Council Agenda

 

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

7.00pm, 13 December, 2005

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

 

Council allows a minimum of 15 minutes for public questions and statements at each Council meeting.  If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the person presiding will move on to the next item.  If there are more questions than can be dealt with in the 15 minutes allotted, the person presiding will determine whether to extend question time.

 

Protocols

 

During the meeting, no member of the public may interrupt the meeting’s proceedings or enter into conversation.  Each person seeking to ask questions during public question time may address the council for a maximum of 3 minutes each.

 

Members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting.

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

 

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

·                Only questions relating to matters affecting Council will be considered at an ordinary meeting, and at a special meeting only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered.  Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting.

·                Questions may not be directed at specific members of council or employees.

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

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

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

 

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations. If you wish to present a deputation please submit your request for a deputation in writing addressed to the Chief Executive Officer or fax through to Executive Services on 9405 5097. 

 

·                A time period of 10 minutes is set aside for each deputation. 

·                Deputations shall not exceed five (5) persons in number and only three (3) of those persons shall be at liberty to address the Council and to respond to questions the Mayor and Councillors may have.

 

Please ensure that mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.  Any queries on this agenda, please contact Executive Services on 9405 5027 or 9405 5018.

Objective

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

·      To emphasise that the reason for tape recording of Council Meetings is to ensure the accuracy of Council Meetings.

Statement

Recording of Proceedings

(1)          Proceedings for meetings of the Council, of electors and of the Audit Committee shall be recorded, by the City, on sound recording equipment except, in the case of meetings of the Council or the Audit Committee, where the Council or the Committee, as the case may be, closes the meeting to the public.

(2)          Notwithstanding sub clause (1), proceedings of a meeting of the Council or of the Audit Committee which is closed to the public shall be recorded where the Council or the Audit Committee, as the case requires, resolves to do so.

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

Access to Recorded Tapes

(4)          Members of the public may purchase a copy of the taped proceedings or alternatively listen to recorded proceedings with the supervision of a City Officer.

(5)          Elected Members may listen to a recording of the Council proceedings upon request, free of charge.  However, no transcript will be produced without the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.

(6)          Costs of providing taped proceedings to members of the public will be the cost of the tape plus staff time to make the copy of the proceedings.  The cost of supervised listening to recordings will be the cost of the staff time.  The cost of staff time will be set in the City’s schedule of fees and charges each year.

Retention of Tapes

(7)          Recordings pertaining to the proceedings of Council Meetings shall be retained in accordance with the Library Board of Western Australia Act (1951-83), General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records.  The current requirement for the retention of recorded proceedings is thirty (30) years.

Disclosure of Policy

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

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Civic Centre,

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 13 December, 2005 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

C JOHNSON

Chief Executive Officer

08 December 2005

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1          Attendances  1

Item  2          Apologies and Leave of Absence   1

Item  3          Public Question Time   1

Item  4          Confirmation of Minutes  1

OC01-12/05    Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 November 2005  1

Item  5          Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion   1

Item  6          Questions from Elected Members  1

Item  7          Petitions  1

New Petitions Presented  1

Update on Petitions  1

PT01-11/05     Objection to the Destruction of Park Area Adjoining Wanneroo Shopping Centre  1

PT02-11/05     Request for Bike Jumps or a Skate Park around Macquarie Heights  2

PT03-11/05     Opposing the Development Proposal for a Bed and Breakfast at 21 Piper Street, Quinns Rocks  2

Item  8          Reports  3

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. 3

Planning and Development  3

Policies & Studies  3

PD01-12/05     Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones Local Planning Policy  3

PD02-12/05     Municipal Heritage Inventory Review - Final Draft Report  9

Town Planning Schemes and Structure Plans  44

PD03-12/05     Final Adoption of Amendment No. 11 to Structure Plan No.8 East Wanneroo Cell No. 6  44

PD04-12/05     Close of Advertising - Lot 12 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee: Amendment 4 to the Agreed Structure Plan, Draft Foreshore Management Plan and Bulk Earthworks and Landscaping of an Area of Proposed Public Open Space  51

PD05-12/05     Proposed Yanchep-Two Rocks (St Andrews) District Concept Plan  83

PD06-12/05     Adoption of Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan  112

Delegated Authority Reports  134

PD07-12/05     Development Applications Determined by Delegated Authority for November 2005  134

Infrastructure  149

Tenders  149

IN01-12/05     Tender No 05541 - The Supply and Delivery of One Full Forward Control Commercial Refuse Collection Truck  149

IN02-12/05     Tender No 05542 - The Supply and Delivery of One 4WD Telescopic Handler  153

IN03-12/05     Tender No 05544 - The Supply and Delivery of Two 4WD Tractors with Minimum Engine Power of 60kw   157

IN04-12/05     Tender No 05548 - The Supply and Delivery of One Full Forward Control Four Tonne Dual Cab Truck  162

Land Development  166

IN05-12/05     Tender No 05547 - Kingsbridge Park Development - Civil Works, Butler  166

IN06-12/05     Sand Drift Control Policy Review   172

Funding and Budget  176

IN07-12/05     Local Government Perth Bicycle Network Funding 2006/2007  176

Corporate Services  184

Finance  184

CS01-12/05     Warrant of Payment - For the Period to 31 October 2005  184

CS02-12/05     Financial Activity Statement Report - For the Period Ended 31 October 2005  233

Contracts and Property  244

CS03-12/05     Proposed Lease - Portion of 935 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo to Wanneroo Business Association Inc  244

CS04-12/05     Proposed Lease: Portion of 935 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo to Small Business Centre (North West Metro) (Inc) 251

CS05-12/05     Sale of a Portion of Lot 15 Motivation Drive, Wangara  258

CS06-12/05     Proposed Lease to Telstra Corporation Ltd at Carramar Golf Course  266

CS07-12/05     Proposed Variation and Extension of Lease - City of Joondalup - Ashby Depot  271

CS08-12/05     Clarkson Library Commercial Tenancy 2 - Seek Approval to Lease  274

CS09-12/05     Variation of Lease - Mindarie Regional Council – Lot 118 Mindarie (Tamala Park) 279

Community Development  287

Community Services  287

CD01-12/05    Sandra Hill Artwork Donation  287

Leisure & Library Services  289

CD02-12/05    Facility Hire and Use Policy  289

CD03-12/05    City of Wanneroo Trails Master Plan - Stage Two  306

Governance and Strategy  331

Governance & Customer Relations  331

GS01-12/05     Donation Request to the Considered by Council  331

GS02-12/05     Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Club – Reallocation of Funds from the March 2005 Community Funding Round  336

Strategic Projects  339

GS03-12/05     Establishment of Community Vision Taskforce Community Reference Group  339

Marketing  352

GS04-12/05     Tender No 05546 - The Provision of an Offset Printing Service  352

Chief Executive Office  356

General  356

CE01-12/05     Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer  356

CE02-12/05     Delegation of Authority Over the Council Recess  358

CE03-12/05     Donation Requests Determined Under the Delegation of the Chief Executive Officer  360

CE04-12/05     Establishment Agreement for the Tamala Park Regional Council  363

CE05-12/05     Council Administration Report Following Participation in the Asia Pacific Cities Summit 2005  396

Item  9          Motions on Notice   415

MN01-12/05   Cr L Gray - Seagrass Issue, Two Rocks  415

MN02-12/05   Cr R Steffens - Western Power Street Lighting Maintenance  418

MN03-12/05   Cr D Newton - Police Clearance - Elected Members  422

Item  10        Urgent Business  424

Item  11        Confidential   424

CR01-12/05    Tender for Gas and Electricity Supply at Aquamotion  424

CR02-12/05    Chief Executive Officer Performance Report  424

Item  12        Date of Next Meeting   424

The next Ordinary Councillors Briefing Session has been scheduled for 6.00pm on Tuesday, 24 January 2006, to be held at the Civic Centre, Dundebar Road, Wanneroo. 424

Item  13        Closure   424

 

 

Item  1                Attendances

Item  2                Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3                Public Question Time

Item  4                Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 November 2005 be confirmed.

Item  5                Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6                Questions from Elected Members

Item  7                Petitions

New Petitions Presented

Update on Petitions

Cr Monks presented a petition with 61 signatories objecting to the destruction of park area adjoining Wanneroo Shopping Centre.

 

UPDATE

 

A report will be presented to the 31 January 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting with the application for the shopping centre.

Cr Newton presented a petition with 13 signatories requesting bike jumps or a skate park around Macquarie Heights.

 

UPDATE

 

Administration will liaise with petitioners early in the New Year a report will be presented to Council for consideration in due course.

Cr Roberts presented a petition with 17 signatories opposing the development proposal for a bed and breakfast at 21 Piper Street, Quinns Rocks.

 

UPDATE

 

The development application will be presented to the Council meeting of 31 January 2006.

 

Item  8                Reports

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

Cr Loftus to declare an impartial interest in Item PD02-12/05 due to carrying out some work for the owner of the land and under a letter from the Manager Compliance and Advice, Department of Local Government and Regional Development dated 3 February 2005 that I have an exemption to fully participate in the discussion and decision making procedures relating to Council’s consideration of all matters affecting Tokyu Corporation’s St Andrews Project.

 

Mayor Kelly to declare an interest in Items PD04-12/05 and PD05-12/05.

 

Cr Loftus to declare an impartial interest in Item PD05-12/05 and Item PD06-12/05 due to carrying out some work for the owner of the land and under a letter from the Manager Compliance and Advice, Department of Local Government and Regional Development dated 3 February 2005 that I have an exemption to fully participate in the discussion and decision making procedures relating to Council’s consideration of all matters affecting Tokyu Corporation’s St Andrews Project.

 

Cr Loftus to declare an impartial interest in Item CS03-12/05 due to being a member of an Association named in the report.

 

Cr Gray to declare an impartial interest in Item CS03-12/05 due to being a member of the Wanneroo Business Association.

Planning and Development

Policies & Studies

File Ref:                                              TPS/0049V01

File Name: AAAncillary Accommodation in the General Rural  Rural Resource  Special Rural and Special Residential Zones .doc This line

Level 4 Approval by shb Date 30 November 2005

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 28 November 2005

Level 2 Approval by shb Date 22 November 2005

Level 1 Approval by shb Date 22 November 2005will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Author:   Silvia Foti

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments:                                       1

StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete

Issue

To consider the submissions received as a result of advertising the Draft Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones Local Planning Policy.

Background

Council, at its meeting on 22 February 2005, finally adopted Amendment No.49 to  District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2) to modify the permissibility of the use class ‘Ancillary Accommodation’ from a not permitted (‘X’) use to a discretionary (‘D’) use in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zone and adopted the Draft Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising. It was resolved to advertise the draft Policy for a period of 42 days to seek public comment.

 

Advertising closed on 3 May 2005, however this report was not presented to Council earlier as the City was awaiting the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s final approval of Amendment 49 to DPS2. The Minister granted final approval to this Amendment on 11 November 2005, which now enables the City to consider final adoption of this Policy.

Detail

The advertised version of the Draft Local Planning Policy has been included as Attachment 1.

 

The City received two (2) submissions relating to the draft Local Planning Policy. Both were supportive of the Policy in that it would allow for extended families to live on a property.

Consultation

The draft Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Local Planning Policy was advertised in accordance with the requirements of DPS2. The advertising was carried out by way of advertisements for two consecutive weeks in the local newspaper. Advertising closed on 3 May 2005.

Comment

As the City did not receive any adverse comments, it is considered that the Policy should proceed without modification.

Statutory Compliance

Under Clause 8.11 of DPS2, Council may prepare a Local Planning Policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme Area, provided that any such policy is consistent with the Scheme.

 

Under DPS2, a Local Planning Policy shall not bind the Council in respect of any proposal but the Council is required to have due regard to the provisions of the policy and the objectives which the Policy is designed to achieve before making its decision.

 

The process for making and amending a Local Planning Policy is summarised below:

 

a)       Adopt a draft policy.

b)      Advertise the draft policy for a minimum of 21 days.

c)       Review the draft policy in the light of any submissions made and resolve to either finally adopt the draft policy, with or without modifications, or not to proceed with the draft policy.

d)      Provide public notice of any adopted policy.

 

This Policy is considered to be consistent with the objectives of DPS2 and has been prepared in-accordance with Clause 8.11 of DPS2.

Strategic Implications

The preparation of this Policy is in keeping with the Corporate Management and Development Goal of the City’s Strategic Plan that seeks to ensure that policies are developed and reviewed to meet the changing needs of our customers and to ensure appropriate management.

Policy Implications

The new Local Planning Policy will be applied to all applications for Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones within the City of Wanneroo.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No.2 resolves to FINALLY ADOPT the Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones Local Planning Policy as set out in Attachment 1 of this report;

2.       PROVIDES public notification of the final adoption of the Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones Local Planning Policy pursuant to subclause 8.11.3 (d) 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

ATTACHMENT 1

                                                                                                                             Page 1 of 3

 

Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential zones.

 

Policy Owner:             Planning and Development

Distribution:               All Employees

Implementation:         TBA

Scheduled Review:     TBA

 

Objectives

 

1.         To provide for a range of criteria that will distinguish Ancillary Accommodation from independent additional dwellings in the City’s Rural and Special Residential areas.

 

2.         To provide for a form of housing that accommodates the needs of large or extended families without compromising the amenity and character of the City’s Rural and Special Residential areas.

 

Statement

 

Under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2), Ancillary Accommodation is identified as a discretionary ‘D’ use in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential Zones. Ancillary Accommodation in these zones help to keep families together, whether it be to house extended families, parents who retire from agricultural pursuits and wish to remain on the their property with the agricultural operation being taken over by the next generation or children wanting their own space and privacy.

 

Ancillary Accommodation is defined under the Residential Design Codes 2002 (R Codes) as: “self contained living accommodation on the same lot as a Single House that may be attached or detached from the Single House occupied by members of the same family as the occupiers of the main dwelling”.

 

As DPS2 does not permit the development of full independent second grouped dwellings in many situations within these zones, it is important for Council to have clear guidelines that distinguish between these two forms of dwellings.  In essence, for a particular development to be considered eligible as an Ancillary Accommodation, it must be able to be demonstrated that it is truly related and subordinate to the main dwelling, as opposed to the development being two separate independent dwellings.  Detached dwelling extensions which involve more than two habitable rooms or could otherwise be used for the purpose of accommodation, should also be identified as a form of Ancillary Accommodation and therefore made to comply with the provisions of this Policy.

 

ATTACHMENT 1

                                                                                                                             Page 2 of 3

 

Definitions

 

Ancillary Accommodation shall have the same meaning as that given in the Residential Design Codes 2002, meaning:

 

“Self contained living accommodation on the same lot as a Single House that may be attached or detached from the Single House occupied by members of the same family as the occupiers of the main dwelling”.

 

Acceptable Development Provisions:

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 4.1.1 of the Residential Design Codes, development that complies with all of the following is deemed to meet the Performance Criteria for Ancillary Accommodation in the General Rural, Rural Resource, Special Rural and Special Residential zones:

 

1.      The Ancillary Accommodation is associated with a Single House, which either exists or will be developed concurrently on the property.

 

2.      The development will not result in more than one Ancillary Accommodation being constructed on the property.

 

3.      Any occupier of the Ancillary Accommodation shall be a member of the family occupying the main dwelling.

 

4.      The Ancillary Accommodation does not exceed 60m² plot ratio area and shall contain a bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities.

 

5.      The Ancillary Accommodation is located no further than 20 metres from the main dwelling.

 

6.      All services to the Ancillary Accommodation (including driveways, mailing address, water, electricity metres, effluent disposal systems etc) should be shared with the main dwelling.

 

7.      A detached extension to the main dwelling that consists of two (2) or more habitable rooms (as defined by the Building Code of Australia), shall comply with the provisions of this Policy and include a bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities.

 

ATTACHMENT 1

                                                                                                                             Page 3 of 3

Conditions

 

To alert prospective landowners of the use restrictions of the Ancillary Accommodation as stipulated in Clause 3 above, a condition should be placed on any approval for Ancillary Accommodation requiring the landowners to place a notification under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act on the certificate of title for the subject lot in a form acceptable to the City, prior to lodgement of a building licence application.

 

Responsibility for Implementation

 

Manager Development and Health Services

 

 

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

File Ref:                                              S37/0001

File Name: AAMunicipal Heritage Inventory Review   Final Draft Report.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Level 5 Approval by shb Date 08 December 2005

Level 4 Approval by shb Date 30 November 2005

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 29 November 2005

Level 2 Approval by shb Date 29 November 2005

Level 1 Approval by shb Date 29 November 2005

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Author:   Ian Bignell

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments                                        5

StartStrip - This line will not be printed so do not delete

Issue

To consider the final draft report for the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) Review for release for public comment.

Background

A MHI is an inventory list compiled by the local government of buildings and places within its district, which in its opinion are, or may become of cultural heritage significance.  It is prepared in consultation with the community and sent to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for public information.  The MHI itself has no statutory effect or implications, except that Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 requires that local governments compile and maintain a MHI, to update it annually and to review it every four years after compilation. 

 

The (former) City’s MHI was originally compiled in 1994 by consultants Martinick and Associates in conjunction with Gutteridge Haskins and Davey and Brian Delfs and Associates.  The study involved review of some 151 places, with 84 places being evaluated and 53 places being recommended for inclusion in the MHI.  An additional list of historic sites was compiled in 1996.

 

The City has been undertaking a review of its MHI over the last several years.  The project has been carried out in three stages as follows:

 

Stage 1, which involved updating assessment information for all (sixteen) privately owned places on the existing MHI, including consultation/liaison with landowners, and review/ preparation of information for Council use.  This stage of the project was carried out in late 2002 to early 2003 by consultants Palassis Architects (final report dated April 2003).

 

Stage 2, being the major part of the MHI Review project involving review and updating of places on the existing MHI and other heritage lists, seeking of nominations for new places to be considered for inclusion in the MHI (including community and landowner consultation), assessment of all relevant places and assignment of management categories, recommendation of places to be added to the MHI, and preparation of a MHI database using software prepared by the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA).  The complete database includes all places information from the Stages 1 and 3 projects also.

 

Consultants Heritage and Conservation Professionals were appointed to carry out the Stage 2 Review in May 2003.  A first draft report was submitted for review in July 2004.  Further work was required and a final draft report dated May 2005 was submitted.

 

Stage 3, being a report on the history and significance of lime kilns in the City, including a review and assessment of lime kilns on the existing MHI and proposed additions to the MHI.  This project was prepared in-house by the City’s Heritage Officer.

 

A copy of each the Palassis Architects Stage 1 report, the Lime Kilns Stage 2 report and the final draft MHI Review report have been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for reference.

Detail

This section of the report provides an outline of the key elements of the MHI Review, relevant provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2), involvement of the City’s Heritage Services Advisory Committee and the outcome of preliminary landowner consultations carried out to date.

Summary Table

The final draft MHI Review report incorporates a Summary Table listing all place names (in alphabetical order), showing their status on the MHI (as either add to, retain or remove from the MHI – see Recommendation column) and the recommended management category.  A copy of the table is appended as Attachment 1.  This table will be a key resource and form part of the documentation released for public comment.  It represents the place list recently endorsed by the Heritage Services Advisory Committee.

 

A total of 120 individual places are listed in the Summary Table, comprising 59 places to be retained on the MHI (i.e these are on the current MHI), one place recommended for removal from the current MHI (being the Old Block Road Museum which is being dismantled/demolished and has no heritage significance – the Old Block Road site is being retained), and 60 places recommended for addition to the MHI.  These 60 recommended additions comprise place nominations received in 2003 and places on other heritage lists, all of which have been assessed by the City’s consultants as meeting significance criteria for inclusion in the MHI. 

 

A total of 119 individual places would be included on the City’s revised MHI assuming its final adoption by Council in its current form.  A number of these individual places are also combined into one proposed group, the Wanneroo Road Group, and four proposed precincts, Pappas Swamp, Yellagonga Regional Park, Yanchep National Park, and Two Rocks Marina Precincts.  The Group and Precinct details are provided at the end of the Summary Table.

 

A series of three Location Plans showing all places by Site Number is appended as Attachment 2.

HCWA Database

A key component of the MHI Review is the preparation, updating and maintenance of a MHI database utilising HCWA software.  The database provides comprehensive data on place location and property particulars, place description, condition and historical notes, significance statements and management categories, and place photographs.  The final draft report includes Summary Reports for each place, these being extracts of the database information.

 

Administration has spent some time correcting and refining in both the MHI Summary Table and database.  Information relating to some places on the current MHI is still lacking, particularly in relation to natural places, aboriginal sites and demolished private places.

 

After final adoption of the revised MHI the Administration will maintain the MHI database information to ensure its currency.  It should also be noted that relevant information records will be maintained on the City’s property information database of places included in the MHI.  This will ensure that heritage related issues for subject places are properly considered in planning and development proposals, infrastructure works, etc.

Management Categories

As noted above, the assignment of management categories for each place is a further key component of the MHI.  Management categories are recommendations for the most appropriate level of management of a place according to its heritage value.  They should be seen as a guide to the City and owners of the place when considering planning and development issues and in encouraging conservation of the place.  In terms of heritage management, the higher the management category the greater the care that should be taken in protecting the place.

 

Management categories are assigned to individual places based on assessment of significance of the place, with the criteria being historic, aesthetic and social significance and representativeness and rarity.

 

A description of each of the proposed management categories is outlined below.  These descriptions are as worded in the MHI database and report.

 

Category 1: Recommended for State Register of Heritage Places

Highest level of protection appropriate: recommended for entry into the State Register of Heritage Places as well as inclusion in a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of DPS2; provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.

 

Note: Category 1A in the Summary Table and database refers to a place already included on the State Register of Heritage Places.

 

Category 2: High Level of protection through the town planning scheme, i.e inclusion in a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of DPS2; provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.

 

Category 3: Retain and conserve if possible: provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.  Photographic record required prior to any major redevelopment or demolition.

 

Category 4: Historic Site or Natural Place – Recognise.  Historic site without built features or natural place.  Interpret – for example with a plaque, place name, or reflection in urban or architectural design.

 

Management categories 1 and 2 are assigned to places having the highest level of heritage significance and therefore have the greatest implications for both the Council and the owners of such properties. 

Special consideration is required by Council in the assignment of categories 1 and 2 to places as it is intended that these places will have a degree of “statutory” protection under the Heritage of Western Australia Act (for places on the State Register) and/or Town Planning and Development Act (for places on a Scheme Heritage List).

 

To expand on the descriptions above, Category 1 places are those that Council recommends to the HCWA that it considers for inclusion in the State Register of Heritage Places.  The criteria and processes related to the State Heritage Register is outlined in Division 2 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.  Places on the State Register are afforded the highest level of protection and conservation possible, including stringent controls on development. 

 

For both Categories 1 and 2 places, these are proposed to be included into a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of the City’s DPS2.  Creation of and inclusion on a Scheme Heritage List provides a high level of protection of listed places, requiring all development proposals to be considered in accordance with the DPS2 provisions.  Further details of the Clause 5.2 heritage provisions of DPS2 is outlined in a later section of the report.  That section should be referred to in conjunction with this one.

 

Council has not previously resolved to put places on a Heritage List (i.e no such list exists currently), therefore Council will need to resolve to create a Heritage List in conjunction with the revised MHI.  If Council determines that it does not wish to create a Heritage List to afford appropriate protection to the specified places, then it will be necessary to reconsider the management category descriptions (to remove reference to a Heritage List) and/or the assignment of categories to places.  The Administration considers that creation of a Heritage List has merit in appropriately acknowledging and managing the significant heritage places within the district however Council may wish to closely review places recommended for Categories 1 and 2.  It is recommended that this occur at both this draft stage and at the consideration of public submissions/ consideration of final adoption stage.

 

A listing of the proposed Category 1 and 2 places is provided in Attachment 3.  The list comprises twenty two (22) Category 1 places and twenty three (23) Category 2 places.  Again, it is important to note that this listing (as for the Summary Table in Attachment 1) includes amended categories for some places as recommended by the Heritage Services Advisory Committee to date.  Refer following section for particulars.

 

Only 3 places are recommended for addition to the MHI as Category 1 places, (Lindsay Homestead, former NW Stock Route, and Perry House), and the remainder are on the current MHI.  The majority of those places on the current MHI in this category are already on the State Register and designated as Category 1A in the Summary Table and database (including the various places within Yanchep National Park Precinct, Buckingham House, Cockman House, Coopers Lime Kilns and Perry’s Paddock; much of the former NW Stock Route is also on the State Register but not on the MHI).  In the case of St Anthony’s Church, this place has previously been recommended for addition to the State Register. 

 

The three recommended additions to the MHI as Category 1 are considered to have merit based on their heritage significance.  In terms of ownership and tenure, Lindsay Homestead is currently owned by Capricorn Village JV, but is within the coastal Parks and Recreation Reservation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and expected to be transferred or ceded to the Crown as part of subdivision according with the Capricorn Coastal Village Agreed Structure Plan.  Under the revised draft Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan, Lindsay Homestead has been earmarked for retention and use for community purposes.  The Former NW Stock Route is also considered to be secure as its alignment mainly follows regional reserves between Yellagonga Regional Park, Neerabup and Yanchep National Parks and beyond the City’s district (and much of it is already on the State Register).  Perry House is situated on a privately owned property at 275 Gibbs Road Nowergup, and is the second dwelling on the lot. 

