Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 104 signatories from people in the Carramar area supporting the application for the Carramar Family Pub and Restaurant proposed for the corner of Cheriton and Joondalup Drives, Carramar.

UPDATE

Report responding to the petition should be presented to the 5 June meeting of Council.

PT07-04/07 Improve Condition of Gnangara Road

Cr Treby presented a petition of 210 signatories seeking a general improvement to the condition of Gnangara Road.

UPDATE

Report responding to the petition should be presented to the 5 June meeting of Council.

PT08-04/07 Redevelopment of Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks

Cr Roberts presented a petition of 159 signatories supporting the redevelopment of Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks according to the plans submitted by the City of Wanneroo in late 2006.

UPDATE

Council endorsed a concept design for the development of Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks at its meeting on 24 April 2007 (Item IN07-04/07 refers). The petitioners will be advised of Council's decision and supported with a copy of the endorsed concept design.

Item 8 Reports

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

Planning and Development

Town Planning Schemes and Structure Plans

PD01-05/07 Modification to Proposed Amendment No 20 – East Wanneroo Structure Plan – Cell 6, Agreed Structure Plan 8

File Ref: SP/0007/20/V01

File Name: BA Modification To Proposed Amendment N0 20 East Wanneroo Structure Plan Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan 8.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Brian Evans

Meeting Date: 24 April 2007

Attachments: 2

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

Issue

To consider the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) determination of Amendment No. 20 to Agreed Structure Plan 8.

Applicant	Chappell & Lambert Planning Consultants
Owner	Patanal Pty Ltd
Location	Lots 992-996 & 370 Rufus Parkway & 978 Kingsway, Madeley; and Lots 935, 936, 954 & 957-960 Wicklow Circle & 952 Westport Parade, Darch
Site Area	8,840m²
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development

Background

Council at its meeting of 21 November 2006 resolved to adopt proposed Amendment No. 20 to the East Wanneroo Agreed Structure Plan No.8, subject to modification and the document was forwarded to the WAPC for final adoption and certification. Attachment 1 shows the Density Recoding Plan as submitted by the applicant. Attachment 2 shows the modified Density Recoding Plan adopted by Council. The WAPC considered the matter and resolved to adopt the amendment as submitted by the applicant.

Detail

Pursuant to Clause 9.6.3 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) has resolved to adopt the abovementioned structure plan amendment subject to modification.

The WAPC modification supports the amendment as initially submitted and consequently is in conflict with the Council intent to remove the proposed density recoding of Lots 992-996 & 370 Rufus Parkway from R20 to R40 from the amendment.

Consultation

Further public consultation is not required.

Smart Growth Strategy

The City’s Smart Growth Strategy identifies “Lifestyle and Housing Choice” as one of its six principles. This principle seeks to create a variety of housing types and the enhancement of lifestyle options. The City’s Local Housing Strategy, which has been adopted 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…”. Several of the key actions for Smart Growth encourage higher densities around key community infrastructure.

Comment

The Council modification to the amendment was in recognition of the concerns raised by the residents within the immediate area. The WAPC have dismissed the matters raised in the public submissions in terms of meeting the broader objectives of housing diversity, higher density in close proximity to public facilities and amenity such as parks in accordance with the directions contained in the Commission’s Policy documents (Residential Subdivision / Liveable Neighbourhoods).

Part 9 of DPS 2 provides no direction on how to deal with a matter where the Council and the WAPC hold opposing views. Under Clauses 9.6.3 and 9.6.5 the consent and agreement of both the Council and the WAPC is required, however the Scheme is silent where the two parties are not in agreement. Council has the option to either accept the decision of the WAPC or not progress the amendment to finalisation. It is recommended that Council requests the WAPC to reconsider its position not to modify the amendment as proposed by Council and in light of the submissions received during the consultation period.

Statutory Compliance

The proposed amendment to the ASP has followed the statutory process outlined in Part 9 of DPS No 2.

Strategic Implications

Consideration of this amendment is consistent with the Social Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006-2021 :

“2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

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

Recommendation

That Council REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission to reconsider its recommendation in light of the submissions received opposed to the change and Council’s support for the density coding of Lots 992-996 and 370 Rufus Parkway to remain R20.

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

PD02-05/07 Close of Advertising for Proposed Amendment No 68 to District Planning Scheme No 2: Various Rezoning in Alkimos/Eglinton, Butler and Banksia Grove

File Ref: TPS/0068V01

File Name: BA Close of Advertising Proposed Amendment No 68 to the District Planning Scheme No 2 Various rezoning in Alkimos .doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Timothy Dawson

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 2

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

Issue

To consider proposed Amendment No.68 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2) to rezone areas in the localities of Alkimos, Eglinton, Butler and Banksia Grove from Centre, General Rural, Private Clubs/Recreation zones and the unzoned areas to Urban Development Zone.

Background

Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendments 1029/33 relating to rezoning of some areas in Alkimos-Eglinton and 1097/33A relating to the realignment of the Other Regional Roads reservations for Marmion Avenue, Butler and Pinjar Road, Banksia Grove took effect from 23 June and 7 July 2006 respectively.

Under the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the City’s DPS2 was required to be made consistent with the amended MRS. Council at its meeting of 19 September 2006 (refer Item PD02-09/06), resolved to prepare Amendment No.68 to DPS2 and advertise it for a period of 42 days. The DPS2 amendment proposes to rezone areas of Alkimos, Eglinton, Butler and Banksia Grove from Centre, General Rural, Private Clubs/Recreation zones and the unzoned areas to Urban Development zone.

Detail

A plan indicating the location of the subject sites is included as Attachments 1 and 2.

The Environmental Protection Authority advised the City on 6 November 2006 that the Scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment. The Western Australian Planning Commission’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

Consultation

A 42-day advertising period was carried out between 16 January 2007 and 27 March 2007. This advertising was carried out by way of an advertisement in the local newspaper and the City’s website, together with letters to the affected and nearby residents and relevant government agencies. At the close of advertising the City received three submissions.

Comment

The City received submissions from the Water Corporation of Western Australia (WCWA), Main Roads Western Australia and Western Power.

While all these three agencies did not object to the amendment proposals, WCWA advised that the following matters be considered in regard to the land surrounding the Alkimos Wastewater Treatment Plant:

1. No incompatible land use being permitted to be located within the scientifically determined odour buffer;

2. In the event that the Public Purpose Reserve established under MRS Amendment No.1029/33 is not extended to the west of the treatment plant to include the scientifically determined odour buffer line, then the control of incompatible uses within this area be subject to a Special Control Area; and

3. The subject amendment not being finalised until the EPA has determined the appeals on the PER Bulletin 1238 and 1239.

The first two comments relate to future land use planning decisions and are therefore not relevant considerations for Amendment No. 68. In respect to the third comment, the City is bound under the Planning and Development Act and Town Planning Regulations to make its scheme consistent with the MRS and to progress the amendment within certain timeframes. These timeframes do not enable the matter to be deferred pending the finalisation of an EPA appeal. It is considered that there are sufficient controls available under the EPA Act and the future planning processes (district and local structure plans, development and subdivision applications) to deal with any implications arising from the appeal on PER Bulletin 1238 and 1239.

Statutory Compliance

The Scheme amendment has followed the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Strategic Implications

Consideration of this proposal is consistent with the Social Outcome objective of the City’s Strategic Plan, which seeks to encourage the development of more diverse residential and commercial areas.

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 Town Planning Regulation 17(2) ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No. 68 to District Planning Scheme No.2 to rezone the areas in the localities of Alkimos, Eglinton, Butler and Banksia Grove from Centre, General Rural, Private Clubs/Recreation zones and the unzoned areas to Urban Development Zone.

2. Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 (a) (g) AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the amendment documentation.

3. FORWARDS the amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to grant final approval to the amendment.

4. ENDORSES the comments made in this report regarding the submissions received on this scheme amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors 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

PD03-05/07 Amendment No. 65 to District Planning Scheme
No. 2 - Rezoning of Lots 4 (39) and 5 (11) Mornington Drive, Mariginiup

File Ref: TPS/0065V01

File Name: BA Amendment No 65 Rezoning of Lots 4 39 and 5 11 Mornington Drive Mariginiup.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Timothy Dawson

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 2

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

Issue

To consider a request to amend District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2) to rezone Lots 4 (39) and 5 (11) Mornington Drive, Mariginiup from Rural Resource to Private Clubs/Recreation to accommodate a park home park.

Applicant	Allerding and Associates on behalf of National Lifestyle Villages
Owner	D & E Parker Pty Ltd.; Nei Uoan Yek
Location	Lots 4 (39) and 5 (11) Mornington Drive, Mariginiup
Site Area	16.5827 hectares (ha)
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

Background

This amendment was presented to the 24 April Council meeting (PD12-04/07) where following deputation from the proponents the item was referred back to the Administration.

Detail

Site

The subject site is 16.5827 ha and is located at the south-eastern corner of Coogee Road and Mornington Drive (old Pinjar Road), Mariginiup. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1. The localities of Carramar and Banksia Grove are to the west, to the north is the Lake Adams Special Rural Zone and to the south and east land is currently (predominantly) used for intensive agriculture.

Lot 5 located at the corner of Coogee Road and Mornington Drive contains native vegetation and Lot 4 contains a turf farm, a shed and a garage.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to rezone the subject land to accommodate a Lifestyle Village Park Home Park, similar to those existing on Wanneroo Road in the localities of Ashby and Tapping. The applicant in his submission has advised that as a first stage it is proposed to develop Lot 4 to accommodate 265 park homes with lot sizes equivalent to a density of around
Residential R30.

Attachment 2 contains a concept plan for Lot 4, which, however, depicts 202 park homes. The applicant has advised that the design of stage 2 on Lot 5 will depend on a spring survey of the vegetation on that lot.

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

· “The demand for park home accommodation has been well documented and illustrated by similar developments elsewhere in the Perth Metropolitan Area.

· The park home village facilitated by this amendment effectively responds to contemporary demand patterns.

· The land will remain under one ownership and management rather than being split between many owners.

· The proposed use is consistent with the ultimate future land use as detailed in the East Wanneroo Land Use and Water Management Strategy (EWLUWMS).

· The proposed density coding is consistent with the prevailing built form, especially to that to the west of the subject land.

· The provision of a new form of appropriate, affordable housing in a well serviced location will add a significant option for the residents of the City of Wanneroo”.

Planning Framework

Metropolitan Region Scheme

The subject land is zoned Rural under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The City (or WAPC as applicable) must have regard to the purpose for which the land is zoned under the MRS, the orderly and proper planning of the locality and the preservation of amenity when determining applications for development under the MRS. Whilst the present rezoning request does not constitute a development application, the terms of the MRS are still relevant planning considerations as such applications will follow should the rezoning be successful.

Urban Growth and Settlement State Planning Policy

This WAPC policy seeks to promote a sustainable and well-planned pattern of settlements across the state. The City’s DPS2 requires that the City consider State Planning Policies in deciding development applications. Again whilst the present rezoning request does not constitute a development application, the terms of the policy are still relevant planning considerations as such applications will follow should the rezoning be successful.

The policy recognises that effective management of urban growth is critical for the sustainable future development of Metropolitan Perth and that the orderly planning of urban growth and settlement should be facilitated by structure plans, as opposed to ad-hoc proposals, which should take into account the strategic and physical context of the locality, provide for the development of safe, convenient and attractive neighbourhoods which meet the diverse needs of the community, and facilitate logical and timely provision of infrastructure and services.

District Planning Scheme No.2

The subject land (and its surrounds to the east of Mornington Drive) is zoned Rural Resource under DPS2. Notwithstanding that this application is seeking to change the zoning of the subject land, the DPS2 provisions relating to the Rural Resource zone are also still considered relevant, particularly as the land abutting the subject land (on its eastern and southern sides) would retain a Rural Resource zoning (and is currently used for intensive agriculture), and the provisions of DPS2 relating to Rural Resource includes reference to zoning proposals.

The DPS2 provisions which are particularly relevant are:

“1.6 Aims and Objectives of the Scheme are …

m) To promote planning, management and strategic control of development in a rational and systematic manner, taking into account the aspirations or residents, environmental capacity and the costs and benefits of development.

3.17.2 (b) Within the Rural Resource zone the priority uses are intensive agriculture, horticulture and basic raw materials extraction.

(c) The Council shall not support any use or subdivision or zoning that is, or potentially could be, incompatible with the carrying out of the priority uses referred to in sub clause 3.17.2 (b)”.

3.17.1 The objectives of the Rural Resource Zone are to:

(a) Protect from incompatible uses or subdivision, intensive agriculture, horticultural and animal husbandry areas with the best prospects for continued or expanded use;

(b) Protect from incompatible uses or subdivision basic raw materials priority areas and basic raw materials key extraction areas.

Caravan Park, Camping Grounds and Park Home Parks Local Planing Policy

One of the objectives of this policy is to:

“2 Facilitate the provision of Park Home Parks for permanent living in a manner such that:

· Adequate opportunity is provided for those seeking this type of housing;

· Residents have access to facilities and services normally expected by urban residents;

· Environmental, social and physical planning principles are complied with.”

The policy has the following further relevant provisions:

“4.(a) When considering applications for parks, Council will have regard to the intent of the policies in the Interim Local Rural Strategy.

(b) In particular, Council will have regard to the impact of parks on the General Rural Zone and the Rural Resource Zone. As such, parks will be considered “sensitive uses” and Clause 3.17.2 (h), (i), (j) and (k) of DPS2 (which relate to the need for planning approval for single houses and requirements to ensure future residents are aware of the potential amenity impacts that may be caused by rural activities) will apply in considering applications for parks”

Interim Local Rural Strategy Local Planning Policy

The following policy provisions of this policy are particularly relevant:

“P3.1 When considering applications for Planning Approval in the rural area, Council shall have regard to the zone objectives and other scheme provisions relating to the various rural zones applying to that area under Council’s town planning scheme.

P3.2 No conflicting, or potentially conflicting, land uses should be permitted within agricultural areas, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that there will be no conflict, and unless the Town Planning Scheme is amended.

P3. Potentially incompatible uses, such as rural living, should not be permitted in the Rural Resource Zone unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council there is no potential for adverse impacts to the carrying out of the priority resource use.”

Draft East Wanneroo Land Use and Water Management Strategy

This draft strategy, prepared by the WAPC, is intended to provide a high-level policy framework for the rural areas east of Wanneroo Road. The Land Use Concept Plan accompanying the draft strategy indicates the subject land located within a “possible future urban deferred’ precinct.

The draft strategy was advertised for public comment in late 2005 and Council considered the matter at its meeting on 21 February 2006 (item PD01-02/06), where it resolved not to support the draft strategy, and in particular the land use concept plan, in its present form until such time as a range of issues are addressed and detailed investigations undertaken, sufficient to demonstrate with some certainty the appropriateness of the proposals. The officers of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure have indicated that the WAPC and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is likely to consider adoption of the strategy by approximately mid 2007.

If adopted, there is a significant amount of planning that will be required prior to urban related subdivision or development being undertaken in any future urban areas, notwithstanding any future urban designation under the strategy. It is currently envisaged that the following steps (some of which could occur concurrently) will be involved before it could be said that this area will definitely be urban in the future:

1. Release of the final EWLUWMS. Assuming it includes a Land Use Plan which shows this area as future urban.

2. Completion of those parts of the proposed Gnangara Sustainability Study which are required to enable planning of this area to be progressed. Assuming this confirms suitability of this area for urban use.

3. Review of the North West Corridor Structure Plan to provide an adequate regional planning framework for this part of the East Wanneroo area. Assuming this retains this area as future urban.

4. Amendment of the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) to rezone the area from Rural to either Urban or Urban Deferred. This may be required to be subject to Environmental Review by the Environmental Protection Authority. Should the MRS amendment be gazetted (following it’s approval under the Environmental Review process), then it could be said with certainty that this general area is to be used for urban purposes in the future. (DPS2 is required to be amended to be consistent with the MRS, and would most likely rezone the general area to Urban Development zone).

However, having reached the above point, it still cannot be said that every piece of land in that area will be used for some form of residential use. Further more detailed stages of planning will be required, including the:

1. Preparation of a District Structure Plan, to include proposals for locations of facilities and as high schools (and possibly primary schools) and district open space areas, and district-level proposals for centres (and other employment areas), movement systems etc.

2. Preparation of Local Structure Plans for the local “cell” that this area falls within, showing more detailed proposals for housing types, centres, movement systems etc.

In the course of 1 and 2 above, a developer contribution system would also be prepared and adopted.

A process like the above is required to ensure that this area is properly planned in a comprehensive and sustainable manner and the outcomes sought by the various strategies and policies of this City (as well as other agencies) are satisfactorily achieved. This objective should be strongly pursued. Allowing parts of this area to develop for non-rural purposes (for which it is presently zoned) prior to a process such as the above having been properly undertaken risks compromising this objective.

Notwithstanding that this area might be proposed for future urban use as mentioned above, the fact remains that the subject land (and its surrounds to the east of Mornington Drive) is currently zoned Rural Resource under DPS2 and rural under the MRS and assessment of this rezoning must be considered in this context.

Comment

The City has approved two park home parks in recent years (on Wanneroo Road in the localities of Ashby and Tapping) and these parks provide a legitimate form of residential accommodation that adds to the City’s housing diversity as well as a relatively affordable form of housing.

To maintain affordability, prospective park home park developers have sought to take advantage of the lower land prices and establish in rural areas or urban areas where constraints exist for conventional residential development (for example land with ground consolidation problems).

A park home park is however in effect, a medium density housing development, which can only be regarded as an urban as opposed to a rural land use. With this in mind and in view of the potential for land use conflict (noise, dust, smell, pesticide over spray etc), the impacts that such a land use would have on the character and amenity of rural areas and the need to service the community that will move into these parks, when developing the City’s DPS2, a deliberate decision was made to preclude such facilities from the rural areas.

The subject land is located directly adjacent to the developing urban areas of Carramar and Banksia Grove, so the servicing aspects can be readily addressed. The land is however still located within a rural area that is characterised by a number properties being actively used for intensive agricultural purposes. This introduces a significant potential for land use conflict that the City and WAPC policy framework clearly seeks to avoid. The park home park concept itself, also leads to an intensive physical form which will be clearly contrary to the character of development normally expected in a rural area.

Notwithstanding that park home parks add to Wanneroo’s housing diversity, the establishment of a park in this location is considered contrary to the objectives and provisions of the MRS, City’s DPS2, Caravan Park, Camping Grounds and Park Home Parks Local Planing Policy and Interim Local Rural Strategy Local Planning Policy.

As noted in the detail section of this report, one of the reasons given by the applicant in support of this proposal is that “The proposed use is consistent with the ultimate future land use as detailed in the EWLUWMS”. The applicant’s submission acknowledges that the EWLUWMS is currently only at draft stage. It is therefore premature to say that the ultimate future land use of this area will be urban. Even if the strategy is finalised in its present draft form, there is a significant amount of planning that is required to prove up the proposals in the strategy and undertake detailed planning and environmental studies sufficient to determine whether the subject land is suitable for residential or some other associated use such as school, centre, open space, conservation area (noting the native bush land present on Lot 5) or road widening etc.

It is considered critical that urban related proposals in the potential future urban areas of East Wanneroo only be considered in a comprehensive rather than ad-hoc manner. Pursuing urban related proposals in this area outside the context of a strategic planning framework is considered contrary to the principles of orderly and proper planning and likely to prejudice the long-term social, economic and environmental potential of the area. On this basis, it is strongly recommended that Council not initiate the rezoning at this stage.

Like the revitalisation project for the Girrawheen-Koondoola area, as the planning project proceeds for the urbanisation of the southern rural areas of East Wanneroo (assuming the EWLUWMS is adopted to this effect), Council is likely to receive many landowner and developer driven proposals such as the present park home park proposal. To ensure that such proposals do not undermine the orderly planning of the area Council must be careful not raise development expectations particularly at this embryonic stage of the project.

Statutory Compliance

Under the Town Planning Regulations Council has the ability to initiate this amendment. Because the proposal is inconsistent with the MRS and State policy, the approval of the WAPC will be required prior to advertising the proposal. Council should note that once formally initiated, it is not within its control to either discontinue the amendment or decide on the eventual outcome.

Strategic Implications

Supporting this proposal would be inconsistent with Strategy 4.7.2 of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006-2021: “ensure compliance with relevant statutory authorities”.

Policy Implications

The proposal to rezone the land to accommodate a park home park is generally considered contrary to the objectives and provisions of the MRS, Urban Growth and Settlement State Planning Policy, DPS2, Caravan Park, Camping Grounds and Park Home Parks Local Planning Policy and Interim Local Rural Strategy Local Planning Policy.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

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

Recommendation

That Council ADVISES the applicant, Allerding and Associates acting on behalf of National Lifestyle Villages that it is not prepared to initiate proposed Amendment No. 65 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) to rezone Lots 4(39) and 5(11) Mornington Drive, Mariginiup from Rural Resource Zone to Private Clubs/Recreation Zone for the following reasons:-

1. Clause 3.17.2 c) of DPS2 provides, inter alia, that Council shall not support any use or zoning that potentially could be incompatible with the carrying out of the priority uses for the Rural Resource zone (which currently applies to the subject land) which are intensive agriculture, horticulture and basic raw materials extraction. The proposed use and zoning potentially could be incompatible with the carrying out of the above priority uses.

2. It is contrary to the objective of Council’s Caravan Park, Camping Grounds and Park Home Parks Local Planning Policy which is to facilitate the provision of parks for permanent living in a manner such that environmental, social and physical planning principles are complied with (see 1) above and 6) below).

3. It is contrary to clause 4. b) of Council’s Caravan Park, Camping Grounds and Park Home Parks Local Planning Policy which provides, inter alia, that Council will have regard to the impact of parks on the Rural Resource Zone. (See 1 above).

4. It is contrary to policy statements P3.1, P3.2 and P3.3 of Council’s Interim Local Rural Strategy Local Planning Policy, in being contrary to the DPS2 provisions relating to the Rural Resource Zone (see 1) above), involving a conflicting use (with it not being demonstrated to the contrary), and involving a potentially incompatible use (with it not being demonstrated that there would be no potential for adverse impacts to the carrying out of the priority resource use in the Rural Resource Zone).

5. It is contrary to provisions 1b., 5g. and 6c. of the Smart Growth Local Planning Policy.

6. In so far as the application relies upon the designation of the subject land as ‘possible future urban deferred’ in the draft East Wanneroo Land Use and Water Management Strategy, that proposed strategy is still only at a draft stage and therefore its land use proposals can only be relied upon to a very limited degree in supporting proposals such as this. Furthermore, even if the strategy had been finalised and showed the subject land in a similar manner to the draft strategy, a proper planning process is required to be undertaken to put in place a sound planning framework for the general area before it is appropriate to consider approval of proposals such as this which may otherwise compromise the ability to put in place such a sound planning framework.

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

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

ATTACHMENT 1

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

PD04-05/07 Proposed Structure Plan for the Madeley District Centre (Kingsway City) Cnr Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue, Madeley

File Ref: SP/0082V01

File Name: BA Proposed Structure Plan for the Madeley District Centre Kingsway City Cnr Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue Madele.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Rod Peake

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 6

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

Issue

To consider a proposed structure plan for the Madeley District Centre, commonly known as Kingsway City.

Applicant	Shrapnel Urban Planning
Owner	Tah Land Pty Ltd
Location	Lots 158, 161, 165, 168, 888, 1168 Wanneroo Road, Madeley
Site Area	18 hectares (approx)
MRS Zoning	Urban, Primary Regional Roads and Other Regional Roads reserves
DPS 2 Zoning	Commercial, Business, Civic and Cultural zones; Primary Regional Roads and Other Regional Roads reserves

Background

The structure plan application was received by the City on 21 August 2006.

In December 2006, the landowner lodged an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal, claiming that the City is deemed not to have agreed to the structure plan, as it did not determine the matter within 90 days of submission. An appeal directions hearing has been scheduled shortly following the Council’s consideration of the structure plan.

Detail

Site

The site is approximately 18 hectares in area and is located on the north east corner of the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue, Madeley. Attachment 1 shows the location of the site.

