PS06-12/13 Reconsideration of Development Application for Industry – Extractive at Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup

1.         Have costs ever been awarded by SAT against a local government in defending its right to refuse a discretionary application under its District Planning Scheme.  If so could you please provide the case examples?

2.         At the SAT Directions Hearing of 29th November, by consent of the parties, SAT made the order that Council was invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 10th December, 2013.  Did the City make any representation to SAT to have this order made for Council’s February meeting given the tight time frame between getting the additional information from Lime Industries and providing a report and advice to Council and submitters in this matter? If yes, could you provide details.

3.         If no, why not, given that it is clear from Administration’s previous answers to questions and explanations of this matter, that it was in fact Lime Industries failure to provide the required information which resulted in Administration pursuing further information (including a Kaarst Report) since January 2013.

4.         If no, would it not have been reasonable to argue at SAT that it is in fact Lime Industries continued refusal to provide information which was responsible for the delays in Administration in dealing with this matter?

5.         If no, would it not be reasonable to argue that SAT may well have agreed with an order to invite Council to reconsider its decision by providing Administration a reasonable timeframe to prepare a report for Council to reconsider.

6.         5 residents, have been provided approximately 3 days to make submissions on the Kaarst Report.  Given that this key document was one of the reasons Administration delayed dealing with the matter, why were these affected landowners only provided with 3 days to make submissions.

7.         The Kaarst Report forms part of the Briefing Report Agenda first published on Friday 6th December.  Is it at all possible for any of the 198 submitters who are objectors to this proposal to make a submission on the Kaarst report?

8.         This is a complex case, given experts called, length proposed for the final hearing and the costs of defending this case.  Is the City confident that it has provided Council with enough time to process and fully understand the issues involved in this case?

9.         In the report to Council, p123 of the Agenda, it is stated that, “In out of session discussions between the applicant and the City’s solicitors, the applicant indicated an openness to adjourn the Full Hearing…” scheduled with SAT.

10.      Does the Council’s decision of refusal of the proposal of July 23rd, extend or authorise Administration to engage in out of session discussions with the applicant outside of the SAT mediation process.

11.      If yes, could you explain under what Act or Regulation Administration has such delegated authority to act outside of the SAT process?

12.      The parties jointly agreed to vacate the Full Hearing dates of the matter. On what basis does the Administration have the authority to do this without the approval of Council?

13.      At a Directions Hearing on the 29th November, the parties sought leave for SAT to invite the Council to reconsider its decision.  What authority does Administration have to seek such an order?

14.       Is it still the City’s legal position, as it has repeatedly stated publicly for over 2 years, and which resulted in the City taking enforcement action to have the Driver Training operation stopped and removed, that the operation is an educational use and therefore not capable of approval?

15.      If Lime Industries persist, is it not true that they could only receive approval by SAT for Driver Training as an incidental use?

16.      As a result of SAT only being able to approve the Driver Training as an incidental use, no extra truck movements or related noise activities would occur, because the Driver Training would just be doing the mining activities that are required.  To be incidental means that there would be no extra activities other than those under the normal proposal.

17.       In its report to Council, on page 128 of the Council Agenda, it says:” SPP2.4 sets out the matters that Council must consider before determining applications for extractive industry.  These include matters such as the significance of the resource …” What information has been provided to allow the Council to consider and determine whether the resource on the site is significant?”

18.      How has the City concluded that agricultural limestone for fertiliser is considered as a significant resource under SPP2.4? Could the City provide the specific expert advice that would allow the Council to reach such a conclusion?

19.      In the original report distributed at the Briefing session on page 5 of 14 it is stated: “That the City’s karst and geotechnical experts have reviewed the additional information supplied by the proponent and generally concluded as follows (summarised):”  In the report on the Council Agenda, p126, it now states: “Having regard to the additional information supplied by the proponent, it is considered that:”  Why has this changed?

20.      Is this no longer the opinion of the City’s Karts and Geotechnical experts?  Is this now just the opinion of planning officers?

21.      Has the City provided Council with a copy of the Peer Review undertaken by surrounding residents on the Noise Study submitted by Lime Industries?  If not, why not?

22.      Has it been made clear to Council that no screening or crushing operations have been part of the activities subject to Lime Industries Noise Study, despite the fact that crushing and screening is such a critical part of the operation?

23.      Is Council aware that the City’s lawyers in its Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions argued that crushing and screening does not properly fall within the “Industry Extractive” use class and contends that this use must be classified as “Industry- General.”

24.      Will the City of Wanneroo condition that the operator notifies the City at least 7 days before crushing operations, including days and duration of crushing.  WA Limestone had this condition imposed on it previously.  Lime Industries has this as part of its proposed management measures.  Why has the City not imposed this condition?

25.      One of the other matters that SPP2.4 states Council needs to consider when dealing with planning matters is:

          6.5.1 In order to facilitate the exploitation of basic raw materials whilst supporting future long-term development for urban and other purposes, sequential land use planning should be a requirement whereby extraction and rehabilitation can take place on a programmed basis in advance of longer-term use and development.

          Could the City please explain what sequential land use planning has been undertaken by the Applicant and approved by Administration as part of its consideration of the proposal?

26.      In the previous matter relating to WA Limestone, the proponent submitted detailed plans of the sequential land use, fitting the established long term planning aspirations already stated by the City of Wanneroo through its Scheme Amendment attempts of 108 and 121 Landscape Enhancement.  Has Lime Industries been required to submit such plans prior to approval or commencement of operations?  If so could you provide details? If not, why not?

27.      Is there anything that would preclude Lime Industries from making a separate application for Driver Training as an incidental use to the City and possibly as a consequence, SAT, in the future?

28.      Does this recommendation to approve this proposal protect the surrounding residents from the prospect of a Driver Training School being approved at some point, separately, in the future?

29.          Previously, the City wrote to the DEC stating that no planning approval existed for lime manufacturing, as per subject to the application for a DEC licence for the operation of cement or lime manufacturing (Licence number L8441/2010/1).  In particular the licence previously held, but now suspended, pending local government planning approval, is a licence prescribed under Category 43, “Cement or lime manufacturing: Premises on which- a) clay, lime, sand or limestone material is used in a furnace or kiln in the production of cement clinker or lime or b) cement clinker, clay, limestone or similar material is ground.”  Does this recommendation for approval of this proposal, grant approval for cement or lime manufacturing?  If yes, could you explain why? If no, does this mean that the City would again oppose the application for a licence from the DEC on the basis that the proponent does not have planning approvals for the activities subject to the DEC licence?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

Questions 1 – 29 of PQ01-12/13 are being investigated and a further response will be provided in the Minutes for the Special Council Meeting to be held on 17 December 2013.