 

Of the recommended Category 2 places, 17 of the 23 are recommended additions to the MHI, however all places require some consideration given that no Heritage List exists currently.  A number of places are on reserved, government or crown land (including reserves vested in the City) and therefore are subject of some level of protection already.  Places such as Della’s Dairy, Fisherman’s Hollow, Yanchep Lagoon, School House (Perry’s Paddock), Wanneroo and Yanchep War Memorials have such tenure.  Several places are on MRS Parks and Recreation reserved land which is in private ownership, including Edward’s House ruins and the Menchetti Lime Kilns (land owned by Cockburn Cement).  Several other Council owned properties are recommended as Category 2, including the Phil Renkin Centre at Two Rocks and 935 Wanneroo Road Wanneroo. 

 

The remainder of recommended (by the Heritage Services Advisory Committee) Category 2 places include various privately owned properties including Conti’s Winery/Restaurant, Club Capricorn Resort, King Neptune sculpture, St Anthony’s House, Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Limestone Retaining Wall, and a number of houses/huts throughout the City’s rural areas and one at Girrawheen. 

Heritage Services Advisory Committee and Preliminary Landowner Consultation

The City’s Heritage Services Advisory Committee has been regularly updated and closely involved in the three stages of the MHI Review to date.  Committee members have provided input into and feedback on the project from time to time.  At the meeting of the Committee held on 29 April 2005, Committee resolved (inter alia) that it:

 

1.         Requests that the MHI Review report be presented to a Council Forum for discussion; and

2.         Requests that Council endorses Administration (after presentation to Council Forum) notifying the owners of all properties affected by management categories 1 and 2 of their recommended inclusion in the draft MHI.  The owners to be invited for comment and responses will be presented to Council.

 

At this meeting the Committee also sought a number of amendments to the management categories recommended by the consultant for the following places:  Atlantis Marine Park (fmr), Club Capricorn Resort, King Neptune Sculpture, Two Rocks Marina, Two Rocks Shopping Centre, Tavern and Limestone Retaining Wall, St Anthony’s House and Wanneroo Civic Precinct (all to be designated Category 2 in lieu of 3 as the consultant recommended).

 

In accordance with the 29 April 2005 resolution of Committee, the MHI Review was presented to the Council Forum of 6 September 2005 and Administration notified all recommended Category 1 and 2 place owners inviting comments by letter of 13 September 2005.

 

An update on the MHI Review was provided at the 16 September 2005 meeting of the Committee, where it requested that all private owners be advised of the management category recommended for their property and that all owners comments be discussed by the Committee prior to presentation to Council.

 

In accordance with the 16 September 2005 resolution of Committee, the Administration wrote to all private owners of recommended Category 3 and 4 places by letter of 27 September 2005. 

 

Submissions were received in relation to 19 places.  All owners comments and Administration assessment/recommendation on each are attached to this report as Attachment 4.  This landowner submission information was presented to the 11 November 2005 meeting of the Committee for consideration.  The following table summarises both the Administration and Committee recommendations:

 

Recommended Category 1 Places (3)	Administration Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
St Anthony’s Church	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Lindsay Homestead	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Perry House	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Recommended Category 2 Places (13)
Club Capricorn Resort*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern & Limestone Retaining Wall*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Atlantis Marine Park (fmr)*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.
King Neptune Sculpture*	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
House & Hut 29 Mereworth Way	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3.	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
St Anthony’s House*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Conti Winery Restaurant	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Two Rocks Marina*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.

 

Lime Kilns 7-11 Quarry, Neerabup	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Della’s Dairy (fmr)	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Old Wanneroo School House, Perry’s Paddock	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Wanneroo Civic Precinct*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.
Wanneroo War Memorial	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Recommended Category 3 Places (3)
Quinns Beach House and Shack	Retain as recommended Category 3 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Our Lady of Mercy Church Girrawheen	Retain as recommended Category 3 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Well and Sheep Dip, Lindsay Homestead site	Amend to Category 4 site.	As per Administration Rec.

* Management Category upgraded from 3 to 2 by Committee at its 29 April 2005 meeting (7 places).

 

The Committee also resolved at the 11 November 2005 meeting to recommend that Bert Togno Park be included within the Wanneroo Civic Precinct (this place also includes the old Civic Centre, Aquamotion, Limelight Theatre and the park on which the relocated War Memorial is located), and that Wanneroo Showgrounds be upgraded from Category 3 to 2.  The Administration concurs with these changes.

 

With respect to the four cases of variance between the Administration and Committee recommendations in the table above, the following comments are made:

 

·                Club Capricorn Resort: The Administration is of the view that of the Committee recommendation to upgrade this place to category 2 is unable to be sustained based on the statement of significance and description information included in the place summary report.  In addition, the Resort site is subject of an Agreed Structure Plan which designates the resort buildings within Centre, Mixed Use and Residential zones – redevelopment is obviously envisaged by the Structure Plan.

·                Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Retaining Wall: Similar comments apply regarding the current statement of significance and description information included in the place summary report.  Also this place has been subject of a major planning workshop, is zoned Marina under the City’s DPS2, and is subject of the St Andrews Strategic Cooperation Agreement and studies such as the Two Rocks Seagrass Strategy, all of which have envisaged redevelopment of the Two Rocks town centre area to create a vibrant mixed use town centre into the future.

·                St Anthony’s House: Similar comments apply regarding the place summary report.  The place is also subject of the Wanneroo Town Centre Agreed Structure Plan. 

·                House and Hut at 29 Mereworth Way: The City’s consultants had earlier indicated a view that the hut had a higher level of heritage significance than the house.  In addition, there is a current application submitted to the WAPC for subdivision of this property into two lots.  Whilst the Administration has recommended that the WAPC amend the boundaries so that the buildings on site may be placed on one proposed lot, it is unlikely that the WAPC would agree given the subdivision would then not comply with the provisions of the R Codes.

 

In summary, Administration maintains its position regarding Club Capricorn Resort, Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Limestone Retaining Wall, St Anthony’s House and 29 Mereworth Way.  Whilst it is acknowledged that inclusion into a Heritage List pursuant to the City’s DPS2 (as is proposed for Categories 1 and 2 places) does not necessarily preclude demolition and redevelopment of affected places, it is considered this would introduce difficulties for Council as well as landowners with limited beneficial outcomes in respect of the above places.

 

The Committee was advised that it is important that such places should have appropriate merit for revising their category upward, and that the decision on such upgrading should be further considered by Council.  In this regard Committee members have indicated that further information would be provided in support of recommendations for Club Capricorn Resort and Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Limestone Retaining Wall particularly.  No additional information has been submitted to date.

DPS2 Heritage Provisions

As noted above, a MHI is a list of buildings and places which in the opinion of Council are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance.  It is recognition of a place’s heritage importance to the local community. However, places entered in a MHI do not have legal protection unless they are part of a Town Planning Scheme which would apply special controls, and may have planning bonuses attached.

 

Clause 5.2 of DPS2 addresses Heritage Protection. The purpose and intent of this part is to:

 

a)       facilitate the conservation of places of heritage value; and

b)      to ensure as far as possible that development occurs with due regard to heritage values.

 

Subclause 5.2.2.1 outlines that the Council shall establish and maintain a Heritage List which identifies those places within the Scheme Area considered to be of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme. To date, no Heritage List has been prepared or adopted.  Under the MHI Review process, it is proposed that a Heritage List would be prepared and adopted to comprise the category 1 and 2 places.

 

In dealing with any matters which may affect a place included on the Heritage List, including any application for Planning Approval, Council is required to have regard to any heritage policy of the Council. Council is also required to solicit the views of the Heritage Council of WA and any other relevant bodies, and take those views into account when determining the application. Council may also require a heritage assessment to be undertaken prior to the issue of a planning approval.

 

An expanded definition of the term ‘development’ (beyond that in the Town Planning and Development Act) applies to places on the Scheme heritage list to also include any act or thing likely to significantly change the external character of the building, structure, object or place.  Clause 6.1.3 of the Scheme requires that a development application be submitted for all development of a place on the heritage list or in an area that Council considers will impact a place on the list.

 

The Scheme does not preclude development of sites listed under the Scheme and in order to facilitate heritage outcomes, Council may vary the scheme provisions to facilitate the conservation of a heritage place or to enhance heritage values. Council may also enter into a heritage agreement under Part 4 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 with an owner who would benefit from the variation. The agreement may specify the owner’s obligations and contain memorials noted on relevant Certificates of Title.

 

Changes can be made to a listed property, however, the Heritage Council of WA recommends that the changes respect the significant details of the place and be sympathetic to its heritage values. For example, additions can usually be designed to compliment the original building in scale, form and window arrangement. If possible new work should be done in a way that enables the original fabric to be easily identified.

 

Demolition is not prohibited for a place included on the Municipal Inventory, however, if the place is included in the Town Planning Scheme then special considerations may apply. If approval is given to demolish a listed site, then a record of the place should be conducted prior to demolition.

 

Advice provided by the Heritage Council of Western Australia indicates that generally property values are not affected by inclusion of a property on a Municipal Inventory and that Council will not acquire any ownership rights on places listed in the Municipal Inventory.

 

Listing of a Place of Importance under the District Planning Scheme should not be confused with a listing under the State Register of Heritage Places. A listing under DPS2 is for places of local significance, whereas a listing under the State Register is official recognition by the State of a places cultural significance to the heritage of Western Australia.

Draft Local Planning Policy

The Administration considers that the preparation of a draft Local Planning Policy will be beneficial in supporting the City’s revised MHI.  The policy would clarify and outline the processes and procedures for dealing with development and building applications and enquiries relating to heritage places according to their assigned management category.  Whilst the processes for category 1 and 2 places are quite well defined (as outlined in earlier sections of the report), further guidance for processes related to category 3 and 4 places will also be beneficial.  The policy will incorporate revised versions of the planning checklists and information sheets prepared by Palassis Architects as part of the Stage 1 review.

 

A draft Local Planning Policy is attached to this report – refer Attachment 5.

Consultation

Following consideration of this final draft by Council the revised MHI will be released for public comment.  A comprehensive community consultation process will be undertaken, including advertising in the local newspaper, letters to relevant landowners, agencies and community organisations inviting comment, making the report available for viewing at the City’s Civic Centre, public libraries and on the website.  A comment period of 42 days is considered appropriate for this project.  The consultation should commence in January 2006.

 

An initial stage of consultation occurred during the early stage of the project as part of invitations for nominations for nominations in July-August 2003.  Three community information meetings were held at Wanneroo, Girrawheen and Two Rocks in August 2003.  There was subsequent notification of the owners of all nominated places by the Administration, and further consultation/ liaison undertaken by the consultants during the process of assessing places.

 

A further preliminary landowner consultation process has also been recently undertaken prior to presentation of the MHI Review to Council.  This has been described in this report.

Comment

It is recommended that the Council agree to adopt the MHI Review subject to the modifications described, to adopt the draft Local Planning Policy and to prepare and adopt a Heritage List pursuant to the provisions of Clause 5.2 of DPS2 as draft documents for the purpose of public advertising to provide appropriate recognition to places considered by Council as having a high level of local heritage significance.

Statutory Compliance

The MHI Review is taking place in accordance with section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

 

Under Clause 8.11 of DPS2, Council may prepare a Local Planning Policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme Area, provided that any such policy is consistent with the Scheme.

 

Under DPS2, a Local Planning Policy shall not bind the Council in respect of any proposal but the Council is required to have due regard to the provisions of the policy and the objectives which the Policy is designed to achieve before making its decision.

 

The process for making and amending a Local Planning Policy is summarised below:

 

a)       Adopt a draft policy.

b)      Advertise the draft policy for a minimum of 21 days.

c)       Review the draft policy in the light of any submissions made and resolve to either finally adopt the draft policy, with or without modifications, or not to proceed with the draft policy.

d)      Provide public notice of any adopted policy.

 

The draft Policy is considered to be consistent with the objectives of DPS2 and has been prepared in-accordance with Clause 8.11 of DPS2.

 

The statutory processes associated with creation of a Scheme Heritage List and dealing with development proposals in accordance with Clause 5.2 of DPS2 have been outlined in this report.

Strategic Implications

This project is consistent with the City of Wanneroo Strategic Plan objective ‘Conserve our heritage for future generations’.

 

The project is also consistent with the City’s Smart Growth Strategy, Principle 4 – Identity, Equity and Inclusiveness, Action 4g ‘By promoting the appreciation and conservation of heritage sites.’

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete

Heritage Services Advisory Committee Recommendation – 11/11/05

That Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSES the Administration Assessment and Recommendations as per the following amended table in response to landowner submissions.

 

Recommended Category 1 Places (3)	Administration Recommendation	Committee Recommendation
St Anthony’s Church	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Lindsay Homestead	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Perry House	Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.	As per Administration Rec.

 

Recommended Category 2 Places (13)
Club Capricorn Resort*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern & Limestone Retaining Wall*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Atlantis Marine Park (fmr)*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.
King Neptune Sculpture*	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
House & Hut 29 Mereworth Way	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3.	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
St Anthony’s House*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.
Conti Winery Restaurant	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Two Rocks Marina*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.
Lime Kilns 7-11 Quarry, Neerabup	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Della’s Dairy (fmr)	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Old Wanneroo School House, Perry’s Paddock	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Wanneroo Civic Precinct*	Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).	As per Administration Rec.
Wanneroo War Memorial	Retain as recommended Category 2 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Recommended Category 3 Places (3)
Quinns Beach House and Shack	Retain as recommended Category 3 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Our Lady of Mercy Church Girrawheen	Retain as recommended Category 3 Place.	As per Administration Rec.
Well and Sheep Dip, Lindsay Homestead site	Amend to Category 4 site.	As per Administration Rec.

 

2.       Subject to modifications in accordance with 1 above, ADOPTS the Municipal Heritage Inventory Review as a draft for public comment.

Officer Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the assigned management categories of places included in the draft Municipal Heritage Inventory Review Report (Summary Table as shown in Attachment 1 to this report) with the exception of the following:

a)      Club Capricorn Resort to be modified to Category 3;

b)      Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Limestone Retaining Wall to be modified to Category 3;

c)       St Anthony’s House to be modified to Category 3; and

d)      House and Hut, 29 Mereworth Way to be modified to Category 3.

2.       ADOPTS the Draft Municipal Heritage Inventory Review Report (as modified in accordance with 1. above) for release for public comment for a period of forty two days.

3.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2, ADOPTS the draft Heritage Places Local Planning Policy for release for public comment for a period of forty two days.

4.       Pursuant to Clause 5.2.2.3 of District Planning Scheme No 2, PREPARES a Heritage List comprising all Category 1 and 2 places (as modified in accordance with 1. above), notify each owner of each place and release for public comment for a period of forty two days.  

EndOfRecommendation - This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

 

StartOfAttachment - 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

 

Attachment 4 Page 1 of 11

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

 

 

Summary and Assessment of Preliminary Landowner Submissions on MHI Review

 

RECOMMENDED CATEGORY 1 PLACES

 

D Barnao & Co/Slavin Architects for Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth – St Anthony’s Church

 

The Slavin Architects report has been prepared mainly in response to the City’s recent (September 2005) Place Assessment Report for inclusion of St Anthony’s Church into the State Register of Heritage Places and provides a response to the various criteria for cultural heritage significance.  It particularly focuses on the physical aspects and condition of the place.  The report challenges the various criterion under the aesthetic, historic (partly), rarity and representativeness values and condition and authenticity categories.  Only the social value of the place is ‘noted’ (i.e agrees with the Place Assessment Report).  The report also provides a detailed assessment/ commentary and photographic record on the physical condition of the building interior and exterior. 

 

It is also noted that part of the lot/building lies within the Wanneroo Road regional road reservation, and if that land is required in the future, some 4.5 metres would have to be removed from the front of the building further diminishing the integrity of the building.

 

The report concludes that “after visiting the site we find the Heritage Council of WA view that the place is unlikely to meet the threshold for entry on the State Register of Heritage Places to be compelling.  The diminution of the historic value of the original church through inappropriate and intrusive alteration, the loss of integrity of the place, and subsequent high level of dereliction to the built fabric, reduction of the curtilage to an unreasonable extent by the intrusion of Wanneroo Road, makes it difficult to justify retention.”

 

D Barnao and Co have advised that given the recent decision of the Register Committee of the Heritage Council (as above), we are unable to understand why the City proposes to enter the place in Category 1 of the MHI.  D Barnao and Co have lodged an application for a demolition licence for the property.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

The Heritage Council of WA (HCWA) in its letter dated 12 October 2005 advises the decision of the Council that St Anthony’s Church does not have sufficient cultural heritage significance at the State level for inclusion in the State Register of Heritage Places.  However, the HCWA advises further that it believes that the place is important to the history and development of the City of Wanneroo area and is worthy of recognition as a place of very high local significance, and emphasises that its decision has no bearing on the status of the place in the local government MHI.  Accordingly, and irrespective of the claims made in the submission, it is recommended that the place remain as Category 1 in recognition of the highest possible level of local significance.

 

 

Attachment 4 Page 2 of 11

 

Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.

 

Capricorn Village Joint Venture – Lindsay Homestead Two Rocks Road Yanchep

 

It is confirmed that a condition of subdivision requires the homestead and surrounding land to be transferred to the Crown as a reserve for subsequent vesting in the local authority.  This would occur soon as part of the first stage of subdivision.  There has been consultation with the City regarding future use of Lindsay Homestead as a community facility, as reflected in the draft Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan.  However the City is advised that the building contains asbestos (as noted in the place summary report), so there may be a conflict and difficulties for the City whereby part of the City wishes the building preserved for heritage purposes and another wanting the building demolished and rebuilt (to remove asbestos) for community use.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

The owner raises no objection to the proposed management category as the place is intended to be transferred to the Crown/City in any case.  However the City will need to further assess and address the asbestos issue in considering the future of the building.

 

Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.

 

Mr B Harms - Perry House 275 Gibbs Road Nowergup

 

Disagree the building could be included as Category 1 in the MHI as it is in such bad condition.  Building condition damage includes white ant infestation (which has caused ceiling collapse and unsafe entry) and numerous large cracks externally and internally.  The damage affects the structural integrity of the building such that we have safety concerns and have sought advice on demolition.  We do not want the responsibility of guaranteeing safety.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Whilst the owner’s concerns regarding building condition and safety are acknowledged, building condition is not a key criteria for listing.  This place is recommended for inclusion as a Category 1 MHI place based on its high level of historic and social significance.  Given the high management category recommended, assistance should possibly be provided to the owners to seek grant funding to enable building restoration works.  There is no obligation on the landowners to maintain the structure or to provide public access to it.

 

Retain as recommended Category 1 Place.

	Attachment 4 Page 3 of 11

 

 

RECOMMENDED CATEGORY 2 PLACES

 

Capricorn Village Joint Venture – Club Capricorn Resort, Yanchep

 

a. We submit strong objection to inclusion in any category on the Register.  The City has in October 2003 approved a Structure Plan for the landholding clearly showing redevelopment of this area with amended and new road layout and revised land use.  For the City to now propose that this redevelopment not proceed or be severely curtailed makes a mockery of the City’s own planning approval processes.  It would be naïve for the City to suggest that parallel processes of planning and development and heritage listing will ultimately resolve this issue, and the City should resolve this matter internally to avoid a waste of time and resources that will achieve little.  The heritage consultant’s report should firstly be analysed in the context of existing City policy and approvals prior to release for public comment.  Since approval of the Structure Plan, discussions with the City’s senior executive have taken place when the proposed redevelopment agenda has been clearly shared and agreed.  This should be recognised and the heritage list proposal modified accordingly.  The City understands that the 30 year old buildings are in need of replacement and it is not commercially viable to have them restored or retained for much longer.

 

b. The place summary report identifies three key issues in support of the heritage listing – association with Alan Bond, aesthetic significance as a group of buildings, and social significance.  Based on these criteria the entire existing development at Yanchep and Two Rocks should be categorised in this way.  Redevelopment of the place into a special coastal location with ongoing recreational activities and reflecting the natural and development history of the location is proposed as reflected in the approved Structure Plan is acceptable and should be sufficient.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

a. The Administration generally concurs with the issues raised in this submission.  Designation of Club Capricorn Resort as a Category 2 place and therefore inclusion in a Scheme Heritage List would be problematic given the City’s adoption of the Capricorn Coastal Village Agreed Structure Plan.  The Structure Plan is an outcome of the Yanchep Enquiry By Design Workshop which was held at the City in early 2003 and involved participation by both Administration and Elected Members.  Both the workshop and Structure Plan envisage redevelopment of Club Capricorn Resort to create a coastal activity centre and tourism-mixed use precinct with linkages to an employment corridor and town centre further to the east.  That aside, the Administration is of the view that the heritage significance of the place is not sufficient to warrant Category 2 status and it should remain as Category 3 as per the consultant’s recommendation.

 

b. Noted.

 

Attachment 4 Page 4 of 11

 

 

Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).

 

Considine & Griffiths Architects/Roberts Day for Fini Group Pty Ltd – Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern and Retaining Wall, Atlantis Marine Park (fmr) and King Neptune Sculpture (3 places)

 

a. The proposed listings affect most of the land area for the planned Two Rocks townsite and have the potential to severely constrain if not preclude prospects for the future development of a vibrant and sustainable town centre in this location.  We strongly object to the listings and associated management categories.  The heritage value that would accrue from retention of these elements needs to be considered in the context of achieving the optimum design and development outcome for the town centre and marina.  We envisage the town centre will embrace ‘main street’ design principles and be integrated with the waterfront, which are at odds with the retaining wall and existing shopping centre.  This is consistent with the preferred option of the Two Rocks Enquiry-By-Design Workshop held in 2000 and the objectives for the Marina Zone under the City’s DPS2.  With the growth of the NW Corridor and the prospect of the marina being expanded (Two Rocks Seagrass Strategy recommendation), it would be short-sighted to diminish the potential available to the Two Rocks townsite through indiscriminate heritage listings and inappropriate management categories.  The owners wish to work collaboratively with Council to develop a strategy and planning framework that allows the land to be redeveloped into a unique destination for the benefit of Two Rocks and the wider region.

 

b. An independent heritage opinion has been provided by Considine and Griffiths Architects which found that the proposed Management Category 2 designations is in discord with the heritage value that could reasonably be attributed to the nominated sites and in discord particularly with the statements of significance prepared by Heritage and Conservation Professionals and their own assessment.  Considine and Griffiths is aware and concerned that the City’s Heritage Services Advisory Committee has put forward a view (re: management categories) contrary to the professional advice of the City’s consultant, whose work is well known in the heritage community as balanced and thorough.  Considine and Griffiths conclude that the management categories should be downgraded to 3 and in the case of Atlantis Marine Park to Category 4.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

a. The Administration generally concurs with the issues raised in this submission.  The issues are similar to that for Club Capricorn Resort.  Designation of the Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall, Atlantis Park Site and King Neptune Sculpture as Category 2 places and therefore inclusion in a Scheme Heritage List would be problematic given the redevelopment of Two Rocks Town Centre is a project envisaged in the St Andrews Strategic Cooperation Agreement entered into by the City, State Government and Tokyu Corporation in 1999.  In addition, the Two Rocks Enquiry By Design Workshop was held in 2000 and involved participation by both Administration and Elected Members.  The workshop envisaged redevelopment of the town centre area to create a dynamic mixed use town centre.  The Fini Group purchased the subject land in 2000 and made a

 

Attachment 4 Page 5 of 11

 

 

submission on the City’s draft DPS2 seeking the land be zoned Marina Zone to facilitate a structure planning process prior to development of the land (that submission was upheld).

 

b. Upheld in part.  The Administration is of the view that the heritage significance of the Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall and the Atlantis Park sites is not sufficient to warrant Category 2 status and these should remain as Category 3 as per the consultant’s recommendation.  In the case of King Neptune Sculpture, it is considered that the Category 2 status should be pursued given the high level of significance of the place to the local community and as a Two Rocks landmark.  (Note information regarding Heritage Services Advisory Committee recommendation was obtained through the FOI Application process.)

 

Amend Management Categories of Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall and Atlantis Marine Park (fmr) from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).  Retain King Neptune Sculpture as Management Category 2.

 

Messrs Weir, Doherty and Mavromatis – Two Rocks Tavern (part of Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall listing)

 

The Tavern owners object in the strongest terms to inclusion of the Tavern in any category heritage listing.  We refute the statement of significance in the place summary for Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall.  There has been little commercial enterprise and tourism attracted to the centre since the time of closure of the Atlantic Marine Park.  Aside from King Neptune and a few damaged and weather beaten limestone and timber sculptures, there is little if any historical significance of the current Two Rocks town centre precinct.  The place has little if any aesthetic appeal and has a drab, blighted appearance due to poor design and cheap concrete block construction.  Consider the following issues:

 

• We confirm the description notes that the Tavern has undergone alteration and is no longer intact.  Virtually all of original fixtures and fittings have been removed and the large function room to the south is a later addition.
• The Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall were cheaply constructed and not built to last.
• Our discussions with the City’s consultants indicated that the main interest was in the limestone retaining wall and that the Tavern was not of heritage significance and had undergone major changes.  Only a photographic record would be required upon demolition/ redevelopment.  Your advice that the place would be designated Category 2 seems contrary to those earlier discussions held in February 2004.
• Rezoning the Shopping Centre and Tavern to Marina Zone occurred to allow major redevelopment to occur with a greater variety of uses.
• The Two Rocks Enquiry-By-Design Workshop report (Working Paper 7, DPI Dec 2001) indicates that cross-section 3 was preferred by most workshop participants and indicates redevelopment of the town centre with the retaining wall removed to better integrate development with the waterfront.