The site has a natural fall of approximately 20 metres from east to west, and up to ten metres from north to south (although the extent of this cross fall reduces considerably at the western end of the site). The site has been earthworked to accommodate the existing development to the extent that the site rises quite steeply from Wanneroo Road to a central plateau, which accommodates the existing shopping centre building. The eastern portion of the site remains in its natural extent, but the site works have left it perched above a steep embankment.

The existing shopping centre opened in 1996 and comprises a single level building of approximately 17,000m² in total, with approximately 15,000m² of retail floor space. A range of complementary buildings including petrol stations, auto servicing, take away food, business uses, a medical centre and health club have established around the periphery of the site. The total existing floor space on the site is around 22,700m² and vacant land totals around eight hectares. Attachment 2 shows an aerial photo which indicates the extent of development on the site.

The site is located abutting two regional roads being Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue. A developing, generally low density, residential area is located to the north and an established low density residential area to the south. To the west is a plant nursery and a small residential precinct and to the east is the Kingsway sports complex.

Proposal

The proponents stated long term vision is for the transformation of the centre from a suburban shopping centre into a fully integrated, mixed use activity centre. More specifically, the structure plan seeks to facilitate a mixed use town centre with the following key elements:

1. A retail core which provides for an increase in the retail net lettable area from 15,000m² to 32,000m².

2. Provision for a mix of other commercial, entertainment and recreation uses and a ‘main street’ precinct.

3. High density R160 residential development.

The proposed statutory section of the structure plan, which includes the structure plan diagram is shown on Attachment 3. An ultimate indicative development plan and cross sections as well as an interim development concept are shown on Attachments 4-6. A full copy of the structure plan report has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

The structure plan documentation includes interim and ultimate indicative concepts which indicate the structure plan providing for an overall floor space (retail and other commercial) increase from 22, 700 square metres to 43,695 square metres at the interim stage and 59,265 square metres ultimately, plus a substantial residential component in up to 11 storey mixed use buildings. It should be noted that whilst these concepts may indicate the landowners development intensions and the structure plan could ultimately accommodate them in its current form, the proposal currently before the Council is only the structure plan.

Planning Framework

Network City

Network City is the State Government’s current strategic planning framework for the Perth and Peel regions. One of the key objectives of this strategy is to accommodate growth within a ‘network’ pattern of activity centres which support a diverse range of uses, connected by activity corridors that provide high frequency public transport to support the land uses both along the activity corridors and within the activity centres.

The general intent is to focus higher density housing retail, entertainment, business and other high activity uses toward the corridor, particularly at centres, in a manner that provides increased opportunities for housing and jobs within a walkable catchment. The spatial plan component of Network City indicates the Madeley Centre as an activity centre and Wanneroo Road as an activity corridor. Hepburn Avenue, west of Wanneroo Road to the coast is also an activity corridor.

Smart Growth

The City’s Smart Growth Strategy was adopted as a Local Planning Policy by Council in 2005. It recognises that growth will continue within the City, however seeks to manage this growth by an effective integration of the environmental, social and economic elements of sustainability. The Smart Growth Strategy identifies a range of principles which are intended to form the basis for strategies and actions for effectively addressing the identified issues and challenges. The principles are:

1. Lifestyle and Housing Choice;

2. Effective Use of Land and Infrastructure;

3. Long Term Health of the Environment;

4. Identity, Equity and Inclusiveness;

5. Long Term Economic Health;

6. People and Government.

These principles are then supported by a range of more specific strategies, the most relevant in this case being the City Centres Strategy.

Centres Strategy

The City’s Centres Strategy was adopted as a Local Planning Policy by Council in December 2004 and is largely consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement. It promotes the evolutionary revitalisation and re-modelling of existing centres, along ‘main street’ principles, as integrated, mixed use, safe, attractive and vibrant centres that provide a community focus. The strategy recognises that in some cases this will involve the transition of existing residential uses to commercial uses.

The Strategy objectives are intended to be accomplished through the use of structure plans. These structure plans are intended to be tailored to maximise the attributes of each site, but should have the underlying objective of providing for an evolutionary transition to employment generating land uses. Under the strategy the structure plans should encompass peripheral areas relative to the size of the centre so that the centres can properly integrate with their surroundings.

A key aspect of the Strategy is the centre hierarchy. Centres in each level in the hierarchy are intended to serve a set of functions and are intended to be complementary rather than competitive in that they are supposedly servicing different segments of the market. The Strategy includes the Madeley Centre as a District level centre.

The following specific Strategy Measures were adopted for Madeley:

1. No expansion of the centre is to be considered until it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that the population of the centre’s primary trade area, and improvement in the trading performance of non-food shops for both this centre and nearby centres has reached a level that according to Council warrants expansion to an area commensurate with Council’s Centres Strategy. Any such expansion will not increase the total area above 20,000 m² nla. The balance of the site should be subdivided off from the shopping centre site for mixed business and service commercial uses;

2. Any further development of the centre and adjoining mixed business uses shall be subject to an approved revised structure plan.

In considering the adoption of the Strategy, Council considered a submission by the owners of the centre promoting the ultimate development of the centre to a ‘regional’ centre in the order of 30,000 m². This was not supported on the grounds that it would detract from the City’s strategic planning objectives to promote Wanneroo town centre as the predominant commercial, administrative and cultural centre for the City.

The nominal timeframe of the Strategy was to 2006, upon which time the Strategy was intended to be reviewed. Notwithstanding this, planning for centres has to take place in a longer term strategic context and the Strategy recommendations were derived and framed accordingly. The Strategy is therefore still relevant for considering the structure plan.

District Planning Scheme No. 2

District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) zones the majority of the structure plan area as Commercial, with smaller portions fronting Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue zoned Business. A Civic and Cultural zone is also included over the north eastern portion of the site. The land in the vicinity of the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue is reserved for Primary Regional Road and the northern portion of the Hepburn Avenue road reserve, which is included in the structure plan, is reserved as an Other Regional Road.

DPS2 specifies a maximum retail net lettable area (NLA) for each centre. The maximum NLA listed for the Madeley Centre is 15,000m², which the centre has already accounted for by existing development. This floor space restriction must be adhered to except where a provision to the contrary is made in an Agreed Structure Plan. In this case, given the zoning of the subject site, DPS2 does not require the preparation and lodgement of a structure plan, although Council may require this as a prerequisite for specific proposals or applications.

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks to 21 March 2007. It was advertised by means of onsite signs, advertisements in the local newspaper and on the City’s website, letters to landowners within a 500 metre radius as well as other key stakeholders including nearby centre owners and relevant Government Agencies. The landowner also displayed a model of the indicative concept at the centre during the advertising period.

A total of 1094 submissions were received. 959 of these however comprised proforma letters filled out by centre shoppers who visited the onsite model. Five submissions were received from representatives of the owners of nearby centres. A total of 989 submissions supported the proposal. Of these, 145 indicated support with no additional comments, 566 provided support and commended the design, 96 supported the proposal and made requests for specific shops or facilities and 182 provided support but raised various concerns. A total of 76 objections were received. One proforma response objected against the Cinema component, 8 proforma responses against the high rise residential apartments, 22 proforma responses opposed both the cinema component and high rise residential apartments and 45 written submissions objected for various reasons.

The key issues raised by the submissions on behalf of nearby centre owners, generally relate to issues of commercial, policy and traffic impact and comments on each of these issues are set out in the comment section of this report. A summary of key points made by each of the centre related submissions together with a more detailed comment is included the City’s retail consultant’s report, a copy of which has been placed in the Elected Members reading room. The key issues from the remaining submissions together with a comment on each is set out below:

Issue	Administration Comment
High Density Housing · does not accord with, and will have a negative impact on, the social values of the surrounding areas that comprise largely long term, owner occupied, single family residences. · clearly does not suit the demographic of the area. The area surrounding Kingsway City does not lend itself to the apartment style concept successfully integrated into areas such as Perth and Subiaco. Apartment living is accepted and successful in areas such as Perth and Subiaco as these localities are not predominately family, long term, high density dwelling residents. This is unlike the area surrounding Kingsway City, which does not necessitate or promote committed high density living. · are likely to attract a large number of itinerant residents, which is highly undesirable for existing residents of the area. It is especially not ideal or appropriate in such close proximity to the Kingsway Sporting Complex, which is used by many children in the community who could easily become prey of opportunistic vagrants taking refuge in the apartments. · is aesthetically unappealing and socially undesirable (magnifying social issues). Such high rise apartments are incongruous with the existing surrounding residences, and consider that they would have a negative impact on the perception and market value of the surrounding areas.	Increased density and housing choice in and around centres is consistent with the City’s Local Housing Strategy, supports a clearly identified social and economic need of the broader community, improves land efficiency, housing affordability and supports non car based transport systems. There is no evidence to suggest that higher density living would attract undesirable persons. The integration of the housing component with the adjacent low density residential area however should be addressed in a revised design.
Adequate cinema facilities already exist at Grand Cinemas in Warwick, which is only 5km away. The space at Kingsway City could be better utilised (to better cater for and meet genuine community needs).	The structure plan does not propose a cinema complex but rather makes provision for an entertainment precinct that could accommodate such a use. A future application for planning approval would be required to be considered on its merit. Given the District Centre status of Kingsway under the City’s Centres Strategy a local cinema complex with up to two screens could be accommodated in this centre, with the larger multi-screen complexes normally accommodated at Regional Centres.
Cinema complex is a magnet for loiterers and is therefore undesirable in the area. Issues already exist arising from ‘car hoon’ behaviour at the Kingsway Sporting Complex.	Cinema complexes are provided for their entertainment value to the community. The social behaviour or persons attracted to such venues is a matter to be managed by the operator and not a reason to prevent the provision of such venues. The variety of uses, including residential uses proposed in the structure plan if properly integrated with the commercial elements would help to provide activity over a longer time frame which would assist with antisocial behaviour.
The centre is too big. Like to shop at the centre because of its smaller size and it is quiet. Already have Whitfords, The Galleria, Joondalup, Karrinyup, Warwick. Too many large shopping centres.	Kingsway is classified as a district centre and intended to meet the weekly shopping and service needs of the suburban population. This issue is considered in more detail in the comment section of this report.
The existing traffic situation surrounding the centre, particularly the intersection of Hepburn Avenue and Giralt Road and that onto Wanneroo Road. Concerns related to exacerbating safety issues by increasing traffic volumes. Suggestions largely related to the provision of right turn arrows and additional right turn pockets on Wanneroo Road.		See comment on traffic in the Comment section of the report.
The current carpark design and perceived shortfall in the number of bays provided. There was concern that the proposal has not adequately addressed this matter and may exacerbate the existing situation.		It is agreed that the proposal does not adequately deal with the issue of car parking.
Disabled Access. The number of existing disabled bays is considered insufficient and it is made apparent that a lot more disabled bays and facilities will be required in any future proposal.		The proposal is a structure plan which will provide a framework for consideration of future development proposals. The City’s DPS2 and the Building Code of Australia require development to comply with acceptable standards for disabled car parking and access and this will be addressed in future development and building applications.
Undercover or multistorey car parking. Request additional undercover or multistorey car parking.		A large proportion of the future car parking is proposed to be in either decked or roof top locations and this is desirable from the point of providing efficient use of land, weather protection and a high level of pedestrian amenity. The extent of undercover carparking should be further explored in reviewing the urban design for this centre as set out below.
General dislike of high density and multistorey residential living.		Noted.
The impact on the Wanneroo Shopping Centre proposal. Concern over the impact on the Wanneroo Shopping Centre proposal and comment that they have been waiting a lot longer for this to occur.		The proposal has been supplemented with detailed retail modelling, which has been reviewed by the City’s retail consultant. It is unlikely that, even if supported at this stage that the centre extensions would be operational until approximately 2010-2011. The modelling indicates that there is capacity for both the Wanneroo and Kingsway centres to be operational by 2011.
The impact on the Wanneroo Shopping Centre proposal. Concern over the impact on the Wanneroo Shopping Centre proposal and comment that they have been waiting a lot longer for this to occur.		The proposal has been supplemented with detailed retail modelling, which has been reviewed by the City’s retail consultant. It is unlikely that, even if supported at this stage that the centre extensions would be operational until approximately 2010-2011. The modelling indicates that there is capacity for both the Wanneroo and Kingsway centres to be operational by 2011.

Department of Environment and Conservation

The Department of Environment and Conservation indicate that they have no objection to the proposed structure plan but advise that the vacant land located in the eastern portion of the proposed structure plan area contains remnant vegetation and that the structure plan does not detail the environmental values of this vegetation nor indicates whether any of the existing vegetation will be retained within the development area. They support the retention of areas of remnant vegetation, where possible, in any future development of the site.

Comment

The proposed structure plan seeks to facilitate a significant expansion to the existing centre. In particular, the proposed retail component is far in excess of that provided for by the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Metropolitan Centres Policy (15,000m²), the City’s District Planning Scheme (15,000m²) and the City’s Centres Strategy (conditional 20,000m²).

Whilst planning policy and the modelling that underpins the policy are certainly relevant and desirable planning tools for determining the level of service for the centre’s catchment population and therefore should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the proposal, this should not be rigidly applied. Rather the proposal should be considered on its individual merit having regard for what is in the overall public interest. This requires the overall benefits of the proposal to be weighed against other considerations. The key issues to be considered in this case are set out under the following headings.

Level of Service

A longstanding and fundamental principle of centre planning in Western Australia is the hierarchy of centres. This principle is embodied in both the WAPC’s Metropolitan Centres Policy and the City’s Centres Strategy. The hierarchy is based on the principle that each level of centre provides goods and services to a trade area commensurate with its role. This provides for high levels of service provision and accessibility to the community.

Kingsway has been classified as a District Centre with a retail NLA of 15,000m2. District Centre’s are intended to meet the weekly shopping and service needs of the suburban population, providing mainly convenience goods, a range of comparison goods, local services and local employment. Most district centres range in size between 10,000 and 20,000m2 retail NLA.

Other district centres in the southern part of the City include Alexander Heights (up to 12,000m2 retail NLA), Girrawheen Park (up to 12,500m2 retail NLA), Proposed Banksia Grove (up to 15,000m2 retail NLA) and Wanneroo (up to 30,000m2 retail NLA). Wanneroo’s size is larger in recognition of its intended role as the predominant commercial, administrative and cultural centre for the City. It is generally desirable to limit the size of district centre to about 15,000m2 to optimise accessibility and encourage competition.

In recognition of its relatively large trade area, the City’s Centres Strategy does provide for the expansion of Kingsway to 20,000m2 retail NLA, subject to it being demonstrated that the population of the centre’s primary trade area, and improvement in the trading performance of non-food shops for both this centre and nearby centres has reached a level that warrants this expansion. The Strategy indicates that expansion beyond this level of retail should be aimed at diversification.

In preparing the strategy the Council considered a submission by the landowners for the retail expansion to 30,000m2 retail NLA and did not support this on the grounds that it would detract from the City’s strategic planning objective of promoting the Wanneroo town centre as the predominant commercial, administrative and cultural centre for the City.

The proposal will provide for a range of uses and level of service significantly greater than currently exists and larger and more regionally based than the nearby Warwick regional centre. The projected trade figures reinforce this point. This will create an anomaly in and undermine the integrity of the established hierarchy with a district centre (Kingsway) establishing a more prominent role than the adjacent existing regional centre (Warwick). As the hierarchy is one of the key underlying principles of the City’s Centres Strategy and the WAPC’s Metropolitan Centres Strategy it should not be undermined by an individual proposal. Rather, if there is a cogent argument for elevating a particular centre in the hierarchy, this should be properly considered in the context of a review of the centre policies.

Need and Commercial Impact

The underlying philosophy behind the expansion plans is to accommodate a second discount department store and second supermarket. Although a range of supporting retail specialties are normally provided to support these larger tenancies.

There is currently a gap in the distribution network of discount department stores and supermarkets in the general area surrounding Kingsway, which will be likely to remain if this centre is not expanded, even when the full projected population and all planned centres have been constructed. There is therefore a logical commercial rationale for the expansion. The implication of not allowing the expansion is that some of the community would simply not have access to the same level of goods and services as others in surrounding areas and therefore have to travel further than others to access the same level of goods and services.

In relation to the range of other employment uses proposed, the low level of employment self sufficiency in the northern suburbs and high levels of commercial intrusion in the northern suburban industrial areas demonstrate an obvious need for the provision of broader range of such uses in activity centres such as Kingsway. Both the City and State Government policy framework recognise this and set out a range of consequences (such as high levels of traffic congestion, travel related green house gas emissions, and social isolation) if local employment targets are not achieved.

A retail impact analysis has been undertaken by the proponent and Administration engaged a retail consultant to review the findings. The modelling indicates that the expansion will have a negative commercial impact on surrounding centres, with the majority of impacts being from between one to five percent of annual turnover, although this must be considered in the environment of a growing catchment population in respect to many centres. The proponents modelling has not however accounted for the distribution of per annum sales increase of $55M. Although there are a range of potential explanations for this, a worst case scenario would be to triple the impacts set out above. Even under this scenario, and particularly given many of the centres are located within growing catchments, it appears that these impacts are manageable. The most fragile of the surrounding centres is likely to be Newpark. However it appears that with the 2006 departure of the Coles supermarket and the continuing threat from Kingsway, has resulted in a positive reconfiguration of tenant mix at this centre, including the introduction of a Supa IGA supermarket. A copy of the City’s retail consultant report that sets out the commercial impact in more detail has been placed in the Elected Members reading room.

It considering the issue of impact, it should be noted that the possibility of a negative commercial impact on surrounding centres does not constitute a valid planning consideration in itself. Rather the relevant consideration should be whether the degree of impact likely to be generated by the proposal would jeopardise the extent and adequacy of facilities generally available to the community to an extent that will not be made good by the proposal. It is not considered that this will be the case.

Planning Issues

Urban Design

The existing centre design is based on conventional suburban design principles, characterised by a largely enclosed retail building, set well back from the street and surrounded by expansive car parking areas with several ad-hoc highway commercial buildings in proximity to the perimeter roads.

The City’s Centres Strategy promotes the evolutionary revitalisation and re-modelling of existing centres, along ‘main street’ principles, as integrated, mixed use, safe, attractive and vibrant centres that provide a community focus. The Strategy indicates that structure plans should encompass peripheral areas so that the centres can properly integrate with their surroundings.

The current proposal is not considered to have been designed with best practice urban design and sustainability principles in mind. The following points outline the key areas of concern:

1. The design does not properly integrate with its surroundings in terms of building height, scale and connections, particularly to the north where a low density, single residential housing estate exists. This will impact detrimentally on the amenity of the those living in close proximity to (particularly) the northern site boundary, with a stark contrast in building forms and scale evident at this interface with high levels of activity associated with major car park access and servicing; development is intended to back onto existing residential area which will create noise, surveillance and antisocial behaviour opportunities which is contrary to crime prevention through environmental design principles.

A preferred alternative design would recognise and integrate better with the surrounding pattern of urban development and generally provide for a transition of development scale and intensity toward the edge of the development site. This lack of attention to the interface has been identified in the various amenity related issues raised by many of the community objections.

2. The design places too much emphasis on the expansion of the retail element as a single substantial enclosed building. Whilst some attempt has been made to reduce the impact of car parking by use of decks and to make provision for access ways that are lined with mixed use buildings, there is no provision for the evolution of the centre into a legitimate main street based mixed use town centre as required by the City’s Centres Strategy.

3. The significant size of the retail building does not provide for a robust and legible structure of movement corridors that will provide for desirable levels of connectivity between the various elements of the site or to the surrounding areas and it limits the opportunity for after hours trading. Traffic is currently focused on too few access points which will inevitably lead to traffic and access problems surrounding and within the centre.

4. The proposed statutory provisions although providing the possibility for a mix of uses, have not been structured in a way that would maximise the opportunity for this occur nor do they actually require the delivery of a diverse mix of uses and residential housing types in conjunction with the retail element. The consequence of this is that there is a real risk that much of the mixed use development is unlikely to occur, either at all or not for many years.

5. Although the indicative development plan indicates high density residential, there is no provision in the statutory section of the structure plan that will ensure that the outcomes and principles of the City’s Local Housing Strategy are delivered at this centre. Additional work is required to ensure that the structure plan requires a wide range of suitable housing types to be delivered within this centre to suit identified community needs. Vertical integration of housing (over the commercial elements) will contribute significantly to both vibrancy and safety (through surveillance).

6. Whilst the plan does make provision for two piazzas, one of these are poorly located and therefore unlikely to function well and the statutory structure plan provisions do not provide for an overall high quality and fine grained public realm throughout the proposed street network other public spaces.

7. The parking analysis contains a very superficial analysis of the centre needs and is based on the existing range of uses. It does not consider appropriate ratios or staging.

8. The structure plan does not address ecological sustainability elements such as reducing greenhouse emissions or water and waste minimisation.

Zoning

Whilst the majority of the site is zoned Commercial, there is a two hectare Civic and Cultural zone in the north west corner of the site, a Business zone along the southern boundary and in north western corner of the site, a Primary Regional Road reserve at the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue and the northern portion of Hepburn Avenue which has been incorporated into the structure plan area is reserved for Other Regional Roads.

The structure plan proposes to rezone the entire site to Commercial, with the exception of the Primary Regional Road Reserve. The City has received legal advice suggesting that land cannot be ‘rezoned’ under a structure plan, unless it is located within one of the ‘development’ zones under DPS2. Rezoning the land outside the context of an amendment to DPS2 is therefore not possible.

Whilst the Business zone is relatively flexible and can accommodate a variety of uses, with the key exception of shops, and is reasonably consistent with the structure plan proposals, the Civic and Cultural zone is quite limited in terms of permissible uses and is not a desirable zone to underpin the proposed mixed use land uses proposed under the structure plan.

The land affected by the Civic and Cultural zone was intended to be set aside for transfer to the City for the development of community facilities and there is a legal agreement in place to facilitate this. Whilst some discussions have been held with the Administration in respect to alternative arrangements for the provision of land for community facilities in a more integrated, and therefore more desirable location within the centre, no formal alternative arrangements are in place at this time. Council should not agree to any structure plan that proposes non civic and cultural related land uses on this portion of the site, until and unless suitable alternative arrangements are in place and incorporated in the structure plan.

The structure plan also seeks to rezone the northern portion of Hepburn Avenue to Commercial, based on the proposition that the existing reserve width is excess to requirements. Whilst there has been some discussion in the past regarding the possibility of reducing the reserve width of Hepburn Avenue, the appropriate process to consider this is through an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Such an amendment has not been initiated to date.

Traffic

The structure plan area is quite constrained in respect to the traffic access. There are four points that provide access to the existing centre, along two of the site boundaries. The other boundaries abut residential development and the Kingsway Reserve. Three of the existing access points also have restricted movements given their location along regional roads and the proximity to intersections.

As indicated earlier, the significant size of the proposed retail building does not provide for a robust and legible structure of movement corridors that will provide for desirable levels of connectivity between the various elements within the site or to the surrounding areas. Traffic is therefore focused on a small number of access points which will inevitably lead to traffic and access problems surrounding and within the centre.

The structure plan has been supplemented by a traffic analysis prepared by Transcore Pty Ltd. Unfortunately the traffic assessment is based on outdated traffic volumes, does not properly model projected volumes on the surrounding street network, does not include a comprehensive assessment of the ultimate indicative development plan or of the likely performance of the internal network. These are major short-comings in the analysis given the significant size of the expansion plans and the high levels of growth that has occurred in recent years and will be likely to continue in the medium to long term. The traffic analysis is therefore considered to be of limited value in assessing the traffic implications of the proposal.

The Primary Regional Road reserve at the intersection of Wanneroo Road and Hepburn Avenue has existing temporary interim commercial buildings, drainage facilities and a pylon sign constructed on it. There are legal arrangements in place to ensure the removal of these facilities when a planned grade separated intersection is constructed. The structure plan does not accurately delineate this land nor make provision for a design that would adequately accommodate the ultimate intersection design. In addition, the intersection design will necessitate the removal of the southern existing access point to Wanneroo Road and there is an existing legal agreement in place to ensure that this occurs. This will have the effect of focussing traffic access and egress to the remaining access points and therefore increasing traffic at those points.