Speed Humps in Merriwa

Wished the Mayor and Councillors a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and then referred to the speed humps that had been constructed in Jenolan Way, Merriwa to mitigate traffic problems being experienced. 

The speed humps are placed four abreast and allow traffic to pass between them at normal speed.  They need to be in one piece across the road to be effective. 

Response by Mayor Roberts

Taken as a statement.

CE02-12/13 Yanchep Active Open Space Deed of Agreement

Q1.      Are elected members aware that in a normal building contract where there is a dispute, the person raising the dispute is entitled to hold monies under the building contract which relates to the dispute.  The provisions of this proposed draft is that if the City raises a dispute as to the construction costs of the access then the City is entitled to withhold all funds payable to YBJV for building the access and the withholding is not limited as it is in normal building contacts?

Response by Mayor Roberts

The City is aware of the dispute processes and will refer to the City Lawyer, Mrs Browne for further comment.

Response by City Lawyer

The costs referred to in the Marmion Avenue extension provisions within the Deed are front end agreements as to costs and scopes of work.  They are not about withholding funds and there is nothing in the default provision that requires the City to withhold funds.  If however there was to be a disagreement over construction costs, then that is a different issue.  The road costs themselves are covered in clauses 4.2 and 4.3. 

If the costs are more than $1.7 million, then this can be dealt with by re-design or a report back to Council.

Q2.      Originally the City of Wanneroo approached YBJV for their assistance in undertaking this project to deliver 2 sporting ovals to the community.  Then YBJV submitted the proposed subdivision for the creation of the active open space to the West Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) with the support of the City on the basis of the sweeping road entrance without a reference to any T-intersection and the WAPC approved the sub division plan on this basis.  Who at the City of Wanneroo Administration negotiated the change from the sweeping bend to the T-Junction?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Mayor Roberts referred to the Chief Executive Officer for comment.

Response by the Chief Executive Officer

Will answer the question in two parts.  The first part relates to the T-Junction itself and how that relates to the principle adopted by Council. Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 26 June 2012 among other things resolved "Unless carried out earlier by others, YBJV will be responsible for re-considering intersection treatment where the road to the Yanchep City Centre intersects with Marmion Avenue to form a T-Section in accordance with the ultimate road design for those roads. 

In regards to the sweeping road entry into the proposed public active open space, the Director of Planning and Sustainability will provide a history as to how that arose.

Response by Director of Planning and Sustainability

The background to that road design arose as a result of the proponents consultants own sub division design for the creation of the Yanchep Oval site.  The sweeping road concept did not arise from Administration, it was not conceived nor was it proposed by Administration although the City was constantly in support of that for the reasons that have been included as an attachment to this report.

The purpose of the sweeping road design was principally to avoid the need to have a hard right angle turn which would otherwise be created if the ultimate road design was to be pursued as part of the first stage of road construction for that project.  Unless evidence to the contrary can be provided, that concept and that proposal did not originate from Administration.

Q3       Was the decision to change to the T-Junction made by Administration with or without reference or discussion with YBJV and its fundamentals as to YBJV's undertaken the project that the condition for YBJV to construct the T-Junction is not imposed upon YBJV.

Response by Mayor Roberts

Mayor Roberts referred the question to the Director of Planning and Sustainability.

Response by Director of Planning and Sustainability

The CEO and the City Lawyer may also wish to comment however in terms of whether or not, or why or when the City imposed a change for YBJV to itself construct the T-Junction rather than the sweeping road, as the CEO has already mentioned, that was a Council agreed principal from June last year. 

In terms of whether there was any conversation regarding the need to construct the intersection at the time of sub division back in mid 2011, no there was not, as there was no purpose for discussing it at the time. The sole purpose for discussions relating to the sub division was for the applicant to obtain sub division approval from the planning commission for a sweeping road design instead of the right angle turn at the T-Section that would otherwise be required as part of the ultimate design of that intersection.

Response by the Chief Executive Officer

To reiterate the previous advice that Council resolved in regards to the T-Junction on the June 2012 Council meeting and more recently YBJV has asked Council to consider a different proposal than that expressed at the June Council meeting and that is what will be considered by Council this evening.

Q4       Does the City of Wanneroo still concede that a T-Junction is not necessary at this point in time and in fact will not be connecting to the major access roads as they have not been built yet?  Does the City concede it could require any subsequent development in the future, on making an application for sub division for residential lots to construct a proper T-Junction and concede that the City's understands that if it is insisting that YBJV construct the T-Junction at this stage it could be a deal breaker and the community will not get their sporting ovals despite the fact that at the time the original sub division of the block for the City was more than happy with, and indeed supported the sweeping road entrance?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Mayor Roberts referred the question to the Chief Executive Officer.

Response by Chief Executive Officer

Council's resolution of 26 June clearly states that unless carried out earlier by others, YBJV will be responsible for re-configuring intersection treatments where the road to the Yanchep City Centre intersects with Marmion Avenue to form a T-Section in accordance with the ultimate road design for those roads.  That is Council's current position and has been the position it has expressed since 26 June and it has been a position that Administration has negotiated the Deed of Agreement on, based on Council's principles established throughout this process.

Response by City Lawyer

JBJV has not been required to construct the T-Section now.  The T-Section is to be constructed when there is a requirement for Marmion Avenue to be extended.  It may very well be that it falls to another developer who makes an application to open up that land, which is why the resolution is "unless carried out earlier by others".

Q5       Can you confirm that the Deed of Agreement states the above facts posed by the City Lawyer?

Response by Chief Executive Officer

Deferred to the City Lawyer, however the understanding of the report and subsequent advice to Council clarifies that the intention is what has been conveyed to YBJV's lawyers that it will be amended to clearly state that "unless carried out earlier by others".

Response by City Lawyer

In the report to Council tonight in respect to the T-Section the words at the beginning of the clause "unless carried out by others" was omitted from the draft Deed.  However it has been put to YBJV, that this amendment will be made and further, there has also been another position put to YBJV, being that those words be included in the Deed or alternatively YBJV were asked whether or not they would prefer for the Deed to be amended so that they would not be required to pay the costs of the T-Section on the basis that the road to the Yanchep City Centre, to which the T-Section will connect, is the standard of road originally planned for the ultimate design. YBJV did not respond to that offer and that is why there has been no amendment in the Deed to that effect.