 

Attachment 4 Page 6 of 11

 

 

• Heritage listing of any category will devalue the Tavern and only compound its problems and cause further financial hardship to its owners.
• We ask Council not to hinder redevelopment of the Two Rocks town centre through inappropriate heritage listing.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

As with the previous submission on this place, the Administration generally concurs with the issues raised in this submission for the same reasons.  (Note information regarding Heritage Services Advisory Committee recommendation was obtained through the FOI Application process.)

 

Amend Management Category of Two Rocks Shopping Centre Tavern Retaining Wall from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation). 

 

Messrs F Terribile and M Aquino – House and Hut 29 Mereworth Way Girrawheen

 

a. We have obtained advice confirming the house has no heritage value whatsoever.  Over the past 20 years the home has undergone extensive works including but not limited to:

 

• Rendering and painting of external walls
• Timber window frames replaced with aluminium frames
• Home extended
• Interior refurbished
• Front verandah added

 

b. Advice received from the City is that the hut situated at the rear has heritage value and the real interest is in protecting the hut.  We would therefore like to offer the City the hut, which is transportable.  The hut is not visible from the street and therefore relocation would give the City the opportunity to place it in an appropriate location.

 

c. Your attention is drawn to the fact this property is actually situated in Marangaroo and not Girrawheen as stated.

 

d. The property was purchased in 2002 for the sole purpose of redeveloping the duplex lot as at time of purchase there was no heritage status on this the property.  (Note: In discussions with the landowner it was advised that they are preparing an application for subdivision into two lots involving demolition of the buildings on site.  Subdivision application WAPC129613 has now been referred to the City for comment and the administration has recommended that the proposed lot boundaries be modified so that the buildings on site may be retained on one lot.  This would however require discretion by the WAPC to reduce the minimum lot size under the R20 density coding.)

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

Attachment 4 Page 7 of 11

 

 

a. The owners advice regarding the works to the house is acknowledged, although some of the advice is inconsistent with the place summary report (for example the report notes that timber frame windows are extant).  Alterations and extensions to a place do not necessarily impact its heritage significance.

 

b. Advice regarding the hut concurs generally with advice given by the City’s consultants who were impressed with the heritage merits of the hut and discussed the possibility of separate management categories for the hut and the house (with the hut being higher).  Council may wish to consider the owners offer to remove and relocate the hut to an alternate location should the property be redeveloped.

 

c. It is correct that the property is actually in Marangaroo and not Girrawheen (Mereworth Way being the locality boundary).  This error aside, the significance of the place remains as an early example of housing in the southern part of the City.

 

d. Noted.

 

It is recommended that Council amend the recommended management category of this place from 2 to 3, amend the place summaries for this place and another property at 17 Mereworth Way to refer to Marangaroo rather than Girrawheen, provide greater emphasis to the significance of the hut in the place summary and also give consideration to the owners offer to provide the hut to the City for relocation elsewhere.  The owners to be advised to contact the City prior to applying to demolish the buildings on site.

 

Amend Management Category from 2 to 3.

 

McGees Property for Order of the Servants of Mary Inc – St Anthony’s House, Wanneroo Road Sinagra

 

The Order requests that the MHI include this place within management category 3 as appears to have been originally proposed.  We beleive that Category 3 “Retain and conserve if possible” is correct as we believe the architectural, historic and social significance of this building is not sufficient to warrant inclusion in either Category 1 or 2.  Further, the building’s proximity to Wanneroo Road and the current Centre zoning of the land suggests the building’s retention as a residence is inappropriate and its classification to prevent its possible demolition at a later date could detrimentally impact on the utilisation of the land.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

The Administration generally concurs with the comments made and considers that this place does not adequate merit to warrant Category 2 designation.

 

Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).

Attachment 4 Page 8 of 11

 

 

 

Tolson and Co Barristers & Solicitors for Paul A Conti – Conti Winery/Restaurant

 

The owner consents to the proposed heritage listing of the former house from which the Conti Restaurant has operated for the last 23 years subject to the listing not applying to the surrounding gardens or adjacent winery, nor it affecting the conduct of the winery and restaurant as presently conducted or preventing sales therefrom or restricting necessary improvements to the house property or future development of the adjacent property.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

The proposed heritage listing affects the property generally, although the place summary report is focused particularly on the former house from which the restaurant and winery sales operates.  Inclusion in a Scheme Heritage List will not affect existing operations on the property, although future developments would need to be considered in the context of the DPS2 provisions.  The provisions are not intended to thwart development proposals but rather to ensure development is sympathetic to the heritage significance of the place.

 

Retain as recommended Category 2 place.

 

Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd – Two Rocks Marina

 

It is not appropriate to include this place on the MHI as it needs to be continuously maintained and upgraded to comply with government regulations and to best integrate with our future Two Rocks town development.  The property is predominantly a commercial marina servicing the local Cray fishing industry.  Compliance with occupational and safety regulations and catering to the operational needs of the Cray fishing industry may necessitate structural changes/ modification to the buildings, jetties or marina yard layout and change the physical appearance of the marina.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

The comments of the marina operator are noted.  The City has also been progressing the Two Rocks Seagrass Strategy over the last several years and this envisages a structure plan would be prepared involving changes to the marina in conjunction with redevelopment of the Two Rocks Town Centre area.  Accordingly it is recommended that the Council amend the management category of this place from 2 to 3.

 

Amend Management Category from 2 to 3 (as per consultant recommendation).

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 4 Page 9 of 11

 

 

Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd – Lime Kilns 7-11, Quarry, Flynn Drive Neerabup

 

We fully support proposed heritage listing of the kilns and have in fact sought independent expert advice on how to preserve them.  More detailed and comprehensive restoration works will be undertaken during subdivision works and the restored kilns will eventually form part of the POS.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Noted.

 

Retain as recommended Category 2 place.

 

Department of CALM – Della’s Dairy (fmr), Wanneroo Road Woodvale

 

CALM acknowledges the local heritage significance of the place and has no objection to inclusion in the MHI.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Noted.

 

Retain as recommended Category 2 place.

 

Department of CALM – Old Wanneroo School House, Ocean Reef Road Woodvale

 

As a point of clarification, please be advised that the old Wanneroo School buildings, transported to Perry’s Paddock by the City in 1992, are the property of the City of Wanneroo.  CALM and the City exchanged correspondence in 2001 regarding the appropriateness of the school buildings at Perry’s Paddock.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Noted.

 

Retain as recommended Category 2 place.

 

City of Wanneroo (Manager Contracts & Property) – Wanneroo Road Board Civic Precinct, 934 Wanneroo Road Wanneroo

 

Note that this property is on a piece of land currently being sold to Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre Pty Ltd for the redevelopment of the shopping centre.  This will involve demolition of the building in the next 12 months.

 

Attachment 4 Page 10 of 11

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

 

Given the Town Centre redevelopment project involves the disposal and demolition of land at 934 Wanneroo Road, category 2 designation would be problematic.  Accordingly it is recommended that the Council amend the management category of this place from 2 to 3.

 

City of Wanneroo (Manager Contracts & Property) – Wanneroo War Memorial Wanneroo Road Wanneroo

 

Note this monument has recently been refurbished and relocated to ‘Memorial Park’ as part of the refurbishment of the old Civic Centre (now referred to as Wanneroo Community Centre), 25 Civic Drive Wanneroo.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Noted.  Update place summary to reflect latest information.

 

Retain as recommended Category 2 place.

 

 

RECOMMENDED CATEGORY 3 PLACES

 

D Watkins – Quinns Beach House and Shack, 68 Ocean Drive Quinns Rocks

 

I oppose inclusion of the property on the City’s MHI.  Both this house and shack are the only ‘token’ nominations of the classic beach cottage/shack at Quinns despite there being quite a number remaining.  This suggests the limited relevance of these types of cottages for heritage protection.  Both buildings are in poor condition and contain asbestos.  They are intended to be demolished in the future for development of a single house.  The Old Quinns Rocks Residential Planning Strategy included heritage conservation proposals, but the report to Council after public consultation upheld objections to the heritage proposals.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Noted.  The City may be interested in the old fishing shack, so the landowner is encouraged to keep it in-situ until redevelopment occurs.

 

Retain as recommended Category 3 place.

 

Rev A Vallis - Our Lady of Mercy Church Girrawheen

 

Whilst it is an honour that the City is recommending the Church for inclusion in the MHI, the Parish members do not wish the church to be included in the MHI at this time.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

Attachment 4 Page 11 of 11

 

Noted.

 

Retain as recommended Category 3 place.

 

Yanchep Sun City Pty Ltd – Well and Sheep Dip (Lindsay Homestead site), 600-602 Two Rocks Road Yanchep

 

We advise that this place no longer exists on the site.  We believe that the place was filled over with sand about 9 years ago for safety and liability reasons.

 

Assessment/Recommendation:

 

Based on the landowner advice that the place no longer exists, it is recommended that this place be amended to a category 4 site.

 

Amend to recommended Category 4 site.

 

 

 

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT 5 Page 1 of 4

Heritage Places 

 

Policy Owner:                     Planning and Development

Distribution:                       All employees

Implementation:                 Draft for Comment

Scheduled Review:            

 

Objective

 

To outline processes and procedures for dealing with applications for planning approval relating to heritage places included in the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI).

 

Background

 

The City’s MHI is prepared in accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.  The MHI itself has no statutory implications under the Heritage Act, and is simply a list of the City’s important heritage places, prepared in consultation with the community and sent to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for public information. Council finally adopted the City’s Municipal Inventory, in _______ 2006.

 

Each place on the City’s MHI is assigned a management category, being the recommended level of management of a place according to its heritage value.  This assignment is based on assessment of significance of the place, with the criteria being historic, aesthetic and social significance and representativeness and rarity.  Management categories provide guidance to the City and owners of the place when considering planning and development issues and in encouraging conservation of the place.  In terms of heritage management, the higher the management category the greater the care and responsibility that should be taken in protecting the place.

 

A description of each of the four management categories follows:

 

Category 1: Recommended for State Register of Heritage Places

Highest level of protection appropriate: recommended for entry into the State Register of Heritage Places as well as inclusion in a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2); provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.

 

Note: Category 1A in the MHI refers to a place already included on the State Register of Heritage Places.

 

 

ATTACHMENT 5 Page 2 of 4

 

Category 2: High Level of protection through the town planning scheme, i.e inclusion in a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of the City of Wanneroo DPS2; provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.

 

Category 3: Retain and conserve if possible: provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.  Photographic record required prior to any major redevelopment or demolition.

 

Category 4: Historic Site or Natural Place – Recognise.  Historic site without built features or natural place.  Interpret – for example with a plaque, place name, or reflection in urban or architectural design.

 

Statements

 

Applications to Alter, Develop or Demolish Category 1 and 2 Heritage Places

 

Category 1 and 2 Heritage Places have the greatest Heritage Value for the City of Wanneroo. As such all Category 1 and 2 Places have been included on the Heritage List established under Clause 5.2.2 of DPS2.

 

A Planning Approval will be required for all development[1] involving places on the Heritage List, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 6.1.1 of DPS2.

 

In addition to the usual application requirements, applicants will be requested to provide with their planning application the details set out in Clause 5.2.4 of DPS2 and a heritage impact statement prepared by an appropriately qualified and experienced Heritage Consultant. A heritage impact statement should include an assessment of:

 

§  What parts of the place will be affected by the proposal;

§  What will change;

§  How are the heritage values affected by the proposal; and

§  Reasons for making the changes.

 

Applications involving places on the Heritage List will be forwarded to the Heritage Council of Western Australia and any other relevant bodies for comment and recommendations and any comments received will be taken into consideration in determining the application.

 

 

ATTACHMENT 5 Page 3 of 4

 

 

 

Demolition of places on the Heritage List will be discouraged and alternatives to demolition investigated and discussed with the owner/applicant prior to a determination being made.

 

In the event that Council grants approval to develop or demolish a place on the Heritage List, a condition shall be imposed requiring the information as required and contained in Column 1 of the attached Table being provided prior to the lodgment of a building licence or demolition licence.

 

Applications to Alter, Develop or Demolish Category 3 and 4 Heritage Places

 

Category 3 and 4 Heritage Places have not been included on the Heritage List, however the City will provide maximum encouragement to the owner to ensure the retention and conservation of these places, wherever possible.

 

Owners should consider alternatives to altering the external character of the building, object, structure or place to ensure retention of these Heritage Places.

 

Demolition of Category 3 and 4 Heritage Places will be discouraged.

 

In the event that Council grants approval to develop or demolish a Category 3 or 4 Heritage Place, a condition requiring the information as required and contained in Column 2 of the attached Table being provided prior to the lodgment of a building licence or demolition licence shall be imposed.

 

Review of Heritage Places

 

The City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List will be reviewed from time to time.

 

Requests from the public wanting to add or remove a Heritage Place may be made by lodging a written request with supportive justification with the City. The decision to add or remove such a place can only be made through a resolution of full Council.

 

Prior to Council making a decision to add or remove places, views will be sought from the owner and occupiers of the place, public comment shall be sought and advice may also be sought from the Heritage Council of WA.

 

ATTACHMENT 5 Page 4 of 4

Table 1

 

Minimum Requirements for preparation of archival records	Detailed Record for Category 1 & 2	Photo-graphic Record for Category 3 & 4
1.      Background	Ö
2.      Statement of Significance	Ö	Ö
3.      Location Plan	Ö	Ö
4.      Base Plan	Ö	Ö
5.      Reproduction of Archival Documents	Ö
6.      Heritage Assessment Documentation or Brief Written History	Ö
7.      Certificate of Title	Ö	Ö
8.      Photographs
-          the place and its setting	Ö	Ö
-          all external elevations	Ö	Ö
-          significant/representative external & internal spaces	Ö
-          noteworthy items	Ö	Ö
9.      Photographic Negatives or digital CD	Ö
10.  Colour Slides (as per photographs)	Ö
11.  Measured Drawings
a)  to sketch standard		Ö
b)  to architectural standard	Ö
-          site plan (1:500 or 1:200)	Ö	Ö
-          floor plan/s (1:100 or 1:50)	Ö	Ö
-          roof plan/s (1:100 or 1:50)	Ö
-          external elevations (1:100 or 1:50)	Ö
-          internal elevations (1:100 or 1:50)	Ö
-          sections (1:100 or 1:50)	Ö
-          ceiling and joinery details (1:20 or 1:10)	Ö
-          other significant details	Ö
12.  Bibliography	Ö	Ö

 

 

 

Responsibility for Implementation

 

Manager Planning Services

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

Town Planning Schemes and Structure Plans

File Ref:                                              SP/0007/11V01

File Name: BAFinal Adoption of Amendment No  11 to Structure Plan No 8 East Wanneroo Cell No  6.doc This line will not be printed

Level 4 Approval by shb Date 30 November 2005

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 28 November 2005

Level 2 Approval by shb Date 21 November 2005

Level 1 Approval by shb Date 21 November 2005Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments:                                       3

StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Issue

To consider the public submissions and adoption of an amendment to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan (ASP) relating to a portion of Lot 38 Landsdale Road, Darch.

Background

The East Wanneroo Cell 6 ASP is shown as Attachment 1.  Council resolved to adopt the ASP at its meeting of 21 September 2004, considering the modifications requested by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).  The WAPC adopted and certified the ASP on 19 October 2004.

 

At its meeting on 16 December 2003, Council resolved to delegate authority to deal with all decisions relating to amendments to existing structure plans to the Director, Planning and Development, except where a public submission has been received following advertising of the amendment, or where an elected member has provided a written request to the Director requesting the structure plan be referred to Council.

 

A memo was sent to Councillors on 9 September 2005, advising that a proposal to amend the ASP had been received and advertising consent would be determined under delegated authority unless Elected Members requested it be referred to Council for determination.  No such request was made and the Director, Planning and Development subsequently resolved on 20 September 2005 that the proposal be advertised for a period of 28 days.

Detail

The proposal seeks to amend the ASP by recoding a portion of Lot 38 Landsdale Road, Darch from an R20 coding to a coding of R25 and R40.

 

A copy of the existing structure plan design for Lot 38 Landsdale Road, Darch and the proposed amended design is shown on Attachment 2 and 3.

 

The proponent’s justification for the amendment can be summarised as follows:

 

1.       The proposal is consistent with WAPC and City policy for managing urban growth and providing a variety of housing styles in new urban areas;

2.       The proposal will facilitate the provision of affordable housing in a location within close proximity to public open space and a variety of services and facilities including bus services along Evandale Road and Hepburn Avenue.

Consultation

Pursuant to Clause 9.5 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2, this amendment was advertised for a period of 28 days by way of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and letters to landowners in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

The submission period closed on 1 November 2005 and one submission was received.

Comment

The main issues raised in the submission, as well as a comment on each, are outlined below:

 

Issue 1 – Density

 

The amendment to R25 does not stipulate how many units can be built on the block.

 

Comment

 

The minimum lot size for an R25 coded lot is 320m² with an average of 350m² or 445m² for a rear battleaxe lot. The developer has proposed a plan of subdivision that depicts lots of 700m² for the R25 coded lots. This would give the R25 lots the potential to be developed with up to two dwellings.

 

Recommendation

 

This issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 2 - Congestion

 

The area is already congested and the building of duplexes would only increase the congestion and road traffic.

 

Comment

 

The increased density will provide for a greater flexibility and range of housing styles and affordability in close proximity to desirable infrastructure. Whilst the recoding of this land would facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling on each R25 coded lot and two or three additional dwellings on the R40 coded lots, this factor alone does not translate into an increase in road traffic or congestion of any significance. The road system is designed to provide connectivity and accessibility for residents within the area and is more than capable of accommodating any minor additional traffic that may be associated with the re-coding.

 

Recommendation

 

This issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 3 – House Values

 

The duplexes would decrease the value of the single housing in the area.

 

Comment

 

The objectors have not provided any evidence that the recoding of this land would have a negative impact on property values in this location, indeed such dwellings are highly sought after as a means of providing accommodation for the City’s smaller households.

 

Recommendation

 

This issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 4 – Aesthetics

 

A group of duplexes is not in keeping with the aesthetics of the area.

 

Comment

 

Notwithstanding density, the design of housing must comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes.  These Codes provide controls over elements such as building height, setbacks, open space, privacy and streetscape and were formulated to ensure high standards of housing.

 

Recommendation

 

This issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 4 – Risk of Burglary and Damage

 

Any block of units or duplex housing at the back would place other housing at risk of burglary and damage.

 

Comment

 

There is no evidence to suggest that group housing will increase the risk of burglary and damage.

 

Recommendation

 

This issue be dismissed.

Statutory Compliance

The proposed Amendment to the ASP has followed the statutory process outlined in Part 9 of DPS2.

Strategic Implications

Consideration of this proposal is consistent with the goal of providing Healthy Communities under the City’s Strategic Plan and in particular, Strategy 2.2 of the Planning and Development Directorate Strategic Plan, which seeks to provide a cohesive system of 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 Clauses 9.6 and 9.7 of District Planning Scheme No.2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 11 to the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan, as submitted by Allerding Burgess, as outlined on Attachment 3 to this report, is satisfactory and ADOPTS, SIGNS and SEALS the Structure Plan Amendment documents;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No.2 FORWARDS three copies of the amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

3.       ENDORSES the comments made in this report regarding the issues raised by the submission received on this structure plan amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision. 

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:                                              SP/0032/04V01; P15/0073V01

File Name: BAClose of advertising    Amendment 4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan  the draft Foreshore Management Pla.doc

Level 4 Approval by shb Date 30 November 2005

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 28 November 2005

Level 2 Approval by shb Date 28 November 2005

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Author:   Timothy Dawson

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments:                                       7

StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Issue

To consider the submissions and adoption/approval of the following in regard to Lot 12 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee:

 

1.       Amendment No.4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan;

2.       A draft Foreshore Management Plan (FMP) for the foreshore area abutting Lot 12; and

3.       An application for bulk earthworks and landscaping of a proposed area of public open space (POS) in south-western portion of the structure plan area.

Background

In 2003, the City and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) adopted the Lot 12 Jindalee Structure Plan. The structure plan provided for the land to be subdivided for residential purposes and proposed a mixed-use beachside node and a business centre adjacent to Marmion Avenue.  A location plan is include as Attachment 1.  A copy of the current Agreed Structure Plan map, incorporating all adopted amendments, is included as Attachment 2.

 

The WAPC granted subdivision approval for the entire structure plan area on 6 August 2003 (WAPC Ref 117988) and the land is being progressively subdivided and developed, generally from the south-eastern corner of the land adjacent to Marmion Avenue, westwards toward the coast.

 

In considering the structure plan, the City required that a management plan be prepared and implemented by the proponent for the foreshore area adjacent to Lot 12.  The WAPC also suggested that the drainage disposal method proposed in the structure plan which sought to locate two drainage sumps adjacent to the coastal road, be reviewed.  In granting subdivision approval, the WAPC also excluded the proposed beachside node pending a redesign.

 

In response to these requirements, an amendment to the western portion of the structure plan and a Foreshore Management Plan have been prepared by the proponent, that provide for a high level of integration between a revised beachside activity node and the adjacent foreshore.

 

As part of the more detailed planning for the residential area in the south-western portion of the structure plan area, the proponent has also identified a desire to undertake bulk earthworks over a proposed area of public open space. 

A development application for this, as well as associated revegetation and landscaping has been lodged for Council’s consideration in association with the Foreshore Management Plan and structure plan amendment.

 

Council, at its meeting on 9 August 2005, considered these matters and resolved as follows (item PD02-08/05):

 

‘That Council:-

 

1.       DETERMINES that Amendment 4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan and the draft Lot 12 Jindalee Foreshore Management Plan are satisfactory for the purpose of advertising.

 

2.       ADVERTISES both Amendment 4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan, the draft Lot 12 Jindalee Foreshore Management Plan and the Development Application for bulk earthworks and landscaping of the proposed public open space for a period of 42 days.

 

3.       REQUESTS the proponent address the following matters prior to the Council further considering the amendment, Foreshore Management Plan and Development Application:

 

          a)      The incorporation of a road interface between the residential area located at the south-western corner of the subject land and the abutting area of public open space, together with a satisfactory arrangement to ensure development orientation toward the open space.

 

          b)      The incorporation of detailed development standards and requirements into the structure plan for the coastal node.

 

          c)       Further discussion with the Administration regarding the kiosk/café, an overall car parking strategy for the area and the introduction of measures designed to limit opportunities for crime and antisocial behaviour.

 

          d)      Discussions with the developer of Lot 10 Marmion Avenue, Jindalee to ensure that the structure plan provides for an appropriate level of design integration.

 

          e)       The reformatting of the statutory section of the structure plan in line with the City’s current standards.

 

          f)       The maintenance period under the Foreshore Management Plan being increased to reflect the significant nature of the works being undertaken in the Foreshore Reserve.

 

          g)      Further discussions taking place with the administration in respect to the value of foreshore works proposed to benefit the community as compared to the net benefit to the developer those works will bring through marketing advantage and the additional land made available through relocating the drainage sites.  Such discussions shall also provide a satisfactory arrangement to be put in place to secure the proposed works.’

Detail

In order for the three proposals to be considered in context, a single consolidated report has been prepared.

Description of Proposals

A description of each of the proposals is set out below:

 

Amendment No.4 to Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan

 

The amendment seeks to modify the western portion of the structure plan area.  Key features of the structure plan amendment include:

 

a)       Extending the structure plan boundary to include the abutting Foreshore Reserve;

b)      Provision for a larger coastal node (described in the structure plan as the Seaside Village Precinct), which integrates with Foreshore Management plan proposals;

c)       Redistribution of an area of public open space to provide for a public space component within the coastal node and open space spine to provide a strong pedestrian link and view corridor for the residential area to the east;

d)      Deletion of two proposed drainage sumps from the eastern side of the coastal road to the foreshore reserve;

e)       Replacement of the existing low density R12.5 Special Housing Precinct with an R20/30 Residential area and provision for a new Special Design Precinct in the north western corner of the structure plan area;

f)       Modifications to the road network.

 

A copy of the structure plan amendment is included as Attachment 3.

 

Foreshore Management Plan

 

The key features of the draft Foreshore Management Plan include:

 

a)       Two grassed passive recreation/picnic areas and a paved plaza that provide a high level of integration with the adjacent coastal node;

b)      Two drainage swales integrated into the grassed recreation areas;

c)       A 60 bay car park;

d)      A dual use path and beach access way system, incorporating wooden beach access steps and several look out points;

e)       A café/kiosk, with public toilet and shower facilities;

f)       Revegetation and rehabilitation proposals for the foreshore reserve including fencing of vegetated areas;

g)      A range of incidental facilities such as signage and bins etc.

 

A copy of a landscape concept plan which outlines the foreshore proposals is included as Attachment 4.