The extension of Bellerive Boulevard, currently forms part of the Kingsway sporting reserve and will require the Minister for Lands agreement to dedicate and construct as a public road. There is no guarantee that such an approval would in fact be forthcoming and this places in jeopardy two further access points proposed under the structure plan, again with the effect of focussing the traffic to the remaining three access points. It would be appropriate that this issue be dealt with prior to the consideration of the structure plan.

There are existing traffic concerns with traffic controlled intersections of Wanneroo Road/Hepburn Avenue and Giralt Road/Hepburn Avenue. The traffic analysis indicates possible solutions to this, although given the shortcomings in the traffic analysis, this will require verification. There is however no provision in the statutory section of the structure plan for infrastructure contributions to finance the resolution of the problems and as the infrastructure within the road environment relies on approvals and commitments to ongoing maintenance from MRWA, without agreements from this agency there is no guarantee that the infrastructure approvals will be forthcoming.

Both on and offsite traffic impacts of the structure plan are significant aspects of this proposal, that require careful consideration and upfront agreements with relevant agencies. It seems at this stage there is still considerable work to be undertaken before it would reasonable for a favourable consideration to be given to the current structure plan.

Conclusion

The proposed structure plan seeks to facilitate a significant expansion to the centre. In particular, the proposed retail component is far in excess of that provided for by the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Metropolitan Centres Policy (15,000m²), the City’s District Planning Scheme (15,000m²) and the City’s Centres Strategy (conditional 20,000m²).

Whilst planning policy and the modelling that underpins the policy are certainly relevant and desirable planning tools for determining the size and composition of centres, such policy should not be rigidly applied. Rather proposals should be considered on their individual merit, having regard for the policy objectives and also the overall public interest. This requires the overall benefits of the proposal to be weighed against other considerations.

The proposal will bring about a range of benefits to the community including additional services, housing and employment opportunities, which will increase choice and reduce the distance needed to travel to similar facilities in surrounding areas. The proposal has generated some community opposition, predominantly by those living in close proximity to the centre (which is understandable given the design). Nearby residents aside there seems be a reasonable level of support for the proposal by the broader community. Whilst a number of owners of surrounding centres have also objected to the proposal, it does not appear that the commercial impact of the proposal is likely to be significant.

The range of uses and likely future trade levels however indicate that the expanded centre will operate at more of a regional level, than the district level that it has been designated. This will create an anomaly in the present hierarchy, which is a fundamental aspect of the current policy framework and not something that should be agreed to outside of the context of a policy review. There are also a range of significant design, traffic, zoning, land tenure and structure plan format issues that need resolution before a structure plan of this nature is considered for adoption.

It is therefore recommended that Council not support the present structure plan. The City is however about to commence a review of its current Centres Strategy. Given the adoption of the WAPC’s Network City and the City’s Smart Growth Strategy since the preparation of the existing policy and the additional modelling that has been undertaken in relation to the present proposal, there may be a possibility that a centre in the order of that proposed could be accommodated. The City’s Strategy review is likely to take approximately 12 months to complete and this timeframe will allow the Kingsway proposal to be considered in conjunction with the Strategy review. It will also give the proponent time to address the various issues raised in this report in a comprehensive way and in close consultation with the City and other relevant stakeholders. If the revised Centres Strategy then ultimately accommodates a centre of the scale and nature proposed, that can then be assessed as a future structure plan.

Statutory Compliance

The proposed Structure Plan assessment has followed the statutory process outlined in Part 9 of District Planning Scheme No.2.

Strategic Implications

A structure plan for this centre will establish an appropriate planning framework for the consideration of any proposed future development at this centre. The form that the structure plan takes will be an important determinant of how this centre achieves the environmental, social and economic strategic key focus areas of the City’s Strategic Plan.

Policy Implications

This proposal is not consistent with the City’s existing Commercial Centres Strategy.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. DETERMINES that in accordance with Part 9.4.1 (c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 the proposed structure plan submitted by Shrapnel Urban Planning on behalf of Tah Land Pty Ltd for the Madeley District Centre SHOULD NOT BE AGREED to for the following reasons:

a) the proposal is inconsistent with relevant City and Western Australian Planning Commission policies including the Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the Perth Metropolitan Region State Planning Policy and the City’s Centre’s Local Planning Policy and supporting strategy. The proposal is contrary to the intent and provisions of these policies and hence with the orderly and proper planning of the locality.

b) the proponent has not adequately demonstrated the commercial impact that the proposal will have on the existing and planned provision of centres and retail facilities in the locality.

c) the proposal is not consistent with the underlying zoning of the subject site.

d) the proposal does not make suitable alternative arrangements for the provision of the planned community facilities for the locality.

e) The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the best practice urban design and sustainability principles and will not promotes the evolutionary revitalisation and re-modelling of the centre, along ‘main street’ principles, as an integrated, mixed use, safe, attractive and vibrant centre that will provide a community focus.

f) The proposal does encompass the peripheral area so that it properly takes account of and integrates with its surroundings. The scale, bulk, siting, design, connections and the increased level of activity and extent of activity that would occur as a result of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the locality.

g) The proposal does not make appropriate provision for vehicular traffic either onsite or in respect to the surrounding existing and planned road system. The proposal will lead to significant increased vehicular movements which would impair the functioning of the adjoining road system and result in the intersections of those roads and the onsite access ways being unacceptably congested.

h) The proposal does not make appropriate provision for car parking.

i) The proposal ought not proceed because of the aggregation of planning and development problems that would be caused.

j) Approval to the proposal would cause an undesirable precedent.

2. ADVISES the proponent that it will consider the scale and nature of the centre proposed through its forthcoming review of its Centres Strategy.

3. ADVISES the applicant that the City’s Administration will continue to work with the applicant to address the concerns raised within this report.

4. LISTS for consideration in its 2007-08 budget the amount of $60,000 for the review of its Centres Strategy.

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

Att	WAPC No/ Received Date	Location / Owner	DPS2 Zoning LDU Category	Advice	WAPC Advised
1	SU133466 08/03/2007	LOT 15 (70) MOTIVATION DRIVE WANGARA WA 6065 CITY OF WANNEROO	General Industrial SCU1	Supported	27/04/2007
2	SU134135 23/03/2007	LOT 80 (14) MAGINATA PLACE WANNEROO WA 6065 RUSSELL J HILLARY & VICKY L HILLARY	Special Residential 01 SCU1	Supported	04/04/2007
3	SU134053 14/03/2007	LOT 615 (34) DAVENTRY DRIVE ALEXANDER HEIGHTS WA 6064 MINISTER FOR EDUCATION	Residential SCU1	NotSupprtd	27/04/2007
4	SU134216 03/04/2007	LOT 182 (47 VINCENT ROAD SINAGRA WA 6065 ALLAN J WALKER & MADONNA L WALKER	Urban Development SCU1	Supported	19/04/2007
5	SU134127 23/03/2007	LOT 9046 (2500 MARMION AVENUE BUTLER WA 6036 HOMESWEST	Urban Development SCU1	Supported	19/04/2007
6	SU133975 02/03/2007	LOT 713 (57) KENTUCKY BOULEVARD HOCKING WA 6065 BALBIR S RIYAT & RAJVINDER K RIYAT	Urban Development SCU1	Supported	04/04/2007
7	SU134050 14/03/2007	LOT 9025 (2359 MARMION AVENUE JINDALEE WA 6036 CARINE NOMINEES PTY LTD	Urban Development SCU1	Supported	18/04/2007
8	SU134190 05/04/2007	LOT 9014 (960) CONNOLLY DRIVE RIDGEWOOD WA 6030 QUINNS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD & BUTLER LAND COMPANY PTY LTD	Urban Development SCU6	NotSupprtd	27/04/2007

Development Applications

PD06-05/07 Lot 432 (7) Sarasota Pass, Clarkson: Proposed Offices, Shop, Restaurant and Six Multiple Dwellings

File Ref: P08/2727V01

File Name: EA Lot 432 7 Sarasota Pass Clarkson Proposed Offices Shop Restaurant and Six Multiple Dwellings.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Alice Brown

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 2

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

Issue

To consider an application for the development of offices, a shop, a restaurant, and six multiple dwellings where variations to the Residential Design Codes and Agreed Structure Plan 2 (Clarkson District Centre) are sought.

Applicant	Manther Samardali and Suheir Samardali
Owner	Manther Samardali and Suheir Samardali
Location	Lot 432 (7) Sarasota Pass, Clarkson
Site Area	1099 square metres
DPS 2 Zoning	Mixed Use

Background

The subject site is 1099 square metres and is currently vacant. The site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ in Agreed Structure Plan 2 (Clarkson District Centre) and has a residential density coding of R60. The location of the subject property is shown on Attachment 1.

The application is for a three storey ‘mixed use’ development, which includes an office, shop, restaurant and six multiple dwellings (refer Attachment 2). The proposal does not comply with the City’s requirements for plot ratio or car parking.

The Residential Design Codes 2002 (R-Codes) requires the applicant to provide justification for any relaxation of the ‘acceptable development’ criteria. In this regard, the applicant has indicated that an increase in plot ratio would provide a raised standard of residential amenity and that a minor variation to plot ratio would not detract from the amenity of the area in regard to height, setbacks, building bulk and streetscape. It was also suggested that the bulk of the building would be the same regardless of the plot ratio. In relation to the proposed reduction in car parking numbers, the applicant stated that the shortfall was justified considering that two on-street car bays exist in front of the site and that a large car park exists on the adjacent site, which is currently set aside for the Clarkson Library and adjoining commercial uses to the west and north of the library.

Detail

The proposal complies with all aspects of the R-Codes and the Agreed Structure Plan, with the exception of plot ratio and car parking. The following describes the points of non-compliance.

Plot Ratio Requirement

The Mixed-Use development requirements of the R-Codes states that the plot ratio for the R60 coding is 0.7; however, the proposed plot ratio is 0.83.

Car Parking Requirement

The car parking standard required for non-residential uses in the Mixed Use zone of the Agreed Structure Plan is 1 bay per 30 square metres of non-residential use. Residential car parking is required at a rate of 1 bay per dwelling. The required number of car bays for this development is 24 bays; however, only 22 bays have been provided on site.

Comment

As the variations sought are related to two separate statutory documents (R-Codes and the Agreed Structure Plan), the two non-complying issues have been addressed separately below.

Plot Ratio Requirement

The Residential Design Codes specify a maximum of 0.7 for plot ratio and the current proposal depicts a plot ratio of 0.83, thereby exceeding the plot ratio requirement by 0.13, which equates to approximately 136.81 square metres. The R-Codes describe plot ratio as ‘the ratio of the gross total of the areas of all floors of buildings on a site to the area of land within the site boundaries’. For the purposes of calculating plot ratio in Mixed Use zones, non-residential ground floor areas are excluded from the calculation. The current proposal includes a second storey office (142m2), which is included in the plot ratio calculation, and therefore contributes to the overall plot ratio.

The discretionary provisions of the R-Codes suggest that all provisions are open to discretion, with the exception of site area requirements. However, as there is no specific ‘performance criteria’ for assessing plot ratio variations it is necessary to consider the proposal on its merits and the overall objectives of the Agreed Structure Plan, which specifies the following;

a) encourage a diversity of land uses and a diversity of housing types;

b) continue Main Street as an active focus for the community by means of associated commercial uses;

c) act as a transition between the Residential and Commercial zones and provide flexibility in design of developments to encourage a variety of mixed use, residential and non-residential uses; and

d) promote developments that provide for pedestrian friendly streetscapes with passive surveillance of the public reserves and open spaces accessible by the public.

The subject site is in a prominent location within the Clarkson District Centre. Three-storey development is acceptable under the Agreed Structure Plan. To address plot ratio requirements, developers tend to reduce the depth of a building (i.e. become thinner) rather than lowering its height, and as such, it is unlikely that strictly enforcing the maximum plot ratio would result in a change to the streetscape appearance or scale of building along Sarasota Pass. The pedestrian and residential amenity of the proposed development is acceptable and the proposed ground floor ‘non-residential’ uses will contribute to a vibrant and diverse District Centre.

A lack of flexibility in applying the plot ratio requirement may act to discourage distinctive and innovative design and the provision of a variety of non-residential land uses in future development applications along Sarasota Pass. Therefore, in the interests of encouraging a visually appealing streetscape and a diversity of residential and non-residential land uses as advocated in the Agreed Structure Plan, the strict application of plot ratio requirements does not appear warranted in this instance.

Car Parking Requirement

The Agreed Structure Plan provides for a “blanket” car parking standard of 1 car bay per 30 square metres of non-residential use and 1 car bay per residential dwelling for all lots within the Mixed Use zone. In comparison, the normal requirements for a shop, office and restaurant as provided in the District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) are:

· Shop: 7 car bays per 100 square metres net lettable area;

· Office: 1 car bay per 30 square metres net lettable area;

· Restaurant: 1 car bay per 4 people accommodated or 1 car bay per 5 square metres seating area; and

· Multiple Dwelling: 2 per residence

Using the DPS2’s car parking standards, a total of 68 car bays would be required for the proposed development. In this regard, the Agreed Structure Plan provides a substantial car parking concession for mixed use development.

The Agreed Structure Plan’s car parking reduction has been based on the availability of public transport, the potential for reciprocal car parking and access arrangements, and the provision of on-street car parking throughout the Clarkson District Centre. Consequentially, the car parking requirement does not allow the incorporation of adjacent on-street car bays to a site’s car parking numbers, as they have already been included, in essence, during the justification of car parking concessions during the development of the Agreed Structure Plan. As a result, the 24 car bays required on site for this application are deemed to be the minimum required under the Agreed Structure Plan.

The applicant has advised the City that there is no opportunity for additional parking to be provided on the site (22 car bays shown) and as such the City has requested that the shortfall in car parking numbers be addressed by reducing the size of the non-residential component of the development by 60 m2. (i.e. the second floor office use reduced from 142 m2 to 90 m2), however, this has not been accepted by the applicant.

The car parking criteria for development within this part of the Clarkson District Centre has already received a significant concession under the provisions of the Agreed Structure Plan. A further relaxation in car parking is not warranted in this instance and there exists reasonable opportunity for the applicant comply.

Part 4.15 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 does provide for a cash payment in lieu of providing car parking bays. Whilst a relaxation of the parking standards is not warranted, there is scope to support a cash in lieu arrangement. This is on the basis that any cash payment may be used for the future provision or maintenance of car parking in the locality.

Conclusion

Having considered the proposal against the relevant Performance Criteria of the R-Codes, and the objectives of the Agreed Structure Plan, it is recommended that whilst a minor variation to the plot ratio requirement could be supported, the car parking requirement that supports the proposed intensity of development has not been satisfied.

This application is the first development proposal north of Sarasota Pass and support for the car parking variation would represent an undesirable precedent for further relaxations in this area and as such is not supported in this instance.

Statutory Compliance

The application for offices, a shop, a restaurant, and six multiple dwellings on Lot 432 (7) Sarasota Pass, Clarkson, has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes as referred to in Clause 4.4 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, and Agreed Structure Plan No. 2 prepared under Part 9 of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2.

Strategic Implications

Consideration of this application is consistent with the ‘healthy, safe, vibrant and connected communities’ goal of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006-2021, which fosters lifestyle choice based on community needs.

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. REFUSES the application submitted by Manther Samardali and Suheir Samardali for the development of offices, a shop, a restaurant, and six multiple dwellings on Lot 432 (7) Sarasota Pass, Clarkson, for the following reasons:

a) The proposal is contrary to Part 6.5.3(m) of the Clarkson District Centre Agreed Structure Plan, which specifies that car parking is to be provided on-site at the rate of 1 bay per residential dwelling unit and 1 bay per 30m²of non-residential use.

b) The car parking criteria for development within this part of the Clarkson District Centre has already received a significant concession under the provisions of the Agreed Structure Plan, and as such a further relaxation in car parking is not warranted in this instance.

c) Support for the variation would establish an undesirable precedent for further variations in this area and as such is not supported in this instance.

2. ADVISES the applicant that it would be prepared to support an amended proposal which provides an additional two (2) car parking bays on site or the non-residential component of the development being reduced by 60m².

3. ADVISES the applicant that it would be prepared to consider the carparking concession for two (2) car bays subject to the payment of cash in lieu in accordance with Part 4.15 of District Planning Scheme No. 2.

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

StartOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

PD07-05/07 Lot 184 (39) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks: Proposed Retaining Walls with Residential Design Codes Variation

File Ref: P29/2199V01

File Name: EA Lot 184 39 Hazel Avenue Quinns Rocks Proposed Retaining Walls With Residential Design Codes Variaxxxxxxxxxxxxx.doc This line will not be printed Please do NOT delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Neil Maull

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 4

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

Issue

To consider an application for a retaining wall on Lot 184 (39) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks, where an objection to the proposal has been received.

File Reference:	P29/2199V01
Application No:	BA07/1083
Applicant:	Mark Benato
Owner:	Mark Benato
Date Received:	20 February 2007
DPS 2 Zoning:	Residential R20
MRS Zoning:	Urban
Permissibility	P
Structure Plan/Policy	Local Planning Policy

Background

The subject lot is located at the intersection of Hazel Avenue and Mary Street, Quinns Rocks (refer Attachment 1). An established dwelling is located directly to the west of the subject lot, while a vacant lot is situated directly to the south. A building licence application for a retaining wall was submitted to the City on the 26 February 2007. The proposed retaining wall runs along the southern lot boundary with a length of 22m, and ranges from 1.2m to 2m high, and a retaining wall 20m long with a maximum height of 2m along the western boundary.

Detail

The proposed retaining walls are proposed in order to create a level area for the future development of a dwelling on this lot. The topography of the site is such that there is a maximum level difference of approx 5.5m across the site (refer Attachment 2). The proposed retaining walls will permit these level differences to be addressed. It is worth noting that the applicant only proposes to retain that part of the land where required to permit the construction of a dwelling, (refer indicative dwelling location Attachment 3).

Consultation

The applicant consulted with both affected property owners. The property owner of the established dwelling to the west at Lot 203 (2) Mary Street, Quinns Rocks has no objection to the proposal subject to the final building pad level not exceeding 10.8m. The owner of the vacant lot to the south at lot 185 Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks has objected to the proposal on the following grounds.

· Proposed retaining wall will impede development of 37 Hazel Avenue.

· Proposed retaining wall with fence above will restrict natural light.

The City has not undertaken any consultation with the adjoining landowners as all affected adjoining property owners have previously commented on the proposal.

Comment

The acceptable development standards of the R-Codes effectively limit the height of retaining walls to 0.5m. The City’s Policy ‘Establishing Building Pads, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development’ further expands on the provision of the R-Codes as they apply to the setback of retaining walls by permitting (where necessary due to site topography) retaining walls along side and rear boundaries up to 1m high without the need to consult with adjacent landowners. Retaining higher than this must be assessed against the performance criteria of the R-Codes

In this instance, retaining ranging in height from 1.2m to 2m is proposed, which clearly falls outside the provisions contained within the City’s Policy. Consequently, the applicant has requested that the proposal is assessed against the performance criteria 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of the R-Codes which state that ‘New development should retain the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property’ (3.6.1), and that ‘Retaining walls designed should be setback to minimise the impact on the adjoining property’ (3.6.2).

The proposed retaining walls do not satisfy part of the provisions of the first relevant performance criteria which deals with excavation and fill. The proposal does not retain the visual impression of the natural level of the site as seen from the adjoining property. However, the proposed retaining wall would not affect the visual impression of the natural level of the site, when viewed from the street (Hazel Avenue).

In relation to the second performance criteria which deals with the setback of retaining walls from the boundary, the adjoining landowner has indicated that they believe that the proposed retaining wall will restrict natural light to the adjacent lot. To comply with the R-Codes acceptable development standards, a retaining wall of this height would need to be setback 4m from the lot boundary. Such a setback would severely limit the development potential of the site. In terms of the impact upon the adjoining property owner, it is accepted that at a maximum retaining wall height of 2m with a standard 1.8m high dividing fence above would present a maximum total wall height of 3.8m to the adjoining property. Despite this height, the extent of overshadowing is within the acceptable levels prescribed by the R-Codes.

In addition to assessing the proposal against the performance criteria of the R-Codes and the City’s Policy referred to previously, the topography of the site specifically and the area generally must be considered. The topography of the subject lot is by no means unusual in this area – Quinns Rocks is an area which is characterised by sloping sites typical of a developed dune system. Consequently, retaining walls are an established feature of this area and are often required to provide level building lots (refer Attachment 4 for an example of a retaining wall located opposite the subject lot, between Lot 182 (38) Hazel Avenue and Lot 181 (36) Hazel Avenue). The proposed retaining wall, which exceeds the maximum retaining wall height permitted by 1m, is not considered excessive to permit the creation of a level building lot in this area.

Statutory Compliance

The application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes, as referred to in clause 4.4 of the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No 2, the City’s ‘Establishing Building Pads, Excavation, Fill and Retaining Associated with Residential Development’ Policy. Assessment of the proposal has determined that although the proposed development does not satisfy the acceptable development standards of the R-Codes, it is considered to satisfy the performance criteria and therefore a variation to City’s Policy is warranted given the topography of the site. Notwithstanding the objection from one of the adjoining property owners, the proposal can be supported.

Strategic Implications

The proposal would be consistent with the ‘healthy, safe, vibrant and connected communities’ goal of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021, which fosters lifestyle choice based on community needs.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

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

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the application submitted by M Benato for the development of a retaining wall on Lot 184 (39) Hazel Avenue, Quinns Rocks, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval pertains only to the retaining walls on the side and rear boundaries of the lot to a Retained Level (R.L.) of 11.0 and a wall height matching that level.

2. Levels being amended to those as indicated in red on the approved plan.

3. The retaining wall design and materials shall match those of the surrounding area where practicable to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Services.