Response by Chief Executive Officer

The negotiations in regard to the Yanchep Open Space has been as a result of the principles established by Council throughout the negotiation process. 

Where there have been elements through the negotiation process that haven't been related to that or seeking an adjustment to,  principles established by Council, Administration has brought those matters back to Council to seek direction from Council as to whether those principles need to be amended to allow negotiations to continue.  The element that is now being talked about is simply that there is a different position expressed to that adopted by Council as a principle in its June 2012 meeting and that is a subject that Council will need to consider tonight.

PS06-12/13 Reconsideration of Development Application for Industry – Extractive at Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup

1.         Question 6 submitted at the 3 December 2013 Briefing Session was as follows -  "The Peer Review commissioned by surrounding landowners clearly shows that the Noise Regulations would be exceeded as a result of the mining operations and screening and crushing.  Given that the mining operations still form the major part of this proposal how has the noise concerns now been mitigated at all?" Administration's response was " Noise emissions would be managed in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and the combination of recommended conditions g), x), y), z), aa), bb), cc) and dd). These conditions are also supplemented by recommended conditions ee) and ff) (keeping of a Complaints Log and Annual Reporting), together with conditions b) and c), which introduce a staggered approval depending on the findings of an annual Compliance Report."

Following on from this response, should this proposed development proceed, if it cannot be demonstrated prior to approving the proposal that the maximum emission levels will not be exceeded under the Environmental Protection Noise Regulations 1997?

2.         If the proposal is approved for Lime Industries without the miner driver training, is there anything following that approval, stopping Lime Industries from applying to the City for driver training and then proceeding to SAT again and asking approval for that?

3.         Questions were submitted in writing prior to tonight's meeting and taken on notice but could a response be provided now to Question 29. which was as follows – "Previously, the City wrote to the DEC stating that no planning approval existed for lime manufacturing, as per subject to the application for a DEC licence for the operation of cement or lime manufacturing (Licence number L8441/2010/1). 

In particular the licence previously held, but now suspended, pending local government planning approval, is a licence prescribed under Category 43, 'Cement or lime manufacturing: Premises on which- a) clay, lime, sand or limestone material is used in a furnace or kiln in the production of cement clinker or lime or b) cement clinker, clay, limestone or similar material is ground.'  Does this recommendation for approval of this proposal, grant approval for cement or lime manufacturing?  If yes, could you explain why? If no, does this mean that the City would again oppose the application for a licence from the DEC on the basis that the proponent does not have planning approvals for the activities subject to the DEC licence?

4.         Does the proposal currently before Council include lime manufacturing?

Response by Director, Planning and Sustainability

1.         That is a decision for Council to make.  As to whether or not the application for planning approval should be refused on the grounds of perceived likely, or implied future non-compliance with separate legislation that is not planning legislation.

2.         There is nothing stopping the applicant from taking that approach.  If the question beyond that is would Administration's position be any different to that maintained consistently from the outset, the answer is no insofar as if the exact same driver training proposal is applied for in terms of planning approval, as Administration and the City previously caused to be removed from the property, then Administration would still be of the view that is not capable of being approved.  If the proposal was modified to be some other type of driver training activity, that could be interpreted as more incidental to the predominant use of the land than the previous activity occurring on site, under those circumstances I cannot say what the decision would be.

3.         The Department of Environment regulations own licencing category should not be confused with the land uses that exist under the City's Town Planning Scheme.  Irrespective of what the Department of Environment's licencing criteria or categories are, all that would be approved if this application were to be approved is solely what has been applied for and subject to the conditions that would be applied by Council should it decide to take that approach.  If subsequent to that, the application were then proceeded with by the applicant and that included applying for licencing from the Department of Environment regulation, then the City would respond in terms of advising that Department exactly what Council has or hasn't approved.

4.              Will confirm with the Department of Environment what it means by the term "lime manufacturing" in the context of its licence categories because I simply don't know.  What is being proposed is what has previously been described in reports to Council and what's on the public record and that is it is proposed to extract limestone, to crush it, blend it, conditions of approval that have been proposed would restrict extra material or substances being brought onto the property for the purposes of blending it with any limestone that is extracted from the property to avoid any prospect or opportunity for the land owner to bring foreign substances onto the land to blend and value add to the limestone that is extracted on the property.

IN05-12/13 Quinns Beach Erosion and Management – Immediate Coastal Protection Works

Could clarification be provided as to whether the wall proposal could hold up the whole treatment and if so, could the wall be done at a later date? 

Response by Manager, Infrastructure Maintenance

The limestone wall can be constructed independently of the revetment at a later date as well.

IN05-12/13 Quinns Beach Erosion and Management – Immediate Coastal Protection Works

1.         As an owner of a property in Ocean Drive, Quinns Rocks I am concerned about the erosion.  Is the funding of the short-term remedial protective works being totally funded out of Council resources?

2.         In regard to the long-term protection of that coastal strip, has Council come into any arrangements or discussions with regard to the State Government as to how much funds they will put forward in the protective long-term measures of the foreshore?

3.         Are we going to be left in the situation where the short-term measures are put in place and we're looking at what will effectively be similar to the WW1 French tunnels and are we going to have that there for a very long time if it stops the water coming and suddenly Council and State Government say that is all we are going to do and ten to fifteen years later, nothing changes?

4.         A firm has been engaged to provide a consultancy in regard to the long-term solution, when will that happen and will Council act immediately on that report rather than sitting on it for years to come?

Response by Mayor Roberts

1.-3. Yes, the City is fully funding the works and disappointingly have had no response from the State Government, however the Chief Executive Officer and myself are consistently speaking with them and reinforcing the fact that it should be a partnership arrangement in addressing this.  The Council will be monitoring closely the effectiveness of the addressing of the erosion and will be acting immediately.

Response by Manager, Infrastructure Maintenance

4.         At this stage a consultant has not been appointed to evaluate long term options.  As addressed in the report, a brief has been sent for data collection services.  Once that is done, in April/May the City will be looking at appointing consultants.  By this time next year it is expected to have a recommendation on the long term coastal protection works.

IN05-12/13 Quinns Beach Erosion and Management – Immediate Coastal Protection Works

When the Manager Infrastructure Maintenance said May next year, is that when work will be commencing on the foreshore or is that when you hope to have money in?