Earthworks and Revegetation of Proposed Public Open Space

 

This application relates to the proposed area of public open space in the south western portion of the structure plan area.  This proposed area of open space will form a northern extension of an existing area of open space that was ceded as part of the subdivision of the estate to the south. 

 

The key features of the development application include:

a)       Removal of the native vegetation over the majority of the proposed open space;

b)      Removal of approximately four metres of sand from the western end of the open space and approximately two metres of sand from the eastern end;

c)       Revegetation of the earth worked land with local native species;

d)      A feature lookout/shelter on the new highpoint at the western end of the open space;

e)       A 2.4 metre wide concrete dual use path along the northern perimeter of the open space and to the lookout/shelter.

f)       A five year maintenance period for the revegetation areas.

 

A site plan outlining the proposal is included as Attachment 5.

Consultation

All the three proposals were advertised for a period of six weeks by way of on-site advertising signs, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and on the City’s website and letters to nearby landowners. The submission period closed on 18 October 2005 and the City received 320 submissions, 315 of these submissions were similarly worded letters supporting the proposal generally received from the residents of Butler.  Five submissions objected to aspects of the proposals.

Comment

Submissions

The main issues raised by the objections, together with a comment on each, are outlined below:

 

Amendment 4 to the ASP

 

Issue 1

 

Forecastle Avenue running parallel to Jindalee Boulevard is proposed to connect Santa Barbara Parade and the Coastal Node. Since this road could provide a short-cut to the node, it is suggested that this road be discontinued at the proposed POS area adjoining this road.

 

Comment

 

Although the traffic volume on this road is estimated to be below 1000 vehicles per day, the applicant is prepared to modify this road by introducing a disconnected accessway along the northern boundary of the POS area adjoining this road as depicted on Attachment 6. This modification is considered to be appropriate.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be upheld and a disconnected access place being provided along Forecastle Avenue along the northern boundary of the POS.

 

Issue 2

 

In order to ensure that the Coastal Node car park is not vandalised, the car park should be closed after the close of local businesses for the day.

 

Comment

 

The extent and location of car parking in the vicinity of the coastal node was an issue raised by Council when initially considering the proposal in August 2005.  This issue is dealt with in further detail later in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That this issue be noted.

 

Issue 3

 

The height of the buildings in the coastal node should be limited to two or three storeys with flat roofs.

 

Comment

 

Design guidelines for the coastal node was an issue raised by Council when initially considering the proposal in August 2005.  This issue is dealt with in further detail later in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That this issue be noted.

 

Foreshore Management Plan

 

Issue 4

 

The foreshore should be retained entirely for the protection of the bushland and therefore the proposed drainage swales, car park, kiosk/toilet and the plaza in the Bush Forever site are strongly opposed.

 

Comment

 

Bush Forever and the associated Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 does not preclude clearing regionally significant bushland (ie. vegetation in sites) where this is for a purpose consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the existing reserve or where it can be justified with regard to wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs.  One of the main purposes of a foreshore reserve is to provide for the social and recreational needs of the public to access and enjoy the coastline.  Therefore, in order to meet these objectives on the coastline adjacent to Lot 12, some clearing of native vegetation is considered necessary. 

 

The foreshore reserve makes provision for two drainage swales (that will be designed to jointly function as recreation areas), a 60-bay car park, kiosk/toilet and a portion of the public plaza. The proponent has endeavoured to locate much of the development within areas covered by poorer quality vegetation.  The northern swale however has a 30-metre wide entrance to the street, which is located where the vegetation condition is ‘Very Good’. In this regard it is recommended that this entrance be reduced in width and provided with a suitably located dual use path. The proponent has agreed to make this modification and it is recommended that the draft FMP be modified to reflect this.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed, however the entrance to the northern swale/recreation area should be reduced in width and provided with a suitably located dual use path.

 

Bulk Earthworks of the POS area

 

Issue 5

 

The submitters have noted that the hill contained within the proposed POS area offers a pleasing vista and therefore the proposed bulk earthworks to remove the top of the hill is not acceptable.

 

Comment

 

In essence, the proponent has applied to clear the native vegetation over the majority of the proposed open space, remove approximately four metres of sand from the western end of the open space and approximately two metres of sand from the eastern end and then revegetate the land with local native species and provide a feature lookout/shelter on the new highpoint at the western end of the open space together with associated paths.  The proponent has offered to maintain the revegetated land for a period of five years.  The proponent has also indicated that it will provide the kiosk/café facility with public showers and toilets in consideration of approval of the works proposed for this open space area.  It is however considered improper for Council to link the two proposals in this way.  The application for planning approval for earthworks and landscaping should be considered entirely on its own merit.  The kiosk/café could however be considered as part of the offset arrangements for permitting drainage disposal into the foreshore area. 

 

This area of open space straddles two structure plan areas, being those relating to Lot 12 Jindalee and Lot 5 Quinns, (located to the immediate south).  The overall area of open space was specifically located in this position under both structure plans in order to protect the significant dune that is capable of providing the community with magnificent panoramic views.  This dune feature was considered significant enough to result in the deviation of the coastal road around the eastern end of the open space.

 

The December 2002 draft version of the Local Structure Plan for Lot 12 specified that this open space area ‘has been set aside to protect a dunal feature and extending that POS set aside by the landowner to the south.’ If this dunal system was not proposed to be retained in its natural state, then the continuous foreshore road would normally be required. 

 

The southern portion of the open space has already been ceded (Royal James Park - Reserve 47698, 1.22 hectares) and remains in its natural state with local coastal vegetation in very good to excellent condition. The Reserve has been placed under the care, control and management of the City of Wanneroo for the purpose of recreation by a management order issued by the Minister for Lands.

 

In August 2003, the WAPC granted subdivision approval to the land within Lot 12 Jindalee largely consistent with the Agreed Structure Plan. Condition 41 of this subdivision approval states the following:

 

‘Prior to any earthworks being undertaken within 100 metres of the proposed public open space area in the south west corner of the application area, the subdivider is required to submit a plan prepared by a licensed surveyor identifying the existing and proposed construction and earthworks of the road reserve abutting the proposed public open space area in the south west corner of the application area to the satisfaction of the Commission.’

 

Footnotes on the approval also require that landform, vegetation and drainage patterns of proposed areas of open space are not to be disturbed or modified without the prior approval of the local authority, road batters are not to intrude into proposed areas of open space without prior approval and that plans for any development are to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The condition and footnotes were imposed in order to ensure the coordination of ground levels between the open space and the adjoining residential area and in order to limit disturbance of the open space.  Notwithstanding this condition, part of the dune system included in this open space has been cleared to an extent of about 1,850 m2.  Attachment 7 depicts the 2005 aerial photograph indicating the open space area within Lots 12 and 5 and the extent of earthworks that has already occurred within the 100 metre buffer.

 

A number of vehicle access tracks have severely degraded part of the western portion of the proposed open space, the vegetation that remains on the site however is considered to be in very good to excellent condition, similar to that existing within the adjoining foreshore reserve.

 

The earth working proposal would result in the loss of the majority of the vegetation remaining on the site and whilst the proposal incorporates revegetation and rehabilitation works, with a commitment for a five year maintenance period, this is unlikely to restore the biodiversity values of the land or its current condition and this would be likely to expose the City to expensive management works in the future. 

The proponent has already cleared or intends to clear the majority of Lot 12, including all other areas of public open space. The subject open space area remains the only opportunity to retain natural landform and vegetation in the estate and one of the few opportunities for a significant coastal public viewing area with extensive views in close proximity to the foreshore area.

 

The reasons cited for undertaking the works relate to integrating the land levels with the adjoining subdivision, improving privacy for adjoining housing lots and the provision of disabled access to the hill top.  These issues can all be largely overcome without significant earthworks to the open space land form and are not therefore considered to constitute sufficient grounds for interference with this significant natural feature, which would otherwise be retained for the enjoyment of the overall community.

 

The Agreed Structure Plan was considered under the provisions of the Edition 2 of draft Liveable Neighbourhood policy, which granted concession from the normal 10% POS required to 8%, subject to the developer undertaking development works in the open space in accordance with a management plan to the satisfaction of the City. Under this policy requirement, the proponent would be required to undertake fencing and rehabilitation works within the open space irrespective of the proposal to earthwork.

 

It is clear that the bulk earthworks and landscaping proposals are contrary to the intent of the Lot 12 Structure Plan and the subdivision approval. It is also noted that the proposed revegetation and rehabilitation works, with a commitment for a five year maintenance period, are unlikely to restore the land to its current biodiversity value or vegetation condition and would expose the City to expensive management works in the future. The submitters have supported this view and have advised that although revegetation can return some habitat value, it will not replicate bushland ecosystems. Given that the majority of Lot 12, including all other POS areas would be cleared by the developer, the subject POS area would remain the only opportunity to retain natural landform and vegetation in the estate.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be upheld and that the development application for the proposed bulk earthworks and landscaping of the POS area not be approved, but rather the City proceed to require the proponent to undertake fencing and rehabilitation works etc within the open space in accordance with the requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods policy.

Council Requirements

As per the Council resolution the applicant has considered the following matters during the advertising period.

 

Road interface between the south-western POS and the residential area

 

Due to severe grades, the applicant has proposed a disconnected access way as an interface between the POS and the residential area. The lots abutting the disconnected access way will be reoriented towards the POS to provide reasonable levels of surveillance and privacy.

 

Development Standards for the Coastal Node

 

The applicant was required to incorporate in the structure plan, detailed development standards and requirements in respect to the coastal node, in order to provide for the coordinated development of the node and to provide certainty for both the proponent and new residents establishing within the area.  Prior to proceeding with the detailed planning for the coastal node however the proponent is seeking some certainty from the City that it would support the principle of the node (ie by Council adopting the structure plan amendment and FMP).  Should this occur, the applicant has agreed to prepare the more detailed provisions for the coastal node in consultation with the community and the City and submit it for consideration by mid 2006.  This would include a consideration of matters such as:

 

a)       Land uses and detailed zonings

b)      Control and management of streetscapes and active frontages

c)       Building setbacks to streets

d)      Pedestrian movement system

e)       Vehicle access points and servicing

f)       Security and surveillance of public spaces

g)      Integration with foreshore

h)      Building appearance

j)       Building heights and scale

k)      Site works and levels

m)     Landscaping of public spaces and

n)      Car park Strategy

 

In view of the time that would be required to develop these provisions, this is an acceptable alternative arrangement to that previously required by Council.  It is however recommended that the statutory section of the subject structure plan include the above matters to ensure that the applicant addresses them at the time of the further work.  Two POS areas of a total extent of 5,468m² are located within the coastal node. To ensure that these POS areas are created in this area, it is also recommended that the statutory section of the amendment also make provision to address this matter.

 

Discussions with the City regarding the car parking and designing out crime

 

The applicant has advised that this matter will be dealt with at the time of the preparation of the structure plan for the coastal node. This approach is considered appropriate.

 

Liaison with the developer of Lot 10, Marmion Avenue

 

The proponent has advised that it has had discussions with Westminster Estates Pty Ltd (WEPL), the developers of Lot 10, Marmion Avenue located to the immediate north of the subject land and has advised that WEPL has indicated that the plans for Lot 12 are in accordance with the preliminary planning that WEPL has undertaken to date. The applicant has further advised that since it has significantly advanced in both planning and development terms, the onus is now on WEPL to coordinate with the planning of the subject land.  It is noted that WEPL did not make a submission on the subject proposals.

 

Foreshore Reserve Maintenance period

 

The proponent has indicated that it would be responsible for the construction of all the facilities and that the maintenance of the facilities will be the City’s responsibility after 12 months of construction.  The City’s normal maintenance period is two years, although significant areas of open space are often maintained by developers for a much longer period.  In this case it is suggested that a five-year maintenance period be required.

 

Foreshore works and the net benefit to the developer

 

Two drainage swales are proposed within the foreshore area to collect stormwater drainage from the adjoining subdivision.  They are intended to replace two drainage sumps that were previously proposed on the eastern side of the coastal road as part of the existing subdivisional approval 117988. 

 

It is clear that moving the drainage as proposed will provide a more appropriate urban design and amenity outcome and accordingly the principle must be supported.  It should however be noted that the proponent is normally obliged to provide the land for its subdivisional drainage disposal free of cost.  Subdivisional approval 117988 included two drainage reserves (total area 3154m2) immediately east of the coastal road within the landowner’s land, which can now be subdivided for at least 5-6 residential lots.  As the proponent is now seeking to use Crown land managed by the City for drainage purposes, an appropriate offset recognising this benefit should be provided by the proponent and in view of this, Council previously resolved to undertake further discussions with the proponent in respect to the value of foreshore works proposed as compared to the net benefit to the proponent those works will bring through marketing advantage and the additional land made available through relocating the drainage sites.

 

In order to quantify the extent of community benefits that this proposal would provide, the proponent submitted a report by Macroplan Australia that concluded as follows:

 

1.             An additional five lots would be yielded by relocating the drainage into the foreshore reserve and it is estimated that this would provide an additional $2.5 million to the developer.

2.             The foreshore improvements will come at a cost to the developer of $2,486,000.

3.             The development of drainage swales will result in an increased availability of public land of 622m2.

4.             Construction and maintenance related employment would equate to at least around 45 jobs.

5.             A positive economic boost to local and surrounding area, including an estimated expenditure impact on the State economy of approximately $3 million.

6.             The offer to provide a five year maintenance period will cost the developer around $100,000.

7.             The range of facilities provided has the potential to boost local and tourist investment.

8.             The provision of new open space which will provide opportunities for social interaction, leisure and other activities while also boosting the sense of place and contributing to community pride. 

9.             The creation of a safe environment facilitated by an open design and construction of paths to provide for the safe movement of people.

10.         Improvements in the visual environment.

11.         Integration of the development with the existing environment and between natural and built environment.

12.         Some minor reduction in vehicle emissions through offering facilities at one location and the promotion of walking and cycling.

 

Whilst the approximate $2.5 million direct yield to the developer from relocating the drainage into the foreshore reserve is considered realistic, the additional marketing benefit or any construction cost savings of deleting the drainage sumps has not been estimated.  In addition, many of the benefits outlined in the Macroplan assessment have not been quantified or sufficient details provided to verify the claimed extent of benefit, which in many instances appears significantly overstated.  In addition, the Macroplan assessment appears to analyse the social, environmental and economic benefits of the overall foreshore project, including those works that the developer would, in any case, normally be expected to provide.  It is considered the Macroplan assessment misses the objective and cannot therefore be used to adequately assess the benefit of relocating the drainage into the foreshore.  A copy of the Macroplan assessment has been placed in the Elected Members’ Reading Room for information.

 

In discussions with the proponent, it has become apparent that the revised structure plan provides an additional 3,702m² of POS in the vicinity of the foreshore, in addition to the 8% required under Liveable Neighbourhoods.  This is greater than the 3,154m² gained by the developer in relocating the drainage sumps into public land and provides an offset for the use of public land for drainage, subject to an appropriate clause requiring this additional open space being inserted in the statutory section of the structure plan to secure its provision.  In addition, the following table lists the foreshore works proposed by the developer and outlines those works that would normally be undertaken by a developer and those works that could be considered over and above.

 

No.	Works normally undertaken by the developer	Works normally not undertaken by the developer
1	Landscaped grassed areas
2	Shade trees, seats, beach showers, signs, bins and barbeques	District level park facilities such as substantial playgrounds
3	Dual use paths
4	Beach access ways
5	Fencing
6	Car park (local)	District car parking
7	Revegetation/Rehabilitation
8	Lookouts	Substantial Lookout Structures
9		Kiosk/café
10		Toilets

 

It should be noted that the proponent has only agreed to provide the kiosk/cafe and toilet facility in consideration of approval to earthworks and landscaping of the proposed open space area in the south western portion of the structure plan area.

 

As can be seen from the above table, the developer is proposing to provide a range of facilities.  Despite the additional public open space being provided, it is still considered that the significant benefits the developer is gaining through the relocation of drainage into the foreshore reserve can only truly be offset by reasonable investment in public infrastructure within this immediate area.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the developer also provide the kiosk/café and associated toilet facility in recognition of its obligations to implement the foreshore management plan and as an offset for drainage.

Statutory Compliance

This structure plan amendment and application for planning approval have followed the procedures outlined in District Planning Scheme No.2.

Strategic Implications

The structure plan amendment proposal is consistent with the goal of providing Healthy Communities under the City’s Strategic Plan and in particular, Strategy 2.2 of the Planning and Development Directorate Strategic Plan, which seeks to provide a cohesive system of integrated land use planning.

 

The Foreshore Management Plan is consistent with the following Strategic Plan goals and strategies:

 

“Environmental Sustainability

1.1 Conserve and enhance environmental assets

 

Healthy Communities

2.6 Provide and manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our community”

 

It is considered that the approval of the application for planning approval seeking to earthwork and landscape the area of POS would be contrary to both the environmental sustainability and healthy communities’ goals of the City’s Strategic Plan.

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 Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan No.37, as submitted by Chappell and Lambert Town Planning Urban Design on behalf of Carine Nominees Pty Ltd and as outlined on Attachment 3 to this report is satisfactory subject to Chappell and Lambert Town Planning Urban Design modifying the Structure Plan by:

a)         Inserting the following provision in Clause 4.2 Centre Zone of the Statutory Section of the Structure Plan.

4.2.1 Coastal Node

The following matters shall be included in the matters to be considered when preparing a structure plan for the Coastal Node:

i)          Land uses and zonings;

ii)         Control and management of streetscapes and active frontages;

iii)        Building setbacks to streets;

iv)        Pedestrian movement system;

v)         Vehicle access points and servicing;

vi)        Security and surveillance of public spaces;

vii)       Integration with foreshore;

viii)            Building appearance;

ix)                Building height and scale;

ix)        Site works and levels;

x)         Landscaping of public spaces;

xi)        Car park strategy;

xii)       provision of at least 5,468 m² of public open space.

b)         Modifying the amendment maps to depict:

i)          A disconnected access way on Forecastle Avenue, Jindalee adjacent to open space area 4;

ii)         A disconnected access way as an interface road between the residential lots and the south-western area of proposed public open space together with residential lots oriented toward the proposed area of open space;

c)      The provision of provision of at least 3,702m2 of public open space in addition to the 8% required under the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy;

d)     The reformatting of the statutory section of the structure plan in line with the City’s current standards.

and SUBMITS three copies of the modified amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification.

2.                  Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No.2 ADOPTS, SIGNS and SEALS the modified Amendment No.4 to the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

3.         ENDORSES the comments made in this report regarding the submissions received on this structure plan amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

4.         ADOPTS the Lot 12 Jindalee Foreshore Management Plan depicted on Attachment 4 subject it being modified:

a)    to notate the size and location of the car park proposed within the Foreshore is only notional and is subject to detailed planning associated with the Coastal Node.

b)    to replace the 30 metre wide entrance to the northern drainage swale/recreational area with a suitably located 2.5 metre wide dual use path to the satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo.

c)    to include a requirement for a five year maintenance period for all works.

d)    to recognise the landowners’ obligations to provide at its expense the various infrastructure identified within the foreshore management plan which is listed in the table in this report, including a kiosk/café and toilet facility.

and FORWARDS copy of the modified Foreshore Management Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for endorsement.

5.         REFUSES the application for planning approval for Bulk Earthworks and Landscaping of the Public Open Space located at the south-western corner of the structure plan area for the following reasons:

a)    The proposal is contrary to the intent of the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Structure Plan which has set aside this proposed area public open space to protect a prominent dune feature in this location.

b)    The vegetation in the proposed area of public open space is generally rated to be in very good to excellent condition and notwithstanding the revegetation proposal, the biodiversity values of the land and its current condition would be unlikely to be restored. 

c)    The subject land remains one of the few opportunities for a significant coastal public viewing area with extensive views in close proximity to the Jindalee foreshore area.

d)    The reasons cited for undertaking the works, relating to integrating the land levels with the adjoining subdivision, improving privacy for adjoining housing lots and the provision of disabled access to the hill top, can all be largely overcome without significant earthworks to the open space land form and are not therefore considered to constitute sufficient grounds for interference with this significant natural feature.

e)    The proposal is considered to be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality.

6.         REQUIRES the landowner to undertake fencing and rehabilitation works within the proposed area of public open space in the south western portion of the Lot 12 Jindalee Structure Plan Area in accordance with the requirements of Liveable Neighbourhoods policy.

7.         REQUIRES the further structure plan, which will outline the development requirements for the coastal node, to be prepared in consultation with the City Administration and Community and submitted for consideration by June 2006.

 

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

 

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:                                              S27/0038V01

File Name: BAAdoption of the Proposed Yanchep Rocks  St Andrews  District Concept Plan.doc This line will not be printed Please do

Level 3 Approval by Y. Heath Date 09 December 2005

Level 2 Approval by Y. Heath Date 09 December 2005

Level 1 Approval by shb Date 09 December 2005

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Author:   Rod Peake

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments:                                       6

 

StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Issue

To consider the public submissions received on the Yanchep-Two Rocks (St Andrews) District Concept Plan (DCP).

 

Applicant	Roberts Day Group
Owner	Tokyu Corporation
Location	Yanchep and Two Rocks localities
Site Area	Approximately 4,130 hectares
DPS 2 Zoning	Residential, Centre, Urban Development, Industrial Development and various other zones

Background

The St Andrews Project relates to some 4,130 hectares of land in the Yanchep/Two Rocks localities.  The goals of the St Andrews Project, as set out in a Strategic Cooperation Agreement (SCA) between the State Government, WA Planning Commission, Tokyu Corporation and this City are split into two key elements:

 

1.       The development of the St Andrews landholding based on:

a)       Around 55,000 serviced residential lots, with a population of some 148,000;

b)      50–60,000 jobs with the first 1000 being created between 2003 and 2008;

c)       A regional strategic commercial centre; and

d)      Approximately 1600 hectares of Regional Open Space.

 

2.       The development of the land in a manner, which is:

a)       Environmentally, socially and economically sustainable;

b)      Recognises and uses worlds best practice in urban design wherever possible;

c)       Accords with relevant state and local government policies; and

d)      Places a high priority on encouragement of public transport usage.

 

The SCA identified a number of strategic projects to be undertaken including the creation of employment opportunities through the IDEAS Project (an Acronym for Innovation, Development, Employment and Applications Strategy) and the commencement of residential development.  The IDEAS project has identified a number of projects that will create employment opportunities within Yanchep and Two Rocks.

Council at its meeting on 1 July 2003 (item CE04-07/03) considered the proposal for the further development of cooperation processes between Tokyu Corporation and the City of Wanneroo, including the establishment of the St Andrews Project Advisory Committee and agreement to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Tokyu Corporation. The MOU is an in-principle agreement describing joint initiatives and cooperation between the parties, and foreshadows future projects and actions relating to the St Andrews development and to the local community. The MOU includes a Shared Vision & Goals; Implementation; Strategic Projects; Framework for Action; and Arrangements for the Implementation of the MOU.

 

The MOU states that a District Structure Plan is needed to guide the development and to help ensure its best practice objectives can be achieved and provides for the submission of a DCP and the first stage in the District Structure Planning process.  These plans will be supplemented where required with additional information sufficient for the City to make an appropriate level of assessment and determination.

 

The MOU states that ‘it is expected that the Tokyu Corporation will work with the City of Wanneroo and the State Government to resolve any outstanding issues relating to the planning proposals including such matters as:

 

·                The nature of the transport corridors and the type of public transport system to be adopted;

·                The nature and location of retail centres;

·                The range, location and density of housing forms; and

·                The type and nature of commercial and industrial activities to be accommodated in the Plan.’

 

The DCP will lead directly to the preparation of a District Structure Plan and amendments to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2).

 

The initial DCP (December 2003) was lodged with the City in January 2004.  The proposals included in the DCP were discussed with various other super lot landowners and Government agencies during the North West Corridor Review and St Andrews Workshops held at the City in January and February 2004 and a subsequent St Andrews workshop in July 2004.  Further discussions were held with Tokyu’s consultants, Government agencies and the Administration to discuss and resolve key elements of the DCP.

 

A revised District Concept Plan (October 2004) was prepared and forwarded to the City in November 2004.  Council, at its meeting on 26 April 2005 (Item PD15-04/05), considered the plan and resolved inter alia, to advertise it for public comment for a 60 day period, subject to various modifications being undertaken by the applicant.  Council also identified a number of issues requiring additional information and consideration prior to it further considering the plan.  These issues are discussed in the Comment Section of this report.

Detail

The key elements of the DCP are:

 

1.       The establishment of a transit orientated, mixed use employment boulevard, including a light rail or rapid bus transit system;

2.       A wide variety of housing types and densities from high density town centres to low density residential to cater for a diverse and ultimate total population of approximately 150,000, with a target workforce of 55,000;

3.       District employment areas;

4.       A series of mixed use activity centres including town, village, coastal and gateway centres, including:

a)       Two new town centres, north of Yanchep Beach Road in Yanchep (Regional Centre) and east of the existing Two Rocks Townsite (District Centre);

b)      Seven village centres;

c)       Five new coastal centres (mixed use) and several gateway centres (mixed use);

5.       Potential marina sites;

6.       Extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway line along the Freeway into a country railway service and three stations (including Yanchep Beach Road, new Yanchep Town Centre and a potential Park and Ride station);

7.       Potential open space linkages (active and passive), district and regional active open space, foreshore reserves, preserved areas (ecological and habitat), neighbourhood and urban  open space; and

8.       Civic uses such as high schools, university, TAFE, libraries, etc.

 

A copy of the advertised DCP and other supporting plans are included at Attachments 1 to 6.  A complete A3 sized copy of the advertised DCP report has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Consultation

The DCP was advertised for public comment for a period of 60 days in accordance with Council’s resolution.  It was advertised by means of on-site signs in strategic locations and advertisements in the local newspaper.  The submission period closed on 20 September 2005 and 16 submissions were received, two either in support or expressing no objection to the proposal and 14 objecting or raising issues of concern.