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 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision

DA07/0329 24/04/2007 PRISCILLA I ZAPANTIS 3 $1,110.00 Approved

Prop address 2 SHELVOCK CRESCENT KOONDOOLA WA 6064

Land Lot 231 P 11138 Vol 1407 Fol 302

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 2A)

Applicant KALMAR PTY LTD

File Number P16/0861V01

DA07/0313 19/04/2007 DENNIS F HARRIDGE & LYNETTE G HARRIDGE 6 $5,801.00 Approved

Prop address 18 RENDELL WAY KOONDOOLA WA 6064

Land Lot 1154 P 11288 Vol 1441 Fol 753

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant OASIS PATIOS

File Number P16/0117V01

DA06/0761 13/10/2006 ANDREW V PAVICH 109 $370,000.00 Approved

Prop address 31 TOULON CIRCLE MINDARIE WA 6030

Land Lot 4 D 88911 Vol 2055 Fol 194

Descriptio SINGLE DWELLING

Applicant DANMAR HOMES PTY LTD

File Number P22/1206V01

DA07/0327 23/04/2007 JOHN MASON & VILMA MASON 4 $19,145.00 Approved

Prop address 182 TRANQUIL DRIVE CARRAMAR WA 6031

Land Lot 117 D 71793 Vol 1767 Fol 579

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant KALMAR PTY LTD

File Number P07/0082V01

DA07/0317 19/04/2007 BRIAN A KENNEDY & PAULINE A KENNEDY 5 $500,000.00 Approved

Prop address 89 SUBLIME GLADE CARRAMAR WA 6031

Land Lot 61 P 13455 Vol 1585 Fol 766

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - CARPORT PERGOLA & CELLAR ADDITIONS

Applicant G WEBSTER

File Number P07/1533V01

DA07/0100 16/11/2006 DONATO A SALOMONE, STEFANO SALOMONE, 0 $866,000.00 Approved

Prop address VACANT COMMERCIAL 36 DELLAMARTA ROAD WANGARA WA 6065

Land Part Lot 232 P 11775 Vol 1732 Fol 676

Descriptio SHOWROOM/WAREHOUSE

Applicant DRYKA & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS

File Number P33/0196V01

DA07/0272 11/04/2007 RONALD C TURNBULL & ROSALYN J TURNBULL 6 $49,000.00 Approved

Prop address 299 GIBBS ROAD NOWERGUP WA 6032

Land Lot 9 D 63664 Vol 1664 Fol 775

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - EXTENSION ADDITIONS

Applicant RC TURNBULL

File Number P24/0032V01

DA07/0278 11/04/2007 AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION LTD 2 $6,658.00 Approved

Prop address LANDSDALE GARDENS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 77 QUEENSWAY ROAD LANDSDALE

Land Part Lot 70 P 8649 Vol 1488 Fol 732

Descriptio LANDSDALE GARDENS CHRISTIAN SCHOOL - STORAGE ADDITION

Applicant OUTDOOR WORLD

File Number P17/0636V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0336 26/04/2007 WILLIAM S OWEN & KATHLEEN OWEN 1 $3,960.00 Approved

Prop address 7 FACEY ROAD GNANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 12 P 8480 Vol 1328 Fol 765

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

File Number P12/0166V01

DA07/0304 20/04/2007 LEON J BEST 5 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 2 WHITNEY PLACE ALEXANDER HEIGHTS WA 6064

Land Lot 167 P 16331 Vol 1824 Fol 859

Descriptio HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 3 - ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING

Applicant LJ BEST

File Number P01/1315V01

DA07/0310 23/04/2007 CARLOTTA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD 4 $10,000.00 Approved

Prop address 348 GIBBS ROAD NOWERGUP WA 6032

Land Lot 12 D 39500 Vol 386 Fol 184A

Descriptio RELOCATION OF RURAL SHED

Applicant CAPE CONSTRUCTION CO

File Number P24/0025V01

DA07/0253 03/04/2007 CRAIG J CHALLEN 1 $350,490.00 Approved

Prop address 533 SYDNEY ROAD JANDABUP WA 6065

Land Lot 53 D 82914 Vol 1962 Fol 880

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant THE RURAL BUILDING COMPANY

File Number P14/0008V01

DA07/0261 05/04/2007 PRIOLO FAMILY TRUST 12 $8,000.00 Approved

Prop address 36 BUCKINGHAM DRIVE WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 175 P 11775 Vol 1452 Fol 0278

Descriptio FACTORY UNITS - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant THORN ROOFING CONTRACTORS

File Number P33/0021V01

DA07/0186 23/02/2007 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN LAND AUTHORITY 15 $31,430.00 Approved

Prop address SUBDIVIDED 273 GNANGARA ROAD WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 14 D 27436 Vol 1844 Fol 831

Descriptio USE NOT LISTED - SIGNAGE (9 X PYLON SIGN)

Applicant MARKETFORCE

File Number P33/0180V01

DA07/0251 02/04/2007 PETER J WOOD 2 $3,632.00 Approved

Prop address 22B CALVERT WAY GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Lot 2 Vol 2534 Fol 551 S/P 43074

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - CARPORT ADDITION

Applicant PEARCEY CONSTRUCTIONS

File Number P11/0146V01

DA07/0246 03/04/2007 HOUSING AUTHORITY 7 $2,800.00 Approved

Prop address 2B TEMPLETON CRESCENT GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Part Lot 772 P 10054

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING CARPORT ADDITION (UNIT 2B)

Applicant HOMESWEST

File Number P11/0474V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0090 05/02/2007 BRENTON K MCKINNELL 4 $4,350.00 Approved

Prop address 18F BUNTINE WAY GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Lot 6 Vol 2541 Fol 771 S/P 43546

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT F)

Applicant HERITAGE OUTDOOR LEISURE CENTRE

File Number P11/0508V01

DA07/0306 17/04/2007 STEFANIE SPALLAROSSA & STEVE SPALLAROSSA 8 $5,160.00 Approved

Prop address BANKSIA 24D PELHAM WAY GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Lot 4 Vol 2513 Fol 189 S/P 41203

Descriptio GROUP DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION TO UNIT 24D

Applicant NORTHERN PATIO INSTALATIONS

File Number P11/0096V01

DA07/0314 18/04/2007 KATHLEEN M DOUST 7 $1,480.00 Approved

Prop address SEVENOAKS RETIREMENT VILLAGE 37/15 MEREWORTH WAY MARANGAROO WA

Land Lot 37 Vol 1770 Fol 387 S/P 14343

Descriptio RETIREMENT VILLAGE - PATIO ADDITION TO (UNIT 37)

Applicant A1 PATIOS

File Number P19/0197V01

DA07/0259 10/04/2007 MICHAEL R TYLER 3 $3,500.00 Approved

Prop address 22A MANBARI CRESCENT WANNEROO WA 6065

Land Lot 2 Vol 1522 Fol 892 S/P 6597

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - WORKSHOP ADDITION ( UNIT 22A)

Applicant MR TYLER

File Number P34/2550V01

DA07/0250 02/04/2007 PHILLIP JA TORRISI & ANDREW S TORRISI 3 $2,773.00 Approved

Prop address WESTBROOK MEWS 3/15 WESTBROOK WAY GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Lot 15 Vol 2559 Fol 267 S/P 44797

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 3)

Applicant HERITAGE OUTDOOR LEISURE CENTRE

File Number P11/0955V01

DA07/0231 27/03/2007 VUJADIN STRBAC & VANJA ROKIC 7 $3,500.00 Approved

Prop address WESTBROOK MEWS 6/17 WESTBROOK WAY GIRRAWHEEN WA 6064

Land Lot 25 Vol 2559 Fol 277 S/P 44797

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 6)

Applicant V STRBAC

File Number P11/0453v01

DA07/0082 01/02/2007 AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS GROUP PTY LTD 48 $5,000,000.00 Approved

Prop address 6 BERRIMAN DRIVE WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 2 D 54095 Vol 1764 Fol 724

Descriptio TWO CAR DEALERSHIP YARDS

Applicant BRUCE MCLEAN ARCHITECTS

File Number P33/0226V01

DA07/0296 16/04/2007 KARMELA SKROZA & MARK SKROZA 9 $10,000.00 Approved

Prop address 203 ELLIOT ROAD WANNEROO WA 6065

Land Part Lot 31 P 6292

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant SWAN PATIOS

File Number P34/3033V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0244 02/04/2007 THERES M DREHER & STEFAN E DREHER 8 $20,769.00 Approved

Prop address 50 CORINTH LANE GNANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 233 P 18274 Vol 1925 Fol 006

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - SWIMMING POOL ADDITION

Applicant SAPPHIRE POOLS

File Number P12/0288V01

DA07/0197 09/03/2007 FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY OF 32 $183,000.00 Approved

Prop address FIRE STATION-RES 43891 47 DROVERS PLACE WANNEROO WA 6065

Land Lot 12462 DP 192333 Vol 3106 Fol 115

Descriptio FIRE STATION ADDITIONS

Applicant PARRY & WHYTE ARCHITECTS

File Number P34/3010V01

DA07/0211 15/03/2007 TRENSTYLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD 12 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 10 LEADERSHIP WAY WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 228 P 22161 Vol 2115 Fol 440

Descriptio CHANGE OF USE - SANDBLASTING

Applicant TRENSTYLE HOLDINGS PTY LTD

File Number P33/0118V01

DA06/0901 01/12/2006 VILMA T PABLO, CIRILO R PABLO, ARIS PABLO, 98 $17,000.00 Approved

Prop address 72 WIRREGA ROAD JANDABUP WA 6065

Land Lot 117 P 21843 Vol 2205 Fol 119

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - SHED ADDITION

Applicant SHEDCO

File Number P14/0060V01

DA07/0257 05/04/2007 DEBRA G FOSTER & KENNETH O FOSTER 4 $10,000.00 Approved

Prop address 20 PINE CREST WAY GNANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 11 P 22847 Vol 2139 Fol 026

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - SWIMMING POOL ADDITION

Applicant POLY POOLS

File Number P12/0206V01

DA07/0236 28/03/2007 GLORIA D BYRNE & JOHN A BYRNE 5 $8,000.00 Approved

Prop address 252 NEAVES ROAD MARIGINIUP WA 6065

Land Lot 108 D 93314 Vol 2141 Fol 640

Descriptio Rural Front Fence

Applicant JA BYRNE

File Number P20/0121V01

DA07/0288 13/04/2007 BERNARD D BOWERMAN & JANET C BOWERMAN 3 $8,000.00 Approved

Prop address 7 BRONZEWING GROVE MARIGINIUP WA 6065

Land Lot 8 P 23141 Vol 2160 Fol 886

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant MINDARIE PATIOS

File Number P20/0009V01

DA06/0746 10/10/2006 QUINNS BAPTIST COLLEGE INC 88 $2,000,000.00 Approved

Prop address 28 SALERNO DRIVE MINDARIE WA 6030

Land Lot 509 P 23457 Vol 2162 Fol 169

Descriptio NEW AUDITORIUM AND CLASSROOMS ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SCHOOL

Applicant T&Z PTY LTD

File Number P22/1806V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0115 12/02/2007 SHARON BARENDSE & KURT F BARENDSE 42 $363,636.36 Approved

Prop address 17 BANTRY BEND MINDARIE WA 6030

Land Lot 1127 P 24245 Vol 2197 Fol 747

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant P HEALEY

File Number P22/1409V01

DA07/0326 23/04/2007 ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PERTH 4 $3,470.00 Approved

Prop address ST ANTHONYS PRIMARY SCHOOL 7 SERVITE TERRACE WANNEROO WA 6065

Land Part Lot 512 D 99780

Descriptio EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT - SHADE ADDITION

Applicant ST ANTHONY'S SCHOOL PRINCIPAL

File Number P34/3090V01

DA07/0151 21/02/2007 SOAD ELTOUKHI & WSEEM ELTOUKHI 25 $350,000.00 Approved

Prop address 27 KING DAVID BOULEVARD MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 163 DP 24490 Vol 2203 Fol 255

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

Applicant W ELTOUKHI

File Number P18/0110V01

DA07/0118 12/02/2007 DAVID A LAMONT & SIUSAN P CAMPBELL-LAMONT 43 $261,383.00 Approved

Prop address 9 EMERALD DRIVE CARABOODA WA 6033

Land Lot 102 DP 24938 Vol 2205 Fol 800

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant SCOTT PARK HOMES PTY LTD

File Number P06/0010V01

DA06/0656 11/09/2006 DAVID A LAMONT & SIUSAN P CAMPBELL-LAMONT 103 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 9 EMERALD DRIVE CARABOODA WA 6033

Land Lot 102 DP 24938 Vol 2205 Fol 800

Descriptio BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATION

Applicant DA LAMONT, SP CAMPBELL-LAMONT

File Number P06/0010V01

DA06/0764 11/10/2006 MAIN ROADS DEPT 135 $110,000.00 Approved

Prop address ROAD-RES 48274 3350 MITCHELL FREEWAY NOWERGUP WA 6032

Land Lot 14041 DP 221399 Vol 3124 Fol 567

Descriptio TEMPORARY FIRE STATION AND SLEEPING QUARTERS

Applicant VSA PROPERTY

File Number P24/0061V01

DA07/0265 27/03/2007 CITY OF WANNEROO 13 $250,000.00 Approved

Prop address MATERIAL RECOVERY FACILITY 86 MOTIVATION DRIVE WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 257 DP 26862 Vol 2215 Fol 92

Descriptio WASTE MATERIAL RECOVERY - EXTENSIONS & ADDITIONS

Applicant PRTICHARD FRANCIS

File Number P33/0260V01

DA06/0850 10/11/2006 JIM TRPCHEV & LINDA A TRPCHEV 87 $100,000.00 Approved

Prop address 26 TIFWAY PLACE CARABOODA WA 6033

Land Lot 62 DP 27054

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - BED AND BREAKFAST, ANCILLIARY ACCOMODATION ADDITION

Applicant J TRPCHEV, LA TRPCHEV

File Number P06/0162V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0220 20/03/2007 BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP 3 $2,353.00 Approved

Prop address KINGSWAY COURT 141 KINGSWAY MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 103 DP 36095 Vol 2536 Fol 968

Descriptio AGED OR DEPENDENT PERSONS DWELLINGS - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 161)

Applicant ERECT-A-PAT

File Number P18/1604V01

DA07/0152 22/02/2007 DHAVAL D SHAH & SONAL D SHAH 30 $1,200.00 Approved

Prop address 6 NEWPORT WAY DARCH WA 6065

Land Lot 495 DP 35991 Vol 2537 Fol 173

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE - SATELLIE DISH ADDITION

Applicant DD SHAH, SD SHAH

File Number P09/0364V01

DA07/0294 10/04/2007 ALAN DAVEY 12 $0.00 Approved

Prop address ADDISON PARK EARLY LEARNING CENTRE 12 JENOLAN WAY MERRIWA WA 6030

Land Lot 800 DP 36939 Vol 2549 Fol 299

Descriptio CHILDCARE CENTRE INCREASED CAPACITY

Applicant A DAVEY

File Number P21/0791V01

DA04/0867.01. 02/04/2007 CARL R NICHOLAS & RUTH D NICHOLAS 8 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 16 CARRAMAR ROAD CARRAMAR WA 6031

Land Lot 2113 DP 36914 Vol 2551 Fol 092

Descriptio HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 3 - SERVICING OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Applicant CR NICHOLAS, RD NICHOLAS

File Number

DA04/0867.02 02/04/2007 CARL R NICHOLAS & RUTH D NICHOLAS 9 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 16 CARRAMAR ROAD CARRAMAR WA 6031

Land Lot 2113 DP 36914 Vol 2551 Fol 092

Descriptio HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 3 - PRINTER SERVICING - ANNUAL RENEWAL

Applicant CR NICHOLAS, RD NICHOLAS

File Number P07/0753V01

DA07/0256 05/04/2007 JENNIFER L HINDLE 5 $500,000.00 Approved

Prop address FISH FARM 36 GIBBS ROAD NOWERGUP WA 6032

Land Lot 56 DP 39897

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant M BRANSON

File Number P24/0004V01

DA07/0171 23/02/2007 CROWN LAND - CITY OF WANNEROO 16 $5,000.00 Approved

Prop address INNOVATION PARK-RES 47772 4 INNOVATION CIRCUIT WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 15028 DP 38475 Vol 3134 Fol 655

Descriptio USE NOT LISTED - SIGNAGE (REPLACEMENT)

Applicant MARKETFORCE

File Number PR33/0003V01

DA07/0255 04/04/2007 KENNETH L MORGAN & KIM MORGAN 7 $650,000.00 Approved

Prop address 7 PENRYN LANE MINDARIE WA 6030

Land Lot 360 DP 38761 Vol 2557 Fol 672

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant DESIGN & CONSTRUCT ASSOCIATES

File Number P22/1494V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0330 24/04/2007 NIGEL J HARDIE & LEANNE R HARDIE 3 $3,000.00 Approved

Prop address 2 KENSINGTON WAY PEARSALL WA 6065

Land Lot 1 Vol 2561 Fol 813 S/P 45603

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - FRONT FENCE ADDITION

Applicant NJ HARDIE

File Number P25/0217V01

DA07/0185 02/03/2007 JULIE A BREWER & RANDALL S BREWER 19 $318,455.00 Approved

Prop address 45 WATTLE MEWS HOCKING WA 6065

Land Lot 218 DP 41047 Vol 2573 Fol 427

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLING

Applicant VENTURA SPECIAL PROJECTS

File Number P13/1248V01

DA07/0227 26/03/2007 CLAUDINE M HADFIELD & NICHOLAS A HADFIELD 7 $270,000.00 Approved

Prop address 14 CHESTERFIELD AVENUE HOCKING WA 6065

Land Lot 529 DP 42362 Vol 2575 Fol 443

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

Applicant WATERSIDE DEVELOPMENTS

File Number P13/1131V01

DA07/0269 11/04/2007 PARENT CONTROLLED CHRISTIAN EDUCATION 7 $11,090.00 Approved

Prop address KINGSWAY CHRISTIAN COLLEGE 60 SEAGROVE BOULEVARD MERRIWA WA 6030

Land Lot 1803 DP 41216

Descriptio EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT - SHADE SAIL ADDITION

Applicant SUPREME SHADES

File Number P21/1419V01

DA07/0303 17/04/2007 DANE L NASH & VALERIE C NASH 8 $4,999.00 Approved

Prop address 3 CLEVELAND COURT MARANGAROO WA 6064

Land Lot 2 Vol 2577 Fol 282 S/P 46474

Descriptio GROUP DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant NORTHERN PATIOS INSTALLATIONS

File Number P19/1718V01

DA06/0907 04/12/2006 GOSPEL BAPTIST CHURCH 69 $625,000.00 Approved

Prop address 3 BACKSHALL PLACE WANNEROO WA 6065

Land Lot 9002 DP 44611

Descriptio CHURCH BUILDING AND CARPARK ADDITIONS

Applicant IAN ANDERSON ARCHITECT PTY LTD

File Number P34/1593V01

DA07/0230 27/03/2007 JACQUELINE A GRANDEMANGE & MARIE GJ 7 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 3 ZURICH FAIRWAY HOCKING WA 6065

Land Lot 762 DP 43647 Vol 2587 Fol 007

Descriptio HOME BUSINESS - CATEGORY 2 - HAIRDRESSING SALON

Applicant JA GRANDEMANGE

File Number P13/1054V01

DA07/0224 23/03/2007 MICHELLE L TURNBULL, ANTHONY J COOK, 5 $4,180.00 Approved

Prop address 61 SUSAN ROAD MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 2 Vol 2614 Fol 492 S/P 49760

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant SUNSET OUTDOOR

File Number P18/1525V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0241 29/03/2007 WILLIAM R SEARLE & REGAN A SEARLE 8 $3,141.00 Approved

Prop address 20 BOSCASTLE WAY DARCH WA 6065

Land Lot 248 DP 42690 Vol 2592 Fol 376

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION

Applicant NEW IMAGE HOME IMPROVEMENTS

File Number P09/1255V01

DA06/0841 09/11/2006 IMAD NAHIM 112 $350,000.00 Approved

Prop address 231 OCEAN KEYS BOULEVARD CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1176 DP 45468 Vol 2597 Fol 883

Descriptio MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE AND MULTIPLE DWELLING X 2

Applicant DICKIE ARCHITECTS

File Number P08/1934V01

DA07/0025 08/01/2007 LAKE VISTA NOMINEES PTY LTD 42 $2,500,000.00 Approved

Prop address 35 PINJAR ROAD SINAGRA WA 6065

Land Lot 1001 DP 47324 Vol 2597 Fol 400 S/P 47046

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - 16 UNITS (LOTS 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,

Applicant TERRA FIRMA CAPITAL PTY LTD

File Number P29/0224V01

DA07/0009 21/12/2006 AUSTRALAND HOLDINGS LTD 68 $16,000.00 Approved

Prop address 39 GAUDI WAY CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1540 DP 46798 Vol 2602 Fol 802

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - FENCE ADDITION

Applicant WHELANS

File Number P08/2077V01

DA06/0353.01 07/03/2007 LISA I RODI & JASON J SPARK 19 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 19 DENVER AVENUE MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 738 DP 47160 Vol 2604 Fol 320

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

Applicant MAPLETON HOLDINGS PTY LTD

File Number P18/1352V01

DA07/0166 28/02/2007 NOR-WEST CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 30 $450,000.00 Approved

Prop address 59 WINDSOR ROAD WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 201 DP 45386 Vol 2604 Fol 121

Descriptio FOUR WAREHOUSES

Applicant NOR-WEST CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

File Number P33/0486V01

DA07/0281 13/04/2007 P & T ENTERPRISES 9 $300,000.00 Approved

Prop address 17 ORMOND BEND BUTLER WA 6036

Land Lot 760 DP 47628 Vol 2605 Fol 717

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

Applicant Mr A FIORENTINO

File Number P05/2021V01

DA07/0328 24/04/2007 ROBERT D MACPHERSON & ESTHER N 3 $3,670.00 Approved

Prop address 11/25 SIDERNO RISE HOCKING WA 6065

Land Lot 11 Vol 2609 Fol 861 S/P 49317

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 11)

Applicant OUTDOOR WORLD

File Number P13/0525V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0338 23/04/2007 PETER J MELLOWS & JUDITH A MELLOWS 4 $3,248.00 Approved

Prop address 7 MELITA RISE PEARSALL WA 6065

Land Lot 283 DP 47957 Vol 2610 Fol 466

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - PATIO ADDITION (UNIT 1 & 2)

Applicant KALMAR PTY LTD

File Number P25/0679V01

DA07/0107.01 29/03/2007 PRIMEWEST NO. 11 PTY LTD 14 $0.00 Approved

Prop address 5 KINGSBRIDGE BOULEVARD BUTLER WA 6036

Land Lot 279 DP 46281 Vol 2613 Fol 293

Descriptio SHOP FIT OUT - BANK - MINOR AMENDMENT

Applicant JONES COULTER YOUNG PTY LTD

File Number P05/1101V02

DA07/0085 01/02/2007 HOUSING AUTHORITY 53 $1,631,000.00 Approved

Prop address 15 OAKPARK GREEN CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1203 DP 48517

Descriptio NINE GROUPED DWELLING

Applicant PAUL MESCHIATI & ASSOCIATES

File Number P08/3093V01

DA07/0287 12/04/2007 CROWN LAND - CITY OF WANNEROO 10 $10,000.00 Approved

Prop address QUINNS ROCKS SPORTS CLUB 17 TAPPING WAY QUINNS ROCKS WA 6030

Land Part Lot 500 DP 52810

Descriptio CLUBHOUSE - STORE ROOM ADDITION

Applicant QUINNS ROCKS SPORTS CLUB

File Number P/0011V01

DA07/0217 19/03/2007 HOUSING AUTHORITY 22 $440,000.00 Approved

Prop address 27 LIBERTY DRIVE CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 2050 DP 50289

Descriptio THREE GROUPED DWELLING

Applicant INTER PACIFIC CONSULTANTS

File Number P08/3225V01

DA07/0263 05/04/2007 CHIN K TAN & BENG C TAN 5 $288,274.00 Approved

Prop address 50 SOMERLY DRIVE CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1725 DP 50948 Vol 2627 Fol 58

Descriptio GROUPED DWELLING - 2 UNITS

Applicant BGC RESIDENTIAL PTY LTD

File Number P08/2586V01

DA07/0305 20/04/2007 LARRY W JENNINGS & KIM D JENNINGS 5 $600,000.00 Approved

Prop address 11 SHOREHAM TURN MINDARIE WA 6030

Land Lot 476 DP 49283 Vol 2626 Fol 045

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant LW JENNINGS

File Number P22/1963V01

DA07/0131 14/02/2007 CARINE NOMINEES PTY LTD 2 $490,000.00 Approved

Prop address 2359 MARMION AVENUE JINDALEE WA 6036

Land Lot 9025 DP 50635

Descriptio PUBLIC OPEN SPACE

Applicant MCNALLY NEWTON LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

File Number P15/0001V03

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA06/0876 23/11/2006 CEDARGATE HOLDINGS PTY LTD 53 $349,190.00 Approved

Prop address 28 HELLFIRE DRIVE DARCH WA 6065

Land Lot 707 DP 49785 Vol 2631 Fol 476

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

Applicant ALLIED RESIDENTIAL GROUP

File Number P09/1582V01

DA07/0215 19/03/2007 STEPHEN D SICILIANO, MARK J RASO, DOLLIS 13 $330,000.00 Approved

Prop address 39 WILMOT BEND MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 861 DP 50994 Vol 2634 Fol 357

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

Applicant DALBET PTY LTD

File Number P18/1481V01

DA07/0228 26/03/2007 ANDREW J SMITH & NICOLA J SMITH 13 $525,156.00 Approved

Prop address 19 SEABIRD BEND JINDALEE WA 6036

Land Lot 1699 DP 50638 Vol 2630 Fol 683

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant WEBB & BROWN NEAVES HOME BUILDERS

File Number P15/0330V01

DA07/0200 12/03/2007 KEAT Y GOEY & BRETT M LLOYD 29 $480,000.00 Approved

Prop address 4 BOUVARD WALK CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 445 DP 48390 Vol 2633 Fol 214

Descriptio MIXED USE - SINGLE HOUSE, SINGLE BEDROOM DWELLING AND SHOP X 2

Applicant THE DESIGN MILL

File Number P08/2759V01

DA07/0282 13/04/2007 WESTNET ENTERPRISES PTY LTD 3 $244,051.00 Approved

Prop address 16 CHEROKEE GREEN CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1152 DP 52066 Vol 2637 Fol 983