Response by Mayor Roberts

At the moment, no money has been promised from anybody apart from the City of Wanneroo funds.  As soon as have a resolution of Council we are looking at implementing strategies to address that erosion.

IN05-12/13 Quinns Beach Erosion and Management – Immediate Coastal Protection Works

A decision will be made tonight about whether to go with Option 1 or Option 2 and the detailed design of that will take place in the coming months, is there a possibility that a community group could be involved in assessing the design and having some involvement in what takes place between now and the next meeting?

Response by Mayor Roberts

An amendment will be moved but cannot comment on that as not endorsed by Council but that does look at the community engagement.

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 November 2013 be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1806 – 13/226711

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Smithson, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2;

2.       NOTES the submission dated 22 November 2013 submitted to State Government for the provision of funding to facilitate the construction of immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach on 25 November 2013;

3.       In view of the possible future erosion potential and consequential loss of infrastructure at Quinns Beach and pursuant to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $2,813,000 to undertake works associated with Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, noting that:

a)      Overall project funding is to be sourced from the City's Strategic Projects Reserve; and

b)      No funding commitment has as yet been received from the State Government for this project;

4.       REQUESTS the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to continue to advocate to State Premier and Treasurer to accept that the erosion issue is a shared responsibility and funding from the State Government should be provided to ensure that the local community is not burdened with the full cost of the works;

5.       DELEGATES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER the AUTHORITY to award tenders for the works associated with the construction of Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, subject to the cost of these works not exceeding $2.643M;

6.       DECIDES not to proceed with the construction of a pedestrian access pathway to Quinns Beach adjacent to the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program for Project Number PR-2336 -  Beach Access Pathway at Ocean Drive for which $65,000 has been allocated;

7.       REQUESTS administration to prepare a design for the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block;

8.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $65,000 to undertake works associated with construction of the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block; and

9.       NOTES the following budget variation to fund the works for the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block:

INCOME

EXPENDITURE

Amendment

Moved Mayor Roberts, Seconded Cr Winton

To add new points 2., 3., 4. and 5.,12, 13, and 14 and renumber rest accordingly and change previous item 5. (now item 9.) as shown.

That Council:

1.         ENDORSES Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2;

2.         UNDERTAKES community consultation on the need for a limestone retaining wall as per detail included in Option 2 - Revetment with a Limestone Retaining Wall as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 3;

3.         AUTHORISES administration to seek development approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission for the construction of the limestone retaining wall as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 3;

4.         NOTES that the construction of the limestone retaining wall and its associated works will be subject to a Council decision of a further report to be presented for consideration at the Council meeting scheduled on 4 March 2014 on:

a)         The outcome of the community consultation on the need for a limestone retaining wall;

b)        The outcome of Western Australian Planning Commission development approval relating to the proposed construction of a limestone retaining wall; and

c)         Further funding implications;

5.         AUTHORISES Administration to invite tenders for the coastal protection works with two separable stages - these being;

a)         Stage 1 comprising the revetment construction and directly associated coastal protection related works; and

b)        Stage 2 comprising the limestone retaining wall and its associated works, with construction subject to Council's decision as per Item 4 above;

2.6.   NOTES the submission dated 22 November 2013 submitted to State Government for the provision of funding to facilitate the construction of immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach on 25 November 2013;

3.7.    In view of the possible future erosion potential and consequential loss of infrastructure at Quinns Beach and pursuant to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $2,813,000 to undertake works associated with Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, noting that:

a)        Overall project funding is to be sourced from the City's Strategic Projects Reserve; and

b)        No funding commitment has as yet been received from the State Government for this project;

4.8.   REQUESTS the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to continue to advocate to State Premier and Treasurer to accept that the erosion issue is a shared responsibility and funding from the State Government should be provided to ensure that the local community is not burdened with the full cost of the works;

5.9.   DELEGATES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER the AUTHORITY to award tenders for the works associated with the construction of Stage 1 works comprising a Option 1 – Revetment with Batter Slope and directly associated works for immediate coastal protection works at Quinns Beach utilising Geotextile Sand Filled Containers as shown in Attachment 2 – Sheet 2, and Stage 2 works comprising the construction of the limestone retaining wall and its associated works, noting that the Stage 2 works will be subject to Council's decision as per Item 4 above and also subject to the cost of both stages of these works not exceeding $2.643M $3.246M;

6.10. DECIDES not to proceed with the construction of a pedestrian access pathway to Quinns Beach adjacent to the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program for Project Number PR-2336 -  Beach Access Pathway at Ocean Drive for which $65,000 has been allocated;

7.11. REQUESTS administration to prepare a design for the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block;

12.     CONTINUES to monitor Quinns beach section adjoining the main carpark off Ocean Drive and considers sand renourishment if required to protect this section from coastal erosion.

13.     REQUESTS Administration prepare draft terms of reference to establish a community reference group, made up of representatives of key stakeholders including community group representatives to have input into the development of long term options for Quinns Beach coastal management and present the draft terms of reference to the March meeting;

14.     REQUEST Administration produce monthly updates to the local community on the progress of the immediate works at Quinns Beach through the City's website and Facebook.

8.15. Pursuant to Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $65,000 to undertake works associated with construction of the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block; and

9.16. NOTES the following budget variation to fund the works for the upgrade of the grassed area between the access road to the Quinns Beach Carpark off Ocean Drive and the Quinns Beach Toilet Block:

INCOME

EXPENDITURE

Carried by absolute majority

15/0

The Amendment became the substantive motion.

Carried by absolute majority

15/0

Cr Winton declared a proximity interest in Item PS06-12/13 due to owning and residing on an adjacent property in Gibbs Road, Nowergup.  Cr Winton also declared she had been called by the City of Wanneroo to give evidence at the SAT proceedings and been granted leave by SAT to make a submission on the matter.  Cr Winton left Chambers at 8:14pm.

File Ref:                                              DEV11/1122 – 13/215283

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       10         

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ADVISES TME Town Planning Management and Engineering and the State Administrative Tribunal that, pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, Council has reconsidered its decision of 23 July 2013 relating to refusal issued for an 'Industry – Extractive' (and ancillary earthmoving equipment training) at Lot 52 (90) Nowergup Road, Nowergup and RESOLVES to set aside its previous refusal decision (PS05-07/13), and APPROVE the revised 'Industry – Extractive' proposal subject to the following conditions:

          Terms of this Approval

a)      This approval does not permit activities pertaining to “earthmoving equipment training” to be carried out on Lot 52.

b)      Subject to the following paragraphs (i) to (iii), this approval shall be valid for a total period of 10 years expiring on 10 December 2023 consisting of two consecutive 5-year periods from the date of issue.