 

In addition to Council’s advertising requirements, the applicant was intending to undertake further consultation with the local community, via a community information session during the advertising period.  This information session was intended to provide an opportunity for the DCP proposals to be explained by the consultants to the local community and the opportunity for detailed questions to be asked and feedback to be provided directly. However, this information session was not held and the applicants have requested it be deferred to the district structure planning stage, where more detailed planning will occur.

 

Prior to considering the DCP for advertising consent, the Administration sought preliminary comments from a number of relevant State Government agencies.  The Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s (DPI) formal response was still outstanding when the Council considered the DCP for advertising approval. DPI is a key agency in the implementation of the St Andrews Project and included in the Strategic Cooperation Agreement. 

DPI have recently provided a response raising various issues on the DCP proposals and matters or requirements that need to be addressed during the district and local structure planning processes.  The relevant comments are set out included in the Comment Section below. The applicant has provided details of how they intend to deal with the issues raised by DPI.

Comment

Response to the Submissions

A copy of the full submissions have been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for review.  The main issues raised by the submissions, together a comment on each area is outlined below:

 

Issue 1 – Inadequate Consultation

 

Three submissions raised concerns about the consultation process for the DCP and Capricorn Village Structure Plan. One submission suggests that ‘a campaign of obfuscation is being undertaken by the Council to stifle debate about the proposed development’ and ‘it is impossible to rule out the possibility that a serious conflict of interest exists in the relationship between Council and the Tokyu/Capricorn Village Joint Venture/Yanchep Sun City.’ This submission also suggests that a Ward Councillor in his paper the Sun City News ‘is an efficient propaganda machine for the interests of the developers, not only in advertisements, but in opinion pieces.’

 

Comment

 

The DCP has been advertised in-accordance with Council’s resolution including on-site signs in strategic locations and advertisements in the local newspaper.  The DCP was also advertised for a 60 day period, rather than the normal 28-42 day period applied to most structure plans. The Capricorn Village Structure Plan was advertised in-accordance with the advertising procedures for structure plans in Part 9 of DPS2 and was adopted by Council at its 14 October 2003 meeting (item PD01-10/3).

 

The consultation process has been open and encouraged public comment on the DCP. The applicant has already undertaken an extensive preliminary process of community consultation for over two years, to ensure that the planning process is well informed by local values and sentiment.  The consultation techniques undertaken to date include a community information hotline, editions of a newsletter, community workshops, open days and displays, a telephone survey, community feed back forms and specific youth consultation. The results of this preliminary consultation have been fed into the design process, with key issues including dune preservation, housing diversity, retention of natural topography, open space, public transport, facilities, vegetation protection and enhanced passive recreation areas.

 

Further public consultation will be undertaken at the district and local structure planning stages.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 2 – Impact of Marinas on Coastline

 

Two submissions were concerned about the impact of the two marinas and argue that the marinas will have a detrimental effect on the foreshore and coastline. One submission provided details of the impacts of other existing marinas, including Hillarys, Mindarie and Two Rocks. The submission states that further marinas are not required and are not supported by the community. The other submission argued that the proposed marina north of Club Capricorn will destroy the Yanchep Lagoon.

 

Comment

 

Since the early 1990’s, there have been various planning documents that have identified the need for, or have planned for, potential marina sites to cater for the future 150,000 population of Yanchep and Two Rocks.  The DCP identifies two ‘Potential Marina’ locations, including a site midway between Two Rocks and Yanchep and another site close to the northern boundary of the Project area.  These sites are proposed to include shops, cafes and tourist orientated uses on the coastline.  The Council should support the principle of additional boat launching and marina sites to meet the needs of the proposed population and to create coastal nodes with retail, tourism, recreational and employment opportunities.  However, detailed coastal and environmental studies will be required to ensure the sites are appropriately located and do not significantly impact on the coast.  These detailed studies should occur at the district structure planning stage, however appropriate preliminary consultation with relevant Government agencies and environmental and coastal consultants should occur at this stage.  The Council required the applicant during the advertising period to explore the proposed marina sites further with the relevant Government agencies and the City and provide further advice on the appropriateness of these sites for the Council to consider prior to final adoption of the DCP. The additional information submitted by the applicants are discussed further in the Point 7 - Issues Required to be Addressed before Adoption.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 3 - Provision of Hospital

 

One submission stated that there was no provision for hospitals.

 

Comment

 

Several sites for a future hospital have been previously identified within the locality and more detailed investigation and determination of a hospital sites will occur at the district structure planning and town centre planning stages.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and determined through the district and local structure planning stages.

 

Issue 4 – Use of the St Andrews Name

 

Two submissions objected to the use of the St Andrews name on the DCP and Project. The submissions argue that Two Rocks and Yanchep already have a significant identity and are locally relevant, as opposed to St Andrews.

 

Comment

 

St Andrews is the estate name chosen by the developer.  The formal suburb names remain Two Rocks and Yanchep.  It is acknowledged that these suburbs names have a significant identity and are intended to remain.  It should however be noted that the suburbs are too large for a developed urban area and new suburbs are likely to be established and named as the area develops, in the same way that occurred in the 1990’s during the urbanisation of the East Wanneroo area. 

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted.

 

Issue 5 - Amount of POS & Green Links

 

The public open space (POS) is minimal in the context of the entire DCP and should increased significantly. The coastal plains walk trail should be extended through the area to the coast at or near Two Rocks. The east-west green corridors are a real asset to the DCP and are strongly supported by the community. The green corridors are not large enough and should be retained for native vegetation protection.

 

Comment

 

The DCP provides for 10% POS and district and regional playing fields are proposed. The location and distribution of the POS will be determined through the district and local structure planning processes, which will be subject to future public consultation.

 

The DCP identifies a well-designed system of recreation corridors that have the ability to physically connect proposed public open space (POS), thus forming a truly integrated park and recreation related open space system.  It is intended that the east-west linear open space areas will consist of part of the 10% local POS, recreational ovals, privately owned rural-residential lots (with landscape protection controls) and the retention of significant topographical features (i.e. dunes and ridgelines).  These east-west linear open space areas are aimed at providing linkages for residents to the coast and bushland areas (including Wilbinga and Yanchep National Parks and regional open space).  The linkages will be strategic pedestrian and cycle links throughout the district.  However, these open space areas will not be reserved and acquired by the WAPC as regional open space.  Therefore, the open space areas would normally be part of the normal 10% POS contribution.  There is a need to ensure that the creation of such linkages does not prejudice provision of adequate open space areas for a full range social, recreation and conservation purposes.

 

The Council required the applicant during the advertising period to discuss these open space linkages, in terms of their width, purpose, general location, design, maintenance costs and impact on overall POS provision and provide further advice on these issues for the Council to consider prior to final adoption of the DCP.

The additional information submitted by the applicants are discussed further in the Point 10 - Issues Required to be Addressed before Adoption.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted.

 

Issue 6 - Water Provision

 

Four submissions raised various issues related to the provision of reticulated water and its availability.

 

Comment

 

The applicants have undertaken various studies and consultations with the relevant agencies in the past to demonstrate that a suitable water supply will be available to cater for the development of the district. The Water Corporation has already purchased land for a water treatment and a water storage sites. More detailed consultation on water reticulation and timing of facilities will be undertaken during district and local structure planning stage.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and further considered during the district structure planning stage.

 

Issue 7 – Protection of Dunes

 

All natural landforms and flora and fauna on the western side of Two Rocks Road or at least 2 kilometres from the shoreline should be protected from development and be left in its natural state.

 

Comment

 

The subject land is zoned ‘Urban’ and ‘Urban Deferred’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Urban Development under the City’s DPS2.  The overall Yanchep/Two Rocks area was subject to an Environmental Review as part of Amendment 787 to the City’s former Town Planning Scheme No. 1.  The review addressed the potential impacts of the urban zoning and required the preparation of a number of management plans as part of subsequent structure planning to address environmental issues.

 

The primary dune system along the coast has been reserved for Parks and Recreation in the MRS and identified for protection in Bush Forever. The reserve extends approximately 100-200 metres inwards of the coast, and runs the entire length of the DCP area.

 

Ultimately the preservation of the dune formations within the remaining part of the DCP area will be difficult to achieve given servicing requirements, developable lots grades and road safety standards.  The applicant has however attempted to preserve some natural landforms and associated vegetation within some of the proposed areas of open space as well as the low density (R5) housing areas.

 

If Council was to retain the land on the western side of Two Rocks Road as open space then this could only be achieved either through reserving the land under either the MRS or the City’s DPS2, with the WAPC or the City compensating the landowners accordingly.  Alternatively, a greater proportion of the overall open space obligation from the Tokyu Corporation landholding could be concentrated in this area. This part of the landholding was not however considered appropriate for inclusion in regional reservation areas when the landholding was rezoned to Urban in the MRS and concentrating the landowners open space in this area would deprive the future communities of the remaining portion of the DCP area of open space.  Either option is therefore not considered appropriate in this instance.

 

Recommendation

 

That the submission be dismissed.

 

Issue 8 - Environmental Issues

 

Several submissions raised concerns about various environmental issues such as bushland retention, biodiversity and that the environmental studies that date back to 1991. The submissions that the DCP should be redesigned based on sustainable principles including the provision of substantial areas of bushland, biodiversity, conservation corridors, etc.

 

Comment

 

The subject area has been included in an extensive series of broad scale environmental investigations commissioned by the Tokyu Corporation during the 1990’s and the results of the studies were published in a series of environmental reports. Information from these reports was used to identify areas of regionally significant vegetation in the broader district and were reserved for Parks and Recreation in the MRS. In addition, the proponent has provided supporting documentation from ATA Environmental Consultants with regard to the vegetation within the locality as part of recent local structure planning.

 

The overall Yanchep/Two Rocks area was subject to an Environmental Review as part of Amendment No.787 to the City’s former TPS1.  The review addressed the potential impacts of the rezoning and required the preparation of a number of management plans as part of subsequent district and local structure planning.  The matters to be addressed in the management plans included vegetation and fauna; karst management; stygofauna and troglobitic fauna management, waste management; drainage, nutrient and water management and aboriginal heritage.

 

ATA Environmental have prepared and submitted detailed environmental assessments and management plans for the two local structure planning areas (Capricorn Village Yanchep and Two Rocks Northern Precinct) that are currently being progressed by Tokyu Corporation/Joint Venture.  Further environmental assessments and new management plans are required to be prepared for the landholding at the district and local structure planning stages as specified in the Environmental Conditions for the land included in Schedule 12 of DPS2. 

 

The environmental assessments for the Capricorn Village LSP identified the presence of Melaleuca cardiophylla (Mc) within the district.  This is a locally significant species and consideration should be given to the retention of stands of this vegetation, where it is considered viable in the long term having regard to the size, shape and condition of the stands.  A recent environmental assessment indicates that the best opportunities for protecting stands of Melaleuca cardiophylla in the Yanchep/Two Rocks district would be those stands closest to the coast, of which there are four north of Two Rocks and three between Two Rocks and Yanchep. 

 

The Council required the applicant during the advertising period to undertake further assessment and discussion with the City and relevant Government agencies regarding the identification and protection of appropriate stands of Melaleuca cardiophylla within the Yanchep/Two Rocks area and providing advice to the Council to consider as part of its adoption of the District Concept Plan. The additional information submitted by the applicants are discussed further in the Point 6 - Issues Required to be Addressed before Adoption.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issues be noted, as these matters are being addressed through the environmental conditions and district and local structure planning processes, which will be the subject of future consultation.

 

Issue 9 – Concern over Densities

 

Three submissions raised concerns about the high densities proposed in the DCP and the overall population proposed.

 

Comment

 

The DCP includes a wide variety of housing types and densities ranging from R5 (i.e. special residential 2000m² lots) for areas of high landscape value to R60 and R100 within the coastal centres and Town Centres to cater for a diverse and ultimate total population of approximately 150,000.  An indicative Overall Density Map for the DCP is included at Attachment 5.

 

Higher residential densities and a greater diversity of density codes than that traditionally provided in outer residential areas is an integral component of the DCP and is considered to be essential if the sustainability objectives of the DCP are to be achieved.  The proposed range of density codes will help to:

 

1.       Increase the range of housing types that will better suit the needs of the projected demographic makeup of the area.  This is characterised by a relatively older population, more mature families and a higher proportion of ‘empty nesters’ and single person households.  The demographic makeup has, and is expected to continue to lead to relatively smaller household sizes.

2.       Reduce dependency on private motor vehicles by achieving a population density that will help support viable transport alternatives, such as walking, cycling and public transport options;

3.       Reinforce diverse mixed use centres, which will add to the vitality and security of these areas;

4.       Reduce the per capita cost of providing and maintaining road, public utility and other services to the DCP area;

5.       Develop a more efficient and sustainable urban form, which will help to reduce urban sprawl.

 

The provision of a variety of densities and housing types in the DCP is in keeping with the City’s strategic direction.  The Healthy Communities goal of the City’s Strategic Plan seeks to ‘…foster an identity that that promotes lifestyle choices…’.  The City’s Smart Growth Strategy also includes ‘Lifestyle and Housing Choice’ as one of its six principles.  This principle seeks to encourage the provision of a variety of housing types and the enhancement of lifestyle options.  The City’s recently adopted Local Housing Strategy, which was prepared pursuant to the above Smart Growth principle, includes as a main objective to ‘…ensure that a wide range and choice of housing is provided to meet the changing social and economic needs of the community…’.  The DCP is generally considered to be consistent with the directions under the City’s Smart Growth Strategy and draft Local Housing Strategy.

 

The residential densities proposed are also consistent with Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) policies.  Part 2 of the residential section of its ‘Development Control Policy Manual’ specifies the following as an objective ‘…to facilitate the supply of residential lots of a wide range of sizes and shapes…’.  Further to this, the WAPC’s ‘Guidelines for the Preparation of Local Structure Plans’ manual (1992), Part 3.4.1 – ‘The Location and Density of Housing Areas’ promotes a mix in housing densities and specifically suggests that structure plans should ‘…include medium and higher density housing sites, particularly near significant employment locations, public transport routes, commercial centres, educational facilities and recreation areas’.

 

More recently, the WAPC has released the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ document. This document reiterates the more traditional policy provisions and specifically states that ‘Smaller lots and lots capable of supporting higher density should be located close to town and neighbourhood centres, public transport and adjacent to high amenity areas such as parks’.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed. The Council should support the principles contained in the DCP to provide a variety of housing types and densities in the locality and their general distribution.  Note that further discussion and determination of the distribution of R-Code densities will occur during the district structure planning and local structure planning stages of the planning process. 

 

Issue 10 – Reef Break Drive

 

One submission from the subdividers of Two Rocks South Structure Plan area supported the DCP and the realignment of Reef Break Drive as proposed in the DCP. The submission requested the realignment be initiated as a priority.

 

Comment

 

The DCP proposes the realignment of Reef Break Drive to connect to Two Rocks as a ‘T’ intersection. This realignment will require an amendment to the MRS and land exchanges between the WAPC and the landowners.

The proposed realignment is generally supported and should occur as planning. The submitter should liaise with the WAPC to progress the land exchange and initiation of an MRS amendment.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted.

 

Issue 11 - Wastewater Treatment Plan

 

The Water Corporation lodged a submission providing advice on its chlorine buffer requirements for its water treatment plan on Lot 316 including a chlorine storage buffer area of approximately 300m radius to residential development. The water storage area on Lot 307 does not require a buffer.

 

Comment

 

The DCP has identified the Water Corporation’s lots as ‘Out Parcel’, as the land is not owned by the Tokyu Corporation or its joint venture partners. The applicants have only included land owned by the Tokyu Corporation or its joint venture partners within the DCP. The Water Corporation’s buffer requirements will be further considered during the district structure planning stages, however it should be noted that the buffer requirements are likely to impact on the City’s ability to locate playing fields on the land reserved for Parks and Recreation surrounding the Water Corporation’s sites.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and further considered during the district structure planning stage.

 

Issue 12 - Caravan Parks & Tourism

 

Four submissions raised issues about the closure of the Club Capricorn Caravan Park and the provision of other caravan parks and tourism facilities (backpackers, family accommodation, sustainable tourism, etc..) along the coastline.

 

Comment

 

The DCP identifies the Club Capricorn Caravan Park area within the Capricorn Coastal Village Structure Plan, which contains more local structure planning for the land. At the meeting of Council on 14 October 2003 (PD01-10/03), Council resolved that the Capricorn Village Structure Plan is satisfactory, subject to a number of modifications and various matters being addressed by the proponent. The Capricorn Joint Venture is currently undertaking subdivision works for its first stages and established a Capricorn Affordable Tourism Working Group, including community representatives, state government, City of Wanneroo Administration and developer representation to meet over the next 6 months. The purpose of the Working Group is proposed to be as follows:

 

·                Exchange information in relation to tourism development in Yanchep and Two Rocks with particular reference to the Capricorn site;

·                Examine implications of WA State Government’s Affordable Tourism Strategy;

·                To explore affordable tourism options within the Capricorn area;

·                To explore other affordable tourism proposals with the Yanchep-Two Rocks area; and

·                To update representative organisations of proposed development stages.

 

The information and discussions from the Working Group will provide significant input into the preparation of the district structure plan and local structure plans and tourism initiatives along throughout the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and further considered during the district structure planning stage.

 

Issue 13 - Coastal Foreshore Road

 

Three submissions argued that a coastal foreshore road should be provided to encourage tourism development, lifestyle benefits and greater access to coastal areas. Two submissions suggested that a north-south coastal road should be extended north of Two Rocks to connect to Indian Ocean Drive (Guilderton to Geraldton) to provide additional tourism opportunities.

 

Comment

 

The provision of continuous coastal foreshore roads would create economic and tourism opportunities (ie. creation of a ‘scenic type drive’), whilst providing local neighbourhood traffic movement and public transport. A continuous coastal foreshore road could be designed to link tourism/coastal town sites, marinas and recreational areas. It is recommended that the Council require the DCP to be modified to include a coastal foreshore road in the DCP and district structure plans.

 

Whilst the construction of a coastal road connection from Two Rocks to Indian Ocean Drive would have significant tourism benefits, it is highly unlikely that such a road could be built, due to funding constraints for the road connection and more significantly, the environmental agencies would not allow the construction of such a road through Wilbinga Nature Reserve.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be upheld in relation to the provision of a continuous coastal road. It is recommended that the Council require the DSP to include a coastal foreshore road.

 

Issue 14 - Public Transport and Railway

 

Four submissions raised issues about the public transport system and road system. One submission suggested that the transit system needs to be more in tune with current and future transport directions, including more encouragement of public transport and car free zones. One submission asked who would pay for the light rail and transport system, and if the Government had committed themselves to a timeline for the construction of the freeway and rail system? Another submission suggested that it was ludicrous to have two rail spines, with the major element not readily accessible, requiring double access, which is not appropriate in a future fast moving commuter oriented development.

 

Comment

 

The DCP proposes an extensive public transport system to serve the proposed population, including:

 

·                The extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway line and three stations (including Yanchep Beach Road, new Yanchep Town Centre and a potential Park and Ride station close to the Freeway alignment);

·                The establishment of a transit orientated mixed use employment boulevard, including a light rail or rapid bus transit system; and

·                The extension of the Northern Suburbs Railway line along the Freeway into a country railway service.

The Project aims to create high levels of employment self-sufficiency to decrease car dependency and vehicle trips. The DCP proposes to integrate land use and transport planning to encourage greater use of public transport and alternative transport modes, thereby reducing car driver trips in-accordance with the aims of the Metropolitan Transport Strategy. Detailed traffic modelling will be undertaken as part of the preparation of the District Structure Plan.

 

The timing of the provision of the railway has not yet been determined by the State Government. The City will need to ensure that efficient public transport systems are provided early in the development stages to establish travel patterns and high public transport usage. The public transport system would normally be funded by the State Government, however DPI in its letter dated 28 June 2005 advised that the light rail component is not at government cost (capital or operational). This matter will require further discussion through the District Structure Planning Stage.

 

The DPI engaged consultants to undertake a Railway Alignment Definition Study to define the rail alignment between Romeo Road in Alkimos and Yanchep.  This study will assist in finalising the rail alignment and progressing District and Local Structure Planning and future MRS amendments in Yanchep, Alkimos and Eglinton.  The study follows on the completion in 2003 of a similar study between Clarkson Station and Romeo Road.  The study was overseen by a Steering Committee, which the City is represented on and the study has now been completed.  The Study also reviewed the position of the railway alignment between Eglinton and Yanchep Beach Road stations to minimise the impact of the railway alignment on the lateral Parks and Recreation wedge between Eglinton and Yanchep (also known as Ningana regional open space).  The Council should require the alignment of the Northern Suburbs Railway determined in the Study be included in the DCP as a condition of its adoption.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and further considered during the district structure planning stage.

 

Issue 15 - Employment

 

Several of the submissions raised concerns about the claims for local employment and that the developer has not met their employment targets in the St Andrews Project. Concern was also expressed about the location of industrial areas.

 

Comment

 

The St Andrews DCP contains the various elements to implement the economic and employment objectives of the St Andrews Project as set out in the SCA and MOU, which were detailed earlier in the Background section of this report.  The DCP identifies appropriate areas for the creation of employment and economic development including: mixed use town, village centres and coastal nodes, an extensive mixed use employment corridor, TAFE and university sites, technology park, district employment areas for light industrial activities, school sites and a planning format suitable for encouraging the establishment of home based businesses.  The DCP acknowledges that the key to the achievement of high employment levels in the Project area is the attraction of externally oriented economic activity.  It is important to note that the DCP provides the general physical framework for locating the planned level of local employment, however at the DSP stage, the areas set aside for employment will need to be validated and a comprehensive Employment Strategy will be needed to demonstrate how the planned levels of employment will be delivered.  It should also be noted that the St Andrews Project does include more employment initiatives than any other developer’s structure planning proposals to date. 

 

The DCP includes an Enterprise Area Land Uses (EALU) Plan, which is the Project Team’s further development and refinement of the planning for the Yanchep Town Centre and the southern precinct and its employment initiatives.  A copy of the EALU Plan is included at Attachment 6.  The EALU Plan includes: two Enterprise Areas (either side of the future Marmion Avenue), two Research Parks - Mixed use areas (either side of Yanchep Beach Road and abutting the railway alignment), a Hospital site, TAFE & University sites, residential areas and a light industrial area (south of Yanchep Beach Road largely between the railway and the Freeway alignments).  The distribution of the proposed uses in the EALU Plan is generally appropriate. Further discussion on the EALU Plan is included in Point 5 - Issues Required to be Addressed before Adoption.

 

The proposed levels of employment self-sufficiency and public transport patronage proposed, which have not occurred in the Corridor to date, are crucial to ensure that significant congestion does not occur and that there is adequate capacity in the regional road network.  The City will need to monitor the development of the district to ensure that the employment targets in the MOU and various documents are achieved.  The Council should continue to support and assist the developers to achieve the economic and employment initiatives of the St Andrews Project. 

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted.

Issues Required to be Addressed by Council

The issues that Council required further consideration of prior to further considering the draft DCP are outlined below, as well as a comment on each.

 

1.         Further retail modelling and additional information being submitted on the viability of the three easternmost village centres abutting the existing Parks and Recreation reserves.

 

DPI raised a similar concern in its recent advice on the DCP. The applicant's retail consultant has undertaken a further analysis and concluded that several modifications will need to be considered with respect to these centres as part of the preparation of the DSP.  These modifications include:

 

i)          the downgrading of the centre on Breakwater Drive to centre due to its proximity to the new town centre east of Two Rocks; and

 

ii)         the centre in the north/east corner of the district being relocated further southwest to enhance the viability of this centre by creating a full catchment;

 

In respect of the village centre east of the Lot 501 development (the Reef Estate), the applicants have advised that this centre is intended to function as a meaningful gateway to the eastern Parklands and only be a neighbourhood level centre, with a relatively small retail component that does not require a large catchment area.  The applicant has advised that it is expected that the proximity of the Parklands will encourage a primarily tourist-based economy as people will stop and buy goods/recreational gear before entering the park, therefore an adjustment would be counterproductive.  The parklands area adjoining the neighbourhood centre is only likely to attract low visitor numbers. The viability of this neighbourhood centre still needs to be considered and justified, therefore further retail modelling and additional information on this neighbourhood centre will be required at the district structure planning stage.

 

2.         Discussion occurring with the applicants, DPI, Public Transport Authority and the City regarding the alignment of the railway, location of stations and timing of the railway.  The applicant providing further advice on these issues and modifying the railway alignment to reflect the outcomes of the Romeo Road to Yanchep Railway Alignment Definition Study, when completed.