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant APG HOMES PTY LTD

File Number P08/3273V01

DA07/0283 13/04/2007 AVTAR S BHABRA & RATTAN K BHABRA 3 $247,176.00 Approved

Prop address 18 CHEROKEE GREEN CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1153 DP 52066 Vol 2637 Fol 984

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant APG HOMES PTY LTD

File Number P08/3272V01

DA07/0239 29/03/2007 VAN S NGUYEN & THI MT TRUONG 8 $263,907.27 Approved

Prop address 9 ICEBERG WAY DARCH WA 6065

Land Lot 778 DP 50063 Vol 2640 Fol 811

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant JWH PTY LTD

File Number P09/1620V01

DA07/0240 29/03/2007 VAN S NGUYEN & THI MT TRUONG 10 $263,907.27 Approved

Prop address 24 ROMAINE LOOP DARCH WA 6065

Land Lot 802 DP 50063 Vol 2640 Fol 835

Descriptio TWO STORY DWELLING

Applicant JWH PTY LTD

File Number P09/1689V01

Development Applications determined for Period City of Wanneroo

WHERE (Issued_date BETWEEN 01/04/2007 00:00:00 AND 30/04/2007 23:59:59)

Ram Id Date Owners Days Est Cost Decision DA07/0193 07/03/2007 YANCHEP SUN CITY PTY LTD & CAPRICORN 32 $160,000.00 Approved

Prop address SUBDIVIDED 599 TWO ROCKS ROAD YANCHEP WA 6035

Land Lot 9006 DP 52675

Descriptio ADVANCE CLEARING AND EARTHWORKS

Applicant COSSILL & WEBLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS

File Number P36/0256V05

DA07/0084 01/02/2007 YANCHEP SUN CITY PTY LTD & CAPRICORN 53 $320,000.00 Approved

Prop address SUBDIVIDED 599 TWO ROCKS ROAD YANCHEP WA 6035

Land Lot 9006 DP 52675

Descriptio CLEARING & EARTHWORKS

Applicant COSSILL & WEBLEY PTY LTD

File Number P36/0256V05

DA07/0016 03/01/2007 YANCHEP SUN CITY PTY LTD & CAPRICORN 77 $900,000.00 Approved

Prop address SUBDIVIDED 599 TWO ROCKS ROAD YANCHEP WA 6035

Land Lot 9006 DP 52675

Descriptio TWO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES AND A PUBLIC ACCESS WAY

Applicant EPCAD PTY LTD

File Number P36/0256V04

DA07/0325 23/04/2007 JOHN A BURLING 4 $138,553.00 Approved

Prop address 15 HAYMOUNT WAY CLARKSON WA 6030

Land Lot 1114 DP 52110 Vol 2642 Fol 402

Descriptio SINGLE HOUSE

Applicant HOMESTART

File Number P08/3032V01

DA07/0222 23/03/2007 RENEE L MASTRANGELO 12 $280,000.00 Approved

Prop address 25 OTUNIC WAY MADELEY WA 6065

Land Lot 713 DP 50839 Vol 2647 Fol 604

Descriptio TWO GROUPED DWELLING

Applicant RL MASTRANGELO

File Number P18/1537V01

DA07/0238 29/03/2007 HILBURN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD 14 $550,000.00 Approved

Prop address 25 PRESTIGE PARADE WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 433 DP 52869 Vol 2650 Fol 986

Descriptio FOUR (4) WAREHOUSES – ONE INCIDENTAL OFFICE

Applicant HILBURN CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

File Number P33/0594V01

DA07/0273 12/04/2007 MICHAEL A MULLER & PENELOPE E MULLER 12 $430,000.00 Approved

Prop address 21 PRESTIGE PARADE WANGARA WA 6065

Land Lot 434 DP 52869 Vol 2650 Fol 987

Descriptio WAREHOUSE WITH OFFICE INCIDENTAL

Applicant MA MULLER

File Number P33/0599V01

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

PD10-05/07 Noise and Chemical Odours from Meneghello Galvanizing Services, 46 Rogers Road, Landsdale

File Ref: S09/0062V01

File Name: HA Noise And Chemical Odours From Meneghello Galvanzing Services 46 Rogers Road Landsdale.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Christine Devereux

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 1

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

Issue

To consider a petition against excessive noise levels and chemical odours coming from Meneghello Galvanizing Services at 46 Rogers Road, Landsdale.

Background

A petition signed by 279 people was presented to Council at its meeting on 20 February 2007 (Item No PT02-02/07 refers). The petition stated that:

“We, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo, do formally request Council’s consideration of this petition against the excessive noise levels and chemical odours coming from the Meneghello Galvanizing Services at 46 Rogers Rd (24hrs a day, 7 days a week) in the Landsdale Industrial area.”

The addresses of the signatories are from Darch within the Ashdale Garden Estate.

The petition represents 279 properties within the vicinity of Ashdale Garden Estate.

Detail

Council considered this report at its 24 April 2007 meeting (Item PD18-04/07 refers), where it was resolved to refer it back to Administration for further information.

Meneghello Galvanizing Services is licensed as a prescribed premises under the Environmental Protection Act 1987. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) licence Meneghello Galvanizing Services in respect of discharges of waste or emissions of noise or odour (refer Attachment 1).

In September 2006, the City contacted the DEC in response to noise and odour complaints received from nearby residents. The DEC requested that affected residents complete noise log sheets to monitor the noise emissions to justify installing a recording device. In the meantime, Meneghello Galvanizing Services staff had been advised to turn off radios and move steel in a quiet manner.

The DEC inspected the premises in December 2006 for compliance with the licence conditions. As a result of the inspection, Meneghello Galvanizing Service Management carried out repairs to the shed to control some fume emissions. Meneghello Galvanizing Service was also requested to provide the DEC with independent verification that the wet scrubber system was effectively removing particulate emissions.

The DEC received at letter from Meneghello Galvanizing Service on 27 February 2007 explaining analysis of fume emissions had revealed the need to install a fully hooded fume cover over the galvanizing bath to capture all fume emissions. The design and fabrication of the fume hood was currently occurring with the projected completion date within eight to ten weeks. The ducting and completion of the wet scrubber to remove fume emissions was projected to take an additional month.

On 6 March 2007, DEC called Meneghello Galvanizing Service to confirm the timeframe of the environmental improvements. Meneghello Galvanizing Service’s informed DEC that the front and rear doors of the galvanizing shed will be enclosed which should further reduce noise levels. They would also engage a consultant to confirm the wet scrubber was removing particulate emissions to an acceptable environmental standard and provide DEC with monitoring data.

To date the DEC has still not received a noise log from residents with time and duration information as requested. DEC has requested feedback as to whether noise emissions have reduced or are still an issue with residents.

Comment

The petition submitted by Ashdale Gardens Resident Association (AGRA) states:

“the residents acknowledges that Meneghello’s was operation before the residential development took place, but feel that more attention should have been given at the time in providing an adequate buffer zone between these types of developments. There is no doubt that an undesirable and unacceptable environment has been created due to this decision.

We are requesting Council consider solutions on how we can resolve this situation.

Noise pollution suggestion:

Reduce working hours to say 7am – 9pm Monday to Saturday, or

Company to schedule the movement of heavy metals to those hours.

Fumes Pollution suggestion:

Some type of filters be fitted to stop obnoxious fumes affecting peoples health and life style, or

Move Meneghello’s Galvanizing Services to a more suitable location with financial assistance is necessary”.

Meneghello Galvanizing Services is a prescribed premises classified by the DEC as a category 48A Metal Finishing premises. Conditions are on the licence to control air pollution, solid waste and water pollution emanating from the premises. Meneghello Galvanizing Service is also required to comply with the assigned noise levels as stipulated in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

The petition stated “It has been observed that there has been a reduction in noise since the petition was organised and signatures obtained, but there is no guarantee this will carry on in the future.” The signatures on the petition were gathered in October and November 2006, prior to the DEC’s inspections and the remediation works occurring at Meneghello Galvanizing Services.

To assist the DEC in their investigation, the City’s Health Services have attempted to carry out noise measurements at nearby residential properties to assess for compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. However, permission to conduct measurement at any of the residential properties being affected by the noise has not been granted to date. Noise measurements are required to be conducted at affected premises.

The DEC is continuing to monitor the emission levels of the premises as required by the Environmental Protection licence. Should the premises not achieve the prescribed levels, the DEC will consider further action against the premises. The DEC has organised air monitoring of the factory to occur in May 2007, the results of the air monitoring will indicate if an amendment to Meneghello Galvanizing Services licence is required.

Statutory Compliance

Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulation 1997

Environmental Protection Act 1986

Environmental Protection Regulations 1987

Strategic Implications

The report is considered to be consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan objective 1.6:

“to minimise the incidence and impact of pollution”.

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. REQUESTS the Department of Environment and Conservation to enforce all conditions contained within the Meneghello Galvanizing Services licence

2. REQUESTS the Department of Environment and Conservation to ensure all air borne emissions from Meneghello Galvanizing Services comply with the National Environmental Protection Measures determined by the National Environmental Protection Council (Western Australia) Act 1986.

3. REQUESTS the Department of Environment and Conservation to enforce the operational hours of Meneghello Galvanizing Services to ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

4. ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s 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

Infrastructure

IN01-05/07 Tender No. 07010 - Construction of the Butler Community Centre and Sports Amenities Building, Butler

File Ref: PR05/0008V02

File Name: AA Tender No 07010 Construction of the Butler Community Centre Butler.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: Nil

Author: Janek Sobon

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

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

Issue

To consider Tender No 07010 for the construction of the Butler Community Centre and Sports Amenities Building at Kingsbridge Park Reserve 47696, 55 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler.

Background

The Butler Community Centre and Sports Amenities Building are located on Kingsbridge Park, Butler. The Butler Community Centre and Sports Amenities Building were initially identified within the Butler Public Open Space Master Plan, which was endorsed by Council at its meeting of 23 September 2003 (CD04-09/03).

The funding model for the Butler Community Centre project was considered by Council at its meeting of 4 April 2006 (CD-03 – 04/06), who resolved, in part to:

“3. AUTHORISE the calling of tenders for the design and contract administration for the construction of the Butler Community Centre.

4. ENDORSE the expenditure of the Butler Community Chest as follows:

Contribution to the Community Centre $1,523,000

Contribution to the Multi-Wheeled Sports Facility $ 124,000

Brighton Shed Project $ 350,000

TOTAL $1,997,000

7. LISTS for consideration in the 2006/07 budget the sum of $278,000 as the City’s contribution toward the cost of construction and fitting out of the Butler Community Centre and associated recreation facilities and the sum of $56,000 as a contribution to the Multi-Wheeled Sports Facility to be constructed on Kingsbridge Park, Butler.

8. NOTES that $107,000 will be listed for consideration in the budget for 2008/09 as Council’s contribution toward the cost of supply and installation of floodlighting to the active sports area on Kingsbridge Park, Butler.

9. NOTES that $343,000 will be listed for consideration in the budget for 2009/10 as Council’s contribution toward the cost of construction of the amenities building for the active sports area on Kingsbridge Park, Butler.”

At its meeting on 29 August 2006 (CD10-08/06), Council considered the timing of the proposed Sports Amenities Building at Kingsbridge Park and resolved, in part, to:

“1) ENDORSE the amendment of the Five Year Infrastructure Works Program (Local Buildings) to show the funding of the Kingsbridge Park Sports Amenities Building ($515,000) in 2007/2008 and the funding of the Riverlinks Park Sports Amenities Building ($650,000) in 2009/2010, as shown in the table below:

Current Five Year Infrastructure Works Progam Listing			Proposed Five Year Infrastructure Works Progam Listing
	Project	Total Project Cost	Project	Total Project Cost
Year 2 (2007/08)	Warradale Park, Clubroom Facility, Landsdale.	$400,000	Warradale Park, Clubroom Facility, Landsdale.	$400,000
Year 2 (2007/08)	Riverlinks Park, Clarkson – Sports Amenities Building	$650,000	Kingsbridge Park, Clarkson – Sports Amenities Building	$515,000
Year 4 (2009/10)	Kingsbridge Park, Clarkson – Sports Amenities Building	$515,000	Riverlinks Park, Clarkson – Sports Amenities Building	$650,000
Year 4 (2009/10)	Edgar Griffiths Park – Sports Amenities Building design documentation	$25,730	Edgar Griffiths Park – Sports Amenities Building design documentation”	$25,730”

It should be noted that Administration has been successful in securing a grant of $250,000 from Lotterywest for the Butler Community Centre project and a grant of $148,603 from the Department of Sport and Recreations CSRFF for the Sports Amenities Building.

Subsequently, at its meeting on 27 June 2006, Council considered Report No IN07-06/06 regarding Tender No. 06030 and endorsed the following recommendation that Council:-

“1. ACCEPTS the tender sum of $157,055 from Woodhead International for the provision of architectural consultancy services in the design and construction of the Butler Community Centre, 55 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler.”

Detail

Tenders Received

Public Tender No. 07010 for the Construction of Butler Community Centre and Sports Amenities Building was advertised on Saturday 24 March 2007 and closed at the City’s Offices at 3.00pm on 24 April 2007 with the receipt of the following submissions:

Tenderers	Tendered Price
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	$2,256,700
Duwal Construction	$2,365,925
DBM Contractors Pty Ltd	$2,398,900
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	$2,740,800
Classic Contractors	$3,404,871
Pyramid Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	Late Tender

Each tender has a total of prime cost or provisional sums of $283,000. DBM Contractors and Duwal Construction submitted non-conforming tenders and are therefore excluded from further consideration. Pyramid Constructions tender was submitted late and is also excluded from further consideration.

Tenderers were required to submit prices for the following two optional items:

· Option 1: The supply and installation of reconstituted limestone seating, planters and concrete paving, concrete steps and handrails to the western bank facing the oval.

· Option 2: The supply and installation of softfall play area; play ground equipment and shade sail structure to the Play Ground Area for 7 – 12 year old children.

Tenderers	Option 1	Option 2
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	$64,950	$64,200
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	$21,909	$34,319
Classic Contractors	$112,500	$158,400

The City’s Quantity Surveyor priced the pre-tender cost estimate for the proposed works as $2,279,500 and the two optional items as follows:

· Option 1 was estimated as $109,300; and

· Option 2 was estimated as $59,900.

Tender Assessment

The Tender Assessment Panel comprising the Manager Leisure & Cultural Services, Coordinator Building Projects and Coordinator Contracts & Purchasing evaluated the tenders in accordance with the following selection criteria along with reference checking and risk assessment:

1	Price for the Works offered.	70%
2	Tenderer’s previous experience in carrying out work similar to the Works	15%
3	Tenderer’s resources	5%
4	Safety management and methodology	10%

Price

Three conforming tenders were received with Badge Constructions submitting the lowest conforming tender. The ranking of Tenderers based upon price is:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	2
Classic Contractors	3

Badge Constructions’ Tender price represents best value for money as does its priced Options 1 and 2.

It should be noted that there is no change in the order of ranking by Tender Price when the two costed options are added to each Tenderer’s Tender.

Previous Experience

Badge Constructions was assessed as being more experienced and was ranked higher than the other two Tenderers. The ranking of Tenderers based upon experience is:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	2
Classic Contractors	3

Resources

Badge Constructions was assessed as being able to draw upon more resources than the other two Tenderers. The ranking of Tenderers based upon resources is:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	2
Classic Contractors	3

Safety Management and Methodology

Based on the details supplied in the tender schedules and additional information on safety management plans, the tenderers were ranked as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	2
Classic Contractors	3

Overall Ranking Assessment

The overall scoring of tenders that is based on a weighted score is shown below:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd	1
Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd	2
Classic Contractors	3

Badge Constructions is recommended as the preferred Tenderer for Contract 07010. This firm offers the best value for money with its tender achieving the highest ranking.

Key Characteristics of the lowest recommended tenderer, Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd

· Registered Builder acting under Reg. No.11193 that is held by the firm.

· The firm has successfully undertaken three projects for the City these being the Hainsworth Leisure Centre refurbishment and alterations, additions to the Alexander Height Community Centre and the Clarkson Library.

· The firm is currently completing 8 of its 11 construction projects in Perth. The three major projects that are to be completed in late 2007 or early 2008 are the Carnarvon Senior High School & Hospital Upgrade ($6.4M), Bandyup Woman’s Prison Accommodation Upgrade ($12.8M) and Perth Radiation Oncology Centre ($2.3M).

· Badge Constructions appears to have spare capacity in its work force and is actively seeking new construction projects.

· The firm’s tender breakdown information is consistent with the prices presented in the other submissions.

· A previous reference check with architectural referees confirmed Badge Construction as a competent and capable prime contractor.

· The firm has a national presence with its head office in Adelaide.

Consultation

The Project Working Group and the Administration Technical Group have met on a regular basis during the development and preparation of the tender documentation phase of the project to ensure that what has been presented for tender is in keeping with the initial scope of work and the requirements of the proposed user groups and the City.

Comment

Works Program

The works programme for this project is outlined as follows:

Award Contract	Tuesday 15 May 2007
Execute Contract	Friday 25 May 2007
On Site Commencement	Monday 11 June 2007
Practical Completion (38+2 weeks)	Friday 17 March 2008
Facility Commissioning	Friday 28 March 2008

A 38-week construction period with a 2-week allowance for Christmas holidays has been considered an adequate construction time in the current building climate.

The inclusion of Options 1 and 2 to construct limestone seating, etc and play area within the scope of the construction works is appropriate, as their future implementation would necessitate demolition and further supervision. Based on the initial estimated costs of these two optional items of $170,000 it is expected that the cost to undertake these items at a later date as a separate project would be in the order of $210,000 due to cost inflation and being a one off construction exercise. It is, therefore, recommended that the additional work in Options 1 and 2 should be included in tender number 07010 and awarded to Badge Constructions.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders have been invited and evaluated against the selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act and associated regulations.

Tender documentation has been submitted to Development and Health Services for its statutory processing. The successful tenderer will be issued with a Building Licence based upon the City’s assessment.

Strategic Implications

The Butler Community Centre Project is consistent with the City of Wanneroo Strategic Plan (2006-2021) outcomes and objectives:

“1.5 Improve the physical quality of the built environment

1.5.3 Promote urban design that creates attractive and distinctive neighbourhoods

2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options

2.1.2 Provide timely and functional public facilities and open spaces to meet changing community needs

2.2 Improve the capacity of local communities to support each other

2.3.1 Provide or facilitate access to services and facilities that support inclusive communities”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

As the construction of the Butler Community Centre will be covered during the 2006/2007/2008 financial years and the Sports Amenities Building was to be constructed in the 2007/2008 financial year the scope of the Butler Community Centre project was increased to include the Sports Amenities Building as part of this development. Bringing forward the construction of the Sports Amenities Building has meant there will be no overlap of two Contracting firms building on the one site, a reduction in the mobilisation/demobilisation costs for the two Contracts and reduced administration for the City.

Project No 1016 currently only has a funding allocation of $2,051,000. However given a June 2007 construction commencement date, obviously expenditure incurred in 2006/07 can be accommodated but the gap between the carried forward remaining funding and supplementary requirement for 2007/08 funding needs to be considered.

These cost implications are tabled below which consider the lowest conforming Tender and the two cost Option

Tender No 07010 – Construction of Butler Community Centre
Description	Project Costs	Project Funding
Project No 1016		$2,051,000
Woodhead International – Initial Architectural Fees	$157,055
Woodhead International – Changeroom Architectural Fees	$36,150
WT Partnership - Cost Planning Quotation	$27,400
Golder Associates	$7,175
Herring Storer Acoustics	$4,552
Fees Contingent Amount - 3%	$6,555
Building Project Management - 2%	$50,000
Conforming Tender – Badge Constructions	$2,256,700
Options 1 and 2 – As per Badge Constructions tender	$129,150
Public Art	$0
Smoke Detection System	$6,000
Contingency for Site Service	$70,000
Tender Advertisement & Administration Costs	$1,500
Total Project Cost	$2,752,237
Total Project Funding 06/07		$2,051,000
Previously endorsed five year capital works 07/08 Project No. 1125		$515,000
Funding Shortfall		$186,237
Revised funding required 07/08		$701,237

It is recommended that Council consider allocation of the additional funding of $701,237 in the 2007/08 Capital Works Budget. It is noted that an item (Project Number 1125) has been listed for the Council consideration in the draft Five Year Capital Works Program for allocation of funds in 2007/08.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council: -

1. ACCEPTS Tender Number 07010 for the construction of the Butler Community Centre at Kingsbridge Park Reserve 47696, 55 Kingsbridge Boulevard Butler from Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd for the tender sum of $2,385,850 inclusive of the two optional items 1 and 2.

2. ENDORSES the allocation of revised $701,237 in the 2007/2008 financial year to Project No 1125 Kingsbridge Sports Amenities Building, as an integral part of the acceptance of Tender No 07010 for the construction of the Butler Community Centre by Badge Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd.

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

IN02-05/07 Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lot 12 Jindalee (WAPC 128756/117988)

File Ref: SDS117988/S8V01

File Name: CASubdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3 0 Metres in Height Lot 12 Jindalee WAPC 128756 117988 .doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Elias Ayad

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 6

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

Issue

To consider approval of subdivisional development retaining walls over 3m in height at Lot 12 Jindalee (WAPC 128756/117988).

Background

Council’s Policy No. DS6 allows walls up to 3metres in height to be approved for construction by the City’s Engineer (Director of Infrastructure). Where retaining walls exceed 3metres in height, Council’s approval is required.

A total length of 1120metres of walls between 3metres and 4.81metres in height were approved by Council on 15 June 2004. The layout of these previously approved walls is shown on Attachments 4 and 5.

Since that time there have been amendments to the subdivision design layout which has resulted in amendments to the locations of these high walls. This request deals with deletions, additions and amended walls between 3metres and 4.81meteres in height, which now total 920metres in length. Attachments 2 and 3 show the proposed layout of these walls.

Detail

Cossill & Webley Consulting Engineers, on behalf of the landowners/developers MQ1 Land Syndicate, has designed retaining walls exceeding 3metres in height in their development which is known as Lot 12 Jindalee. Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan.

Cossill & Webley has been carrying out the design, construction and contract superintendence of subdivisional development for this area. Justification for approval of the retaining walls exceeding 3metres in height is summarised as follows:

The subject land is some of the naturally steepest land rising up from the coast in the Perth coastal environment. As a result the developer has proposed road grades of up to 10% and retained allotments to ensure future home owners do not become burdened with unexpected retaining costs.

The earthworks have been designed to complement the existing topography of dunal undulations within the limits of City of Wanneroo requirements and standard road and earthworks design practice.

Constraints with adjoining land, foreshore to the west, Marmion Avenue to the east and Estates Development land Lot 10 to the north have resulted in an earthworks strategy which incorporates large walls to retain as much of the natural topography as possible. To provide the required level lots for buildings to match the adjoining subdivisional roads, the lots must be retained.

Approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 3metres in height is therefore now sought for the lots as shown.

Comment

The landform and subdivision design suggests that the proposed retaining wall heights are warranted in order to provide a suitable building platform. The retaining walls are constructed to provide level lots between the road levels.

It is considered that these retaining walls do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Precedents exist for approving retaining walls of similar height where topographical constraints have existed. The WAPC conditions also require coordination of levels with any adjoining development. This results in sections of the subdivision needing retaining walls which are higher than 3metres.

The benefits for the proposed design include:

· No interface issues between lots

· Allotment levels at or above adjoining road levels

· Grades on commercial and Mixed Use lots suitable for their proposed development use

A Building Licence is necessary for all retaining walls before construction can commence. It is therefore recommended that the proposed retaining walls, ranging up to 4.81metres in height, be approved.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The construction of the retaining walls over 3metres in height is consistent with the City of Wanneroo Strategic Plan (2006-2021) goals and strategies:

“Environmental

1.4 Minimise impact of development on natural landform.

1.5 Improve the physical quality of the built environment.

Social

2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options”.

