the town
planning scheme and includes land predominately used for commercial purposes;
“commercial
wrecking” means the activity of wrecking of vehicles or machinery for the
purpose of conducting a business by offering vehicles, machinery or parts
thereof for purchase, trade, sale or gain;
“dangerous” in
relation to any fence means:
a)
an electrified fence
other than a fence in respect of which an approval under Part 8 of this local
law has been issued and is current;
b)
a fence
containing barbed wire other than a fence erected and maintained in accordance
with this local law;
c)
a fence containing
exposed broken glass, asbestos fibre, razor wire or any other potentially
harmful projection or material; or
d)
a fence which is likely
to collapse or fall, or part of which is likely to collapse or fall, from any
cause;
e)
is not in use for the
purpose for which it was designed or appears to have been designed or intended;
or
f)
has been stored or left
stationary on land in the district for more than 3 months;
“district” means the district of the City
of Wanneroo;
“disused” means in relation to any thing
whatsoever that the thing:
“dividing fence”
has the meaning given to it in and for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act
1961;
Footnote: Section
5 of the Dividing Fences Act 1961 defines “dividing fence” to mean “a fence
that separates the land of different owners whether the fence is on the common
boundary of adjoining lands or on a line other than the common boundary”.
“electrified fence”
means a fence carrying or designed to carry an electric charge;
“estate entry
statement” means a fence, or wall constructed of masonry or other materials in
accordance with a licence to identify the entrance of an estate and may include
but not be limited to a sign indicating the estate name and locality,
sculptures, flagpoles and flags;
“estate boundary
fence” means the fence erected around the external boundary of a sub division
of land to indicate the extent of that sub division and includes any special
works or construction that identifies the entrance to that land;
“fence” means any
structure, including a retaining wall less than 450mm in height and used or
functioning as a barrier, irrespective of where it is located and includes any
gate;
“floodlight” means
a luminaire which emits light within a limited range of directions;
“front boundary”
means the boundary that separates the road reserve and a lot adjacent the road
reserve;
“front fence” means a fence in
the front setback area;
“front setback area” means the area between
the front boundary of a lot and an imaginary line running parallel to the front
boundary and being the lesser of either 6m or where the land or adjoining
properties are developed the lesser of the front building setback of that
development within 3m of the common boundary on either of the adjoining
properties;
“gradient” means the change in level
represented as a percentage calculated by dividing the change in height (with
an increase in height being positive and a decrease in height being negative)
by the distance;
“height” in
relation to a fence unless otherwise specified means the vertical distance
between:
(a) the top of the fence
at any point; and
(b) the ground level or,
where the ground levels on each side of the fence are not the same, the higher
ground level immediately below that point;
“industrial lot”
means any lot situated within an industrial zone as classified by the town
planning scheme and includes land predominately used for industrial purposes;
“land” means land
in the district and includes houses, buildings, works, and structures, in or
upon the land;
"litter"
includes:
(a)
all kinds of
rubbish, refuse, junk, garbage or scrap: and
(b)
any article or
material abandoned or unwanted by the person or owner last in possession
thereof;
“local government” means the City
of Wanneroo;
“lot” means a
defined portion of land for which a separate certificate of title has been
issued and includes a strata lot;
“luminaire” means
an apparatus which distributes, filters or transforms the light transmitted
from one or more lamps and which includes, except for the lamps themselves, all
the parts necessary for fixing and protecting the lamps, and where necessary,
circuit auxiliaries with the means of connecting them to the electricity
supply;
“natural angle of
repose” means the maximum gradient of an embankment measured as a ratio of
height to length for the various soil types as measured and defined in clause
3.1.1 of the Building Code of Australia;
Footnote: Clause
3.1.1 of the Building Code of Australia provides that the maximum natural angle
of repose of sand with little moisture change is 1:2.
“non sacrificial
graffiti protection” means a coating applied to a fence or wall which is not
removed in the process of removing graffiti;
“nuisance” means:
(a) any activity, thing,
condition, circumstance or state of affairs caused or contributed to by a
person which is injurious or dangerous to the health of another person of
normal susceptibility, or which has a disturbing effect on the state of
reasonable physical, mental or social well-being of another person;
(b) any thing a person
does or permits or causes to be done which interferes with or is likely to
interfere with the enjoyment or safe use by another person of any public place;
or
(c) any thing a person
does on public or private land which unreasonably detracts from or interferes
with the enjoyment or value of land owned by another person, provided that any
thing done in accordance with the law or a legal right or which is consistent
with the standard of behaviour in the relevant locality shall not be
unreasonable for the purpose of this local law
“number” means a
number with or without an alphabetical suffix indicating the address of land as
assigned by the local government from time to time, in accordance with this
local law;
“open
fence” means a fence which has continuous vertical gaps with a minimum gap
width of 50 mm with the area of gaps being not less than one third of the fence
face. The lower portion of an open fence may be closed up to a height of 1.2 m
above a line between the height of the road verge at the property boundary and
the floor level of the dwelling at the entrance;
“person” means any
person, company, employer and includes the owner, occupier and licensee.
“planning approval”
means an approval given under a relevant town planning scheme operating in the
district from time to time;
“private property”
means any real property, parcel of land or lot that has a separate certificate
of title, which is in private ownership or subject of a lease or agreement with
a company or person enabling its use for private purposes and includes any
building or structure thereon;
“public lighting”
means lighting provided for the purpose of all-night safety and security on
public roads cycle paths, footpaths and pedestrian movement areas within public
parks and gardens but not including car parks;
“public place”
means any place to which the public has access;
“reserve” includes
parklands, reserves, foreshores and other lands included in or adjoining the
district, and set apart for the use and enjoyment of the public and includes
parks and other lands acquired for public purposes, and vested in or under the
care, control and management of the local government;
“residential lot”
means any lot situated within a residential zone as classified by the town
planning scheme and includes land predominately used for residential purposes;
“retaining wall”
means any structure which prevents the movement of soil in order to allow
ground levels of different elevations to exist adjacent to one another;
“rural lot” means
any lot situated within a rural zone as classified by the town planning scheme
and includes land predominately used for rural purposes;
“sacrificial graffiti protection” means a
coating applied to a fence or wall which is removed in the process of removing
graffiti;
“secondary frontage” means in the case of
land that has a frontage and access to more than one road, unless the local
government otherwise approves, the longer of the boundaries that separates the
road reserve and a lot adjacent the road reserve;
“soil” includes sand, limestone, dust,
rock, clay and mulch;
“special rural lot”
means any lot situated within a special rural zone as classified by the town
planning scheme;
“state of disrepair” in relation to
wrecking and storage of vehicles, means a vehicle, part, or body of a vehicle
or machinery that is disused and generally not working or needs repair for it
to work as initially intended or can not be used, driven or applied for the
purpose it was manufactured. The term includes a vehicle which is not licensed;
“sufficient fence”
means a fence described in clause 3.2;
“swimming pool” has
the same meaning as in the Building Regulations 1989;
“town planning
scheme” means any town planning scheme for the time being applying zoning or
classification to land within the district;
“vehicle” means any
motor vehicle, part of a motor vehicle or machine, whether licenced or not;
“wreck” includes
the dismantling, breaking up, storage and disposal of vehicles and wrecking and
wrecked have a corresponding meaning.
PART 2 -
APPROVALS
Approval requirements
2.1 Where
in accordance with this local law an approval is required to enable the lawful
building or erecting of a fence or performance of an activity, that approval
must first be obtained before any work is commenced.
Planning and other approvals
2.2 Where
under any written law operating within the district, the erection and
maintenance of a fence, structure or performance of an activity, requires
planning or other approval, the requirement for such approval shall be
additional to the requirement for an approval under this local law.
Application for approval
2.3 (1)..... A person
seeking the issue of an approval shall make application on the form provided
and used for the purpose and shall forward the application to the local
government together with:
(a) where required, a
copy of planning approval issued by the local government under the town
planning scheme;
(b) 3 copies of plans
drawn to scale of not less than 1:50 showing the size, position, design, and
the method of construction of the proposed fence or retaining wall and any
other matter reasonably required by the local government;
(c) the relevant fee; and
(d)
such other information
as may be required by the local government to assist in determining the
application.
(2)
Where a building
licence is also required the Local Government may provide that the form of the
application is the form of an application for a building licence and in such
instances the application shall be an application for both an approval under
this local law and a building licence.
Determination of application
2.4 (1) The local
government may refuse an application for an approval that does not comply with
the requirements of clause 2.3, and in any event, shall refuse an application
where planning approval is required and has not first been obtained under the
town planning scheme.
(2) The local
government may, in respect of an application for an approval:
(a) refuse the
application; or
(b) approve
the application on such terms and conditions, if any, as it considers appropriate.
Approval
2.5 (1) An approval
shall be issued to the person whose name appears on the application and is the
owner of the land or acting on behalf of the owner.
(2) The approval shall
be issued in the form prescribed or provided by the local government for that
purpose.
(3)
Where the application
is an application for both an approval and a building licence, the issue of a
building licence by the local authority shall also be an approval under this
local law.
Fees and charges
2.6 All fees and charges
applicable under this local law shall be as determined by the local government
from time to time in accordance with section 6.16 of the Act.
PART 3 - FENCING - GENERAL
Dividing and boundary fences
3.1
Unless by agreement
between the owners of adjoining properties, a person shall not:
a)
erect, construct or
alter a dividing or boundary fence on a lot that does not satisfy the
requirements of a sufficient or permissible fence; or
b)
fail to maintain a
dividing or boundary fence in a condition which satisfies the requirements of
a sufficient or permissible fence; or
c)
alter the level of the
ground adjoining the boundary so as to change the height of a dividing or
boundary fence unless the dividing or boundary fence is altered, re-erected,
reconstructed or relocated so as to satisfy the requirements of a sufficient or
permissible fence.
Sufficient fence
3.2 (1) Subject to sub-clauses (2)
and (3), a sufficient fence:
(a) on
a residential lot is a dividing fence or a boundary fence constructed and
maintained in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the First
Schedule;
(b) on
a commercial lot and on an industrial lot is a dividing fence or a boundary
fence constructed and maintained in accordance with the specifications and
requirements of the Second Schedule;
(c) on
a rural lot and on a special rural lot is a dividing fence or a boundary fence
constructed and maintained in accordance with the specifications and
requirements of the Third Schedule.
(2) Where a
fence is erected on or near the boundary between a residential lot and any of
the following:
(a) an
industrial lot;
(b) a
commercial lot;
(c) a
rural lot; or
(d) a
special rural lot,
a
sufficient fence is a dividing fence constructed and maintained in accordance
with the specifications and requirements of the First Schedule.
(3) Unless an
authorised person specifies otherwise, a sufficient fence on a boundary between
lots other than those specified in sub-clause (2) is a dividing fence
constructed in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the
Second Schedule.
(4)
Where any of the
Schedules provides for permissible alternative fences, such fences may be
constructed as an alternative to the respective sufficient fence.
Fences within front setback -
approval requirement
3.3 (1) Subject
to clause 3.6 a person must not without the written approval of the local
government, erect a fence within the front setback area of a residential lot in
the district on a boundary , greater than one metre in height unless:
(a)
the fence is an open
fence; or
(b)
the fence is a side
boundary fence which uniformly slopes down to 1m in height over a maximum
distance of 1.5m from the front set back area.
(2) An open
fence is a fence constructed and maintained in accordance with the specifications
and requirements of the First Schedule.
Boundary fences on secondary frontages
3.4 Subject to clauses
3.3 and 3.5 a person shall not, without the written approval of the local
government, erect a fence on any secondary frontage of a residential lot in the
district unless the fence is a permissible alternative fence.
Sightlines at vehicle access points
3.5 (1) Fences
adjacent to vehicle access points shall be truncated with the minimum dimension
of the truncation being 1.5m or the fence reduced in height to no more than
0.75m.
(2) Sub-clause (1) does not
apply;
(a) to
a fence which is an open fence that does not obscure the lines of vision of a
motorist using the access point, or
(b) where
there is a distance of 3.5m between the fence and a carriageway or footpath.
General discretion of the local government
3.6 (1) The local
government may approve the erection of a fence which does not comply with the
requirements of this local law.
(2) In
determining whether to approve the erection of a fence, the local government
may consider, in addition to any other matters that it is authorised to
consider, whether the erection or retention of the fence would have an adverse
effect on:
(a) the
safety or convenience of any person; and
(b) the safe or
convenient use of any land.
Maintenance of fences
3.7 An owner or occupier
of a lot on which a fence is erected shall maintain the fence in good condition
and so as to prevent it from becoming dangerous, dilapidated, unsightly, or
prejudicial to the amenity of the locality.
Fencing materials
3.8 A
person shall not construct a fence of barbed wire or an electrified fence on a
rural property, adjacent to a public place or reserve, unless the barbed wire
is fixed to the side of the fence furthermost from the public place or reserve.
Prohibited fencing materials
3.9 (1) A person shall not use
broken glass in the construction of any fence.
(2)
A person shall not use
razor wire or other material with spiked or jagged projections in the
construction of any fence unless the fence is a sufficient or permissible
alternative fence.
Gates in fences
3.10 A person shall not
erect or maintain a gate in a fence:
(a) which does not open into
the property;
(b) which does
not open by sliding parallel and on the inside of the boundary fence, of which
it forms part when closed; or
(c) abutting a
road reserve, pedestrian access way, right of way, reserve or public property
without approval unless the local government has otherwise approved access from
the road reserve, pedestrian access way, right of way, reserve or public
property.
Fences across rights of way, pedestrian
access ways or road reserves
3.11 A person shall not,
without the written consent of the local government, erect or maintain a fence
or obstruction of a temporary or permanent nature across any right of way,
pedestrian access way or road reserve so as to impede or prevent use of those
facilities in the manner for which they are intended and constructed.
PART 4 - GRAFFITI
Graffiti protection and removal
4.1 (1) A person
shall not erect a fence, structure, building or wall constructed of masonry or
other materials, adjacent to a public place or reserve without treating the
fence, structure, building or wall with non sacrificial graffiti protection.
(2) An owner or
occupier of a lot with a fence, structure, building or wall erected adjacent to
a public place or reserve shall treat that fence, structure, building or wall
with non sacrificial graffiti protection where required by an authorised
person.
(3) The
graffiti protection treatment required in accordance with sub-clauses (1) and
(2) shall be applied to the manufacturer’s specifications.
(4) The owner
or occupier of a lot with a fence, structure, building or wall erected adjacent
to a public place or reserve shall, when required by an authorised person,
remove any graffiti which may have been applied to the fence, structure,
building or wall.
Record of graffiti protection
4.2 Where
in accordance with this local law, a person is required to treat a fence,
structure, building or wall adjacent to a public place or reserve with graffiti
protection, that person must cause to be affixed to that fence, structure,
building or wall a plate inscribed with the approved number relating to the
which identifies the name of the graffiti protection applied to the fence,
structure, building or wall, and details of the manufacturer’s recommended
treatment including materials to be used for removal of graffiti.
PART 5 - ESTATE FENCES
Estate fencing
5.1 (1) No
person shall construct or erect an estate entry statement or estate boundary
fence without the approval of the local government.
(2) Where
an estate entry statement or estate boundary fence is constructed and contains
an estate name, the entry statement or estate boundary fence shall also depict
the suburb name in equal prominence.
Repairs to estate fencing
5.2 (1) An owner or
occupier of a lot adjacent to an estate boundary fence shall, where that fence
is damaged, dilapidated or in need of repair, cause it to be repaired or
replaced with the same or similar materials with which it was first
constructed, so as far as practicable the repaired or replaced section shall be
the same as the original fence.
(2) Where in
accordance with clause 4.1 graffiti protection has been applied to the section
of a masonry fence or wall facing a reserve or public place and that wall is to
be repaired or replaced, the owner or occupier of the lot adjacent to that
section of fence or wall, shall cause it to be treated with graffiti protection
as part of the repair or replacement.
PART 6 - TENNIS COURT FENCING
Tennis court fencing
6.1 (1) This clause does not apply
to a rural lot.
(2) A person
shall not erect a fence around or partly around a tennis court on a lot unless:
(a) the fence is less than 3.6m in
height;
(b) the whole of the
fence is at least 900mm from the boundary between the lot on which the tennis
court is located and the adjoining lot or if it is less than 900mm, the owner
of the adjoining lot has first been given the opportunity to make submissions
to the local government on the location of the fence; and
(c) the fence is constructed of chain
link fabric mesh and is 50mm x 2.5mm poly-vinyl chloride coated or galvanised,
and is erected in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification.
PART 7 - SECURITY AND FLOOD LIGHTING
Security and floodlights
7.1 (1) A person
shall not erect or maintain or permit to be erected or maintained, on any
private land, a luminaire which:
(a) causes a level of
illumination greater than 1 lux to spill into adjacent land by more than 1m or
onto any vertical or horizontal surface of a building thereon; or
(b) has the main beam
angle of any floodlight or security light installed higher than 3m above natural
ground level and positioned at a maximum angle of 70 degrees from the vertical
plane; or
(c) in the opinion of the
local government because of the glare adversely affects the amenity of
adjoining residents or is hazardous to pedestrians or road users.
(2) Paragraphs
(a) and (b) of subclause (1) do not apply to a commercial lot or an industrial
lot.
Lighting exclusion
7.2 Clause 7.1 does not
apply to any luminaires erected or maintained in accordance with any written
law operating in the district.
Tennis court floodlighting
7.3 (1) This clause
does not apply to a rural lot.
(2) In
determining an application in respect of the erection or use of floodlights or
other exterior lights for illumination of a tennis court on a lot, the local
government shall not approve the application unless:
(a) the
owner of each adjoining lot is given the opportunity to make submissions;
(b) the
mounting height of light fittings is within the following range, and determined
by the lamp luminous flux per pole:
(i) single
court equal to or less than 12,500 lumens per pole - 5m;
(ii) single
court equal to or less than 25,000 lumens per pole - 8m;
(c) approval
may be given outside the range detailed in paragraph (b) if considered
appropriate to the circumstances;
(d) light
fittings used are of a type mounted horizontally or of a type approved by an
authorised person;
(e) the
level of illumination from the floodlights or external lights on any land more
than 1m from the lot does not exceed 10 lux; and
(f) where
required by an authorised person, written approval for the erection of the
lights or other exterior lights has been obtained from the Commissioner of Main
Roads.
Tennis court floodlight use
and other restrictions
7.4 Unless otherwise
approved, the owner or occupier of a residential lot which has a tennis court
and floodlights thereon, shall not:
(a) permit the floodlights to
remain lit after 10 pm;
(b) hire the
court for playing tennis or any other activity for commercial gain.
PART 8 -
ELECTRIFIED AND RAZOR WIRE FENCES
Requirement for an approval
8.1 (1) An owner or
occupier of a lot shall not:
(a) have
and use an electrified fence on that lot without first obtaining an approval
under sub-clause (3); or
(b) have
a fence constructed wholly or partly of razor wire on that lot without first
obtaining an approval under sub clause (4).
(2) Sub
clause (1)(a) does not apply to a rural lot or a special rural lot where the
keeping of stock is permitted and is used for that purpose.
(3) An
approval to have and use an electrified fence shall only be issued:
(a) in
respect of a lot which does not abut a residential lot;
(b) where
the fence complies with AS/NZS 3016:1994; and
(c) where
provision is made so as to enable the fence to be rendered inoperable during
the hours of business operations, if any, on the lot where it is erected.
(4) An approval
to have a fence constructed wholly or partly of razor wire shall only be
issued:
(a) if
the fence is not closer than 3m from the boundary of the lot; or
(b) where
any razor wire used in the construction of the fence is higher than 2m but not
more than 2.4m above the ground level.
(5) An
application for an approval referred to in sub-clauses (3) or (4) shall be made
by the owner of the lot on which the fence is or is to be erected, or by the
occupier of the lot with the written consent of the owner.
PART 9 - STREET
NUMBERING
Assignment and standard of street numbers
9.1 (1) The local
government may assign a number to land in a street, thoroughfare or way in the
district and may from time to time assign another number instead of that which
was previously assigned.
(2) The local
government may establish a minimum standard for the display of street numbering
in the district and may from time to time establish another standard instead of
that which was previously established.
Street number to be displayed
9.2 (1) The owner or
occupier of land in the district shall paint or affix and maintain, to a
standard not less than that established by the local government, the current
street number assigned by the local government, in a conspicuous place on the
front of the building, fence, letterbox or gate adjacent to the street fronting
the land.
(2) A sign
painted on a kerb, adjacent to a property used for residential purposes,
depicting the house number and in accordance with specifications approved by
the local government is permitted.
Location of number not to be misleading
9.3 (1) The owner or
occupier of land shall not place or display a number or the street number of
the land in such a way as to cause confusion or be misleading.
(2) Where in
the opinion of an authorised person, the location or display of a number or
street number causes confusion or is misleading, a notice may be served on the
owner or occupier of the land, specifying remedial action to be taken in
accordance with clause 14.1.
PART 10 - VEHICLE WRECKING, FIBREGLASSING AND
SPRAY PAINTING
Commercial wrecking of vehicles
10.1 An owner or occupier of
land in the district shall not undertake, permit or suffer the commercial
wrecking of vehicles on that land, except in accordance with a planning
approval.
Wrecking and storage of vehicles generally
10.2 (1) A person shall
not:
(a) store
any vehicle, part or body of a vehicle or machinery, in a state of disrepair or
which is disused;
(b) allow
to remain on any land or place a vehicle, part or body of a vehicle or
machinery, in a state of disrepair or which is disused; or
(c) wreck,
dismantle or break up any vehicle, part or body of a vehicle or machinery,
unless:
(i) inside
a building; or
(ii) in
the case of a residential lot or a special rural lot, within an area enclosed
by a fence or wall of not less than 1750mm in height and of such a nature as to
screen all vehicles, parts or bodies of vehicles or machinery from the street
and from adjoining properties.
(2) A person
shall not:
(a) wreck,
dismantle or break up any vehicle, port or body of a vehicle or machinery; or
(b) keep
in a state of disrepair more than one vehicle,
on a
residential lot or a special rural lot without the prior written approval of
the local government.
Disposal of vehicles, parts and machinery
10.3 (1) A person shall
not dispose of, abandon or leave a vehicle, parts or body of vehicles or
machinery except at a place set aside or approved by the local government for
the purpose.
(2)
A person shall not
destroy any portion of a vehicle or machinery by fire so as to cause a nuisance
to occupiers of adjacent land by smoke or odour.
Fibreglassing and spraypainting
10.4 No person shall:
(a)
apply, use, manufacture
or repair fibre reinforced plastics or resins; or
(b)
engage in
spraypainting,
on any land other
than an industrial lot except in accordance with the prior written approval of
the local government.
PART 11 –PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS
Private swimming pool inspections
11.1 Where the local
government has authorised a swimming pool inspector to inspect private swimming
pools in the district:
(a) no person shall
prevent the inspector from undertaking an inspection of a swimming pool on any
property; and
(b) where in the opinion
of the inspector reasonable or safe access to the property is not possible
because of locked gates, doors and the like or the presence of dogs the local
government may by giving not less than 7 days' notice served on the occupier or
owner require that the matter which prevented the inspection be removed or
remedied to allow the inspection to be undertaken.
PART 12 –SAND DRIFT AND LITTER CONTROL
WIND BLOWN SAND
12.1 No person shall allow
any land in the district to be kept in such a condition so as to allow soil or
dust to be released or escape whether by means of wind, water or other causes,
from that land onto adjoining or nearby land.
Soil to be retained
12.2 (1) Unless
authorised by a building licence issued under the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 or otherwise authorised by law, no person
shall cause land in the district to be excavated, filled or kept in such a
condition so as to:
(a) undermine the land
adjoining; or
(b) to allow the fill to
spill onto the land adjoining.
(2) The adjoining land is
to be taken to be affected by the events listed in sub clause (1) if:
(a) the local government
considers that the embankment resulting from the fill or excavation exceeds the
natural angle of repose of the soil and consequently is likely to result in a
change in level of the adjoining land, or
(b) the local government considers that
a change in level has occurred.
(3)
Where a person causes a
change in the level of land at the boundary, the land so excavated or filled
shall be retained to the satisfaction of the local government.
Litter control on building sites
12.3 (1) No person,
owner or occupier shall allow or commence or continue the construction of any
building works on any land, unless one of the following measures is implemented
to prevent building litter or rubbish of any kind whatsoever from being blown
from the construction site:
(a) provide a receptacle
of a capacity not less than 4m3 fitted with a lid on site for the disposal of
all rubbish; or
(b) provide an equivalent
wire enclosure on site with a lid for the disposal of all rubbish.
(2) All
rubbish which is capable of being wind blown and other offensive matter on the
construction site is to be placed and kept in the receptacle.
(3) The lid is to be kept
secure on the receptacle at all times.
PART 13 - DRIVEWAYS AND DRAINAGE
Road verge and driveway gradients
13.1 (1) No person
shall on a road reserve adjacent to a residential lot construct or maintain a
vehicle crossing to that property which rises up from the road surface edge,
kerb or other treatment to the property boundary other than at a 2% gradient
without the approval of the local government.
(2) No person
shall on a residential lot construct or maintain a driveway connecting a
parking bay and a vehicle crossing at a gradient which exceeds that specified
in the Fourth Schedule without the approval of the local government.
Property drainage
13.2 A person shall not allow storm water or other
waste water to discharge onto:
(a)
an adjoining lot
without the current approval of the adjoining owner; or
(b)
on to a road reserve or
other property under the care control and management of the local government
without the approval of the local government.
PART 14 -REMEDY FOR BREACH
Works on private property
14.1 (1) Where a breach
of any provision of this local law has occurred on private property, the local
government may give notice in writing to the owner or occupier of that
property:
(a) advising details
of the breach of the local law;
(b) requiring
the owner or occupier that the breach is to be remedied within the time
specified in the notice; and
(c) advising
that where the owner or occupier fails to comply with the requirements of the
notice within the time specified, the local government may enter the property
and do the required work.
(2) Where the
owner or occupier of the property fails to comply with the requirements of the
notice, the local government may by its employees, agents or contractors enter
upon the property and carry out all works and do all things necessary to comply
with the requirements of the notice.
(3) The local
government may recover the expenses incurred in carrying out the works in
accordance with sub-clause (2) from the owner or occupier of the property in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Limit on liability
14.2 A person is not
entitled to make any claim by way of damages or otherwise, against the local
government, an authorised person, local government employee, local government
appointed sub-contractor or other person authorised by the local government, to
enter the land and carry out all or part of the works and do all things necessary
that the owner, occupier or holder of a licence was required to do to comply
with this local law.
PART 15 - PENALTIES
Offences
15.1 (1) Any
person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this
local law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is
prohibited from doing, commits an offence.
(2) An offence
against any provision of this local law is a prescribed offence for the
purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act.
(3) Any person
who commits an offence under this local law shall be liable, upon conviction,
to a penalty not exceeding $5,000, and if the offence is of a continuing
nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $500 for each day or part of a
day during which the offence has continued.
Infringement and infringement
withdrawal notices
15.2 For the purposes of
this local law:
(a) the form of
the infringement notice referred to in section 9.17 of the Act is form 2 in the
First Schedule of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations
1996; and
(b) the form of
the infringement withdrawal notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is
form 3 in the First Schedule of the Local Government (Functions and General)
Regulations 1996 .
Offence description and
modified penalty
15.3 The amount appearing
in the final column of the Fifth Schedule directly opposite an offence
described in that Schedule is the modified penalty for that offence.
Prosecution for offences
15.4 A penalty for an
offence against this local law (not being a modified penalty) may be recovered
by the local government by taking proceedings against the alleged offender in a
court of petty sessions.
Records to be kept
15.5 The local government
shall cause adequate records to be kept of all infringement notices served and
modified penalties received.
Footnotes:
Appeal of decision
1. When the local
government makes a decision as to whether it will:
(a) grant
a person an approval under this local law; or
(b) renew,
vary, or cancel an approval that a person has under this local law,
the appeal
provisions of Division 1 of Part 9 of the Act and regulations 33 and 34 of the
Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 apply to that
decision.
Vehicle wrecking
2. The commercial
wrecking of vehicles is covered under the provisions of the town planning
scheme.
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
FIRST SCHEDULE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR A SUFFICIENT FENCE ON A
RESIDENTIAL LOT
Subject to clause 5.2 relating to estate
fences, the following is a “sufficient fence” on a residential lot for the
purpose of the Dividing Fences Act.
A fence constructed of corrugated fibre
reinforced pressed cement sheeting which satisfies the following
specifications:
(a) a minimum in-ground
length of 25 per cent of the total length of the sheet, but in any case shall
have a minimum in-ground depth of 600mm;
(b) the total height and
depth of the fence to consist of a single continuous fibre reinforced cement
sheet;
(c) the sheets to be
lapped and capped with extruded “snap-fit” type capping in accordance with the
manufacturers written instructions; and
(d) the height of the
fence to be between 1750mm to 1850mm.
Permissible alternative fences
The following fence types
are permissible alternative fences to a sufficient fence on a residential lot
1. A picket timber
fence.
2. A fence
constructed of brick, stone or concrete.
3. A composite fence.
4. A factory colored sheet metal
post and paneled fence
Open fence
The following fence types
are open fences on required by clause 15 on a residential lot
1.
An open picket timber
fence.
2.
A fence comprising
brick or stone piers with an open infill of timber, wrought iron or tube.
3.
Other open fences
approved by the local government.
Footnote: Specifications
for permissible alternative and open fences are detailed in the Fences
Information Sheets obtained from local government offices.
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
SECOND SCHEDULE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR A SUFFICIENT FENCE ON A COMMERCIAL LOT
AND AN INDUSTRIAL
LOT
Subject to clause 5.2 relating to estate
fences, the following is a “sufficient fence” on a commercial lot and an
Industrial Lot for the purpose of the Dividing Fences Act.
A fence constructed of galvanised or PVC
coated rail-less link mesh, chain mesh or steel mesh which satisfies the
following specifications:
(a) corner posts to be
minimum 50mm nominal bore x 3.5mm and with footings of a 225mm diameter x
900mm;
(b) intermediate posts to
be minimum 37mm nominal bore x 3.15mm at maximum 3.5m centres and with footings
of a 225mm diameter x 600mm;
(c) struts to be minimum
30mm nominal bore x 3.15mm fitted at each gate and two at each corner post;
(d) cables to be affixed
to the top, centre and bottom of all posts and to consist of two or more 3.15mm
wires twisted together;
(e) rail-less link, chain
or steel mesh is to be to a height of 2m on top of which are to be three
strands of barbed wire carrying the fence to a height of 2.4m; and
(f) galvanised link mesh
wire to be 2m in height and constructed of 50mm mesh 2.5mm galvanised iron wire
and to be strained, neatly secured and laced to the posts and affixed to
cables. Vehicle entry gates shall provide an opening of not less than 3.6m and
shall be constructed of 25mm tubular framework with one horizontal and one
vertical stay constructed of 20mm piping and shall be covered with 50mm x 2.5mm
galvanised link mesh strained to framework. Gates shall be fixed with a drop
bolt and locking attachment.
Permissible
alternative fences
1. A fence of fibre
reinforced cement sheets.
2. A fence constructed
of painted or galvanized steel or aluminium sheeting.
3. Fences of timber, brick, stone or
concrete.
Footnote: Specifications
for permissible alternative fences are detailed in the Fences Information
Sheets obtained from local government offices.
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
THIRD SCHEDULE
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR A SUFFICIENT FENCE ON A RURAL LOT
AND SPECIAL RURAL
LOT
Subject to clause 5.2 relating to estate
fences, a sufficient fence on a Rural Lot for the purpose of the Dividing
Fences Act is a fence of posts and wire construction, the minimum
specifications for which are:
(a) wire shall be high
tensile wire and not less than 2.5mm. A minimum of five wires shall be used,
these to be generally with the lower wires spaced closer together than the
higher wires so as to prevent smaller stock passing through, and connected to
posts in all cases, and threaded through 12mm holes in posts to all fences;
(b) posts shall be of indigenous
timber or other suitable material including timber impregnated with a termite
and fungicidal preservative cut not less than 1.8m long x 100mm diameter at
small end of round or 125mm x 60mm if split or sawn. Posts to be set minimum
600mm in the ground and 1.2m above the ground; and
(c) strainer posts shall
be not less than 2.25m long and 150mm diameter at the small end and shall be
cut from indigenous timber or other suitable material. These shall be placed a
minimum of 1m in the ground.
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
FOURTH SCHEDULE
Maximum Vehicle Driveway Gradients
For the purpose of this Schedule
“Transition” means half the sum of the two
adjacent gradients
“Gradient” means the height divided by the
horizontal length of any slope expressed as a percentage, eg a slope of 1m
change in height (upward) over 8m in length = 1 in 8 = +12.5%
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
FIFTH SCHEDULE
Offences and Modified Penalties
|
Clause No
|
Nature of
Offence
|
Modified
Penalty $
|
|
Part 3 -
Fencing General
|
|
3.1(a)
|
Erect a fence
which is not a sufficient or permissible fence
|
100
|
|
3.1(b)
|
Alter or fail to
maintain a fence to satisfy requirements of sufficient or permissible fence
|
100
|
|
3.3
|
Erect without
approval a fence higher than 1 m within the front setback which is not an
open fence
|
100
|
|
3.4
|
Erect without
approval a fence which is not a permissible alternative fence on a secondary
frontage
|
100
|
|
3.5
|
Erect a fence
adjacent to an access point without a truncation
|
100
|
|
3.7
|
Failure to
maintain a fence in good condition/prevent fence becoming dangerous,
dilapidated, unsightly
|
100
|
|
3.8
|
Construct a
barbed wire fence on rural property wire not furthermost from public place
or reserve
|
100
|
|
3.9
|
Use broken
glass, barbed or razor wire, spiked or jagged projections in fence
construction without approval
|
100
|
|
3.10(a)
|
Erect or
maintain a gate in a fence not opening into the property
|
100
|
|
3.10(b)
|
Erect or
maintain a gate in a fence not sliding parallel and on inside of fence
|
100
|
|
3.10(c)
|
Erect or
maintain a gate in a fence without approval
|
100
|
|
3.11
|
Erect or
maintain a fence/obstruction temporary or permanent across right of way,
public access way or road without consent
|
100
|
|
Part 4 -
Graffiti
|
|
|
4.1(1)
|
Erect masonry
fence/wall adjacent public place or reserve or public place without treating
with non -sacrificial graffiti protection
|
100
|
|
4.2(2)
|
Failure to treat
fence/wall adjacent public place or reserve without treating with
non-sacrificial graffiti protection where required
|
100
|
|
4.3(3)
|
Failure to apply
non sacrificial graffiti protection to manufactures specification
|
100
|
|
4.2
|
Failure to affix
approved non sacrificial graffiti identification plate to treated fence or
wall
|
100
|
|
Part 5 -
Estate Fences
|
|
|
5.1
|
Failure to
depict suburb name on estate boundary fence or estate entry statement
|
200
|
|
5.2(2)
|
Failure to
repair/replace damaged estate boundary fence with same or similar materials
as original fence
|
100
|
|
5.2(3)
|
Failure to treat
repaired/replaced fence/wall with non sacrificial graffiti protection
|
100
|
|
Part 6 -
Tennis Court Fencing
|
|
6.1(2)(a)
|
Erect or repair
a tennis court fence higher than 3.6m
|
100
|
|
6.1(2)(b)
|
Erect tennis
court fence less than 900mm from boundary of adjoining lot without submission
from adjoining owner
|
100
|
|
6.1(2)(c)
|
Erect or repair
chain link mesh fence higher than 3.6m not in accordance with manufacturers
specification
|
100
|
|
Part 7 -
Security and Flood Lighting
|
|
|
7.1(1)(a)
|
Erect or
maintain on private land a luminaire which spills 1 lux or more illumination
into adjacent land/building
|
100
|
|
7.1(1)(b)
|
Erect or
maintain security/floodlight higher than 3m or at greater angle than 70
degrees
|
100
|
|
7.1(1)(c)
|
Erect or
maintain security/floodlight so which effects amenity or is hazardous
|
100
|
|
7.4(a)
|
Permit tennis
court floodlights to remain lit after 10 p.m. or cause a nuisance
|
100
|
|
7.4(b)
|
Hire the tennis
court for tennis or other activity for commercial gain
|
100
|
|
Part 8 -
Electrified and Razor Wire Fences
|
|
|
8.1(1)(a)
|
Have and use an
electrified fence without a licence
|
100
|
|
8.1(1)(b)
|
Have and use a
razor wire fence without a licence
|
100
|
|
Part 9 -
Street Numbering
|
|
|
9.2(1)
|
Failure to
paint/affix/maintain either the current standard or current street number in
a conspicuous place on the building, fence/gate to street
|
100
|
|
9.3(1)
|
Place street
number so as to cause confusion or be misleading
|
100
|
|
Part 10 -
Vehicle Wrecking, Fibreglassing and Spray painting
|
|
|
10.1
|
Undertake or
permit commercial wrecking of vehicles without planning approval
|
100
|
|
10.2(a)
|
Store, wreck or
allow to remain on land any vehicle, part or body of vehicle or machinery in
state of disrepair unless screened from view
|
100
|
|
10.2(b)
|
Allow to remain
on any residential or special rural land more than one vehicle, part or body
of vehicle or machinery in state of disrepair
|
100
|
|
10.3(1)
|
Fail to dispose
of vehicle, parts or body of vehicle or machinery at place set aside or
approved place
|
100
|
|
10.3(2)
|
Destroy portion
of vehicle or machinery by fire so as to cause nuisance by smoke or odour
|
100
|
|
10.4
|
Use or
manufacture fibreglass or undertake spray painting without approval
|
100
|
|
Part 11 -
Private Swimming Pools
|
|
|
11.1(a)
|
Not allow
inspector to inspect swimming pool
|
100
|
|
11.1(b)
|
Failure to
remove impediment to reasonable and safe access
|
100
|
|
Part 12 - Sand
Drift and Litter Control
|
|
|
12.1
|
Failure to
prevent soil or dust from being released or escaping
|
100
|
|
12.2(1)
|
Allowing fill or
excavation to effect adjoining land
|
100
|
|
12.2(3)
|
Failure to
retain soil
|
100
|
|
12.3(1)
|
Failure to
provide a suitable litter receptacle or enclosure on a building site
|
200
|
|
12.3(2)
|
Failure to keep
wind blown building rubbish in receptacle or enclosure
|
100
|
|
Part 13 -
Driveways and Drainage
|
|
|
13.1(1)
|
Construct a
vehicle crossing at a gradient exceeding maximum allowable
|
100
|
|
13.1(2)
|
Construct a
driveway at a gradient exceeding maximum allowable
|
100
|
|
13.2
|
Allow storm
water to discharge onto adjoining land or road reserve
|
100
|
|
|
Other offences
not specified
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
|
CITY OF WANNEROO
PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2001
SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES
|
Nature of Fee
|
Clause No.
|
Fee
|
|
Application for
approval of variation to sufficient fence
|
3.2(3)
|
$100
|
|
Application for
approval of overheight front fence
|
3.3(1)
|
$100
|
|
Application for
approval of variation to secondary street fence
|
3.4
|
$100
|
|
Application for
approval of gates or fences across Right Of Way, Public Access Way or Road
Reserve
|
3.11
|
$100 annually
|
|
Application for
approval of estate fences except where approved as part of an application for
planning approval
|
5.1(1)
|
The greater of
$100 minimum or 0.23% of development cost
|
|
Application for
approval of an electrified fence or razor wire fence
|
8.1
|
$100
|
|
Application to
store or wreck more than one disused vehicle on a residential or special
rural lot
|
10.2(2)
|
$100
|
|
Application to
vary vehicle crossover or driveway gradients
|
13.1
|
$100
|
|
All other
applications required by the Private Property Local Law
|
|
$60
|
(ii) ADOPT
the amendments to the City of Wanneroo Health Local Law 1999 subject to it
being amended to read as follows:
HEALTH ACT 1911
CITY OF WANNEROO
HEALTH AMENDMENT LOCAL LAW 1999
Made by the Council of the City of Wanneroo under
section 342 of the Health Act 1911 in accordance with subdivision 2 of
Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995.
Citation
1 This
local law may be cited as the City of Wanneroo Health Amendment Local Law
2002.
Principal local laws
2 In
this local law, the City of Wanneroo Health Local Law 1999 made under
the Health Act 1911 and passed by the Council of the City of Wanneroo on
13 July 1999, and published in the Government Gazette on 27 August 1999,
is referred to as the principal local law.
Principal local laws amended
3 The principal local law is amended as
described in the following schedule:
|
Item
|
Clauses Affected
|
Description
|
|
1.
|
5.13
|
Delete clause 5.13
|
|
2.
|
5.14
|
Renumber clause 5.14 to 5.13
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Technical Services
Tenders
File Ref: 28139
File Name: AATenNo0.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan brindal Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by jan brindal Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Assessment and recommendation for Tender No 02239 -
Construction of Additions to the Wanneroo Sport and Social Club at 22
Crisafulli Avenue Wanneroo.
Background
At its meeting on the 25 September 2001 Council agreed that
the in principle additions proposed for the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club on
reserve 27744 (No22) Crisafulli Avenue Wanneroo be accepted, and authorised the
preparation of tender documentation and the calling of tenders for the
construction of these additions. (Report No CD11-09/01 refers).
Detail
Tenders Received
Public tenders for the proposed works closed on Wednesday,
6 March 2002 at 3.00pm with the receipt of the following submissions:
Emmat Pty Ltd (trading as Mike
Thorp-Builder) $139,200.00
Brodun Construction Pty. Ltd. $157,646.85
Dalcon Construction Pty. Ltd. $159,441.00
KBE Building Services Pty. Ltd. $160,000.00
Time Check Pty. T/as Reward
Construction $184,544.00
Longo Construction $188,300.00
Southdown Constructions Co. Pty.
Ltd. $208,051.00
Bullcreek Constructition Pty.
Ltd. $278,502.00
The value of the proposed work was estimated by the Club to
be $142,000.
The Tender Assessment Team comprising the Manager
Infrastructure Services, Co-ordinator Building Projects and Manager Leisure and
Cultural Services assessed the tenders in accordance with the following
evaluation criteria, along with risk assessment and reference checking:
a) price
for the Works offered;
b) tenderer’s
resources and;
c) tenderer’s
previous experience in carrying out work similar to the Works;
Tender key points to note were:
·
Tenders were initially invited for this project on 19 January
2002 (Tender No 02233), closing on Tuesday 5 February 2002.
·
During the public tender opening, a discussion ensued with a late
tenderer regarding the acceptance of his tender and when the 3pm tender closing
officially passed allowing the tender to be accepted. The tenderer claimed that
by their personal timekeeping it was still 3pm and as such their tender should
be accepted. An investigation later that day by the City subsequently verified
that the clock on the tender box appeared to have not received the regular
paged radio time accuracy signal and was running approximately one minute
thirty seconds fast, resulting in the tender box inadvertently being opened
earlier than the specified 3pm opening time.
·
The tender regulations clearly prohibit the acceptance of late
tenders, however given the status of the tender clock, a legal opinion was
sought that advised in part:
“……it seems prudent in this
case that the City re-tender in these circumstances as the tender process has
innocently been compromised because of the inaccuracy of the clock on the
tender box.”
·
In accordance with the legal advice, the five companies that had
submitted tenders (KBE Building Services, Brodun Construction, Southdown
Construction, Reward Construction and Mike Thorp-Builder) were formally advised
of the decision to recall tenders, provided with a copy of the new tender
documentation and invited to re-tender for the works.
·
The new tender (Tender No. 02239) was advertised on the 16
February 2002 closing on the 6 March 2002.
·
Eight tender submissions were received including new submissions
from each of the companies who had tendered previously for the works.
·
The lowest and conforming tender was submitted by Emmat Pty Ltd
T/as Mike Thorp-Builder.
Key Characteristics of the recommended Tenderer, Emmat
Pty Ltd T/as Mike Thorp-Builder:
·
Mike Thorp is a registered builder acting under Reg. No. 4076.
·
Mike Thorp is a member of the Wanneroo Sport and Social Club and
with the support of other contracting club members he has been able to submit
the lowest tender.
·
The firm’s tender breakdown information is consistent with the
prices as presented in the other submissions. The savings in the tender
received from Emmat Pty Ltd T/as Mike Thorp-Builder were in the areas of
painting, electrical and hydraulic trades.
·
Mike Thorp has not undertaken any work for the City and
concentrates his building activities mainly within the residential sector of
the building industry.
·
Mike Thorp essentially operates as a sole trader and is currently
completing three minor additions to existing residences.
Comment
The tender submitted by Emmat Pty Ltd T/as Mike
Thorp-Builder has been assessed and recommended for acceptance.
Works Programme
The following milestone dates are listed for the completion
of this project:
Council Approval Tue
9 April 2002
Award Contract Fri
12 April 2002
Contractor on site-commencement Mon
15 April 2002
Practical completion (50 day
contract period) Fri 24 June 2002
Practical Completion &
Facility Commissioning Mon 1 July 2002
Available to the Club Fri
5 July 2002
Statutory Compliance
Development Approval
|
Proposed Development:
|
ADDITIONS TO EXISTING
BOWLING CLUB
|
|
Property Details:
|
22 CRISTAFULLI AVENUE
WANNEROO WA 6065
|
|
Land Parcel(s) Details:
|
SWAN LOT 133
|
|
Owner(s) Details:
|
CROWN - VESTED CITY OF WANNEROO
|
As the 115m2 addition was seen to be consistent
with the proposed development of the existing building, no consultation and
advertising for public comment was undertaken by Approval Services.
Infrastructure Services was advised on the 5 November 2001
that approval was granted under the provisions of the City of Wanneroo District
Planning Scheme No2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The Approval to
Commence Development requires the development to be undertaken in accordance
with the submitted application and the enclosed sketch plans presented to
Council.
Building Licence Issues (Application Number: BA02/0211, File Number:)
The tender documentation was submitted to
Approval Services for its formal Building Licence Application processing. After
an initial assessment, a number of items are required to be actioned (submitted
or altered) before the application is approved. This
list of conditions calls for the applicant to comply with the requirements of
the other Government agencies and the Health and Building regulations, which
are the standard requirements expected for this type of commercial development.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Council elected to support this project in the 2001/2002
Budget and allocated $77,000 accordingly. Council Administration negotiated
with the Club to retain the $28,043 CSRFF grant and secured a commitment in
writing from the Club that it would meet any shortfall in project costs.
Funding and Breakdown of Project Cost
The following table identifies all costs associated with
the project.
|
Additions to
the Wanneroo Sport and Social Club Tender No. 02239
|
|
Description
|
Cost to Complete the Works
|
Funding
|
|
Project Funding -
Account No 2054
|
Municipal
|
$77,000
|
|
|
CSRFF Grant
|
$28,043
|
|
|
Club Contribution
|
$50,323
|
|
Architectural
Documentation – Scatena & Associates Architects ($8,150 + $1,450)
|
$9,600
|
|
|
Building Capital Works
Project Management
|
$3,066
|
|
|
Tender Advertisement
& Administration Costs
|
$3,500
|
|
|
Conforming Tender Sum
– Emmat Pty Ltd T/as Mike Thorp-Builder
|
$139,200
|
|
|
Total Project Cost
and Funding
|
$155,366
|
$155,366.
|
Before the contract is signed with Emmat Pty Ltd T/as Mike
Thorp-Builder, a cheque for the sum of $50,323 is required to be lodged with
City Administration by the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club to cover the short
fall in funding for this project.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:
1. DECLINES
to accept any tender received for Tender Number 02233 for the construction of
additions to the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club due to the malfunction of the
tender clock;
2. ENDORSES
the action taken in re-tendering for the construction of the Wanneroo Sports
and Social Club by the issue of Tender Number 02239;
3. RECEIVES
a contribution from the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club for the construction of
additions to the Wanneroo Sports Club and Social Club for the agreed sum of
$50,323 and SEEKS confirmation of deferment of the unclaimed CSRFF grant for the
sum of $28,043 until the 2002/2003 financial year; and
4. Subject to item 3 above ACCEPTS Tender Number
02239 from Emmat Pty Ltd, trading as Mike Thorp-Builder for the construction of
the Wanneroo Sports and Social Club Additions, on reserve 27744 (No22)
Crisafulli Avenue Wanneroo for the lump sum price of $139,200 in accordance
with the conditions of tendering.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: S02237T
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment: 1
File Name: AATen022.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Assessment and recommendation for Tender Number 02237 – The
Supply and Delivery of One (1) Road Sweeper.
Background
The City’s Road Sweeper, plant number 98763 is used by the
Engineering Maintenance Sub Unit to sweep sand and other debris from road
surfaces. Plant number 98763 was purchased in 1992 and has a replacement life
of ten years and is now due for replacement.
The City’s Plant Replacement Programme recognises that the
optimum replacement time for a Road Sweeper is 10 years. On this basis,
provision was made to replace plant number 98763 in the City’s 2001/2002 Plant
Replacement Programme.
Detail
Tender 02237 was advertised on 2 February 2002 and closed
on 19 February 2002.
The Tender Evaluation Team, comprising the Manager Building
and Fleet Maintenance Services, Operations Engineer, Engineering Operations
Supervisor, Fleet Maintenance Coordinator, Transport Officer and the City’s
Fleet Consultant, has evaluated the tenders in accordance with the following
assessment criteria as detailed in the tender document.
·
Price for the vehicles offered, trade in prices and whole of life
costings
·
Operational and mechanical evaluation; and
·
Delivery period
There were five tenders received for the supply and
delivery of a road sweeper with all tenders offering to trade the City’s
sweeper. The tender of E J & M Rosher did not include a signed “Form of Tender”
as required under the City’s tender conditions. E J & M Rosher’s tender is
therefore considered non-conforming and cannot be considered. E J & M
Rosher has been advised of its non-conformance.
The following table details the purchase and trade prices
offered by each tenderer. The tender specification called for separate prices
on a number of options. The purchase price shown includes the cost of those
options considered to be beneficial and cost effective and are detailed in Attachment
1.
|
Tenderer
|
Vehicle Type
|
Purchase Price
|
Trade Price
|
Net Changeover
|
|
MacDonald Johnston
Hino Chassis
|
770 Cyclone
|
$219,990
|
$5,000
|
$214,990
|
|
MacDonald Johnston
Hino Chassis
|
605LT
|
$234,230
|
$5,000
|
$229,230
|
|
Schwarze Industries
Isuzu Chassis
|
Schwarze 6500
|
$239,350
|
$25,000
|
$214,350
|
|
Schwarze Industries
Hino Chassis
|
Schwarze 6500
|
$254,350
|
$25,000
|
$229,350
|
The Tender Evaluation Team scored each conforming tender
against the established criteria and reported as follows:-
1. Price
offered, trade in prices and whole of life costings
The Schwarze 6500 mounted on an
Isuzu chassis was the cheapest both in terms of net changeover and whole of
life costings, closely followed by the MacDonald Johnston 770 Cyclone.
2. Operational
and mechanical maintenance evaluation
The City’s Fleet Consultant,
Marketing and Transport Consultancy provided scoring sheets of the most
critical operational and mechanical attributes to assist in this assessment.
The MacDonald Johnston 770 Cyclone scored highest, followed by the MacDonald
Johnson 605LT.
3. Delivery
period
The delivery times offered were:
|
Schwarze Industries (both models)
|
8 – 10 weeks
|
|
MacDonald Johnston – 605LT
|
6 – 8 weeks
|
|
MacDonald Johnston – 770 Cyclone
|
10 - 12 weeks
|
All delivery times offered are
acceptable to the City.
The Tender Evaluation Team scored each conforming tender
against the stated criteria. The overall rankings of the tenders based on a
weighted score is:
|
Ranking
|
Conforming Tender
|
|
1
|
MacDonald Johnston – 770 Cyclone
|
|
2
|
MacDonald Johnston – 605LT
|
|
3
|
Schwarze Industries – Schwarze 6500/Isuzu Chassis
|
|
4
|
Schwarze Industries – Schwarze 6500/Hino Chassis
|
The higher score of the MacDonald Johnston 770 Cyclone in
the operational and mechanical maintenance evaluation criteria resulted in it’s
ranking as the preferred machine.
Comment
Based on the overall rankings of the tenders it is
recommended that the tender from MacDonald Johnston Engineering Pty Ltd for the
supply and delivery of one (1) Road Sweeper be accepted on the basis of trading
the City’s existing Road Sweeper, plant number 98763 for a net changeover
figure of $214,990.
Statutory Compliance
Tenders have been invited and evaluated against the
selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act
and associated regulations.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Costs associated with accepting the recommended tender are
compared to the budget in the schedule shown on Attachment 1. The table also
details a number of items, which were requested to be priced as optional, and
are to be included with the road sweeper.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council ACCEPTS the tender from MacDonald
Johnston Engineering Pty. Ltd. for the supply and delivery of one 770 Cyclone
Road Sweeper on the basis of trading one existing Road Sweeper plant number
98763 at a net changeover cost of $214,990, as detailed in Tender 02237.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT 1
|
Tender Number 02237 The Supply
& Delivery of One (1) Road Sweeper and Trade/Outright Buy of an Existing
Road Sweeper
|
|
Tender
|
Budget
|
|
Supplier
Vehicle Description
|
Trade Plant #
|
Council Price
|
Trade
|
Changeover
|
Gross
|
Trade
|
Additional Funds
|
Total
|
Budget Excess/ Shortfall
|
Delivery
|
|
Schwarze
Industries Aust PL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schwarze A6500XL
|
98763
|
$220,600
|
$25,000
|
$195,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
8-10 Weeks
|
|
Isuzu Cab Chassis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure
Hose
|
|
$3,700
|
|
$3,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200kg crane
|
included
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retractable water
jet bar
|
|
$9,200
|
|
$9,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure
Water spray
|
included
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydraulic assisted
boom
|
|
$2,850
|
|
$2,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor/rec. of
engine speed
|
|
$3,000
|
|
$3,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare wheel/tyre
on carrier
|
no charge
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Cost Isuzu Cab/Chassis
|
|
$239,350
|
$25,000
|
$214,350
|
$280,000
|
$10,000
|
|
$270,000
|
$55,650
|
|
|
Hino Cab/Chassis
|
|
$15,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Cost Hino Cab/Chassis
|
|
$254,350
|
$25,000
|
$229,350
|
$280,000
|
$10,000
|
|
$270,000
|
$40,650
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald
Johnston Engineering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald
Johnston 605LT
|
98763
|
$215,310
|
$5,000
|
$210,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
6-8 Weeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure
Hose
|
|
$5,000
|
|
$5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200kg crane
|
|
$6,300
|
|
$6,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retractable water
jet bar
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure Water
spray
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydraulic
assisted boom
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor/rec. of
engine speed
|
|
$320
|
|
$320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare wheel/tyre
on carrier
|
|
$1,300
|
|
$1,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$234,230
|
$5,000
|
$229,230
|
$280,000
|
$10,000
|
|
$270,000
|
$40,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald
Johnston Engineering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MacDonald
Johnston 770 Cyclone
|
98763
|
$201,070
|
$5,000
|
$196,070
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-12 Weeks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure Hose
|
|
$5,000
|
|
$5,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200kg crane
|
|
$6,300
|
|
$6,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retractable water
jet bar
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High Pressure
Water spray
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hydraulic
assisted boom
|
|
$2,000
|
|
$2,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitor/rec. of
engine speed
|
|
$320
|
|
$320
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare wheel/tyre
on carrier
|
|
$1,300
|
|
$1,300
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$219,990
|
$5,000
|
$214,990
|
$280,000
|
$10,000
|
|
$270,000
|
$55,010
|
|
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: S02232T
File Name: AATheSup.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 28 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan Date 28 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by jan Date 28 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment: 1
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Assessment and recommendation of Tender No 02232 – The
Supply and Delivery of Eight Side Loading Refuse Collection Vehicles and
Trade/Outright Purchase of Existing Vehicles.
Background
The City’s fleet of side loading refuse vehicles are used
by the Environmental Waste Services Business Unit to pick up domestic waste in
240 and 120 litre mobile garbage bins from households within the Cities of
Wanneroo and Joondalup. Plant number 96592 was purchased in December 1995 and
plant numbers 96694, 96695, 96696, 96697, 96698, 96699 and 96700 were purchased
in October 1996.
The City’s Domestic Cart Refuse Collection Replacement
Programme recognises that the optimum replacement time for side loading refuse
vehicles is five years. The refuse trucks have exceeded their optimum replacement
time and maintenance expenditure is becoming high to keep them operational. On
this basis, provision was made to replace plant numbers 96592, 96694, 96695,
96696, 96697, 96698, 96699 and 96700 in the City’s 2001/2002 Domestic Carts
Refuse Collection Replacement Programme.
Detail
Tender No 02232 was advertised on 5 January 2002 and closed
on 30 January 2002.
The Tender Evaluation Team comprising the Manager Building
and Fleet Maintenance Services, Manager Environmental Waste Services, Fleet Maintenance
Coordinator, Supervisor Domestic and Recycling, Transport Officer and the
City’s Fleet Consultant, has evaluated the tenders in accordance with the
following assessment criteria as detailed in the tender document.
·
Price for the vehicles offered and trade in prices if applicable;
·
Whole of life costing;
·
Delivery programme; and
·
Vehicle demonstration and operation assessment
Five tender submissions were received at tender closing
with two tender submissions being for the supply of the compactor units only,
two of the tender submissions contained eight offers for the supply and
delivery of eight side loading refuse collection vehicles and trade of the
City’s existing vehicles and one tender submission for outright purchase of the
existing vehicles.
The tender by Major Motors offered an Isuzu FVZ1400
Automatic 6x4, which did not meet the tender specification of air bag
suspension. Major Motors did however include an option to upgrade to an Isuzu
FVY1400 Automatic which includes this suspension and was the model that has
been evaluated.
The tender evaluation team scored each conforming tender
against the selection criteria appearing in the tender document and reported as
follows:-
1. Price
for the vehicles offered and trade in prices if applicable
The following table details the
purchase and trade in prices offered by each tenderer.
|
Tenderer
|
Vehicle Type
|
Purchase Price
|
Trade Price
|
Net Changeover
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
Acco 2350G/250 6x4
MJE 23m3
|
$1,971,612
|
$250,940
|
$1,720,672
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
Acco 2350G/250 6x2
MJE 23m3
|
$1,980,492
|
$250,940
|
$1,729,552
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
Acco 2350G/250 6x4 Wastemaster 23m3
|
$2,053,040
|
$250,940
|
$1,802,100
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
Acco 2350G/250 6x2 Wastemaster 23m3
|
$2,061,920
|
$250,940
|
$1,810,980
|
|
Major Motors
|
Isuzu FVY 1400 6x4
MJE 23m3
|
$2,098,528
|
$181,818
|
$1,916,710
|
|
Major Motors
|
Isuzu FVD 950 6x2
MJE 23m3
|
$2,026,805
|
$181,818
|
$1,844,987
|
|
Major Motors
|
Isuzu FVY 1400 6x4
Wastemaster 23m3
|
$2,163,956
|
$181,818
|
$1,982,138
|
|
Major Motors
|
Isuzu FVD 950 6x2
Wastemaster 23m3
|
$2,092,233
|
$181,818
|
$1,910,415
|
|
Smith Broughton and Sons
|
Outright purchase of existing vehicles
|
|
$271,081
|
|
The tender submission by Skipper
Trucks to supply an Acco 2350G/250 with a 6x4 rear axle configuration fitted
with a MacDonald Johnston 23m3 compactor body offered the cheapest
purchase price, with Smith Broughton & Sons offering the best price for the
purchase of the existing vehicles.
2. Whole
of life costing
The City’s fleet consultant,
Marketing and Transport Consultancy, has provided whole of life costing for
each of the tender submissions received. The cheapest option in terms of whole
of life costs was again the offer of Skipper Trucks for an Acco 2350G/250 6x4
with a MacDonald Johnston 23m3 compactor body.
3. Delivery
programme
Skipper Trucks has advised that
delivery will take 16 to 20 weeks for the cab chassis plus the body builder’s
time. In the case of MacDonald Johnston Engineering the time required for the
body build would be 2 to 4 weeks and Wastemaster would require a 4 week body
build time.
Major Motors delivery period is
stated as 8 to 10 weeks, dependent on the body builder chosen. The City could
therefore expect delivery of the complete vehicle and compactor units from
Major Motors 10 to 12 weeks sooner than Skipper Trucks. This would have an
impact in terms of the additional cost of maintaining the old vehicles for the
extra delivery period required by Skipper Trucks, however this is outweighed by
the cheaper whole of life costing of the Skipper Trucks offer.
4. Vehicle
demonstration and operation assessment
In view of the purchase price
and whole of life cost difference between the Acco 2350G/250 cab chassis and
Isuzu cab chassis the tender evaluation team requested an Acco 2350G/250
demonstration unit be provided for assessment. Wastemaster and MacDonald Johnston
Engineering both made available for assessment an Acco 2350G/250 cab chassis
mounted with their respective bodies. The vehicles were tested on domestic
rubbish collection rounds within the City for a minimum of one week. Scoring
sheets were provided by the City’s Fleet Consultant to facilitate the
assessment based on key areas of operation and maintenance.
The assessment considered
operational and maintenance features of both vehicles, resulting in the Acco
2350G/250 with a MacDonald Johnston body scoring slightly higher.
The Tender Evaluation Team scored each conforming tender
against the stated criteria. The overall rankings of the tenders based on a
weighted score are:
|
Ranking
|
Conforming Tender
|
|
1
|
Skipper Trucks – Acco
2350G/250 6x4 with MacDonald Johnston 23m3 body
|
|
2
|
Skipper Trucks – Acco
2350G/250 6x2 with MacDonald Johnston 23m3 body
|
|
3
|
Skipper Trucks – Acco
2350G/250 6x4 with Wastemaster 23m3 body
|
|
4
|
Skipper Trucks – Acco
2350G/250 6x2 with Wastemaster 23m3 body
|
|
5
|
Major Motors – Isuzu
FVD 950 6x2 with MacDonald Johnston 23m3 body
|
|
6
|
Major Motors – Isuzu
FVY 1400 6x4 with MacDonald Johnston 23m3 body
|
|
7
|
Major Motors – Isuzu
FVD 950 6x2 with Wastemaster 23m3 body
|
|
8
|
Major Motors – Isuzu
FVY 1400 6x4 with Wastemaster 23m3 body
|
Comment
Based on the overall rankings of the tender submissions it
is recommended that the tender submitted by Skipper Trucks for the supply and
delivery of eight Side Loading Refuse Collection Vehicles be accepted for the
purchase price of $1,971,162. It is further recommended that the tender
submission by Smith Broughton and Sons Pty. Ltd. for the outright purchase of
the City’s existing vehicles, plant numbers 96592, 96694, 96695, 96696, 96697,
96698, 96699 and 96700 for $271,081 also be accepted.
A number of items included as options in the tender
specification have been assessed as cost effective and beneficial to the
operation of the vehicles. These items, as detailed below, have been included
in the recommended tender price of Skipper Trucks:
·
Air bag pressure monitor system calibrated to indicate when the
vehicle is carrying a full legal load on the rear axles;
·
Fire extinguisher;
·
Upgrade to a Mitsubishi rear view camera system as used on the
City’s current side loading collection vehicles.
In addition, the tender price allows for the supply of a
spare lifting arm mechanism to reduce downtime during preventative maintenance
and servicing operations
Statutory Compliance
Tenders have been invited and properly evaluated against
the selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government
Act and associated regulations.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Costs associated with accepting the recommended tender are
compared to the budget in Attachment 1, showing a budget surplus of
$99,469.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council: -
1.
ACCEPTS Tender No 02232 from Skipper Trucks for the supply and delivery
of eight (8) Acco 2350G/250 6x4 cab chassis fitted with MacDonald Johnston 23m3
side loading compactor bodies for the purchase price of $1,971,612 in
accordance with the conditions of tendering; and
2.
ACCEPTS Tender No 02232 from Smith Broughton and Sons Pty. Ltd. for the
outright purchase of the City’s eight (8) existing side loading refuse
vehicles, plant numbers, 96592, 96694, 96695, 96696, 96697, 96698, 96699 and
96700 for the sum of $271,081, in accordance with the conditions of tendering.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
|
|
ATTACHMENT 1
|
|
|
|
|
Tender
|
Budget
|
|
Supplier
Vehicle Description
|
Trade Plant #
|
Council Price
|
Trade
|
Changeover
|
Gross
|
Trade
|
Additional Funds
|
Total
|
Budget Excess/Shortfall
|
Delivery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acco2350G/250 6x4
|
96592
|
$245,364
|
$28,200
|
$217,164
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$7,836
|
16-20 weeks from
confirmation of tender acceptance plus body builders time. Body Builder -
2-4 weeks after receipt of cab chassis
|
|
with MacDonald
Johnston
|
96694
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
MKIV SL9423 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
|
96696
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
|
96697
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
|
96698
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
|
96699
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
|
96700
|
$245,364
|
$31,820
|
$213,544
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$11,456
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$1,962,912
|
$250,940
|
$1,711,972
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$8,700
|
|
$8,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$1,971,612
|
$250,940
|
$1,720,672
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
$79,328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acco2350G/250 6x2
|
96592
|
$246,474
|
$28,200
|
$218,274
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$6,726
|
16-20 weeks from
confirmation of tender acceptance plus body builders time. Body Builder -
2-4 weeks after receipt of cab chassis
|
|
with MacDonald
Johnston
|
96694
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
MKIV SL9423 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
|
96696
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
|
96697
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
|
96698
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
|
96699
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
|
96700
|
$246,474
|
$31,820
|
$214,654
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$10,346
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$1,971,792
|
$250,940
|
$1,720,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$8,700
|
|
$8,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$1,980,492
|
$250,940
|
$1,729,552
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
$70,448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acco2350G/250 6x4
|
96592
|
$256,630
|
$28,200
|
$228,430
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$3,430
|
16-20 weeks from
confirmation of tender acceptance plus body builders time. Body Builder - 4
weeks after receipt of cab chassis
|
|
with Wastemaster
|
96694
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
Superior Pak 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
|
96696
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
|
96697
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
|
96698
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
|
96699
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
|
96700
|
$256,630
|
$31,820
|
$224,810
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
$190
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,053,040
|
$250,940
|
$1,802,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$0
|
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,053,040
|
$250,940
|
$1,802,100
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$2,100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skipper Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acco2350G/250 6x2
|
96592
|
$257,740
|
$28,200
|
$229,540
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,540
|
16-20 weeks from
confirmation of tender acceptance plus body builders time. Body Builder - 4
weeks after receipt of cab chassis
|
|
with Wastemaster
|
96694
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
Superior Pak 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
|
96696
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
|
96697
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
|
96698
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
|
96699
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
|
96700
|
$257,740
|
$31,820
|
$225,920
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$920
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,061,920
|
$250,940
|
$1,810,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$0
|
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,061,920
|
$250,940
|
$1,810,980
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$10,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major Motors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isuzu FVY 1400
Automatic 6x4
|
96592
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
8-10 weeks from
order dependent upon body builders. Work in progress and our choice of body
builder
|
|
with MacDonald
Johnston
|
96694
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
MKIV SL9423 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
96696
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
96697
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
96698
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
96699
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
96700
|
$261,229
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,501.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,089,828
|
$181,818.16
|
$1,908,010.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$8,700
|
|
$8,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,098,528
|
$181,818
|
$1,916,710
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$116,710
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major Motors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isuzu FVD 950 6x2
|
96592
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
8-10 weeks from
order dependent upon body builders. Work in progress and our choice of body
builder
|
|
with MacDonald
Johnston
|
96694
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
MKIV SL9423 23M³
Body
|
96695
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
96696
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
96697
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
96698
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
96699
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
96700
|
$252,263
|
$22,727.27
|
$229,535.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$4,536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,018,105
|
$181,818.16
|
$1,836,286.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare arm
|
|
$8,700
|
|
$8,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,026,805
|
$181,818
|
$1,844,987
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$44,987
|
|
|
Major
Motors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isuzu
FVY 1400 Automatic 6x4
|
96592
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
8-10
weeks from order dependent upon body builders. Work in progress and our
choice of body builder
|
|
with
Wastemaster
|
96694
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
Superior
Pak 23M³ Body
|
96695
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
96696
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
96697
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
96698
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
96699
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
96700
|
$270,495
|
$22,727.27
|
$247,767.27
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$22,767
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,163,956
|
$181,818.16
|
$1,982,138.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare
arm
|
|
$0
|
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,163,956
|
$181,818
|
$1,982,138
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$182,138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Major
Motors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isuzu
FVD 950 6x2
|
96592
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
8-10
weeks from order dependent upon body builders. Work in progress and our
choice of body builder
|
|
with
Wastemaster
|
96694
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
Superior
Pak 23M³ Body
|
96695
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
96696
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
96697
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
96698
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
96699
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
96700
|
$261,529
|
$22,727.27
|
$238,801.83
|
$265,000
|
$40,000
|
|
$225,000
|
-$13,802
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
|
$2,092,233
|
$181,818.16
|
$1,910,414.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare
arm
|
|
$0
|
|
$0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$2,092,233
|
$181,818
|
$1,910,415
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
-$110,415
|
|
Outright
purch. of existing vehicles
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
Broughton & Sons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96592
|
|
$32,870
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96694
|
|
$35,877
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96695
|
|
$33,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96696
|
|
$33,570
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96697
|
|
$33,770
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96698
|
|
$33,570
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96699
|
|
$33,677
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96700
|
|
$33,977
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
$271,081
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recommendation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-20
weeks from confirmation of tender acceptance plus body builders time. Body
Builder - 2-4 weeks after receipt of cab chassis
|
|
Skipper
Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acco
2350G/250 6x4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
with
MacDonald Johnston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MKIV
SL9423 23M³ Body
|
|
$1,971,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smith
Broughton & Sons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase
of existing vehicles
|
|
|
$271,081
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Changeover
|
|
|
|
$1,700,531
|
$2,120,000
|
$320,000
|
|
$1,800,000
|
$99,469
|
|
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
Traffic
Management
File Ref: 08151
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment:1 Nil
File Name: BA200200.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by karen delves Date 21 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by karen delves Date 21 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To advise Council of the submissions for funding from the
2002/2003 Federal Blackspot Programme.
Background
The Federal Government, as part of its commitment to
maintain downward pressure on road trauma and its high cost to the Australian
community, has announced a new Federal Road Safety Black Spot Programme for
three years staring 1 July 2002. The current programme expires on 30 June 2002.
Submissions for the 2002/2003 Federal Blackspot Programme
were recently requested with the closing date advised as 15 March 2002. All
submissions are evaluated against the criteria set by Main Roads WA Blackspot
Program Development and Management Guidelines.
The Federal Blackspot Programme targets road locations
where crashes resulting in injury or death are occurring and aims to fund cost
effective, safety orientated projects by focusing on locations where the
highest safety benefits and crash reductions can be achieved.
The criteria for the Federal Blackspot Programme is based
on the following:
·
Crashes for the five (5) year period 1996 to 2000 inclusive
will be used for qualifying audits and BCR calculations.
·
A road length is defined as a section of road greater than
three (3) kilometers in length.
·
For road lengths the crash criteria is one (1) casualty crash
per kilometer per five (5) years.
·
For intersections, mid-block or short road sections
(<3kms), the crash criteria is three casualty crashes in one year, or three
casualty crashes in three years or four casualty crashes in four years or five
casualty crashes in five years.
The Federal Blackspot Program allocates 100% funding of the
successful project cost.
To assist with the preparation of submissions for Federal
Blackspot Funding, a data disk including potential eligible sites and Crash
Benefit Cost Analysis Software were supplied by Main Roads WA.
Detail
On the basis of the crash data supplied by Main Roads WA
City Administration proceeded with the investigation of eleven possible sites
that were considered appropriate for submission. On evaluation three sites met
all criteria and were subsequently submitted to Main Roads WA by City
Administration for 2002/2003 Federal Blackspot Program funding consideration.
A summary of the projects, are shown below:
|
MAJOR ROAD
|
INTERSECTING ROAD/SECTION
|
TREATMENT
|
BENEFIT COST RATIO (BCR)
|
BLACK SPOT FUNDING
|
|
Buckingham Drive
|
Wanneroo Road to
Hartman Drive
|
Median treatment
|
9.89
|
$ 50,000
|
|
Franklin/Lenore
Road
|
Trichet Road and
High Road
|
Right and left
turn slip lanes
|
8.77
|
$154,000
|
|
Ocean Reef Road
|
Lenore Road
|
Intersection
treatment
|
2.63
|
$142,000
|
Comment
All nominations will be assessed by the Federal Blackspot
Panel for endorsement in late May, 2002 and it is likely that the Minister for
Transport will announce the approved projects in early July 2002 to allow
finalisation of Local Government budgets.
It is therefore recommended that the projects listed above
for the 2002/2003 Federal Blackspot Programme be noted and included in the
draft four year Capital Works Budget for 2002/2003.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Approval projects receive full funding as part of the
Federal Blackspot Programme. The draft 2002/2003 Capital Works Budget will
reflect the details of the project submissions.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council NOTES the submission of the
following projects for consideration as part of the 2002/2003 State Blackspot
Program.
|
MAJOR ROAD
|
INTERSECTING
ROAD/SECTION
|
TREATMENT
|
BENEFIT COST RATIO
(BCR)
|
BLACK SPOT
FUNDING
|
|
Buckingham Drive
|
Wanneroo Road to
Hartman Drive
|
Median treatment
|
9.89
|
$ 50,000
|
|
Franklin/Lenore
Road
|
Trichet Road and
High Road
|
Shoulder widening,
right and left turn slip lanes
|
8.77
|
$154,000
|
|
Ocean Reef Road
|
Lenore Road
|
Intersection
treatment
|
2.63
|
$142,000
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 68046
File Name: AABelBou.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment: 1
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Consideration of parking restrictions in Bellerive
Boulevard, Madeley.
Background
Residents of Bellerive Boulevard Madeley have highlighted
to Ward Councillors and City Administration the problems of access they are
encountering when the Kingsway Sporting Complex is being used at various times
throughout the year.
Patrons of the Kingsway Sporting Complex park on both sides
of the street and only allow enough room for one directional flow of traffic.
The residents of the street claim that the carpark adjacent to the Cricket Club
is rarely full.
Detail
Bellerive Boulevard is wide enough to allow parking on the
eastern side of the road. Parking restrictions on the residential side (western
side) of Bellervie Boulevard will allow two way flow of traffic for both
residents and patrons of the Kingsway Sporting Complex. This will also allow
access to properties
Attachment 1 shows the proposed parking restrictions
of “No Stopping Road or Verge” and “No Stopping Road or Verge Saturday to
Sunday 8.00am to 6.00pm”.
Consultation
A letter box drop to all residents was undertaken in order
to inform them of what action was proposed to address their problem. It also
advised residents of the ramifications of the above signage, that they too, could
not park on the road or verge on the weekends.
Comment
The request made by the residents is a reasonable one in
that it protects their amenity in living across the street from a regional
sporting complex. At the time of writing the report, there has been no
objections to the parking restrictions shown on the plan. In fact, residents
have contacted City Administration seeking confirmation as to when the parking
prohibition signs are to be installed.
It is therefore recommended that Council approve the parking
restrictions of “No Stopping Road or Verge” and “No Stopping Road or Verge
Saturday to Sunday 8.00am to 6.00pm” as shown on Drawing No T1819 – 1 - 0 at Attachment
1.
Statutory Compliance
The Parking restrictions will comply with the Traffic Code 2000.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The cost of installation of the parking restriction signs
can be accommodated from the Operational Services Maintenance Budget.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
APPROVES the installation of parking restriction signs along Bellerive
Boulevard, Madeley as follows:
(a) “No
Stopping Road or Verge” signs at the intersections along Bellerive Boulevard as
shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No T 1819-1-0 at Attachment 1
(b) “No
Stopping Road or Verge Saturday to Sunday 8.00am to 6.00pm” signs on the
western side of Bellerive Boulevard as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No T
1819-1-0 at Attachment 1.
2. ADVISES residents accordingly of the
approved parking restrictions
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
Infrastructure
File Ref: 27050,
69976, 62067
File Name: EAPedAcc.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by jan Date 03 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by karen delves Date 21 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by karen delves Date 21 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 3
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To consider alternatives to the closure and improve safety
and security of the following pedestrian access ways:
1. Between Kempton Grove and Connelly Drive,
Clarkson.
2. Between Seabrook Grove and Ainsbury Parade,
Clarkson.
Background
A report addressing petitions for the closure and improve
safety and security of the two public access ways (PAW) in Clarkson was
considered by Council at its meeting held on 27 November 2001, (Attachment 1
Report No. PO17-11/01 refers). At this meeting the PAWS were referred to City
Administration to monitor and further investigate alternatives to improve
safety and security.
Detail
Both PAWS have been inspected to investigate alternatives
to closure and to improve safety and security with comments as follows:
1. PAW between Kempton Grove and Connolly Drive,
Clarkson
This PAW is of block length, is bounded on both sides by a
1.8m high fence and provides direct access from streets bounded by Aldersea
Circle and Brooks Pass to Connolly Drive, the bus service and the Clarkson High
School. A number of high school students use this access. Currently there is
no street lighting at the PAW – for location plans and details refer to Attachment
2.
Closure of this PAW would substantially reduce connectivity
in the area and would necessitate many local residents having to walk a
considerable extra distance to gain excess to Connolly Drive via Brooks Pass.
2. PAW between Seabrook Grove and Ainsbury Parade,
Clarkson
This PAW is of block length, is bounded on both sides by a
1.8m high fence and services an area that has only one road access by Rooke Way
on to Ainsbury Drive.
Clarkson Shopping Centre is located on the eastern side of
Ainsbury Parade and Clarkson Primary School is located just to the north east
of the shopping centre. For location plan and details refer to Attachment 3.
Pedestrian access to both the Clarkson Shopping Centre and
Clarkson Primary School of these would be restricted to Rooke Way for all
residents in this immediate area should this PAW be closed. It is also noted
that there are additional pedestrian access ways to the west of this location
into Cheney Vale and beyond, all of which would be of little further use if
this particular PAW to the area is closed. As with the Kempton Grove PAW, this
PAW also needs to be retained.
Comment
It is assumed and most likely that the antisocial behaviour
occurring at this location occurs during the hours of darkness and that the
provision of additional street lighting could greatly reduce this occurrence.
The following street lighting proposal would need to be implemented to improve
the safety and security of the PAW at night:
1. PAW between Kempton Grove and Connolly Drive
Clarkson (Attachment 2)
·
Install a new 6.5m steel standard pole 80W MV Luminare opposite
the northern boundary of the PAW on Kempton Avenue.
·
Install a new 80W MV luminare on the existing concrete power pole
opposite the northern boundary of the PAW on Connolly Drive.
2. PAW between Seabrook Grove and Ainsbury Parade,
Clarkson. (Attachment 3)
·
Install a new 6.5m steel standard pole with 80W MV luminare
opposite the southern boundary of the PAW on Seabrook Grove.
·
Install a new 6.5m steel standard pole with 80W MV luminare
opposite the boundary of House Nos 15 and 17 with a shield to stop light
reflecting back into those properties.
·
It is noted there is an existing street light 150W HPS luminare
on a 10.5m steel standard pole at the eastern end of this PAW which lights up
the roundabout.
It is also suggested that the City’s Security Patrols and
Rangers be informed of problems at both locations and schedule regular visits
to this area to monitor anti social behaviour.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
The proposed street lighting works are in accordance with
the City’s strategic direction to improve safety and security within the
community
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Western Power has been requested to provide quotations for
lighting upgrades at each location. It is estimated that $4,000 be allocated
to the Kempton Grove/Connolly Drive PAW and $2,000 to the Seabrooke/Ainsbury
Parade PAW.
An amount of $30,000 was approved in the 2001/2002 Capital
Works Program for a Public Access Way Upgrade Program and to date no works have
been implemented. Funds are therefore available from Project No 2522 to
implement these street lighting works.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip – This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
APPROVES the proposed street lighting upgrades at both the Kempton
Grove/Connolly Drive and Seabrook Grove/Ainsbury Parade public access ways at
an estimated cost of $6,000, with the works to be funded from Project No 2522 –
Public Access Way Upgrade Program
2.
ADVISE the petitioners of the action being taken.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT
1
PD17-11/01 Requested Closure Of Pedestrian Access Way Between Kempton Grove And
Connolly Drive, Clarkson.
File Ref: 69976,
62067
Responsible Officer: Acting
Director Planning & Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 1
Issue
Consideration of a request for the closure of the Pedestrian
Access Way.
Background
A petition containing 23 signatures calling for the
permanent closure of the pedestrian access way (PAW) between Kempton Grove and
Connolly Drive, in Clarkson was submitted to the Council meeting held on 1 May
2001. The petition was submitted on the grounds of alleged incidents of
anti-social behaviour that were said to take place in or be facilitated by the
PAW.
Detail
The PAW between Kempton Grove and Connolly Drive leads
directly to the Clarkson Community High School and a bus stop along the
Connolly Drive bus route.
The petition arranged by the owner of one of the properties
that adjoin the PAW cites incidents of unruly behaviour, offensive language,
drug taking, damage and graffiti to fences, entry and theft from property and vehicles
and improper use of the PAW by motorcycles. The 23 signatories to the petition
represent 15 households out of the 97 households in the 5 streets in the
immediate vicinity of the PAW.
Consultation
The Western Australian Police Department and the City’s
Ranger Services and Safer Citizens Unit were requested to provide statistics on
the incidents reported to them.
The Police Department advised that between January 2000 and
June 2001, there were 2 incidents of offenders being on premises, 2 alarm call
outs and 1 motor vehicle theft in the surrounding streets. The Police report
states that a direct link between these incidents and the PAW was not
established. The City’s Ranger Services and Safer Citizens Safety Officers
advised that there have been no incidents reported.
The Education Department has expressed the view that the
PAW should remain open for the benefit of the high school students.
The Transport arm of the Department for Planning and
Infrastructure (DPI) strongly opposes closure on the grounds that the PAW is of
strategic importance to the local pedestrian network. It services bus stops
along Connolly Drive and the High School and closure would result in a
considerably longer journey for the users of these facilities.
The owners of the properties that adjoin the PAW were
advised of the need for them to grant an easement to protect an existing sewer
line, and because of the restrictions the easement would place on use of the
land they have opted not to purchase the PAW.
Having regard for the above, the City has not undertaken
public consultation in the form of on site signs, newspaper notices and direct
mail to the surrounding households. If closure action is to proceed and a
submission made to the Department of Land Administration (DOLA) the City will
first have to undertake this public consultation and inform the Minister for
Lands of the outcome.
Comment
The PAW represents the most direct route to the Clarkson
Community High School for the 91 households shown within the border on the
Attachment, and for other households west of Aldersea Circle. This factor forms
the basis of the DPI objection to the requested closure.
Statutory Compliance
It is a core requirement of DOLA’s policy that the land
within a closed PAW is to be purchased and amalgamated into adjoining
properties, or reserved and vested in an appropriate authority for public
utility purposes.
The property owners adjoining this PAW have declined to buy
the land because of the restrictions placed on it by a sewer easement. Given
the requirement of DPI for the PAW to remain open it is to be assumed that the
Water Corporation would not be prepared to take on a management role for
utility purposes.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Council’s adopted Pedestrian Accessway Planning Policy
applies to this application as follows:
Access to community facilities and services.
The policy states that generally closure should not be
supported where a PAW leads directly to a school and public transport route.
Anti-social behaviour considerations related to the PAW
The incidents reported are consistent with the factors
considered in the policy. It has been suggested that the perpetrators of these
incidents are in the main drawn from the primary group that uses the PAW that
is, students of the high school.
Access for disabled and seniors
There are no institutions or community facilities that
cater for persons in these groups within the vicinity of the PAW.
Availability of alternative access routes
The policy states that closure of a PAW should only be
supported where a viable alternative access route is available.
There are two alternative routes to the PAW that provide
access to the high school and bus stop on Connolly Drive, but both are
considered not to be viable alternatives.
The route north along Pitchford Glade then south down
Connolly Drive, when measured from the ends of the PAW involves an extra
distance of 570 metres for a one way journey over the PAW distance.
The route west along Pitchford Glade, south along Aldersea
Circle then east along Haskell Gardens to Connolly Drive, involves an extra
distance of 1100 metres for a one way journey.
Importance of the PAW to the pathway system and the
Wanneroo Bike Plan
The PAW does connect the local path system to Connolly
Drive and the bike route along Walyunga Boulevard to the east.
Alternatives to closure of the PAW.
The PAW is the standard 4 metres wide and the properties
that adjoin it have constructed dwellings that prevent the widening of it for
landscaping or other remedial treatment works. The street lighting could be
brought marginally close to either end but this would incur some cost.
Financial Implications
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority.
Recommendation
That Council:
1. DISCONTINUES
closure action in respect to the pedestrian access way between Kempton Grove
and Connolly Drive, Clarkson.
2. ADVISES
the petitioners of the reasons for this decision.
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 38757
File Name: EAProPro.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachment: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
This report considers the allocation of funds in the City’s
Capital Works construction programme for the progressive sealing of limestone
roads within the City on a priority basis.
Background
There are approximately 20 kilometres of unsealed roads
within the City, with most if not all of these roads located within the
north-eastern quadrant of the City’s boundaries. These roads consists of old
informal limestone access tracks developed over the years through to limestone
roads provided for rural property and/or business access.
There have been increasing demand from rural property
owners for the sealing of the limestone roads that provide access to their
properties. These requests are primarily being made as a result of the continual
deterioration of the roads over winter periods and/or dust related issues. As
these roads do not carry high volumes of traffic, sealing of these roads has
not been routinely considered in the City’s past annual Capital Works Budgets.
The priority to seal these roads will continue to be low and it will be
difficult to justify the allocation of funds for this purpose. The City does
however perform general maintenance annually on these roads.
Detail
The following table lists all unsealed roads within the
City which provide vehicular access to rural residential properties and/or
businesses. Only limestone roads which provide access to developed rural
properties are considered in this report. Where the road terminates in a dead
end, then the length of road shown in the table only reflects the section of
the road necessary to provide vehicular access to an existing access driveway
of the developed lot.
|
LIMESTONE
STANDARD ROAD PAVEMENTS
|
|
Road Name
|
Suburb
|
Approx. length of unsealed road (m)
|
Traffic Volume (AWT)
|
% Commercial Content
|
|
Spence Road
|
Pinjar
|
420
|
28
|
12
|
|
Chitty Road
|
Pinjar
|
130
|
22
|
14
|
|
Anderson Road
|
Pinjar
|
1300
|
Not counted
|
|
|
Nisa Road
|
Pinjar
|
3000
|
Not counted
|
|
|
Kiln Road
|
Nowergup
|
130
|
25
|
2
|
|
Dunstan Road
|
Nowergup
|
500
|
32
|
13
|
|
Adams Road
|
Mariginiup
|
120
|
44
|
7
|
|
Mariginiup Road
|
Mariginiup
|
140
|
67
|
9
|
|
Rousset Road
|
Mariginiup
|
220
|
Not counted
|
|
|
Rowley Place
|
Mariginiup
|
260
|
28
|
10
|
|
Kiro Street
|
Carabooda
|
220
|
16
|
4
|
|
Taronga Place
|
Carabooda
|
120
|
42
|
11
|
|
Reinhold Place
|
Carabooda
|
140
|
65
|
1
|
Nisa Road, Anderson Road, Rousset Road and Mariginiup Road
will not be considered in this proposed ‘Limestone Road Sealing Program’.
Nisa and Anderson Roads are both located within the
Ministry for Planning and the Water & Rivers Commission’s, Gnangara Land
Use and Water Management Conservation area. The properties located within this
area will eventually be acquired by the government for the protection of the
Lake Pinjar wetlands and the Gnangara Mound underground water resource. These
roads will continue to be maintained by the City at its current standards.
The construction and extension of Rousset Road will be
considered together with other major roads once the road widening and land
acquisitions for this road are finalised. The extension of Rousset Road will
include the unsealed section of the road that serves an existing access
approximately 220 metres from the end of the sealed section of the road.
The upgrading and sealing of the section of Mariginiup Road
is the subject of subdivisional conditions imposed on the owners of the abutting
land subdivisions.
Comment
The remainder of the unsealed roads listed above form the
proposed sealing program. The construction costs associated with the sealing of
each of the roads were estimated and measured against the following weighted
criteria :-
1. Historical maintenance requirements - 35%
2. Existing condition rating -
35%
3. Traffic Volume Count -
15%
4. Percentage Commercial Content - 15%
The following table reflects the results of the proposed
program listed by priority.
|
PROPOSED LIMESTONE ROAD SEALING PROGRAM
|
|
|
Road Name
|
Suburb
|
Estimated Cost to upgrade and seal
|
Road Length (m)
|
Priority Rating
|
|
|
Adams Road
|
Mariginiup
|
$65,400
|
120
|
1
|
|
|
Reinhold Place
|
Carabooda
|
$76,300
|
140
|
2
|
|
|
Taronga Place
|
Carabooda
|
$55,200
|
120
|
3
|
|
|
Chitty Road
|
Pinjar
|
$59,800
|
130
|
4
|
|
|
Kiln Road
|
Nowergup
|
$70,900
|
130
|
5
|
|
|
Rowley Place
|
Mariginiup
|
$141,500
|
260
|
6
|
|
|
Kiro Street
|
Carabooda
|
$101,100
|
220
|
7
|
|
|
Dunstan Road
|
Nowergup
|
$272,000
|
500
|
8
|
|
|
Spence Road
|
Pinjar
|
$200,100
|
420
|
9
|
|
|
Total Cost of the Programme
|
$1,042,300
|
2,040 m
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is noted that the estimated costs tabled above are based
on order of cost estimates and are subject to change during the detailed design
stage as there may be other factors to be considered, such as the road
geometry, pavement composition and widening. It does however, provide an
indication of the magnitude of costs involved in the programme. Roads to be
promoted for consideration by Council in each relevant Draft Capital Works
Budget will need to be reviewed in a more detail for budget purposes.
It should be noted that a recent paper written by Dr Penny
Burns and Dr Jeff Roorda of AMQ International and published with WALGA’s
‘Report on Local Government Road Assets and Expenditure 1999-2000’ indicated
that sealing of rural roads as opposed to maintaining gravel roads may in fact
increase the cost to a Council over the lifetime of a pavement. The report
indicates that the average annual unit cost to maintain gravel roads is
approximately $1,400/km/year and an average annual unit cost to construct and maintain
a sealed road is approximately $5,500/km/year. This results in a net increase
in the average annual unit cost of $4,100 per km over the life of the
pavement.
In the case of the City’s unsealed roads, these are
generally limestone roads which require a higher standard of maintenance. The
cost to the City to regrade the roads in the ten sites listed above would
average $1,500/site/year, or a total of $13,500 per year for all the sites.
The cost of a bitumen sealed surface is approximately $52.00/m
for a 6.0 metre wide sealed road with an effective life of 15 years. For the
total road length of 2,040 metres and over the life of the pavement, the cost
of the bitumen seal equates to approximately $7,072 per year excluding any
maintenance costs associated with a sealed road.
Therefore, it would appear that there would be benefits in
this instance to seal the limestone roads in question. However, it should be
noted that regrading of the limestone roads has not been conducted annually.
The maintenance on these roads has only been attended to as and when residents
and/or motorists forward such requests for the City’s attention. This
obviously does not reflect a good level of service on the City’s part. Sealed
roads within the City are less likely to require annual or regular maintenance
and provide a level of service that motorist and residents are much more
comfortable with.
Unless the City commits to a programme and allocates funds
within its annual Capital Works Budget to progressively seal these roads, they
will not be considered as a high priority in the Road Construction Program.
The City’s Operational Services Unit is currently
investigating the use of a product known as ‘Kalfoss’ utilised for
chemical stabilisation of limestone roads. This process has been used, and is
currently being monitored, on a residential street in the Shire of Coorow. The
road base material in this street is natural coastal marl and has similar
calcium carbonate characteristics as the limestone material used by the City
for road pavements. There is a strong potential for savings to be made on the
maintenance and upgrading of limestone roads with the use of this chemical to
stabililise limestone roads. The investigation is in the early stages and is
subject to further evaluation with officers from the Shire of Coorow and the
chemical supplier before a recommendation can be made on funding a trial
section of limestone road in the City.
The used of ‘Kalfoss’ may be a product, which can
be utilised instead of bitumen seal. If deemed successful and cost effective,
the use of bitumen seal in the programme will be reviewed.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Implementation of a program for the sealing of limestone
roads will require a reconsideration of funding priorities in the Four Year
Capital Works Program
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council Considers the allocation of funds, on an
annual basis in the Four Year Capital Works Budget, for the implementation of
the Limestone Road Sealing Programme on a priority basis as outlined below:
|
PROPOSED LIMESTONE ROAD SEALING PROGRAMME
|
|
Road Name
|
Suburb
|
Priority Rating
|
|
Adams Road
|
Mariginiup
|
1
|
|
Reinhold Place
|
Carabooda
|
2
|
|
Taronga Place
|
Carabooda
|
3
|
|
Chitty Road
|
Pinjar
|
4
|
|
Kiln Road
|
Nowergup
|
5
|
|
Rowley Place
|
Mariginiup
|
6
|
|
Kiro Street
|
Carabooda
|
7
|
|
Dunstan Road
|
Nowergup
|
8
|
|
Spence Road
|
Pinjar
|
9
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Funding and
Budget
File Ref: 69947
File Name: FAOrmPar.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 03 April 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan Date 03 April 2002
Level 1 Approval by jan Date 03 April 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To seek Council approval for the relocation of the
playground equipment in Ormiston Park, Clarkson.
Background
At the Council meeting of 20 March 2001, a petition of 197
signatures was received from residents requesting that the City refurbish and
grass Ormiston Park. Council resolved at this meeting as follows:
“That Council CONSIDERS the
redevelopment of Ormiston Park, Clarkson in accordance with the final adopted
report and recommendations for the Policy and Information Plan for Upgrading
Distributor Roads and Unirrigated Parks (Hames Sharley 2001).”
Detail
In August 2001 a questionnaire was sent to residents living
within 400 metres of Ormiston Park seeking their comments on the relocation of
playground equipment on this Park. Two locations were suggested as outlined in Attachment
1. A total of 19 responses supported Location 1 (Trephina Mews), while 20
responses supported Location 2.
At its meeting on 27 November 2001, Council resolved to
receive further reports on conceptual treatments, costs and programs for the
development of a number of parks including Ormiston Park. A concept plan for
Ormiston Park was prepared with the proposed new location for the play
equipment being in accordance with Location 2. This location provided more
space to expand the playground in the future and offered a flatter site. This
concept plan, as shown on Attachment 2 was distributed on 8 February to
residents within 400m of the park for review and comments by 22 February 2002.
The results from the questionnaire for the redevelopment
concept from Ormiston Park indicated no objections to the proposed new location
of the playground equipment.
Consultation
The residents within 400m of Ormiston Park have been given
the opportunity on two separate occasions to comment on the proposed relocation
of the playground equipment.
Comment
A report on the proposed treatments, costs and programs for
the development of Shamrock Park, Two Rocks, Ormiston Park, Clarkson, Taywood
Park, Wanneroo and Nanatee Park, Wanneroo will be presented to Council on 30
April 2002. An amount of $114,000 remains in the Passive Park Development
Program Stage 1 Project, which may only be sufficient to fund the development
of one of these parks. The relocation of the playground equipment at Ormiston
Park has been the subject of a 197 signature petition and there has been
continuing concern about the existing equipment. In view of this community
concern, the early relocation of the playground equipment is supported. The
estimated cost of relocating the playground equipment and providing a soft fall
area is $7,000.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
One of Council’s key strategies is to support safe and
secure communities. The relocation of the playground will assist in resolving
the feeling the community in the area is experiencing in relation to the safety
of their children playing in the park.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Funds for the relocation of the playground equipment have
not been allocated in the 2001/2002 Budget and therefore will need to be
sourced from existing 2001/2002 Capital Budget savings.
An amount of $17,000 was approved in the 2001/2002 Budget
for the replacement of playground equipment for the Hainsworth Pre Primary. As
the Hainsworth Leisure Centre is subject to a redevelopment proposal, the
expenditure of funds on the playground equipment will not proceed this year.
The reallocation of $7,000 from Project No 2511 Hainsworth Pre Primary
playground equipment to fund the relocation of the equipment at Ormiston Park
is supported.
Voting Requirements
Absolute Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. DOES
NOT PROCEED with the replacement of playground equipment at the Hainsworth Pre
Primary, Girrawheen at this time due to the proposed redevelopment of the
Hainsworth Leisure Centre.
2. LISTS
the replacement of playground equipment at the Hainsworth Pre Primary,
Girrawheen for consideration in the draft 2002/2003 Capital Works Budget.
3. PURSUANT
to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act (1995) AUTHORISE by ABSOLUTE
MAJORITY the expenditure of $7,000 for the relocation of playground equipment
at Ormiston Park to the preferred location north of the Ormiston Gardens Cul de
Sac.
4. NOTES
that the costs associated with the Ormiston Park playground equipment
relocation are to be funded from budget savings giving rise to the following
budget amendment:
|
COST CODE
|
FROM
|
TO
|
DESCRIPTION
|
|
Project
No 2511
|
$7,000
|
|
Hainsworth
Pre Primary Playground Equipment
|
|
Project
No 2541
|
|
$7,000
|
Ormiston
Park Playground Equipment Relocation
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 08559
Responsible Officer: Director,
Technical Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
File Name: FAROATOR.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by jan Date 03 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by jan Date 26 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by jan Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by jan brindal Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Jhosie Moyle Date 25 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Budget reallocation to utilise savings from Project Number
1159 – Caffagio Crescent & Senario Drive to accommodate a shortfall in
funding for the Rangeview Road Reconstruction Project as part of the Roads to
Recovery Programme.
Background
The City received funds under the Federal Government Roads
to Recovery Programme with these funds allocated to three projects as part of
the 2001/2002 Capital Works Budget. Major works for one of these projects
(Project number 1159 – Construction of Caffagio Crescent & Senario Drive)
are complete and unexpended funds are available for reallocation to other road
projects in accordance with the guidelines for the Roads to Recovery Program.
Detail
Funds received under the Roads to Recovery Programme were
allocated to the following projects in the 2001/2002 Capital Works Budget:
|
Project Number
|
Description
|
Funds
|
|
1159
|
Caffagio Crescent & Senario Drive – Road Construction
|
$377,331
|
|
2128
|
Franklin Road – Shoulder Construction
|
$320,000
|
|
1213
|
Rangeview Road – Road Upgrade
|
$234,669
|
These funds were allocated based on preliminary cost
estimates prepared during the budget formulation process for the 2001/2002
budget. However, during construction of Project Number 1159 - Caffagio Crescent
& Senario Drive, the scope of works was reviewed resulting in a reduction
of the extent of brick paving and landscaping on the northern side of Caffagio
Crescent and on the eastern side of Senario Drive. Major works associated with
this project have now been completed and surplus funds in the order of
$100,000 remain available for use in other eligible projects. In order to fully
utilise these funds provided under the Roads to Recovery Programme during the
current financial year, it is necessary to reallocate surplus funds to other
projects proposed for completion prior to 30 June 2002.
Works for Project Number 2128 - Franklin Road Shoulder
Construction are programmed to commence during the second week of April and a
detailed construction estimate is currently being prepared.
Road upgrading works for Rangeview Road are currently being
designed and a preliminary design has indicated that these works will cost in
the order of $300,000. Since only $234,669 is available in Project Number 1213
for these works, there is a shortfall of $65,000. The principal reason for the
budget shortfall is that recent pavement testing has revealed the existing
pavement is extremely thin and full depth reconstruction over the length of the
project is required to address this deficiency. Initially it was only proposed
to widen Rangeview Road and provide for an asphalt overlay. In addition, there
is now a requirement the install traffic islands and increase the width of the
pavement to accommodate these treatments and upgrade the street lighting.
The scope of works for Project Number 2129 – Road
Resurfacing Programme is currently being investigated and the possibility
exists to expand the extent of resurfacing works with any unexpected funds from
the 2001/2002 Roads to Recovery Programme grant allocation. Detailed cost
estimates are being prepared and will be available for review during April
2002. It is therefore proposed that $65,000 be reallocated from Project Number
1159 to Project Number 1213 and that the remaining $35,000 be reconsidered for
reallocation after cost estimates for the Franklin Road shoulder construction
and road resurfacing program projects are finalised.
Amendments to the Works Schedule reported to the Federal
Department of Transport will be made accordingly after Council considers this
budget amendment.
Comment
Project No’s 1159 (Caffagio Crescent and Senario Drive) and
1213 (Rangeview Road) are funded from the Roads to Recovery Programme and it is
therefore appropriate to reallocate funds to the value of $65,000 from Project
Number 1159 to Project Number 1213 so that the full scope of works in Rangeview
Road can be completed.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
This report recommends the reallocation of funds between
approved projects as part of the Roads to Recovery Programme and does not
require the injection of additional funds to complete these projects.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. NOTES
that the change in scope of works for the Rangeview Road Upgrade Project
resulted in an estimated shortfall in funding of $65,000 for this Roads to
Recovery Programme approved project.
2. NOTES
that the shortfall in funding from the Rangeview Road Upgrade Project is to be
funded from the Roads to Recovery Programme through budget savings on roadworks
associated with the Caffagio Crescent and Senario Drive Road Construction
Project, giving rise to the following budget amendment:
|
Project No
|
From
|
To
|
Description
|
|
1159
|
$65,000
|
|
Caffagio Crescent and Senario Drive
|
|
1213
|
|
$65,000
|
Rangeview Road
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
Corporate Services
File Ref: 19882
File Name: BAWarofP.doc This line will not be
printed Please do NOT delete
Level 4 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by mike cole Date 22 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by mike cole Date 22 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Corporate Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Presentation to the Council of a list of accounts paid for
the month of February 2002, 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 a Summary of Accounts paid in February
2002:-
|
Funds
|
Vouchers
|
Amount
|
|
City of Wanneroo -
Director Corporate Services Advance Account
Cheque Numbers
EFT Document Numbers
|
23071 – 23833
50000217 -
50000243
|
$3,387,045.37
|
|
City of Wanneroo – Municipal Account
|
000158 – 000160
|
$4,403,038.54
|
At the
close of February 2002 outstanding creditors amounted to $990,870.57.
Consultation
Nil.
Comment
The list of cheques and the end of month total of
outstanding creditors for the month of February 2002 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
Nil.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Financial Implications
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council RECEIVES the list of cheques drawn
for the month of February 2002, as summarised and listed below:-
|
Funds
|
Vouchers
|
Amount
|
|
City of Wanneroo -
Director Corporate Services Advance Account
Cheque Numbers
EFT Document Numbers
|
23071 –
23833
50000217
- 50000243
|
$3,387,045.37
|
|
City of Wanneroo – Municipal Account
|
000158 –
000160
|
$4,403,038.54
|
|
Warrant
of Payments for the Month of February 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City
of Wanneroo - Director Corporate Services Advance Account
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheque
No
|
Cheque
Date
|
Vendor
Name
|
Amount
|
Details
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23071
|
01-Feb-02
|
INDRA GEIDANS
|
1,500.00
|
LIVE MURAL ART PROJECT
|
|
23072
|
01-Feb-02
|
JEBEDIAH PTY LTD
|
6,875.00
|
JEBEDIAH LIVE 09/02/01
WANNEROO SHOWGROUNDS
|
|
23073
|
01-Feb-02
|
LES MURGATROYD
|
240.00
|
FIREBREAK- FUTURE
EXTENSION -OCEAN REEF/GNANGARA
|
|
23074
|
01-Feb-02
|
STIRLING CONCRETE PTY
LTD
|
7,890.95
|
INSTALL FOOTPATH ON
WANNEROO RD
|
|
23075
|
01-Feb-02
|
INDRA GEIDANS
|
1,650.00
|
LIVE MURAL ART PROJECT
|
|
23076
|
05-Feb-02
|
HIDES GROUP
|
9,982.50
|
EVALUATION OF SAFER
CITIZENS PROGRAM
|
|
23077
|
07-Feb-02
|
LEE GEORGE
|
1,752.32
|
PAYROLL
|
|
23078
|
07-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP COURT
|
6,797.95
|
79 SUMMONS
|
|
23079
|
07-Feb-02
|
NORTHERN SUBURBS
BAILIFF
|
313.48
|
POUNDAGE W/EX 346/2001
|
|
23080
|
07-Feb-02
|
OCKERBY REAL ESTATE
|
158.35
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23081
|
07-Feb-02
|
WHITE OAK HOME CARE
SERVICES P/L
|
199.93
|
HOME CARE SERVICES
|
|
23082
|
07-Feb-02
|
WHITFORD MARQUEE &
PARTY HIRE
|
1,674.64
|
MARQUEE & CHAIRS -
AUSTRALIA DAY
HIRE EQUIPMENT WENDY
MATHEWS CONCERT
|
|
23083
|
07-Feb-02
|
RAINSTORM WA PTY LTD
|
550.00
|
HYDROMULCHING
|
|
23084
|
07-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO CRICKET CLUB
|
2,500.00
|
1/2 THE AMOUNT FOR
STOREROOM ADDITIONS
|
|
23086
|
07-Feb-02
|
HAMES SHARLEY
|
8,792.70
|
MINDARIE COMMUNITY
CENTRE DEVELOPMENT
|
|
23087
|
07-Feb-02
|
GEARY SIGNS
|
510.84
|
THREE ROAD CLOSURE
SIGNS
|
|
23088
|
07-Feb-02
|
FESA
|
275.00
|
EMERGENCY MAN/SEMINAR
|
|
23089
|
07-Feb-02
|
KELYN TRAINING
SERVICES
|
800.00
|
WORKSITE TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT CPURSE 16/01/02
|
|
23090
|
07-Feb-02
|
BANDT GATTER &
ASSOCIATES
|
18,084.00
|
PROTOTYPE DIRECTORATE
PLAN WORKSHOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEVELOPMENT OF JOB
ROLES, PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGREEMENTS,
ACCOUNTABILITIES & CORE
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPETENCIES FOR
DIRECTORS & MANAGERS
|
|
23091
|
07-Feb-02
|
NORTHERN SUBURBS
BAILIFF
|
73.65
|
EXTRA TRAVEL 352/02
& 437/02
|
|
23092
|
07-Feb-02
|
HIRE INTELLIGENCE
|
1,034.00
|
RENTAL OF NOTEBOOKS
& DESKTOP
|
|
23093
|
07-Feb-02
|
LANDSDALE GARDENS
MEDICAL CENTRE
|
88.00
|
PRE EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL
|
|
23094
|
07-Feb-02
|
THOMPSON HUGHES &
CO
|
3,082.20
|
INTERNAL AUDIT
AGREEMENT MONTH JAN 2002
|
|
23095
|
07-Feb-02
|
DEVELOPING SKILLS
|
100.00
|
TEACHING OF AQUATICS
TO PEOPLE WITH DISABILITES
|
|
23096
|
07-Feb-02
|
MR & MRS M SARPE
|
300.00
|
FOOTPATH REFUND- 7
HEATHFIELD DR LANDSDALE
|
|
23097
|
07-Feb-02
|
QUINNS DISTRICT JUNIOR
FOOTBALL CLUB
|
500.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23098
|
07-Feb-02
|
HARMAN SETTLEMENTS
|
362.63
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23099
|
07-Feb-02
|
DEBORAH & ALISTAIR
D FREEMAN
|
275.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING SUBSIDY
|
|
23100
|
07-Feb-02
|
DARIN R & NATALIE
S ANTONELLO
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23101
|
07-Feb-02
|
MUCKY DUCK BUSH BAND
|
68.19
|
PERFORMANCE AT
AUSTRALIA DAY CEREMONY
|
|
23102
|
07-Feb-02
|
A & D SIMPSON
|
185.25
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23103
|
07-Feb-02
|
S WILLIAMS
|
300.00
|
REFUND FOR BOND -
BANKSIA ROOM
|
|
23104
|
07-Feb-02
|
L R & R A GURION
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23105
|
07-Feb-02
|
E M & S L FRASER
|
180.25
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23106
|
07-Feb-02
|
M G & T JEPSON
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23107
|
07-Feb-02
|
J M KEENAN
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23108
|
07-Feb-02
|
P J & P W MURPHY
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23109
|
07-Feb-02
|
R C & C A FLETCHER
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23110
|
07-Feb-02
|
R A SHAW
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23111
|
07-Feb-02
|
G J HORNE
|
325.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23112
|
07-Feb-02
|
J M CVITAN & L M
KERR
|
107.80
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23113
|
07-Feb-02
|
P HEYWOOD
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23114
|
07-Feb-02
|
D S GALE & K L
SMALLWOOD
|
294.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23115
|
07-Feb-02
|
J V JAMES
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23116
|
07-Feb-02
|
B E MCKENZIE & L
YAO
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23117
|
07-Feb-02
|
S A BROOKER & F J
BIFFEN
|
297.50
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23118
|
07-Feb-02
|
EDITH MILLER
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23119
|
07-Feb-02
|
MERLYN & T GEILES
|
172.89
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23120
|
07-Feb-02
|
LORRAINE & M
WILLIAMS
|
95.71
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23121
|
07-Feb-02
|
ELIZABETH & J
LESLIE
|
105.42
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23122
|
07-Feb-02
|
JUTTA STAPLETON
|
111.48
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23123
|
07-Feb-02
|
KAREN & W
DICKERSON
|
173.56
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23124
|
07-Feb-02
|
MILTON NEWTON
|
140.97
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23125
|
07-Feb-02
|
M & CL ILES
|
1,015.00
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23126
|
07-Feb-02
|
JANICE SCADDEN
|
106.75
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23127
|
07-Feb-02
|
FOURTH FLOOR COLLAPSE
|
1,650.00
|
LIVE CONCERT- LEISURE
SERVICES
|
|
23128
|
07-Feb-02
|
JANE STAGOLL
|
68.00
|
LEARN TO SWIM
PROGRAMME
|
|
23129
|
07-Feb-02
|
IULIANA & C
BALIBAN
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23130
|
07-Feb-02
|
VINCENZO SINGARA
|
340.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23131
|
07-Feb-02
|
BT EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
|
3,767.46
|
RHS CHAINCASE REPAIRS
& SUPPLY OF RIM
|
|
23132
|
07-Feb-02
|
GREENWOOD PARTY HIRE
|
1,034.00
|
TWO ROCKS CENTENARY OF
FEDERATION
|
|
23133
|
07-Feb-02
|
HAWKER MOSS SURVEYORS
|
5,562.70
|
CONSULTANCY FEES -
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
|
|
23134
|
07-Feb-02
|
MIKE GEARY SIGNS
|
357.50
|
D/SIDED SIGNS
AWARENESS DAY
|
|
23135
|
07-Feb-02
|
PACIFIC BRANDS APPAREL
|
9,741.29
|
COW UNIFORMS
|
|
23136
|
07-Feb-02
|
3D NETWORKS
|
8,654.84
|
MAINT BUSINESS
CONTRACT 5033
|
|
23137
|
07-Feb-02
|
XPRESS MAGAZINE
|
596.20
|
XPRESS AD ISSUE 780
SPOT COLOUR
|
|
23138
|
07-Feb-02
|
B & G CHAMBERS
|
420.00
|
CATERING FOR COUNCIL
MEETING 29/1/02
|
|
23139
|
07-Feb-02
|
COMMUNITY ARTS NETWORK
WA INC
|
110.00
|
NETWORK MEMBERSHIP
|
|
23140
|
07-Feb-02
|
NICK DEL BORRELLO
|
1,254.00
|
HOPPER BOWL, MUDGUARD
& VAR REPAIRS
|
|
23141
|
07-Feb-02
|
ALULITE ALUMINIUM
SCAFFOLDING P/L
|
5,610.00
|
P MATHIAS, MOTIVATION
DR. WANGARA
|
|
23142
|
07-Feb-02
|
BOOK CITY OCEAN KEYS
|
751.47
|
WANNEROO MOBILE
LIBRARY
|
|
23143
|
07-Feb-02
|
SANDS & MCDOUGALL
OFFICE PRODUCT
|
10,027.31
|
STATIONERY PURCHASES-
DEC 02
|
|
23144
|
07-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO HARDWARE
|
43.32
|
FUNNEL, SHARPENING
CHIPPER & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23145
|
07-Feb-02
|
ACROD WA DIVISION
|
33.00
|
ACROD STICKERS
|
|
23146
|
07-Feb-02
|
AMERICAN INTER
UNDERWRITERS
|
7.00
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTION-
F/ENDING 01.02.02
|
|
23147
|
07-Feb-02
|
ALINTA GAS
|
8,061.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
|
|
|
|
AQUAMOTION 29/12/01 -
9/01/02
|
|
23148
|
07-Feb-02
|
ALEXANDER HTS ADULT
DAY CARE P/C
|
24.65
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23149
|
07-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIAN MANUFACT
WKS UNION
|
77.40
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTION-
F/ENDING 01.02.02
|
|
23150
|
07-Feb-02
|
ALEX HTS - THE HEIGHTS
COMM HOUSE P/C
|
122.95
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23151
|
07-Feb-02
|
AUST BUSINESS
TELEPHONE CO
|
660.00
|
HOOK DIAL HEADSET
|
|
23152
|
07-Feb-02
|
ABORIGINAL SENIORS
GROUP PETTY CASH
|
100.00
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23153
|
07-Feb-02
|
ANDY JARMAN
|
1,270.50
|
LANDSCAPE SERVICES CLAIM 23
|
|
23154
|
07-Feb-02
|
BELL HEALTH
|
127.74
|
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
|
|
23155
|
07-Feb-02
|
CHICKEN TREAT WANNEROO
|
81.95
|
BULLSBROOK &
SYDNEY RD FIRE- CATERING
|
|
23156
|
07-Feb-02
|
CORPORATE SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
249.85
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23157
|
07-Feb-02
|
CITY OF WANNEROO MUNI
FUND
|
1,584.00
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTION-
F/ENDING 01.02.02
|
|
23158
|
07-Feb-02
|
CHEF EXCEL PTY LTD
|
4,054.00
|
CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY
BREAKFAST
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOOD FOR VOLUNTEER
APPRECIATION
|
|
23159
|
07-Feb-02
|
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
161.60
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23160
|
07-Feb-02
|
CARABOODA ESTATE WINES
|
117.85
|
WINES - COUNCIL
SERVICES
|
|
23161
|
07-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF LAND
ADMINISTRATION
|
12.00
|
SURVEYS - P27823
|
|
23162
|
07-Feb-02
|
DICK SMITH ELECTRONICS
|
42.60
|
GLOBES & BATTERY
HOLDERS
|
|
23163
|
07-Feb-02
|
DRIVECHECK AUSTRALIA
2000 PTY LTD
|
60.50
|
HHI RECALIBRATION S
NO. 16502013
|
|
23164
|
07-Feb-02
|
D & M LAUNDRY
SERVICE
|
98.12
|
LAUNDRY ITEMS FOR
COUNCIL SERVICES
|
|
23165
|
07-Feb-02
|
EDGEWATER VETERINARY
HOSPITAL
|
891.00
|
EUTHANASIA SERVICES
|
|
23166
|
07-Feb-02
|
EXECUTIVE SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
136.65
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23167
|
07-Feb-02
|
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND
CLEARING SERVICES
|
528.00
|
LOADER & TRUCK
HIRE
|
|
23168
|
07-Feb-02
|
FURNTECH WA PTY LTD
|
176.00
|
SUPPLY & FIT LOCKS
- STATIONERY CUPBOARDS
|
|
23169
|
07-Feb-02
|
GLOUCESTER LODGE
MUSEUM P/CASH
|
15.50
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23170
|
07-Feb-02
|
MAUREEN GRIERSON
|
92.53
|
TRAVEL ALLOWANCE
|
|
23171
|
07-Feb-02
|
HOMECARE PURSUITS
|
1,938.73
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY
SERVICES
|
|
23172
|
07-Feb-02
|
INDEPENDANT TOWER
SERVICES
|
3,221.90
|
ANALYSIS OF TELEMENTRY
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
|
|
23173
|
07-Feb-02
|
JOHNDEC ENGINEERING
PLASTICS PTY LTD
|
220.00
|
REPAIR PLASTIC
CYLINDER & PLASTIC SLIDE
|
|
23174
|
07-Feb-02
|
JEBEDIAH PTY LTD
|
6,875.00
|
JEBEDIAH LIVE 9/02/02-
LEISURE & CULTURAL SERVICES
|
|
23175
|
07-Feb-02
|
JOHN D HARRIS & CO
PTY LTD
|
338.90
|
STATIONERY &
ACCESSORIES - COUNCIL SERVICES
|
|
23176
|
07-Feb-02
|
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE
UNION-PAYROLL
|
1,115.24
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTION
-F/ENDING 01.02.02
|
|
23177
|
07-Feb-02
|
MIRAGE TECHNOLOGY
|
220.00
|
STAFF TRAINING-
INTERNET AS A RESEARCH TOOL
|
|
23178
|
07-Feb-02
|
GLYNIS MONKS
|
152.91
|
TRAVEL EXPENSES
|
|
23179
|
07-Feb-02
|
MOVE CLOTHING &
LINEN SUPPLIES
|
181.72
|
CUSTOMER SERVICE-STAFF
UNIFORMS
|
|
23180
|
07-Feb-02
|
MIKE MADSEN
|
143.00
|
RELOCATE POST BOX
|
|
23181
|
07-Feb-02
|
NEBA INTERNATIONAL
COURIERS
|
19.36
|
COURIER SERVICES
|
|
23182
|
07-Feb-02
|
OPTUS COMMUNICATIONS
|
21.51
|
ENV WASTE SERVICES
|
|
23183
|
07-Feb-02
|
PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL
|
743.64
|
CONFERENCE AIRFARES
|
|
23184
|
07-Feb-02
|
PADDYWACK PROMOTIONAL
PRODUCTS
|
26.50
|
LABEL BADGES X 30
|
|
23185
|
07-Feb-02
|
QUINNS ROCKS ADULT DAY
CARE P/CASH
|
19.75
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23186
|
07-Feb-02
|
RAPI
|
10.00
|
CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION
|
|
23187
|
07-Feb-02
|
STAMPALIA CONTRACTORS
|
15,710.75
|
HIRE OF BOBCAT,
COMPACTOR TRUCKS & DRIVERS
|
|
23188
|
07-Feb-02
|
STANHOPE HOME NURSING
SVCS
|
92.40
|
NURSING SERVICES - AGED
CARE
|
|
23189
|
07-Feb-02
|
TELSTRA CORPORATION
|
120.40
|
MOBILE NET ACCOUNT
|
|
23190
|
07-Feb-02
|
TECHNICAL OPERATIONS
PETTY CASH
|
486.45
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23191
|
07-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO ELECTRIC
|
114.73
|
REPAIR ELECTRICAL
FAULTS
|
|
23192
|
07-Feb-02
|
WATER CORPORATION
|
5,251.15
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
23193
|
07-Feb-02
|
W A LOCAL GOVT
SUPERANNUATION
|
190,746.97
|
JANUARY 2002 SUPERANNUATION
|
|
23194
|
07-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
72,455.00
|
POWER POLE &
STREETLIGHT RELOCATION & INSTALL
|
|
23195
|
07-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
47,445.39
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
23196
|
07-Feb-02
|
WINTERGREENE DRILLING
|
1,100.00
|
BORE AT KINGSWAY -
FOOTBALL
|
|
23197
|
07-Feb-02
|
WORM AFFAIR
|
105.60
|
WORM FARM
|
|
23198
|
07-Feb-02
|
WEL-QUIP
|
256.85
|
NEUTRAL START SWICH
233493
|
|
23199
|
07-Feb-02
|
WORLDWIDE ONLINE
PRINTING
|
197.00
|
BUSINESS CARDS- MAYOR
& DPTY MAYOR
|
|
23200
|
11-Feb-02
|
RAINSTORM WA PTY LTD
|
2,805.00
|
HYDROMULCHING
|
|
23201
|
11-Feb-02
|
STREET TALK
ENTERTAINMENT
|
6,050.00
|
KIDS CORNER PROMOTION
WANN SHOPPING CENTRE
|
|
|
|
|
|
WANNEROO TWILIGHT
CONCERT 2/02/02
|
|
23202
|
11-Feb-02
|
ENVIRONMENTAL
INDUSTRIES
|
1,832.60
|
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE-
DEC & JAN 2002
|
|
23203
|
11-Feb-02
|
CONTI'S RESTURANT
|
100.00
|
EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
2001
|
|
23204
|
11-Feb-02
|
MINDARIE MARINA HOTEL
|
187.50
|
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
2001
|
|
23205
|
11-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
95,459.35
|
CHARGES - VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
DECORATIVE LIGHT &
STREETVISION CHARGES
|
|
23206
|
12-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP COURT
|
4,883.55
|
57 SUMMONS
|
|
23207
|
12-Feb-02
|
LAURA VISEE
|
1,035.00
|
PRINTING OF SUMMONS
|
|
23208
|
14-Feb-02
|
WHITE OAK HOME CARE SERVICES
PTY LTD
|
140.25
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY
SERVICES
|
|
23209
|
14-Feb-02
|
AAPT
|
97.96
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23210
|
14-Feb-02
|
WA PAINT CITY
|
30.90
|
VARIOUS PAINT SUPPLY
|
|
23211
|
14-Feb-02
|
AMAZING STAGING
|
19,877.00
|
LIVE CONCERT HELD ON
THE 9/02/02
|
|
23212
|
14-Feb-02
|
EGAN NATIONAL VALUERS
(WA)
|
7,700.00
|
VALUATION OF PROPERTY
- WANGARA
|
|
23213
|
14-Feb-02
|
FASTWAY COURIERS (WA)
|
359.70
|
COURIER SERVICES
|
|
23214
|
14-Feb-02
|
JOHN HUGHES'
AUTOMOTIVE ODY REPAIRS
|
500.00
|
EXCESS PAYABLE CLAIM #
627086612
|
|
23215
|
14-Feb-02
|
SELWYN ANDERSON
|
60.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23216
|
14-Feb-02
|
ERICA BLUM
|
24.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23217
|
14-Feb-02
|
PAUL KIRCHNER
|
24.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23218
|
14-Feb-02
|
K J POUGNAULT
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23219
|
14-Feb-02
|
IGOR & E BESPALOVA
|
320.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23220
|
14-Feb-02
|
R WILLIAMS & T
COBAIN
|
250.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23221
|
14-Feb-02
|
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT
LIMITED
|
68.85
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
23222
|
14-Feb-02
|
ADVANCED CREDIT
MANAGEMENT
|
50.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
23223
|
14-Feb-02
|
B & N AUGER
|
3,300.00
|
QUALITY SYSTEM AUDIT-
BFMS
|
|
23224
|
14-Feb-02
|
MAYNE LOGISTICS
ARMAGUARD
|
339.84
|
CASH COLLECTIONS FOR
DECEMBER 2001
|
|
23225
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALLMARK &
ASSOCIATES
|
27.40
|
SELF INKING STAMPS
|
|
23226
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALUMAYNE PRODUCTS
|
2,185.48
|
REPAIR DINGY &
SUPPLY OF CABINET
|
|
23227
|
14-Feb-02
|
ACTIMED AUSTRALIA
|
84.92
|
ANTI FUNGAL CREAM
& STERILIZATION BAGS
|
|
23228
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALGAR BURNS PTY LTD
|
16,820.63
|
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
|
|
23229
|
14-Feb-02
|
ARRB TRANSPORT
RESEARCH LTD
|
38.50
|
PUBLICATION ON
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
|
|
23230
|
14-Feb-02
|
ACTION LOCK SERVICE
|
204.50
|
LOCK & KEY SERVICE
|
|
23231
|
14-Feb-02
|
ADFORM
|
200.20
|
REFLECTIVE HELMET STICKERS
|
|
23232
|
14-Feb-02
|
AIR LIQUIDE WA PTY LTD
|
310.44
|
GASES & CYLINDERS RENTALS
|
|
23233
|
14-Feb-02
|
AUST AIRCONDITIONING
SVCS P/L
|
5,122.15
|
VARIOUS MAINTENANCE WORKS
|
|
23234
|
14-Feb-02
|
AUSSIE IT
|
183.37
|
EPSON COLOUR INK CART
|
|
23235
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALLTECH INDUSTRIES
AUSTRALIA
|
16.50
|
PROGRAMMED CAPCODE
|
|
23236
|
14-Feb-02
|
AUTO SMART
INTERNATIONAL
|
792.00
|
ACTIVE 8 DEGREASER & TRUCKWASH
|
|
23237
|
14-Feb-02
|
BIG ROCK TOYOTA/WILD
WEST
|
29.02
|
PEDAL RUBBER & FUEL CAP
|
|
23238
|
14-Feb-02
|
BROWNBUILT METALUX
INDUSTRIES
|
486.25
|
RANGER SERVICES
|
|
23239
|
14-Feb-02
|
BUNNINGS LIMITED
|
1,717.59
|
WINDSHIELD GLASS,
ADHESIVE PARQUETRY
|
|
|
|
|
|
SLIDING DOOR/WINDOW
SPARE, SCREWS & VAR
|
|
23240
|
14-Feb-02
|
BOOMA AUTO ELECTRICS
|
121.00
|
1 X BOSCH ALTERNATOR
|
|
23241
|
14-Feb-02
|
BEAUREPAIRES
|
2,105.15
|
TYRES FITTINGS,
PUNCTURE REPAIRS & VAR
|
|
23242
|
14-Feb-02
|
BEAUREPAIRES
|
18,354.58
|
FITTINGS, VALVES,
PUNCTURES & VAR REPAIRS
|
|
23243
|
14-Feb-02
|
BYWEST PTY LTD
|
1,871.56
|
ROVER/BOLT, BAR,
TRIMMER & MOWER EDGER BLADES
|
|
23244
|
14-Feb-02
|
BOFFINS BOOKS
|
76.25
|
ORACLE 9I BEGINNER'S GUIDE
|
|
23245
|
14-Feb-02
|
BUDGET PORTABLES
|
2,081.28
|
PORTABLE CONTAINERS HIRE
|
|
23246
|
14-Feb-02
|
BRAVO HIRE
|
70.00
|
CORER
|
|
23247
|
14-Feb-02
|
BGC BLOKPAVE
|
7,189.09
|
EASI COBBLER PAVERS
|
|
23248
|
14-Feb-02
|
BAKEWELL FOODS PTY LTD
|
36.75
|
BEEF PIES &
SAUSAGE ROLLS FOR AQUAMOTION
|
|
23249
|
14-Feb-02
|
BT EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
|
3,380.51
|
CHAINCASE REPAIRS -
MUSTANG
|
|
23250
|
14-Feb-02
|
CASTROL AUSTRALIA PTY
LTD
|
310.45
|
ARX T GREASE 450GM
|
|
23251
|
14-Feb-02
|
CHALLENGE BATTERIES WA
|
793.20
|
AUTOMOTIVE BATTERIES
|
|
23252
|
14-Feb-02
|
COASTAL SERVICES
|
82.50
|
CHECK BOTH BOILING
WATER UNITS
|
|
23253
|
14-Feb-02
|
COCA COLA AMATIL
|
571.15
|
VARIOUS SOFT DRINKS -
COUNCIL SERVICES
|
|
23254
|
14-Feb-02
|
CURTAIN MAN
|
511.35
|
BLINDS &
INSTALLATION
|
|
23255
|
14-Feb-02
|
COVENTRYS
|
1,106.93
|
BELT FAN, VEE BELT,
FILTER LUBE & VAR
|
|
23256
|
14-Feb-02
|
COVENTRYS
|
940.90
|
HANDLE HAMMER, CLAMP
HOSE, COMPRESSOR & VAR
|
|
23257
|
14-Feb-02
|
CHUBB SECURITY
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
|
163.90
|
CIVIC DR, WANNEROO
SERVICE CALL NO. 608180
|
|
23258
|
14-Feb-02
|
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
|
635.80
|
NUTS, BOLTS & CUTTING EDGE
|
|
23259
|
14-Feb-02
|
COLES SUPERMARKETS
AUST P/L
|
726.82
|
RESTOCKING OF FIRE MOBILE CANTEEN
|
|
|
|
|
|
CATERING FOR BANKSIA
GROVE FIRE AWARENESS DAY
|
|
23260
|
14-Feb-02
|
CHADSON ENGINEERING
PTY LTD
|
111.10
|
SWIMPLEX LANE ROPE ADJUSTER
|
|
23261
|
14-Feb-02
|
CASTLEDEX BUSINESS
SYSTEMS PTY LTD
|
2,970.00
|
FILE COVERS FOR RECORDS SERVICES
|
|
23262
|
14-Feb-02
|
CITY BUSINESS MACHINES
|
23,831.50
|
7 HP LASERJET 4100TN
PRINTERS PLUS WARRANTY
|
|
23263
|
14-Feb-02
|
DBS FENCING
|
1,463.00
|
REMOVE EXISTING 23
METRES OF BURNT CHAINMESH
|
|
|
|
|
|
MANUFACTURE TIMBER
FENCE - 7 STA BARBARA QUINNS
|
|
23264
|
14-Feb-02
|
DE NEEFE SIGNS PTY LTD
|
1,411.30
|
MAGNETIC NUMBERS,
VEHICLE PROHIBITED SIGNS
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFLECTOR TAPES,
YELLOW TAPED HANDRAILS
|
|
23265
|
14-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF CONSERVATION
& LAND
|
112.48
|
4/12/01 - 9/1/02
GLOUCESTER LODGE ELECTRICITY
|
|
23266
|
14-Feb-02
|
DIAMOND LOCK & KEY
|
5,124.76
|
50 STANDARD KEYS CUT,
STEEL SHANK PADLOCKS
|
|
23267
|
14-Feb-02
|
DYMOCKS WHITFORDS
|
185.81
|
BOOKS FOR THE WANNEROO LIBRARY
|
|
23268
|
14-Feb-02
|
DEMBICON AUSTRALIA
|
72.60
|
CONTROL CABLE & LEVER
|
|
23269
|
14-Feb-02
|
DYMOCKS HAY STREET
|
650.30
|
BOOKS FOR THE
GIRRAWHEEN LIBRARY
|
|
23270
|
14-Feb-02
|
DELL COMPUTERS PTY LTD
|
94,714.40
|
52 PC & MONITOR,
CD ROM DRIVE & CUS KIT OPTIPLEX
|
|
23271
|
14-Feb-02
|
DELTALINE SECURITY
|
4,319.70
|
SECURITY FOR COW
EVENTS
|
|
23272
|
14-Feb-02
|
DETAIL & DESIGN
PTY LTD
|
2,288.00
|
AIRBOSS SEGMENTS -
TYRES & TUBES
|
|
23273
|
14-Feb-02
|
E R S AUSTRALIA PTY
LTD
|
97.35
|
OIL FILTER
|
|
23274
|
14-Feb-02
|
EASTERN PRESS PTY LTD
|
50.00
|
WENDY MATTHEWS POSTERS
& PASSES
|
|
23275
|
14-Feb-02
|
ELECTRO ACOUSTIC
COMPANY PTY LTD
|
514.25
|
PROGRAMMING CHANGES -
SECURITY SYSTEM, SVC CALL -
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOTORISED PROJECTION
SCREEN, SECURITY VCR & VAR
|
|
23276
|
14-Feb-02
|
ELLIOTTS IRRIGATION
PTY LTD
|
5,550.84
|
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT,
PVC PIPE & VAR
|
|
23277
|
14-Feb-02
|
EMBROIDERY PLUS
|
220.00
|
SAFER CITIZENS BADGES
|
|
23278
|
14-Feb-02
|
FAL FOOD SERVICES
|
355.61
|
CATERING SUPPLIES -
COUNCIL SERVICES
|
|
23279
|
14-Feb-02
|
FREEWAY SCREENS &
WINDOWS
|
748.00
|
HEAVY DUTY SECURITY
GRILLS FRAMES
|
|
23280
|
14-Feb-02
|
FRICTION CONTROL
|
340.42
|
FLANGE HOUSING &
BEARING INSERT
|
|
23281
|
14-Feb-02
|
FUJITSU AUSTRALIA
LIMITED
|
5,257.54
|
PAYROLL PROCESSING F/E 4/0/02
|
|
23282
|
14-Feb-02
|
FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD
|
5,940.50
|
COPIER RENTAL &
MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
|
|
23283
|
14-Feb-02
|
GEOFF'S TREE SERVICE
|
1,977.25
|
TREES REMOVAL &
STUMP GRINDING
|
|
23284
|
14-Feb-02
|
GUARDIAN DATA
|
466.29
|
MONITOR CABLE, MOUSE,
MODEM &
CD ROM DRIVE KIT
|
|
23285
|
14-Feb-02
|
GREEN & GOLD HIAB
SERVICES
|
1,003.75
|
VARIOUS PUMP
INSTALLATION
|
|
23286
|
14-Feb-02
|
GELDENS PTY LTD
|
688.11
|
CLOTHING FOR RANGER
SERVICES
|
|
23287
|
14-Feb-02
|
GLAZEWELL P/L
|
2,492.08
|
VAR GLASS REPAIRS
& INSTALLATIONS
|
|
23288
|
14-Feb-02
|
GEODETIC SUPPLY &
REPAIR
|
931.10
|
FLAGGING TAPE, SPRAY
& MARK &
VAR SURVEYING ITEMS
|
|
23289
|
14-Feb-02
|
HUGALL & HOILE
MALAGA
|
133.10
|
MILNE COUPLING 100 MM
|
|
23290
|
14-Feb-02
|
HYDRAULIC HOIST &
WINCH
|
327.80
|
SUPPLY HYDRAULIC HOIST
|
|
23291
|
14-Feb-02
|
HUMES CONCRETE
|
435.71
|
SUPPLY OF CONCRETE PIPES
|
|
23292
|
14-Feb-02
|
HOMESTEAD
CONSTRUCTIONS
|
49,497.80
|
NEW AMENITIES WITHIN
THE NEW CIVIC CENTRE
|
|
23293
|
14-Feb-02
|
C & E M HARMER
|
26.80
|
NEWSPAPERS SUPPLY
|
|
23294
|
14-Feb-02
|
HEAVY AUTOMATICS
|
1,157.78
|
REPAIRS TO REAR
SECTION OF TRANSMISSION
|
|
23295
|
14-Feb-02
|
HYSTER WEST
|
272.45
|
BUSHING SPRING, PIN,
AIR FILTER & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23296
|
14-Feb-02
|
IN TOUCH
COMMUNICATIONS
|
4,196.50
|
KYOVERA QCP HANDSET
|
|
23297
|
14-Feb-02
|
ICON OFFICE TECHNOLOGY
|
806.58
|
METRE READINGS,
IMAGING FILM & TONERS
|
|
23298
|
14-Feb-02
|
JACKSONS DRAWING
SUPPLIES P/L
|
366.50
|
SCALE TRIANGULAR,
TEMPLATE & MOUNTING BOARD
|
|
23299
|
14-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP LAMINATORS
& COPY CENTRE
|
93.60
|
COPY MOUNT & COLOUR COPIES
|
|
23300
|
14-Feb-02
|
JETCO ENGINEERING PTY
LTD
|
1,215.50
|
TYRES
|
|
23301
|
14-Feb-02
|
JUDIUS PTY LTD
|
506.00
|
VARIOUS SUPPLIES -
FAMILY DAY CARE CENTRES
|
|
23302
|
14-Feb-02
|
KNIGHT & SONS
|
68.85
|
DOG FOOD STOCK
|
|
23303
|
14-Feb-02
|
GEOFF KEMP
|
228.00
|
GIGARANGE C/LESS PHONE
|
|
23304
|
14-Feb-02
|
KERB QIC & CO
|
12,729.87
|
MANUFACTURE MOULD,
TROWELS & FOOTPATHS
|
|
23305
|
14-Feb-02
|
KEY HYDRAULICS
|
132.00
|
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM FLOW
&
PRESSURE CHECKS
|
|
23306
|
14-Feb-02
|
LM ELECTRICAL SERVICE
|
3,614.60
|
INSTALL &
DISMANTLE XMAS DECORS
|
|
23307
|
14-Feb-02
|
LINCOLNE SCOTT
|
1,595.00
|
ONE OFF SITE WORKS
2001-2003
|
|
23308
|
14-Feb-02
|
LINK
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
49.50
|
SERVICE FEES -
ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE
|
|
23309
|
14-Feb-02
|
LAIDLAW PTY LTD
|
151.80
|
100 X ECONOMY FLAT
LANYARD BLUE C/N SWIVEL
|
|
23310
|
14-Feb-02
|
LULLFITZ
|
396.00
|
MELALEUCA PREISSAIANA-
NATIVE TUBES
|
|
23311
|
14-Feb-02
|
LELY WEST VERMEER
|
292.64
|
REPAIRS VERMEER BC1250A CHIPPER
|
|
23312
|
14-Feb-02
|
MIRACLE REC EQUIPMENT
PTY LTD
|
467.50
|
SINGLE RIDER COIL SPRING
|
|
23313
|
14-Feb-02
|
MINI EXCAVATORS PTY
LTD
|
173.25
|
EXCAVATOR HIRE - MARANGAROO
GOLF CLUB
|
|
23314
|
14-Feb-02
|
MACDONALD JOHNSTON ENG
CO P/LTD
|
22,566.76
|
PIN HEAD ASSY, VALVE,
SEAL KIT, ELEMENT & VAR
|
|
23315
|
14-Feb-02
|
MEMO COMMUNICATIONS
|
5,738.21
|
2WAY RADIO, ANTENNA,
CABLE, BATTERY & VAR
|
|
23316
|
14-Feb-02
|
MAYDAY EARTHMOVING
|
3,261.50
|
BOBCAT HIRE
|
|
23317
|
14-Feb-02
|
MCLEOD & CO
|
1,416.25
|
PROFESSIONAL FEES
|
|
23318
|
14-Feb-02
|
METAL ARTWORK
CREATIONS
|
11.28
|
METAL BADGE &
MAGNETIC ATTACHMENTS
|
|
23319
|
14-Feb-02
|
MCINTOSH & SON
|
242.62
|
SCRAPER CABLE
|
|
23320
|
14-Feb-02
|
MINDARIE REGIONAL
COUNCIL
|
59,787.13
|
VARIOUS DISPOSAL FEES
|
|
23321
|
14-Feb-02
|
MINI PICKERS
|
660.00
|
INSTALL AND REMOVE
BANNERS
|
|
23322
|
14-Feb-02
|
NEVERFAIL
|
235.55
|
BOTTLED WATER-
EMERGENCY SERVICES
|
|
23323
|
14-Feb-02
|
NATIONAL FLEET NETWORK
P/L
|
157.14
|
VARIOUS ITEMS
|
|
23324
|
14-Feb-02
|
ON SITE LASER ALIGNING
|
352.00
|
WHEEL ALIGNMENT 96592
& 96707
|
|
23325
|
14-Feb-02
|
ODCG PTY LTD
|
995.00
|
BASIC PURCHASING
SKILLS
|
|
23326
|
14-Feb-02
|
PEERLESS EMULSION WA
PTY LTD
|
195.77
|
VARIOUS CLEANING
SUPPLIES
|
|
23327
|
14-Feb-02
|
PETER WOOD PTY LTD
|
852.50
|
REPAIR HOMESTEAD
FENCING - KOONDOOLA OPEN SPACE
|
|
23328
|
14-Feb-02
|
PROTECTOR SAFETY PTY
LTD
|
1,063.59
|
SAFETY BOOTS, VISOR
& VAR SAFETY GEARS
|
|
23329
|
14-Feb-02
|
PHONOGRAPHIC
PERFORMANCE CO
|
1,512.83
|
LICENSE RENEWAL
|
|
23330
|
14-Feb-02
|
P R AGENCIES
INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD
|
2,106.96
|
POLAROID CAMERA &
PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM
|
|
23331
|
14-Feb-02
|
PRESTIGE ALARMS
|
110.00
|
BADGERUP SVC
CALL-REPROGRAM SECURITY SITE CARDS
|
|
23332
|
14-Feb-02
|
THE PRINTING FACTORY
|
380.66
|
PRINTING OF BUSINESS
CARDS
|
|
23333
|
14-Feb-02
|
PARTY HEAVEN
|
88.00
|
HIRE OF HELIUM
CYLINDER
|
|
23334
|
14-Feb-02
|
PERTH CONCERT SOUND
& VIDEO
|
2,893.00
|
PA LIGHTS & STAGE
HIRE - LIVE "BATTLE OF THE BANDS"
|
|
23335
|
14-Feb-02
|
PETER LONGLEY SURVEYS
|
680.00
|
SURVEY SETOUT- LONG
BEACH PROMENADE
|
|
23336
|
14-Feb-02
|
QUALCON LABORATORIES
|
154.00
|
SOIL TESTING SERVICES
|
|
23337
|
14-Feb-02
|
ROSSOUND HIRE
|
565.95
|
EQUIPMENT HIRE - AUST
DAY CEREMONY
|
|
23338
|
14-Feb-02
|
GALVINS PLUMBING PLUS
|
155.62
|
MALE NIPPLE, FEMALE
ELBOW, PVC FAUCET
|
|
23339
|
14-Feb-02
|
RYCO HOSE
|
280.30
|
MAKE UP HYD HOSES
|
|
23340
|
14-Feb-02
|
REPCO AUTO PARTS
|
509.64
|
CLUTCH KIT NEW
|
|
23341
|
14-Feb-02
|
RYDELL INDUSTRIAL
BELTING CO
|
391.87
|
REPAIR AND REPLACE
BELT
|
|
23342
|
14-Feb-02
|
ROCLA QUARRY PRODUCTS
|
749.37
|
VARIOUS SAND FILL
|
|
23343
|
14-Feb-02
|
RCG PTY LTD
|
2,012.15
|
RUBBLE MIX & FILL
SAND
|
|
23344
|
14-Feb-02
|
RUSSELL LANDSCAPING WA
PTY LTD
|
8,939.70
|
LANDSCAPING OF VARIOUS
ROUNDABOUTS
|
|
23345
|
14-Feb-02
|
RUNNING BARE AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD
|
598.40
|
SWIM WEAR - AQUAMOTION
TRADING STOCK
|
|
23346
|
14-Feb-02
|
ROWECOM AUSTRALIA
|
94.56
|
PERIODICALS
|
|
23347
|
14-Feb-02
|
SANAX /ST ANDREWS
PHARMACY
|
514.66
|
CHAPSTICK, SUN SCREEN
& VAR MEDICAL SUPPLIES
|
|
23348
|
14-Feb-02
|
SANDERSON ENGINEERING
COMPANY
|
2,906.60
|
STIHL BLOWER, GASKET
SET, CHAIN & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23350
|
14-Feb-02
|
SKIPPER TRUCKS BELMONT
|
35,531.01
|
VAN PURCHASE, DRUM
BRAKE, AIR DRYER & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23351
|
14-Feb-02
|
SLING RIG PTY LTD
|
112.20
|
SHOCK CORD
|
|
23352
|
14-Feb-02
|
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
|
52.80
|
2000 QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
|
|
23353
|
14-Feb-02
|
STATEWIDE CLEANING
SUPPLIES P/L
|
4,172.41
|
TISSUES, HAND TOWELS,
& VAR CLEANING SUPPLIES
|
|
23354
|
14-Feb-02
|
SUSSEX INDUSTRIES
|
481.03
|
PIN FLAG PPF150.4DP
|
|
23355
|
14-Feb-02
|
SKIPPER
HYUNDAI/MITSUBISHI
|
142.60
|
REPLACE BROKEN AERIAL
MAST TO CEO VEHICLE WN31519
|
|
23356
|
14-Feb-02
|
STATE LAW PUBLISHER
|
29.60
|
ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000
COLLECTED 04.02.2002
|
|
23357
|
14-Feb-02
|
SALMAT
|
3,565.25
|
INSTALLMENT NOTICES
|
|
23358
|
14-Feb-02
|
CADBURY SCHWEPPES
|
709.78
|
AQUAMOTION &
COUNCIL SERVICES' STOCKS
|
|
23359
|
14-Feb-02
|
SILVER CHAIN
|
585.20
|
CARE AIDE MONDAYS TO
FRIDAYS
|
|
23360
|
14-Feb-02
|
STOPMASTER BRAKES
|
1,196.80
|
BRAKES RELINING
|
|
23361
|
14-Feb-02
|
SHELL COMPANY OF
AUSTRALIA LTD
|
35,416.04
|
SHELLCARD INVOICE -
JAN 02
|
|
23362
|
14-Feb-02
|
TORO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
|
1,823.91
|
RUBBER COUPLING,
CAPSCREW & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23363
|
14-Feb-02
|
TOTAL EDEN WATERING
SYSTEMS
|
15,605.34
|
PVC ELBOW, SWJ PIPE
& VAR RETIC SUPPLIES
|
|
23364
|
14-Feb-02
|
TAUBMANS
|
173.94
|
VARIOUS PAINTS
|
|
23365
|
14-Feb-02
|
T L ENGINEERING (AUST)
PTY LTD
|
39.60
|
BREATHER UCAB 40MICRON
& FILTER CARTRIDGE RYCO
|
|
23366
|
14-Feb-02
|
FORCORP PTY LTD
|
291.50
|
REPAIRS TO CAMRA
|
|
23367
|
14-Feb-02
|
TOOLMART
|
21.00
|
METABO CHUCK
|
|
23368
|
14-Feb-02
|
TERPKOS & SANTILLO
PTY LTD
|
2,530.00
|
SURVEY AND PREPARATION
OF DESIGN DRAWINGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
DESIGN AND
DOCUMENTATION OF VOID GRILL
|
|
23369
|
14-Feb-02
|
TALDARA
|
396.00
|
DART FOAM CUP 80Z
|
|
23370
|
14-Feb-02
|
TRUCKLINE
|
2,227.58
|
WATER LEVEL INDICATOR,
CONDENSER & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23371
|
14-Feb-02
|
UNDERGROUND SERVICES
AUSTRALIA
|
137.50
|
LOCATE SERVICES -
GRIFFON/FLANDER RD ALEX HTS
|
|
23372
|
14-Feb-02
|
VALUER GENERAL'S
OFFICE
|
1,793.50
|
GRV INT VALS METRO
SHARED
|
|
23373
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTCARE INDUSTRIES
|
470.22
|
SAFETY VESTS
|
|
23374
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTBOOKS
|
164.24
|
BOOKS FOR WANNEROO LIBRARY
|
|
23375
|
14-Feb-02
|
W A HINO SALES &
SERVICE
|
1,171.64
|
VALVE ASSY, PARTS
& CHASSIS MANUAL
|
|
23376
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO CARAVAN
CENTRE
|
1,045.00
|
FABRICATE STEEL
UPRIGHTS & GALVANISED GRILLS
|
|
23378
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO HARDWARE
|
2,099.06
|
CLIP CABLE, WALLPLUG,
RIGGER GLOVE, PADLOCK & VAR
|
|
23379
|
14-Feb-02
|
WEMBLEY CEMENT
INDUSTRIES
|
2,877.16
|
SQUARE GATIC LID WITH
CIRCULAR INSERT
|
|
|
|
|
|
GULLY LID &
CIRCULAR BASE
|
|
23380
|
14-Feb-02
|
WORMALD FIRE SYSTEMS
|
1,180.30
|
BUSH FIRE FOAM &
FIREMAN'S HELMET
|
|
23381
|
14-Feb-02
|
WILSONS SIGN SOLUTIONS
|
2,057.00
|
23 X ACID ETCHED S/S
BENCH PLAQUES
|
|
23382
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO AGRICULTURAL
MACHINERY
|
5,365.64
|
FIRE BREAKS ON VARIOUS
AREAS
|
|
23383
|
14-Feb-02
|
W A LIBRARY SUPPLIES
|
930.65
|
TIMBER SHELF AV
TROLLEY & VAR LIBRARY SUPPLIES
|
|
23384
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTSIDE FIRE SERVICES
|
1,289.20
|
FEE-INSPECTION &
TESTING OF FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM
|
|
23385
|
14-Feb-02
|
WATTLEUP TRACTORS
|
99.05
|
GAS STRUT
|
|
23386
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO TOWING
SERVICE
|
588.50
|
TOWING SERVICES 05 - 19/01/02
|
|
23387
|
14-Feb-02
|
W A LIMESTONE CO
|
41,444.87
|
LIMESTONE
|
|
23388
|
14-Feb-02
|
WORK CLOBBER
|
57.20
|
1 62004 CLIP ON EAR MUFFS
|
|
23389
|
14-Feb-02
|
W J MONCRIEFF PTY LTD
|
7,294.10
|
CISCO MAINTENANCE
RENEWAL & REDUNDANT HOT PLUG
|
|
23390
|
14-Feb-02
|
WEBFORGE
|
10,324.55
|
GRATING MILD STEEL
GALV
|
|
23391
|
14-Feb-02
|
Y M C A MOBILE YOUTH
SERVICE
|
396.00
|
YMCA BUS HIRE- FIRE
AWARENESS DAY
|
|
23392
|
14-Feb-02
|
ZIPFORM
|
998.71
|
RENEWAL FINAL NOTICE-
PRINTING SERVICES
|
|
23393
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALINTA GAS
|
3.20
|
DEPOT BUILDINGS
(MASTER RECORD) - 29/12/01-1/2/02
|
|
23394
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALEXANDER HTS ADULT
DAY CARE P/CASH
|
98.60
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23395
|
14-Feb-02
|
ALEX HTS - THE HEIGHTS
COMM HOUSE P/C
|
52.60
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23396
|
14-Feb-02
|
M ADAMSON
|
57.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES -
DAY CARE CENTRES
|
|
23397
|
14-Feb-02
|
AIM UWA SENIOR
MANAGEMENT CENTRE
|
693.00
|
SENIOR EXECUTIVE
STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP TOUR
|
|
23398
|
14-Feb-02
|
BELRIDGE BUS CHARTER
|
176.00
|
BUS HIRE-50 CAMP
PROGRAM ACTIVITY
|
|
23399
|
14-Feb-02
|
CLEAN SWEEP
|
10,525.51
|
MOBILISATION SWEEP
|
|
23400
|
14-Feb-02
|
FARLEY CAMPBELL
|
80.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
COMMUNITY BUSES
|
|
23401
|
14-Feb-02
|
COMTEK PTY LTD
|
1,463.00
|
WESTERN DIGITAL 20GB
(7200) HARD DRIVES
|
|
23402
|
14-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF LAND
ADMINISTRATION
|
574.00
|
SEARCH SERVICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEASE RENT 333A/3052
SPECIAL SWAN L9740 FNO. 2286/995
|
|
23403
|
14-Feb-02
|
P DUMARESQ
|
80.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES -
PODIATRY CLINICS
|
|
23404
|
14-Feb-02
|
ELECTRIC STOVEMAN
|
159.34
|
URN CLEANER SERVICE
CALL
|
|
23405
|
14-Feb-02
|
EXECUTIVE SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
166.95
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23406
|
14-Feb-02
|
GIRRAWHEEN LIBRARY
PETTY CASH
|
236.10
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23407
|
14-Feb-02
|
GLOUCESTER LODGE
MUSEUM P/CASH
|
65.75
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23408
|
14-Feb-02
|
A ALFANO
|
50.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23409
|
14-Feb-02
|
HOME CHEF
|
1,071.60
|
HOME CHEF DINNERS FOR TUES
15.01.02
|
|
23410
|
14-Feb-02
|
HOMECARE PURSUITS
|
2,960.60
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY SERVICES
|
|
23411
|
14-Feb-02
|
INTERCITY OFFICE
PARTITIONING
|
110.00
|
PLAQUE INSTALLATION-VOLUNTEER
RECOGNITION PROJCT
|
|
23412
|
14-Feb-02
|
CHRISTINE JEFFREY
|
98.70
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23413
|
14-Feb-02
|
K & F CONCRETE
|
5,500.00
|
INSTALL LIMESTONE WALL
& REINFORCEMENT BARS
|
|
23414
|
14-Feb-02
|
LO-GO APPOINTMENTS
|
22,211.92
|
VARIOUS COW CONTRACT
STAFF
|
|
23415
|
14-Feb-02
|
LAWN DOCTOR
|
825.00
|
GRANULAR & LIQUID
FERTILISING
|
|
23416
|
14-Feb-02
|
LEISURE & CULTURAL
SERVICES P/C
|
189.25
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23417
|
14-Feb-02
|
NEBA INTERNATIONAL
COURIERS
|
9.68
|
COURIER SERVICES
|
|
23418
|
14-Feb-02
|
OPTUS COMMUNICATIONS
|
116.26
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23419
|
14-Feb-02
|
PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT PETTY CASH
|
390.85
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23420
|
14-Feb-02
|
PERROTT GROUP
|
2,147.20
|
PAINTING OF WANNEROO
SHOWGROUNDS CLUBROOMS
|
|
23421
|
14-Feb-02
|
QUINNS ROCKS ADULT DAY
CARE P/CASH
|
49.95
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23422
|
14-Feb-02
|
RANGERS & LEISURE
PETTY CASH
|
266.45
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23423
|
14-Feb-02
|
SUNNY BRUSHWARE
SUPPLIES
|
701.25
|
MAIN BROOM REFILL FMC
|
|
23424
|
14-Feb-02
|
SJW PODIATRY PTY LTD
|
2,750.00
|
PODIATRY SERVICES JAN
4-18 2002
|
|
23425
|
14-Feb-02
|
SANWEST
|
902.00
|
REPAIR TO SANI CONVEYOR
MOTOR- RECYCLING PLANT
|
|
23426
|
14-Feb-02
|
STIRLING CONCRETE PTY
LTD
|
13,489.10
|
REMOVE & INSTALL
FOOTPATHS & PRAM RAMPS
|
|
23427
|
14-Feb-02
|
G SADLER
|
57.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23428
|
14-Feb-02
|
SUN CITY ACCESS CENTRE
|
7,590.68
|
PHONE CHARGES,
ADVERTISING & FIT OUTS
|
|
23429
|
14-Feb-02
|
TURBOMASTER PUMPS
|
6,377.80
|
SERVICE
PUMP-MARANGAROO PARK & CARRAMAR GOLF
|
|
23430
|
14-Feb-02
|
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
SERVICES
|
1,760.00
|
TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
|
|
23431
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO PLUMBING
|
4,777.25
|
VARIOUS PLUMBING
REPAIRS & INSTALLATION
|
|
23433
|
14-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO ELECTRIC
|
19,798.08
|
VARIOUS ELECTRICAL
REPAIRS & INSTALLATION
|
|
23434
|
14-Feb-02
|
WATER CORPORATION
|
37.85
|
CHARGES - VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
23435
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
9,205.00
|
INSTALL POLE, LIGHTS
& ASSOCIATED WORKS
|
|
23436
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
2,979.50
|
ORANGE ELECTRICAL
CONTACT &
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROLLS 125MM BURIED
DANGER TAPE
|
|
23437
|
14-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
28.25
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
23438
|
14-Feb-02
|
WORM AFFAIR
|
52.80
|
DELIVER RELN WORM
FACTORY
|
|
23439
|
14-Feb-02
|
WEST AUSTRALIAN LOCAL
|
528.00
|
BREAKFAST CLUB- 2002
MEMBERSHIP FEES
|
|
23440
|
14-Feb-02
|
YANCHEP COMMUNITY
HOUSE P/CASH
|
133.95
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23441
|
14-Feb-02
|
LAURA VISEE
|
810.00
|
PRINTING OF SUMMONS
|
|
23442
|
14-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP COURT
|
2,616.00
|
31 SUMMONS- COURT
& BAILIFF FEES
|
|
23443
|
14-Feb-02
|
NORTHERN SUBURBS
BAILIFF
|
73.15
|
EXTRA TRAVEL 407/02
& 405/02
|
|
23444
|
14-Feb-02
|
RAINWEST ROOFINGS PTY
LTD
|
52,881.40
|
2818 REMENIAL
ROOFING-OLYMPIC SOCCER CLUBROOMS
|
|
23445
|
14-Feb-02
|
ABORIGINAL SENIORS
GROUP PETTY CASH
|
50.00
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23446
|
14-Feb-02
|
KEYWEST CONSTRUCTION
GROUP
|
49,500.00
|
VARIATIONS TO
CONTRACT-NEW CIVIC CENTRE
|
|
23447
|
15-Feb-02
|
ALINTA GAS
|
100.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT-
COMM SVCS
|
|
23448
|
18-Feb-02
|
STIRLING CONCRETE PTY
LTD
|
13,044.90
|
INSTALL CONCRETE
FOOTPATH
|
|
23449
|
18-Feb-02
|
STIRLING CONCRETE PTY
LTD
|
10,418.10
|
INSTALL CONCRETE
FOOTPATH
|
|
23450
|
18-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIA WIDE
TAXATION
|
1,095.00
|
TAX SEMINAR FOR
FINANCE OFFICERS
|
|
23453
|
19-Feb-02
|
FINES ENFORCEMENT
REGISTRY
|
1,920.00
|
LODGING 64 RECORDS
|
|
23454
|
19-Feb-02
|
NATIONAL TAX MANAGER
|
275.00
|
FBT SALARY SEMINAR FOR
FINANCE OFFICERS
|
|
23455
|
20-Feb-02
|
DANMAR HOMES
|
302.27
|
REFUND BUILDING FEE 6 BRAMPTON
AVENUE
|
|
23456
|
20-Feb-02
|
J ARRIGO
|
91.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23457
|
20-Feb-02
|
ROBERT TAYLOR
|
91.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23458
|
20-Feb-02
|
MINT SETTLEMENTS
|
359.23
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 171871
|
|
23459
|
20-Feb-02
|
E STRUTHERS
|
916.70
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 126182
|
|
23460
|
20-Feb-02
|
G & L WESTENBERG
|
179.80
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 193095
|
|
23461
|
20-Feb-02
|
SPORTS TURF TECHNOLOGY
PTY LTD
|
621.50
|
LEAF ANALYSIS - CONSULTANCY FEE
|
|
23462
|
20-Feb-02
|
LYNNE VERGUNST
|
91.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23463
|
20-Feb-02
|
PREMIER ARTISTS
|
6,913.20
|
DARYL BRAITHWAITE CONCERT
|
|
23464
|
20-Feb-02
|
BRANCHES EVERYWHERE
|
143.00
|
REMOVE LIMBS OFF TREE
|
|
23465
|
20-Feb-02
|
D HETHERINGTON
|
91.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23466
|
20-Feb-02
|
JK GILBERT
|
100.00
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23467
|
20-Feb-02
|
L SNAPE
|
270.00
|
HONORARIA PAYMENT FEB 2002
|
|
23468
|
20-Feb-02
|
M MUNRO
|
270.00
|
HONORARIA PAYMENT FEB 2002
|
|
23469
|
20-Feb-02
|
HUNGRY JACKS
|
210.00
|
OVERPAYMENT OF EATING
HOUSE LICENCE - HUNGRY JACKS CLARKSON
|
|
23470
|
20-Feb-02
|
DAVID EVANS REAL
ESTATE
|
150.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT - COMM SVCS
|
|
23471
|
20-Feb-02
|
NORTH COAST AUTO
ELECTRICS
|
55.00
|
FIT STOP LIGHT CASE111
|
|
23472
|
20-Feb-02
|
INTRACO MANAGEMENT
CONSULTING P/L
|
3,300.00
|
2ND STAGE-FACILITATION
OF SAFETY MANAGEMENT PLAN
|
|
23473
|
20-Feb-02
|
MARGARET GILCHRIST
|
41.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR
FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23474
|
20-Feb-02
|
EVAN MARTIN
|
41.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR
FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23475
|
20-Feb-02
|
DRIVESHAFT BALANCING
SERVICES
|
325.00
|
REPAIR DRIVESHAFT
|
|
23476
|
20-Feb-02
|
TECHNOLOGY ONE
|
36,179.00
|
PROCLAIM ONE ANNUAL
SUPPORT FEES 20.12.02-31.08.02
|
|
23477
|
20-Feb-02
|
LADYBIRD'S PLANT HIRE
|
85.80
|
RENTAL INDOOR PLANTS
JAN 02
|
|
23478
|
20-Feb-02
|
LANDROW - MANAGED
PROJECTS
|
15,886.00
|
REFUND BOND CLARKSON STAGE 22C
|
|
23479
|
20-Feb-02
|
MIC CHECK PRODUCTIONS
|
2,400.00
|
VARIOUS YOUTH WORKSHOP
|
|
23480
|
20-Feb-02
|
SILVERTON LTD
|
25.00
|
CLEARANCE FEE
|
|
23481
|
20-Feb-02
|
APPLE AUSTRALIA PTY
LTD
|
330.73
|
RENTAL OF APPLE COMPUTER
|
|
23482
|
20-Feb-02
|
FLEETCARE
|
415.25
|
VEHICLE HIRE/LEASE
|
|
23483
|
20-Feb-02
|
LEE TAN
|
41.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23484
|
20-Feb-02
|
LUZIA JOHNSTONE
|
41.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23485
|
20-Feb-02
|
OFFICEWORKS
|
165.88
|
DESK VINYL START KIT
|
|
23486
|
20-Feb-02
|
CENTENARY OF
FEDERATION-WA
|
2,577.18
|
RETURN OF GRANT FUNDS
|
|
23487
|
20-Feb-02
|
MICHAEL COLE
|
217.25
|
REIMBURSE LGMA SUBSCRIPTION
|
|
23488
|
20-Feb-02
|
JOHN & E SPARGO
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING SUBSIDY
|
|
23489
|
20-Feb-02
|
AVON J WHITSED
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING SUBSIDY
|
|
23490
|
20-Feb-02
|
BARRY & J ANDERSON
|
309.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
|
|
23491
|
20-Feb-02
|
TRACEY PEARCE & E
JASPER
|
312.50
|
VEHICLE CROSSING SUBSIDY
|
|
23492
|
20-Feb-02
|
GEOFFREY HIGGINS
|
5.00
|
DOG REGISTRATION REFUND 025474
|
|
23493
|
20-Feb-02
|
ROB BUTTERWORTH
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23494
|
20-Feb-02
|
J R & M HILTON
|
279.54
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 173500
|
|
23495
|
20-Feb-02
|
RHONDA DEAN
|
593.59
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 182137
|
|
23496
|
20-Feb-02
|
AMANDA CARTER
|
30.00
|
REFUND APPLICATION FEE
|
|
23497
|
20-Feb-02
|
BT EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
|
2,860.00
|
HIRE OF SKID STEER LOADER
|
|
23498
|
20-Feb-02
|
ECLIPSE RESOURCES PTY
LTD
|
41.25
|
GEN CONSTRUCTION WASTE
|
|
23499
|
20-Feb-02
|
ORANGE
|
4,473.70
|
MOBILE PHONE CHARGES
|
|
23500
|
20-Feb-02
|
PRESTIGE ALARMS
|
856.25
|
MONITORING PERIOD 1/1-31/1/02
|
|
23501
|
20-Feb-02
|
ALAN BLENCOWE
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
23502
|
20-Feb-02
|
FRANK CVITAN
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
23503
|
20-Feb-02
|
COMPLETE TURF SUPPLIES
|
920.70
|
ROLL-ON TURF SERVICES
|
|
23504
|
20-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF INDUSTRY &
TECHNOLOGY-CAMS
|
101.64
|
TRANS FEES FOR WA FASTPAY DEC 2001
|
|
23505
|
20-Feb-02
|
JUDITH HUGHES
|
493.62
|
TRAVEL/CHILDCARE
|
|
23506
|
20-Feb-02
|
LOTTERIES COMMISSION W
A
|
1,638.28
|
RETURN OF UNEXPENDED
GRANT FUNDS
|
|
23507
|
20-Feb-02
|
DOROTHY NEWTON
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
23508
|
20-Feb-02
|
NICK DEL BORRELLO
|
418.00
|
REPAIR BEACH SWEEPER,
JOCKEY WHEEL & SKID STEER
|
|
23510
|
20-Feb-02
|
SAM SALPIETRO
|
1,125.00
|
MONTHLY & MEETING
ALLOWANCE
|
|
23511
|
21-Feb-02
|
HAYS MONTROSE
|
3,908.30
|
TECH OPERATIONS
CONTRACT STAFF
|
|
23512
|
21-Feb-02
|
KEY HYDRAULICS
|
1,441.00
|
SEAL KITS
|
|
23513
|
21-Feb-02
|
LINK
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
100.67
|
STANDARD MOBILE
MESSAGING
|
|
23514
|
21-Feb-02
|
SUN CITY PUBLISHING
|
340.70
|
PRINT FOLD DISTRIBUTE
NEWSLETTER
|
|
23515
|
21-Feb-02
|
VISIMAX
|
384.00
|
HAT BADGES - RANGERS
|
|
23516
|
21-Feb-02
|
WESTBOOKS
|
245.96
|
VARIOUS BOOKS
|
|
23517
|
21-Feb-02
|
WEMBLEY CEMENT
INDUSTRIES
|
5,717.80
|
CEMENT & EPOXY
PACKS
|
|
23518
|
21-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO DAIRY
SUPPLIES
|
371.50
|
MILK SUPPLY
|
|
23519
|
21-Feb-02
|
WANGARA CARPET COURT
|
1,810.00
|
CARPET REPAIRS BOWER
GROVE 2ROCKS & DEPOT BLDG 3
|
|
23520
|
21-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIA POST
|
6,381.98
|
COW POSTAGE PAID
|
|
23521
|
21-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIA POST
|
7,551.28
|
MAIL PREPARATION
JANUARY
|
|
23522
|
21-Feb-02
|
AMERICAN INTER
UNDERWRITERS
|
7.00
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS F/E
15/2/2002
|
|
23523
|
21-Feb-02
|
ALINTA GAS
|
1,398.10
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23524
|
21-Feb-02
|
ALEXANDER HTS ADULT
DAY CARE P/CASH
|
91.15
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23525
|
21-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIAN MANUFACT
WKS UNION
|
77.40
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS F/E 15/2/2002
|
|
23526
|
21-Feb-02
|
ALEX HTS - THE HEIGHTS
COMM HOUSE P/C
|
129.00
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23527
|
21-Feb-02
|
ABORIGINAL SENIORS
GROUP PETTY CASH
|
50.00
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23528
|
21-Feb-02
|
BELL HEALTH
|
461.85
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY SERVICES
|
|
23529
|
21-Feb-02
|
BUILDING &
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
|
37,450.10
|
BCITF LEVY MONTH JAN
|
|
23530
|
21-Feb-02
|
COURIER AUSTRALIA
|
267.74
|
COURIER SERVICES
|
|
23531
|
21-Feb-02
|
CITY OF JOONDALUP
GENERAL ACCT
|
87.00
|
FINES ENFORCEMENT
REGISTRY-DEC 2001 & JAN 2002
|
|
23532
|
21-Feb-02
|
CHICKEN TREAT WANNEROO
|
59.15
|
CATERING - EMERGENCY
SERVICES
|
|
23533
|
21-Feb-02
|
CAPE DEMOLITION
|
54.00
|
PAVERS - MONIER
ELEBANA
|
|
23534
|
21-Feb-02
|
CLEAN SWEEP
|
308.00
|
MOB SWEEP DEMOB
|
|
23535
|
21-Feb-02
|
C C I TRAINING SERVICE
|
55.00
|
PRIVACY SEMINAR - ARE
YOU COMPLYING 24/01/02
|
|
23536
|
21-Feb-02
|
CITY OF WANNEROO
PAYROLL A/C
|
1,609.00
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS F/E
15/2/2002
|
|
23537
|
21-Feb-02
|
CITY OF WANNEROO
|
275.00
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO.
165625
|
|
23538
|
21-Feb-02
|
CHEF EXCEL PTY LTD
|
615.00
|
COUNCIL BUFFET 5/2/02
|
|
23539
|
21-Feb-02
|
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
|
4,675.00
|
ADVICE ON COJ
RECYCLING TENDER
|
|
23540
|
21-Feb-02
|
DUNCAN CROSBIE PRO
GOLF-CARRAMAR
|
8,962.00
|
PLAYING FEES DECEMBER
2001
|
|
23541
|
21-Feb-02
|
DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS
|
214.50
|
ANTENNA TAPERED, UHF
& TAIT REMOTE LEAD KIT
|
|
23542
|
21-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF FAMILY &
COMMUNITY SERVICES
|
104.18
|
RETURN OF UNEXPENDED
GRANT
|
|
23543
|
21-Feb-02
|
EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY
|
3,000.00
|
PROJECT-"PROFILING
BUSINESS & COMMUNITY AT YANCHEP AND TWO ROCKS
|
|
23544
|
21-Feb-02
|
EXECUTIVE SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
128.15
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23545
|
21-Feb-02
|
ENVIRONMENTAL LAND
CLEARING SERVICES
|
1,925.00
|
CARTAGE OF MULCH
29.01.02
|
|
23547
|
21-Feb-02
|
HOMECARE PURSUITS
|
17,994.84
|
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23548
|
21-Feb-02
|
HUGHANS SAW SERVICE
|
28.60
|
SHARPEN
BLADE/SPLITSCRIBE
|
|
23549
|
21-Feb-02
|
INTERCITY OFFICE
PARTITIONING
|
3,500.20
|
REMOVE ASBESTOS
CEILING
|
|
23550
|
21-Feb-02
|
I V R EQUIPMENT
|
495.00
|
LOWLINE TURBO
VENTILATOR
|
|
23551
|
21-Feb-02
|
INDRA GEIDANS
|
2,200.00
|
LIVE ART MURAL
COMPLETION
|
|
23552
|
21-Feb-02
|
J CORP PTY LTD
|
100.00
|
REFUND BUILDING FEE 36
SEAGROVE BOULEVARD
|
|
23553
|
21-Feb-02
|
K & F CONCRETE
|
2,665.30
|
INSTALL PARK BENCHES,
CONCRETE & RIVERSTONE
|
|
23554
|
21-Feb-02
|
KBE BUILDING SERVICES
PTY LTD
|
45,320.00
|
WARRADALE PARK
COMMUNITY CTRE -PROGRESS PAYMNT
|
|
23555
|
21-Feb-02
|
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE
UNION-PAYROLL
|
1,115.24
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS F/E
15/2/2002
|
|
23556
|
21-Feb-02
|
P & T E MATHIAS
HYDRAULIC CONTRACTORS
|
3,139.95
|
BADGERUP RECYCLING
|
|
23557
|
21-Feb-02
|
MIX 94.5 FM
|
5,500.00
|
RADIO ADVERTISING
|
|
23558
|
21-Feb-02
|
MENEGHELLO GALVANISING
SERVICE
|
88.00
|
HOT GALVANISED PLAY
EQUIPMENT PANELS
|
|
23559
|
21-Feb-02
|
NON-ORGANIC DISPOSALS
|
8,613.00
|
VARIOUS GLASS
DISPOSALS
|
|
23560
|
21-Feb-02
|
DENNIS NORMAN
|
41.66
|
KEY HOLDER FOR
FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23561
|
21-Feb-02
|
QUINNS ROCKS ADULT DAY
CARE P/CASH
|
45.35
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23562
|
21-Feb-02
|
REEKIE PROPERTY
SERVICES
|
33,444.33
|
MONTHLY CLEANING
CONTRACT
|
|
23563
|
21-Feb-02
|
SPUDS MARQUEE HIRE
|
361.70
|
TWO ROCKS BLESSING OF
THE FLEET
|
|
23564
|
21-Feb-02
|
SWIM AUSTRALIA
|
384.00
|
KICKBOARDS
|
|
23565
|
21-Feb-02
|
TELSTRA CORPORATION
|
117.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23566
|
21-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO LIBRARY PETTY
CASH
|
48.95
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23567
|
21-Feb-02
|
WATER CORPORATION
|
1,393.65
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23568
|
21-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
6,332.10
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT - COMM SVCS
|
|
23569
|
21-Feb-02
|
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN
PLANNING COMMISSION
|
482.57
|
RATE REFUND PROP NO. 152228
|
|
23570
|
21-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO BUSINESS
ASSOCIATION
|
210.00
|
MEETING ATTENDANCE FOR
JUL, SEP, NOV & DEC 2001
|
|
23571
|
21-Feb-02
|
B WEST0N
|
60.00
|
CLEANING JENOLAN WY
|
|
23572
|
21-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO PASTRY HOUSE
|
40.00
|
CAKE- EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH
DEC 2001
|
|
23573
|
21-Feb-02
|
WORLDS BEST PRODUCTS
P/L
|
1,155.00
|
DRUMS SPRAYCAN PRINT
PAINT
|
|
23574
|
21-Feb-02
|
WEST AUSTRALIAN LOCAL
|
503.22
|
TOWN PLANNING
ADVERTISING S2/A6
|
|
23575
|
21-Feb-02
|
HOME CHEF
|
7,670.40
|
HOME CHEF DINNERS
|
|
23576
|
21-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP COURT
|
2,457.75
|
28 SUMMONS
|
|
23577
|
21-Feb-02
|
LAURA VISEE
|
865.00
|
PRINTING OF SUMMONS
|
|
23578
|
25-Feb-02
|
INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC
WORKS ENGINEERING AUST (WA) INC
|
1,300.00
|
CONFERENCE 6-8TH MARCH
(R KORENHOF & D
BLAIR)
|
|
23579
|
26-Feb-02
|
PRIMUS TELECOM
|
30.25
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23580
|
26-Feb-02
|
INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC
WORKS ENGINEERING AUST (WA) INC
|
220.00
|
TENDERING &
CONTRACTS RISK MANAGEMENT SEMINAR
|
|
23581
|
26-Feb-02
|
WHITE OAK HOME CARE
SERVICES PTY LTD
|
370.70
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY
SERVICES
|
|
23582
|
26-Feb-02
|
WHITFORD MARQUEE &
PARTY HIRE
|
223.14
|
HIRE OF EQUIPMENT
|
|
23583
|
26-Feb-02
|
JUST SPECTACLES
|
100.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23584
|
26-Feb-02
|
PETER WEARNE
SETTLEMENTS
|
308.95
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23585
|
26-Feb-02
|
EAST WANNEROO PRIMARY
SCHOOL
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23586
|
26-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO CRICKET CLUB
|
2,500.00
|
REIMBURSE REMAINING
FOR CONSTRUCTION
|
|
23587
|
26-Feb-02
|
QUINNS DISTRICT
AMATEUR FOOTBALL CLUB
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND 20/01/02
|
|
23588
|
26-Feb-02
|
BANDT GATTER &
ASSOCIATES
|
1,452.00
|
PLANNING DIRECTORATE
BUSINESS PLAN WORKSHOP
|
|
23589
|
26-Feb-02
|
JINGLES FANCY DRESS
HIRE
|
278.00
|
T-SHIRT-SAFETY ROO
COSTUME WITH COW LOGO
|
|
23590
|
26-Feb-02
|
DRIVESHAFT BALANCING
SERVICES
|
1,848.00
|
SUPPLY TRACTOR SHAFT
|
|
23591
|
26-Feb-02
|
MIC CHECK PRODUCTIONS
|
800.00
|
YOUTH WORKSHOP
|
|
23592
|
26-Feb-02
|
THOMPSON HUGHES &
CO
|
3,082.20
|
INTERNAL AUDIT
SERVICES
|
|
23593
|
26-Feb-02
|
DIGIPLUS PTY LTD
|
47.75
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23594
|
26-Feb-02
|
B CLEAR AND SIMPLE
|
100.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23595
|
26-Feb-02
|
JODIE & JAMES HALL
|
302.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23596
|
26-Feb-02
|
NEIL & R MCCANN
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23597
|
26-Feb-02
|
VICKI HADE
|
153.90
|
RATE REFUND 136676
|
|
23598
|
26-Feb-02
|
E MCLEAN
|
55.81
|
RATE REFUND 137382
|
|
23599
|
26-Feb-02
|
DOUGLAS & J FITCH
|
185.65
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23600
|
26-Feb-02
|
J & M THREADGOLD
|
158.35
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23601
|
26-Feb-02
|
PAULA BREDDEN
|
153.00
|
MOVING OUT OF AREA
|
|
23602
|
26-Feb-02
|
VERONICA LECORDIER
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23603
|
26-Feb-02
|
CHRIS MARTIN
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23604
|
26-Feb-02
|
MAREE WILLIAMS
|
65.00
|
MOVING OUT OF AREA
|
|
23605
|
26-Feb-02
|
PERTH DENTAL CLINIC
|
98.00
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23606
|
26-Feb-02
|
JF CRUICKSHANK &
DR STOW
|
1,980.55
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23607
|
26-Feb-02
|
A CANALELLA
|
272.95
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23608
|
26-Feb-02
|
A & L CARTER
|
64.28
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23609
|
26-Feb-02
|
F & P NOVAK
|
446.29
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23610
|
26-Feb-02
|
KERRI KNOX
|
140.15
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23611
|
26-Feb-02
|
M BYGRAVE & P
WILSON
|
199.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23612
|
26-Feb-02
|
LISA M CHARLESWORTH
|
229.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23613
|
26-Feb-02
|
JOHN EA HARMAN
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23614
|
26-Feb-02
|
ADRIANE & S BLICKS
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23615
|
26-Feb-02
|
BRONISLAW BATORY
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23616
|
26-Feb-02
|
ANN R HAMILTON
|
345.00
|
VEHICLE CROSSING
SUBSIDY
|
|
23617
|
26-Feb-02
|
BT EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
|
413.22
|
410-32438 RIM 98882
|
|
23618
|
26-Feb-02
|
COATES WRECKAIR
|
274.48
|
BOX TRAILER ETC
|
|
23619
|
26-Feb-02
|
MAIN ROADS DEPARTMENT
|
2,505.00
|
SIGNAGE ROADMARKING
|
|
23620
|
26-Feb-02
|
PACIFIC BRANDS APPAREL
|
299.31
|
VARIOUS WORK CLOTHES
|
|
23621
|
26-Feb-02
|
TOTAL TORO
|
4,360.75
|
YOKE END, STEERING
WHEEL, GEAR BOX & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23622
|
26-Feb-02
|
WESTRAC EQUIPMENT PTY
LTD
|
511.56
|
VERTICAL RAMMER HIRE
|
|
23623
|
26-Feb-02
|
ALINTA GAS
|
91.83
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
23624
|
26-Feb-02
|
BANKWEST CONVEYANCING
|
547.45
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23625
|
26-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF INDUSTRY &
TECHNOLOGY-CAMS
|
37.95
|
TRANSCTION FEE
|
|
23626
|
26-Feb-02
|
MARANGAROO P & C
ASSOCIATION
|
50.00
|
BOND REIMBURSEMENT
|
|
23627
|
26-Feb-02
|
NICK DEL BORRELLO
|
220.00
|
REPAIR CRACKS IN
PACKER PADDLE & PIVOT PIN BOSS
|
|
23628
|
26-Feb-02
|
PERTH OUTDOOR PURSUITS
SUPPLIES
|
2,205.28
|
VARIOUS GAMES & SAFTEY ITEMS
|
|
23629
|
26-Feb-02
|
ST JOHN AMBULANCE OF
AUSTRALIA
|
693.90
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT - COMM SVCS
|
|
|
|
|
|
RESUSCITATION MASK & FIRST AID
KIT
|
|
23630
|
26-Feb-02
|
TELSTRA CORPORATION
|
20,330.49
|
PABX, CALLS &
TRANSACTION CHARGES
|
|
23631
|
26-Feb-02
|
WESTERN POWER
|
37,263.77
|
POLE REMOVAL, UPGRADE
STREET LIGHT & DÉCOR LIGHTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCIAL SUPPORT -
COMM SVCS
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHARGES-VAR PARKS,
CENTRES & OFFICES
|
|
23632
|
26-Feb-02
|
W A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ASSOC.
|
550.00
|
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT SVCS - ENVIRO HEALTH
|
|
23633
|
28-Feb-02
|
NOVUS HOMES
|
666.30
|
REIMBURSEMENT BUILD FEE
|
|
23634
|
28-Feb-02
|
WA PAINT CITY
|
46.95
|
SUNGUARD LO SHEEN
|
|
23635
|
28-Feb-02
|
MICHAEL HAYES
|
50.00
|
KEY HOLDER FOR
FEBRUARY 2002
|
|
23636
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANN VOLUNTEER FIRE BRIGADE
SOCIAL CLUB
|
1,200.00
|
PARKING FOR WENDY
MATHEWS CONCERT
|
|
23637
|
28-Feb-02
|
WILDFLOWER SOCIETY OF
WA
|
33.00
|
YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION TO
THE SOCIETY
|
|
23638
|
28-Feb-02
|
OUTER LIMITZ
|
410.00
|
SHIRTS - YOUTH &
LEISURE PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES
|
|
23639
|
28-Feb-02
|
LIBRARY & INFORMATION
SERVICE OF WA
|
52.80
|
BOOKS FOR THE
LIBRARIES
|
|
23640
|
28-Feb-02
|
LIGHT CAR CLUB OF W.
A. (INC)
|
567.00
|
MEMBERSHIPS &
LICENCES
|
|
23641
|
28-Feb-02
|
WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE
PTY LTD
|
73,213.57
|
CONSTRUCTION OF AN
UNDERPASS
|
|
23642
|
28-Feb-02
|
ACELLCOMM P/L
|
151.00
|
REMOVAL HANDS FREE KIT
|
|
23643
|
28-Feb-02
|
PERLEX HOLDINGS
|
1,467.50
|
EQUIPMENT HIRE FOR
LIVE CONCERT
|
|
23644
|
28-Feb-02
|
APG HOMES PTY LTD
|
90.00
|
REIMBURSEMENT BUILD
FEE
|
|
23645
|
28-Feb-02
|
NATIONWIDE ROOFING PTY
LTD
|
55.00
|
REIMBURSEMENT BUILD
FEE
|
|
23646
|
28-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIND HOLDINGS
LTD
|
100.00
|
REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION FEE
|
|
23647
|
28-Feb-02
|
MICHAEL GODFREY
|
42.00
|
VOLUNTARY SERVICES
|
|
23648
|
28-Feb-02
|
RHONDA THOMPSON
|
300.00
|
BOND REFUND
|
|
23649
|
28-Feb-02
|
A ALFANO
|
142.14
|
RATE REFUND
|
|
23650
|
28-Feb-02
|
IVAN SHAW
|
700.00
|
IVAN SHAW BAND- 2002
COMMUNITY CONCERTS
|
|
23651
|
28-Feb-02
|
MAYNE LOGISTICS
ARMAGUARD
|
370.16
|
CASH & KEY SAFE
COLLECTION
|
|
23652
|
28-Feb-02
|
ACOOLAH HATS
|
119.90
|
KOOL AUSSIE MEN NAVY
|
|
23653
|
28-Feb-02
|
ASPHALTECH PTY LTD
|
98,540.71
|
SUPPLY & LAY
GRANITE ASPHALT
|
|
23654
|
28-Feb-02
|
ARTEIL WA PTY LTD
|
686.40
|
CHAIRS FOR YOUTH
SERVICES
|
|
23655
|
28-Feb-02
|
ALUMAYNE PRODUCTS
|
870.00
|
CABINET FOR CARRAMAR
GOLF
|
|
23656
|
28-Feb-02
|
AARQUEanitech
|
15.44
|
METER CHARGES FOR KIP
2900
|
|
23657
|
28-Feb-02
|
ACTIMED AUSTRALIA
|
22.77
|
DISC MOOREPAPER 7/8
SAND COURSE/MEDIUM
|
|
23658
|
28-Feb-02
|
ADVANCED MATTING
|
118.16
|
SPIKED CHAIR MAT
REGULAR
|
|
23659
|
28-Feb-02
|
ADELPHI TAILORING CO
|
540.00
|
RANGERS' CLOTHING
|
|
23660
|
28-Feb-02
|
ACTION LOCK SERVICE
|
641.30
|
SECURITY SHIELD &
PADLOCKS
|
|
23661
|
28-Feb-02
|
ADFORM
|
355.30
|
SUPPLY & INSTALL RED
& SILVER EMERGENCY STRIPPING
|
|
23662
|
28-Feb-02
|
AIR LIQUIDE WA PTY LTD
|
395.16
|
GASES & CYLINDERS
RENTALS
|
|
23663
|
28-Feb-02
|
AUTO DOOR SYSTEMS
|
104.47
|
AUTO-DOOR STAYING OPEN
|
|
23664
|
28-Feb-02
|
AUST AIRCONDITIONING
SVCS P/L
|
8,417.75
|
AIRCONDITIONING
MAINTENANCE AT VAR CTRS
|
|
23665
|
28-Feb-02
|
AUSSIE IT
|
144.10
|
KYOCERA CAP TONER KIT
|
|
23666
|
28-Feb-02
|
A E HOSKINS & SONS
|
1,542.00
|
SUPPLY & INSTALL
BOLLARDS & LIMESTONE
|
|
23667
|
28-Feb-02
|
AQUILA
|
63.16
|
WINES- COUNCIL
SERVICES
|
|
23668
|
28-Feb-02
|
BOC GASES
|
91.84
|
GASES & CYLINDERS
RENTALS
|
|
23669
|
28-Feb-02
|
BUSBY INVESTMENTS PTY
LTD
|
337.36
|
HIRE OF VEHICLE FOR
BRIAN JONES
|
|
23670
|
28-Feb-02
|
BUNNINGS LIMITED
|
8.53
|
PLASTICWARE BASIN
|
|
23671
|
28-Feb-02
|
BOOMA AUTO ELECTRICS
|
82.50
|
1 X A/C HOSES FOR 96589
|
|
23672
|
28-Feb-02
|
JOHN BANKS &
ASSOCIATES
|
1,320.00
|
STAFF TRAINING ON CHAINSAW USE
|
|
23673
|
28-Feb-02
|
BRING COURIERS
|
329.67
|
COURIER CHARGES
|
|
23674
|
28-Feb-02
|
B G C CONCRETE
|
1,140.65
|
SUPPLY KERBMIX
|
|
23675
|
28-Feb-02
|
BEAUREPAIRES
|
26,325.23
|
REPAIRS TO VARIOUS FLEET TRUCKS
|
|
23676
|
28-Feb-02
|
BRAVO HIRE
|
46.00
|
HIRE OF SCAFFOLD - 31.1.02
|
|
23677
|
28-Feb-02
|
BGC BLOKPAVE
|
15,186.62
|
SUPPLY OF PAVERS
|
|
23678
|
28-Feb-02
|
COASTAL SERVICES
|
300.30
|
REPLACE TAP & VALVE (UNIT)
|
|
23679
|
28-Feb-02
|
COATES
|
2,718.78
|
HIRE OF PORTABLE
TOILETS
|
|
23680
|
28-Feb-02
|
COATES
|
142.92
|
EXTENSION LEAD
|
|
23681
|
28-Feb-02
|
COVENTRYS
|
78.48
|
FAN BELT & SOCKET
IMP
|
|
23682
|
28-Feb-02
|
LAMB PRINTERS PTY LTD
|
621.50
|
PRINTING OF
INFRINGEMENT NOTICE BOOKS
|
|
23683
|
28-Feb-02
|
C S B P
|
529.38
|
SODIUM HYPOCLORITE
BULK
|
|
23684
|
28-Feb-02
|
COATES WRECKAIR
|
1,149.28
|
GENERATORS & COMPRESSORS
HIRE
|
|
23685
|
28-Feb-02
|
CONTI'S WINES
|
158.40
|
WINES - COUNCIL
SERVICES
|
|
23686
|
28-Feb-02
|
CHADSON ENGINEERING
PTY LTD
|
750.20
|
DISC CHLORINE &
STANDARD RAFT/ PARCEL
|
|
23687
|
28-Feb-02
|
CYNDAN INDUST
MAINTENANCE CHEMICALS
|
696.86
|
ALU-CLEAN &
INSECTAGUARD SOLVENT BSE
|
|
23688
|
28-Feb-02
|
DBS FENCING
|
3,296.70
|
REPAIR & INSTALL
FENCING & GATES
|
|
23689
|
28-Feb-02
|
DE NEEFE SIGNS PTY LTD
|
7,251.97
|
ROLL OF SCOTCHLANE,
MAGNETIC NUMBERS & VAR SIGNS
|
|
23690
|
28-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF CONSERVATION
& LAND
|
105.00
|
SEMINAR HELD BY CALM
|
|
23691
|
28-Feb-02
|
DRIVE IN ELECTRICS
|
1,406.60
|
AIRCON SYSTEM,
ALTERNATOR, BURNT WIRING REPAIRS
|
|
23692
|
28-Feb-02
|
DYMOCKS WHITFORDS
|
44.06
|
MANAGERIAL ECON STUDY
|
|
23693
|
28-Feb-02
|
DIRECT ENGINEERING
SERVICES
|
450.23
|
BAD SMELL CIVIC
BUILDING
|
|
23694
|
28-Feb-02
|
DOCUPRINT INC VISUAL
TECHNIQUES
|
1,310.00
|
BLOCKOUT BANNERS
|
|
23695
|
28-Feb-02
|
ENZED SERVICE CENTRE
PERTH
|
273.99
|
SUPPLY HYD FITTING,
MAKE UP HYD HOSES
|
|
23696
|
28-Feb-02
|
ELLENBY TREE FARMS
|
82.50
|
EUCALYPTUS
|
|
23697
|
28-Feb-02
|
EASTERN PRESS PTY LTD
|
350.00
|
300 A4 COVERS PRINTED
3 COLOURS
|
|
23698
|
28-Feb-02
|
ELLIOTTS IRRIGATION
PTY LTD
|
1,690.53
|
VARIOUS IRRIGATION
EQPT & SUPPLIES
|
|
23699
|
28-Feb-02
|
FORPARK AUSTRALIA
|
3,458.29
|
S. HOOKS, POWDER
COATED STEEL STRUCTURE
|
|
23700
|
28-Feb-02
|
FUJI XEROX AUSTRALIA
PTY LTD
|
590.60
|
LEASE RENTAL &
SUPPORT SERVICE AGREEEMENT
|
|
23701
|
28-Feb-02
|
GEOFF'S TREE SERVICE
|
7,264.13
|
TREE PRUNING &
STUMPS GRINDING
|
|
23702
|
28-Feb-02
|
GREEN & GOLD HIAB
SERVICES
|
137.50
|
INSTALL PUMP
|
|
23703
|
28-Feb-02
|
GLAZEWELL P/L
|
1,565.15
|
VARIOUS GLASS REPAIRS
& INSTALLATION
|
|
23704
|
28-Feb-02
|
HUMES CONCRETE
|
268.40
|
PIPE
|
|
23705
|
28-Feb-02
|
C & E M HARMER
|
47.40
|
NEWSPAPER DELIVERY
|
|
23706
|
28-Feb-02
|
HEAVY AUTOMATICS
|
5,253.67
|
TRANSMISSION SUPPLY
& FAULT REPAIRS
|
|
23707
|
28-Feb-02
|
HUGALL & HOILE
WANGARA - MALAGA
|
1,179.02
|
VARIOUS RETIC FITTINGS
|
|
23708
|
28-Feb-02
|
HAYS MONTROSE
|
1,311.34
|
TECH OPS CONTRACT
STAFF
|
|
23709
|
28-Feb-02
|
ICON OFFICE TECHNOLOGY
|
1,480.24
|
METRE READINGS,
IMAGING FILM & TONERS
|
|
23710
|
28-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP INDUSTRIAL
HEALTH
|
952.60
|
PRE-EMPLOYMENT
MEDICAL, AUDIOGRAM & AIR CONDUCTION
|
|
23711
|
28-Feb-02
|
J B PRECISE
ENGINEERING
|
503.25
|
MAKE UP RETAINING
PINS, DUST COVERS & SPACERS
|
|
23712
|
28-Feb-02
|
JOONDALUP CANVAS WORKS
|
423.50
|
GREEN SHADECLOTH &
SAND TAP
|
|
23713
|
28-Feb-02
|
KERB QIC & CO
|
12,684.86
|
KERBING & PRAM
RAMPS INSTALL & REPAIRS
|
|
23714
|
28-Feb-02
|
LYONS & PEIRCE
|
3,432.00
|
HIRE CAMEL TRUCK
|
|
23715
|
28-Feb-02
|
LINCOLNE SCOTT
|
5,953.20
|
MANAGEMENT OF
MECHANICAL & HVAC SERVICES
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSULTANCY - FIRE
SERVICES
|
|
23716
|
28-Feb-02
|
LINK
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
49.99
|
WANN VOLUNTEER FIRE
BRIGADES
|
|
23717
|
28-Feb-02
|
MINI EXCAVATORS PTY
LTD
|
1,237.50
|
MINI EXCAVATOR HIRE
|
|
23718
|
28-Feb-02
|
MAJOR MOTORS
|
159,321.80
|
PURCHASE OF 2 ISUZU
VANS
|
|
23719
|
28-Feb-02
|
MIRCO BROS PTY LTD
|
78.00
|
DYNAMIC LIFTER,
CARTRIDGE RED
|
|
23720
|
28-Feb-02
|
MACDONALD JOHNSTON ENG
CO P/LTD
|
6,294.35
|
PIVOT PIN HEAD, VALVE
SOLENOID, BUFFER, HARNESS
|
|
|
|
|
|
BODY & VARIOUS
PARTS SUPPLY & REPAIRS
|
|
23721
|
28-Feb-02
|
MODERN TEACHING AIDS
PTY LTD
|
913.00
|
VARIOUS TEACHING AIDS
|
|
23722
|
28-Feb-02
|
MAYDAY EARTHMOVING
|
11,594.55
|
BOBCAT, MULTI ROLLER,
BACKHOE, TRUCK & SKID STEER AND EXCAVATOR HIRE
|
|
23723
|
28-Feb-02
|
MCLEOD & CO
|
257.95
|
INCIDENTAL ATTENDANCES
|
|
23724
|
28-Feb-02
|
METAL ARTWORK
CREATIONS
|
94.61
|
SILVER BADGES &
MAGNETIC ATTACHMENTS
|
|
23725
|
28-Feb-02
|
MOBITOW
|
253.00
|
TOWING OF VEHICLE
WN31691.
|
|
23726
|
28-Feb-02
|
MOTORLIFE
|
188.10
|
AUTO AEROSOL INOX 300
GM
|
|
23727
|
28-Feb-02
|
MINDARIE REGIONAL
COUNCIL
|
36,103.55
|
VARIOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
CHARGES
|
|
23728
|
28-Feb-02
|
MIKE GEARY SIGNS
|
66.00
|
SUPPLY FIT STICKERS
|
|
23729
|
28-Feb-02
|
MUSTANG PRINT &
COPY
|
19.60
|
A4 COL COPIES 1 TO 10
LAMINATION A4 '2-5'
|
|
23730
|
28-Feb-02
|
N E C BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS P/L
|
187.00
|
ADD EXT
5247-5251-PATCH PANEL IN BUILDING 2 & LABEL
|
|
23731
|
28-Feb-02
|
NOVUS WINDSCREEN
REPAIRS
|
1,077.12
|
REPAIR WINDSCREEN
INSURANCE CLAIM
|
|
23732
|
28-Feb-02
|
NETWORK FOODS
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
|
75.06
|
JELLY BABIES
|
|
23733
|
28-Feb-02
|
NORTH RIVER CARAVANS
|
190.00
|
MAINT JERRY CAN
HOLDERS
|
|
23734
|
28-Feb-02
|
OCCUPATIONAL SERVICES
(WA)
|
742.50
|
MEDIATION INTERVENTION
|
|
23735
|
28-Feb-02
|
ORANGE
|
863.03
|
PAGER CHARGES &
ALPHA PAGER
|
|
23736
|
28-Feb-02
|
PETER WOOD PTY LTD
|
4,235.00
|
PINE FENCING REMOVAL,
INSTALL & REPAIRS
|
|
23737
|
28-Feb-02
|
PROTECTOR SAFETY PTY
LTD
|
1,389.75
|
EARMUFFS & VARIOUS
PROTECTIVE GEARS
|
|
23738
|
28-Feb-02
|
PRESTIGE ALARMS
|
2,728.00
|
SECURITY ALARM
INSTALL, ACCESS CARDS, MONITORING AND SERVICE CALLS
|
|
23739
|
28-Feb-02
|
THE PRINTING FACTORY
|
408.36
|
HERITAGE PLACE FLYER
|
|
23740
|
28-Feb-02
|
GALVINS PLUMBING PLUS
|
78.84
|
25MM FLOATVALVE
|
|
23741
|
28-Feb-02
|
R & P ENGINEERING
PTY LTD
|
466.40
|
PROFILING OF ASPHALT
& SWEEPING
|
|
23742
|
28-Feb-02
|
ROCLA QUARRY PRODUCTS
|
228.72
|
FILLING SAND
|
|
23743
|
28-Feb-02
|
RCG PTY LTD
|
5,108.68
|
RUBBLE MIX & FILL
SAND
|
|
23744
|
28-Feb-02
|
M P ROGERS &
ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
|
1,553.75
|
QUINNS BEACH COASTAL
PROTECTION
|
|
23745
|
28-Feb-02
|
ROWE SCIENTIFIC
|
84.15
|
2 X 25 KG CALCIUM
CHLORIDE 74% FLAKES
|
|
23746
|
28-Feb-02
|
ROWECOM AUSTRALIA
|
449.72
|
LIBRARIES PERIODICAL
SUBSCRIPTIONS
|
|
23747
|
28-Feb-02
|
A & J SALAMONE
|
82.50
|
SUPPLY OF LAWN SAND
DKT NO'A 11612, 11613, 11615
|
|
23748
|
28-Feb-02
|
SANDERSON ENGINEERING
COMPANY
|
115.50
|
18320-ZE2-W61 PROTECTOR
|
|
23749
|
28-Feb-02
|
SOILAND GARDEN
SUPPLIERS
|
23,891.34
|
MULCHING OF GREEN WASTE
|
|
23750
|
28-Feb-02
|
SKIPPER TRUCKS BELMONT
|
1,711.36
|
NOZZLE WASHER, TANK
ASSY, CYL ASSY & VAR ITEMS
|
|
23751
|
28-Feb-02
|
STANDARDS AUSTRALIA
|
1,880.00
|
ELECT BCA STDS &
ROAD LIGHTING WORKSHOP
|
|
23752
|
28-Feb-02
|
SALMAT
|
213.04
|
TWILIGHT CONCERT, DATA
CONVERSION & LASER PRINT
|
|
23753
|
28-Feb-02
|
STEWART & HEATON
CLOTHING CO PTY LTD
|
211.25
|
FIRE SAFETY CLOTHING
|
|
23754
|
28-Feb-02
|
STOPMASTER BRAKES
|
612.37
|
RELINE BRAKE SHOES
|
|
23755
|
28-Feb-02
|
SHELL COMPANY OF
AUSTRALIA LTD
|
52,518.30
|
FUEL PURCHASE
|
|
23756
|
28-Feb-02
|
TRAILER PARTS PTY LTD
|
575.04
|
HYDR MASTER CYL, HYDR
ACTIVATING LEVER & VAR PARTS
|
|
23757
|
28-Feb-02
|
TECHNICAL IRRIGATION
IMPORTS
|
14,907.03
|
REPLACE DATA EQPT
& CONTROLLER REPAIRS
|
|
23758
|
28-Feb-02
|
TOPLINE TROPHIES
|
94.10
|
PLAQUE- EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH
|
|
23759
|
28-Feb-02
|
TAUBMANS
|
453.20
|
VARIOUS PAINTS
|
|
23760
|
28-Feb-02
|
FORCORP PTY LTD
|
780.78
|
FLASH TUBES &
STROBE LIGHT
|
|
23761
|
28-Feb-02
|
ONESTEEL LTD
|
176.00
|
50X10 FLAT
|
|
23762
|
28-Feb-02
|
TRUCKLINE
|
2,837.48
|
BRAKE VALVE, STEERING
ROD, CANVAS SEAT COVER & VAR
|
|
23763
|
28-Feb-02
|
TURF TEC AUSTRALIA
|
7,189.22
|
CYLINDER SHARPENER
& BEAVER CYLINDER & BLADE
|
|
23764
|
28-Feb-02
|
TURFMASTER PTY LTD
|
1,012.00
|
GRASS SIGNAGE
AUSTRALIAN FLAG
|
|
23765
|
28-Feb-02
|
TOWBAR CITY
|
365.00
|
HEAVY DUTY TOWBAR
|
|
23766
|
28-Feb-02
|
UNITY TRAINING
SERVICES
|
2,000.00
|
INTRO OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY HLTH
|
|
23767
|
28-Feb-02
|
VALUER GENERAL'S
OFFICE
|
2,629.75
|
GRV INT VALUATIONS
METRO SHARED
|
|
23768
|
28-Feb-02
|
VIBRA INDUSTRIAL
FILTRATION AUST
|
118.58
|
AIR FILTER CLEAN
|
|
23769
|
28-Feb-02
|
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN
MUNICIPAL
|
8,466.74
|
MUNICIPAL DIRECTORY
& ADVERTISING
|
|
23770
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO CARAVAN
CENTRE
|
8,008.66
|
VARIOUS STEEL
FABRICATION & MODIFICATION
|
|
23771
|
28-Feb-02
|
WEMBLEY CEMENT
INDUSTRIES
|
808.28
|
CIRCULAR BASE &
GATIC LID
|
|
23772
|
28-Feb-02
|
WEMBLEY CEMENT
INDUSTRIES
|
1,752.30
|
COMBINATION SIDE ENTRY
UNIT COMPLETE RAISED
|
|
23773
|
28-Feb-02
|
WORMALD FIRE SYSTEMS
|
500.50
|
FIRE HYDRANT STAND
PIPE 96072
|
|
23774
|
28-Feb-02
|
WILSONS SIGN SOLUTIONS
|
1,087.90
|
STAINLESS PLAQUES
|
|
23775
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO DAIRY
SUPPLIES
|
212.35
|
MILK SUPPLY
|
|
23776
|
28-Feb-02
|
WATTS & WOODHOUSE
|
220.00
|
PROFESSIONAL FEES
|
|
23777
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO TOWING
SERVICE
|
49.50
|
TOWING SERVICES
|
|
23778
|
28-Feb-02
|
W A LIMESTONE CO
|
3,854.25
|
SUPPLY & DELIVER
LIMESTONE & BITUMEN MIX
|
|
23779
|
28-Feb-02
|
WORK CLOBBER
|
57.50
|
2 PAIRS OF KING GEE
SHORTS FOR PARKS STAFF
|
|
23780
|
28-Feb-02
|
WEST COAST ASPHALT
|
715.00
|
ROADCROSSING &
SIDE ENTRIES
|
|
23781
|
28-Feb-02
|
W J MONCRIEFF PTY LTD
|
1,862.30
|
COMPUTER PARTS &
SOFTWARE
|
|
23782
|
28-Feb-02
|
XPRESS MAGAZINE
|
596.20
|
1/4 PAGE ADVERTS IN
SPOT COLOUR
|
|
23783
|
28-Feb-02
|
Y M C A MOBILE YOUTH
SERVICE
|
495.00
|
YMCA MOBILE YOUTH
CENTRE 16/12/01
|
|
23784
|
28-Feb-02
|
Y M C A OF PERTH
|
14,033.25
|
YOUTH SVCE VISITS
GIRRWHEEN, KOONDOOLA & MINDARIE
|
|
23785
|
28-Feb-02
|
AUSTRALIAN TURF
INDUSTRIES
|
37,140.59
|
TURF MAINTENANCE FOR
JAN 2002
|
|
23786
|
28-Feb-02
|
AQUAMOTION OFFICE
PETTY CASH
|
146.90
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23787
|
28-Feb-02
|
ALEXANDER HTS ADULT
DAY CARE P/CASH
|
53.30
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23788
|
28-Feb-02
|
ALEX HTS - THE HEIGHTS
COMM HOUSE P/C
|
59.20
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23789
|
28-Feb-02
|
ALINE BRICK PAVING
|
5,047.90
|
PAVING REPAIRS &
INSTALLATION
|
|
23790
|
28-Feb-02
|
ABORIGINAL SENIORS
GROUP PETTY CASH
|
50.00
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23791
|
28-Feb-02
|
ARADLAY INSURANCE
BROKERS PTY LYD
|
1,175.00
|
INSURANCE COVER FOR
LANDCARE GROVES
|
|
23792
|
28-Feb-02
|
BELL HEALTH
|
408.23
|
AGED CARE - COMMUNITY
SERVICES
|
|
23793
|
28-Feb-02
|
BRIAN GREEDY BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS
|
45.00
|
TAPES "BUSINESS
SPEAKING & PRESENTATION SKILLS"
|
|
23794
|
28-Feb-02
|
B & G CHAMBERS
|
498.00
|
CATERING BUFFET
|
|
23795
|
28-Feb-02
|
BAPTIST CARE
|
176.00
|
AGED- CACP (912) CARE
|
|
23796
|
28-Feb-02
|
BIG RED FIRE ENGINE
|
125.00
|
PROMOTIONAL FLYERS
|
|
23797
|
28-Feb-02
|
CLEAN SWEEP
|
7,422.53
|
MOB & DEMOB, VAR
ROAD SWEEPING
|
|
23798
|
28-Feb-02
|
CUSTOM SERVICE LEASING
LTD
|
1,980.74
|
VEHICLE RENTAL HIRE
|
|
23799
|
28-Feb-02
|
FRANK CVITAN
|
650.09
|
TRAVEL EXPENSES
15-29/01/02
|
|
23800
|
28-Feb-02
|
CITY OF WANNEROO
|
124.06
|
PAYMENT OF CR B
TREBY'S RATES
|
|
23801
|
28-Feb-02
|
CHEF EXCEL PTY LTD
|
907.50
|
CATERING - COUNCIL
SERVICES
|
|
23802
|
28-Feb-02
|
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
201.41
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23803
|
28-Feb-02
|
DUNCAN CROSBIE PRO
GOLF - MARANGAROO
|
10,804.20
|
COMMISSION FEE
|
|
23804
|
28-Feb-02
|
DORMAR INDENTS
|
117.84
|
CRAFT ITEMS
|
|
23805
|
28-Feb-02
|
DEPT OF SPORT &
RECREATION
|
50.00
|
SEMINAR 20TH MARCH
|
|
23806
|
28-Feb-02
|
EXECUTIVE SERVICES
PETTY CASH
|
179.35
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23807
|
28-Feb-02
|
GRAFFITI SYSTEMS
AUSTRALIA
|
4,545.77
|
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
|
|
23808
|
28-Feb-02
|
HOMECARE PURSUITS
|
16,154.27
|
AGED CARE- HACC &
CACP CLIENTS
|
|
23809
|
28-Feb-02
|
INTERCITY OFFICE
PARTITIONING
|
3,874.20
|
REMOVE ASBESTOS
CEILING SHEETS
|
|
23810
|
28-Feb-02
|
LO-GO APPOINTMENTS
|
21,506.72
|
VARIOUS COW CONTRACT
STAFF
|
|
23811
|
28-Feb-02
|
TERRY LOFTUS
|
471.58
|
TRAVEL
|
|
23812
|
28-Feb-02
|
P & T E MATHIAS
HYDRAULIC CONTRACTORS
|
2,904.00
|
BADGERUP RECYCLING
|
|
23813
|
28-Feb-02
|
MOVE CLOTHING &
LINEN SUPPLIES
|
694.71
|
CUSTOMER SERVICE-STAFF
UNIFORMS
|
|
23814
|
28-Feb-02
|
NEBA INTERNATIONAL
COURIERS
|
9.68
|
COURIER CHARGES
|
|
23815
|
28-Feb-02
|
NICK DEL BORRELLO
|
2,618.00
|
FORKS, BIN RMS,
EJECTOR PLATES & VAR MECH REPAIRS
|
|
23816
|
28-Feb-02
|
NAT'L CONF OF RURAL
COUNSELLING SVCS
|
50.00
|
REGISTRATION FEES
|
|
23817
|
28-Feb-02
|
QUINNS ROCKS ADULT DAY
CARE P/CASH
|
51.50
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23818
|
28-Feb-02
|
SUNNY BRUSHWARE
SUPPLIES
|
39.05
|
BRUSH WARE BROOM
HANDLE ONLY 25 MM
|
|
23819
|
28-Feb-02
|
STAMPALIA CONTRACTORS
|
18,020.20
|
EXCAVATOR WATER TRUCK
& BOBCAT HIRE
|
|
23820
|
28-Feb-02
|
SJW PODIATRY PTY LTD
|
2,475.00
|
PODIATRY SERVICE
|
|
23821
|
28-Feb-02
|
STIRLING CONCRETE PTY
LTD
|
23,690.90
|
FOOTPATH & PRAM
RAMP INSTALL & REPAIRS
|
|
23822
|
28-Feb-02
|
RUDI STEFFENS
|
113.94
|
TRAVEL EXPENSES
|
|
23823
|
28-Feb-02
|
TURBOMASTER PUMPS
|
14,707.00
|
VARIOUS PUMP
INSTALLATION & REPAIRS
|
|
23824
|
28-Feb-02
|
TECHNICAL OPERATIONS
PETTY CASH
|
434.10
|
PETTY CASH
|
|
23825
|
28-Feb-02
|
THOMSON LEGAL & REGULATORY
|
362.45
|
PLANNING LAW
|
|
23826
|
28-Feb-02
|
TRWC
|
193.60
|
PANELS
|
|
23827
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO PLUMBING
|
6,871.02
|
VARIOUS PLUMBING
REPAIRS & INSTALLATION
|
|
23829
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO ELECTRIC
|
10,488.03
|
VARIOUS ELECTRICAL
REPAIRS & INSTALLATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
INSTALL PARK LIGHTING
|
|
23830
|
28-Feb-02
|
WESTSIDE CONCRETE
CONTRACTORS
|
3,998.23
|
REMOVE & INSTALL
PATHS HAINSWORTH/BEACH
|
|
23831
|
28-Feb-02
|
W A LOCAL GOVT
SUPERANNUATION
|
196,586.04
|
FEBRUARY 2002
SUPERANNUATION
|
|
23832
|
28-Feb-02
|
WANNEROO TAVERN
|
557.40
|
CATERING- WANNEROO CARNIVAL
|
|
23833
|
28-Feb-02
|
LAUNCH EVENTS - LGMA
2002
|
5,916.00
|
LGMA NATIONAL CONFERENCE
|
|
50000217
|
05-Feb-02
|
JASON BARNDON
|
210.42
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000218
|
05-Feb-02
|
RUDI STEFFENS
|
68.36
|
TRAVEL EXPENSES 15-29/01/02
|
|
50000219
|
07-Feb-02
|
NATALIE RODNEY
|
85.30
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000220
|
07-Feb-02
|
MICHAEL BRAMMER
|
186.88
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000221
|
07-Feb-02
|
RAINETECH
|
3,300.00
|
CLARKSON YOUTH CENTRE
|
|
50000222
|
08-Feb-02
|
KAYLENE MASON
|
1,000.87
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000223
|
08-Feb-02
|
KARMEN GRZETIC
|
1,212.37
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000224
|
11-Feb-02
|
ALISON GEORGEL
|
248.20
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000225
|
11-Feb-02
|
AUST TAXATION OFFICE -
PAYG PAYMENTS
|
161,411.80
|
PAYG 01/02/02
|
|
50000226
|
14-Feb-02
|
DAVID TOWNSEND
|
1,503.44
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000227
|
20-Feb-02
|
IAN GOODENOUGH
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000228
|
20-Feb-02
|
JON KELLY
|
6,000.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000229
|
20-Feb-02
|
GLYNIS MONKS
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000230
|
20-Feb-02
|
LOUISE MCNAMARA
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000231
|
20-Feb-02
|
LYNN O'GRADY
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000232
|
20-Feb-02
|
JOHN STEWART
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000233
|
20-Feb-02
|
LORRAINE THOMAS
|
928.67
|
PAYROLL
|
|
50000234
|
20-Feb-02
|
J BLACKWOOD & SON
LTD
|
273.39
|
LENS, SIDE MIRROR, EAR
PLUGS & VAR ITEMS
|
|
50000235
|
20-Feb-02
|
HOSEMASTERS
|
879.17
|
REPLACE HYD FITTING
& MAKE UP HYD HOSES
|
|
50000236
|
20-Feb-02
|
MAUREEN GRIERSON
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000237
|
20-Feb-02
|
JUDITH HUGHES
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000238
|
20-Feb-02
|
TERRY LOFTUS
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000239
|
20-Feb-02
|
RUDI STEFFENS
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000240
|
20-Feb-02
|
BRETT TREBY
|
500.00
|
MONTHLY ALLOWANCE
|
|
50000241
|
25-Feb-02
|
HOSEMASTERS
|
526.36
|
MAKE UP HYD HOSES
|
|
50000242
|
25-Feb-02
|
AUST TAXATION OFFICE -
PAYG PAYMENTS
|
156,174.80
|
PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS F/E 15/2/02
|
|
50000243
|
27-Feb-02
|
SHANE CAREY
|
1,401.85
|
PAYROLL
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
3,387,211.25
|
|
|
LESS: CANCELLED CHEQUES
|
|
|
|
22837
|
24-Jan-02
|
OFFICEWORKS
|
(165.88)
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
(165.88)
|
|
|
|
Total Advance Account Recoup for February
2002
|
3,387,045.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Wanneroo Municipal Account
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheque
|
Date
|
Paid To
|
Amount
|
Details
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000158
|
15-Feb-02
|
DIRECTOR
CORP SERVICES ADV ACCT
|
1,667,377.49
|
RECOUP OF CHEQUE NO.:
23071 - 23446
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFT DOC NO.: 50000217
- 50000226
|
|
000159
|
22-Feb-02
|
DIRECTOR
CORP SERVICES ADV ACCT
|
366,276.81
|
RECOUP OF CHEQUE NO.:
23447 - 23577
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFT DOC NO.: 50000227
- 50000240
|
|
000160
|
28-Feb-02
|
DIRECTOR
CORP SERVICES ADV ACCT
|
1,353,391.07
|
RECOUP OF CHEQUE NO.:
23578 - 23833
|
|
|
|
|
|
EFT DOC NO.: 50000241
- 50000243
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
3,387,045.37
|
|
|
|
Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-Feb-02
|
COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA
|
27,941.70
|
FDC PAYMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
180.00
|
DISHONOURED CHEQUE
|
|
|
|
|
489,080.23
|
SALARIES - NET
|
|
|
|
|
5,397.40
|
SALARIES - DEDUCTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
30.00
|
STOP PAYMENT FEE
|
|
|
|
|
700.00
|
GLF POOLING FEE
|
|
|
|
|
946.75
|
MERCHANT FEE
|
|
|
|
|
94.67
|
GST ON MERCHANT FEE
|
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
DISHONOURED CHEQUE
|
|
|
|
|
486,035.02
|
SALARIES - NET
|
|
|
|
|
5,403.40
|
SALARIES - DEDUCTIONS
|
|
|
|
|
75.00
|
DISHONOURED CHEQUE
|
|
|
|
|
9.00
|
FEE ON DISHONOURED CHEQUE
|
|
|
|
Sub Total
|
1,015,993.17
|
|
|
Total Municipal Account for February 2002
|
4,403,038.54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EndOfRecommendation
- This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 07882
File Name: BBFinRep.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Mike Cole Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Mike Cole Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Corporate Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 1
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To note the monthly financial report for the month ended 28
February 2002.
Background
Regulation 34(1)(a) of the Local Government (Financial
Management) Regulations 1996 requires a financial report to be presented to
Council on a monthly basis.
Detail
The monthly financial report for the period ended 28
February 2002 has been completed and is attached (Attachment 1 refers).
The report comprises an Operating Statement by Program and
Nature and a Cash Flow Statement for the period ended 28 February 2002, plus a
Statement of Financial Position as at 28 February 2002.
Consultation
Nil.
Comment
As indicated in the report for the month ended 31 January
2002, a review of Operating and Capital Works Expenditure was undertaken during
January and February 2002. Overall, the Operating Budget is estimated to
remain within Budget by 30 June 2002. Capital Works is behind budget at this
time and is reflected in the balances held in Investments of almost $39.1
million. The Capital Works Program will be closely reviewed as part of the
2002/03 Budget Process
Statutory Compliance
The monthly financial report for the period ended 28
February 2002 complies with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act and
Regulation 34(1)(a) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations
1996.
Strategic Implications
Nil.
Policy Implications
Nil.
Financial Implications
Nil.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council NOTES the monthly financial report
for the period ended 28 February 2002.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT 1
FINANCIAL REPORT
for the month ended 28
February 2002
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 17168
Responsible Officer: Director,
Corporate Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 1
File Name: BBProofR.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 27 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 27 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 27 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To consider a request from Satterley Property Group for the
provision of regular advice in respect of new residents in the Brighton Estate,
Butler.
Background
A letter (Attachment 1) has been received from Mr
Robert Wallman (Community Development Manager – Brighton Estate) requesting the
City provide a monthly report detailing those people who have taken up
residence in the Brighton Estate during the preceding month.
Detail
The purpose of the request is to identify people as they
move into their new homes in order to invite each to attend a “Welcome Night”.
The “Welcome Night” will provide an opportunity to officially welcome each new
resident to the Estate and present each with a Welcome Kit. It is considered
to be an innovative way to foster a unique sense of community to all residents
and will allow new residents to become acquainted with their new neighbours.
The only details required in respect of each new resident are:-
·
Name;
·
Street Address; and
·
Lot Number.
The developer has indicated that the Welcome Kit will
contain information about the City of Wanneroo and a representative of the City
will be invited to attend the Welcome evening.
Comment
The information requested forms part of the City’s rate
record which, under the provisions of Section 5.94 (m) of the Local Government
Act 1995 is publicly available for inspection at the City’s offices by any
person. The Council has recently resolved to make Ward Street Listings (in
hard copy only) available to the public upon application and the payment of a
$55 charge (GST inclusive). These listings include the owner’s name (where it
has not been suppressed), street address and lot number. However, a person
inspecting the rate record or purchasing a street listing would not be able to
identify the date of occupation of new residents.
If the City was to accede to the developer’s request, it
would not be providing the date of occupancy but would be providing the
information requested in respect of only those who had taken up residence
during the preceding month.
Clearly, where a new resident has sought suppression of
their name on the rate record the entry on the listing would only detail the
street address and lot number for that person and would record “the owner” as
the name.
The information required can be extracted from the City’s
property system using the date of request for a new refuse service in the
Estate. This service however, is one that is not normally provided by the City
and as such the City should impose a charge. It is arguable as to whether such
charge can be pitched at a level to only recover costs or whether the City can
incorporate a profit margin. It is considered that any charge should be
restricted to cost recovery in recognition of the community benefit aspect of
the proposal. In that regard, a nominal fee of $55 (including GST) is
considered appropriate.
Conclusion
The purposes for which the information is being sought are
considered to be innovative and worthwhile in terms of fostering a sense of
community and it is lawful for the City to provide the information requested.
Alternatively, the Council may consider it more appropriate
to only provide a listing of addressees for which a new refuse service has been
requested during the period. Such a list would exclude owners name and postal
address.
In any event, should the Council consider this request
favourably, it would be recommended that the information be provided –
·
for an appropriate fee; and
·
in exchange for a written undertaking by the applicant that the
information would be used for the purpose of the “Welcome Night” only and would
not be made available (in any form) to a third party.
Statutory Compliance
The base information requested is publicly available
pursuant to Section 5.94 (m) of the Local Government Act 1995. Part 6,
Division 5, Subdivision 2 of the Local Government Act 1995 refers to Fees and
Charges. The imposition of a fee will require an Absolute Majority
and must either be implemented (i.e. become effective) upon budget adoption
(July 2002) or after giving local public notice (7 days) of the City’s
intention.
Strategic Implications
A decision by the Council to accede to this request is
considered to be consistent with the City’s Strategic Goal of Healthy
Communities.
Policy Implications
It is considered that any future requests of a similar
nature should be considered on merit and only agreed to where benefits accrue
to the community. That is, where there is no commercial intent on behalf of
the applicant.
Financial Implications
Nil. The charges suggested for the provision of this
information are based on cost recovery only.
Voting Requirements
Absolute Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council :-
1.
AUTHORISES the provision of data relating to new refuse services within
the Brighton Estate, Butler to Satterley Property Group as requested PROVIDED
that –
a)
the information provided in respect of each new refuse service be
restricted to the properties’ street address;
b)
Satterley Property Group provide the City a written undertaking that the
information would be used for the purpose of the “Welcome Night” only and would
not be made available (in any form) to a third party; and
c)
a fee of $55 (including GST) be charged in respect of each request.
2.
SUBJECT to 1. above, AUTHORISES the giving of a local public notice of
the City’s intention to charge a fee.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT 1
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 07886
File Name: BBAmetot.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 02 April 2002
Level 2 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 02 April 2002
Level 1 Approval by Audrey Binnie Date 02 April 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Corporate Services
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To consider a series of proposed amendments to the Trust
Deed for Local Government House.
Background
The former City of Wanneroo held trust equity units in the
Local Government House Trust in proportion to the amount of capital it
contributed towards the purchase of Local Government House in Altona Street,
West Perth. As a consequence of its unit holding (10 units) the former City of
Wanneroo was a “beneficiary” of the Trust. The Joint Commissioners determined
the adjustment of these units, effectively resulting in the transfer of 5 units
to each of the new Cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo (then the Shire of
Wanneroo).
The Trust Deed for Local Government House recognises the
CSCA, CUCA and LGA in a number of areas. The pending dissolution of the three
organisations to form WALGA therefore requires the Trust Deed to be amended.
The City of Wanneroo as one of the beneficiaries has been asked to consider the
proposed amendments prepared by the Board of Management in conjunction with
lawyers Minter Ellison and signify its agreement or otherwise by 30 April 2002.
Detail
The correspondence received from WALGA in respect of the
proposed amendments to the Local Government House Trust Deed noted the City’s
status as a beneficiary of the Trust. Interestingly, the accompanying
schedule recorded the City of Joondalup as holding a beneficial interest by way
of 10 units and excluded the City of Wanneroo altogether. The City of
Joondalup has since written to WALGA advising of the Joint Commissioner’s
decision and, as a result, WALGA have contacted the City of Wanneroo to confirm
that the list of beneficiaries has been amended accordingly.
Broadly, there are two (2) issues that need to be addressed
due to the pending replacement of the existing representative bodies with the
Western Australian Local Government Association: -
§
To allow the appointment of one replacement Trustee (WALGA) for
the existing Trustees (CSCA and LGA); and
§
To replace the current Board of Management with a new Board.
These required amendments offer an opportunity to propose
further amendments aimed at updating and improving the operation of the Board
of Management and reflecting terminology used in the Local Government Act 1995
and related State legislation. A detailed explanation of the proposed
amendments is included in Attachment 1.
Consultation
Nil
Comment
A summary of the proposed amendments follows: -
·
“To allow the appointment of one replacement Trustee for the
CSCA and LGA
- With the decision of the three
Associations at the 2001 Annual Conference to form the WA Local Government
Association, the CSCA, LGA and CUCA entered into a state of dormancy. A motion
to dissolve each Association will be considered before or at the 2003 Annual
Conference.
- As the CSCA and LGA are the
current Trustees of the Deed, it is necessary to appoint a replacement Trustee.
- The Trustees Act requires a
minimum of two trustees to be appointed where more than one trustee was
originally appointed. This would prevent appointing only the WA Local
Government Association as the new Trustee.
- It is therefore proposed that a
Deed of Variation be executed to vary the terms of the Trust Deed to allow the
appointment of one Trustee (ie the WA Local Government Association) as
replacement for the CSCA and LGA.
·
To replace the current Board of Management with a new Board
- The Board of Management
currently includes representatives from CSCA, LGA and CUCA.
- With the pending dissolution of
the three Associations, a new Board of Management must be appointed to manage
the day-to-day administration of the Trust Deed.
- It is proposed that a new Board
of Management be appointed which includes the following members:
|
Current Board of
Management
|
New Board of
Management
|
|
LGA President
LGA Deputy President
CSCA President
CSCA Deputy President
CUCA President
|
President of the WA Local Government Association
Deputy President of the WA Local Government
Association
State Councillor (Country Constituency)
State Councillor (Metropolitan Constituency)
Representative from the country beneficiaries
Representative from the metropolitan beneficiaries
CEO of the WA Local Government Association
|
·
To update the Trust Deed and to improve the operation of the
Board of Management
- Various amendments need to be
made to recognise the Local Government Act 1995 and related State legislation.
- It is proposed that an amendment
be made in relation to constituting a quorum at meetings of the Board of
Management. Currently, the number of members required to form a quorum is
100%. This has been a source of ongoing problems, and as such it is proposed
that the number of members necessary to form a quorum be amended from 100% to
greater than 50%.
- It is recommended that an
amendment be made to the Trust Deed relating to the majority needed to carry a
resolution of the Board of Management. Presently, a resolution can only be
carried by the unanimous agreement of all members. This is contrary to the
practices in most other boards and committees. As such, it is proposed that
this requirement should be amended to allow an absolute majority to carry a
resolution of the Board of Management.”
It is considered that the Council should support the
proposed amendments to the Trust Deed for the Local Government House Trust and
authorise the Chief Executive Officer to notify the Western Australian Local
Government Association accordingly.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
AGREE to the proposed amendments to the Local Government House Trust
Deed as outlined in the correspondence from the Western Australian Local
Government Association dated 28 February 2002 and attached to this report
(Attachment 2); and
2.
AUTHORISE the Chief Executive Officer to advise the Western Australian
Local Government Association of the City’s agreement to the proposed
amendments.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
Community
Development
File Ref: 07116
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
File Name: AABUDEXP.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Community Services seeks Council approval to re-allocate
funds from within its operational budget towards the purchase of a digital
camera for use in the proposed new Youth Services Website, and to make up the
shortfall for purchase of a Public Address System.
Background
The 2001/02 Youth Services budget approved the purchase of
a PA system as a Minor Capital Item ($1,500). A recent quotation indicates a
sturdy PA system will cost around $2,700, meaning a shortfall of approximately
$1,200.
It is also apparent that the proposed new Youth Services
Website will require the use of a digital camera to ensure the website content
is current and relevant enough to attract young people. This will cost
approximately $1,200 including accessories.
Detail
Youth Services staff require a Public Address system that
is fully portable and able to be transported around for youth programs such as
skate competitions at Two Rocks, Quinns, Girrawheen and Wanneroo, and Hip Hop
programs at Hainsworth and Banksia Grove. The ideal system is fully portable
and sturdy but there is a shortfall of $1,200 from the amount allocated in the
current budget.
As stated, a dedicated digital camera will form a key
component of the proposed Youth Services website.
There has been a considerable saving in salaries in the
Youth Services budget as a number of positions were not filled until late in
2001.
It is proposed that a total of $2,400 be re-allocated from
savings in salaries in the Operational Budget to offset a shortfall for the
purchase of a PA system ($1,200) and towards the purchase of a Camera and
accessories ($1,200).
Comment
The purchase of a sturdy and portable PA system is a good
investment in youth programs and will be heavily used, adding value to the
programs that are currently operated.
This PA system might also assist other areas of the City’s
operation, for example in the conduct of public meetings at other locations.
The digital camera used by Marketing Services is heavily
used by all areas of the Council and is often not available for loan by Youth
Services. The availability of a digital camera is essential to the success of
an interactive and relevant Youth Services Website, which should be developed
by May 2002. Additionally, the camera could be borrowed by other sections of
Community Development as other Websites are developed.
Statutory Compliance
In accordance with section 6.8 (1) (c) of the Local
Government Act (Absolute Majority required) Council authorisation is required
for this budget variation.
Strategic Implications
The re-allocation of council funds correlates with Goal 2
of the Strategic Plan, specifically:
1. Goal
2.6 Provide and manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our communities; and
2. Goal
2.7 Provide community focussed services and lifestyle opportunities.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
It is pertinent to note that funds will be reallocated from
the existing savings from salaries, should this proposal be approved. The
proposal does not, therefore, represent additional expenditure. The
expenditure proposed represents an appropriate reallocation of funds within the
Youth Services program, to ensure the most is achieved from the available
resources.
Voting Requirements
Absolute Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. AUTHORISES
BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of funds within Youth Services for the
purpose of purchasing a digital camera and accessories and a public address
system, in accordance with section 6.8 (1) (c ) of the Local Government Act
1995; and
2. NOTES
the following budget variations to enable the purchase of the digital camera
and public address system as indicated below:-
|
Cost Code/Project
|
From
|
To
|
Description
|
|
51/80/88/898/3001/0001
|
$2,400.00
|
|
|
|
51/80/88/898/4503/0001
|
|
$1,200
|
Purchase digital camera & accessories
|
|
Project 2803
|
|
$1,200
|
Purchase Public Address system
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 01075
File Name: AATheexp.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
The City has been advised of the success of its recent
applications for non-recurrent and recurrent funding within the Home and
Community Care (HACC) Program.
Background
The aim of the HACC program is to prevent inappropriate
admissions to nursing homes or hostels through the provision of targeted home
support services. As part of the funding process within the HACC Program the
City made applications in October 2001 for additional non-recurrent and
recurrent funding related to Wanneroo HACC Services.
Detail
Recurrent funding of $10,400 has been approved as indicated
in the table below.
Recurrent Funding:
|
ITEMS REQUESTED
|
FUNDING
RECEIVED
|
|
300 hours of Respite @ unit cost of $ 23.00 per hour
|
$ 6,900
|
|
200 hours of Social Support @ unit cost of $17.50 per
hour
|
$ 3,500
|
|
|
Total:
$10,400
|
Non-recurrent funding of $31,000 has been approved as
indicated in the table below:
Non-Recurrent Funding:
|
ITEMS REQUESTED
|
FUNDING
RECEIVED
|
|
Changeover of Day Centre Bus
|
$20,000
|
|
Dishwasher x 2 purchase and install
|
$ 2,500
|
|
Kitchen appliances and equipment
|
$ 2,500
|
|
Sewing machine and overlocker
|
$ 1,000
|
|
Equipment for woodwork activities
|
$ 1,500
|
|
Sofa x 2
|
$ 1,000
|
|
Aquarium and accessories
|
$ 500
|
|
Warehouse shelving
|
$ 500
|
|
Resource equipment for kiln
|
$ 500
|
|
Window blinds
|
$ 1,000
|
|
|
Total: $31,000
|
Comment
This additional recurrent and non-recurrent funding is
essential to ensure:
1.
The City can respond to the potential increase in demand for Wanneroo
HACC Services;
2.
The City’s Day Centre Facilities have adequate resources to maintain a
comfortable and stimulating environment for clients accessing the program; and
3.
The City’s Day Centre Transport is adequate to meet the demands of the
program.
These resources represent a valuable addition to the funds
available within the HACC program, and go towards ensuring that a high standard
of service is provided to HACC clients.
Statutory Compliance
In accordance with section 6.8 (1) (c) of the Local
Government Act (Absolute Majority required) Council authorisation is
required for this budget variation.
Strategic Implications
The expenditure of these grant funds correlates with Goal 2
of the Strategic Plan, specifically:
1. Goal
2.5 Foster a community that finds strength in its diversity;
2. Goal
2.6 Provide and manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our communities; and
3. Goal
2.7 Provide community focussed services and lifestyle opportunities.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The City has been forwarded 50% ($5,200) of the total
recurrent funding granted for Wanneroo HACC Services. In effect this represents
a payment for the January to June quarters for 2001-2002 and must be recognised
in the 2001-2002 financial year in the audited financial statement provided by
the City. Full year recurrent funding will commence at the beginning of the
2002-2003 financial year.
The City has also been forwarded non-recurrent funding of
$31,000 that must be recognised in the 2001-2002 financial year in the audited
financial statement provided by the City.
No additional funding is required from the City with regard
to the expenditure of these funds.
Voting Requirements
Absolute Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council
1. AUTHORISES
BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of additional non-recurrent and recurrent
funds within the Home and Community Care Program, in accordance with section
6.8 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act; and
2. NOTES
the following budget variations to enable the expenditure in accordance with
the conditions of the funding allocation of additional non-recurrent and
recurrent funds within the Home and Community Care Program as indicated below:
|
REVENUE ACCOUNT
CODE
|
AMOUNT
|
EXPENDITURE
ACCOUNT CODE
|
AMOUNT
|
|
51:80:88:913:1520:0001
|
$5,200
|
51:80:88:913:4230:0001
|
$5,200
|
|
51:80:88:911:1699:0001
|
$20,000
|
51:80:88:911:6899:0001
|
$20,000
|
|
51:80:88:911:1699:5001
|
$2,500
|
51:80:88:911:6899:5001
|
$2,500
|
|
51:80:88:911:1699:6805
|
$1,750
|
51:80:88:911:6899:6805
|
$1,750
|
|
51:80:88:911:1699:5620
|
$2,750
|
51:80:88:911:6899:5620
|
$2,750
|
|
51:80:88:911:1699:5002
|
$4,000
|
51:80:88:911:6899:5002
|
$4,000
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 10015
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
File Name: AAHelIns.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To consider a request from the Health Insurance Commission
(HIC) to establish a Medicare Easyclaim telephone facility in the Yanchep
Community Centre (YCC) for a period of 2 years commencing April 2002.
Background
The Health Insurance Commission proposes that residents in
rural and remote communities have ready access to a dedicated telephone line to
assist them in claiming rebates for their Medicare claims. This is a simple
step-by-step, self-help service that takes customers through the process of making
Medicare claims. The HIC has suggested that the Yanchep Community Centre would
provide an accessible and popular venue for such a service and it wishes to
enter into a 2-year contract arrangement with the City, with an option to
extend the contract should it be successful.
Detail
The HIC will bear all costs of installation, connection of
the telephone line, operational costs and promotional information. It will
also pay the City an honorarium of $250 per annum for ensuring that appropriate
management procedures, centre access and preservation of client confidentiality
are maintained by YCC staff. The City can terminate its involvement in the
contract through the provision of 28 days written notice.
A suitable area within the building has been identified,
which offers confidentiality for clients to discuss their claims on the
telephone line. The building is open 9am- 4pm Monday – Friday each week except
for Public Holidays and a 1-week closure over the Christmas/New Year period.
Comment
The proposed service offers residents of Yanchep, St
Andrews and Two Rocks with convenient local access to Medicare services,
overcoming issues often associated with living in isolated or rural
communities.
YCC staff would be required to sign a confidentiality
clause and to process sealed claims through the mail service on a daily basis.
The HIC will provide Reply Paid envelopes.
This equates to minimal inconvenience and disruption to YCC
staff who are fully supportive of this measure and are able to support these
duties in their work schedule.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Goal 2: Healthy Communities:
Prepare and implement plans and initiatives that promote
equity and access for all sections of the community.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
A $250.00 honorarium would be paid for facilitating the
provision of the service. All installation and operational costs are met by
HIC.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council APPROVES entry into a 2-year
contract with the Health Insurance Commission from April 2002 for the purpose
of providing a Medicare Easyclaim Telephone Service in the Yanchep Community
Centre.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: TBA
File Name: AADesand.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 04 April 2002
Level 2 Approval by Gary Date 03 April 2002
Level 1 Approval by Mark Date 03 April 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
This report seeks Council endorsement for the appointment
of SkateTech Pty Ltd to work with the Yanchep/Two Rocks Skate Working Party on
the style of design and construction of the Charnwood Reserve Skate Facility.
Background
At its meeting of 18 December 2001 (reference report
CD06-12/01) it was resolved that Council:
1. APPROVES
the construction Stage 1 of a permanent skate facility, to be located centrally
on Charnwood Reserve, west of the existing change rooms and in view of Lisford
Avenue, with additional funds to be sought through other appropriate avenues to
assist future staged development of the facility.
2. CALLS
for Expressions of Interest from suitable organisations for the design and
construction of the permanent skate facility;
3. NOTES
that all Expressions of Interest will be presented to the Yanchep Two Rocks
Skate Facility Working Party for their comment; and
4. NOTES
that a report regarding the preferred organisation to construct the facility
and design specifications will be presented to Council for consideration in
February 2002.
Subsequently, the Working Party met on Thursday, 28
February. At this meeting the members were informed of Council’s resolutions,
perused and supported the request for quotation document and agreed to meet
again on Thursday, 28 March to review the quotations.
Detail
The City has received two quotations for the design and
construction of the facility, and these have been presented to the Working
Party. A third company declined to submit a quotation due to their current
workload and subsequent unavailability to undertake such works until
approximately February 2003.
One quotation was received from SkateTech. This quotation
favours a concrete style facility, similar in design to the existing facility
at Clarkson Youth Centre.
The other quotation was received from Rampage Design, and
this favoured a semi-permanent style of construction, similar, although more
developed, to sites existing at Wanneroo Showgrounds and Quinns Rocks.
Consultation
The received quotations were provided to the Working Party
for comment. The Working Party was unanimous in its support for SkateTech.
All members’ felt that the proposal put forward by SkateTech would better meet
their needs. They concluded that SkateTech would provide them with a permanent
style construction, which is their preference. They had also indicated that
SkateTech designed and constructed superior skate parks, and had an excellent
international reputation.
The City’s Technical Services Directorate undertook a
separate evaluation on the quotations and recommended the use of Rampage
Design. However, the two quotations were extremely close in terms of assessed
merit (85% compared to 80%). Please note the Working Party discussed the
City’s evaluation and strongly disagreed with the final recommendation, based on
their knowledge as skate park users. It is pertinent to note that Technical
Services could not consider the style of design and construction in its
evaluations and could only consider the following:
1.
Design service response to brief and site requirements
2.
Ability to meet the program for works
3.
Previous experience
4.
Three current referees; and
5.
Prices quoted for components of works and within budget total.
The style of design and construction was always meant to be
a primary consideration, hence the value of the Working Party’s comments with
regard to the quotations. Given that the evaluation by Technical Services was
so close between the two submissions, it would appear appropriate to support
the recommendation of the Working Party.
The Working Party members were asked if they would prefer
the City to seek additional quotes from companies that constructed permanent
skate parks. They declined the offer, stating that they were confident that
SkateTech would construct the best facility.
Comment
A strength of the process followed with regard to the
development of this facility has been the close and ongoing consultation with
the general public and potential users of the facility. This has allowed the
City to locate the facility in an area amenable to all, and to ensure the
facility is relevant and attractive to young people in the area.
The Working Party has been an extremely important part of
this process, and has been instrumental in the development of the facility to
date. The Working Party has had the opportunity to consider all the available
information, and have indicated a preference for SkateTech.
Given that the quotation provided by SkateTech meets the
City’s requirements and has the support of the Working Party, it is recommended
that SkateTech be awarded the contract for the design and construction of the
facility.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
This project articulates with the City’s strategic plan in
the following areas:
Goal Two Healthy Communities
To foster an identity that promotes lifestyle choices
and the provision of quality services and infrastructures.
2.1 Achieve an understanding of our community’s
needs – present and future;
2.4 Support safe and secure communities;
2.5 Foster a community that provides strength in
its diversity;
2.6 Provide and manage infrastructure to meet the
needs of our community; and
2.7 Provide community focussed services and
lifestyle opportunities.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The City has allocated a total of $45,307.00 for this
project. Interested parties were asked to submit a quote exclusive of GST to
complete the design and construction of the skate facility. The respective
quotes are outlined in the table below.
|
COMPANY
|
DESIGN
|
CONSTRUCTION
|
TOTAL (EXCL. GST)
|
|
Rampage Design
|
$N/A
|
$40,000
|
$40,000.00
|
|
SkateTech
|
$2,475
|
$40,000
|
$42,475.00
|
It is evident that the quotation submitted by Rampage
Design is less than that provided by SkateTech. However, it is felt that the
opinion of the Working Party must be paramount here, given that the final
figures are very close.
The City must ensure that any facility that is constructed
will be well utilised by the young people in the area and if this is to happen
the facility must be relevant and meet the needs of the young people in question.
The most appropriate way to ensure this occurs is to consider the views of
potential users before the facility is constructed, hence the essential role
the Working Party has had to play in the development of this facility.
The City continues to seek additional sources of funding
for a proposed stage 2 of this facility.
Voting Requirements
Absolute Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
APPOINTS SkateTech Pty Ltd to design and construct a permanent skate
facility at Charnwood Reserve Two Rocks at $42,475.00 (excluding GST); and
2.
DELEGATES authority to the Chief Executive Officer to approve the final
design of the facility after consultation with the Yanchep/Two Rocks Skate
Facility Working Party.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 08082
File Name: BAKinSpo.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 4
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Seek Council endorsement of the car park and traffic
management implementation strategy for the Kingsway Sporting Complex, Madeley.
Background
At the 1
May 2001 Ordinary Council meeting, Council resolved to:
a) Endorse
the draft Kingsway Sporting Complex Master Plan.
b) Seek
a further report on the infrastructure implementation
program following a review of the works recommended by the draft Kingsway
Sporting Complex Master Plan.
In order for the recommendations of the Kingsway Sporting
Complex Master Plan to be implemented a series of infrastructure reviews and
assessments were undertaken. These reviews included traffic, parking, pedestrian, lighting, signage, fencing, cycle ways and
passive recreation facility issues. A multi disciplined team representing Leisure
Services and Technical Operations were established to address the traffic and
parking concerns.
Council allocated $15,000 from Project No1800,
Implementation of the Kingsway Sporting Complex Master Plan to commission a
traffic consultant to undertake a detailed traffic impact study being one
aspect of the infrastructure implementation program.
At its meeting 4 September 2001 Council received the
Kingsway Sporting Complex – Traffic Management Strategy Report (Report
TS02-09/01 refers) as prepared by Ove Arup Transportation Planning, accepting
the reports recommendations.
Council approved the
following road works as part of Stage 1 of the Implementation Program:
·
Extension of Skeit Road to Hepburn Avenue, incorporating a
roundabout at the Hepburn Avenue intersection.
·
Upgrading of the existing section of Skeit Road between Kingsway
and the baseball entrance road
·
Construction of a central entrance road to the Kingsway Sporting
Complex from Hepburn Avenue, incorporating a roundabout at the Hepburn Avenue
intersection.
The report recommended parking and traffic management
priorities to coincide with the initial Hepburn Avenue construction. No costs
were determined for each priority. The parking and traffic management
priorities included;
1. Netball Car Park
Seal Netball Car Park including
formalisation of the pick up/drop off parking. This should coincide with new
internal roundabout entrance at the juncture of roads from the existing
internal roundabout, the Kingsway entry and Bellerive entry.
2. Soccer Car Parking
Conversion of the internal
east-west road between the soccer grounds to one way with formalised roadside
parking and construction of a car park south of the old tennis/netball courts
(approx. 80 bays);
3. Hockey / Cricket Car Parking
Provide the proposed sealed car
park at the corner of Bellerive Boulevard/Kingsway Sporting Complex entry
(adjacent to the Cricket/Hockey Clubrooms – approx. 60 bays) and the provision
of slip parking to accommodate participants, spectators and passive users
attached to the side of the road adjacent to Cricket / Hockey playing fields.
4. Football Car Park
Provide a large sealed football
car park (250 bays) inside the existing fence line to the east of the Wanneroo
Football Clubrooms.
Recommendations were based on;
·
Consultation with existing Clubs / Associations
·
The impact that Stage 1 of the extension to Hepburn Avenue would
have to the internal and external road networks
·
Analysis of traffic volumes, origin and destination surveys and
crash data
·
Analysis of demand that indicated the greatest gap between the
number of car park embayments provided and what is required
·
The opportunity for joint provision of car parks as several
clubs/associations use the same facility/grounds,
·
Safety issues relating to pick/up drop off areas
·
The need to rationalise the traffic flow within existing car
parks
·
Vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist conflicts
·
Security concerns related to late night walking and distance of
car parks from facilities
·
Comparisons with other regional sporting Complex’s
·
Future sport and recreational development within the Complex.
In January 2001 the Badminton Association of WA, who lease
the Kingsway International Sports Stadium at the Kingsway Sporting Complex,
applied and received permission from the Western Australian Planning Commission
to develop a 105 bay car park in front of the Stadium.
No development has occurred to this date although the
Badminton Association of WA engaged Hindley & Associates to prepare a
detailed design for the proposed Car park extension. The Badminton Association
of WA has made repeated requests for Council to fund the construction of this
additional car parking (approx cost $90,000). The request for additional car
parking bays at the front of the Kingsway International Sports Stadium has been
considered as part of the overall need at Kingsway.
At its meeting held on 26 February
2002 Council agreed in principle to the proposed
relocation of the West Perth Football Club to the Kingsway Sporting Complex.
Additional Car parking will be required to cater for West Perth Football Club
requirements.
Consultation
In order to develop the Kingsway Sporting Complex - Traffic
Management Strategy, a stakeholder workshop with Club representatives and Councillors and interview surveys with users from the
Kingsway Sporting Complex were conducted in June 2001. Representatives were
asked to detail traffic and parking areas of concern relative to their specific
Club and to provide suggested solutions to each problem. Clubs unable to attend
the workshop were given the opportunity to contribute through a Club questionnaire
distributed at time of notification of the agenda to the workshop.
The principle issue highlighted by a variety of Clubs was
the limited parking spaces available leading to parking on internal road
verges. This practice, particularly when it occurs on both sides of the road,
narrows internal road widths creating traffic build up and has the potential to
create further conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and athletes.
The responses from the stakeholder workshop and club
questionnaire, indicated that solutions to the parking concerns be alleviated
through provision of additional car parks and moving back bollards on road
verges. The common belief was that providing adequate parking at the relevant
locations and the appropriate linkages to Hepburn Avenue would relieve the
internal vehicular pressure and improve the overall safety.
Stakeholder areas nominated for additional and upgraded car
parking included;
·
Front of the Netball Centre
·
The grassed area to the south of the cricket/hockey car park
(corner of Bellerive Boulevard and Kingsway Sporting Complex entry)
·
Maintenance to the grassed area parking at the football ground.
·
The area to the south of the football ground
·
The area to the south of the old tennis / netball courts and east
of the Kingsway Olympic soccer ground.
·
Formalise the roadside parking between the soccer grounds.
·
The area to the east of the Wanneroo Soccer Club existing car
park
Detail
The Kingsway Sporting Complex is located on reserve 28058,
Madeley being bordered by Hepburn Avenue, Kingsway Road, Skeit Road and
Bellerive Boulevard.
The Kingsway Sporting Complex is a major regional
recreational facility that is used for a number of sports and contains a
significant area of passive open space. During peak winter usage on weekends
the Complex accommodates up to 6000 participants, spectators and officials at
any one time.
Council’s agreement for in principle support to the
proposed relocation of the West Perth Football Club to the Kingsway Sporting
Complex will place further demand for parking and traffic management solutions
considering existing Saturday Winter sports congestion. Additional car parking
would be required to cater for West Perth Football Club requirements. West
Perth has indicated that they would require 100 secured parking bays and 800
general parking bays. Until such time that the relocation of West Perth
Football Club is confirmed it is recommended that the Traffic Management
Strategy Reports priority 4, being provision of additional football car parking
be deferred.
Council Officers have reviewed the Kingsway Sporting
Complex – Traffic Management Strategy Report in order to confirm the existing
priorities as they relate to traffic and parking management and to advise
Council the full costing to undertake the required works. The review identified
the need to include a further consideration of extending the Wanneroo City
Soccer Club car parking including access form the to be constructed entrance
from Hepburn Avenue.
The detail and cost of priorities identified in the Kingsway
Sporting Complex – Traffic Management Strategy Report to support the Hepburn
Avenue extension include:
Priority 1
Central Car Park
1.
Formalise and seal the existing limestone
netball car park (370 bays).
2.
Provide drop-off / pick-up parking along the
northern perimeter road of car park.
3.
Construct new 4-way roundabout at the junction
adjacent to southeast corner of the cricket/hockey fields.
4.
Construct two-way access road from the new
roundabout into the netball car park.
5.
Close the existing western one-way access road
to vehicles. Access to be reserved for service/emergency vehicle and pedestrian
use only. (Major storm surcharge escape route to cricket/hockey field low
point).
Estimated Cost $847,000
Priority 2
Western Car Park
1.
Convert east west road between soccer pitches to
one-way heading west.
2.
Construct roadside parking embayments along
northern side of east-west road.
3.
Ban roadside parking along north-side road.
4.
Construct new 80 bay soccer car park south of
old tennis/netball courts with accesses of east-west road and Bellerive
Boulevard.
Estimated Cost $ 335,000
Priority 3
South Eastern Car Park
1.
Extend existing 60 bay sealed car park by 40
bays (total 100 bays)
2.
Construct second car park access road from
proposed north-south entrance road off Hepburn Avenue. No right turn out of new
access road.
3.
Alter existing northern car park access to left
in / left out only.
Estimated Cost $115,000
Priority 4
North Western Car Park
1.
Construct 60 bay sealed car park at
cricket/hockey clubrooms.
2.
Construct car park access roads off Bellerive
Boulevard and east-west road between cricket/hockey fields and Kingsway Soccer
Club.
3.
Construct roadside parking embayments along
north side of east-west road between cricket/hockey fields and Kingsway Soccer
Club.
Estimated Cost $ 306,000
Priority 5
Kingsway International Sports Stadium Car Park
1. Construct
105 bay car park in front of Stadium
Estimated Cost $90,000
All estimates are “order of cost” estimates. The exact
extent of parking, locations and layouts are subject to detailed design.
Estimates are inclusive of car park lighting to improve safety within the
Complex. The total cost to undertake prioritised works is $1,693,000
Comment
The demands on the City and Kingsway Sporting Complex (KSC)
are expected to increase with the developing population in the surrounding
region and the City’s emphasis on developing long-term security of
organisations providing sport and recreational opportunities within the
Complex.
Prolonged consultation and correspondence with Councillors
and sporting bodies located at KSC reiterates traffic and parking provision as
a major cause of concern. Whilst each area within the Complex operates
independently, the facilitation of each impacts on others in terms of car
parking for participants, spectators, officials and use of the internal road
network. A lack of sealed parking, security lighting in car parks, verge
parking, ‘rat running’ through the Complex and general shortage of parking to
accommodate some playing fields and facilities has provided the City with
issues requiring resolution.
The following comments are made regarding each priority:
1. PRIORITY 1: The provision of extra drop-off / pick-up
parking along the eastern section of the northern perimeter road at the rear of
the stadium, to serve the Badminton Association, is suggested. City
Administration believe that the needs of the Badminton Association will be met
by the upgrade of the Central Car Park. If the new roundabout access is
constructed, closure of the existing western one-way access to all vehicular
traffic is recommended to prevent misuse of this access. This would then become
a pedestrian access only. Service and emergency vehicles should have adequate
access from the three remaining two-way accesses
2. PRIORITY 2: Western access from Bellerive Boulevard to the
proposed new soccer car park has been assumed to be from the south only.
3. PRIORITY 3: It is suggested that no right turn out be
permitted to assist traffic flow.
4. PRIORITY 4: That consideration be given to extending and
sealing the existing Kingsway Soccer car park (limestone western half) as an
alternative to the recommended new car park location south of the
cricket/hockey clubrooms. Including construction of an illuminated pedestrian
facility between the Kingsway Soccer car park and the cricket/hockey clubrooms.
5. PRIORITY 5. Requests for additional car parking received
from the Badminton Association of WA do not relate to the internal road network
and traffic management priorities identified in the Kingsway Sporting Complex – Traffic Management Strategy
Report. Whilst the need is recognised, the provision of Priority One
(Central Car Park) will assist to alleviate parking congestion at this site.
The area
south of the cricket/hockey clubrooms has well established landscaping with
turf and large trees while the western portion of the Kingsway Soccer car park
is an area of degraded limestone. This North Western Car Park location may also
encourage joint use of this car park by soccer and cricket/hockey patrons.
Priorities 1, 2, 3 and 4 are included as Attachments to
indicate the intended works.
Due to the anticipated costs of each priority it is
recommended that works be staged according to priority. This project will
require implementation through a series of stages to be constructed in
consecutive budget years.
The substantial cost associated with providing Priority One
(Central Car park) within the first year further suggests this priority be
staged over two years. Council Officers suggested the first stage associated
with this priority be provision of the roundabout and access road, drop off /
pick up points, and car park west and associated access road. The cost of this
initial stage is $428,000.
Subject to provision of stage one the remaining
infrastructure associated being the car park east and access roads and car park
lighting would be funded. The cost of stage two is $419,000.
With this in mind Council is requested to consider funding
stage one of priority one in the 2002 / 2003 Budget with subsequent stage 2 and
priorities 2, 3, 4 and 5 subject to inclusion in the 4 Year Capital Works
Program.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
The provision of adequate Car parking at the Kingsway
Sporting Complex is in accordance with Councils Strategic Plan, Goal 2.6,
Provide and Manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our community.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Council is requested to consider an allocation of $428,000
for priority 1 - stage 1 in the 2002 / 2003 Budget being the Central Car Park
Further
Stage 2 and subsequent priorities to be listed in the 4 year Capital Works Program.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
AGREES to the priority listing for car park and traffic implementation
strategy for the Kingsway Sporting Complex being
a)
Priority 1 Central Car Park $847,000
b)
Priority 2 Western Car Park $335,000
c)
Priority 3 South Eastern Car Park $115,000
d)
Priority 4 North Western Car Park $306,000
e)
Priority 5 Kingsway International Sports Stadium $90,000
2.
LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION $428,000 for construction of Priority 1 - Stage
1 being the Central Car Park in the 2002 / 2003 Budget
3.
INCLUDES Priority 1 - Stage 2 and Priority 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Council 4
Year Capital Works Program.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 04999
File Name: BALEAAJS.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Simon Kot Date 11 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
The AJS Motorcycle Club of WA (Inc) seek a new lease of
portion Reserve No 10866, Wattle Road East, Neerabup for the purpose of Motor
Cross.
Background
The AJS Motorcycle Club exclusively occupies 19.39 hectares
of land being portion Reserve 10866 Neerabup. In 1979 this area was excised
from a lease held by the Western Australian Sporting Car Club (Inc) whereby the
AJS Motorcycle Club developed facilities to accommodate motor cross.
The facilities located within this area consist a motor
cross and motor trial circuit and several structures that serve as a control
tower, clubhouse, pit stop shelter and toilet. A perimeter wire mesh fence
binds the leased area. The AJS Motorcycle Club caters for two disciplines of
motorcycling being motor cross and motor trial, a sport involving motorcycle
manoeuvrability.
In 1997 the former Council endorsed a lease for a period of
5 years at an annual rent of $1000 subject to annual Consumer Price Index
adjustments. The existing lease is due to expire on the 30 June 2002.
Detail
Reserve 10866 Neerabup is located in the Lake Pinjar
Recreation Reserve (see Attachments 1 and 2). The land
is reserved Parks and Recreation Reservation under the Metropolitan Region
Scheme and the City's District Planning Scheme No 2. This reservation is
vested with the City with the power to lease. The Unimproved value of
the leased area as determined by the Valuer Generals Office is $300,000.
The AJS Motorcycle Club seeks Council endorsement to renew
the existing lease for a period of 21 years. The request for the extended
tenure is based on the development plans of the Club. The Club seeks assurance
of a suitable term to justify proposed capital expenditure to improve
facilities.
At its own expense, the Club has developed facilities and
infrastructure purpose built for Motor cross and Motor trial. The Club
maintains the existing track at an approximate cost of $10,000 per annum.
The Club caters for 230 junior and senior members and has
become the largest in Western Australia. Income generated via membership and
race meet fees offset facility operating costs and track upgrade and
maintenance.
Council Officers applied the City’s lease policy to guide
arbitration in this lease renewal. The policy recommends that the annual lease
fee be based on the land rates as determined by the City. The Valuer Generals
Office has provided an unimproved valuation of $300,000 for this leased area. The
City calculates rates as $0.0052 of the lands unimproved value. Based on these
amounts the annual lease fee would be calculated as;
$300,000 multiplied by $0.0052 = $1560 per year
The AJS Motorcycle Club submitted a history of the Club,
financial statements and a 5-year infrastructure and maintenance program to
support this lease renewal.
Comment
The purpose of the leased area is to provide a reserve
conducive to motorcycle sports. The facilities located on this site are purpose
built for motorcycle pursuits and the adjacent land is considered compatible
with the continued operation of motorcycling at this location.
The Club has developed a maintenance and infrastructure
program to upgrade facilities. The existing facilities provide adequate service
to the Clubs membership but require upgrading to improve functionality and
aesthetics. The Club agrees to continue annual track maintenance works as well
as replace fencing, connect electricity to western power, improve parking areas
and upgrade toilet / kiosk amenities. The anticipated expenditure on these
items is $75,000 to be performed in the next 5 years.
The Club has demonstrated in financial statements that it
has the ability to pay the renegotiated annual lease cost of $1560. The Club
will also pay all operating costs and continue to provide track and
infrastructure improvements. As operating costs contained within the City’s
standard lease document includes Council rates, it is recommended that the
lease fee be set at $1 per annum and Council rates be charged to the Club on an
annual basis. Council rates are initially estimated to be $1560 for 2002 /
2003.
Furthermore the City’s lease policy recommends the tenure
period of the lease be calculated proportionate to the capital contribution by
the Club to the leased infrastructure. The AJS Motorcycle Club has developed
all infrastructure on this reserve and as such the Clubs request for a 21-year
lease complies with the City’s lease policy.
Statutory Compliance
The lease of portion reserve 10866 being crown land for a
period of 21 years is subject to the Western Australian Planning Commission and
Department of Land Administration approval.
Strategic Implications
Nil.
Policy Implications
The City has negotiated renewal of the lease in accordance
with the City’s lease policy. The lease complies with Council policy relating
to motorised sporting activities whereby motorised sporting groups and any
other recreational activity with a high noise level shall be located within the
Lake Pinjar Recreation Reserve.
Financial Implications
The AJS Motorcycle Club currently pays an annual lease fee
of $1000 with no Council rates applicable. The renegotiated lease would see the
Club pay an annual $1 lease fee and Council rates. Council rates are initially
estimated to be $1560 for 2002 / 2003.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council ENDORSES the new 21 year lease by
the AJS Motorcycle Club of WA (Inc) for leased portion Reserve No 10866,
Neerabup subject to the following terms and conditions;
1. An annual lease fee of $1 per annum;
and
2. The
AJS Motorcycle Club is to be responsible for all operating and maintenance
costs inclusive of Council rates.
3. Approval
of the intent to lease by WAPC and DOLA.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 22209
File Name: BAReqfro.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
The Badminton Association of WA request for Council to fund
a third of their successful Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund
(CSRFF) project for minor works, in the 2002/2003 Draft Budget.
Background
On 10 January 2000 The Badminton Association of WA Inc
negotiated a 35 year lease on Reserve No 44878 Kingsway Sporting Complex
located on Kingsway Road Madeley.
On 24 October 2000 (Report W335 – 10/00 refers) the
following projects were submitted by Council to the Department of Sport and
Recreation for consideration under the Community Sporting and Recreation
Facilities Funding programme.
The priority listing adopted by Council was:
Organisation Ranking Rating
Aquamotion 1 High
Mindarie/Quinns SLSC 2 High
Warradale Park Clubrooms 3 High
John Moloney Clubrooms 4 High
The Spot 5 High
West Coast Christian Outreach 6 Medium/High
Yanchep SLSC 7 Medium/High
WA Sporting Car Club 8 Medium/High
Badminton Association of WA 9 Medium/High
The grant application submitted by the Badminton
Association of WA was to undertake painting, lighting adjustments, equipment
storage, built–in refrigeration, catering facilities, windshield and patio
erection, at a total cost of $46,400. Although Council ranked this project as 9th
they were successful in obtaining a CSRFF grant from the Department of Sport
& Recreation. The City at no stage indicated financial support for this
project however the Badminton Association of WA were under the impression that
projects funded by the Department of Sport & Recreation were automatically
part funded (1/3) by the City.
Detail
The Badminton Association of WA contacted the City in early
March 2002 advising that the approved CSRFF project would be scaled down to a
total project cost of approximately $25,500 and requesting advice on claiming
the City’s portion of $8,500. They were ubsequently advised that the City had
not allocated funds for this project and that they would need to formally
request funding.
On 17 March 2002 correspondence was received from the
Badminton Association of WA requesting that Council reconsider their
application for assistance as they assumed that Council was participating by
contributing one third ($15,465 of a total cost of $46,400) towards the
project. The CSRFF grant was for a number of minor projects designed to enhance
the Kingsway Stadium as a Badminton Centre. The BAWA has indicated that the
projects will increase the marketability of the Centre as the State
Headquarters for Badminton.
The BAWA has advised that they have undertaken further
project works on the assumption that Council will be providing these funds.
They believe that they are not in a financial position to continue with this
project until the funds are available.
Comment
As indicated above, the Badminton Association of WA
received a 9 ranking and the development proposed by BAWA was designed to
increase patronage. While the improvements may be useful in making the facility
more suitable for Badminton, it was recommended in a report tabled at the 24
October 2000 Council Meeting as difficult to justify a Council contribution at this
stage. As a result Council did not include a contribution towards the BAWA
project in the 2001/2002 final budget.
It should be noted that a separate report requesting
Council support for recently approved CSRFF projects in the 2002/03 budget has
been included within the agenda. This report deals specifically with the BAWA
request to fund a project approved by the Department of Sport & Recreation
in February 2001 and not funded by Council in 2001/02.
Administration is not supportive of this request by BAWA
because at no stage did the City indicate that Council would contribute towards
this project and it was ranked low at the time of submission.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Request is for $8,500 to be included in the 2002/2003
Budget
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council DECLINE the request by the Badminton
Association of WA to consider including $8,500 in the 2002/2003 Budget towards
their successful Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund grant.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 22209
File Name: BAComSpo.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by simon kot Date 22 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
The City has received notification of successful projects
to be funded by the Department of Sport and Recreation CSRFF funding program in
the 2002/03 financial year.
Background
At the Ordinary Council meeting of 16 October 2001 (Report
CD04-10/01 refers) Council resolved to submit seven (7) projects to the
Department of Sport and Recreation for consideration in the 2002 / 2003
Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund round.
The priority list submitted by Council was;
|
Applicant
|
Project Title
|
Ranking
|
Rating
|
|
City of
Wanneroo
|
Construction
of Mindarie/Quinns Surf Lifesaving Club
|
1
|
High
|
|
City of
Wanneroo
|
Upgrade of
Kingsway Netball Courts
|
2
|
High
|
|
Quinns Rocks
Sports Club
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Quinns Rocks Sports Club
|
3
|
Medium/High
|
|
Yanchep Sports
Club
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Yanchep Sports Club
|
4
|
Medium/High
|
|
Yanchep Soccer
Club
|
Additional
Facilities – St Andrews Clubrooms
|
5
|
Medium/High
|
|
Jaguar
Softball Club
|
Additional
Lighting – John Moloney Park
|
6
|
Medium/High
|
|
W A Sporting
Car Club
|
Upgrade of
Barbagallo Raceway (Stage 3)
|
7
|
Medium/High
|
Detail
The City has received notification of the successful
applications from the Department of Sport and Recreation.
A total of four of the seven projects (rankings 1 – 4)
submitted were successful in attaining funding. Of these projects the City’s
two submissions were both successful, being the construction of Mindarie/Quinns
Surf Lifesaving Club ($246,333) and upgrade of Kingsway Netball Courts
($29,127).
All successful projects including funds approved are listed
below;
|
Applicant
|
Project Title
|
Funds Sought
|
Funds Approved
|
|
City of
Wanneroo
|
Construction
of Mindarie/Quinns Surf Lifesaving Club
|
$246,333
|
$246,333
|
|
City of
Wanneroo
|
Upgrade of
Kingsway Netball Courts
|
$29,127
|
$29,127
|
|
Quinns Rocks
Sports Club
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Quinns Rocks Sports Club
|
$6,550
|
$6,550
|
|
Yanchep Sports
Club
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Yanchep Sports Club
|
$4,967
|
$4,967
|
The Department of Sport and Recreation have advised that
unsuccessful projects were not funded due to higher priorities within this
funding round.
Comment
The estimated total project cost of $739,000 for the
building only development of Stage 1 at Lot 211 Mindarie, being construction of
the Mindarie/Quinns Surf Lifesaving Club is listed in the City’s Capital Works
program for inclusion in the 2002/03 Budget. Funding consists;
Club and other Contribution $150,000
City of Wanneroo - Budget 01 / 02 $342,667
CSRFF Contribution $246,333
Total $739,000
The estimated total project cost to upgrade 12 netball
courts located at the Kingsway Netball Courts is $87,380. Project funding
committed to date consists;
Wanneroo District Netball Association $15,000
CSRFF Contribution $29,127
To complete this project Council is requested to consider
funding $43,254 in the 2002 / 2003 budget.
The successful community projects include provision of
Bowling Green lights at Quinns Rocks Sports Club and Yanchep Sports Club.
Council is requested to contribute $6,550 (Quinns Rocks Sports Club) and $4,699
(Yanchep Sports Club) to these projects in the 2002 / 2003 budget.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
These projects fit within Council’s Strategic Plan, Goal
2.6, Provide and Manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our community
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Council is requested to contribute to the successful
projects in the 2002 / 2003 budget.
|
Project Title
|
Project Cost
|
Funding Approved
|
Council Contribution Requested
|
|
Construction
of Mindarie/Quinns Surf Lifesaving Club
|
$739,000
|
$246,333 CSRFF
$150,000 Lotteries
|
$342,667
Included in
Capital works
|
|
Upgrade of
Kingsway Netball Courts
|
$87,380
|
$29,127 CSRFF
$15,000 WDNA
|
$43,254
|
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Quinns Rocks Sports Club
|
$19,650
|
$6,550 CSRFF
$6,550 QRSC
|
$6,550
|
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Yanchep Sports Club
|
$14,900
|
$4,967 CSRFF
$5,234 YSC
|
$4,699
|
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1. NOTES the successful CSRFF
submissions;
2. AGREES
to consider a contribution towards the successful projects in the 2002 / 2003
Capital budget as follows:
|
Project Title
|
Project Cost
|
Funding Approved
|
Council Contribution
|
|
Construction
of Mindarie/Quinns Surf Lifesaving Club
|
$739,000
|
$246,333 CSRFF
$150,000 Lotteries
|
$342,667
Included in
Capital works
|
|
Upgrade of
Kingsway Netball Courts
|
$87,380
|
$29,127 CSRFF
$15,000 WDNA
|
$43,254
|
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Quinns Rocks Sports Club
|
$19,650
|
$6,550 CSRFF
$6,550 QRSC
|
$6,550
|
|
Bowling Green
Lighting – Yanchep Sports Club
|
$14,900
|
$4,967 CSRFF
$5,234 YSC
|
$4,699
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 02590
File Name: AARevofP.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Consideration of revocation of permission granted for an
exemption to Council’s Local Laws made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976
to keep six dogs at 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara.
Background
Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999
stipulates:
A person shall not keep or permit to be kept on any
premises more than:
a)
2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that
age; or
b)
6 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that
age if the premises are situated with a rural area or comprise a lot in a
special rural area having an area of 4 hectares or more,
unless the premises are licensed as an approved kennel
establishment or have been granted exemption pursuant to section 26(3) of the
Dog Act and have planning approval under the town planning scheme.
An application was received for an exemption to Council’s
Local Laws made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep six dogs at 171
Sydney Road, Gnangara.
The property, 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara is zoned special
rural and has an area of 1.1875 hectares.
Two residents adjacent to 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara were
consulted by letter to ascertain if they had any objections. Both residents
sent letters to Council in support of the application.
A report was submitted and Council at its meeting on 27
November 2001 resolved the following:
1. GRANTS
an exemption to the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section
26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 for the applicant to keep up to six dogs at 171
Sydney Road, Gnangara subject to the following conditions;
a. The
maximum number of dogs on the property is not to exceed six;
b. Any
barking by the dogs is to be kept to a minimum;
c. This
exemption may be varied or revoked if any complaints are received which are
considered to be reasonable.
2. RESERVES
THE RIGHT to vary or revoke, at any future date, the exemption given to the
applicant should any relevant conditions be contravened.
Detail
Two written complaints have been received from neighbours
of 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara (including one of the adjacent residents that
supported the initial application) complaining about the number of dogs on the
property and also that the dogs were barking and yelping.
A Ranger attended at the addresses of the complainants and
personally delivered official complaint forms together with fourteen day
diaries used to record the times and dates of the dogs barking. The diaries
are used to determine the degree of barking, and provide evidence to prove an
offence under Section 30 of the Dog Act. The completed diaries were
subsequently returned to Council and an abatement notice was served on the
resident of 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara. The recipient of the abatement notice
was given fourteen days to abate the alleged nuisance. The complainants were
given another set of fourteen day diaries to be used after the required time
had lapsed, which were subsequently completed by the complainants alleging that
there was a barking dog nuisance.
Consultation
As part of the initial application process, two residents
adjacent to the applicants’ property were consulted by letter to ascertain if
they had any objections. Both residents sent letters to Council in support of
the application. One of these residents has since lodged a written complaint
concerning the dogs barking and yelping.
Comment
In considering this matter the following two options are
available:
a)
Council may continue to grant an exemption to the City of Wanneroo
Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to the
applicant at 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara to continue to keep six dog subject to
conditions;
b)
Council may revoke or vary the exemption given to the resident.
Council resolution CD07-11/01 reserved the right for
Council to vary or revoke, at any future date, the exemption given to the
applicant if any complaints are received which are considered to be
reasonable. Given that two written complaints have been received, concerned
about the number of dogs at 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara and also that the dogs
bark and yelp, it is recommended that the exemption be revoked.
In accordance with Section 26(5) of the Dog Act 1976
Council must advise the applicant that they may appeal Council’s decision by
writing to the Hon Minister for Local Government within twenty eight days of
receiving notice of Council decision.
Council may grant the applicant an extension of
twenty-eight days in order for the relocation of four dogs.
Statutory Compliance
The application for exemption and revocation to Council’s
Local Laws made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976, has been detailed in
this report.
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council :-
1. REVOKES
an exemption to the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Law 1999 made under Section
26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to the applicant at 171 Sydney Road, Gnangara;
2. ADVISES
the applicant that an appeal of Council’s decision may be made by writing to
the Hon Minister for Local Government within twenty-eight days of receiving
notice of Council’s decision;
3. GRANTS
the applicant an extension of twenty-eight days in order for the relocation of
dogs.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 69241
File Name: DAGirLib.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Council to approve changes to the Girrawheen Library
opening hours
Background
The Girrawheen Library is open four week days from 10am to
8.30pm (closed Wednesdays) and on Saturday mornings from 9am to 12 noon for a
total of 45 hours per week.
The Girrawheen Library is situated in an area with a high
crime rate. The library building has been frequently vandalised including
broken windows, graffiti sprayed on the building, pet food spread across
windows. Vehicles parked in the car park have been vandalised and there are
issues with unruly behaviour in the library by young people that can be
threatening to and unpleasant for staff and library users.
These actions all discourage the community from using the
library, particularly at nights, and place staff in a threatened and stressful
situation.
Detail
The Library is open to 8.30pm on four week nights. As many
of the problems occur at night a reduction in the evening opening hours will
reduce the risk to staff and library users.
The proposal is to open over the five week days but be open
late on one night only.
|
DAY
|
Current Open
Hours
|
Proposed Open
Hours
|
|
MON.
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
TUE
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
WED
|
CLOSED
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
THU
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 8.00pm
|
|
FRI
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
SAT
|
9.00am to 12.00
|
9.00am to 12.00
|
The proposed opening hours provides an earlier opening
each week day and opening on the Wednesday and provides 48 hours opening, which
is an additional three hours. The Thursday late night matches the shopping
centre late night so there may be some activity in the adjoining shopping
centre car park.
The revised opening hours can be achieved with current
branch staffing levels. Opening to 8.00pm two nights a week spreads staff too
thinly.
It is expected the proposed new hours will be more popular
with the community as there will be no closed day which will provide better
utilisation of the library.
Consultation
The 2001 Girrawheen Library user survey included a section
to allow library users to comment on the library opening hours. Nearly 200
library users completed the survey of which 25 responded to the Library hours
question. 16% wanted the library opened on Wednesday; 16% wanted longer
weekend opening hours; 16% wanted earlier opening at 9.00am or 9.30am and 12%
liked the late opening because of work commitments. The remainder were
satisfied with the existing hours.
Comment
There is a real issue with actual and perceived safety and
security at the Girrawheen library which impacts significantly on the usage of
the library. Usage of the Girrawheen library, in terms of items borrowed, is
significantly less than other public libraries with a similar stock size.
Other libraries in the Perth metropolitan area have been
changing opening hours, including opening on normally closed days, to provide a
better service to more residents. The City of Stirling libraries have changed
from a traditional 10.00am to 8.30pm with one week day closed to 9.00am to
5.30pm every week day with two nights open to 8.00pm, except for Mirrabooka
which is only open one night. The City of Joondalup is considering changes to
the opening hours to the branches other than Joondalup to open on Wednesdays
and to open to 8.00pm only on two nights per week as part of a multi year
proposal to open to 8.00pm all week nights and extended hours on weekends. The
City of Swan’s Ballajura library, which is used by a number of residents in the
Girrawheen library service area, is open 10.00am to 8.00pm weekdays.
Issue statistics show the heaviest use of the library, as
measured by items borrowed on an hourly basis, occurs during mid morning after
opening and mid afternoon when the schools close, with usage declining at
night, particularly after 8.00pm when there are very few transactions.
Changing the opening hours will assist by having the
library open at times when more of the community use the library and will
improve the security and safety of staff. It is proposed that these changes be
implemented for a 6 months trial period.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The changed hours proposal will be achieved within existing
staffing resources.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council APPROVES the change in opening hours
for the Girrawheen Library on a trial basis for 6 months commencing 6 May 2002
as follows:
|
DAY
|
Current Open
Hours
|
Proposed Open
Hours
|
|
MON.
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
TUE
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
WED
|
CLOSED
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
THU
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 8.00pm
|
|
FRI
|
10.00am to 8.30pm
|
9.00am to 5.30pm
|
|
SAT
|
9.00am to 12.00
|
9.00am to 12.00
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 01317
File Name: DAGloLod.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director, Community
Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Approval for the donation of the horse drawn cart located
outside the Gloucester Lodge Museum to the Shire of Menzies.
Background
The cart was purchased by the Gloucester Lodge Museum
Management Committee in the early 1980s as it was thought the museum should
have such an item. Its purchase was not approved by the Curator at the time as
the cart was from the Menzies district, and therefore had no significance for
the Shire of Wanneroo collection. Following the split into City of Wanneroo and
City of Joondalup the cart is one of the heritage assets jointly owned by the
two authorities but it is in the care of the City of Wanneroo.
The cart is located outside the Gloucester Lodge building.
Detail
The cart is deteriorating due to its exposed location and
is a potential hazard. Its condition is not a good promotion for the City of
Wanneroo's heritage collection.
As the cart is from Menzies it has no historical connection
with Wanneroo.
The Shire of Menzies, which is setting up a heritage
display, has indicated its interest in acquiring the cart. It has been provided
with photographs, is aware of its current condition and is willing to pay for
the transport of the cart to Menzies.
Consultation
The Gloucester Lodge Museum Advisory Committee has
recommended its donation to Menzies, as has Council’s Heritage Services
Advisory Committee.
A letter has been written to the City of Joondalup seeking
its approval, as joint owner of the former City of Wanneroo Heritage
Collection, to donate the cart to the Shire of Menzies.
Comment
If the cart is to be retained by the City of Wanneroo there
will be costs for its restoration and costs for a covered protective display
area. The City could potentially be liable if the cart is left in a public
place in a deteriorating condition.
The donation of the cart to the Shire of Menzies will
assist the Shire in the development of its heritage displays and it is
appropriate as the cart was originally from that area.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
Nil;
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council APPROVES the donation of the cart
outside Gloucester Lodge to the Shire of Menzies subject to approval from the
City of Joondalup.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 39290
File Name: EAFriofK.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
To consider a request from Friends of Koondoola Regional
Bushland to utilise surplus grant funds from a City of Wanneroo Community
Funding Grant.
Background
In January 2001 Council approved a Community Funding Grant
to the value of $2,455.00 to the Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland, for a
Weedbuster Week 2001 initiative. The group had carried out Weedbuster Week
activities in 2000 and carried on this tradition in 2001, with the assistance
of the City of Wanneroo grant.
During Weedbuster Week, the Friends of Koondoola Regional
Bushland initiates activities in local bushland as a community (youth)
education and weed removal programme. Schools are invited to participate in
education sessions about local weeds, their history and their impact on the
natural bushland. This is followed by on-site weeding (coordinated by Friends
of Koondoola Regional Bushland).
Detail
In facilitating the 2001 Weedbuster Programme, the Friends
of Koondoola Bushland have accumulated a grant surplus of $1,165.75 from their
original grant allocation of $2,455.00. This is due to a reduced amount of
school participation than originally anticipated (six schools, rather than
twelve as stated in Attachment 1), in the original funding request.
A recent letter from the Friends of Koondoola Regional
Bushland Committee (Attachment 2) requests that the balance of the grant
provided by Council be retained by the group to support the continuation of the
programme in 2002.
Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland intend to make a
further funding submission to the Community Funding Program in the April 2002
round to compliment this request to Council.
They envisage that increased prior notification to schools
(eg. invitations being distributed earlier) in conjunction with additional
funds that may be provided by the City should increase participation numbers to
at least twelve schools.
Should their application for additional Community Funding
be unsuccessful, the remainder of the original grant (if Council approves the
retaining of this amount by the group) will be adequate to provide the
Weedbuster Week program to approximately six schools.
Consultation
Nil
Comment
The request from the Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland
to retain the balance of their original grant allocation does not deviate from
the original purpose of the grant and represents a continuation of the original
project.
The group have acquitted the proportion of the funds that
have been expended, as required by Community Funding Guidelines and have not
applied to Council for further Community Funding since the original grant
allocation.
Acquittal information indicates that Friends of Koondoola
Regional Bushland have acknowledged the City of Wanneroo’s support and provided
a positive service to the community.
It is therefore recommended that the grant surplus of
$1,165.75 be retained by Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland to continue
previously supported Weedbuster Activities.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
Nil
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
The original grant amount of $2,455.00 was allocated to
Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland within the 2000/2001 financial year.
The retaining of the balance of these funds will have no direct impact upon
this budget, however, if the funds are not retained and are returned to
Council, the remaining budget for Community Funding in 2001/2002 will be
increased by $1,165.75.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council:-
1.
APPROVES the retention of $1,165.75 in surplus funds from the original
Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland Community Grant Funding of $2,455.00,
for the continuation of Weedbuster Week activities in 2002.
2.
NOTES that the Friends of Koondoola Regional Bushland intend to make a
funding submission to the Community Funding Program in the April 2002 round to
compliment any retained project funds.
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be
printed
File Ref: 39870
File Name: EAProSaf.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 5 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 04 April 2002
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: Nil
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
This report seeks Council endorsement of a proposed
schedule of Safer Citizens Urban Design Projects throughout the City.
Background
Urban design initiatives are one of the six core components
of the City’s Safer Citizens community safety and security program.
This component of Safer Citizens looks at ‘designing out’
features that may contribute to criminal and anti-social activity in new and
existing suburbs. In the 2001/02 financial year, a provision of $70 000 was
endorsed to resource the implementation of a series of urban design
initiatives.
A series of projects have been identified and are presented
for consideration.
In the period from November 2000 to February 2002, safety
and security urban design initiatives within the program have seen the
preparation of a set of safety and security urban design guidelines for the
City, and a case study at Koondoola Plaza Shopping Centre. Both of these
documents will be the subject of a separate report to Council at this meeting.
Two urban design demonstration projects have also recently
been completed at the Wanneroo Civic Centre Precinct and Anthony Waring Park in
Clarkson. Both of these projects have involved lighting of area where high
levels of anti social activity have been experienced.
Recently the City assisted the Marangaroo Residents and
Ratepayers Association with a Safety and Security grant for the installation of
street lighting along the footpath connecting Park Lane and Alexander Drive in
the Alexander Ward.
Lighting in all three projects has been viewed positively
by Community Safety Officers, who have reported a reduction of anti social
activity in these areas.
Detail
The following projects have been identified through a
compilation of various processes including community feedback, internal and
external consultation and the interpretation of statistical data, gathered
since the inception of the Safer Citizens Program in November 2000.
Summary of Safer Citizens Proposed Urban Design
Projects
|
Location
|
Ward
|
Proposed Work
|
Cost
|
|
Shamrock Park-Shamrock Court and walkway
between Valkyrie Place and Gretal Crt Two Rocks
|
North
|
Light playground area with tower lighting.
Install vandal proof pole lighting along walkway. Thin
shrubbery southeast corner to increase natural surveillance
|
9,900
|
|
Leemans Landing , Two
Rocks
|
North
|
Install look, lock, leave signage
|
275
|
|
The Spot, Two Rocks
|
North
|
Install look, lock, leave signage
|
275
|
|
Mindarie Keys- Toilet
Block
|
Coastal
|
Thin shrubbery and landscape rear of toilet block.
|
5,500
|
|
Serpentine Gardens,
Serpentine Park. Clarkson
|
Hester
|
Community event and letter drop on values of crime
prevention through environmental design and reduction in density of shrubbery
to northwest corner of park.
|
5,500
|
|
Banfield Gardens,
Clarkson (walkway)
|
Hester
|
Removal of walkway limestone and timber lap fencing and
trimming of vegetation to limit anti social behaviour
|
1,650
|
|
Lake Gnangara-Toilet
Block
|
Central
|
Assist with the cost of the demolition and removal of
toilet block
|
5,500
|
|
Wanneroo Show Grounds-
Toilet Block
|
Wanneroo
|
Toilet block upgrade to increase opening hours and deter
anti social behaviour.
|
5,500
|
|
Lake Joondalup Toilet
Block
|
Wanneroo
|
Toilet block upgrade to increase opening hours and deter
anti social behaviour
|
5,500
|
|
Wanneroo Show Grounds-
Skate Park
|
Wanneroo
|
Additional Security Lighting
|
4,950
|
|
Noel Crt,
Wanneroo-Walkway
|
Wanneroo
|
Standard security pole lighting in laneway
|
3,300
|
|
Hainsworth Park
|
South
|
Security Pole Lighting
|
4,950
|
|
Liddell Reserve,
Girrawheen-Toilet Block
|
South
|
Toilet block upgrade to increase opening hours and deter
anti social behaviour
|
5,500
|
|
Rochford Way, Brecnock
Way, Shalford Way Girrawheen
|
South
|
Partnership with New North for a project in Girrawheen
|
11,000
|
Note:
·
All projects will
commence as soon as practicably possible, given that the funds for the projects
are contained within the 2001/2002 budget.
·
The projects will
be initiated and monitored by the Safer Citizens Program and seek advice, where
necessary, from Infrastructure Services and Building & Fleet Maintenance
Services.
·
A majority of the
work will be carried out by external contractors.
·
It is anticipated
projects that require planning approval and/or partnerships with other key
stakeholders, or where public consultation is required, funds for these
specific projects may be carried over to the 2002/2003 financial year.
·
An allowance of
10% has been allowed on all projects for design documentation and project
supervision.
·
All projects are
scheduled for completion by September 2002.
·
The Shamrock
Park-Shamrock Court project is included in the City’s strategic concept design
plans and has been advertised for public comment.
·
The Mindarie Keys
project is located on a “bush forever” site and will require approval from the
Ministry of Planning.
·
The Lake Gnangara-toilet block project is consistent with the
recommendations of the Lake Gnangara draft management plan that will be the
subject of a separate report to Council.
·
Issues of urban design within the Alexander Ward are to be
further considered in conjunction with a review of strategies already initiated
to address antisocial behaviours within the John Maloney park precinct.
Consultation
Each proposed Safer Citizens urban design project is
developed following internal and external consultation with relevant
stakeholders.
Further consultation processes to be undertaken in
implementing these initiatives will include;
·
Public notices with details of projects seeking public comment.
·
Distribution of letters to local communities seeking comment
(with a reply prepaid envelope) for return to the City, where appropriate.
·
Liaison with Safer Citizens Working Group and Precinct Teams.
·
Further consultation with internal business units as appropriate.
Comment
The proposed projects support the overall objectives of the
urban design component of the Safer Citizen Program by;
·
Positively impacting on antisocial behaviours in designated
areas.
·
Focusing on issues of safety, security and natural surveillance
and;
·
Maintaining a high level of commitment to urban design
initiatives.
Statutory Compliance
Nil
Strategic Implications
The recommended initiatives are congruent with the
objectives of the City’s (draft) Strategic Plan; Goal 2 Healthy Communities,
Strategy 2.4 Support Safe and Secure Communities.
Urban design projects aim to minimise anti social behaviour
and contribute to the designing out of features that contribute to community
crime and security concerns.
Policy Implications
Nil
Financial Implications
As previously stated, Council has approved a budgetary
allocation of $70,000 for Safer Citizens urban design projects in the 2001/2002
financial year.
The total cost of these proposed urban design projects is
$69 300.
Voting Requirements
Simple Majority
EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete
Recommendation
That Council ENDORSES the Safer Citizens Program
Urban Design Demonstration Projects as follows:
|
Location
|
Ward
|
Proposed Work
|
Cost
|
|
Shamrock
Park-Shamrock Court and walkway
between Valkyrie Place and Gretal Crt Two Rocks
|
North
|
Light playground area
with tower lighting.
Install vandal proof
pole lighting along walkway. Thin shrubbery southeast corner to increase
natural surveillance
|
9,900
|
|
Leemans Landing , Two Rocks
|
North
|
Install look, lock,
leave signage
|
275
|
|
The Spot, Two Rocks
|
North
|
Install look, lock,
leave signage
|
275
|
|
Mindarie Keys- Toilet Block
|
Coastal
|
Thin shrubbery and
landscape rear of toilet block.
|
5,500
|
|
Serpentine Gardens, Serpentine Park. Clarkson
|
Hester
|
Community event and
letter drop on values of crime prevention through environmental design and
reduction in density of shrubbery to northwest corner of park.
|
5,500
|
|
Banfield Gardens, Clarkson (walkway)
|
Hester
|
Removal of walkway
limestone and timber lap fencing and trimming of vegetation to limit anti
social behaviour
|
1,650
|
|
Lake Gnangara-Toilet Block
|
Central
|
Assist with the cost of
the demolition and removal of toilet block
|
5,500
|
|
Wanneroo Show Grounds- Toilet Block
|
Wanneroo
|
Toilet block upgrade to
increase opening hours and deter anti social behaviour.
|
5,500
|
|
Lake Joondalup Toilet Block
|
Wanneroo
|
Toilet block upgrade to
increase opening hours and deter anti social behaviour
|
5,500
|
|
Wanneroo Show Grounds- Skate Park
|
Wanneroo
|
Additional Security
Lighting
|
4,950
|
|
Noel Crt, Wanneroo-Walkway
|
Wanneroo
|
Standard security pole
lighting in laneway
|
3,300
|
|
Hainsworth Park
|
South
|
Security Pole Lighting
|
4,950
|
|
Liddell Reserve, Girrawheen-Toilet Block
|
South
|
Toilet block upgrade to
increase opening hours and deter anti social behaviour
|
5,500
|
|
Rochford Way, Brecnock Way, Shalford Way Girrawheen
|
South
|
Partnership with New
North for a project in Girrawheen
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EndOfRecommendation - This line
will not be printed Please do NOT delete
File Ref: 08032
File Name: EAReqfor.doc This line will not be
printed dont delete
Level 4 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 27 March 2002
Level 3 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 2 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Level 1 Approval by Brigitte Creighton Date 25 March 2002
Responsible Officer: Director,
Community Development
Disclosure of Interest: Nil
Attachments: 2
StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete
Issue
Consideration of community requests for donations and the
waiver of fees and charges for 9 April 2002.
Background
Consideration of requests for donations and the waiver of
fees and charges are at present undertaken on an individual merit basis.
In order to provide Council with the necessary information
to determine each application, and an overall view of the impact of these
allocations on the budget, a report is normally prepared considering all
applications for each Council meeting.
Detail
During this period, the City has received three
applications in this area. These applications have been received from:
·
Ms Doreen Carter for a waiver of fees (or partial contribution)
for the Chi Dynamics group using the Senior Citizens Centre, 936 Wanneroo Road,
·
Australian Medical Procedures Research Foundation for a donation
to the Northam Rehabilitation Campus.
Each of these applications is summarised on the following
pages, along with an assessment and recommendation. Letters of application are
attached, (see Attachments 1 and 2).
A further request was
received from Wider Horizons Action Group but with insufficient information to
make a decision at this time. A further report will be presented to Council
once this information is provided.