 

The DPI has engaged consultants to undertake a Railway Alignment Definition Study to define the rail alignment between Romeo Road in Alkimos and Yanchep.  This study will assist in finalising the rail alignment and progressing District and Local Structure Planning and future MRS amendments in Yanchep, Alkimos and Eglinton.  The study follows the 2003 completion of a similar study between Clarkson Station and Romeo Road.  The study was undertaken over a three-month period and overseen by a Steering Committee, which the City is represented on.  The Study also reviewed the position of the railway alignment between Eglinton and Yanchep Beach Road stations to minimise the impact of the railway alignment on the lateral Parks and Recreation wedge between Eglinton and Yanchep (also known as Ningana regional open space).

 

The railway alignment study has been completed but is yet to be considered by the Transport Committee of the WAPC.  The DCP shows the Study’s recommended alignment up to the Yanchep Town Centre (southern).  North of the Yanchep Town Centre, the DCP shows the developers preferred alignment and station location, but planning in this area is subject to further study.  The DPI’s Rail Alignment Study has identified three alignment options for the northern section:

 

a)         Route curving sharply east to the freeway then turning north along the freeway at a point south of the water block (as referred to in the Rail Alignment Study).  This is the developer preferred option and shown in the DCP.

 

b)         Route continuing from station in northerly direction, passing west of the ‘water block’ then turning east to join the freeway at the next interchange.

 

c)         Route curving north-east from station, passing through the ‘water block’ and lining up with the Freeway at the next interchange.  The developer preferred option eliminates (to the maximum possible extent) severance of the urban land located between the ‘Transit Corridor’ and the Mitchell Freeway.

 

The determination of the alignment of the railway will be the subject of ongoing discussions with the applicants, DPI and the City, as part of the District Structure Planning exercise.

 

No information has been provided from the applicant or DPI on the timing of construction of railway. The provision of public transport infrastructure, especially the Northern Suburbs Railway, in a timely manner is critical to establish travel patterns and urban form and density particularly in railway precincts. Development in railway precincts should be delayed at least until the railway is provided.

 

3.         The applicant submitting further information on the outcomes of the DPI’s Strategic Transport Evaluation Modelling and Railway Alignment Definition Study and their implications for the District Concept Plan.

 

The applicant has sought the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Evaluation Model for the North West Corridor from the DPI, however has been advised that it is currently being refined and that outputs relating to the St Andrews DCP can only be expected in 1-2 months.  The applicant is not able to provide further information at this time, however has advised that the outcomes of that modelling will be given proper consideration when available. The City and the applicant should continue to seek the outcomes of the Strategic Transport Evaluation Model for the North West Corridor from the DPI during the preparation of the DSP.

 

4.         Further discussions occurring during the advertising period between the applicant’s traffic consultants and the City’s Infrastructure Directorate regarding the traffic implications of the proposed District Concept Plan, staging of development and the timing of the railway and arterial roads.

 

A broad traffic analysis has been undertaken for the DCP area sufficient to demonstrate the adequacy of the general district level road structure outlined on the DCP.  Further discussions have been held between the applicant and the Administration regarding the matters that would be required to be included within the further transport studies that will be required to accompany the DSP.

 

5.         Further discussions occurring during the advertising period on how the interface between the proposed employment and residential areas on the Enterprise Area Land Uses Plan is proposed to be managed and the appropriateness of the location of the TAFE and University sites.

 

The applicant has submitted additional detail of how the interface between the proposed employment and residential areas on the Enterprise Area Land Uses Plan will be managed, including transition land uses, open space, mixed use, urban design measures, types of employment, etc.

 

The applicant has submitted additional information justifying the location of TAFE and University sites in the DCP, which is satisfactory for the DCP stage, as the City will consider the locations further during the district and local structure planning stages.

 

6.         The applicant undertaking further assessment and discussion with the City, CALM, DEP and DPI regarding the identification and protection of appropriate stands of Melaleuca cardiophylla within the Yanchep/Two Rocks area and providing advice to the Council to consider as part of its adoption of the District Concept Plan.

 

The applicant has appointed ATA Environmental Consultants to map the location of stands of melaleuca cardiophylla across the St Andrews Concept Plan.  Twenty-six (26) sites have been identified within the project area and an assessment undertaken of the condition of the stands of vegetation.

 

The applicant has advised that the flexibility of the Concept Plan facilitates the opportunity for environmental preservation. It has been determined as a result of this study that much of these stands of melaleuca cardiophylla can be preserved through specific site planning at the district and local structure planning stages.

 

7.         The applicant investigating the proposed marina sites further with the relevant Government agencies and the City and providing further advice on the appropriateness of these sites for the Council to consider prior to final adoption of the District Concept Plan.

 

The DCP identifies two ‘Potential Marina’ locations, including a site midway between Two Rocks and Yanchep and another site close to the northern boundary of the Project area.  These sites are proposed to include shops, cafes and tourist orientated uses on the coastline.  Since the early 1990’s, there have been various planning documents that have identified the need for or planned for potential marina sites to cater for the future 150,000 population of Yanchep and Two Rocks.  The applicant has advised that a preliminary Marina Study was prepared by MP Rogers and Associates in 2002 that addresses the likely future demands for marine infrastructure such as harbours, mooring pens and boat launching facilities and then examines various development options to provide the required facilities.  The two areas noted on the DCP as being a ‘Potential Marina Location’ were so designated because of specific consultant input.  The applicant has received initial advice with regard to the northern marina site that indicates there is potential for a marina in this location.  Further supporting documentation will be prepared as part of the preparation of the district structure plan to support the suitability and sustainability of the marina sites identified in the DCP.

 

One of the most important natural features of the St. Andrew’s property is the ocean and the coastline.  The provision of marinas in the project allows the coastline to be enjoyed by both tourists and residents and create significant employment and tourism opportunities.

 

The Council should support the principle of additional boat launching and marina sites to meet the needs of the proposed population and to create coastal nodes with retail, tourism, recreational and employment opportunities.  However, detailed coastal and environmental studies will be required at the district structure planning stages to ensure the sites are appropriately located and do not significantly impact on the coastal processes. Swimming and beach areas are critically important aspects of the St. Andrews site and coastal areas.  It is therefore in the interest of the project to protect these areas and ensure that their recreational and environmental quality is not jeopardized.  Further environmental consultation and research will be required at the local and district structure planning stages to fully understand and mitigate any impacts on these areas from new marinas.

 

8.         Further consultation between the City and the applicants should occur on the proposals included in the St Andrews Facility Planning Technical Reference Group and its Discussion Paper and their inclusion in the District Concept Plan.

 

The St Andrews Facility Planning Technical Reference Group (comprising Tokyu Corporation and City Administration representatives) identified that based on the district’s projected population, an allocation of between 100 and 140 hectares is required solely for regional/district open space.  In addition, open space land requirements of at least 60 to 65 hectares were considered necessary for a municipal golf course.  This creates a minimum land requirement of between 160 and 205 hectares to cater for regional/district open space facilities.  It should be noted that these requirements relate to open space only and hence do not include hectare provisions for other recreational and community facilities identified by the Technical Reference Group.

 

The draft DCP currently identifies approximately 65 hectares of land that is suitable for regional and/or district open space, of which 20 hectares is designated as bush forever, therefore leaving a current provision level of only 45 hectares.  Whilst the submission accepts that the Concept Plan needs to be adjusted to meet the open space requirements, the process of securing land and addressing site design criteria is not clearly identified.  An assumption is also made that 10 hectares in Ningana Reserve, south of the district, can contribute to the total project supply of usable district active open space, however given its bush forever status the ability for such an area to accommodate active playing fields is still questionable.  The submission outlines two potential new areas of district open space:

 

·                Collocation with the proposed university campus immediately south of the northern town centre

·                Land west of the northern town centre.

 

These options are supported in principle however the ability to utilise these land areas and develop partnerships with relevant stakeholders (e.g. tertiary institutions) needs to be addressed in further detail at the DSP stage.  These two options also need to be supported by several other alternatives for securing adequate land areas.  Those already discussed by the Technical Reference Group that appear to have merit for further investigation include:

 

·                Inclusion of several 15 hectare district reserves within the linear open space network;

·                Investigation of the availability of Landcorp land south of the Yanchep town site;

·                Investigation into increasing the current identified District Active Open Space allocations from 20 - 30 hectares to 30 - 40 hectares

·                Detailed investigation of sites impacted by bush forever to ascertain exact land areas available.

 

The developer must provide additional, detailed information that identifies and verifies the suitability of the potential land availability options.  This can effectively be undertaken at the DSP stage.  This would include matters such as the distribution, location, size, topography, bush forever restrictions opportunities for collocation with other relevant stakeholders to clearly demonstrate how the active open space demand will be met in the district.

 

9.         Further discussion occurring between the applicant, DPI, CALM, Department of Environmental Protection and the City regarding the potential to locate Regional and District Active Playing Fields and a Municipal Golf Course within the Parks and Recreation areas.  The applicant shall provide further advice and relevant Government agency advice on the appropriateness of these sites for the Council to consider when it considers the District Concept Plan for final adoption.

 

Land set aside for regional recreation will serve a greater catchment than the application area and therefore this is primarily an issue for the State to consider through its review of the North West Corridor Structure Plan.  This review is currently being undertaken by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the City will need to ensure that this issue is properly addressed in the review. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the applicants environmental consultant has undertaken and assessment of the potential to locate regional and district sporting facilities within the areas surrounding the DCP area that are currently designated as Parks and Recreation.  This analysis indicates that there is some potential within the Ningana bushland to accommodate playing fields.  This area comprises around 70 hectares and is made up of land that has either been cleared, contains highly degraded bushland (19.7ha) or tuart plantation (51.3ha).  Whilst initial discussions have been undertaken during the consultation period with officers from Bush forever and the Department of Environment, the potential for this area to be cleared and developed for recreation purposes requires further analysis and discussion on a range of issues.  This can adequately be undertaken during the preparation of the DSP. 

 

10.       Further discussion occurring between the applicant and the City on the linear Open Space linkages, in terms of their width, purpose, general location, design, maintenance costs and impact on the overall POS provision.

 

The proposed linear open space linkages are supported in principle as they provide a well-designed system of recreation corridors, are capable of integrating natural and recreational areas and physically define neighbourhoods. 

The applicant has provided additional information addressing the width, purpose, general location and design of these open space linkages, however the issues of maintenance costs and impact of these linkages on the overall POS provision needs further consideration and justification by the applicant. These issues can be worked through during the preparation of the DSP.

 

11.       Application to the City’s Smart Growth Assessment Tool to the District Concept Plan.

 

The applicant has undertaken an assessment of DCP using the City’s Smart Growth Assessment Tool.  An analysis of this is included in the Policy Implications section of this report. 

Other Issues

The following additional issues have been identified by Administration, which require further advice from the DPI:

 

1.       A portion of the Yanchep National Park is located west of the Freeway and is zoned Urban Deferred in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The land is known as the ‘Water block’ and is an ‘A’ class reserve managed by CALM. The DCP does not propose any uses on the land, however various alignments of the railway line have been identified through the site. It is unclear whether this land will be retained in the Yanchep National Park after the freeway is extended or developed for urban purposes. The City should seek the advice of the WAPC on the future planning of this land;

 

2.       The DCP has not been submitted or assessed under Part 9 (Structure Planning provisions) of the DPS2 rather it is an initial preliminary step in the preparation of the DSP with the purpose of obtaining in principle agreement to key elements of the concept such as the public transport proposals.  Given the nature of the DCP and district and local structure planning that needs still needs to be prepared, the Council’s adoption of the DCP should be limited to key items and principles

Summary

The advertising and adoption of the DCP is a key step in the consultation process and progressing the land use planning and development of the Yanchep and Two Rocks localities.  The DCP has been prepared in consultation with the City and processed in-accordance with the MOU.  Future stages of planning will involve further consultation and consideration by the Council, including the District Structure Planning, MRS Amendments, Amendments to DPS2 and Local Structure Planning.

 

To ensure an appropriate outcome is achieved and in a suitable timeframe, it will be important for the proposed DSP to be prepared with effective ongoing consultation between the applicant, the City, the DPI and other key stakeholders.  This has been agreed with eth applicants and work has already commenced between the parties in relation to the information requirements and scope of issues to be addressed in the DSP.  Initial discussions have also been undertaken with the DPI regarding a coordinated and streamlined assessment process.

Statutory Compliance

The processing of the DCP has generally followed the processes described in the MOU adopted by the Council at its meeting on 10 June 2003 (item CEO04-07/03).

Strategic Implications

Consideration of this DCP is consistent with the goal of providing Healthy Communities under the City’s Strategic Plan and in particular Strategy 2.2 of the Planning and Development Directorate Strategic Plan, which seeks to provide a cohesive system of integrated land use planning.

Policy Implications

The Smart Growth Local Planning Policy is relevant to this proposal.  This policy basically requires assessment of the proposal against the Smart Growth Strategy, and this is facilitated through the Smart Growth Assessment Tool (SGAT).

 

The report on the draft DCP considered by Council at its meeting of 26 April 2005 included brief comment upon the proposal in respect to the then draft Smart Growth Strategy, and noted that the proposal was seen to be generally consistent with the principles and strategies of the draft Strategy.  Council’s resolution included a requirement for the SGAT to be applied to the proposed final DCP.

 

The applicant has submitted a self-assessment of the proposed final DCP against the SGAT (District Structure Plan Level).  While this meets Council’s requirement for undertaking of the SGAT assessment, it would have been preferable if the applicant had involved City officers in the process, in the same way that it is preferable for developers to consult with the City during the course of preparation of their proposals, rather than submit a proposal for approval with no prior consultation.  It was earlier in this report that it will be important for the proposed DSP to be prepared with effective ongoing consultation between the applicant, the City and other relevant stakeholders, and it is also important for the SGAT assessment that will be prepared for the DSP to involve similar ongoing consultation.  To ensure Smart Growth Principles are properly considered, it is important that the SGAT be used as a tool to inform the development of the DSP and is not prepared as an after-thought, having prepared the plan.  Ongoing consultation will also allow the performance of the SGAT (which is now undergoing a two year trial period) to be properly monitored.

 

The SGAT submitted by the applicant has been provided in electronic form to each Elected Member.

 

The applicant’s self-assessment has been reviewed by Administration and the following key conclusions drawn:

 

1.       The DCP is considered to be generally consistent with the Smart Growth Strategy and its related policy.  However, it cannot be properly determined at this stage whether the specific criteria measurements given, and the resulting Smart Growth ‘scores’ and ‘ratings’ (for each Smart Growth principle, and overall) should be considered reasonable.

 

          The DCP represents a broader level of planning than a DSP, with more detailed information to be provided at DSP stage.  However, the DCP has had to be assessed using the DSP level of SGAT as the SGAT is currently only available for trailing at two levels (DSP and Local Structure Plan).  The result has been that many of the SGAT criteria have been assigned measurements which are not able to be scrutinised for validity as the information they need to be based on is presently not available, but should be prepared at the DSP stage.  Such measurements should therefore be viewed as indicating intent, rather than current performance.

 

2.       There are two matters which will require particularly close attention at time of development of the DSP:

 

          a)       Provision of detailed information to adequately demonstrate how the employment targets are to be achieved.

 

          b)      Provision of detailed information to show how regional and district recreation requirements are able to be satisfactorily met.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the draft District Concept Plan, as submitted by the Roberts Day Group on behalf of Tokyu Corporation and as outlined in Attachment 1 to this report and SUPPORTS this plan as the basis for the preparation of the District Structure Plan.

2.       ADVISES the applicant that the District Structure Plan will need to be supplemented with the full range of technical studies as required by the City and Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the concepts contained in the District Concept Plan will require full technical justification.  This work should include an assessment of the issues raised in the comment section of this report.

3.       ENDORSES the comments made in this report regarding the submissions received on this draft District Concept Plan for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

4.       FORWARDS the draft District Concept Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration.

5.       REQUESTS the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to:

a)      Ensure that it properly addresses the provision of Regional Recreation Reserves in it current review of the North West Corridor Structure Plan; and

b)      Clarify the future planning intent for the portion f the Yanchep National Park zoned urban deferred and located west of the future freeway reserve.

EndOfRecommendation - This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

 

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 6

File Ref:                                              S01/0001

File Name: BAAdoption of Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Level 5 Approval by shb Date 08 December 2005

Level 4 Approval by shb Date 30 November 2005

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 29 November 2005

Level 2 Approval by shb Date 29 November 2005

Level 1 Approval by TPD Date 24 November 2005

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Author:   Timothy Dawson

Meeting Date:   13 December 2005

Attachments:                                       7

StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Issue

To consider the submissions and adoption of the draft Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan (FMP).

Background

Council at its meeting of 7 June 2005 considered the draft FMP relating to the foreshore reserves adjoining the Two Rocks and Yanchep townsites (the latter including the foreshore abutting the Capricorn Village Structure Plan area) and resolved to advertise the recommended actions and plans for a period of eight weeks (Item PD02-06/05 refers). Attachment 1 contains the advertised recommended FMP Actions and Attachments 2 to 6 contain the advertised draft FMP maps.

Detail

The purpose of the FMP is to provide a framework for protecting and enhancing the environmental, landscape, heritage and recreation values of the study area, whilst providing for a level of infrastructure necessary to cater for the significant planned future growth of the Yanchep Two Rocks area.

 

Whilst the FMP is intended to be a strategic document, which will guide development, use and management within the study area over the long term, the plan will require periodic review in order to ensure that it remains relevant and that its objectives are being satisfied.

 

The objectives of the Foreshore Management Plan are to:

 

1.       Identify the natural resources and processes as well as the necessary management measures for preserving and enhancing the environmental values of the study area;

2.       Identify and provide for sustainable levels of leisure, recreation, tourism, commercial and general public infrastructure within the study area;

3.       Identify and provide opportunities for interpretational facilities consistent with the environmental and heritage values of the area;

4.       Develop an implementation plan for future development and management within the study area, which outlines priorities, responsibilities and an indication of the likely costs of each action.

 

For clarity reasons, the study area has been broken down into five individual precincts.  These precincts are Two Rocks North, Two Rocks South, Yanchep North, Yanchep South and Yanchep Lagoon.  Specific management plan recommendations are listed for each precinct.  Recommendations common to all precincts are included as general recommendations. There are a total of 54 recommendations, rated as either high, medium or low priority. 

 

Key aspects of the draft FMP are:

 

1.       A concept plan for the Yanchep Lagoon including the realignment of Brazier Road and provision for future development sites and upgrading of the Fisherman’s Hollow and Picnic Cove recreation areas;

2.       Linking the proposed Capricorn Village Coastal Road with Brazier Road;

3.       A new site for the proposed Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC) in the vicinity of Club Capricorn;

4.       Continuous coastal dual use paths;

6.       Beach access ways connecting the beach and the coastal roads;

7.       Car parking areas;

8.       Lookouts; and

9.       Rehabilitation and revegetation of the foreshore areas.

Consultation

The draft FMP has been prepared in consultation with key stakeholders including relevant government agencies, key landowners including the developers of the Capricorn Coastal Village, the City’s Environmental Advisory Committee and staff from relevant City Directorates.  Input from the previous round of advertising including submissions from local community groups have also been considered.  This has enabled the early consideration of key stakeholder issues, which have, where appropriate, been used to shape the direction of the plan.

 

The draft FMP has also now been advertised for public comment for a period of eight weeks by way of advertisements in the local newspaper and on the City’s website and letters to relevant Government agencies and community groups.  A public information evening was also held in Yanchep during the advertising period.  The submission period initially closed on 22 August 2005. The City received 17 submissions including comments from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI), the Water Corporation of Western Australia, the Tourism Western Australia and the Nyungah Circle of Elders. No comments have yet been received from the Department of Environment despite several reminders.

Comment

While two submissions supported the draft FMP proposals, the remaining submissions requested modifications relating to Bush Forever sites, car parking, the proposed realignment of Brazier Road, the proposed location of the SLSC, dual use paths and the beach access ways. The main issues raised by the submissions, together with a comment on each, are outlined below:

 

Issue 1 - Realign Brazier Road to the east of the kiosk

 

Brazier Road should be realigned to the east of the kiosk to ensure safe pedestrian movements between the beach and the kiosk and to propose car parking areas to the east of the road rather than parking embayments.

 

Comment

 

This was one of the options considered in preparing the concept plan for the Yanchep Lagoon, however was discounted in view of the presence of the significant dune which would result in extensive earthworks and loss of vegetation in very good to excellent condition. 

 

The principle of providing for the kiosk (and other similar tourist/recreation facilities) does however have significant merit and with this in mind, a preliminary alternative design option for the northern part of the Lagoon area has been prepared that would retain many of the benefits of the previous plan and also achieve the objective of providing for future development sites (that could accommodate a future kiosk and other tourist/recreation related uses) on the western side of a realigned Brazier Road.  A plan indicating this option is shown in Attachment 7. It is noted that in this option the kiosk can remain to the east of Brazier Road until such time it could be replaced with another similar facility to be located to the west of Brazier Road. The current sub-lease on the kiosk lessee is up to 2009, with an option to extend up to 2016.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be upheld and the concept plan for the northern part of the Yanchep Lagoon be modified to accommodate the revised alignment of Brazier Road, generally as shown in Attachment 7.

 

Issue 2 – Vegetation Clearing for Surf Life Saving Club

 

The proposed site for the Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC) would require clearing of sensitive areas and therefore to consider upgrading of the existing facilities.

 

Comment

 

The proposed location of the SLSC was identified based on the study conducted by Arbor Vitae appointed by the City. The study had considered three possible sites, namely the Lagoon area, the existing SLSC and the beach adjoining Club Capricorn, wherein issues such as State Coastal Planning Policy, Bush Forever, existing Foreshore Management Plans, potential infrastructure development capacity and beach accessibility were considered. Of these three sites, the site at Club Capricorn was considered to be the preferred long-term location.

 

Bush Forever and the associated Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 does not preclude clearing regionally significant bushland where this is for a purpose consistent with the overall purpose and intent of the existing reserve or where it can be justified with regard to wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs.  It is considered that clearing for a SLSC can be justified on this basis. 

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 3 - Incorporate Surf Life Saving Club into Planning of Broader Area

 

The ‘Ultimate’ site for the SLSC should be determined following the adoption of the District Structure Plan for the Yanchep and Two Rocks area and the finalisation of the Centre Zone within the Capricorn Coastal Node.

 

Comment

 

As indicated under Issue 2 above, the proposed location of the SLSC was identified following a study, which included an assessment of the broader Yanchep Two Rocks area.  The Capricorn Coastal Village Structure Plan proposes the development of a coastal node adjacent to the location designated for the SLSC, although the detailed planning for this node is yet to be undertaken.  In order to provide an appropriate level of integration between the SLSC and the coastal node, it would be appropriate that the detailed location for the SLSC be undertaken in association with the planning for the coastal node.  The likely timing of the planning for both the SLSC and the coastal node would facilitate this.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted and the City liaise with the Capricorn Village Joint Venture (CVJV) with a view to undertaking the detailed planning in respect to the detailed location and design of the SLSC and the Capricorn Village Coastal Node in an integrated manner.

 

Issue 4 - Conservation of Bush Forever Site

 

No development should be undertaken within the Bush Forever Site and conservation of regionally significant vegetation considering that Bush Forever aims to protect 10% of each vegetation community within the Perth Metropolitan Region. The Coastal Road within the Capricorn Village Structure Plan area will fragment the conservation area.

 

Comment

 

Three submitters have advised that they are concerned with the level of development proposed in the Bush Forever Site.

 

The Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region Statement of Planning Policy 2.8 states in Section 5.2.1 that clearing of regionally significant bushland (i.e. vegetation in Bush Forever sites) is allowed where it can be justified with regard to wider environmental, social, economic or recreational needs. One of the main purposes of a foreshore reserve is to provide for the social and recreational needs of the public to access and enjoy the coastline. Therefore the proposed works, such as SLSC, extension of the POS areas proposed in the Capricorn Village Structure Plan into the foreshore, beach access ways and dual use paths are considered to be appropriate to meet recreational and social needs within the foreshore.  Facilities have generally been located to minimise disturbance of high quality vegetation and a range of actions have been included that seek to conserve and rehabilitate vegetated areas.  It is considered that this balanced approach to planning in the foreshore is consistent with the principles of Bush Forever.

 

The location of the Coastal Road is in accordance with the draft Capricorn Village Structure Plan adopted by Council at its meeting of 14 October 2003 (Item PD01-10/03). One of the provisions of the Structure Plan is to construct the Coastal Road linking it with Brazier Road.

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 5 - Vegetation Survey

 

The vegetation survey was conducted in November, December and February during which time a large number of species are not visibly seen and therefore it should have been conducted during springtime.

 

Comment

 

Bowman Bishaw Gorham (BBG) who conducted the vegetation survey for the City has advised that although November is not an ideal time for flora surveys, it is still early enough to identify most species in flower, and any species that have finished flowering are generally still identifiable from dry flowers or parts thereof. Moreover, full capture is rarely possible or practical since some species flower only in autumn while others may not flower every year. In view of the advice received from BBG, it is not considered necessary to conduct further vegetation surveys at this time.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 6 - Car parking at Foreshore Vista, Yanchep

 

The proposed car parking area on Foreshore Vista should be relocated to the popular surf spot access between Tarwhine Turn and Longfin Vista.