Policy Implications

Application for approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 3metres in height has been processed in accordance with Council’s Policy No. DS6.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

EndStrip - This will not be printed so do not delete

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls proposed at Lot 12 Jindalee (WAPC 128756/117988), up to a maximum of 4.81metres in height and fully contained within the proposed lots as per the subdivision application drawings, subject to a building licence being obtained before commencing construction.

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

IN03-05/07 PT03-04/07 Infestation of Portuguese Millipedes in Darch

File Ref: PR/0005V01

File Name: GA PT03 04 07 Infestation of Portugese Millipedes in Darch.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: Nil

Author: Vicky Hartill

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

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

Issue

To consider a petition by residents of Clifford Loop, Darch regarding the request to have a periodic spray program implemented for Appleby Park, Appleby Way, to control Portuguese millipedes (Ommatoiulus moreletii)

Background

The City received a petition signed by 17 residents on 21 March 2007 with a request to “inspect Clifford Loop and Appleby Park and spray bushland alongside Appleby Way to control Portuguese millipedes.”

Of the 17 signatures, 10 were from Clifford Loop and 7 from Appleby Drive representing 11 properties. The request for an insecticide spray program raised by the petition signatures includes the bushland of Appleby Park, with an emphasis on Clifford Loop and Appleby Drive.

Detail

Appleby Park is 1.346 ha of natural urban bushland with examples of ‘excellent condition vegetation’ as classified by the City of Wanneroo 2003 Bushland Assessment and contains a ‘Banksia attenuata threatened ecological community’ (TEC 20a). The vegetation complex contains a species rich dense shrublands, which supports a diverse invertebrate community.

Portuguese millipedes (Ommatoiulus moreletii) are an introduced species that feed on detrital (decomposing) organic matter. They were first recorded in WA in 1986 in Roleystone and have since been recorded in other areas of southwest WA. Unlike native millipedes, they generally congregate in large numbers and are quite mobile especially after the first autumn rains. They are one of few millipedes that are attracted to lights explaining why they invade homes. Generally they die once inside houses, as they do not breed.

These millipedes do not pose a health risk to humans or pets. The Portuguese millipede is an innocuous domestic pest, only considered a nuisance when present in high numbers.

Pest Management

The City of Wanneroo’s Local Laws include provisions on the control of animals, insects and pests. However Portuguese millipedes are not controlled under the City’s Local Laws.

The Department of Agriculture and Food (Western Australia) is the government agency responsible for pest and weed control researching techniques to control the Portuguese millipede. Until effective means of controlling large numbers is identified managing the pests on private property is the best way of reducing the pest.

Private property owners can control the millipedes via environmental, physical and /or chemical control techniques.

Environmental / Physical controls include:

1. Cleaning away leaf litter from around the home;

2. Turning off external lights;

3. Installing half round barriers and moat and trap systems around the home.

Chemical controls include:

1. Surface spraying of ground surfaces, walls, door and window frames with residual chemicals to create a chemical barrier around the home;

2. Several insecticides are registered for use on millipedes including barrier chemicals bendiocarb (Ficam), carbaryl (Carbaryl) and cyfluthrin (Baythroid); surface sprays containing cypermethrin (Mortein), propoxur (Baygon) or permethrin (Mortein); and snail and slug bait methiocarb (Baysol).

The use of these insecticides are non-selective in application meaning all native invertebrates inhabiting the bushland are likely to be compromised and killed. The DoAF recommend ‘no bushland spraying’ due to the potential impacts on all invertebrates and the unreliable nature of insecticides.

Comment

The City of Wanneroo recognises that while the Portuguese millipedes do not pose an environmental health or natural area / agricultural threat, they do cause a nuisance when they invade homes and buildings. The City’s Conservation Maintenance staff inspected Appleby Park Tuesday 24 April and recorded no visible infestation.

As the DoAF recommends not to spray natural areas with these insecticides and the area is a registered TEC, spraying the bushland would not be considered appropriate.

Management of this domestic pest is ultimately the responsibility of private property owners to carry out their own environmental, physical or chemical control as outlined in an information sheet provided by the Department of Agriculture - Gardennote: Portuguese millipedes (Ommatoiulus moreletii).

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

Nil

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. NOTES the information regarding existing problems and concerns with Portuguese Millipedes in Clifford Loop and Appleby Drive.

2. DOES NOT undertake the development or implementation of a bushland spray program for Appleby Park.

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

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

Corporate Services

Finance

CS01-05/07 Financial Activity Statements for the Period Ended 31 March 2007

File Ref: S13/0002V11

File Name: BB Financial Activity Statements for the Period Ended 31 March 2007.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: A/Director, Corporate Services

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Manager Finance

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: 2

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

Issue

To consider Financial Activity Statements for the period ended 31 March 2007.

Background

Regulation 34(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity, presented according to nature and type, by program, or by business unit. Administration has opted to present the statement of financial activity by nature and type and in a similar format to that presented in the Rate Setting Statement for the 2006/2007 Annual Budget. This format separates operating revenue and expenditure from other revenue and expenditure and provides improved disclosure of Council’s underlying operating result.

The Financial Activity Statement is in the form of an Income Statement and Balance Sheet. The Income Statement compares year to date actual income and expenditure with the year to date budget, shows variances, forecast changes and end of year forecasts. The Balance Sheet shows the current status of the City’s assets and liabilities.

Detail

The attached Statement of Financial Activity for the period ended 31 March 2007 represents the nine (9) months results of the financial year past.

Administration conducts regular reviews with each Service Unit with regard to their progress to date against budget and revised forecasts. This process has been ongoing, and as part of the annual budget process, Administration has conducted a more comprehensive review with each Service Unit during the month of April and year- end forecasts have been updated accordingly.

This comprehensive review forms the basis of the City’s review of the annual budget as required under Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Comments on the financial performance compared to the annual budget for the period ended 31 March 2007 are set out below.

Consultation

Nil

Comments

The following comments are provided on the Income Statement and Balance Sheet for the period ended 31 March 2007:-

Income Statement (Attachment 1 refers)

Operating Result (Operating Revenue-Operating Expenses)

Year To Date Favourable Variance of $5.148 million (+53%)

Full Year Budget -$6.651 million

Full Year Forecast Favourable Variance of $2.899 million (+43.59%)

The following information is provided on key aspects of the year to date operating result:-

Operating Revenue

Year To Date Favourable Variance of $2.446 million (+3.51%)

Full Year Budget $76.138 million

Full Year Forecast Favourable Variance of $2.128 million (+2.79%)

Overall year to date operating revenue are ahead of budget in the areas of Rates, Statutory Charge, Operating Grants and Other Council income, interest, reimbursement and other income. These favourable variances could be due in part to timing differences in the actual receipt of revenues compared to budget spreads originally loaded by Administration. It is estimated that full year forecast will exceed budget by approximately $2.128 million (+2.79%), reflecting favourable variance in all areas, with the exception of statutory charge, contribution and other Council income.

One major contribution to this favourable variance was the significant increase in Interest Income – Municipal Cash and Investments, year to date amounts to +$0.839 million which represents 34.3% above budget. It is estimated that this interest income will total to approximately $2.186 million at year-end, representing a favourable variance of +$1 million/84.31% above budget. This is due principally to the amount of unexpended Capital Works, which provides extra funds for investment activities.

Operating Expenses

Year To Date Favourable Variance of $2.702 million (+4.51%)

Full Year Budget $82.789 million

Full Year Forecast Favourable Variance of $0.771 million (+0.93%)

Overall year to date operating expenses are below budget in all areas with the exception of Miscellaneous, Depreciation and Operating Expenses Capitalised.

These favourable variances are due in part to timing differences between actual results and budget spreads loaded by Administration

In the full year forecast scenario, it is estimated that the operating expenses will be approximately $0.771 million below budget, which is mainly contributed by lower than budgeted expenses in Contract and Material Expenses (+$0.411 million) and Finance Fees and Interest Expenses (+$0.317 million).

Favourable variances in Contract and Material Expenses reflect savings from delays in the timing of maintenance and other operational projects by the City respectively.

The favourable variance in Finance Fees and Interest expenses is due mainly to the reduced interest rate applicable to the City’s borrowings from the WA Treasury Corporation. At the time of adopting the Budget, long-term rates were higher than those applicable when the terms of the borrowings were finalised.

Other Revenue and Expenses

Year To Date Favourable Variance of $15.248 million (+349 %)

Full Year Budget $38.500 million

Full Year Forecast Favourable Variance of $6.220 million (+16.15%)

Other Revenue and Expenses includes Capital Grants, Contributions, Town Planning Scheme activities and Assets Received Free of Charge from developers.

There are significant unfavourable variances in Capital Grant and Subsidy Income. The timing of the receipt of these revenues and payment of expenses is related to the City’s Capital Works Programme and also land development activity. Administration will monitor progress against budget over the coming months to ensure all Grant and Contribution Income entitlements are received.

The major contributor to the overall favourable variance relates to Town Planning Schemes. Year to date, TPS Income amounts to $17.526 million, which is $8.518 million (+94.58%) ahead of budget. whereas year to date TPS Expenses amounts to $10.771 million, which is $4.248 million (+28.28%) below budget. These variances reflect the timing of land development activity.

Balance Sheet (Attachment 2 refers)

The Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2007 shows there are significant increases in the amount of Investments, due to the receipt of rate revenues and the balance of funds carried forward from 2005/2006.

The forecast changes identified from previous reviews and the annual Budget Review should result in a balance of approximately $40.1 million in Municipal Cash at year-end, which is $27.4 million above budget. Unexpended Capital Works funds expected to be carried forward to 2007/08 amounts to $19.9 million, including $3.9 million in Municipal Funds, $2.5 million in Reserve Funds and $13.5 million from other funding sources.

Statutory Compliance

The monthly financial report for the period ended 31 March 2007 complies with Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

Outcome 4 – Governance – “Leadership and Community engagement to ensure the best use of our physical, financial and human resources”

Policy Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

As outlined above and detailed in Attachments 1 and 2.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statement report for the month of March 2007.

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

Contracts and Property

CS02-05/07 Sale of Part Lot 155 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo - Deed of Caveat

To be circulated under separate cover.

CS03-05/07 Proposed Lease to the Massage & Body Movement Clinic - Kingsway International Sports Stadium

File Ref: P/0031V02

File Name: CA Proposed Lease to the Massage Body Movement Clinic Kingsway International Sports Stadium.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: A/Director, Corporate Services

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Coordinator Property & Insurance

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachment(s): 2

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

Issue

To consider advertising a proposed lease to the Massage & Body Movement Clinic at the Kingsway International Sports Stadium, Madeley.

Background

The Kingsway International Sports Stadium (the Stadium) is situated on Crown Reserve 44878 under a Management Order to the City for the purpose of “Sports Stadium” and until 1 January 2007 was leased to the Badminton Association of WA Inc (BAWA).

From that date, the lease to BAWA was terminated and the City has taken over the management of the Stadium (this matter was the subject of several recent reports to Council, the latest being CD07-12/06). In addition, the Operators of the physiotherapy and kiosk facilities agreed to vacate the Centre and surrender their formal subleases, also effective 1 January 2007.

During its tenancy with the City, BAWA negotiated the use of the ‘creche’ area of the stadium (Attachments 1 & 2 refer) with a commercial business known as the Massage & Body Movement Clinic (the Clinic) and in a letter dated 29 April 2005 sought Council approval to a proposed sublease to the Clinic. Discussions continued between City officers and BAWA until August 2005 when BAWA was advised that the City was not in a position to recommend approval of the sublease and that no formal arrangement should be entered into. This position was taken due to the future of BAWA at the Stadium being uncertain. Despite those discussions BAWA elected to enter into a tenancy arrangement with the Clinic without formal Council approval.

The proprietor of the Clinic stated that she had sighted a proposed sublease agreement and, notwithstanding that a formal agreement was never ultimately signed by the parties, entered into an arrangement to occupy the crèche area of the stadium paying a monthly rental of $1,040 to BAWA. The Clinic also contributed funds towards an internal refit of the crèche, arranged by BAWA to suit the business, including non-structural walls for treatment rooms, painting, carpeting and window tinting. Approval was never given by the City for such works however the proprietor entered into the arrangement in good faith on the understanding that approvals would or had been given to BAWA. The Clinic has been operating at the Stadium since 1 July 2005 and would continue until 30 June 2008 under the terms of the unsigned sublease.

Leading up to the termination of the lease to BAWA, discussions were held between City officers and the proprietor of the Clinic as to the future occupancy of the premises by the Clinic and the requirements of the City in relation to that space once the management of the Stadium reverted to the City.

It was generally agreed that the City would require the area at some future point but given the circumstances, there was no objection to the Clinic continuing to operate until 30 June 2008 effectively under the same terms as existed under the arrangement with BAWA, albeit that any arrangement with the City would need to be formalised and require Council approval. On that basis the City has been accepting rental of $1,040 per month since 1 January 2007. In addition, any tenancy arrangement with the City must comply with the Tenancy Policy and the requirements under Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act).

Although the decision to terminate the lease to BAWA was effective 1 January 2007 final documentation relating to the termination was not signed until 13 February 2007. On that basis formal discussions relating to the tenancy arrangement with the Clinic did not commence until after that time with the first meeting held on 6 March 2007. Further discussions took place on 8 March 2007 where it was outlined to the proprietor of the Clinic that, as the Clinic was a ‘commercial’ enterprise, any lease would be deemed a non-exempt disposition under the Act and, in order for the City to enter into a lease the proposed disposition must first be advertised along with an invitation for public submissions. Any submissions need to be considered and reported back to Council.

Detail

As a result of those discussions a formal request by the proprietor of the Clinic dated 28 March 2007 was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer seeking Council approval for “entering into a lease agreement with the monthly rate remaining the same as I am currently paying ($1,040 per month), with adjustments in accordance with the CPI.” Such a request is supported by Administration and the essential terms of the proposed lease, subject to Council approval to be sought following the statutory advertising period, are as follows:-

Premises	That portion of the Stadium known as the ‘creche’ being an area of approximately 60m².
Lease Term	One (1) year and six (6) months.
Commencement Date	1 January 2007
Expiry Date	30 June 2008
Lease Rental	$1,040 per month (GST inclusive) to be reviewed in accordance with the CPI from 1 January 2008 (including rates & taxes, water & electricity usage and building insurance).
Outgoings	Telephone billed direct.
Building Maintenance	Lessee to keep and maintain every part of the internal of the Premises including all ceiling panels, lighting and electrical installations, doors, windows, floor coverings and all other fixtures and fittings in good and substantial repair and condition.
Asset Preservation Levy	Not applicable in commercial leases.
Statutory Compliance	Lessee responsibility.

Despite the City being required to obtain an independent commercial rental valuation in accordance with the Act as detailed in the statutory compliance section of this report, the resultant rental determination does not alter the circumstances that have led to the agreed rental in this instance being the same as the Clinic is currently paying under the arrangement entered into with BAWA. A Valuer has been appointed by the City and recent discussions with him have revealed that it is his opinion that the proposed rental of $1,040 per month (inclusive of outgoings) “is at market value” and his formal report will state that. At the time of writing this report the formal rental determination had not been received by the City.

Consultation

As detailed in the Statutory Compliance section.

Comment

The Clinic has been in occupation at the Stadium since July 2005, has incurred start-up costs and had entered into an arrangement with BAWA in good faith and on the understanding that all approvals had been obtained by BAWA. A decision not to continue with the arrangement would unfairly impact on the Clinic as it has been placed in a difficult situation through no fault of the proprietor.

Accordingly, Administration supports the proposed lease to the Massage & Body Clinic for a fixed term to expire on 30 June 2008 under the terms outlined in this report.

Statutory Compliance

Given that the proposed lease is a non-exempt disposition under the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations, Section 3.58(3) of the Act provides that a local government can dispose of property (including a lease) other than by public tender or auction if, before agreeing to dispose of the property, it gives a local public notice of the proposed disposition:-

· Describing the property concerned;

· Giving details of the proposed disposition (including the market value of the proposed disposition ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition);

· Inviting submissions to be made to the local government before a date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given.

Strategic Implications

Nil.

Policy Implications

Under the Tenancy Policy adopted by Council, this disposition would be considered a ‘commercial’ lease and therefore the terms of the lease are by negotiation.

Financial Implications

The monthly rental of $1,040 (including outgoings) represents a commercial rate of $208 per m^2,which is considered reasonable given the relatively small area of 60m² involved. The term of the lease is fixed for a period of 18 months at which point the area is likely to be utilised by the City for community purposes.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. NOTES the proposal made by the Massage & Body Movement Clinic to lease an area of approximately 60m² within the Kingsway International Sports Stadium;

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise a local public notice detailing the proposal in 1 above, in accordance with Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

3. NOTES that a further report will be presented following the advertising period
in 2 above seeking formal consideration of a lease.

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

Community Development

Community Services

CD01-05/07 Dog Attack, Yanchep

File Ref: P36/0823V01

File Name: AA Dog Attack Yanchep.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: Nil

Author: Tony McTaggart

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: Nil

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

Issue

To consider a Petition received regarding a dog attack that occurred on the 29 January 2007 in Yanchep.

Background

On the 29 January 2007 a dog attack occurred in Newquay Close Yanchep involving three dogs being walked off leash and two dogs that escaped from a residence due to ineffective fencing. Rangers attended and conducted inquiries into the incident that included action against parties for offences against the Dog Act 1976.

Detail

A 39 signature petition was tabled at the 4 April 2007 Council Meeting by Councillor Gray on behalf of the petition organiser advising that the signatories were appalled at a number of aspects surrounding the dog attack and investigation, specifically;

“1. The dogs illegally residing at 10 Newquay, Yanchep are known by ratepayers to be dangerous and dog owners are not walking their dogs in nearby bush because they continually get out and have attacked other dogs and intimidated adults.

2. When they escaped from their rental property and attacked the Labradors, the Newquay residents were intoxicated and unable to control their dogs.

3. Trish Duke (a single, older lady) was left to beat off the 2 dogs with a stake in the park at the end of the street where her dogs had been chased to. Alone in the dark she had to defend herself and the one singled out dog who was almost dead. She then had to contend with a threatened shooting of one of her dogs and a disinterested and unhelpful ranger the next day.

4. The Yanchep community, Sun City News and Ms Duke has not been notified if the 2 dangerous dogs are still alive or in safe custody.

5. We need to be informed as to the fate of the dangerous dogs and the Rangers ability to keep the community safe.

6. In light of the trauma, stress, loss of income and vet bills of $1,600.00 incurred by Ms Duke, the fining for having her dogs off the leads on an empty block in-between bush and a cul-de-sac needs to be reviewed as we believe it is an inhumane and inappropriate fine.”

In this instance the dog attack occurred as a result of dogs being walked off lead and dogs not being properly contained on their premises.

Comment

Rangers are empowered under the Dog Act 1976 to investigate offences against the Act.

Rangers investigate all incidents impartially and gather factual evidence on which decisions are made in response to incident actions such as summonsing, issue of infringements, cautions, seizure of dogs, declaring dogs dangerous or no action.

The City received a complaint regarding the 29 January 2007 dog attack investigation in Yanchep. This has been reviewed by the A/CEO and senior administration and the actions taken were considered to be appropriate in the circumstances. The dogs have not been declared dangerous, as there is not sufficient evidentiary support, required by Section 33E of the Dog Act, to declare them dangerous. One of the dogs from 10 Newquay Close, involved in the attack, has been relocated and there are only two dogs remaining as permitted by Clause 10 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.

In response to the matters raised in the petition:

1. There have been no reports made of other attacks involving these dogs

2. The capacity of the owners at this time was not measured

3. The actions of the Ranger have been reviewed and the A/CEO is satisfied that appropriate service was provided.

4. The dogs have not been declared dangerous

5. The dogs have not been declared dangerous

6. Ms Duke admitted verbally and in writing to the offences with which she was charged.

Statutory Compliance

Section 33D of the Dog Act 1976, “Dog Attacks”, provides the evidentiary requirements that must be met in investigating dog attacks. Section 33E of the Dog Act 1976 provides for circumstances where dogs may be declared dangerous.

Strategic Implications

Dog control is part of Ranger Services core activities to improve community safety consistent with strategic objective.

“2.4 Improve Community Safety, specifically

2.4.4 Develop and implement a range of activities that promote community safety and well-being.”

Policy Implications

Nil.

Financial Implications

Costs incurred as a result of a dog attack are dealt with civilly between parties to the dog attack.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. NOTES that a review has been conducted by senior administration into the investigation of the dog attack in Yanchep on 29 January 2007.

2. SUPPORTS the result of the review finding that the actions taken regarding this attack are in compliance with provisions of the Dog Act 1976 and consistent with the factual circumstances surrounding this attack.

3. ADVISE the petitioner accordingly.

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

Leisure & Library Services

CD02-05/07 Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre (Library & Regional Museum)

File Ref: S41/0070V01

File Name: AA Wanneroo Cultural Learning Centre Design Development and Budget Approval.doc This line will not be printed dont

Responsible Officer: Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Attachments: Nil

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

Issue

To consider the current status of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre project and seek approval to proceed with the calling of tenders.

Background

At its meeting held on 26 April 2006, Council resolved Item CD07-04/06:

“That Council:-

1. EXPRESSES ITS APPRECIATION to the State Government through the local member of Wanneroo for the in-principle support given by the Town Centre Revitalisation Technical Advisory Group to a financial contribution towards the development of the Wanneroo Library/Regional Museum;

2. SEEKS a formal legal agreement with the State over the source and extent of funding for this project prior to the adoption of the City’s 2006/07 Budget.

3. CONFIRMS Lot 506 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo, as the site for the proposed Library/Regional Museum.

4. ENDORSES the concept plan and project business case (included as Attachments to this report) as the basis for design development and documentation to guide the development of the Wanneroo Library/Regional Museum;

5. APPROVES the development of tender documentation for advertising to appoint architectural services to undertake design development and documentation and project supervision for the construction of the Wanneroo Library/Regional Museum;

6. NOTES the proposed timeframe for the implementation of this project.

7. SEEKS a further report with regard to options for use of the special purpose site on the corner of Wanneroo Road and Conlon Avenue in order to optimise community outcomes within the town centre.

8. SEEKS a further report outlining options for the development of community facilities within the Wanneroo Community Centre upon the relocation of the Wanneroo Library.”

Detail

The preparation of detailed plans, specifications and tender documentation is on track for the calling of tenders in July 2007. The design development drawings acknowledge the feedback from Council on 19 December 2006 in relation to the schematic design presented at the time. The requests from Council were as follows:

· Increase public space;

· Rationalise staff areas, and;

· Increase function room space to support the annual Volunteers Function.

Furthermore, the State Government has played a role in defining the facility design. Through a series of meetings with the various State Government Departments, a range of flexible public spaces has been created to support the needs of the State Government Agencies. As an outcome of the meetings with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under the guidance of the Office of the Government Architect, formal support for the schematic design and design development, received 27 April 2007, has been obtained.

Consultation

The Design Team has engaged in extensive consultation with internal and external stakeholders to ensure the best design outcome. Where appropriate expert technical input has been obtained outside of the Design Team.

Project Timetable

The project team is working to the following high-level timeframes:

May 2007	- Council confirmation to proceed to tender
May – July 2007	- Contract documentation and cost review
July – August 2007	- Tenders to be called and evaluated
September 2007	- Tender approval
September – October 2007	- Construction commences
December 2008	- Facility opens (Note: opening date based on indicative 13 month building period and cannot be confirmed until the tender is awarded).

Programming

In order to ensure the coordination and development of existing and new programmes within the City facilities in the Town Centre (Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre, Wanneroo Community Centre, Limelight Theatre, Aquamotion, and the Memorial Park), an internal Committee has been established.

The Programme Committee will develop a range of programmes for each facility and ensure integration of programming is maximised.

A key element of this programme will be to include the Wanneroo Shopping Centre to gain the complementary benefit for facilities and users.

Comment

The City of Wanneroo has requested that the Design Team, in addition to the standard statutory regulations, provide the City with Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) alternatives.

As an outcome of this request, the following ESD elements have been included within the current design.

· Low flush toilets;

· Waterless urinals;

· Flow restrictor taps and shower;

· Central hot water system (gas or solar);

· Timer/sensor initiated lighting, and;

· Timer/sensor initiated air conditioning.

A number of other projects running concurrently will impact the Cultural & Learning Centre and will require separate budgets. These project include:

· Yagan Place/Right of Way (ROW) – Road works surrounding the facility linking into Rocca Way and Dundebar Road. The design of Yagan/ROW joint funding, and the timing of its construction require cooperation with the adjoining shopping centre.

· Rocca Way – Development of the area to support the Town Centre Structure Plan. The creation of public spaces and management of traffic within Rocca Way require a separate design process.

· “Wall of Honour” – The “Wall of Honour” Committee will determine the final location of a memorial with the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre being provided as an option for consideration.

Floor plans and elevations will be available for viewing in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Statutory Compliance

The development of the facility will comply with all applicable statutory regulations and requirements.

Strategic Implications

The proposed Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre demonstrates the City’s desire to create a facility that is iconic in nature and a focal point for the Wanneroo Town Centre. However, in addition to the aesthetic appeal that the facility represents, the Design Team has remained focused on the need for the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre to impact on each of the four pillars within the strategic plan. As an outcome of this approach, the design of this multi-use facility currently represents a project outcome that is linked to a number of the City’s outcome objectives:

Environmental:

A sustainable natural, built and healthy environment in harmony with the growth of our municipality.

1.2 Minimise use of water;

Social:

Healthy, safe, vibrant and connected communities.

2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options;

2.2 Improve the City’s identity and community well-being through the arts, culture, leisure and recreation;

Economic:

A prosperous region achieved through economic growth and employment.

3.1 Improve regional infrastructure;

3.3 Increase tourism within the region;

3.5 Increase the capacity of education and training services;

Governance:

Leadership and community engagement ensures the best use of our physical, financial and human resources.

4.1 Improve strategic partnerships.

Policy Implications

Not applicable

Financial Implications

Project Budget

A comparison table has been developed to articulate the differences between the original business case estimate submitted at the meeting of Council held on 26 April 2006 and the current design development estimate. The table below outlines the costs associated with the project, with escalation added into the Business Case estimate through to July 2007, to demonstrate that the facility has been designed, and costs contained within the original business case estimates.

Element	Business Case April 2006	DD Estimate April 2007
Build	$12,982,249	$13,891,000
Fitout	$1,890,028	$1,149,000
Sub Total	$14,872,277	$15,040,000
Fees	$1,258,225	$1,300,000
Contingencies	$692,024	$910,000
Sub Total	$1,950,249	$2,210,000
IT CoW Costs	$396,000	$396,000
Marketing CoW Costs	$250,423	$250,423
Tender CoW Costs	$7,500	$7,500
1st Exhibition CoW Cost	$10,000	$10,000
Sub Total	$663,923	$663,923
Total Cost	$17,486,449	$17,913,923
Escalation (Jan 2007 - Apr 2007)	$446,168	Included
Escalation (May 2007 - July 2007)	$612,737	$545,000
Sub Total	$1,058,905	$545,000
Total Cost	$18,545,354	$18,458,923

Note: “DD” referred to within the budget comparison table is abbreviated for Design Development, the stage within the project where the design layout of the facility is finalised.

The effects of escalation are well illustrated in the table above. Acting upon advice from the Cost Planner Quantity Surveyor, and being consistent with other major building projects, escalation has been calculated at 1% per calendar month.

The funding being sought has an additional inbuilt allowance for contingencies additional to those included in the budget primarily due to the volatility of the building construction market.

5-year Capital Works Program

Within the 5-year Capital Works Program adopted in the 2006 – 2007 financial year, the funding allocated to the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre project was as follows:

	2006/2007	2007/2008	2008/2009	2009/2010	Total
Grants – State Government	$0	$6,000,000	$0	$0	$6,000,000
Loan Borrowing	$1,000,000	$7,500,000	$1,500,000	$0	$10,000,000
Total	$1,000,000	$13,500,000	$1,500,000	$0	$16,000,000

At the time when the capital budget was adopted, the budgeted amount did not include anticipated City of Wanneroo (operating) expenses, including fit out, as outlined in the project business case. As a result, the project costs were not reflected correctly with the 5-year Capital Works Program. The true project cost was included in the Business Case adopted by Council in April 2006. Since the engagement of the architect, the fit out and build components of the project have been consolidated forming the current design development estimate.

The City has obtained a funding commitment from the State Government totalling $4,000,000. This amount is $2,000,000 short of the expected contribution as outlined in the original Business Case that was presented to Council in April 2006. The City is waiting confirmation from Treasury to fill the $2,000,000 funding gap that will not be confirmed until late May 2007. The City will be exploring other funding opportunities where applicable.

The current requirements for funding are set in the table below, which will be recommended to Council for adoption and inclusion in the 5-year Capital Works Program in July 2007.

	2006/2007	2007/2008	2008/2009	2009/2010	Total
Grants – State Government	$0	$4,000,000	$0	$0	$4,000,000
Loan Borrowing	$1,000,000	$7,500,000	$6,000,000	$500,000	$15,000,000
Total	$1,000,000	$11,500,000	$6,000,000	$500,000	$19,000,000

It is to be noted that the funding being sought has an additional inbuilt allowance for contingencies additional to those included in the budget primarily due to the volatility of the building construction market.

Council will have the opportunity of reviewing the funding requirements when considering the awarding of tenders.

Value Management

The City of Wanneroo administration, in conjunction with Peter Hunt Architect and Page Kirkland (Quantity Surveyors), has conducted an extensive value management exercise to ensure the City is receiving a finished product that represents value for money. In doing so, changes in design features that don’t compromise functionality have been incorporated; for example, finished concrete flooring in place of vinyl floors in back-of-house areas.

Facility Design Cost Impact

As indicated previously within this report, the design of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre, specifically the public facilities, is a direct reflection of the requirements specified by the City of Wanneroo Elected Members and the State Government stakeholders. To accommodate the demands of additional public space, and to stay within the budget as outlined in the approved business case, the increase in public space has been achieved through the reduction of back-of-house administration areas and the removal of the proposed office tenancy located at the eastern end of the facility facing Dundebar Rd.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. NOTES the current project estimates for the construction of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre of $18,452,000, which will be subject to further review at the time of consideration of tenders;

2. ENDORSES the calling of tenders for the construction of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre with the understanding that the pre-tender estimate will be contained within the revised 5-year Capital Works Program as outlined below;

3. NOTES application has been made for an additional grant toward the construction of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre of $2,000,000 from the State Government with the outcome to be known in late May 2007 and CONFIRMS that any shortfall in funding will be accommodated through an increase in borrowing;

4. APPROVES the following amendment to the current 5-year Capital Works Program to reflect funding for the construction of the Wanneroo Cultural & Learning Centre as detailed below:

	2006/2007	2007/2008	2008/2009	2009/2010	Total
Grants – State Government	$0	$4,000,000	$0	$0	$4,000,000
Loan Borrowing	$1,000,000	$7,500,000	$6,000,000	$500,000	$15,000,000
Total	$1,000,000	$11,500,000	$6,000,000	$500,000	$19,000,000

5. RECORDS its thanks to the local member, Ms. Dianne Guise, MLA, for obtaining State Government funding of $4,000,000 to date.

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

CD03-05/07 Public Art for Cultural and Learning Centre

File Ref: S07/0058V01

File Name: BA Public Art for Cultural and Learning Centre.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Kristy Gough

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachments: Nil

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

Issue

To consider the selection of public artworks for the Wanneroo Cultural and Learning Centre (CaLC).

Background

The City of Wanneroo has a Public Art Policy that formalises Council’s commitment to providing a diverse range of artworks in the public domain. The policy states that one of Council’s objectives is to ensure that public art is considered for major capital works projects conducted by the City, in this case the Cultural and Learning Centre.

A scope of works was developed to guide the type of artworks the City of Wanneroo was seeking for the building. As the artist(s) were to be appointed during the building’s detailed design program, artworks had the ability to be integrated into the building design rather than added in after the building was complete. This is an excellent opportunity for artists to be involved in the development of the building and create distinctive artworks specifically for the building. A number of possible locations and themes were identified for the artists to consider in their applications. The total budget for this public art tender is $200,000.

In January this year tender no 07004 for the Design, Production and Installation of Artwork(s) for the Wanneroo Cultural and Learning Centre was advertised in the West Australian and through specific art networks. A total of 10 applications were received. See following table for details.

Applicant’s Name

Darius Kowal & Odjana Cukrov

Kati Thamo

Paul Johnson T/as Artventure

Tony Jones Art Projects

Kaawirn Kuunawarn Hissing Swan Arts

Rick Vermey

Sara Buswell and Jon Buswell

Stuart Green

Monia Allegre, Margaret Dillon & Penny Bovell

Jennifer Rossen

The selection process for this tender involved two stages, Stage 1 Relevant Experience and Proposed Themes and Stage 2 Concept Submission. The above applicants were assessed for their suitability to proceed to Stage 2.

The selection panel consisted of:

· Charles Johnson, Chief Executive Officer

· Peter Hunt, Project Architect

· Doreen Byrne, Art Advisory Committee, community representative

· Maya Mrkic, Art Advisory Committee, community representative

· Director Community Development

· Arts Development Officer

Of the above approved panel members, Charles Johnson and Maya Mrkic were unable to attend the short listing meeting on Wednesday 7 February. Public Art Coordinator Alison Barrett coordinated the meeting with the Project Manager and Coordinator Contracts and Purchasing was also in attendance in a non-voting capacity.

Each applicant was assessed on the following criteria:

· Previous relevant experience

· Proposed artwork theme/s

· Assessment of selected portfolio (up to six images)

· Integration and balance to other artworks within the building and surrounding town centre

Of the ten applicants, four (4) artists were short listed to proceed to Stage 2, Concept Submission.

The four short listed artists were Monia Allegre with Penny Bovell and Margaret Dillon; Tony Jones with Ben and Buffy Jones; Kati Thamo; and Rick Vermey. All short listed artists had their referees checked and all reports came back with glowing recommendations in regards to their ability to complete projects on time, on budget and provided suitable documentation. After reference checks the above artists were invited to Stage 2 of the selection process and an artist briefing with City of Wanneroo staff and architect Peter Hunt.

On Wednesday 28 March all four artists/ artist teams presented their concepts submissions to the selection panel for Stage 2 of the selection process, Concept Submission. The panel consisted of the same members as Stage 1 with the exception of Daniel Simms replacing Charles Johnson in his role as acting Chief Executive Officer. Each artist was allocated 45 minutes for their presentation with an additional 15 minutes for questions. The criteria for Stage 2 was:

· Design concept 50%

· Methodology 20%

· Work Program 20%

· Indicative Price 10%

	Allegre	Jones	Thamo	Vermey
Ranking	2	3	4	1

All the presentations were scored out of ten by the panel against the above criteria and from those scores the preferred Artist was Rick Vermey.

Detail

The preferred artwork proposal by Rick Vermey involved a number of elements throughout the CaLC. A brief overview of each artwork proposed is detailed below:

Major Sculptures - three metal sculptures to be located hanging in the void of the great court with titles of seed, flower and fruit. They will be created using laser cut, welded and riveted sheet metal construction using aluminium and stainless steel with possible copper and brass inlays. Each of the sculptures will be approximately 2 – 3 metres in diameter. The forms will have a technological, sophisticated appearance in keeping with the feel of the building. Lighting will be integrated into the sculptures, incorporating embedded programmable solid state LED diodes, designed to fluctuate through a sequence of subtle colour fades. This luminescence will create a distinctive inner heart or core, implying vitality and life.

Library Artwork – polished Perspex mobile sculpture to float overhead in the library. The design is an elegant linear sculpture, an arrangement of parallel acrylic blades or louvres moulded to represent the rhythmic movements of wind across water. The sculpture would be hanging above the book shelves, suspended by slender cables to allow subtle movement with the air flow of the space and retain its light appearance.

Teen Lounge Screen – Graphic images and photomontage in digi glass to create a space for teenagers in the library. The screen will be bright and bold with multi-layered imagery. Digi glass is a method where inkjet printed graphics are autoclaved between layers of toughened safety glass. It is a permanent, protected, full colour printed surface, which can vary in opacity from transparent to fully opaque. Being laminated within the glass the inks are UV stabilised and safe from accidental damage or vandalism.

Donations box – Rick will draw on expertise from fellow artist Phil Gamblin to design and create an interactive donations box for the museum. Using simple gadgetry such as motion sensors, coin reader, LED lights, sound and simple mechanical movements, Rick and Phil will create a donations box that attracts attention and positive reactions when donations are received. Design development of the donations box will be in consultation with the Museum Designer.

A copy of Rick’s proposal is available in the Elected Members’ Reading Room for your information.

Consultation

The selection process involved two community representatives from the Art Advisory Committee who were invited to attend for their knowledge of artistic principles and practise.

The successful tenderer will be required to work in consultation with the project architect Peter Hunt and Art Consultant Alison Barrett to complete design development for final approval of the Chief Executive Officer.

Comment

Tenders have been evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria, and based on the scores, the preferred artist is Rick Vermey.

Subject to Council’s acceptance of this tender, work is to start in May with artworks to be installed in line with the building’s completion date, estimated for November 2008.

The Wanneroo Cultural and Learning Centre will be a significant asset combining the Wanneroo Library and Regional Museum with complementary multi function facilities such as theatrette, function and exhibitions spaces.

The architectural philosophy of the building is to create an important place in Wanneroo that people would want to come and see and use; a place that exceeds the aspirations of Local Government and one that would evoke strong feelings of pride within the local community. Public Art will be an integral part of developing the identity of this building and accordingly the proposed public works add their own points of interest within this building.

The proposed artworks are modern in concept and construction and work with the styling of the building rather than compete with it. The themes of growth, learning and local environment are subtle without being a literal interpretation, allowing the viewer to make their own reading of the work. The works simultaneously reflect the past and suggest the future.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders have been invited and properly evaluated against the selection criteria in accordance with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act and associated Local Government Regulations 1996. The Coordinator Contracts and Purchasing has been involved throughout the entire tendering process and endorses the processes used.

Strategic Implications

Public Art is supportive of the City’s Strategic direction 2.2 Improve the City’s identity and community well being through arts, culture and leisure.

Policy Implications

This Public Art commission is supportive of the City’s Public Art Policy.

Financial Implications

The total budget for the commission is $200,000. This forms part of the building’s total budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS Tender Number 07004 submitted by Rick Vermey for the design, construction and installation of public artworks for the Wanneroo Cultural and Learning Centre in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the tender document.

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

CD04-05/07 San Teodoro Park Sinagra - Development Proposal

File Ref: P29/0311V01

File Name: BA San Teodoro Park Sinagra Development Proposal.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Ben Bryant

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachment(s): 4

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

Issue

To consider the recommendations of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group for the development of San Teodoro Park, Sinagra.

Background

San Teodoro Park is defined as that area of land generally located adjacent to San Teodoro Avenue and Speranza Park Way in Sinagra. San Teodoro Park is located over three landholdings, (Attachment 1), with the City having the management Order issued by the Crown for the portion of land within The Horizons Estate.

A petition signed by 59 people, both current and future residents of Sinagra and surrounding suburbs was presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 May 2006 (Petition PT01-05/06 refers). The petition requested the development of San Teodoro Park, Sinagra for the mutual enjoyment of all estate residents and the safety of local children. As a result of this petition, Council agreed to the formation of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group.

The objective of the Reference Group was to consider the development of a concept plan for San Teodoro Park and to consult with community members regarding future use of the park.

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 August 2006, Council approved the appointment of Mrs Jessica Madureira and Ms Donna Catlin as Community Representatives, and Mr Andrew Tungate and Ms Cathy Maull as Deputy Delegates, to the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group. (CD09-08/06).

The San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group consisted of:

Elected Members	Community Representatives	City Officers
Mayor Jon Kelly JP	Mrs Jessica Madureira	Director Community Development
Cr Glenys Monks JP	Ms Donna Catlin	Director Infrastructure
Cr Dot Newton JP	Mr Andrew Tungate	Manager Leisure and Cultural Services
	Ms Cathy Maull	Manager Infrastructure Planning
		Coordinator Leisure Services
		Landscape Projects Design
		Recreation Officer - Planning

Detail

The San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group held a total of four meetings between 4 October 2006 and 23 April 2007, giving consideration to a number of development options and the associated costs.

Due to the current landholding situation of San Teodoro Park and the size of the park, it was decided that staging of works was essential. These stages being:

· Stage 1, which would incorporate the area of land to the North - Eastern side of the park currently vested in the City of Wanneroo.

· Stage 2, which would incorporate the area of land on the southern side of San Teodoro Park, currently owned by Watson Property Group.

· Future Works, which would incorporate the area of land located in the North -Western section of San Teodoro Park and currently privately owned.

At the reference group meeting held on 4 October 2006 the following development options were identified, discussed and prioritised as High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L) in an effort to assist in the preparation of a concept plan and staging of works.

The potential works were prioritised as follows:

· Cycle path/wheeled sports gradient surface (H)

· Drinking fountain (H)

· Potential for Gazebo, BBQ, Lighting and Playground to be discussed further (M)

· Potential for a community garden (L)

· Village Green concept with kick about space (H)

· Play equipment – Basic 1 – 5 years module (H)

· Cricket nets (L)

· Public Art project (L)

· Passive surveillance light – To focus on path network (H)

· Combination sports goals (H)

· Bush Trail (M)

· North Bush area – Clear undergrowth to make accessible and usable (M)

· Conservation fencing (M)

The outcome of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Groups deliberations was to produce a composite design option (Attachment 2) and cost estimation (Attachment 3) that would provide the local community and surrounding residents with a staged development subject to public consultation and council endorsement. The agreed staging process is outlined as follows:

Stage 1 Development

· Earthworks

· Electrical Upgrades

· Irrigation

· Bore

· Grassing (stolons) and irrigation to North - West area

· Internal path

· Combination goals

· Tree planting

· Drinking fountain

· Removal of existing pine trees

Stage 2 Development

· Retained Vegetation in the Northeast corner to be determined following site inspection

· BMX Track

· Removal of existing fence

· Playground and associated softfall

· Extension of existing external fence

· Bin

· BBQ

· Picnic table with shelter

· Park benches

· Conservation fence

Future Works

· (Subject to land availability and development of adjacent lot)

· Conservation fencing and gates

· Additional seating

· Picnic table with shelter

· Grassing and irrigation of area at the Southern end of the park

· Hard courts

· Track through conservation area

· Additional tree planting

At the meeting of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group on 23 April 2007 it was decided that the objectives of the group have been achieved as determined within the Terms of Reference.

1. To consider the development of a concept plan for San Teodoro Park

2. To consult with community members on the future use of San Teodoro Park

As such it was agreed by the group that on adoption by Council of the San Teodoro Park Concept Plan, recommendation be made that under the group’s Terms of Reference, Council terminate the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group.

Consultation

In addition to the constructive input through the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group, community members were given the opportunity to comment on the composite San Teodoro Park Concept Plan through a consultation strategy endorsed by the City’s Consultation Review Panel on 28 February 2007.

The consultation strategy included the following:

· The period of public consultation was from 6 March 2007 to 6 April 2007.

· Mail out to residents within a 400m radius of San Teodoro Park, including proposed concept plan and comment form, incorporating Bonannella Entrance, Vinciullo Way, Giglia Drive and Speranza Park Way.

· Static display of proposed concept plan at the City of Wanneroo Civic and Administration building.

· Listing on City of Wanneroo Website under Your Say section

· Information session and sausage sizzle at San Teodoro Park 16 March 2007.

All the methods within the consultation strategy were undertaken and a summary of the outcomes of the consultation process is included within Attachment 4.

Comment

One hundred percent of the 29 returned written submissions were in favour of the staged development of San Teodoro Park as per the San Teodoro Park Concept Plan (Drawing 2207-1-1). This was also supported in comments received at the public information session and sausage sizzle held on 16 March 2007.

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.8 of the local Government Act 1995 provides Council the ability to introduce Committees and appoint community representatives to serve on these committees.

Strategic Implications

The formation of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group supports the City’s Strategic Outcome 2 – Social, Healthy, safe, vibrant and connected communities.

“Objective 2.1 – Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options.

2.1.1 Upgrade public facilities and open spaces to optimise use.

2.1.2 Provide timely and functional public facilities and open spaces to meet changing community needs.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

This report will recommend that the project be listed for consideration in the Five Year Capital Works Program, commencing in 2007/08

Development Stage	Cost ($)
Stage 1	235,000
Stage 2	146,000
Future Works	80,000

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. ADOPT the San Teodoro Park Concept Plan and associated staging as per Attachment 2 to this report.

2. LISTS for consideration the following amounts in the Five Year Capital Budget, with Stage 1 being listed for the 2007/08 financial year:

Project Number	Development Stage	Cost ($)
PR1289	Stage 1	235,000
PR1289	Stage 2	146,000
PR1289	Future Works	80,000

3. AGREES to terminate the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group upon adoption of the San Teodoro Park Concept Plan, accepting that the objectives of the group as identified in the Terms of Reference have been achieved.

4. ACKNOWLEDGES the contribution of the members of the San Teodoro Park Community Reference Group and requests expressions of thanks be sent to each member.

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

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 2

STAGE 1

Item

Unit

Qty

Rate

Sub-total

Earthworks (870.7m3)

870.7

$60

$ 52,242.00

Electrical Upgrades

item

$6,000

$ 6,000.00

Grass - Stolons 1 in 10 ratio

8706.9

$ 26,120.70

Irrigation (install - area 8707m2)

item

$22,000

$ 22,000.00

Irrigation (design for both areas)

item

$2,000

$ 2,000.00

Irrigation - Bore

item

$70,000

$ 70,000.00

Trees (45L)

each

$80

$ 4,000.00

Trees (100L)

each

$200

$ 5,800.00

Trees (200L)

each

$380

$ 2,280.00

Footy goals

each

$2,000

$ 2,000.00

Drinking fountain

each

$2,500

$ 2,500.00

Internal path (1.8m)

193

$40

$ 7,720.00

Remove Pinus radiata

item

$7,000

$ 7,000.00

Sub-total

$ 209,662.70

Contingency + D&PM

12%

$ 25,159.52

GRAND TOTAL

$ 234,822.22

STAGE 2

Preliminaries (Survey and set out)

$ 2,500.00

Play equipment

item

$26,000

$ 20,000.00

Rubber softfall

413.6

$110

$ 35,000.00

Power run (to BBQ)

$42

$ 1,050.00

BBQ

each

$8,000

$ 8,000.00

Picnic Shelter inc. conc pad & picnic table

each

$4,500

$ 4,500.00

Irrigation (install) - north east area

item

$15,000

$ 15,000.00

Grass (stolon) - north east area

2300

$ 6,900.00

BMX track

$ 17,000.00

Park benches

each

$900

$ 2,700.00

External path (2.1m)

170

$60

$ 10,200.00

Concrete kerbing (around playground)

110.6

$11

$ 1,216.60

Bin

item

$150

$ 150.00

Conservation fence

176.3

$32

$ 5,641.60

Sub-total

$ 129,858.20

Contingency + D&PM

12%

$ 15,582.98

GRAND TOTAL

$ 145,441.18

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2 of 2

FUTURE WORKS

Crush limestone path

172.7

$20

$ 3,454.00

Picnic Shelter inc. conc pad & picnic table

each

$4,500

$ 4,500.00

Irrigation (design & install) - southwest area (6959m2)

item

$19,000

$ 19,000.00

Grass (stolon) - south west area

6959.3

$ 20,877.90

Park benches

each

$900

$ 900.00

Basketball Half Court

item

$5,730

$ 5,730.00

Trees (45L)

each

$80

$ 1,680.00

Trees (100L)

each

$200

$ 3,200.00

Trees (200L)

each

$380

$ 2,660.00

Conservation fencing (chain mesh)

331.7

$32

$ 10,614.40

Conservation fence gate

each

$425

$ 850.00

Sub-total

$ 73,466.30

NOTE:

ALLOW 6 MONTHS LEAD TIME FOR ELECTRICAL UPGRADES

Cost for future works does not include preliminaries and earthworks.

Cost for stage 2 does not include garden kerb around retained vegetation.

Cost for stage 2 does not include earthworks in north-east area.

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 1 of 5

Summary of Consultation Strategy

The period of public consultation was from 6 March 2007 to 6 April 2007.

Mail out to residents within a 400m radius of San Teodoro Park, including proposed concept plan and comment form, incorporating Bunnell Entrance, Vinculo Way, Gigli Drive and Speranza Park Way.

Total mail drop – 346
Total written responses – 29
Percentage response – 8.38%
Total in favour of development – 29 (100%)
Total against the development 0 (0%)

Static display of preposed concept plan at the City of Wanneroo Civic and Administration building.

Display in position for 30 days
No direct feedback received regarding static displays

Listing on City of Wanneroo Website under Your Say section

Item was uploaded onto City’s website on March 6 including concept plan

Information session and sausage sizzle at San Teodoro Park

Sausage Sizzle and information session took place on 16 March 2007
Time – 5pm – 6.30pm
Session attended by 5 administration staff and 2 councillors

· Session attended by approximately 40 community members

PUBLIC COMMENT FORM

SAN TEODORO PARK – CONCEPT PLAN

The City of Wanneroo has completed a concept plan for San Teodoro Park, Sinagra. To assist in the public comment process you are encouraged to complete this form and return it to the City of Wanneroo.

1. Do you support the development of the San Teodoro Park, Sinagra as proposed by the Concept Plan? (please tick appropriate box)

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

If no, could you please outline the reason why?

2. What elements of the Concept Plan do you think are most beneficial to the community?

3. What elements of the Concept Plan do you think are least beneficial to the community?

4. What elements of the Concept Plan do you think you and your family would most utilise?

5. Are there any further comments you wish to make in regards to the San Teodoro Park Concept Plan?

For further information, please contact the City of Wanneroo Leisure and Cultural Services Business Unit on 9405 5000.

Public comment forms should be returned to the City of Wanneroo, Locked Bag 1, Wanneroo 6946, by Friday 6 April 2007.

	Q1	Q1A	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
1	Yes	N/A	BBQ area, Hard Courts, Conservation Area	Like all of it	All of it	Sooner it happens the better to get the kids off the street. Have traffic control (speed bumps) on the streets surrounding the park
2	Yes	N/A	BBQ Area, picnic tables and drinking fountains	N/A	All of it	We are pleased to hear it is on the agenda
3	Yes	N/A	Playground, Open Space, BBQ Area	N/A	Playground Area & BBQ	More car parking
4	Yes	N/A	All of it	None	Hard courts etc, barbeque, conservation area	With the existing tall trees there is a lot of birds that visit the area and I hope that the removal of the existing trees will not have an impact on the bird life in the area
5	Yes	N/A	Open recreation space for all	N/A	N/A	N/A
6	Yes	N/A	Playground, BBQ, Picnic Tables with shelter, additional seating, drink fountain, grassed area / walk track	All is beneficial	Playground Area, BBQ/picnic tables, water fountain, path and grassed areas	Very happy that the development is going ahead. Bought our property as we were told this was going to be a developed park - which is why we bought opposite and on a smaller block. Can't wait to see the end result
7	Yes	N/A	Picnic tables, grassed areas, playground & BBQ's w drinking fountain	N/A	The grassed areas but when we have children all of it will be beneficial	N/A
8	Yes	N/A	Children’s play park	BMX track if misused by quad bikes as it is at the moment	Children playground plus walkways in protected area	N/A
9	Yes	N/A	Good environment for families to enjoy	N/A	All of it	N/A
10	Yes	Could you have special areas for dog walkers	Walk paths, playground, BMX, Open Space, BBQ, Benches, Bushland	None	All elements for different ages	Try and keep the eastern area for us as bush or park. Thank you for looking after us.
11	Yes	Possible to raise the covered section so you can see the whole park	A meeting place for the whole community	Still thinking	BBQ area. BMX track, playground area, goal post and grass areas 95% of park	Make the walkway in the conservation area a walk to promote fitness
12	Yes	Recent building developments are losing community parks and places where families can enjoy their time together without expense	BBQ area for families	None	BBQ areas	About time the community was provided a family oriented area with the amount of building that’s occurred over the last couple of years. More areas should be set aside for community parks
13	Yes	N/A	Facilities for the children keep them off the road. They can ride their bikes etc on the track and footpath provided - well done	All good	Play, picnic and walking areas. Enjoy the birds	Will the refuse bins be permanent or normal utility binds. Hope the concrete walk ramps can be coloured

	Q1	Q1A	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
14	Yes	N/A	Picnic area, BMX track, walk way, lawn, playground	N/A	Mixed goals, BMX track Walkways	Great plan - can't wait to see it
15	Yes	N/A	BMX Track, bush walk tracks, playground, footy areas and tennis	None	BMX, Footy and grassed areas	Start soon - sounds good
16	Yes	N/A	Open space - Bike riding tracks	N/A	Picnic areas, bike tracks hard courts	Ensure that the hard court area is multi-purpose. BBQ needs to be added and possible shade shelters
17	Yes	N/A	BMX track, playground and softball	N/A	Walking on paths	N/A
18	Yes	N/A	All Good	All Good	All	The park that you propose will be of benefit to all young people and also older folk. The Wanneroo Council have always provided 1st class reserves in their district and I believe this concept will be as successful - good luck
19	Yes	N/A	Play areas and BBQ with open areas to kick football, fly a kite etc	Removal of existing pine trees as they would split open area from natural bush area	Children’s play equipment - open area and BBQ	Thank you to the Council for doing something in this area. Without these facilities being an advertised feature of this development a lot of existing / new housing would not be here
20	Yes	N/A	All beneficial due to the amount of young children in the area. Especially the playground and open space.	None - All elements are beneficial as the ages in the community vary and all will be used as they grow	Playground and open space at the moment BMX track and hard courts when the kids get older	Would like it to start as soon as possible. We built here to be close to the park for the kids. Its coming up to 2yrs and they still can't play there
21	Yes	N/A	All of it but grass to cut down to sand	None	Everything	Sooner the better
22	Yes	N/A	Open plan grass area	BMX track	Irrigated area, picnic area, kick about space	Couple of extra BBQ areas
23	Yes	N/A	Safe area for children to play	Playground, BBQ	Open grass & Playground	Sooner developed the more use it will be put to
24	Yes	N/A	Grassed open space - reticulated and plants	N/A	Playground - equipment	Playground & equipment should be in stage 1
25	Yes	N/A	Sounds wonderful - seems a lot of thought and planning has gone into this - eg shade, walking area - picnic and BBQ	N/A	N/A	RE: Vandals - I found woodens eating is soon unfortunately destroyed - look forward to taking my family and interstate visitors there - Please save the grass tress - they are native to WA and do not want to see them bulldozed

	Q1	Q1A	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
26	Yes	N/A	Playground, Open space, paths, drinking fountain, BBQ's, picnic tables with shelter, combination goals, grass, trees, hard courts	None - I think it will all help people to be active out in the community	Playground, BBQ, picnic tables with shelter, open space	Looks fantastic! Can't wait for it to be completed. Will certainly benefit the community
27	Yes	N/A	Think it will be great - all the young families in the area will benefit and it sounds like a very peaceful and enjoyable place. BBQ and picnic areas are a fantastic plan	N/A	Having an older family the BBQ and picnic areas will be well used and the conservation area for walking will be fabulous	N/A
28	Yes	N/A	Playground and BMX track with open space will hopefully get the children off the roads kicking the footballs and into safer family environment	N/A	BMX track, BBQ & Picnic tables - kick about areas	Perhaps phase 3 area could do with its own BBQ. One BBQ in phase 2 area would not be enough for the families in the area
29	Yes	N/A	Bushland areas irrigated area with paths, picnic tables. Like BMX areas as encourages kids to be outside and provides a location to go to	Hard courts. Do not like use if exotic tree species as they are out of place and weeds do not provide fauna habitat and does not show the support of native western spp	Bushland area & irrigated area so dog can run around off leash	Would dogs be permitted? It is important to have areas for dog walking and since there is no defined access to Lake Joondalup it is hard to walk dogs. Also it would be great to have provided dog bags such as Woodvale oval so everyone acts responsibility

EndOfAttachment - Do not delete this line will not be printed

Governance and Strategy

Governance

GS01-05/07 Donation Requests to be Considered by Council

File Ref: S07/0057V02

File Name: AA Donation requests to be considered by Council.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: A/Director Governance & Strategy

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Tammy Cumbers

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachment(s): 1

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

Issue

To consider requests for donations in accordance with the City’s Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges policy.

Background

The Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy requires applications for over $500.00 from individuals and organisations to be determined by Council. Consequently a report is prepared for Council meetings, coinciding with a period where applications of this nature have been received.

Detail

During this period, the City has received two requests for a donation to be considered by Council. These requests are summarised on the following pages. The applications have been included as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1).

Comment

Applicant 1 – Backyard Blitz Program
Request Amount	$975.00
Description of request	Request for a donation of $975.00 towards the purchase of 15 trailer loads of mulch, 15 trips to a waste facility and 130 plants to support the Backyard Blitz program for disadvantaged or aged families or families with disabilities.
Criteria	Evaluation
Potential for income generation	Nil
Status of the applicant organisation	Not for profit

Applicant 1 – Backyard Blitz Program (continued)
Exclusivity of the event or project	The contact person for this program works with students from Irene McCormack Catholic College.
Alignment with Council’s existing philosophies, values and strategic direction.	This request is aligned with the City’s Strategic Plan and supports outcome 2.2 – Improve the City’s identity and community wellbeing through arts, culture, leisure and recreation.
Potential benefits to the Wanneroo community	This program is a volunteer program which provides families across the community who are at a disadvantage with a front or backyard makeover.
Alternative funding sources available or accessed by the organisation.	Nil
Contribution to the event or activity made by the applicant or organisation	Over the past 3 years of the program running, the founder has covered all costs himself.
Previous funding assistance provided to the organisation by the City	Nil
Commitment to acknowledgement of the City of Wanneroo	Not specified.
Comments	This request would be more suited to the City’s Community Funding Program and the Grants Officer will liaise with the applicant.
Recommendation	NOT APPROVE a donation of $975.00 towards the purchase of 15 trailer loads of mulch, 15 trips to a waste facility and 130 plants to support the Backyard Blitz program for disadvantaged or aged families or families with disabilities.

Applicant 2 – Joondalup Health Campus Paediatric Ward
Request Amount	$500.00
Description of request	Request for a donation of $500.00 towards the Masquerade Ball fundraising event for the refurbishment and improvement of the Joondalup Health Campus Paediatric Ward to be held at the Joondalup Resort on 5 May 2007.

Criteria	Evaluation
Potential for income generation	Yes
Status of the applicant organisation	Charity event
Exclusivity of the event or project	Open to the public.
Alignment with Council’s existing philosophies, values and strategic direction.	This request is aligned with the City’s Strategic Plan and supports outcome 2.2 – Improve the City’s identity and community wellbeing through arts, culture, leisure and recreation.
Potential benefits to the Wanneroo community	Funds will support improvements to health facilities used by the Wanneroo community.
Alternative funding sources available or accessed by the organisation.	Major sponsors of the event include; City of Joondalup, Bunnings Warehouse, Satterley, Western Diagnostic Pathology, Perth Radiological Clinic and Edith Cowan University. There are also 6 supporting sponsors and donations have been received from a further 13 sources.
Contribution to the event or activity made by the applicant or organisation	Time in organising the fundraising event.
Previous funding assistance provided to the organisation by the City	Nil
Commitment to acknowledgement of the City of Wanneroo	Not specified.
Comments	Other fundraising events that have also supported this cause are “Kilos 4 Kids” and “Joondalup Festival Street Parade”. There is an entry fee of $130 per person or $1,200 per table of ten. Although the policy does not support the generation of income from events, it is specifically stated that the funds will go towards the improvement of facilities in the Paediatrics Ward. Although this request does not meet the criteria of the policy, it strongly supports the wellbeing of the Wanneroo and Joondalup community.
Recommendation	APPROVE a donation of $500.00 towards the Masquerade Ball fundraising event for the refurbishment and improvement of the Joondalup Health Campus Paediatric Ward to be held at the Joondalup Resort on 5 May 2007.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The provision of donations is aligned with the City’s strategic direction as follows:

“2.2 Improve the City’s identity and community wellbeing through arts, culture, leisure and recreation

2.2.1 Encourage, support and provide a range of recreation and leisure opportunities, both active and passive.”

Policy Implications

This report complies with the provisions and delegations of the Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges policy.

Financial Implications

Budget 2006/2007 Elected Member Donations	$40,000
Amount expended to date Under Delegated Authority: By Council determination	$12,557.74 $12,197.32 $24,755.06
Impact of approval of recommended delegated authority applications Sponsorships: Donations and Waivers:	$0.00 $500.00
TOTAL	$500.00
Remaining Funds	$14,744.94

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council:-

1. NOT APPROVE a donation of $975.00 towards the purchase of 15 trailer loads of mulch, 15 trips to a waste facility and 130 plants to support the Backyard Blitz program for disadvantaged or aged families or families with disabilities.

2. APPROVE a donation of $500.00 towards the Masquerade Ball fundraising event for the refurbishment and improvement of the Joondalup Health Campus Paediatric Ward to be held at the Joondalup Resort on 5 May 2007.

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

GS02-05/07 Community Funding Allocations March 2007 Round

File Ref: S17/0135V01

File Name: AA Community Funding Allocations March 2007 Round.doc This line will not be printed dont delete

Responsible Officer: A/Director, Governance & Strategy

Disclosure of Interest: Nil

Author: Tammy Cumbers

Meeting Date: 15 May 2007

Attachment(s): 1

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

Issue

To consider recommendations from the Community Funding Working Party for the current round of Community Development and Community Event Sponsorship Funding within the City of Wanneroo’s Community Funding Program.

Background

Council offers two rounds of Community Funding to the community each financial year, in March and October. The Funding provides an opportunity for community organisations to apply for funding to support community events, activities and projects.

Detail

The total number of applications received in this round was 21 with 11 applications being in the Community Development Funding category and 10 applications being in the Event Sponsorship Category. Copies of these applications have been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for further information.

The Community Funding Working Party met on Monday 30 April 2007 to assess all applications received.

Recommendations made by the Working Party with regard to the 21 applications received are summarised in Attachment 1.

Consultation

Groups were invited to attend information sessions and meet with the Grants Officer to increase the effectiveness of their applications and ensure that eligibility requirements were clear to those applying.

Comment

All applicants will be advised in writing of the outcome of their application.

Recommendations made by the Working Party are also detailed in the Officers Recommendation.

The table below details which wards the applications for this round have come from.

Ward	Number of Applications
North	4
Coastal	1
Hester	4
Central	11
Wanneroo	6
Alexander	2
South	0
Outside City of Wanneroo	2

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The Community Funding Program is supportive of Council’s strategic direction and supports outcomes 2.2 – Improve the City’s identity and community wellbeing through arts, culture, leisure and recreation and 2.3 – Improve the capacity of local communities to support each other.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Category	Amount requested	Amount recommended
Community Development	$32,329.00	$11,488.00
Event Sponsorship	$35,792.60	$9,154.60
Total	$68,121.60	$20,642.60

All Community Funding grants are allocated from the Community Funding Account (717633-1205-316).

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

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

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the recommendations of the Community Funding Working Party, made at the Community Funding Working Party meeting on Monday 30 April 2007, as indicated below:-

a) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Development Funding to the Balga Detached Youth Work Project Inc for the Take Charge Workshops.

b) ENDORSES funding of $2,200 via Community Development Funding to the Carramar Senior Citizens Indoor Bowls Club Inc to support the cost of purchasing one carpet bowls mat and two sets of carpet bowls.

c) ENDORSES funding of $1,288 via Community Development Funding to the Marangaroo Family Centre Inc to support the cost of web hosting, domain registration and web design.

d) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Development Funding to the Merriwa Education Support Centre for the Including You, Including Me project.

e) ENDORSES funding of $1,000 via Community Development Funding to the Merriwa Mudlarks to support the Three Concert Performances.

f) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Development Funding to The Patricia Giles Centre Inc for the “I might be little but my feelings are big!” project.

g) ENDORSES funding of $2,000 via Community Development Funding to People Against Vandalism to support the purchase of chemicals and paint subject to the provision of a current Certificate of Currency with the remainder of the request ($3,000) to be referred to the 2007/2008 budget.

h) ENDORSES funding of $1,500 via Community Development Funding to Quinns Rocks RSL Sub Branch to support Remembrance Day 2007 subject to the submission and subsequent approval of an acquittal for the Vietnam Veterans Day Service 2007.

i) ENDORSES funding of $2,500 via Community Development Funding to Wanneroo Civic Choir to support the cost of uniforms.

j) ENDORSES funding of $1,000 via Community Development Funding to Yanchep Districts Junior Football Club to support the Yanchep Districts Red Hawks Junior Gala Day.

k) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Development Funding to Yanchep Sports Club Inc for the Yanchep Sports Club Junior Bowls Academy.

l) ENDORSES funding of $1,061 via Community Event Sponsorship to Challenge Brass Band to support Challenge Brass Band Celebrating 20 Years of Music in Wanneroo.

m) ENDORSES funding of $1,000 via Community Event Sponsorship to Clarkson Primary School to support the Clarkson Healthy Lifestyle Challenge.

n) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Event Sponsorship to Lakes Christian Life Centre for the Movie Day 2007.

o) ENDORSES funding of $1,293.60 via Community Event Sponsorship to Landsdale Primary School Parents & Citizens Association Inc to support the cost of materials from Jumbo Hire for the Christmas Fete.

p) ENDORSES funding of $1,300 via Community Event Sponsorship to Marangaroo Parents & Citizens Association Inc to support the Marangaroo Healthy Active Community Day.

q) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Event Sponsorship to St Andrews Catholic Primary School Parents & Friends Association for the Family Night.

r) DOES NOT SUPPORT funding via Community Event Sponsorship to Wanneroo Cricket Association Inc for Score for Charity and for the request to be referred to the FACE Committee.

s) ENDORSES funding of $500 via Community Event Sponsorship to Wanneroo Senior High School to support the cost of shirt screening for “The Batavia Children & Batavia Ghosts” production subject to relevant quotes being provided to the satisfaction of the Acting Chief Executive Officer.

t) ENDORSES funding of $2,000 via Community Event Sponsorship to Yanchep Two Rocks Recreation Association to support Blessing of the Fleet 2007 with the remainder of the request to be referred to the FACE Committee and considered in the 2007/2008 budget.

u) ENDORSES funding of $2,000 via Community Event Sponsorship to Yanchep Two Rocks RSL Sub Branch to support Vietnam Veterans Day and Remembrance Day 2007 subject to the submission and subsequent approval of an acquittal for the 30^th Anniversary Celebration to occur in July 2007.

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

NO	ORGANISATION	PROJECT	LOCATION	DATE	REQUESTED	ENDORSED	CONDITIONS/COMMENTS
1	Balga Detached Youth Work Project Inc	Take Charge Workshops	Hainsworth Recreation Centre	6 June – 12 December 2007	$2,964.00	$0.00
2	Carramar Senior Citizens Indoor Bowls Club Inc	Purchase of carpet bowls, carpet bowls mats and 2 tea pots	Carramar Community Centre, Carramar	Ongoing	$4,398.00	$2,200.00	To support cost of one carpet bowls mat and two sets of carpet bowls.
3	Marangaroo Family Centre inc	Marangaroo Family Centre Website	Marangaroo Family Centre	April – June 2007	$2,900.00	$1,288.00	To support cost of web hosting, domain registration and web design. Receipts must be provided.
4	Merriwa Education Support Centre	Including You, Including Me	Merriwa Education Support Centre	24 July – 26 October 2007	$5,226.00	$0.00
5	Merriwa Mudlarks	Three Concert Performances	RAAFA Estate Club	13 August – 3 December 2007	$1,000.00	$1,000.00
6	Patricia Giles Centre	I might be little but my feelings are big!	RSPCA Malaga	July – August 2007	$1,830.00	$0.00
7	People Against Vandalism	Purchase of chemicals and paint	Various locations	Ongoing	$5,000.00	$2,000.00	Remainder of request to go to budget. Subject to Certificate of Currency being provided.
8	Quinns Rocks RSL Sub Branch	Remembrance Day 2007	Quinns Rocks Sports Club	11 November 2007	$2,011.00	$1,500.00
9	Wanneroo Civic Choir	25^th Anniversary	Various locations	Ongoing	$5,000.00	$2,500.00	For cost of uniforms only.
10	Yanchep Districts Junior Football Club	Yanchep Districts Red Hawks Junior Gala Day	Oldham Reserve Club Grounds	26 August 2007	$1,000.00	$1,000.00
21	Yanchep Sports Club Inc	Yanchep Sports Club Junior Bowls Academy	Yanchep Sports Club	12 April – 30 September 2007	$1,000.00	$0.00

NO	ORGANISATION	EVENT	LOCATION	DATE	REQUESTED	ENDORSED	CONDITIONS/COMMENTS
11	Challenge Brass Band	Challenge Brass Band Celebrating 20 years of Music in Wanneroo	Wanneroo Sports & Social Club	15 September 2007	$1,061.00	$1,061.00
12	Clarkson Primary School	Clarkson Healthy Lifestyle Challenge	Clarkson Primary School	24 – 27 September 2007	$3,500.00	$1,000.00
13	Lakes Christian Life Centre	Movie Day 2007	Grand Cinemas Joondalup	11 – 13 December 2007	$7,650.00	$0.00	Grants Officer phoned applicant for further information. Applicant hasn’t returned call. Application to be referred to next Funding Round.
14	Landsdale Primary School Parents & Citizens Association Inc	Christmas Fete	Landsdale Primary School Grounds	7 December 2007	$2,741.60	$1,293.60	For the cost of materials detailed in Jumbo Hire quote.
15	Marangaroo Parents & Citizens Association Inc	Marangaroo Healthy Active Community Day	Marangaroo Primary School	30 October 2007	$2,990.00	$1,300.00
16	St Andrews Catholic Primary School Parents & Friends Association	Family Night	St Andrews Catholic Primary School	26 October 2007	$1,200.00	$0.00
17	Wanneroo Cricket Association Inc	Score for Charity	Wanneroo Showgrounds	26 January 2008	$9,150.00	$0.00	To be referred to FACE Committee and 07/08 budget.
18	Wanneroo Senior High School	The Batavia Children & Batavia Ghosts	Glynn Watkins Theatre, Wanneroo SHS	25 – 27 June 2007	$1,500.00	$500.00
19	Yanchep Two Rocks Recreation Association	Blessing of the Fleet 2007	Two Rocks Marina	11 November 2007	$4,000.00	$2,000.00	Remainder of request to be referred to 07/08 budget and FACE Committee.
20	Yanchep Two Rocks RSL Sub Branch	Vietnam Veterans Day & Remembrance Day 2007	War Memorial, Yanchep National Park	18 August – 11 November 2007	$2,000.00	$2,000.00

	Organisation	Activity	Action	Reason
1.	WA Netball	Athlete’s Foot Netball National Championships to be held in Melbourne from 10-15 April 2007.	APPROVE a sponsorship request for $400 from WA Netball to support Sarah Tatam and Natalie Moeahupehi in their participation at the Athlete’s Foot Netball National Championships to be held in Melbourne from 10-15 April 2007.	This request supports the criteria of the policy.
2.	White Wreath Association Ltd	National White Wreath Day – In Remembrance of all Victims of Suicide to be held on 29 May 2007.	NOT APPROVE a donation request of $50.00 towards the support of organising National White Wreath Day – In Remembrance of all Victims of Suicide to be held on 29 May 2007.	This request does not meet the policy as the organisation is not located within the City of Wanneroo and there is no direct benefit to City of Wanneroo residents as it is not clear what remembrance activities will occur in the City of Wanneroo.
3.	Greyhounds Christian Soccer Club	Waiver of fees for the Greyhounds Christian Soccer Club to use Liddel Park and Blackmore Park in Girrawheen for the 2006/2007 soccer season.	NOT APPROVE a donation request of $463.95 from Greyhounds Christian Soccer Club for a waiver of fees for Liddell Park and Blackmore Park in Girrawheen for the 2006/2007 season.	Under the terms of the policy, this request is not eligible for a 50% waiver of fees for the hire of the facility as the policy requires at least 75% of the membership of the group requesting funding to be City of Wanneroo residents.