(i)      At least 12 months (but not more than 18 months) prior to the end of the first 5 year period of this approval (expiring on 10 December 2018), the landowner shall submit to the City of Wanneroo a report (Compliance Report) outlining compliance with the conditions subject to this approval.

(ii)     With the aid of the Compliance Report, the Manager Planning Implementation shall within six months of receiving the Compliance Report, review the landowner's compliance with these conditions (including compliance with any associated plan, permit or direction).

(iii)     If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view (acting reasonably) that the Compliance Report is satisfactory, or if the Manager Planning Implementation does not complete their review within six months of receiving the Compliance Report, the second 5 year period of this approval will commence from the later date of either:

·        the expiry of the first five year period; or

·        the date 6 months from when the Compliance Report is submitted;

c)      If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view under condition (b)(ii) above (acting reasonably) that the Compliance Report is unsatisfactory or that the landowner's compliance with these conditions is unsatisfactory:

(i)      The Manager Planning Implementation shall as soon as possible inform the landowner in writing of the matters considered to be unsatisfactory;

(ii)     If those matters are addressed by the landowner to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation (acting reasonably) prior to the expiry of the first 5 year period, then the second 5 year period will commence in accordance with condition (b)(iii) above;

(iii)     Otherwise, the second 5 year period referred to in condition (b) above will not commence unless further planning approval is sought and obtained and all structures, plant, machinery, equipment and other material erected on Lot 52 pursuant to this approval shall be removed no later than 30 June 2019 and the site rehabilitated as outlined in this approval;

          Lapsing Period

d)      Notwithstanding condition (b) and (c) above, if the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of 24 months from the date of approval, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. Where an approval has lapsed, no further development shall be carried out without the further approval of the City having first been sought and obtained;

Boundaries of the Disturbance Area

e)      With the exception of vehicular access, all clearing of vegetation and operations relating to this approval shall be confined within the 'Proposed Stage Boundaries' (the Disturbance Area), as indicated on the plan included as Attachment 5. No other areas of Lot 52 shall be utilised in a manner subject to this approval without the further planning approval of the City;

          Vegetation

f)       All necessary permits, licences and permissions (which may include a licence issued under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and/or a permit issued under the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004) are to be obtained prior to the commencement of works related to the clearing of vegetation.

          Hours of Operation

g)      Unless alternative hours are agreed to in writing by Council, the hours of operation for the approved development shall be as follows:

(i)      Crushing shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays);

(ii)     Loading and movement of trucks into and out of the Site shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1200 on Saturday (excluding public holidays); and

(iii)     Clearing, establishment, excavation works and all other operations not referred to in paragraphs (i) and (ii) shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours, Monday to Friday and 0700 – 1200 on Saturday (excluding public holidays).

          Environmental Management Plan

h)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the Environmental Management Plan, and the conditions of this approval;

i)        In the event of any inconsistency between these conditions and the Management Plans, the conditions of Planning Approval will prevail to the extent of any inconsistency;

j)        Any cutting, grinding, chipping or mulching of trade waste vegetation to be utilised for soil stabilisation or dust suppression on the site shall at all times occur within the Disturbance Area. Unless agreed to in writing by the Manager Planning Implementation, trade waste vegetation not utilised on the site shall be disposed of at a landfill site that is acceptable in the opinion of the Manager Planning Implementation;

          Geotechnical Risk Assessment and Karstic Features Management Plan

k)      Prior to undertaking any excavation on Lot 52, the landowner shall obtain the City’s written approval of a geotechnical risk assessment (Geotechnical Risk Assessment). The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to:

(i)      Further assess the risk of cavities beneath the operational areas of Lot 52;

(ii)     Include a geophysical survey carried out by a suitably qualified geophysical consultant using ground penetrating radar;

(iii)     If the results of the geophysical survey indicate the presence of any geophysical anomalies, include the results of further investigations into whether cavities are present beneath the operational areas of Lot 52;

l)        If cavities are identified as being present, or if further investigations are not undertaken in accordance with (k)(iii) above, excavation within the parts of Lot 52 identified as potentially being impacted by cavities may not occur;

m)     Except if the Geotechnical Risk Assessment specifies a different level for safe excavation, no excavation is to occur within 4 metres of the winter maximum groundwater level;

n)      Prior to undertaking any excavation on Lot 52, the landowner shall obtain the City’s written approval  of a karstic features management plan for the protection of the environmental and ecological values of the karstic features within the subject site (the Karstic Features Management Plan). The Karstic Features Management Plan is to be prepared in accordance with the policies authored or endorsed by the Environment Protection Authority, including but not limited to Environmental Guidance for Planning and Development (Guidance Statement 33) 2008;

o)      Development on the subject site shall comply in all respects and at all times with the Geotechnical Risk Assessment, the Karstic Features Management Plan and the report entitled “Investigation of Karst Features Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup” (the Landform Research Report) included as Attachment 6;

          The Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to Prevail

p)      In the event of an inconsistency between the Geotechnical Risk Assessment and any condition within, or document referred to in, this approval, the Geotechnical Risk Assessment is to prevail to the extent of that inconsistency;

          Predictive Contour Plan and Rehabilitation Plan

q)      Within 12 months of this approval and thereafter on an annual basis, the landowner shall submit a Predictive Contour Plan and Rehabilitation Plan, to illustrate the intended depth and direction of excavation and extent of rehabilitation in the coming 12-month period;

r)       The Disturbance Area shall be progressively rehabilitated when final contour levels and grades for each stage are achieved and within 12 months of the closure of each stage. Such rehabilitation shall be in accordance with an endorsed Rehabilitation Plan;

Post Expiration of this Approval

s)       Within six months following the expiration of this approval the landowner shall provide the City a detailed feature and contour survey of the site, and a geotechnical, compaction and stabilisation certification of the excavated floor of each stage;

          Ancillary Facilities

t)       All ancillary facilities, such as (but not limited to) ablution and lunchroom facilities shall be provided on the site prior to the commencement of operations. Such facilities may be provided outside the Disturbance Area, provided that the development of these facilities would not result in a loss of vegetation that is deemed unacceptable by the Manager Planning Implementation;

Access

u)      Access to Lot 52 shall be from Nowergup Road where indicated on the site plan, via a sealed crossover designed and constructed to the City's specifications;

v)      The access road from the intersection with Nowergup Road shall be constructed and sealed to ensure dust emissions from machinery and traffic are minimised;

w)      The route for all haulage vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be via Wanneroo Road and Nowergup Road.  Haulage vehicles shall not:

·        Exit the property in an easterly direction on Nowergup Road;

·        Enter the property by travelling westward along Nowergup Road; or

·        Enter or exit the site from Dunstan Road;

          Noise Management

x)      The landowner shall ensure that all approved activities are in accordance with the noise management, suppression and mitigation measures contained in the Noise Management Plan (included as Attachment 4) and ensure that the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 are complied with at all times;

y)      If at any time compliance with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 cannot be maintained; the operations on site shall immediately cease until such time that operations can comply with the aforementioned Regulations;

z)       Within six months of commencement of extraction operations, the landowner shall commission a consultant to assess noise emissions and verify compliance with the Noise Management Plan and requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations and shall submit that consultant’s report to the City. Any recommendations contained in the report shall be undertaken by the landowner within 3 months of the date of the report;

aa)    To ensure that the amenity of nearby residences is not unduly interfered with, vehicles, equipment and machinery used on the site (other than trucks collecting limestone or sand from the site) must not use reversing alarms  unless those alarms are required for the safe conduct of operations on the site (in accordance with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997);

bb)    Any reversing alarm on any vehicle, piece of equipment or machinery shall be broad-band reversing alarms;

cc)    In addition to any other condition, if an officer of the City inspects the site and is satisfied that any of the operations on the site are generating an unreasonable amount of noise, or that any of those operations are not compliant with any of the conditions relating to noise emissions (including non­-compliance with the noise management measures contained in the Noise Management Plan), the City may issue a direction requiring any of the following:

(i)      Noise monitoring;

(ii)     Submission of a noise assessment;

(iii)     Submission of an amended noise management plan and implementation of that plan;

(iv)    The activities on the site brought into compliance with this approval;

In this condition 'an unreasonable amount of noise' means noise which exceeds the levels assigned by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

dd)    Crushing of materials shall only occur in the Disturbance Area, which shall be shielded by one or more of the following:

(i)      the slopes of natural landforms as they exist prior to the landowner commencing the development subject to this approval; and/or

(ii)     constructed bunds, stockpiles and other features as described in the Noise Management Plan;

          Complaints and Annual Report

ee)    The landowner shall:

(i)      Keep a complaints log in which the following is to be recorded:

·        the date and time, where relevant, of each complaint made and received;

·        the means (telephone, email or mail) by which the complaint was made;

·        any personal details of the complainant that were provided or, if no details were provided, a note to that effect;

·        the nature of the complaint (including a description of the operations and the equipment to which the complaint relates);

·        the steps or actions taken in, and the timing of, the response to each complaint, including any follow up contact with the complainant; and

·        if no actions or steps were taken in relation to the complaint/enquiry, the reason(s) why no actions or steps were taken;

(ii)     respond as soon as possible, and in any event within three working days, to any complaint received and provide the City with a copy of the response; and

(iii)     provide the complaints' log to the City, together with a copy of any complaints received and its response upon request; and

ff)      By 31 July each year, a report (Annual Report) shall be submitted to the City that includes, in respect of the period from 1 July to 30 June of the year in question:

(i)      the progress of the excavation activities;

(ii)     production levels;

(iii)     the progress of rehabilitation undertaken and completed;

(iv)    the measures taken to suppress and minimise dust;

(v)     the measures taken to suppress and minimise noise;

(vi)    the number and type of community complaints and responses, and whether and how such complaints have been resolved;

(vii)   results of noise, dust and bore monitoring; and

          Department Licence

gg)    If required, a licence from the Department of Environment Regulation, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 in respect of the:

(i)   the site as a prescribed premises for quarrying operations; and

(ii)  the use of the crusher on the site for quarrying operations,

must be obtained prior to the commencement of the quarry, crushing or screening operations on site;

          Miscellaneous

hh)    All activities pertaining to any vehicle or equipment wash-down or servicing shall be confined to a wash down area with a pollutant trap within the Disturbance Area, which shall be provided before any vehicle or equipment wash-down or servicing commences on the site;

ii)       No explosives shall be stored on Lot 52 and no blasting shall be carried out without the written approval of the Manager Planning Implementation;

jj)       The landowner is to maintain perimeter security fence around the boundary of Lot 52; and

         kk)    No peat, landfill, soil, chemical or any other substance or material is to be brought into the site for the purposes of:

i)       filling the land to achieve the approved finished contour levels, or

ii)       blending it with the limestone extracted; or

iii)      manufacturing products or materials from the limestone extracted; or

iv)     storage or stockpiling.  

2.       Subject to 1. above, ADVISES the applicant that:

a)      In relation to various conditions contained within item 1. above, the term 'Disturbance Area' refers to the portion of Lot 52 where bounded by the 'Proposed Stage Boundaries' indicated on the site plan included in Attachment 5;

b)      Development subject of this approval should only be operated while the landowner/operator holds a licence approved under the City of Wanneroo Extractive Industries Local Law 1998 (Extractive Industry Licence);

c)      If the Manager Planning Implementation forms the view (acting reasonably) that any matter identified in the Annual Report is unsatisfactory, the Manager Planning Implementation shall notify the landowner in writing of that matter and may also give direction as to how that matter may be addressed. Details of the landowner’s response to any such notification shall be included in the Compliance Report referred to in item 1(b) above, as well as the Complaints Log and the Annual Report;

d)      A reference to legislation or policy includes a reference to that legislation or policy as amended or replaced from time to time;

e)      If required, a licence must be obtained prior to the commencement of the approved development on Lot 52 from the Department of Water, in accordance with the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA), in respect of the installation of bores;

3.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 8 and Attachment 9 in respect to this development application, ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions and ADVISES submitters of the decision outlined in item 1. above; and

4.       ADVISES the following agencies of its decision outlined in Item 1. above:

a)      The Western Australian Planning Commission;

b)      The Department of Environment Regulation;

c)      The Environmental Protection Authority; and

d)      The Department of Water.

MOTION LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Treby

That the meeting do now adjourn for the purpose of clarification of Standing Orders and the Local Government Act in relation to meeting procedure.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The meeting adjourned at 8:18pm, all Elected Members were present as per the Attendance Sheet except for Cr Winton who had left the Chambers at 8:14pm.

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Smithson, Seconded Cr Newton

That the meeting be resumed.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The meeting resumed at 8:29pm.  All Elected Members were present as per the Attendance Sheet except for Cr Winton who had left the Chambers at 8:14pm.

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Zappa

That Item PS06-12/13 be deferred to seek leave from SAT for Administration's consideration of legal advice presented by Glen McLeod for representation back to Council at a Special Meeting on 17 December 2013.

carried

13/2

For the motion:           Cr Cvitan, Cr Driver, Cr Guise, Cr Hayden, Cr Hewer, Cr Newton,
Cr Nguyen, Mayor  Roberts, Cr Smithson, Cr Treby, Cr Truong,
Cr Winton and Cr Zappa

Against the motion:   Cr Aitken, Cr Parker

Cr Winton returned to Chambers at 8:32pm.

File Ref:                                              4636 – 13/186960

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       NOTES submissions made with respect to the proposed amendment to Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions and ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommended modifications included in Attachment 2;

2.       Pursuant to subclause 8.11.3.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the amended Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions included as Attachment 3, with modification;

3.       Subject to 2. and pursuant to subclauses 8.11.3.1(d) and 8.11.3.1(e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its final adoption of the amended Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions once in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers, INFORMS those persons who made submissions of Council’s decision and FORWARDS a copy of the amended Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information;  and

4.       AFFIRMS that the gazetted cost contribution rate in the area covered by Local Planning Policy 3.3 and Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 will be based on the full cost of delivering the community facilities planned for that area, minus the value of contributions collected (plus accrued interest) prior to gazettal of Amendment No. 122, and apportioned between remaining developing landowners.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3071V01 – 13/201861

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   PS01-10/13 - Update to Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management - Ordinary Council - 15 October 2013      

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:- 

1.       Pursuant to subclause 8.11.3.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the amended Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management included as Attachment 1, without modification; and

2.       Subject to 1. and pursuant to subclauses 8.11.3.1(d) and 8.11.3.1(e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its final adoption of the amended Local Planning Policy 4.4: Urban Water Management once in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers and FORWARDS a copy of the amended Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3381-38 – 13/198944

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Guise, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 (b) of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 38 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8, as submitted by Burgess Design Group on behalf of Mrs Angela Tassone and as outlined in Attachment 3 to this report is SATISFACTORY without modifications and SUBMITS three copies to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 38 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8, and AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the Amendment documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

3.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect to Amendment No. 38 to East Wanneroo Cell 6 Agreed Structure Plan No. 8 included as Attachment 4, ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8498 – 13/179695

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Recommendation

That Council, Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, ADVISES the applicant Ferraro Planning and Design Consultancy, that it is NOT PREPARED TO INITIATE proposed Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow an additional Warehouse use at Lot 435 Gibbs Road, Nowergup for the following reasons:

1.       Supporting the additional Warehouse land use is incompatible with the objectives of the General Rural Zone under District Planning Scheme No. 2;

2.       The proposed amendment does not meet the objectives of State Planning Policy 2.5 – Agricultural and Rural Land Use Planning;

3.       The proposed amendment does not meet the criteria to warrant the use of planning incentives to relocate the poultry farm, under Section 5.5 of State Planning Policy 4.3 – Poultry Farms;

4.       The proposed amendment is premature in the absence of any further investigations being carried out to support rural residential subdivision in the area, as recommended in the 'Future of East Wanneroo Report' (2007);

5.       The proposed amendment does not meet the objectives of the City's Local Planning Policy: Interim Local Rural Strategy;

6.       The proposed amendment would set an undesirable precedent for the introduction of non-rural or quasi-industrial uses in rural areas; and

7.       The proposed amendment is premature in the absence of the Minister for Planning making a decision on Amendment No. 121 to the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (proposed Landscape Enhancement Zone).

MOTION LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:-

1.         Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purposes of applying an Additional Use zone to Lot 435 (No. 263) Gibbs Road, Nowergup and modifying “Schedule 2 - Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses” to include ‘Additional Use and Conditions (Where Applicable)’ for Lot 435 Gibbs Road, Nowergup as follows:

2.         REFERS Amendment No. 130 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and if the EPA advises that the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

3.        FORWARDS a copy of the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Reason for Alternative Motion

The proposed amendment would allow Council to approve a more benign storage use on the property than the current poultry farm operation, and will also provide the catalyst for cessation of the poultry farm altogether.

The previously proposed conditions (iv) and (v) have been merged into a new condition (iv) to provide greater clarity and avoid any possible contradiction between the two original conditions, as previously drafted. A new condition (v) is now also included, which will ensure that approval of any future approval of a warehouse will be dependent on cessation of all poultry farm operations on the property. This is consistent with the applicant's stated justification for this proposal.

File Ref:                                              5396 – 13/197171

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Moved Cr Driver, Seconded Cr Smithson

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 WAIVES the requirement for further public notification of the modified Jindalee North Local Structure Plan No. 88 as submitted by CLE Town Planning and Design on behalf of Ocean Springs Pty Ltd, Butler Development Company and Housing Authority and outlined in Attachment 6, as adequate publicity of the structure plan has already taken place and the modifications are minor in nature such as not to materially alter the intent of the structure plan or cause any significant detriment to land within or abutting the structure plan area;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that the modified draft Jindalee North Local Structure Plan No. 88 as submitted by CLE Town Planning and Design on behalf of Ocean Springs Pty Ltd, Butler Development Company and Housing Authority and outlined in Attachment 6, is SATISFACTORY and FORWARDS three copies of the duly modified Structure Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification; and

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the modified Jindalee North Local Structure Plan No. 88 and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the structure plan documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              5396 – 13/94354

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council APPROVES the draft Lot 9, Jindalee Foreshore Management Plan and FORWARDS a copy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              11449 – 13/208239

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the comments contained in Attachment 1; and

2.       SUBMITS the comments in Attachment 1 to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the City's official submission on the Planning Provisions for Affordable Housing discussion paper.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              11449 – 13/198858

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council ENDORSES the comments contained in Attachment 1 as the basis for the City's submission on the Planning Makes it Happen: Phase Two documents.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8643V02 – 13/183329

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS Tender No 01329 for the Provision of Consultancy Services for the provision of transportable accommodation units, road and services in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of Quinns Rocks Caravan Park, 2 Quinns Road, Mindarie, submitted by Davina Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Benchmark Projects Australasia for the lump sum price of $164,000 in accordance with the terms and conditions in the tender document; 

2.       NOTES that this project is funded in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program under PR-1010; and

3.       NOTES and SUPPORTS that Administration will seek Expressions of Interest for the Stage 2 development process and that further reports will be presented to Council as required.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              10792 – 13/210382

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS Tender No 01339 for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Provide a Business Case for Lots 9000, 9003 and Portion Lot 600 – Neerabup submitted by APP Corporation Pty Ltd for a period of approximately thirty (30) weeks for the lump sum price of $160,332.50 divided into Stage 1 $74,184.50 and Stage 2 $86,148 (ex GST) in accordance with the terms and conditions in the tender document; and

2.       NOTES that this project is funded in the 2013/2014 Capital Works Program under PR-1006.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              4428 – 13/214553

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       RECEIVES the update in relation to the Western Australian Planning Commission conditions linked to the Development Approval for the proposed Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility;

2.       NOTES that, prior to proceeding to the design and documentation stage for the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club and Public Amenities Facility, Administration will submit a further report(s) to Council, to consider a revised development program and cost implications, once further drainage investigations have been carried out and a consultant brief has been drafted to conduct the Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan, as required by Conditions 3 and 11, respectively, of the Western Australian Planning Commission's development approval for the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club, included as Attachment 1; and

3.       NOTES that the need to comply with the Western Australian Planning Commission Development Approval Condition to prepare and have approved a Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption Plan prior to commencement of development will delay the start of the design and documentation phase  associated with the construction of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club facility by between six to nine months.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              7892 – 13/213709

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the Western Power quotation for additional street lighting to be located immediately adjacent to the two recently open bypass lanes associated with the Marmion Avenue/Hester Avenue Intersection Upgrade Project (PR-2369) for Western Power's quoted price of $284,550 (Western Power Ref: MP136929), noting that this is $158,550 in excess of the project cost estimate;

2.       NOTES that the additional $158,550 to accommodate the Western Power quotation for street lighting upgrade works to the Marmion Avenue/Hester Avenue Intersection will be sourced through savings generated by completed Capital Works projects through the 2013/2014 Mid-Year Budget Review; and

3.       NOTES that  Administration will continue liaison with Main Roads WA to secure possible additional injection of State BlackSpot funding on a 2/3 State to 1/3 Municipal contribution basis to cover off on any additional expenditure incurred against the Marmion Avenue/Hester Avenue Intersection Upgrade Project (PR-2369).

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              11384 – 13/207244

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council ACCEPTS the alternative tender submitted by SMB Electrical Services (Alternative Tender B as identified for tender evaluation purposes) for Tender No. 01346 for the Supply and Installation of Lighting for Baseball Fields at Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (Stage 6A) for the tendered lump sum of $491,956 as per the General Conditions of Tendering.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8721 – 13/205399

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the submission of the following project to Main Roads WA for funding as part of the Metropolitan Regional Road Program – Supplementary Requirements for 2014/2015 Road Project Grant Program Development:

          Hartman Drive – Hepburn Avenue to Gnangara Dual Carriageway, estimated project cost, $4.2M;

2.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Council Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of $35,000 for the survey of Hartman Drive road reserve between Hepburn Avenue and Gnangara Road; and

3.       NOTES the following budget variation to fund the Hartman Drive survey works:

Carried BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

15/0

File Ref:                                              11317 – 13/202239

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Hewer

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS a grant of $7,500 from Banksia Grove Development for the It's All About Play project.

2.       Pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the expenditure of $7,500 for the purpose of the It's All About Play project.

3.       NOTES the following budget variation to receive $7,500 from Banksia Grove Development and allocate these funds to the appropriate expenditure account:

Income

          Expenditure

Carried by Absolute Majority

15/0

File Ref:                                              1798 – 13/213282

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Hewer

That Council APPROVES two memorial plaques and plinths to be installed at Clayton's Beach, Mindarie, as shown in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to:

·    them being located adjacent to the stairs providing beach access from the Alexander View car park;

·    them being to the specifications outlined within this report;

·    installation and maintenance to be undertaken by the City of Wanneroo;

·    all costs to be met by the existing 2013/14 operating budget; and

·    provision of the plaques being reviewed after five years.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              8924 – 13/149488

Responsible Officer:                           Coordinator Healthy Communities

Disclosure of Interest:                         None

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Aitken, Seconded Cr Hewer

That Council  ADOPTS the Public Health Plan included as Attachment 2.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              9695 – 13/223844

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Smithson

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES $8,000.00 annually from 2014 to 2016 inclusive to Quinns Rocks RSL via Hallmark Funding for ANZAC, Vietnam Veterans and Remembrance Days SUBJECT to the completion of the March 2013 grant round acquittal;

2.       APPROVES $2,027.25 to Rotary Club of Mindarie via Community Event Funding for Movie in the Park for Earth Hour on 29 March 2014 SUBJECT to a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

3.       APPROVES $2,783.85 to Landsdale Residents Association via Community Event Funding for Landsdale Neighbour Day 22 March 2014 SUBJECT to the completion of the October 2012 grant round acquittal;

4.       APPROVES $600.00 to The Country Women's Association of Western Australia via Community Event Funding for the CWA of WA Yanchep and Districts International Day on 19 June 2014;

5.       APPROVES $1,000.00 to Two Rocks Yanchep Assisted Cancer Travels via Community Event Funding for the TRYACT Community Forum Event – External Cancer Support Group on 15 February 2014;

6.       APPROVES $1,540.00 to Yanchep United Football Club via Community Event Funding for the YUFC Junior Registration Day on 26 January 2014 SUBJECT to a renewed certificate of public liability insurance;

7.       DOES NOT APPROVE $3,000.00 to Wanneroo Business Association via Community Development Funding for the Small Business Expo 14 to 15 February 2014;

8.       APPROVES $1,500.00 to Northern Suburbs Stroke Support Group via Community Development Funding for 2 Day Community Art Project on 1 to 3 April 2014; and

9.       AMENDS the Community Funding Policy to enable Australian Companies registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission but not registered under the Western Australian Associations Incorporations Act (1987), to be eligible to apply for the City of Wanneroo Community Funding Program.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2402 – 13/216930

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Nguyen

That Council, on the recommendation of the Audit Committee, ADOPTS the Annual Audited Financial Report for the City of Wanneroo for the year ended 30 June 2013 signed by the CEO and the Auditors, as detailed in Attachment 1.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1859 – 13/225809

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Zappa, Seconded Cr Nguyen

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of November, as summarised below:-