Comment

 

The draft FMP makes provision for a 10-bay car parking area at the entrance to an existing constructed beach access way on Foreshore Vista.

 

The beach at Foreshore Vista is a popular surfing beach, attracting surfers on a regular basis. The surfers, however use another nearby unconstructed beach access way located between Tarwhine Turn and Longfin Vista as this gives direct access to the surf site.  In the absence of proper parking arrangements, the surfers currently park on the road verge causing inconvenience to the local residents. It is therefore recommended to modify the FMP to provide additional parking embayments at the entrance to the unconstructed access way and to formalise the access way.

 

Recommendation

 

The issue be upheld and the FMP be modified to relocate the car parking area to the access way located between Tarwhine Turn and Longfin Vista and to formalise this access way.

 

Issue 7 - Beach Access ways

 

There are too many beach access ways within the foreshore adjoining the Capricorn Village Structure Plan area, which would cause much disturbance to the foreshore.

 

Comment

 

The draft FMP depicts the foreshore management proposals of the foreshore adjoining the Capricorn Village Structure Plan area as proposed by the CVJV. These proposals include provision of eight beach access ways within a stretch of 1.2 kilometres and at an interval of 100 to 170 metres. The CVJV, has agreed to consider deletion of two beach access ways, which would increase the spacing to around 200 metres, consistent with other parts of the foreshore.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be upheld and the FMP be amended to provide space beach access ways at approximately 200 metre intervals along the foreshore adjoining the CVJV land.

 

Issue 8 - Dual Use path at Compass Circle, Yanchep

 

The proposed dual use path connecting Compass Circle and Foreshore Vista should be moved away from the residential area to the beach side of the dunes.

 

Comment

 

This dual use path was proposed as depicted on the FMP adopted in 1997. Prior to determining this alignment, the option of running it along the beach was considered. However, due to the steep foreshore terrain, this option was not considered to be viable. In regard to the proposed alignment it is noted that, necessary care will be taken to ensure that the proposed dual use path is positioned as far away as possible from the residential area to minimise the impact on residential privacy.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 9 - Car Parking along Two Rocks Road

 

The car park on the western side of Two Rocks Road should be relocated to the eastern side to avoid encroachment into bushland.

 

Comment

 

By locating the car parking area on the eastern side would require beach goers to cross Two Rocks Road, which is likely to carry a reasonably high volume of traffic when Two Rocks and Yanchep are more fully developed. The proposed parking embayments on the western side of the road are proposed to be located within the existing Two Rocks Road reserve and will necessitate minimum vegetation clearing.

 

Recommendation

 

That this issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 10 - Dual Use Path

 

The north-south dual use paths should be relocated from between the fore and secondary dunes to the coastal road.

 

Comment

 

Two submitters, including the DPI, have suggested that the dual use path be located along the eastern boundary of the foreshore.

 

In this regard it is noted that in Two Rocks (North) and Yanchep (South) (refer Attachments 2 and 5), the existing coastal roads are located close to the beach and therefore the dual use paths have been proposed within the road reserve of these roads. In regard to Two Rocks (South) Yanchep (North) (refer Attachments 3 and 4) the coastal roads are located about 200 to 400 metres away from the beach, considering the recreational values offered by the dual use paths, they have been proposed within the foreshore. These paths have been located either along the existing tracks or in the more degraded areas of vegetation. This proposal accords with the Bushland Policy, which allows recreational uses within the Bush Forever sites.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 11 – Picnic Cove Amphitheatre

 

Strong south-westerly sea breezes are likely to affect Picnic Cove, and therefore it is better to propose the amphitheatre at Fisherman’s Hollow rather than at Picnic Cove.

 

Comment

 

Picnic Cove is considered to be the key recreation area at the Lagoon and therefore the most appropriate location for an amphitheatre.  The location identified for the amphitheatre at Picnic Cove is also a natural reflection of the topography at this location.  In the preliminary alternative design option for the northern part of the Lagoon area as shown in Attachment 7, a greater degree of sheltering will be provided by the future tourism/recreation buildings.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be dismissed.

 

Issue 12 – Consultation with Aboriginal Groups

 

The Nyungah Circle of Elders have requested that they be properly consulted before finalising the plan.

 

Comment

 

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act, the City is required to obtain approval from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs prior to disturbing any site of Aboriginal significance. 

Prior to commencement of any works, it is intended to undertake the necessary archaeological and ethnographic studies to determine where any such sites exist and the impact of the FMP proposals. This is covered by recommended action 21 outlined in Attachment 1.  It may well be that some proposals may require altering to better protect any identified sites of heritage significance.

 

Recommendation

 

That the issue be noted.

 

Other Issues

 

Timing of Works at Yanchep Lagoon

 

The concept plan for the Yanchep Lagoon would require a staged implementation program to ensure minimum disruption to the operation of the area and cost effective construction.  The construction of the Brazier Road realignment and the link road to the Capricorn Coastal Village, together with general earthworks of the new Picnic Cove recreation area would need to be undertaken in the first instance as a single project to minimise costs.  Much of the land affected by this is however located within an A Class reservation and it is therefore likely that the approval process for these works could take 12 to 18 months.  It is also understood that the reef and cliffs at the Yanchep Lagoon are affected by a registered Aboriginal Heritage site.  Aboriginal Heritage Surveys and Ministerial approval should be able to be obtained within this same timeframe.  These additional approvals would mean that in reality construction works at the Lagoon are unlikely to be able to commence until the second half of 2007.

 

Once the initial earthworks, road and park construction has been undertaken, the staging of the remaining works could be undertaken as discrete projects based on priority and the extent of available funding.

 

Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club

 

The existing Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club is located at the northern end of the Yanchep Lagoon.  Whilst minor renovations were undertaken in 2003, it is generally accepted that the existing facility does not adequately cater for existing or future needs.  With considerable population (and therefore beach patronage) increases forecast in the area, the City engaged consultants to investigate, amongst other things, the most appropriate future location for the surf club facility. The study identified three possible sites for the future Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club, including the Yanchep Lagoon, the existing surf life saving club and the beach adjoining Club Capricorn, with the preferred option being the fore dune area adjacent to the Club Capricorn groyne being endorsed by Council (item CD07-12/04 refers) for consideration in the preparation of the FMP.  This site offered good swimming and carnival beaches, was well located to serve the growing community, allowed sufficient space for ancillary amenities, provided good presence and effective surveillance of popular swimming areas.

 

In the context of the future growth planned for the Yanchep area, the Club Capricorn site provides the best long-term location for the club facility, subject to the detailed location and design of the facility integrating with the planning for the Capricorn Coastal Village centre. 

 

There are however a range of key problems with the existing SLSC that need to be addressed including the dilapidated condition of the existing building, the surface and gradient of the beach access ramp, inadequate car parking and vehicle/emergency access, visual isolation of the club building and the provision for growth (storage and meeting facilities etc).  The consultants report provided an interim development option for the existing facility at the Lagoon.  This interim option included additional storage, access, car parking and amenities.  Concern was however raised regarding the cost of this interim solution ($520,020) and the fact that it would not effectively deal with existing beach access issues.  It was noted that further discussions would be required between the relevant stakeholders to develop an alternate interim solution.

 

Discussions have since commenced with the CVJV with a view to integrating the detailed planning of the ultimate SLSC with that for the Capricorn Coastal Village, the provision of formal access through the Club Capricorn Village site and the use of mobile surf life saving facilities to provide coverage at Club Capricorn.  Discussions with the City’s Community Development Directorate indicate that planning should commence for the delivery of the new SLSC in approximately five years.  This would coordinate with the likely CVJV planning timetable for the Capricorn Coastal Village and provide sufficient lead time for sourcing grants etc that would be required for the design and construction of the facility.

 

Dual Use path connecting Compass Circle and Foreshore Vista

 

Ocean Lagoon Residential Estate in Yanchep wherein Foreshore Vista is located, was developed by Peet & Co. In a Deed dated 15 July 1996 between the City and Peet and Co., Peet and Co was required to construct a portion of the proposed dual use path connecting Foreshore Vista and Compass Circle. To date, Peet and Co has not built this dual use path. Therefore it is recommended that the list of Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions depicted in Attachment 1 be modified to include Peet and Co as one of the responsible agencies in addition to the City to carry out this action (Item No. 39).

 

Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions

 

Since adopting the draft FMP for advertising the City’s Technical Services Directorate has been renamed Infrastructure, it is therefore recommended that suitable modifications be made to the Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions contained in Attachment 1 to replace Technical Services with Infrastructure where appropriate.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan is consistent with the following City of Wanneroo Strategic Plan (2002-2005) goals and strategies:

 

          “Environmental Sustainability

          1.1 Conserve and enhance environmental assets

 

          Healthy Communities

          2.6 Provide and manage infrastructure to meet the needs of our community”

The preparation of a comprehensive FMP is also consistent with the City’s Local Environmental Strategy.  In particular, it addresses Action Item 18 - ‘Review Foreshore Management Plans’.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The draft FMP makes recommendations for a series of administrative, capital and ongoing management works within the study area. The adoption and implementation of the FMP will therefore have financial implications for the City. The FMP will, however, provide a framework for undertaking works and a basis for the preparation of the City’s capital works program, annual budgets and for funding submissions.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

EndStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ADOPTS the management strategies and plans contained within the draft Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan as outlined in Attachments 1 to 6 of this report subject to the following modifications:

a)      the concept plan for the northern part of the Yanchep Lagoon being modified to accommodate the revised alignment of Brazier Road generally as shown in Attachment 7;

b)      the relocation of the car parking area on Foreshore Vista to the access way located between Tarwhine Turn and Longfin Vista and to formalise this access way;

c)       reduction in the number of proposed beach access ways on the foreshore adjoining Capricorn Coastal Village Structure Plan area to a spacing of around 200 metres;

d)      reference to the new Surf Life Saving Club under item 32 in the Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions being altered to read ‘Planning and establishment of a new Surf Life Saving Club in the vicinity of the Club Capricorn Groyne, noting that the detailed location and design of the facility should integrate with the planning for the adjacent Capricorn Coastal Village.’  Timing for this action should be altered to medium priority, being 2-5 years.

e)       reference to Technical Services in the Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions being replaced with reference to Infrastructure;

f)       reference being made to Peet and Co in the Recommended Foreshore Management Plan Actions as one of the responsible agencies to construct the dual use path connecting Foreshore Vista and Compass Circle in Yanchep.

2.       FORWARDS copy of the Two Rocks Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan as amended above to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its endorsement.

EndOfRecommendation - This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

 

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 5

 

RECOMMENDED FORESHORE MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS

 

Each of the recommended actions have been assigned a priority and responsibility for implementation.  The priority rating system applicable is as follows:

 

·                 High [H]            primary importance/implement immediately (within 2 years)

·                 Medium [M]      secondary importance/implement within 2 – 5 years 

·                 Low [L]             longer term consideration/implement within 5 years plus

 

The primary responsibility for implementing or overseeing implementation of each recommended action is also nominated.   The key for symbols used in the table is as follows:

 

·                 PD                     Planning and Development

·                 TS                      Technical Services

·                 CD                     Community Development

·                 CS                      Corporate Services

·                 CVJV                Capricorn Coastal Village Joint Venture

 

General Recommendations (Applicable to the entire Study Area)

 

 

 

Specific Recommendations

 

Two Rock North

 

No	Proposal	Priority	Responsibility
23	Complete the existing investigation into the likely extent of erosion north of the marina and the potential management strategies to address this.	H	TS

 

ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 5     24	Following the outcome of the above study review the appropriateness of additional beach access ways through this part of the foreshore.	M	PD
25	Provide a 2.5 metre wide dual use path on the western side of Sovereign Drive.	H	TS
26	Provide a shower at the northern beach access way	H	TS
27	Replace the ‘Dog Exercise Area’ signs with more visually sympathetic signage	H	TS

 

Two Rocks South

 

No	Proposal	Priority	Responsibility
28	Prepare and implement landscape concept plans for a Leemans Boat Landing picnic/recreation area including provision for an expansion of the existing car park, upgrade of the existing toilet facility and memorial, the conversion of the existing drainage sump into a landscaped swale, pathways and a range of recreation/picnic facilities.	M	PD
29	Provide a 2.5 metre wide dual use path along the foreshore as shown on the concept plans	M	TS
30	Provide two beach access ways, including associated car parking, lookouts, signage, bins and bike racks, as shown on the concept plans	H	TS

 

Yanchep North

 

No	Proposal	Priority	Responsibility
31	Prepare and implement landscape concept plans for the two picnic/recreation areas	M	CVJV
32	Establishment of a new Surf Life Saving Club adjacent to the Club Capricorn Groyne.	L	CD
33	Provide a 2.5 metre wide dual use path along the foreshore as shown on The concept plans	L	CVJV
34	Provide beach access ways, including associated car parking, lookouts, signage, bins and bike racks, as shown on The concept plans	M	CVJV
35	Provide clear interface between private housing lots and the foreshore reserve and rehabilitate adjacent foreshore	M	TS
36	Investigate potential future uses for the Lindsay Homestead	L	CD/CVJV

 

ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 5

Yanchep South

 

No	Proposal	Priority	Responsibility
37	Provide beach access ways, including provision/upgrading of associated car parking, lookouts, signage, bins and bike racks, as shown on the concept plans	H	TS
38	Provide 2.5-metre wide dual use path along the western side of Brazier Road and Compass Circle.	M	TS
39	Provide a dual use path connecting Foreshore Vista and Compass Circle with a combination of concrete surface and boardwalk including a lookout at the Compass Circle end.	H	TS
40	Provide clear interface between private housing lots and the foreshore reserve and rehabilitate adjacent foreshore	H	TS
41	Replace the drainage sump at the entrance of the beach access way leading to the Dog Exercise Area with a swale incorporating a recreation area.	L	TS
42	Convert the existing southern beach access way off Compass Circle into a ‘Controlled Emergency Vehicular Access way’	H	TS
43	Replace the two ‘Dog Exercise Area’ signs with more visually sympathetic signage	H	TS

 

Yanchep Lagoon Area Precinct

 

44	Realign and upgrade Brazier Road including associated paths, parking bays, entry statements, barrier wall and earthworks for expanded Picnic Cove.	H	TS
45	Construct the link road to the Capricorn Coastal Village	H	CVJV
46	Development of expanded Picnic Cove	H	TS
47	Upgrading of Fisherman’s Hollow	M	TS
48	Construct new access way/car park to existing Surf Life Saving Club	H	TS
49	Construction of a beach access way meeting disabled access standards	H	TS
50	Investigate opportunities for the establishment of additional commercial/tourist facilities adjacent to the kiosk and the redevelopment of the existing Surf Life Saving Club site for commercial/community use.	M-L	CS
51	Extend the pathway system within the Lagoon area to link with pathways in the adjacent residential area sufficient to provide a network of recreational circuits.	H	TS
			ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 5
52	Construction of a viewing deck opposite Fisherman’s Hollow	H	TS
53	Construct a lookout and associated paths on the dune crest east of the kiosk	M	TS
54	Undertake an ongoing monitoring program of the water depth within the Yanchep Lagoon.	M	TS

 

 

EndOfAttachment - 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

ATTACHMENT 2

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT  3

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT 4

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT 5

 

 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

 

Delegated Authority Reports

File Ref:                                              S09/0009V01

File Name: FADevelopment Applications determined by Delegated Authority for November 2005.doc This line will not be printed

Level 3 Approval by shb Date 01 December 2005

Level 2 Approval by hw Date 01 December 2005

Level 1 Approval by hw Date 01 December 2005Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1

StartStrip This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Issue

Development Applications determined by Development and Health Services between 1 November 2005 and 30 November 2005, acting under Delegated Authority from Council.

Background

Nil

Detail

The City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme 2 (DPS2) provides Council with development approval powers which are designed to avoid conflict between different land uses on adjoining lots.  It is also necessary to ensure the completed developments meet the required standards such as building setbacks, carparking and landscaping.  Planning approvals are not generally required for single residential houses unless they seek to vary the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (RD Codes.)

 

The City of Wanneroo continues to experience very rapid growth pressures.  Since the commencement of 2005, the City has received over 112 development applications on average per month in addition to an average of over 865 building license applications.

 

Council has delegated some of its responsibilities for decision making on development applications to certain officers in Administration which enables the processing of applications within the required 60 day statutory period and within normal customer expectations.   

 

The Administration, in assessing development proposals, attempts to extract from the relevant planning documents the key policies and requirements of Council in order to make comments and recommendations on the issues raised in the assessment of each individual development application.

 

Development applications determined by Development and Health Services between 1 November 2005 and 30 November 2005, acting under Delegated Authority from Council are included in the attached Schedule 1.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

Nil

Statutory Compliance

A Delegated Authority Register was adopted by Council at its meeting on 31 August 2004 (item CE06-08/04 refers).  The decisions referred to in schedule 1 of this report are in accordance with this register.

Strategic Implications

This report is consistent with the corporate management and development goal of the City’s Strategic Plan, which seeks to establish an organisation that is open, accountable and committed to customer services.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Planning applications incur administration fees which are generally based on the Town Planning (Local Government Planning Fees) Regulations and have been adopted by Council in its annual budget.  The estimated cost of development for each application is listed in schedule 1.  Applications where an estimated cost has not been provided, are either applications for the exercising of discretion or for a change of use.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete

Recommendation

That Council NOTES the determinations made by Development and Health Services acting under delegated authority from Council on development applications processed between 1 November 2005 and 30 November 2005. 

EndOfRecommendation - This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

 

 

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0830      31/10/2005    ANTHONY C PERRIN & YVONNE A PERRIN                17                    $10,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   292 CARABOODA ROAD CARABOODA  WA  6033

                   Land            Lot 21 P 8913 Vol 1824 Fol 385

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION (GYM/HOBBY WORKSHOP)

                   Applicant       AC PERRIN

                   File Number   P06/0149V01

DA05/0768      12/10/2005    DALE R WOOD & TANYA M TRUSLOVE                     14                    $120,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   23 BEONADDY ROAD EGLINTON  WA  6034

                   Land            Lot 20 D 58811 Vol 1628 Fol 302

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE

                   Applicant       DR WOOD, TM TRUSLOVE

                   File Number   P10/0004V01

DA05/0717      30/09/2005    GAYE C BURKETT                                               29                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   3 INNES PLACE GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 769 P 10056 Vol 1320 Fol 942

                   Descriptio      HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 1 - HOME BAKING

                   Applicant       GC BURKETT

                   File Number   P11/1051V01

DA05/0800      19/10/2005    ROMEO GALANTE & MARGERITE T GALANTE            21                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   38 FRANKLIN ROAD JANDABUP  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 133 P 13145 Vol 1558 Fol 669

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 2 VEHICLES

                   Applicant       MT GALANTE, R GALANTE

                   File Number   P14/0066V01

DA05/0816      27/10/2005    TINA M BAZZO                                                    19                    $30,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   426 KINGSWAY LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 125 D 25161 Vol 1291 Fol 638

                   Descriptio      USE NOT LISTED - TEMPORARY  SALES OFFICE

                   Applicant       KOLTASZ SMITH

                   File Number   P17/0456V01

DA05/0562      02/08/2005    ZRINSKI NOMINEES PTY LTD                                 71                    $25,500.00       Approved

                   Prop address   39 MADELEY STREET LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 1271 DP 247639 Vol 1295 Fol 291

                   Descriptio      USE NOT LISTED - BULK EARTHWORKS AND ASSOCIATED CLEARING

                   Applicant       ZRINSKI NOMINEES PTY LTD

                   File Number   P17/0635V01

DA05/0792      05/10/2005    PETER E BOWRAN & DONALDA M BOWRAN              31                    $1,465.00         Approved

                   Prop address   83 LEE-STEERE DRIVE MARIGINIUP  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 14 P 12887 Vol 1538 Fol 372

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       FACTORY DIRECT

                   File Number   P20/0219V01

DA05/0537      21/07/2005    MARJORIE LIVINGSTONE                                      83                    $1,069,000.00    Approved

                   Prop address   2 ITEA PLACE MINDARIE  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 1 D 86291 Vol 2010 Fol 50

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - VARIATION TO STRUCTURE PLAN 13

                   Applicant       GRANDWOOD HOMES PTY LTD

                   File Number   P22/1684V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0574      08/08/2005    ADNAN M ZOHDY & KARIMA I ZOHDY                       21                    $100,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   49 GIRALT ROAD MARANGAROO  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 87 P 11006 Vol 1391 Fol 0627

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION

                   Applicant       ONE DESIGN & DRAFTING

                   File Number   P19/1591V01

DA04/0777.01  30/11/2005    PETER J HUNTER                                                0                     $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   4 CLARKSIDE COURT WANNEROO  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 316 P 9615 Vol 1741 Fol 403

                   Descriptio      HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 2 - DOG GROOMING & CLIPPING

                   Applicant       PJ HUNTER

                   File Number

DA05/0801      24/10/2005    NORMAN C GLOVER & ROSLYN O GLOVER              13                    $195,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   6 GLENROTHES CRESCENT YANCHEP  WA  6035

                   Land            Lot 13 P 13488 Vol 1589 Fol 523

                   Descriptio      INDUSTRIAL LIGHT - 2 UNIT ADDITION

                   Applicant       WES BLACKIE & ASSOCIATES

                   File Number   P36/1004V01

DA05/0761      10/10/2005    PINEVIEW LIFESTYLE VILLAGE PTY LTD                   32                    $10,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   PINEVIEW LIFESTYLE VILLAGE 48 ASHLEY ROAD TAPPING  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 10 D 28541 Vol 1562 Fol 467

                   Descriptio      PARK HOME PARK - CONVERT STOREROOM TO GAMESROOM

                   Applicant       R JENNINGS

                   File Number   P31/0068V01

DA05/0638      29/08/2005    No owners recorded                                             44                    $800,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   53 BERRIMAN DRIVE WANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 8 D 71578 S/P 22042

                   Descriptio      SHOWROOM X 3 & FACTORY UNIT

                   Applicant       VAN DER MEER CONSULTING

                   File Number   P33/0449

DA05/0765      14/10/2005    CARJON HOLDINGS (WA) PTY LTD, KATHLEEN T       12                    $70,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   ATLANTIS VILLAGE 8 ENTERPRISE AVENUE TWO ROCKS  WA  6037

                   Land            Lot 51 D 67042 Vol 1685 Fol 954

                   Descriptio      CHANGE OF USE -  RESTAURANT TO  RESTAURANT, INCIDENTAL TAKE-AWAY FOOD

                   Applicant       T GREEN

                   File Number   P32/0293V01

DA05/0728      03/10/2005    EVERBLUE INVESTMENTS AND BUTLER HOLDINGS    25                    $35,650.00       Approved

                   Prop address   28 KILN ROAD NOWERGUP  WA  6032

                   Land            Lot 103 D 71107 Vol 1754 Fol 593

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO & CARPORT ADDITIONS

                   Applicant       WESTRAL OUTDOOR

                   File Number   P24/0049V01

DA05/0736      04/10/2005    BARRY FIRTH & JANE FIRTH                                  15                    $9,740.00         Approved

                   Prop address   5 MEADOWLANDS DRIVE MARIGINIUP  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 1866 DP 110187 Vol 1849 Fol 935

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       SUNWISE PATIOS

                   File Number   P20/0187V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0849      01/11/2005    TOBY M RISEBOROUGH & NASSINGTON PTY LTD      16                    $1,500.00         Approved

                   Prop address   59 SAFARI PLACE CARABOODA  WA  6033

                   Land            Lot 11 D 41471 Vol 1638 Fol 625

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - SWIMMING POOL ADDITION

                   Applicant       K WALLIS

                   File Number   P06/0007V01

DA05/0655      05/09/2005    P & N WOODCOCK PTY LTD                                  43                    $10.00             Approved

                   Prop address   BOTANIC GOLF 25 DROVERS PLACE WANNEROO  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 4 P 7782 Vol 1291 Fol 197

                   Descriptio      RESTAURANT - ADDITION OF OUTDOOR JAZZ MUSIC

                   Applicant       P & N WOODCOCK PTY LTD

                   File Number   P34/0273V01

DA05/0421      14/06/2005    PAUL A GWILLIAM                                               65                    $5,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   1 SPENCE ROAD PINJAR  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 2 D 57378 Vol 1560 Fol 670

                   Descriptio      CHANGE OF USE - EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITY TO INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE (ABOVE

                   Applicant       PA GWILLIAM

                   File Number   P26/0047V01

DA05/0674      12/09/2005    SATWANT S BASSAN & REKHA S BASSAN                 47                    $1,000,000.00    Approved

                   Prop address   11 PRIEST ROAD LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 11 D 86742 Vol 2016 Fol 736

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 10 UNITS

                   Applicant       SUMMIT PROJECTS

                   File Number   P17/0361V01

DA05/0661      07/09/2005    ANDREW S WHITTLE & JOANNA I WHITTLE              16                    $250,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   2 LURGAN PLACE MERRIWA  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 391 D 74627 Vol 1828 Fol 576

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       A WHITTLE

                   File Number   P21/0701V01

DA05/0705      27/09/2005    ANTE MUSULIN & BRANKA MUSULIN                        37                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   6 WELWYN AVENUE YANCHEP  WA  6035

                   Land            Lot 13460 D 75866 Vol 2188 Fol 977

                   Descriptio      CHANGE OF USE - SHOWROOM/OFFICE/WAREHOUSE TO LIQUOR STORE

                   Applicant       ALLERDING BURGESS

                   File Number   P36/0021V01

DA05/0613      22/08/2005    REMA L WEBSTER                                               63                    $2,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   53A THE AVENUE ALEXANDER HEIGHTS  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 1 Vol 1792 Fol 741 S/P 15856

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ENCLOSURE

                   Applicant       A AMOROSO

                   File Number   P01/1258V01

DA05/0695      19/09/2005    WYNNIE CHU                                                     24                    $6,600.00         Approved

                   Prop address   3B TENDRING WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 1 Vol 2524 Fol 12 S/P 42295

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO AND CARPORT ADDITION (UNIT  3B)

                   Applicant       HERITAGE OUTDOOR

                   File Number   P11/0175V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0807      13/10/2005    LINDA S FRERK                                                   17                    $3,400.00         Approved

                   Prop address   JARRAH MEWS 13F CALVERT WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 3 Vol 2516 Fol 318 S/P 41547

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION TO UNIT 13F

                   Applicant       SWAN PATIOS

                   File Number   P11/0007V01

DA05/0742      06/10/2005    JOANNE NORTON                                               25                    $2,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   6D CONNELL WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 11 Vol 1965 Fol 873 S/P 24554

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       SERENITY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P11/0883V01

DA05/0890      21/11/2005    STUART J ENGLAND                                            7                     $1,673.00         Approved

                   Prop address   24A CONNELL WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 9 Vol 2583 Fol 527 S/P 46241

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 24A)

                   Applicant       FACTORY DIRECT

                   File Number   P11/1068V01

DA05/0783      18/10/2005    ARTHUR J VAN ROSSUM                                      24                    $4,490.00         Approved

                   Prop address   16B CASSERLEY AVENUE GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 28 Vol 2072 Fol 628 S/P 29148

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       WESTRAL OUTDOOR

                   File Number   P11/0884V01

DA05/0730      03/10/2005    ANNA M BUCKLEY                                               20                    $5,204.00         Approved

                   Prop address   26A CAMBRIAN MALL ALEXANDER HEIGHTS  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 1 Vol 1874 Fol 946 S/P 19648

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       THORN ROOFING CONTRACTORS

                   File Number   P01/0271V01

DA05/0852      03/11/2005    KYM F MCOMISH                                                 19                    $3,960.00         Approved

                   Prop address   WESTBROOK MEWS 7/17 WESTBROOK WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 26 Vol 2559 Fol 278 S/P 44797

                   Descriptio      GROUPED  DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       HALF PRICE PATIOS

                   File Number   P11/0453V01

DA05/0856      09/11/2005    GRAHAME L HARDWICK & MARIA L HARDWICK          12                    $4,686.00         Approved

                   Prop address   TALLOW ROW 15B SHALFORD WAY GIRRAWHEEN  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 19 Vol 2522 Fol 319 S/P 42046

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - SHED ADDITION

                   Applicant       HIGHLINE LTD

                   File Number   P11/0125V01

DA05/0604      16/08/2005    MINDARIE KEYS JOINT VENTURE                           67                    $280,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   MINDARIE KEYS RESORT HOTEL 33 OCEAN FALLS BOULEVARD MINDARIE  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 64 P 17107

                   Descriptio      USE NOT LISTED - BOARDWALK

                   Applicant       MINDARIE KEYS JOINT VENTURE

                   File Number   P22/0204V02

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0805      25/10/2005    PERCIVAL J CHARLESWORTH & ANDREA B               17                    $5,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   63 MARANGAROO DRIVE MARANGAROO  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 3 Vol 1798 Fol 399 S/P 16069

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       AB CHARLESWORTH, PJ CHARLESWORTH

                   File Number   P19/0178V01

DA05/0737      06/10/2005    BRONWYN R CARRUTHERS & WILLIAM M                 21                    $12,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   41 COLONIAL CIRCLE GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 214 P 17238 Vol 1858 Fol 819

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION AND 1 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING

                   Applicant       WM CARRUTHERS

                   File Number   P12/0241V01

DA04/0365.01  26/10/2005    DAC REFRIGERATION PTY LTD & STEPHEN A            14                    $1.00              Approved

                   Prop address   57 CHALLENGE BOULEVARD WANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 55 P 17245 Vol 1860 Fol 516

                   Descriptio      VEHICLE SALES/HIRE PREMISES - WORKSHOP ADDITION

                   Applicant       N FLEET

                   File Number   P33/0238V01

DA05/0879      16/11/2005    GABOR SEKE                                                     10                    $8,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   57 MOONDYNE TRAIL GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 30 P 18318 Vol 1925 Fol 078

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE-PATIO ADDITION - SPECIAL RURAL

                   Applicant       G SEKE

                   File Number   P12/0199V01

DA05/0767      13/10/2005    STEPHEN J DESMOND, NATALIE J DESMOND, GAIL    18                    $16,500.00       Approved

                   Prop address   84 MOONDYNE TRAIL GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 37 P 18318 Vol 1925 Fol 082

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SWIMMING POOL ADDITION

                   Applicant       SAPPHIRE POOLS - WELSHPOOL

                   File Number   P12/0076V01

DA05/0778      17/10/2005    MERNA T MURGATROYD                                      11                    $5,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   18 STARLIGHT GROVE GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 27 P 18318 Vol 1925 Fol 075

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION

                   Applicant       OUTDOOR WORLD

                   File Number   P12/0089V01

DA05/0863      09/11/2005    LINDA M BOX & MALCOLM BOX                              9                     $3,960.00         Approved

                   Prop address   19B WHITNEY PLACE ALEXANDER HEIGHTS  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 2 Vol 1932 Fol 845 S/P 22745

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       MIDLAND OUTDOOR CENTRE

                   File Number   P01/0374V01

DA05/0451      22/06/2005    ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHHOLY TRINITY        56                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   KOONDOOLA SHOP H1 34 KOONDOOLA AVENUE KOONDOOLA  WA  6064

                   Land            Lot 8 Vol 1516 Fol 725 S/P 6328

                   Descriptio      CHANGE OF USE - SHOP TO PLACE OF WORSHIP

                   Applicant       D BUCUR

                   File Number   P16/0309V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0862      10/11/2005    HOMESWEST RENTALS                                        8                     $1,309.00         Approved

                   Prop address   16/88 ERRINA ROAD ALEXANDER HEIGHTS  WA  6064

                   Land            Part Lot 621 D 80451

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       GEOFFS TIMBER CREATIONS

                   File Number   p01/1331v01

DA05/0729      05/10/2005    JENNIFER AA WIGMORE & ROBIN WIGMORE            14                    $3,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   143 TAPPING WAY QUINNS ROCKS  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 1 Vol 2541 Fol 221 S/P 43115

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL)

                   Applicant       R WIGMORE

                   File Number   P27/0992V01

DA05/0697      22/09/2005    SIEU L QUACH & RAYMOND WONG                         32                    $10,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   251 BADGERUP ROAD WANNEROO  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 259 P 20358 Vol 2027 Fol 181

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       R WONG

                   File Number   P34/2317V01

DA05/0823      28/10/2005    MICHAEL H HOWARD & WILHELMINA H HOWARD      6                     $1,600.00         Approved

                   Prop address   291 BADGERUP ROAD WANNEROO  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 253 P 20358 Vol 2027 Fol 175

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       FACTORY DIRECT

                   File Number   P34/0092V01

DA05/0777      13/10/2005    MEREDITH M CAMPBELL                                       34                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   3 KOLOR COURT CARRAMAR  WA  6031

                   Land            Lot 319 P 20833 Vol 2053 Fol 309

                   Descriptio      HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 2 - HAIRDRESSING

                   Applicant       MM CAMPBELL

                   File Number   P07/0921V01

DA05/0722      03/10/2005    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PERTH             23                    $13,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   IRENE MCCORMACK COLLEGE 18 BRADMAN DRIVE BUTLER  WA  6036

                   Land            Lot 101 P 20990 Vol 2079 Fol 607

                   Descriptio      EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT  -  3 TRANSPORTABLE CLASSROOMS  (IRENE

                   Applicant       PARRY & ROSENTHAL ARCHITECTS

                   File Number   P05/0126V01

DA05/0649      02/09/2005    CHISHOLM HOLDINGS PTY LTD                             44                    $25,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   MIXED BUSINESS-PROPOSED 10 HUGHIE EDWARDS DRIVE MERRIWA  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 1601 D 90254 Vol 2201 Fol 843

                   Descriptio      CHANGE OF USE - WAREHOUSE SHOWROOM TO RECREATION CENTRE

                   Applicant       STONEWALL CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P21/0557V01

DA05/0870      15/11/2005    GLYNIS BROWN & RUSSELL P BROWN                    11                    $15,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   4 THE FAIRWAYS GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 510 P 21845 Vol 2095 Fol 413

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - GAZEBO & CARPORT ADDITION

                   Applicant       RP BROWN

                   File Number   p12/0249v01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0908      23/11/2005    CARMELO IOPPOLO                                            5                     $9,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   SUBDIVIDED 10 CAPORN STREET SINAGRA  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 1 D 21467

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       ONE STOP PATIO SHOP

                   File Number   P29/0057V01

DA05/0616      19/08/2005    CLARKSON SHOPPING CENTRE PTY LTD                 9                     $835,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   OCEAN KEYS SHOPPING CENTRE 36 OCEAN KEYS BOULEVARD CLARKSON  WA 

                   Land            Lot 406 P 23838 Vol 2183 Fol 315

                   Descriptio      SHOP/RESTAURANT - STAGE 2A

                   Applicant       TAYLOR ROBINSON

                   File Number   P/0020V03

DA05/0763      10/10/2005    MCDONALD'S PROPERTIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD     30                    $25,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   973 WANNEROO ROAD WANNEROO  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 996 D 99814

                   Descriptio      DRIVE-THROUGH FOOD OUTLET - CUSTOMER ORDER UNIT ADDITION

                   Applicant       MCDONALD'S PROPERTIES (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

                   File Number   PA5/0098V01

DA05/0867      14/11/2005    RAAFA ASSOCIATION INC                                     8                     $1,980.00         Approved

                   Prop address   CAMBRAI VILLAGE 85 HESTER AVENUE MERRIWA  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 12 P 24265 Vol 2202 Fol 109

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION UNIT 1

                   Applicant       POULTER INSTALLATIONS

                   File Number   P21/0080V01

DA05/0714      30/09/2005    JUSTIN SONIA PTY LTD                                        27                    $240,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   19 SOVRANO AVENUE MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 104 DP 24491

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING -  2 UNITS

                   Applicant       STIRLING HOMES PTY LTD

                   File Number   P18/1075V01

DA05/0794      13/10/2005    CHERYL L LARMONT & DARREN LARMONT               26                    $19,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   3 EMERALD DRIVE CARABOODA  WA  6033

                   Land            Lot 101 DP 24938 Vol 2205 Fol 799

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION

                   Applicant       D LARMONT

                   File Number   P06/0052V01

DA05/0735      06/10/2005    DARREN E POTTER, MELISSA M POTTER, ROBERT    32                    $200.00           Approved

                   Prop address   64 JADE LOOP CARABOODA  WA  6033

                   Land            Lot 19 DP 24941 Vol 2205 Fol 826

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - EXTENSION OF BUILDING ENVELOPE

                   Applicant       RA FORD

                   File Number   P06/0036V01

DA05/0893      21/11/2005    SANDHURST TRUSTEES LIMITED                           7                     $4,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   RIDGEWOOD RISE 76 RIDGEWOOD BOULEVARD RIDGEWOOD  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 714 P 24003 Vol 2206 Fol 794

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 7)

                   Applicant       J & E INDUSTRIES

                   File Number   P28/0134V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0749      12/10/2005    ANGELIQUE G CRAIG & MARK G CRAIG                   18                    $5,500.00         Approved

                   Prop address   51 THE FAIRWAYS GNANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 51 DP 25805 Vol 2503 Fol 39

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       MG CRAIG, AG CRAIG

                   File Number   P12/0034V01

DA03/0726.02  19/08/2005    MCPBB PTY LTD                                                  68                    $30,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   45 MOTIVATION DRIVE WANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 307 DP 25979 Vol 2215 Fol 635

                   Descriptio      WAREHOUSE - 4 UNITS - PATIO ADDITION TO CARPARK

                   Applicant       SEACREST HOMES

                   File Number   P33/0217V01

DA05/0776      18/10/2005    JASON PETTY                                                    22                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   41 MONAGHAN CIRCLE DARCH  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 197 DP 27702 Vol 2509 Fol 584

                   Descriptio      HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 2 - MASSAGE

                   Applicant       J ESPINOS

                   File Number   P09/0016V01

DA05/0648      02/09/2005    ABDUL S SHARIF & PAULA A SHARIF                        43                    $0.00              Approved

                   Prop address   75 BRIGHTLANDS CIRCUIT CARRAMAR  WA  6031

                   Land            Lot 1834 DP 34125 Vol 2533 Fol 272

                   Descriptio      HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 2 - BEAUTY THERAPY

                   Applicant       PA SHARIF

                   File Number   P07/0363V01

DA05/0755      14/10/2005    DAYLIEN PTY LTD                                                25                    $12,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   6/30 PARAMOUNT DRIVE WANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 6 Vol 2538 Fol 650 S/P 43365

                   Descriptio      FACTORY UNIT - SECURITY COMPOUND ADDITION

                   Applicant       JBT CORP

                   File Number   P33/0127V01

DA05/0796      21/10/2005    CHANTELLE E JESSETT & DARREN S LYFIELD           19                    $12,000.00       Approved

                   Prop address   29 BUSHWOOD FOLLOW TWO ROCKS  WA  6037

                   Land            Lot 75 DP 38231 Vol 2549 Fol 025

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE -  SHED ADDITION

                   Applicant       DS LYFIELD, CE JESSETT

                   File Number   P32/0398V01

DA05/0804      18/10/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               31                    $2,545.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 7 VISCOUNT LOOP MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 21 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION - UNIT 21

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTION

                   File Number   P18/0770V01

DA05/0694      22/09/2005    CARL R NICHOLAS & RUTH D NICHOLAS                  27                    $100.00           Approved

                   Prop address   16 CARRAMAR ROAD CARRAMAR  WA  6031

                   Land            Lot 2113 DP 36914 Vol 2551 Fol 092

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATION

                   Applicant       CR NICHOLAS

                   File Number   P07/0753V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0687      16/09/2005    KATIE D BROWN & CHRISTOPHER J BROWN            25                    $129,167.00      Approved

                   Prop address   KATIES KATTERY 38 GIBBS ROAD NOWERGUP  WA  6032

                   Land            Lot 55 DP 39897

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE

                   Applicant       JAXON CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

                   File Number   P24/0033V01

DA05/0842      02/11/2005    FIONA H DI PRINZIO & SANDRO DI PRINZIO              11                    $9,000.00         Approved

                   Prop address   118 HARVEST CIRCLE TWO ROCKS  WA  6037

                   Land            Lot 95 DP 39433 Vol 2559 Fol 422

                   Descriptio      SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION

                   Applicant       FH DI PRINZIO, S DI PRINZIO

                   File Number   P32/0525V01

DA05/0791      19/10/2005    ALESSANDRO V ALESSI, ANTONIETTA COTTONE,      24                    $109,090.00      Approved

                   Prop address   9 HANSEN VISTA LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 16 DP 40063 Vol 2561 Fol 770

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - SECOND DWELLING

                   Applicant       C&S COTTONE

                   File Number   P17/1177V01

DA05/0858      09/11/2005    PETER L YGONIA & TERESITA V YGONIA                  15                    $191,548.00      Approved

                   Prop address   56 LOCKEPORT APPROACH MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 386 DP 39577 Vol 2563 Fol 766

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2ND DWELLING

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (IN-VOGUE)

                   File Number   P18/1183V01

DA05/0845      07/11/2005    LEANOR F HILL                                                   8                     $110,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   2 CHESTERFIELD AVENUE HOCKING  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 491 DP 42362 Vol 2575 Fol 413

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2ND DWELLING

                   Applicant       LF HILL

                   File Number   P13/0855V01

DA05/0872      14/11/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               12                    $3,150.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 20 BARON LOOP MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 142 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 142)

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P18/1202V01

DA05/0718      03/10/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               13                    $3,109.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 44 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 162 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION - UNIT 162

                   Applicant       THORN ROOFING CONTRACTORS

                   File Number   P18/1035V01

DA05/0902      21/11/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               7                     $4,586.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 49 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 80 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION TO UNIT 80

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

                   File Number

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0820      24/10/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               22                    $2,392.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 55 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 83 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION TO UNIT 83

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P18/0910V01

DA05/0874      14/11/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               12                    $1,847.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 59 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 85 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 85)

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P18/1201V01

DA05/0622      22/08/2005    ZEBRA PROPERTIES PTY LTD & P & N LANDREACH    8                     $100,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   127 TWO ROCKS ROAD TWO ROCKS  WA  6037

                   Land            Lot 501 DP 39466 Vol 2098 Fol 906

                   Descriptio      USE NOT LISTED - BULK EARTHWORKS - STAGE 2

                   Applicant       EWING CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS PTY LTD

                   File Number   P33/0129V01

DA05/0756      14/10/2005    NATIONAL LIFESTYLE VILLAGES                             12                    $6,000.00         Refused

                   Prop address   JOONDALUP LIFESTYLE VILLAGE 1140 WANNEROO ROAD ASHBY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 100 DP 39760

                   Descriptio      CARAVAN PARK - PATIO ENCLOSURE (UNIT 364)

                   Applicant       A SIMPSON

                   File Number   P03/0021V01

DA05/0618      22/08/2005    CARMEL LUCA, COSIMO LUCA, BRETT D SUANN,       66                    $1,500,000.00    Approved

                   Prop address   85 ANCHORAGE DRIVE MINDARIE  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 525 DP 43615 Vol 2584 Fol 127

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 7 TWO STOREY UNITS

                   Applicant       C LUCA

                   File Number   P22/1588V01

DA05/0873      14/11/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               12                    $2,858.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 35 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 73 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 73)

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   P18/1199V01

DA05/0798      17/10/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               11                    $5,430.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 15 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 104 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (LOT 104)

                   Applicant       THORN ROOFING CONTRACTORS

                   File Number   P18/1112V01

DA05/0871      14/11/2005    BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP                               12                    $2,513.00         Approved

                   Prop address   KINGSWAY COURT 14 IMPERIAL CIRCUIT MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 103 Sec 114 DP 36095

                   Descriptio      RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 114)

                   Applicant       PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

                   File Number   p18/1200v01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0731      05/10/2005    CRAIG WALSH & JOANNE WALSH                           20                    $4,500.00         Approved

                   Prop address   48 MATTA WAY PEARSALL  WA  6065

                   Land            Part Lot 740 DP 43686

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

                   Applicant       H BUDDING

                   File Number   P25/0574V01

DA05/0760      03/10/2005    HOMER HOLDINGS PTY LTD & MALAGA                   40                    $500,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   53 INSPIRATION DRIVE WANGARA  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 306 DP 45312 Vol 2599 Fol 643

                   Descriptio      WAREHOUSE - 3 UNITS, FACTORY UNIT - 1 UNIT  AND LUNCH BAR

                   Applicant       CALIBRE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

                   File Number   P33/0489V01

DA05/0782      20/10/2005    RENEE L MASTRANGELO                                      21                    $260,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   31 SISTINA ROAD ASHBY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 133 DP 45436 Vol 2601 Fol 008

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       J MASTRANGELO

                   File Number   P03/0601V01

DA05/0715      30/09/2005    PHILIP A HURRELL                                               26                    $202,636.00      Approved

                   Prop address   24 GOSFORD MEANDER ASHBY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 284 DP 45440 Vol 2599 Fol 886

                   Descriptio      GROUPED  DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       DANMAR HOMES

                   File Number   P03/0628V01

DA05/0725      03/10/2005    PHILIP A HURRELL & YUET C IP                              18                    $503,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   19 GOSFORD MEANDER ASHBY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 288 DP 45440 Vol 2599 Fol 890

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 4 UNITS

                   Applicant       DANMAR HOMES

                   File Number   P03/0672V01

DA05/0758      07/10/2005    ROBIN P AINSWORTH & PAULA J AINSWORTH          23                    $211,727.00      Approved

                   Prop address   18 GOSFORD MEANDER ASHBY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 290 DP 45440 Vol 2599 Fol 892

                   Descriptio      GROUPED  DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       DANMAR HOMES

                   File Number   P03/0615V01

DA05/0711      29/09/2005    DERRICK V D'SOUZA                                            27                    $208,309.00      Approved

                   Prop address   4 GRACELAND AVENUE LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 259 DP 46214

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (IN-VOGUE)

                   File Number   P17/1144V01

DA05/0710      29/09/2005    ANITA J PATEL                                                    21                    $220,047.00      Approved

                   Prop address   8 IDAHO COURT LANDSDALE  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 264 DP 46214 Vol 2601 Fol 963

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (IN-VOGUE)

                   File Number   P17/1140V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0771      10/10/2005    HOMESWEST RENTALS                                        20                    $600,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   SUBDIVIDED 650 CONNOLLY DRIVE CLARKSON  WA  6030

                   Land            Lot 9037 DP 46798

                   Descriptio      DISPLAY HOME CENTRE - 6 DISPLAY HOMES AND ASSOCIATED CAR-PARKING

                   Applicant       TAYLOR BURRELL BARNETT

                   File Number   P08/0789V01

DA05/0741      06/10/2005    ARTURO RODI                                                    22                    $209,090.00      Approved

                   Prop address   11 EASTCLIFF STREET MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 682 DP 47160

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       A RODI

                   File Number   P18/1044V01

DA05/0766      11/10/2005    ARTURO RODI                                                    27                    $209,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   5 EASTCLIFF STREET MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 715 DP 47160

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       MF RODI

                   File Number   P18/1085V01

DA05/0764      11/10/2005    ARTURO RODI                                                    25                    $209,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   11 TAMBORA BEND MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 720 DP 47160

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       MF RODI

                   File Number   P18/1084V01

DA05/0740      04/10/2005    ARTURO RODI                                                    22                    $209,090.00      Approved

                   Prop address   25 DENVER AVENUE MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 739 DP 47160

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       A RODI

                   File Number   P18/1043V01

DA05/0739      06/10/2005    ARTURO RODI                                                    20                    $218,181.00      Approved

                   Prop address   8 DENVER AVENUE MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 9002 DP 47160

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - SECOND DWELLING

                   Applicant       A RODI

                   File Number   P18/0964V01

DA05/0826      28/10/2005    PAUL D MATTHEWS & JENNIFER MATTHEWS            23                    $250,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   41 DENVER AVENUE MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 743 DP 47161 Vol 2606 Fol 237

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       DANMAR HOMES

                   File Number   P18/1125V01

DA05/0780      18/10/2005    WATSON PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD                    22                    $181,818.18      Approved

                   Prop address   52 COOPER STREET MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 611 DP 46620 Vol 2601 Fol 001

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       TRENPRIDE HOLDINGS

                   File Number   P18/0148V01

  Development Applications determined for Period                City of Wanneroo

  WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/11/2005 00:00:00 AND 30/11/2005

Note:  Estimated cost not provided on applications for use only or where a flat fee is applicable

  Ram Id           Date                 Owners                                                            Days                Est Cost  Decision

DA05/0864      10/11/2005    D B PROMINENT HOMES PTY LTD                           14                    $400,000.00      Approved

                   Prop address   56 MARTINDALE AVENUE MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 613 DP 46620 Vol 2604 Fol 3

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       D B PROMINENT HOMES PTY LTD

                   File Number   P15/1048V01

DA05/0851      08/11/2005    XTREME HOLDINGS PTY LTD                                 10                    $243,319.00      Approved

                   Prop address   58 COOPER STREET MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 614 DP 46620 Vol 2604 Fol 004

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (IN-VOGUE)

                   File Number   P18/1143V01

DA05/0829      31/10/2005    XTREME HOLDINGS PTY LTD                                 16                    $257,729.00      Approved

                   Prop address   60 COOPER STREET MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 615 DP 46620 Vol 2604 Fol 005

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (IN-VOGUE)

                   File Number   P18/1127V01

DA05/0753      07/10/2005    GARY J WOODFORD & ANNE WOODFORD              22                    $220,111.00      Approved

                   Prop address   26 OLIVEDALE ROAD MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 637 DP 46620 Vol 2604 Fol 27

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       JWH GROUP (METRO STYLE)

                   File Number   P18/1050V01

DA05/0779      18/10/2005    WATSON PROPERTY GROUP PTY LTD                    24                    $181,818.18      Approved

                   Prop address   15 OLIVEDALE ROAD MADELEY  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 653 DP 46620 Vol 2604 Fol 041

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       TRENDPRIDE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

                   File Number   P18/1045V01

DA05/0886      18/11/2005    LAGOON INVESTMENTS PTY LTD                           8                     $251,810.00      Approved

                   Prop address   1 WATKINS LOOP TAPPING  WA  6065

                   Land            Lot 80 DP 44612

                   Descriptio      GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

                   Applicant       GEMMILL HOMES PTY LTD

                   File Number   P31/1255V01

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed