Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7:00pm, 29 April, 2014

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo

 

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

 

Protocols

 

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

 

A register of person’s wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting is located at the main reception desk outside of the Chamber on the night.  However, members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting i.e. noon on the previous day.

 

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

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations relating to items on the current agenda. If you wish to present a deputation please submit your request for a deputation in writing, at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer or fax through to Governance on 9405 5097.  A request for a deputation must be received by Governance by 12 noon on the Friday before the Council Meeting.

·                Deputation requests must relate to items on the current agenda.

·                A deputation is not to exceed 3 persons in number and only those persons may address the meeting.

·                Members of a deputation are collectively to have a maximum of 10 minutes to address the meeting, unless an extension of time is granted by the Council.

 

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

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

·         To emphasise that the reason for recording of Council Meetings is to ensure the accuracy of Council Minutes and that any reproduction is for the sole purpose of Council business.

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

(1)     Proceedings for meetings of the Council, Electors, and Public Question Time during Council Briefing Sessions shall be recorded by the City on sound recording equipment, except in the case of meetings of the Council where the Council closes the meeting to the public. 

 

(2)     Notwithstanding subclause (1), proceedings of a meeting of the Council which is closed to the public shall be recorded where the Council resolves to do so.

 

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

(4)     Members of the public may purchase a copy of recorded proceedings or alternatively listen to recorded proceedings with the supervision of a City Officer.  Costs of providing recorded proceedings to members of the public will be the cost of the recording plus staff time to make the copy of the proceedings. The cost of supervised listening to recorded proceedings will be the cost of the staff time. The cost of staff time will be set in the City's schedule of fees and charges each year.

 

(5)     Elected Members may request a recording of the Council proceedings at no charge.  However, no transcript will be produced without the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.  All Elected Members are to be notified when recordings are requested by individual Members.

 

Retention of Recordings

 

(6)     Recordings pertaining to the proceedings of Council Meetings shall be retained in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

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

 

 

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

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo on Tuesday 29 April, 2014 commencing at 7:00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

F Bentley

A/Chief Executive Officer

23 April, 2014

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC02-04/14     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 1 April 2014  1

OC03-04/14     Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 14 April 2014  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  2

PT01-04/14      Request for Basket Ball Equipment, Ashdale Garden Estate  2

PT02-04/14      Drovers Place Traffic Management Scheme Not be Adopted  2

PT03-04/14      No Extension South to the Existing Dog Beach, Quinns Rocks  2

PT04-04/14      Request for Road Calming, Tapping Way Quinns Rocks  2

PT05-04/14      Future Development of Lots in Boranup Avenue  2

PT06-04/14      Medical Centre and Pharmacy – Drovers Place  3

PT07-04/14      Approval for Lot 133 Village Row Yanchep  3

Item  8_____ Reports_ 4

Planning and Sustainability  4

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  4

PS03-04/14      Reconsideration of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 Local Structure Plan No. 57  4

PS04-04/14      Proposed Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa  21

PS05-04/14      Proposed Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 800 (30) Crabtree Street, Alexander Heights  26

Other Matters  33

PS06-04/14      Proposed Pedestrian Accessway Closure - Pedestrian Accessway between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo  33

PS07-04/14      Proposed Pedestrian Accessway Closure – Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola  44

PS08-04/14      Quinns Dog Beach Extension  51

PS09-04/14      Approval of Expenditure from the Sustainability Investment Fund  66

City Businesses  69

Regulatory Services  69

CB06-04/14     PT05-03/14 Request for Action - Noise and Chemical Emissions from Landsdale  Industrial  Area Impacting on Adjacent Residential Area  69

CB07-04/14     Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  76

Property  83

CB08-04/14     Development Application for Quinns Rocks Caravan Park - Chalets/Units  83

CB09-04/14     Proposed Lease to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd over portion of Lot 9008 Antares Street, Clarkson, for telecommunication purposes  89

Other Matters  94

CB10-04/14     Write off Outstanding Sundry Debtors - Commercial Waste  94

Infrastructure  98

Infrastructure Projects  98

IN03-04/14       Budget Variation - 2013/2014 Pathways Program   98

Traffic Management  104

IN04-04/14       Parking Prohibitions - Paramount Drive, Wangara  104

Community Development  117

Capacity Building  117

CD04-04/14     North Coastal Women's Shed use of Addison Park Club Rooms Merriwa  117

Program Services  120

CD05-04/14     Cheltondale Park - Final Concept Design  120

CD06-04/14     City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1) 137

CD07-04/14     PT04-03/14 Update for Shade Sails at Appleby Park, Darch  150

Corporate Strategy & Performance  152

Finance  152

CS06-04/14     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 March 2014  152

CS07-04/14     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 28 February 2014  228

Governance  240

CS08-04/14     Donations to be Considered by Council – April 2014  240

Chief Executive Office  246

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 246

MN03-04/14    Cr Domenic Zappa – Request for Speed Limit Reduction on Mirrabooka Avenue between Hepburn Avenue and Gnangara Road  246

MN04-04/14    Cr Dot Newton – Motion on Notice - Naming of Pathway  249

MN05-04/14    Cr Brett Treby – Efficiency Dividend Strategy 2014/15 Financial Year  252

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 257

Item  11____ Confidential_ 257

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 257

Item  13____ Closure_ 257

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

 

Lord

 

We ask for your blessing upon our City, our community and our Council.  Guide us in our decision making to act fairly, without fear or favour and with compassion, integrity and honesty.  May we show true leadership, be inclusive of all, and guide the City of Wanneroo to a prosperous future that all may share.  We ask this in your name.

 

Amen

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 1 April 2014 be confirmed subject to  an amendment to Item CQ01-04/14 to replace the wording of the question asked by Councillor Winton with the following wording and to add Councillor Winton's name to the title:-

 

"Has the recommendation in the LGIS Site Risk Review undertaken which recommended that the City formalise an inspection and maintenance program to include scheduled and documented inspections and maintenance for the Dewars Beach track location, that includes triggers for inspection after user complaints along with storm and or heavy rain events in order to determine the need for corrective maintenance been done and has this been documented?".

That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 14 April 2014 be confirmed.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

 

Update on Petitions  

PT01-04/14       Request for Basket Ball Equipment, Ashdale Garden Estate

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 84 signatories requesting a basket ball back board, ring and hard sand area in Ashdale Garden Estate Darch.   Update   Facilities are currently investigating and will provide an update to Council on 27 May 2014.

 

PT02-04/14       Drovers Place Traffic Management Scheme Not be Adopted

Cr Guise presented a petition of 233 signatories requesting that the proposed traffic management scheme to install rubberised speed cushions for Drovers Place not be adopted.   Update:   A report will be presented to Council at its meeting on 24 June 2014.

 

PT03-04/14       No Extension South to the Existing Dog Beach, Quinns Rocks

Cr Winton  presented a petition of 309 signatories requesting that no extension to the existing dog beach at Quinns Rocks be granted and that Council instead pursue other options, at other locations, for dog beaches along the City of Wanneroo coastline.   Update:   Report presented as Item PS08-04/14 in this Agenda.

 

PT04-04/14       Request for Road Calming, Tapping Way Quinns Rocks

Cr Smithson presented a petition of 13 signatories requesting the installation of traffic calming measures along Tapping Way Quinns Rocks.   Update:   A report will be presented to Council at its meeting on 24 June 2014.

 

PT05-04/14       Future Development of Lots in Boranup Avenue

Cr Driver presented a petition of 32 signatories requesting future restrictions of commercial and mixed lots in Boranup Avenue Clarkson.   Update:   Administration anticipates that a report on this matter will be presented to the 27 May 2014 Council meeting.

 

PT06-04/14       Medical Centre and Pharmacy – Drovers Place

Cr Newton presented a petition of 517 signatories to support a Medical Centre and Pharmacy to be located at Drovers Place, Wanneroo.   Update:   A Medical Centre and Pharmacy are currently not permissible land uses on the subject sites of Lot 810 (1397) and Lot 811 (1387), Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo pursuant to the Drovers Place Precinct Agreed Structure Plan No. 80. On 4 April 2014 Administration received a proposal to amend ASP 80 by adding 'Medical Centre' and 'Pharmacy' to the list of permissible land uses to allow for these to be carried out on the subject sites. On 11 April 2014, Administration forwarded a Memorandum to Elected Members, advising of its intention to advertise the proposal under Delegated Authority. If the proponent is successful in amending the Structure Plan, then Administration will be in a position to accept and consider an Application for Planning Approval for a Medical Centre and Pharmacy.

 

PT07-04/14       Approval for Lot 133 Village Row Yanchep

Cr Hewer presented a petition of 150 signatories  to approve lot 133 Village Row Yanchep to be developed into a car park for the Medical Centre and Pharmacy clients.   Update:    An application for planning approval of a car park has been submitted, however design modifications are required.  The applicant was advised in writing on 10/04/2014 and once amended plans are submitted, the assessment can be finalised and a determination made.

 

 

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 Sustainability

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

File Ref:                                              3290-1 – 14/84712

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To reconsider the adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 (LSP 57).

 

Applicant	Rowe Group Town Planners
Owner	MB & JE Tilbrook
Location	Lots 601 Queensway Road and Lots 60 & 61 Alexander Drive, Landsdale
Site Area	15.0202 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
Draft LSP 57 Zoning	Residential R20/R30

 

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 26 July 2011 considered a confidential item on the adoption of Amendment No. 1 to LSP 57 and resolved, in part, as follows (Item CR03-07/11):

 

"2.          Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 1 to the East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No 57 documents once modified in accordance with Council's resolution 1. above and subject to Local Structure Plan No. 57 first being certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission, and AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the duly amended documents and FORWARD them to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration."

 

The amendment proposal is to allow the use class Plant Nursery as an Additional Use on Lot 601 Queensway Road, and Lots 60 and 61 Alexander Drive, Landsdale. Attachment 1 contains the site plan.

 

Attachment 2 contains the full Council resolution.

 

In accordance with the abovementioned resolution, the following matters must be addressed prior to forwarding the amendment documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for its consideration:

·          The applicant is to modify the amendment document as required by Council;

·          Certification of LSP 57 by the WAPC; and

·          The modified amendment document being executed by the City.

The applicant has modified the amendment document in accordance with Council's 26 July 2011 resolution and a copy of the modified document is provided as Attachment 3.  LSP 57 has not yet been certified by the WAPC for the reasons explained in the Comment section below and therefore the amendment document has not yet been forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration.

 

Council at its meeting of 6 March 2012 considered Amendment No. 2 to LSP 57 and resolved to adopt it subject to modifications and to submit the modified document to the WAPC for its adoption (Item PS03-03/12). Attachment 4 contains the full resolution. On 22 January 2013, the WAPC considered Amendment No. 2 and resolved to adopt it and to sign and seal the amendment document once LSP 57 is finalised.

 

Given that the time frame for the certification of LSP 57 is not known and that it is nearly three years since Council resolved to adopt Amendment No. 1 to LSP 57, the applicant has requested Council to modify the resolution for Amendment No. 1 to LSP 57 such that it is the same as that for Amendment No. 2 to LSP 57 to enable it to be forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration. This would allow the Department of Planning to assess the amendment proposal whilst LSP 57 is concurrently finalised.

Detail

The subject lots currently enjoy non-conforming use rights for use as a plant nursery under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). The amendment, however, was sought by the landowners as they were not satisfied that the non-conforming use rights offered adequate protection to their operations on the subject lots. The landowners therefore requested “additional use” rights over the land to recognise and protect the existing plant nursery operation and to enable its limited expansion.

Consultation

The applicant has requested that the resolution for Amendment No. 1 to LSP 57 be modified in line with that of Amendment No. 2 to LSP 57. There is no statutory requirement for public consultation as the request does not affect the intent of the amendment as originally adopted by Council.

Comment

Draft LSP 57

The adoption of LSP 57 has been subject to various matters precluding its finalisation.  Currently, an appeal to the SAT relating to a decision of the WAPC regarding the subdivision of Lot 1981 Gnangara Road, Landsdale, to create 42 residential lots and one commercial lot (WAPC Ref 148383) is preventing the adoption of LSP 57.

 

Subclause 9.12.6 of DPS 2 states as follows:

 

"If, after an appeal has been determined, any requirement of the Council or the appeal body arising from the appeal remains to be complied with, that  requirement shall be complied with before the process of preparation and adoption of the structure plan is continued."

 

Although the above-mentioned appeal does not directly relate to the lots associated with Amendment No. 1 to draft LSP 57, the LSP cannot be finally adopted and certified until such time as the SAT has made a determination on the appeal.

 

Amendment No. 1

As per Council's resolution of 26 July 2011, the documents for Amendment No. 1 cannot be forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration as LSP 57 has not yet been adopted and certified.

In order to enable the WAPC to assess the amendment proposal prior to the adoption and certification of LSP 57, it is recommended that Council modifies its previous resolution in line with that for Amendment No. 2 and then forwards the modified amendment documents as contained in Attachment 3, to the WAPC for its consideration.

Statutory Compliance

This amendment is being considered under the provisions of sub-clause 9.7 of DPS 2. 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1     Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council AMENDS its previous decision of 26 July 2011 on Amendment No. 1 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan (Item CR03-07/11) and REPLACES that decision with the following:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that the modified Amendment No. 1 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57, as submitted by Rowe Group on behalf of Mark Bevan Tilbrook and John Edwin Tilbrook and included as Attachment 3 is SATISFACTORY and SUBMITS three copies of the modified amendment document to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 1 to the draft East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 following adoption of the structure plan amendment by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.7.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Director Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL the amended documents after the substantive East Wanneroo Cell 9 – East Landsdale Local Structure Plan No. 57 being signed, sealed and certified by Council and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Attachments:

1View.	Amdt 1 to LSP 57 - A1	11/49495
2View.	Amdt 1 to LSP 57 - A2	14/89750
3View.	Amdt 1 to LSP 57 - A3	14/89753	Minuted
4View.	Amdt 1 to LSP 57 - A4	14/89754

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              9933 – 13/136831

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 137 to the City of Wanneroo's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) which proposes to amend a condition under Schedule 2 – Section 3 (Clause 3.22) of DPS 2 to increase the maximum number of school students permitted at Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa (Alkimos Baptist College).

 

Applicant	Drescher & Associates
Owner	Alkimos Baptist College Inc
Location	Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa
Site Area	20,397m²
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Special Use

 

 

Background

On 19 September 1997, an 'Educational Establishment' was approved (DA6637) by the then Shire of Wanneroo on what was then known as Lot 1803 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa (the parent property of the subject site) under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). The use-class 'Educational Establishment' was an 'AA' use within the Residential Zone under TPS 1, which meant that the use is not permitted unless approval is granted by the Council.

 

On 20 October 2008, a change of use application was approved by the City for a 'Place of Worship' and 'Educational Establishment' on Lot 1803.  A 'Place of Worship' is an 'A' use and an 'Education Establishment' is an 'X' use within the Residential Zone under District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). However, the 'Educational Establishment' was previously approved under TPS 1 and therefore non-conforming use rights existed for the school site.

 

In March 2009, Amendment No. 101 to DPS 2 was lodged with the City of Wanneroo, which proposed the following:

 

1.   Recode the eastern half of Lot 1803 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa (parent lot) from 'R20' to 'R40', for the purpose of developing a grouped dwelling development; and,

 

2.   Rezone the remainder of the site from 'Residential' to 'Private Clubs and Recreation' for the purpose of continuing the existing school site in operation.

 

Council resolved at its meeting on 25 August 2009 to adopt Amendment No. 101, and on      1 September 2009 forwarded the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The Hon. Minister for Planning supported the amendment on 16 July 2010, subject to the proposal being modified to zone the western half of the site from 'Private Clubs and Recreation' to 'Special Use', and inserting three (3) separate conditions into Schedule 2 – Section 3 - Special Use Zone Table which relate to the proposed school site.

 

The conditions included as part of the Special Use Zone (No. 2-3) are stated as follows (numbering included):

 

 

1.   "The use of Educational Establishment is restricted to the existing school buildings and any minor extension approved by Council."

 

2.   "The area between existing school buildings and Grand Paradiso Parade is to be retained for the use of the Educational Establishment as open space or playground area."

 

3.   "The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 290 students."

      

Since the adoption of Amendment No. 101, Lot 1803 has been subdivided; with the school site now being known as Lot 900 (60) Seagrove Boulevard, Merriwa. Other small additions related to the 'Educational Establishment' have been approved by the City on Lot 900, including three (3) Transportable classrooms, toilet facilities, shed additions and shade sails.

Detail

On 7 July 2013, Drescher & Associates on behalf of the landowner, Alkimos Baptist College Inc, lodged Amendment No. 137 to DPS 2 to amend the wording of a condition (item 3 listed above) of Schedule 2 - Section 3 – Special Use Zone (No. 2-3). Amendment No. 137 seeks to amend this condition to state the following:

 

"The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 410 students until 31 December 2016, at which point, after this date the Educational Establishment shall revert to a maximum of 290 students".

 

The applicant has lodged the amendment proposal in order to accommodate year 11 and 12 students until such time as another campus for the Alkimos Baptist College is developed at a new site in Alkimos. It is anticipated that the new school in Alkimos will be open by February 2017 and the school site in Merriwa will continue to operate, but revert back to 290 students.

Consultation

All scheme amendments are subject to public consultation. In order for Council to undertake public consultation, the amendment will first need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

Subject to no objections being received from the EPA, the amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days. Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967:

 

·        Advertisement in the local newspaper;

·        Placement of a sign on site, giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website;  and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

The Town Planning Regulations provide that where an amendment is consistent with the MRS and State planning policies and strategies, then the consent of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) will not be required to advertise the amendment. However, if an advertising period of less than 42 days is proposed, the WAPC’s consent to advertise is required. Given that the proposed amendment is consistent with the MRS zoning and State planning policies and strategies, and the recommended advertising period is for 42 days, the consent of the WAPC to advertise the Amendment is not required in this instance.

 

 

Comment

In order to accommodate the increased number of students at the subject site, the applicant has proposed to construct an additional 46 car parking bays on and off site. The proposed car parking arrangement is illustrated in Attachment 1, and includes the following:    

 

1.   Inclusion of five (5) additional on-street bays on Grand Paradiso Parade; and,

 

2.   A new on-site car parking area accessed from Seagrove Boulevard which contains 22 set-down/pick-up bays on a proposed netball court and 22 visitor/staff parking bays. The location of the crossover required for this car parking area will result in the removal of three (3) on-street bays on Seagrove Boulevard. 

 

There are also 16 existing staff/visitor car bays provided off Seagrove Boulevard, and 15 on-street bays located on Seagrove Boulevard and Dalvik Avenue.

 

In order to address the current parking and traffic issues associated with the existing school, the landowners have also proposed an additional 27 set down/pick-up bays accessed from Dalvik Avenue which were approved as part of development application (DA2013/1143) in December 2013. The applicant has confirmed with Administration that these additional car bays are to be constructed in the July 2014 school holidays.

 

In accordance with Table 2 (Clause 4.4) – 'Car Parking Standards' of the City of Wanneroo's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), a total of 85 car bays would be required to facilitate the proposed 410 students on-site.

 

Based on the existing and proposed car parking arrangement (Attachment 1), a total of 107 car parking bays are proposed, which exceeds the minimum requirement under DPS 2 by 22 car bays. Therefore, there is sufficient parking to accommodate the car parking generated by the additional students.

 

The existing oval will not be used for parking or obstructed in any way, and the proposed set down/pick-up car park will only be available at the start and end of each school day, and will be exclusively used as a netball court during school hours.

 

The proposal enables a temporary increase in student numbers to permit a growing student population to be accommodated until such time that a new campus is constructed in Alkimos. The modified condition of Schedule 2 – Section 3: Special Use Zone (No. 2-3) of DPS 2 includes a deadline (31 December 2016) for the 410 students, however Administration recommends the condition be further amended as following (emphasis added):

 

"The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 410 students until 31 December 2016, at which point, after this date the Educational Establishment shall revert to a maximum of 290 students, unless Council otherwise approves an extension to this timeframe."

 

This will enable Council to deal with the possibility that the increased number of students may need to remain on-site beyond 31 December 2016, if warranted and deemed appropriate at the time.

 

Based on the above, Administration recommends initiating the proposed scheme amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Policy Implications

This proposal will be assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, INITIATES Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by amending the wording of a condition of Schedule 2 - Section 3 – Special Use Zone (No. 2-3) to the following:

 

"The Educational Establishment shall have a maximum of 410 students until 31 December 2016, at which point, after this date the Educational Establishment shall revert to a maximum of 290 students, unless Council otherwise approves an extension to this timeframe."

 

2.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, FORWARDS Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment;

 

3.       Subject to no objection being received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), ADVERTISES Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulation 1967; and

 

4.       FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 137 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

 

1.                         

 

Attachments:

1View.

Attachment 1 - Proposed Car Parking Arrangement Plan

14/91226

  

File Ref:                                              9719 – 13/183218

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) which proposes to zone and code Lot 800 (30) Crabtree Street, Alexander Heights as 'Residential, R40'.

 

Applicant	Department of Housing
Owner	Housing Authority
Location	Lot 800 (30) Crabtree Street, Alexander Heights
Site Area	4,019 m²
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	The subject land is not zoned or reserved under DPS 2.

 

 

Background

The subject site is not zoned or coded under the City's DPS 2. Prior to the gazettal of Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1161/41 in September 2009, the lot was reserved under the MRS as 'Public Purpose (HS)' and DPS 2 reflected this reservation.  MRS Amendment 1161/41 was an omnibus amendment consisting of 115 separate proposals. One of these proposals included amending the subject site from the 'Public Purpose (HS)' reservation to the 'Urban' zone.  The City's submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on that proposal strongly recommended that the WAPC consult with adjacent landowners regarding this proposal, and advised that the City would defer making a decision on the proposal until appropriate consultation had been undertaken.  Regrettably, Administration understands the WAPC did not undertake any consultation with adjoining landowners. 

 

With the site now being zoned Urban under the MRS, the City is required under Section 124 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to amend DPS 2 to make it consistent with the MRS.

 

The Department of Housing has now applied to the City to zone the subject site Residential, and to apply an R40 coding to it.

Detail

Site

The subject site is located at the south-eastern corner of Crabtree Street and La Salle Road, Alexander Heights. The site is surrounded by predominantly low density R20, Residential zoned land to the north and west, with small pockets of medium density R40, Residential zoned land also situated west of the site. A Regional Parks and Recreation reserve abuts the subject site to the east. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

 

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend the City's DPS 2 by zoning and coding the subject lot as 'Residential, R40' in order to facilitate the development of medium density residential development. Should the proposed Amendment be initiated, the subject site may be developed to yield approximately 18 dwellings.

 

The applicant has provided justification for the proposal that is summarised as follows:

 

1.       The subject site is situated approximately 500 metres north-east of Alexander Heights Shopping Centre.

2.       The lot is in close proximity to public active open space (Highview Park) located to the East of the site.

3.       The site has access to public transport including high frequency bus route 250 metres away.

Attachment 2 contains the amendment plan showing the proposed DPS zoning and coding.

Consultation

Should Council agree to progress proposed Amendment No. 136 to DPS 2, the amendment will be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days in the following manner:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

·        Placement of a sign on affected site, giving notice of the proposal;

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

 

All scheme amendments are subject to public consultation.  However, before doing so the amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.  Subject to no objections being received from the EPA, the amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.  The proposed method of advertising as outlined above is consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

The Town Planning Regulations provide that where an amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and State Planning Policies and strategies, then the consent of the WAPC will not be required to advertise the amendment. However, if an advertising period of less than 42 days is proposed, the WAPC’s consent to advertise is required.

 

Given that the proposed amendment is consistent with the MRS zoning and State Planning Policies and the recommended advertising period is 42 days, the consent of the WAPC (to advertise the amendment) is not required in this instance.

Comment

The following comments are made on the proposal.

 

 

 

Traffic

 

The subject site is vacant and has frontage to both Crabtree Street to the west and La Salle Road to the north. As a result of the proposed Residential R40 zoning, the subject land could yield approximately 18 dwellings. Based on Main Roads Western Australia Transport Model, a single dwelling is assumed to generate ten vehicle trips per day. As such, the proposal could generate up to 180 vehicle trips per day (vpd).

 

A traffic count taken by the City for Crabtree Street and La Salle Road in February 2012 measured 1,202 vpd and 1,025 vpd respectively. Both Crabtree Street and La Salle Road are 18 metres wide with a 8 metre wide carriageway. As per WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods policy these roads can be classified as an 'Access Street B' which can carry a maximum volume of 3,000 vpd each. The traffic increase of 180 vpd resulting from Amendment No. 136 can comfortably be accommodated within the capacity of the roads and is not expected to cause traffic congestion in the locality.

 

City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation

 

Section 9.1 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1) states that where applications are made seeking an increase in R Coding of land, which is outside the Housing Precincts designated under this policy, the application must include an assessment on how the proposal:

 

i)        Is appropriate within the broader planning framework provided by the structure plan;

ii)       Satisfies the criteria relating to Housing Precinct designation and densities; and

iii)      More generally supports the objectives and recommendations of the City’s Local Housing Strategy and the Smart Growth Strategy.

 

The above matters are discussed below:

 

i)        The criteria for designation of Housing Precinct boundaries and proposed increased residential densities and the relevant policy application as per LPP 3.1, and Administration’s comments on how the applicant has satisfied these criteria, are provided in the following Table:

 

No.	Criterion Detail	Policy Application	Comment
1.	Easy access/close proximity to retail and employment centres	R40 between 400m and 800m of a neighbourhood centre	Alexander Heights Neighbourhood Centre is located about 500 metres to the west of the subject site.
2.	Easy access/close proximity to public transport with priority towards rail nodes and bus interchange	R40 within 250m of main bus route.	Mirrabooka Avenue is a Transperth bus route. A bus stop is located within 250 metres from the subject site.
3.	Easy access/close to areas of high amenity including public open space and recreational facilities	R40 within 250m of District public open space	The site is located 250 metres away from Highview Park which is classified as a district public open space.

 

 

4.

Easy access/close proximity to major arterial routes, educational institutions and community facilities

This criterion is not applied spatially but rather the area concerned has been assessed in general terms regarding adequacy of arterial routes, educational institutions and community facilities serving the area to cope with increased population and traffic arising from increased densities

The site is located near Alinjarra Primary School to the east.   The proposal will yield approximately 18 dwellings generating 180 vehicles per day. This additional traffic generated by the subject proposal can be accommodated on Crabtree Street and La Salle Road.

 

ii)       The proposal to recode the subject land to R40 wherein the average lot size is 220m² in area, as per the WAPC’s Residential Design Codes, generally satisfies the following objectives of the City‘s Housing Strategy:

 

·        To ensure that an adequate supply of affordable housing is provided, particularly for first home buyers. Alexander Heights is predominantly coded R20, the proposed R40 coding is likely to result in more affordable housing due to smaller lot sizes; and

·        Promote appropriate forms of housing close to existing and proposed community facilities and services to enable more efficient and effective use of those facilities and services.

 

iii)      The proposal also generally satisfies the following Smart Growth Strategy principles:

 

·        Promoting a range of lot sizes to cater for different lifestyle choices. Alexander Heights is predominantly coded R20; the proposed R40 coding is likely to cater for different lifestyle choices;  and

·        Promoting a range of housing types in appropriate locations to meet current and future market demands. The proposed location is considered to be suitable for an R40 development.

Conclusion

Lot 800 (30) Crabtree Street, Alexander Heights is currently not zoned or reserved under DPS 2. The proposal to zone and code the subject site as 'Residential R40' accords with the City's LPP 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation. It is therefore recommended that the proposed amendment be initiated.

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

 

 

Policy Implications

The proposal satisfies the City's LPP 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation as discussed in the Comment section of this report.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 INITIATES Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to zone and code Lot 800 (30) Crabtree Street, Alexander Heights as 'Residential, R40';

2.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment;

3.       Subject to no objection being received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), ADVERTISES Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

4.       FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 136 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	14/92285
2View.	Attachment 2 - Proposed Zoning	14/95446

  

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                              7067 – 14/32068

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the permanent closure of a pedestrian access way (PAW) between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo.

 

Background

The PAW between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo was created in the 1970's as part of the historic subdivision of the land. The PAW was intended to provide a pedestrian connection to or from the cul-de-sac of Grevillea Court to Vincent Road. Location plans that identify the location of the PAW are included as Attachment 1.

 

Administration received a request to permanently close the PAW between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo from:

 

·    Landowners of three of the four rural-residential properties adjoining the PAW; and

 

·    Landowners of two additional rural-residential properties in Grevillea Court.

 

The landowners lodging the request for the City to consider closing the PAW are hereafter referred to as the 'applicants'.

Detail

The PAW consists of two land parcels formally known as Lot 56 (17P) Grevillea Court, Wanneroo and portion Lot 55 (46P) Canna Place, Wanneroo.

 

The applicants have requested the City consider closing the PAW for the following reasons:

 

·    The PAW serves no specific use as a thoroughfare to anyone in the area. To travel via Vincent Street to Garden Park Drive adds a distance of only approximately 200 metres by GPS reckoning.

 

·    With the encroachment of residential developments in the area, we are concerned the PAW will act as a magnet to anti-social behaviour such as vandalism, litter, theft, trespass and graffiti. Litter is already a problem since development has started behind us. Fire risk will be of great concern as we are all bush blocks, and even though we thoroughly maintain our block in accordance with City of Wanneroo Firebreak regulations, it only takes the irresponsible actions of one person to start a potentially damaging fire to our surrounds and buildings.

 

·    For those of us directly abutting the PAW security is also of concern. We already have instances of letterbox vandalism, damage to fencing, as well as motorbikes and horses using the PAW. These incidents are likely to worsen with residential development in the area.

One landowner on Vincent Road and one landowner on Grevillea Court have expressed interest in purchasing proportionate shares of the existing PAW, to incorporate that land into their own properties.

Consultation

In accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, Administration arranged the publication of a notice in the Wanneroo Times on 17 December 2013, inviting comment for a time period concluding on 4 February 2014. Administration advertised the proposed PAW closure for more than the minimum 35 day time period, to take into account the Christmas and New Year holiday period.

 

Public consultation was also carried out by way of:

·    Letters to landowners that Administration considered would be affected by the proposal;

·    Installation of signage at the Vincent Road and Grevillea Court entrances of the PAW;

·    Letters to the relevant government agencies and service authorities that may be affected by the closure of the PAW.

 

A summary of the comments received from the general public is included as Attachment 2, and a summary of the comments received from government agencies and servicing authorities is included as Attachment 3.

Comment

The City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways (the Policy) provides guidance for the City to evaluate applications for the closure of PAW's. An assessment of the proposed PAW closure against the policy provisions is provided below:

 

Role of the PAW within the Neighbourhood

 

Administration considers the PAW to be a 'Continuous Access Route PAW'. The Policy stipulates that where a Continuous Access PAW is proposed for closure, the impact of such closure on the total access route shall be considered.

 

The PAW forms part of a network of roads and other PAWs, that enables residents of Grevillea Court to access the Wanneroo Town Centre. Residents could walk or cycle from Grevillea Court to the Wanneroo Town Centre via the route as shown on the map included as Attachment 4. Should the PAW close, then access to the Wanneroo Town Centre from the intersection of Grevillea Court and Garden Park Drive would increase by approximately 300 metres.

 

Access to Community Facilities and Services

 

The Policy stipulates that where a PAW is considered to provide an important access route to community facilities and services, closure shall generally not be supported.

 

The PAW provides residents with access to existing and future community facilities and services as follows:

 

·    The PAW forms parts of a route that provides pedestrian access from Canna Place to Edgar Griffiths Park, as there are no footpaths on Vincent Road or Garden Park Drive. The City has no plans to provide footpaths on Vincent Road or Garden Park Drive as part of its capital works program;

 

·    Access to a future primary school to be built in Sinagra, as indicated in the City's Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (East Wanneroo Cell 2); and

·    Access to a future five hectare public open space to be developed south of Vincent Road, as indicated in the City's Agreed Structure Plan No. 4 (East Wanneroo Cell 2).

 

The approximate location of the future primary school and the future public open space is depicted on Attachment 4.

 

In January 2011, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) adopted the East Wanneroo Structure Plan. The East Wanneroo Structure Plan is a document intended to guide future amendments to the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) that will primarily urbanise much of the rural areas in East Wanneroo. The East Wanneroo Structure Plan identifies the immediate area surrounding the PAW as 'potential urban'. Should the immediate area be rezoned to urban, then the existing PAW could provide access to community facilities that may be developed in a future urban area. This will be subject to further investigation and Structure Planning should the MRS and DPS 2 be amended to rezone the immediate area to an urban zone.

 

Anti-Social Behaviour Considerations Related to the PAW

 

The Policy stipulates that Council should consider the role that the PAW may serve in facilitating anti-social behaviour, including graffiti, burglary and dumping of litter.

 

In relation to crime and anti-social behaviour, Administration has considered the following:

 

·    The City has not received any advice from WA Police on any reported anti-social activity associated with the PAW; and

 

·    In recent years, Administration has not received any reports of vandalism, damage or graffiti within the PAW.

 

In light of the above points, there appears to be no evidence to support the assertion that the vandalism in vicinity of the applicants is attributed to the PAW.

 

Access for the Disabled and Seniors

 

The Policy stipulates that a PAW that provides access to community facilities and services is especially relevant in cases where seniors accommodation/aged persons homes are located in close proximity to the PAW. As there are no seniors accommodation/aged persons homes located in close proximity to the PAW, this matter is not relevant.

 

Availability of Alternative Access Routes

 

The Policy states that PAW closure shall only be supported if alternative viable access routes are available. Viable alternative access routes should be safe and not substantially longer than a route through an existing PAW.

 

Should the PAW close, the walking distance on the existing road network from the intersection of Garden Park Drive and Grevillea Court to the intersection of Vincent Road and Canna Place would increase by approximately 300 metres. This is shown on the map included as Attachment 4. On this attachment, the intersection of Garden Park Drive and Grevillea Court is marked as 'Point A', and the intersection of Vincent Road and Canna Place is marked as 'Point B'. As outlined in the submissions, the longer walking route (via Vincent Road and Garden Park Drive) is not considered as safe for pedestrians as using Grevillea Court and the PAW, as there is no footpath on Vincent Road or Garden Park Drive.

 

 

Importance of the PAW to the Pathway System and the Wanneroo Bike Plan

 

The importance of the PAW to the local pathway system is discussed above. This PAW is not identified in the Wanneroo Bike Plan.

 

Alternatives to the Closure of PAW’s

 

There have not been any reports of anti-social behaviour within the PAW. Therefore, Administration considers that alternatives to the closure of the PAW, such as upgrades to improve safety and security, are not required.

 

The footpath within the PAW was upgraded as part of the City's Capital Works Program, in the 2011-2012 financial year, at a cost of $27,568.91. The closure of the PAW would result in this footpath being removed to accommodate an amalgamation of the land with adjoining properties, thus terminating the benefit to the community of Council's investment in the PAW.

 

Conclusion

 

In light of the above points, Administration does not consider it necessary to close the PAW, given that:

 

·    The PAW is used by local residents, as expressed through the submissions. The PAW provides a safe and convenient alterative to walking/cycling on Garden Park Drive and Vincent Road, as there is no footpath on these roads;

 

·    The PAW provides necessary and appropriate access to existing facilities, such as Edgar Griffiths Park and the Wanneroo Town Centre. It is anticipated that the PAW will also provide access to future facilities in Sinagra, when they are established in the future;

 

·    It is premature to consider the permanent closure of the PAW, as usage and importance of the PAW is likely to increase once the residential areas to the west (in Sinagra) are fully developed;

 

·    The immediate area in which the PAW is located has been identified as a potential urban area under the WAPC's East Wanneroo Structure Plan. Therefore, the importance and usage of the PAW may increase in the future, should the immediate area become urbanised; and

 

·    There has been no anti-social behaviour; such as graffiti, burglary, vandalism or dumping of litter reported to Administration in the last three years.

 

In the case where Council approves a PAW closure, the City would be required to seek the endorsement of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) prior to referring a PAW closure to the Minister for Lands for final approval.

Statutory Compliance

The City must comply with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Regulation 9 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998, dealing with public advertising, objections and service agency responses to the proposed PAW closure.

 

The Department of Lands has advised that, where a local authority makes a request under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 for the closure of a road, the local authority must indemnify the Minister for Lands in respect of that closure.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.”

Policy Implications

The request to close the PAW between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo has been considered in reference to the City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways.

 

The Department of Planning has prepared a 'Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways – Planning Guidance' (the Procedure), which provides guidance to process and assess requests to close of PAW's. The Procedure outlines the role and process of the local government, Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Lands when considering requests to close PAW's.

 

The Procedure outlines that one of two processes should be followed when considering a request to close a PAW – one being when the PAW closure request is in accordance with a WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan, and a process when there is no WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan. As there is no WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan that affects the PAW, the following process should be followed:

 

·    The local government receives a request to close a PAW;

 

·    The local government refers the PAW closure request to relevant infrastructure providers and other relevant agencies;

 

·    The local government consults the community likely to be affected by the PAW closure using two or more of the following methods:

o  placement of signs at either end of the pedestrian access way advising of the proposal to close the pedestrian access way;

o  press release and advertisement in the local newspaper and other media (the advertisement in the newspaper is required under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997);

o  direct mail out to households likely to be affected by the closure;

o  liaison with local community groups;

o  stakeholder workshops;

o  information sessions and discussion groups;

o  questionnaire surveys; and

o  public displays.

 

·    The local government then assesses the proposal. The City then resolves to close (or not close) the PAW, and advises all abutting landowners of its decision.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications should Council resolve not to grant the request for the PAW to be closed.

 

However, should Council resolve that the pedestrian access way be closed and the closure then endorsed by the WAPC, the adjoining landowners would be required to arrange and fund the PAW land being amalgamated into their own properties.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 in respect to the proposed closure of the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 56 (17P) Grevillea Court, Wanneroo and portion Lot 55 (46P) Canna Place, Wanneroo, and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

 

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the closure of the Pedestrian Accessway formally known as Lot 56 (17P) Grevillea Court, Wanneroo and portion Lot 55 (46P) Canna Place, Wanneroo, between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, where identified on the plan included as Attachment 1; and

 

3.       ADVISES the applicants, Department of Lands, Department of Planning, all adjoining landowners and the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Location Map - Proposed PAW Closure - Vincent Road to Grevillea Court, Wanneroo	13/226736	Minuted
2View.	Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions - General Public - Proposed PAW Closure Between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo	14/75765	Minuted
3View.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions - Service Agencies - Proposed PAW Closure Between Grevillea Court and Vincent Road, Wanneroo	14/96707	Minuted
4View.	Attachment 4 - PAW Grevillea Ct & Vincent Rd	14/65597

  

 

File Ref:                                              12960 – 14/74682

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the permanent closure of a pedestrian access way (PAW) at Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola.

 

Background

Administration is proposing to permanently close the PAW, formally known as Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola, and amalgamate this land parcel into the adjoining Koondoola Park land parcel (Lot 9335). The location of the PAW proposed to be closed is depicted on the plan included as Attachment 1. An amalgamated Koondoola Park land parcel would have lot boundaries as depicted on the plan included as Attachment 2.

 

A resolution of Council is required that supports the closure of the PAW and its amalgamation with the adjoining Koondoola Park land parcel. Should Council resolve to approve the closure the PAW, the City is required to seek the endorsement of the Western Australian Planning Commission prior to referring the proposal to the Minister for Lands for final approval.

Detail

The PAW is entirely unconstructed and has a total area of approximately 1,715 square metres. There is no visible distinction between the PAW land parcel and the surrounding Koondoola Park land parcel. The PAW does not contain any of the typical features seen on most PAW's, such as footpaths or fencing.

 

It is proposed to close and amalgamate the PAW land parcel with the adjoining Koondoola Park land parcel, to facilitate development of a community facility within Koondoola Park. Koondoola Park was identified as the preferred location of a new community facility in the Koondoola Hall Needs and Feasibility Study Draft Report, endorsed by Council at its meeting of 11 December 2012 (CD02-12/12). Although it is possible for this community facility to be built on the Koondoola Park land parcel, it cannot be built on a PAW, as the purpose of the PAW is to provide for pedestrian access only.

 

The PAW land parcel is reserved as 'Parks and Recreation' under the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). Similarly, the adjoining Koondoola Park is also reserved as 'Parks and Recreation' under DPS 2.

Consultation

In accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997, Administration arranged the publication of a notice in the Wanneroo Times on 4 February 2014, inviting comment for a 35 day time period concluding on 11 March 2014.

 

Administration undertook public consultation by way of installation of onsite signage, as well as sending letters to nearby landowners. Letters were also sent to relevant government agencies and service authorities as listed below:

 

 

·        Department of Lands

·        Water Corporation

·        Western Power

·        ATCO Gas Australia

·        Telstra

·        Western Australian Planning Commission

 

A summary of the comments received from the servicing authorities and government agencies is included as Attachment 3. Although there were no objections raised for the closure of the PAW, Western Power provided comments on their services located in the vicinity of the proposed PAW closure. No submissions were received from the surrounding landowners.

Comment

Administration considers the PAW to be a 'Public Open Space PAW', as defined in the City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways. The proposed closure would accord with the provisions of this policy, as pedestrian access would still be maintained through Koondoola Park.

 

The policy also requires Council to consider other matters when a PAW closure is proposed, such as anti-social behaviour and availability of alternative access. These considerations are not relevant as the PAW is practically non-existent and presents as part of Koondoola Park.

Statutory Compliance

The City must comply with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and Regulation 9 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998, dealing with public advertising, objections and service agency responses to the proposed PAW closure.

 

The Department of Lands has advised that, where a local authority makes a request under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997, the local authority must indemnify the Minister for Lands in respect of that closure.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Policy Implications

The request to close the PAW has been considered in reference to the City's Local Planning Policy for Pedestrian Access Ways.

 

The Department of Planning has prepared a 'Procedure for the Closure of Pedestrian Access Ways – Planning Guidance' (the Procedure), which provides guidance to process and assess requests to close of PAW's. The Procedure outlines the role and process of the local government, Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Lands when considering requests to close PAW's.

 

 

 

The Procedure outlines that one of two processes should be followed when considering a request to close a PAW – one being when the PAW closure request is in accordance with a WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan, and a process when there is no WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan. As there is no WAPC-endorsed pedestrian and cycle access plan that affects the PAW, the following process should be followed:

 

·    The local government receives a request to close a PAW;

 

·    The local government refers the PAW closure request to relevant infrastructure providers and other relevant agencies;

 

·    The local government consults the community likely to be affected by the PAW closure using two or more of the following methods:

o  placement of signs at either end of the pedestrian access way advising of the proposal to close the pedestrian access way;

o  press release and advertisement in the local newspaper and other media (the advertisement in the newspaper is required under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997);

o  direct mail out to households likely to be affected by the closure;

o  liaison with local community groups;

o  stakeholder workshops;

o  information sessions and discussion groups;

o  questionnaire surveys; and

o  public displays.

 

·    The local government then assesses the proposal. The City then resolves to close (or not close) the PAW, and advises all abutting landowners of its decision.

Financial Implications

Administration can meet further costs associated with the closure of the PAW through the existing operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the submissions received as summarised in Attachment 3 in respect to the proposed closure of the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola, and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

 

2.       SUPPORTS the proposed closure of the pedestrian access way formally known as Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola, where identified in Attachment 1, and FORWARDS the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its endorsement;

 

3.       Subject to the closure of the pedestrian access way formally known Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola being endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission, AUTHORISES Administration to request the Minister for Lands amalgamate Lot 55 into the adjoining Lot 9335; and

 

4.       INDEMNIFIES the Minister for Lands against any claim for compensation arising from the closure.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Location of PAW Closure - Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola	14/13076	Minuted
2View.	Attachment 2 - PAW Closure - Lot 55 (56P) Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola	14/13080
3View.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions - Proposed PAW Closure - Burbridge Avenue, Koondoola	14/80944	Minuted

  

File Ref:                                              5523 – 14/67052

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received on the proposal to extend Quinns Dog Beach 320m south of the existing Quinns Dog Beach following a 28 day public notice period, and determine whether to proceed with the extension.

 

Background

On 24 July 2012 (item PS04-07/12), Council endorsed the final Coastal Management Plan Part 1 (CMP Part 1). The final CMP Part 1 included a recommendation to extend the existing Quinns Dog Beach south 700m to the northern most access of the existing car park at Fred Stubbs Memorial Grove within the next five years.

 

On 4 February 2014 (item PS05-02/14) Council resolved to give 28 days notice of its intention to extend the Quinns Dog Beach, in accordance with the Dog Act 1976.  Due to the existing erosion issues at Fred Stubbs Memorial Grove, it was proposed to only extend the existing Quinns Dog Beach south 320 metres, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

The public notice period commenced on 18 February 2014 and concluded on 18 March 2014. Although the public notice did not specifically seek public feedback, the proposal has generated a significant amount of public interest, particularly from residents of Quinns Rocks. Council must now decide whether it wants to proceed with formally designating the extended dog beach area.

Detail

During the public notice period the following community feedback was received:

 

·    A petition of 368 signatures was received by Council at its meeting on 4 March 2014, predominantly from residents of Quinns Rocks, requesting that Council consider:

"No extension south to the existing dog beach at Quinns Rocks and that Council instead pursue other options, at other locations, for dog beaches along the City of Wanneroo coastline.";

·    An online petition (at change.org) of 250 signatures, from the same petition organiser as the above, opposing the proposed extension;

·    An online petition (at change.org) of 25 signatures supporting the proposed extension;

·    41 written submissions; and

·    17 verbal submissions over the phone.

 

Of the above submissions, excluding the petitions, 49 objected to the proposal and 9 supported the proposal.  A summary of the submissions received, and Administration's response to these comments, is included as Attachment 2. The key issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

 

1.   Incompatibility of dogs with other beach users

 

The area of Quinns Beach south of the existing dog beach is a very popular beach for swimming, fishing and family activities and currently provides for disabled access to the beach.

 

The proposal to extend the dog beach into this area was strongly objected to on the basis that dogs are not compatible with these other beach uses and it will therefore have a negative impact on these uses.

 

2.   Dog Management

 

Submitters reported that people using the existing Quinns dog beach to exercise their dogs generally do not responsibly pick up after their dogs.  The result is that the dog beach, pedestrian accessways and surrounding areas are frequently impacted with dog faeces and the smell of dog urine. 

 

A number of reports were also made of uncontrolled dogs coming into conflict with other beach users (both dog and non-dog owners), to the point where those involved sometimes no longer used the dog beach and adjacent beach areas for recreation, despite it being their local beach. 

 

3.   Carparking

 

Submitters reported that the existing carpark areas at the southern end of the existing dog beach are unable to effectively cater for demand, and that this is exacerbated by the presence of mobile dog wash vendors at peak times.  Verge parking along Ocean Drive is not regularly used due to the lack of pedestrian access along the extent of the dog beach. 

 

The proposal to extend the dog beach south to the Mary Street carpark was not seen as a solution to these carparking issues, particularly as the Mary Street carpark does not provide a significant number of additional bays.  Submitters therefore saw the proposal to extend the dog beach as likely to only make existing carparking problems worse.

Consultation

Section 31(3A) of the Dog Act states:

 

"A local government may, by absolute majority as defined in the Local Government Act 1995 Section 1.4, specify a public place, or class of public place, that is under the care, control or management of the local government to be a dog exercise area."

 

Prior to Council making a decision under Section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, 28 days local public notice is required to be given (under Section 31(3C)(b)) of the City's intention to extend the existing Quinns dog beach south 320 metres.

 

In accordance with Section 1.7 of the Local Government Act 1995, during the public notice period a notice was placed in:

·    the Wanneroo Times on 18 February 2014;

·    the North Coast Times on 18 February 2014; and

·    the City of Wanneroo Civic Centre and libraries.

 

In addition to the requirements set out in the Local Government Act, a public notice was also placed on the:

 

·    City's website;

·    City's Facebook and Twitter pages; and

·    Two public notice signs were installed, at:

o  the existing southern extent of the Quinns Dog beach - Camira Way, Quinns Rocks;  and

o  the proposed new southern extent, approximately 320 metres south - entrance of the Mary Street Car Park.

 

Comment

The Quinns dog beach extension was recommended in the final CMP Part 1 because there is a gap in dog beach provision to the south of the existing Quinns dog beach, with the next closest dog beach being at Whitfords in the City of Joondalup.  The southern extension was preferable over an extension to the north, because the beach north of the existing dog beach is narrow and characterised by the presence of rocky cliffs and submerged rocks.  The beach area to the south of the existing dog beach is much wider and characterised by sand dunes with vegetation and is more amenable to public access.

 

At the time the CMP Part 1 was advertised for public comment (October 2011 to January 2012), the majority community view was in favour of a southern extension to the Quinns Dog Beach.  However, the current proposal to extend the dog beach in line with the recommendations of the endorsed CMP Part 1 has now been met with strong community opposition. 

 

The consultation undertaken for the CMP Part 1 was a comprehensive exercise aimed at determining the views of the whole community in relation to dog beach provision (among other coastal uses) to inform recommendations for future coastal use.  Notwithstanding the need to consider the wider community's views and needs in relation to access to coastal areas for dog exercise, it is clear from the comments received that the current proposal is not supported by the local community in Quinns Rocks.  The submitters have raised valid concerns in relation to incompatibility with other beach users, management of the dog beach and car parking.  These concerns are discussed below. 

 

Incompatibility of dogs with other beach users

 

It is acknowledged that this incompatibility is already evident at the southern extent of the existing dog beach where dog users interact with other users of the beach.  The City's Rangers regularly attend the Quinns dog beach and patrol the southern boundary to ensure that dog owners do not venture past the end of the dog beach, however it appears that this continues to occur when Rangers are not present. 

 

The only way to minimise this issue would be to not extend the dog beach and retain the existing southern boundary, as the groyne at Camira Way clearly delineates the end of the dog beach at this location.  Administration also intends to review dog beach maintenance regimes and compliance measures to address concerns raised during the public notice period.

 

Dog Management

 

It is a significant management issue for the City to ensure that the dog beach is kept in a clean and tidy state.  The City's conservation maintenance team visits the Quinns dog beach weekly, and sometimes bi-weekly, in the summer peak season to remove dog faeces and ensure a safe environment for beach users.  Despite regular maintenance visits, the cleanliness of the dog beach continues to be an issue. 

 

The behaviour of dogs and dog owners is also an education and compliance issue for the City. The City's Rangers spend a significant amount of time when present at the dog beach, educating dog owners on their responsibilities.  However, the extent of the Rangers' statutory responsibility is to ensure dogs are contained within the existing dog beach.  The City's Rangers are not responsible for the behaviour of dogs or their owners and only become involved in dog management when infringement or enforcement action is required.

 

It is therefore acknowledged that the extension of the dog beach is unlikely to address these community concerns.

 

Carparking

 

Although the southern carpark is often at capacity, submitters have commented that the northern carpark and verge parking along Ocean Drive are rarely full.  This is consistent with Rangers' observations.  Overall, the existing levels of carparking and roadside parking at Quinns dog beach are therefore considered to be appropriate for current usage levels.  If the dog beach were to be extended, it is likely that the City would need to consider additional parking options in the future as use increases with population growth.

 

Summary

 

On the basis of the comments received, Administration does not recommend extending the Quinns Dog Beach to the south by 320 metres.

 

If Council does not decide to extend the Quinns dog beach, then the issue of how to cater for the increase in dog population (as the City's population grows) will still need to be addressed.  Administration acknowledges the need to provide dog beaches in the future and in this regard the remaining dog beach recommendations of the CMP Part 1 are still valid.

 

The CMP Part 1 proposes to establish a dog beach in the North Alkimos Foreshore Management Plan as part of the Shorehaven development.  The comments received on the Quinns proposal highlight the need for the City to more proactively engage with the developer at North Alkimos to establish the dog beach at that location, in advance of the residential development being completed.  This will ensure that dog owners have an alternative to the Quinns dog beach in this general location. 

 

The provision of alternative dog beaches will also be further addressed in the CMP Part 2, which is currently being prepared by Administration. 

 

If Council decides to formally extend the existing Quinns dog beach, a number of additional works and initiatives will need to be considered, including:

·    Relocating the existing dog beach boundary sign to reflect the new (southern) dog beach boundary;

·    Installing an additional dog waste bag dispenser, bin and signage, directing people to pick up after their dog, at the existing beach access way at Mary Street car park;

·    Installing an additional bin at the southern most entrance to the new dog beach;

·    Review dog beach maintenance regimes and compliance measures to address concerns raised during the public notice period to extend the dog beach; and

·    Plan for new carparking facilities in the future to accommodate additional users of the dog beach.

 

There would be no need to add, modify, or upgrade the existing beach access way as part of the extension, as the current access way is sufficient to cater for any additional use as a result of the extension.

 

Should Council decided not to extend the dog beach, based on the comments received during the public notice period, it may still be worthwhile installing additional bins, and signage at the southern carpark directing visitors to alternative carparking locations.  Administration also intends to review dog beach maintenance regimes and compliance measures to address concerns raised during the public notice period.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with Section 31(3A) of the Dog Act 1976, public notice was given of Council's proposed extension of the Quinns Dog Beach extension. 

 

 

Under Section 31(3C)(b) of that Act, in order to formally extend the dog beach, Council must resolve to do so by absolute majority.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

If Council resolves to extend the dog beach, the cost of the additional signs, bins and bag dispensers, as well as their installation, will be covered through the City's existing operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submissions received in respect of the proposed southern extension of the Quinns dog beach, included in Attachment 2 and ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions;

2.       DOES NOT EXTEND the Quinns dog beach 320 metres immediately south of the existing Quinns dog beach; and

3.       NOTIFIES submitters and petition conveners of Council's decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Map of Proposed Extension to Quinns Dog Beach	14/3962
2View.	Attachment 2 - Summary of Submissions - Quinns Dog Beach Extension	14/104845	Minuted

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              6903 – 14/105144

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider approval of expenditure from the Sustainability Investment Fund (SIF), in accordance with the SIF Expenditure and Reporting Policy.

 

Background

Since the 2010-2011 financial year budget, Council has set aside a total annual sum of $50,000 in the Environmental Initiatives Reserve (EIR), for the Sustainability Investment Fund (SIF).

 

The role of the SIF is to fund initiatives aimed at reducing the City’s environmental footprint and reducing the City’s utility/energy bills.  Utility cost-savings from initiatives funded through the SIF are redirected back into the Environmental Initiatives Reserve (EIR), thus growing the funding available to undertake further initiatives in future.

 

In October 2012, $64,815 was used from the SIF to install a 36 kilowatt solar panel system on the Aquamotion building, a high electricity use building, in order to reduce electricity costs.

The annual savings from the reduction in electricity usage at Aquamotion have been calculated to be $17,817 and this amount will be credited to the SIF in accordance with the policy. This means that after only four years, the solar panels will be paid for in full and beyond this time will be generating net savings for the City. This payback period is considered to be a sound financial investment for the City, and confirms the appropriateness of the SIF for purchasing similar solar panels on other compatible Council buildings.

 

There is currently $95,612 available in the SIF for future sustainability initiatives, which does not include the savings generated from the Aquamotion solar panel system during the 2013/14 financial year.

 

This report outlines the proposed investment plan for the SIF for the 2013/2014 financial year for Council approval.

Detail

Given the success of the solar panel installation at Aquamotion, Administration has conducted a detailed analysis of several high energy use buildings within the City.

 

The investigation has found that Clarkson Library and Kingsway Indoor Stadium are two sites that would benefit from the installation of a 24 kilowatt solar panel system with 30 kilowatt inverter capacity.  Installing two solar panel systems that have a larger inverter than the capacity of the solar panels means that in future years, up to an additional 12 kilowatts of solar panels could be added to each building without the need to replace the inverter.  This system size was chosen based on the level of funds available and the capacity of the system to allow additional panels in the future without unnecessary additional costs.

 

 

 

Clarkson Library and Kingsway Indoor Stadium have the following characteristics:

 

·    large energy consumption each day of the week;

·    north facing roofs; and

·    large visitor numbers.

 

The above characteristics are beneficial for offsetting energy usage with cleaner power sources, maximising the sun's exposure (power production) and ensuring high public visibility to demonstrate environmental leadership to the community.

 

In accordance with Council's purchasing policy, three written quotes have been obtained. The selection criteria used were price, quality and experience of personnel. Based on the selection criteria used the recommended provider is Next Energy.

 

Next Energy has been awarded projects to provide solar panels for the Perth Arena, new and existing buildings at Murdoch University and is a WALGA preferred supplier.

 

Next Energy's solar array is expected to yield 59,000 kWh of clean electricity per annum and save approximately 47.6 kg of CO2 per annum. This CO2 saving is equivalent to removing 20 cars from the road every year.

Consultation

Nil.  There would be no disruption to power usage or service delivery during installation of the solar panel systems.

Comment

The SIF offers great potential for a demonstration of Council's commitment to its environment and achieving outcomes in a financially viable way.

 

Installing solar energy systems will reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions. Providing solar panels on the roof of Clarkson Library and Kingsway Sporting Complex is an environmentally sound initiative that will yield immediate and long term financial savings to the City.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy”

Policy Implications

In accordance with Council's adopted Sustainability Investment Fund Policy the Executive Management Team has approved the proposed investment plan. All that now remains for this expenditure to occur is for Council to endorse the proposed investment plan.

 

 

Financial Implications

The cost of the system is $79,070 excluding GST and contingent sum included of $3,000. The expected cost savings per year to the City of Wanneroo as a result of these two installations are approximately $25,500 per annum (average annual savings from the first four years savings). On this basis, the systems are expected to have a ‘pay back’ period of approximately 3 years, assuming utility prices increase at a conservative 5 per cent per annum.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY expenditure of $79,070 excluding GST and including contingent sum of $3000 for the installation of a 24kw roof-mounted solar panel system with 30kw inverter each at the Clarkson Library and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

File Ref:                                              2366V13 – 14/88330

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a petition received from residents in Darch affected by noise and chemicals emissions emanating from the Landsdale Industrial area.

 

Background

A petition signed by 330 people was presented to Council at its meeting on 4 March 2014

(Item No PT05-03/14). The petition stated that:

"In the matter of excessive noise and chemical emissions emanating from various local businesses located in Landsdale. These businesses often operate out of business hours and are responsible for excessively loud noise late at night and early mornings. Additionally there is often a foul smelling plume that descends over a large area of residential Darch including 3 schools. Given the proximity of the Landsdale Industrial area these activities are inconsistent with the quiet enjoyment of local residents and adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential area."

Previously, Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 15 May 2007, considered a petition signed by 279 people (Item No PT02-02/07). 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.”

As a result of the abovementioned Petition, Council resolved as follows:

"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."

It is Administration's understanding that as a result of the above Resolution, impacts from the industrial area improved but have slowly deteriorated over time.

Detail

Prior to receiving the petition, Health Services were responding to complaints from residents living closest to the Industrial area and as a result sent correspondence to a property on Hoskins Road, mentioned in a number of complaints advising them of the noise complaints. Officers conducted evening site visits and determined there were various properties in the industrial area contributing to noise emissions. A Noise Abatement Direction was served on a Hoskins Road property requiring any activities that cause excessive noise to cease between the hours of 7:00pm to 7:00am. (This has been effective in controlling noise from this property and has since closed down).

In respect to noise, the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 provide for the assessment of unwanted noise that is emitted from one premise to another.  There are different allowable assigned levels for noise sensitive premises, commercial premises and industrial premises.  The assigned levels are always applied to the premise receiving the noise, not to the premise emitting the noise.  For noise sensitive premises, such as residences, there are different allowable assigned levels for different time periods throughout the day.  The allowable levels are also influenced by the amount of commercial and industrial land use in proximity, and also the number of major roads (>15, 000 vehicles per day) and minor roads (15, 000 – 6, 000 vehicles per day).

When measuring and assessing noise, the levels used are Sound Pressure Levels in Decibels (dB).

As requested, the City's Health Services undertook noise monitoring at resident's homes and locations in close proximity to the residents to obtain an indication of the noise levels being received.

Where the data had the appropriate elements for further analysis, the measurements were assessed as per the requirements of the legislation.  This noise data was then compared to the assigned noise levels for each location to give an indication of what levels those premises are receiving. A copy of this data is attached as Appendix 1.

Consultation

The following options to manage noise and chemical emissions are being undertaken:

1.    Arrange a meeting between Meneghello's management and City Staff in order to come to a possible agreement regarding opening hours and methods of reducing noise and chemical emissions.

2.    Forward correspondence to the Department of Environment Regulation seeking assistance from their licensing and noise departments to manage emissions from the Landsdale Industrial Area and to ensure all conditions contained within the Meneghello Galvanizing Services licence are being complied with.

Comment

When a property's noise emissions impact on another property, it's usually a simple process of taking noise readings and determining if those readings exceed the assigned levels.

 

In this instance, from an evidentiary perspective, it's more difficult to determine as many industrial properties are contributing to noise levels which collectively contribute to higher background levels. Officers have noted at least three businesses operating late at night and because of this it would be difficult to determine who any one offender would be.

While undertaking noise readings, it was noted that traffic noise from Hartman Drive, Mullingar Way/Furniss Way and from the Industrial area are significantly high and impact on noise recordings.

Due to the significant amount of background noise, the only assigned noise level that can be accurately used are the maximum allowed levels, being the level noise is not permitted to go over given the time of day.  Analysis of all suitable data has indicated that noise levels both during daytime and nighttimes are compliant.  On one occasion, the reading was slightly over by 0.3dB, although this is not considered to be significant.

If suitable buffers between residential and industrial areas are not present, other acoustic design measures such as fencing designed to reflect noise, sound installation and double glazing can be used by residential properties to reduce the impact of noise.

In respect to chemical plumes from Industrial activities noted in the petition, the City can report this to the Department of Environment Regulation (DER). Galvanising processes are controlled through a licensing system managed by the DER and conditions relating to emissions are included on the licence.

Statutory Compliance

Environmental protection (Noise) Regulations 1997

Environmental Protection Act 1986

Environmental Protection Regulations 1987

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the action taken by administration in undertaking noise readings from the Landsdale Industrial Area to determine if those levels comply with the Environmental protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 when received by residents of Darch;

2.       NOTES that administration will meet with Meneghello's management to come to a possible agreement regarding their opening hours and methods of reducing noise and chemical emissions;

3.       NOTES that administration will forward correspondence to the Department of Environment Regulation seeking assistance from their licensing and noise departments to manage noise and chemical emissions from the Landsdale Industrial Area and to ensure all conditions contained within the Meneghello Galvanizing Services licence are being complied with;

4.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision; and

5.       NOTES administration will produce and forward a pamphlet to all business owners in the Landsdale Industrial area seeking assistance in reducing noise for nearby residents.

 

Attachments:

1View.

RESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN FROM DARCH

14/102311

  

 

RESULTS OF NOISE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN FROM DARCH

Job	Reading + Penalties (dB)	Assigned level (dB) + influencing factor	Over/under	Comment
1	LAeq = 34dB	55dB + influencing factor (4dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   59dB LA max	-5dB	·      No distinguishable sounds ·      Background sounds of traffic evident ·      Truck reversing beeper impacted measurement by less than 1dB
2a	49.3dB (Impulsiveness = difference between LaPeak and LAmax Slow + 10dB)   59.3dB	55dB + influencing factor (4dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   59dB LA max	0.3	·      SLM Logging Sheet indicated neighbours air conditioner was on and evident in sound recordings ·      1.32am -  Clanging sound evident –        LAmax = 49.3dB ·      1.34am -  Clanging sound evident –LAmax = 46dB -  variation from LAeq = 1dB ·      1.36am -  Louder clanging sound evident – LAmax  =50dB – variation from LAeq = 5dB
2b	LA max – 43.6 dB	55dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   60dB LA max	-16.4dB	·      No distinguishable sounds
3	La10: 45.1dB (No Impulsiveness)                   La1: 47.6dB  (No Impulsiveness)           Lamax: 49.3 (No Impulsiveness)	45dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La10:50dB   55dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La1:60dB   65dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   Lamax:70dB	-4.9dB                   -12.4dB           -20.7dB
4	La10: 47.8dB    (No Impulsiveness)                          La1: 51.0dB      (No Impulsiveness)                   Lamax:52.6dB   (No Impulsiveness)	45dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La10:               54dB   55dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La1:                 64dB   65dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   Lamax:            74dB	-5.3                   -6.2           -21.4
5	La10: 44.6dB  (Tonal +5dB)                               La1:47.1dB  (Tonal +5dB)                        Lamax:52.0dB (Tonal +5dB)	40dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La10:               45dB   50dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La1:                 55dB   55dB + influencing factor (5dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   Lamax:            60dB	-0.4dB                   -7.9dB           -8dB
6	La10:52.7dB  (Tonal +5dB)                                       La1:53.1dB  (Tonal +5dB)                                 Lamax:57.1dB (Tonal +5dB)	40dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas) La10:               49dB   50dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   La1:                 59dB   55dB + influencing factor (9dB for proximity to main roads and commercial/industrial areas)   Lamax:            64dB	3.7dB (over assigned levels)               -5.9dB           -6.9dB	·      On McDermott Road (closed road), Darch @ 9:00pm. ·      Noise readings recorded over the assigned levels for La10 were due to traffic on the main roads.
8	La10:53.2dB               La1:57.3dB               Lamax:57.7dB	La10:               60dB (No influencing factor)   La1:                 75dB (No influencing factor)   Lamax:            80dB (No influencing factor)	-6.8dB   -17.7dB   -22.3dB	·      Taken from from verge of 19 Furniss Road, Darch between residential and Meneghellos' @ 9:56pm ·      All recordings had significant noise contributed by general road traffic from Hartman Dr and Furniss Rd, hooning, dogs, crickets and human voices ·      Due to the level of background noise, whilst some noise from the industrial area can be detected, it could not be deemed to be "significantly contributing to the noise levels received.

 

Summary of Data

Analysis of the above data indicates that noise levels both during daytime and night are mostly compliant.  One night time reading (Job 2a) was 0.3dB over the assigned level, however this would not normally warrant any further action as it's not a significant breach. Another reading (Job 6) was over the assigned levels, however this reading was taken with an operator and it was noted that during the recording that traffic noise was the reason for the levels being over the assigned levels. Traffic noise is exempt under the Regulations.

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              2323V04 – 14/92157

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider nine applications for an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs.

 

Background

Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 (Amendment 2008 GG 508) stipulates:

 

“A person shall not keep or permit to be kept on any premises more than:

 

a)      2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age; or

 

b)      6 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age if the premises are situated on a lot having an area of 4 hectares or more,

 

unless the premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or have been granted exemption pursuant to section 26(3) of the Dog Act and have planning approval under the town planning scheme.”

Detail

Nine applications have been made under the Dog Act 1976 and are submitted for consideration. Each application has been assessed against the City's Application to Keep More than Two Dogs Guidelines and Scoresheet.

 

As part of the assessment process, Rangers have inspected all of the properties to ensure means exist on the premises at which the dogs will ordinarily be kept for effectively confining the dogs within the premises.

Consultation

Where applications have been received by the City to keep more than two dogs, residents immediately abutting the applicant’s property are consulted by letter to determine if they object to their neighbour keeping more than the prescribed number of dogs.

Comment

In considering these applications for exemption, the following two options are available:

 

a)      Council may grant an exemption pursuant to Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 subject to conditions; or

 

b)      Council may refuse permission to keep more than two dogs.

 

 

 

 

 

Application One: 1 Kilto Pass, Tapping

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female fawn Chihuahua - unsterilised 2.       Female fawn Chihuahua - sterilised 3.       Male fawn Chihuahua - unsterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 622m2
Objections:	Nil (two neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 1 Kilto Pass, Tapping. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she would like to own a male stud dog as she is a registered breeder of Chihuahua's with Dogs West.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in a dog box at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the amount of dogs at this property. Administration received paperwork from the applicant in relation to this application a week after the original complaint.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Two: 4 Ferry Way, Quinns Rocks

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female white & black Poodle X - unsterilised 2.       Female grey Bull Terrier X - unsterilised 3.       Female white & cream Chihuahua X - unsterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 540m2
Objections:	One (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 4 Ferry Way, Quinns Rocks. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as her third dog is an inside lap dog that has a disability.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep inside and outside at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding excessive noise and excessive smells/odours made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claims.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the amount of dogs at this property. Administration received paperwork from the applicant in relation to this application soon after the original complaint.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

 

 

Application Three: 18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Male black & tan Kelpie X - sterilised 2.       Male white & tan Australian Terrier X - unsterilised 3.       Male brindle Kelpie X - unsterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 700m2
Objections:	One (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as he lives near a major arterial road and feels safer having an agile dog that can alert him to any strangers attempting to enter his yard.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the shed or under the patio at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking, yapping and other unspecified nuisances made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claims.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Four: 8 Tarra Close, Clarkson

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Male black German Shepherd - sterilised 2.       Female sable German Shepherd - sterilised 3.       Female sable German Shepherd - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 638m2
Objections:	One (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 8 Tarra Close, Clarkson. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as they have purchased a property within the City of Wanneroo and have previously had permission from City of Joondalup to keep more than two dogs at their last address.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking and other unspecified nuisances made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

 

 

Application Five: 3 Atala Place, Marangaroo

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Male black & white Border Collie - sterilised 2.       Female black & white Border Collie - sterilised 3.       Male white Shih Tzu / Poodle X - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 682m2
Objections:	Nil (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 3 Atala Place, Marangaroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she is now caring for her mother's small dog since she passed away.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the amount dogs at this property. Administration received paperwork from the applicant in relation to this application soon after the original complaint.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Six: 39 Donnelly Ramble, Wanneroo

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female tri colour Terrier X - sterilised 2.       Female fawn Chihuahua - sterilised 3.       Female fawn & white Chihuahua - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 565m2
Objections:	One (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 39 Donnelly Ramble, Wanneroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as they purchased the youngest Chihuahua after they had to euthanize their Dachshund due to an inoperable spinal condition.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking and yapping made by the dogs on the property.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the alleged barking emanating from the dogs at this property. The complaint was finalised in August 2013 after administration were advised by the complainant that the barking had reduced significantly.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

 

 

Application Seven: 1 Sawtooth Bend, Banksia Grove

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female white & tan Jack Russell - unsterilised 2.       Male white & tan Jack Russell - sterilised 3.       Female tri colour Chihuahua - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 310m2
Objections:	Nil (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 1 Sawtooth Bend, Banksia Grove. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as due to ill health she has had to move in with a relative.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep in the house at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Eight: 17 Cornhill Crescent, Alexander Heights

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female white Highland Terrier - sterilised 2.       Female white Highland Terrier - sterilised 3.       Female black Terrier X - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 710m2
Objections:	Nil (three neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 17 Cornhill Crescent, Alexander Heights. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as her father recently passed away and she has inherited his 11 year old dog.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Nine: 19 Greenhaven Glade, Carramar

 

Description of Dogs:	1.       Female red Boxer - sterilised 2.       Male red Boxer - unsterilised 3.       Female red Boxer - unsterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Special Rural / 22031m2
Objections:	One (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 19 Greenhaven Glade, Carramar. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she purchased a brother and sister from a litter to keep her original dog company.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep in outside kennels at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking, whining, yapping, excessive smells/odours and other unspecified nuisances made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claims.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to a minor dog attack by one of the dogs at this property. The attack occurred when all of the dogs at this address escaped the property through a hole in the fence. One of the dogs subsequently bit the victim on her ankle causing a pin prick wound that was treated by first aid on site. The City is in the process of finalising the investigation into the attack at which time it is likely the owner will receive a written caution. The victim of the attack was consulted with regard to the application to keep more than two dogs and did not object to the application.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

Statutory Compliance

The exemptions sought to Council’s Animals Local Law 1999 are permissible under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       GRANTS an exemption under the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs at the following properties:

1 Kilto Pass, Tapping;

4 Ferry Way, Quinns Rocks;

18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo;

8 Tarra Close, Clarkson;

3 Atala Place, Marangaroo;

39 Donnelly Ramble, Wanneroo;

1 Sawtooth Bend, Banksia Grove;

17 Cornhill Crescent, Alexander Heights; and

19 Greenhaven Glade, Carramar

2.       ADVISES that the exemption relating to the nine properties in Recommendation    1 are subject to the following specified conditions:

a)      If any one of the dogs die or is no longer kept on the property, no replacement is to be obtained;

b)      Any barking by the subject dogs is to be kept to a minimum;

c)      This exemption may be varied or revoked if any complaints are received which are considered reasonable; and

d)      Any and all unregistered dogs are to be registered with the City of Wanneroo within 14 days;

3.       ADVISES all adjoining neighbours of these decisions in relation to all the properties listed in the above recommendations.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Property

File Ref:                                              8643V02 – 14/85529

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider a revised concept design for proposed duplex accommodation chalets/units at the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park, Mindarie.

 

Background

Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 5 February 2013 considered various concept design options and locations for the installation of 11 one bedroom, one bathroom accommodation units at the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park (CB01-12/12 refers) and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:-

1.   NOTES the assessment carried out on the existing caravans and mobile homes/cabins and the inability to move or relocate those structures to new sites within the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park;

2.   ENDORSES Option No1 (Attachment 2 – refers), as the preferred relocation site for the development of the transportable pre-fabricated accommodation units;

3.   ENDORSES the concept design for the typical pre-fabricated accommodation unit;

4.   NOTES that the plans in recommendation 2 and 3 above, will form the basis of an application for development approval to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

5.   INSTRUCTS Administration to list $900,000 ex GST in the 10-Year Infrastructure Capital Works Programme for 2013/2014."

 

An application was subsequently lodged with the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and approved, with conditions, in August 2013.  Copies of the original plans are attached (Attachments 1 and 2 refer).

Detail

In December 2013 Council accepted a Tender for the provision of consultancy services for the installation of the accommodation units, road and services.  The consultant has suggested a more suitable and aesthetically pleasing concept design to install duplex units rather than the original concept of 11 single units (Attachments 3 and 4 refer).  This design only depicts 4 duplex units, however, a new development application will be submitted to WAPC that will provide a concept design and layout for up to 5 duplex units, with any number of units to be decided by Council in future.

 

It is noted that multiple WAPC approvals can coexist and if approval is granted Council may proceed to develop any number of units up to the maximum, or not to proceed with the development at all.

 

Approval from Council is sought for Administration to pursue the alternate design.

Consultation

This matter was referred to the Council Forum of 18 March 2014 for discussion.

Comment

The submission of the new development application will not prejudice Council's options or decisions on whether or how to proceed with any development on the site.

Statutory Compliance

WAPC approval will be sought for the proposed revised development.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The City's 10 Year Capital Works Budget for 2013/14 includes approximately $1.2 million under PR-1010 for the redevelopment of the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the alternate concept design plans for the duplex chalets/units at the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park (included as Attachments 3 and 4 in lieu of the plans endorsed on 5 February 2013); and

2.       NOTES the concept plans contained in Attachments 3 & 4 will be submitted  (on a without prejudice basis) to the Western Australian Planning Commission for development approval up to 5 duplex chalets/units at the Quinns Rocks Caravan Park.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Original concept layout depicting 11 single units.	13/7276
2View.	Initial design concept for accommodation unit	13/6817
3View.	New Duplex Chalet layout	14/85900	Minuted
4View.	Chalet Elevation Options	14/85919	Minuted

  

File Ref:                                              4606 – 14/91769

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a proposed new lease to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd (Crown Castle) over a portion of Lot 9008 (formerly Lot 9005 and Lot 17 Marmion Avenue, Tamala Park) (1K) Antares Street, Clarkson.

 

Background

The Cities of Stirling, Joondalup and Perth entered into a lease, which commenced 1 November 1998, over a portion of the then Lot 17 Marmion Avenue, Tamala Park (Attachment 1 refers), with Vodafone Network Pty Ltd (Vodafone) for use as a telecommunications base station.  The initial lease was for a five year term with the option for two further terms of five years each.

 

Due to past subdivisions to create the 'Catalina' estate, there have been several lot number changes to the land on which the leased area sits which is now a portion of Lot 9008.

 

In addition to the lot number changes that have occurred to the land since the lease commenced, there have been several other changes to the lease.  These changes, which have been presented to Council for approval on each occasion during the course of the lease, have taken several forms, such as an assignment of the lease from Vodafone to the current lessee (Crown Castle), deed of variations and changes associated with the ownership of the land.

 

In 2001, the City of Perth’s original interest in the land was divided equally between the City of Perth, the Town of Cambridge, the Town of Victoria Park and the City of Vincent.  The City of Joondalup divided into two separate councils to form the City of Joondalup and the now City of Wanneroo.  Currently, there are seven owners (Owner Councils) of Lot 9008 who own the land as tenants in common, each with its own allotment of shares, as shown in the following table:-

 

Local Government	Portion of Ownership of Lot 9008
City of Stirling	4/12
City of Joondalup	2/12
City of Wanneroo	2/12
City of Perth	1/12
City of Vincent	1/12
Town of Cambridge	1/12
Town of Victoria Park	1/12

 

Crown Castle owns the telecommunications tower on the leased site and has confirmed there are three telecommunication carriers on the site which have low impact equipment installed on and at the base of the tower.

 

The Owner Councils currently receive an aggregate annual rent from Crown Castle of $54,296.49, distributed to each local government in accordance with their respective ownership allotment as shown in the above table.

 

Both five year option terms referred to earlier were exercised which meant the lease expired on 31 October 2013.  The lease, however, contains a six month holdover provision which requires consent from the Owner Councils as the Lessor.  To allow time for the essential terms of a proposed new lease be negotiated, the Owner Councils agreed that the six month holdover provision in the lease should be implemented.  A report was presented to Council at its meeting on 17 September 2013 (CB04-09/13 refers), and Council resolved the following:-

 

"That Council AGREES to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd remaining in occupancy of portion of Lot 9005 Marmion Avenue, Tamala Park as a six monthly tenant under the terms of clause 6.2 of the lease which expires on 31 October 2013, subject to the agreement of the City of Stirling, City of Joondalup, City of Perth, City of Vincent, Town of Cambridge and Town of Victoria Park."

 

The six month holdover term expires on 30 April 2014.

Detail

In addition to the proposed lease that is the subject of this report, there is an area of approximately 30m² immediately adjacent to the south west corner of the proposed lease area (Attachment 1 refers) which was previously occupied by Hutchison Telecommunications (Hutchison), a telecommunications carrier.  There has never been a lease arrangement over this area and Crown Castle has advised that Hutchison has ceased its operations Australia wide.  Hutchison is currently in the process of removing its entire infrastructure from the site and Crown Castle will be responsible for re-instating the fence line along the proposed lease area boundary which depicts the current and proposed lease area of 150m².  Crown Castle will notify the City once the fence line has been re-instated.

 

As part of the negotiation over a proposed new lease, Administration sought a market valuation for the rent from licenced valuer Burgess Rawson for the 150m² area currently occupied by Crown Castle.  The recommended rent is $60,000 per annum based on Crown Castle's current circumstances.

 

The Owner Councils agreed on the following essential terms (which were presented to Crown Castle on 19 December 2013), subject to Council approval from each of the seven owners:-

 

Term:	Five (5) years with one five (5) year option
Rent:	$60,000.00 plus GST
Rent Review:	Rent to be increased by 5% annually
Further Rent Review:	Rent to be reviewed after the initial term of 5 years
Commencement Date:	1 May 2014

 

In addition to the above essential terms, the proposed new lease will incorporate special conditions to ensure the telecommunications tower does not impact any future subdivisions in the 'Catalina' estate as follows:-

 

1)   A provision included so that there is an option for the City to relocate Crown Castle if necessary by providing 12 months written notice.

2)   Restrictions on the maximum height for the tower (most likely this will be the height of the tower currently).

3)   Crown Castle will be responsible, under the Telecommunications Act, for verifying that modifications that are classed as low impact are indeed that.

 

 

 

Crown Castle initially challenged the proposed $60,000 rent and sought its own valuation from McGees Property.  McGees Property's valuation recommended an annual rent of $45,000.  The Owner Councils rejected the rent proposed by McGees Property on the basis that it is lower than the agreed rent.  Crown Castle and the Owner Councils have reached an agreed position on a new proposed lease with Crown Castle recently providing the Owner Councils with in principle approval to the above essential terms, including the $60,000 rental amount, subject to final delegated authority from its board.

 

Should Council approve the proposed new lease, the City (on behalf of the Owner Councils) will be required to advertise the proposed disposition in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Consultation

Administration, in consultation with the officers of the other six owner Councils, agreed to the essential terms of the proposed new lease as detailed earlier in this report, subject to approval from each Council.

Comment

Administration, together with the other six owner Councils, supports the proposed new lease to Crown Castle.

 

Each of the seven owners will revert to their respective councils for approval to the proposed lease.

Statutory Compliance

Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 states that a local government can dispose of property (including leasing) other than by public tender or auction if, before agreeing to dispose of the property:-

          “(a)    it gives a local public notice of the proposed disposition –

                   (i)      describing the property concerned; and

                   (ii)     giving details of the proposed disposition; and

                   (iii)     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.”

 

Section 3.58(4) provides what details are required under (a)(ii) above:-

          “(a)    the names of all other parties concerned; and

           (b)    the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

           (c)    the market value of the disposition as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition.”

 

Given that the proposed lease is not considered an exempt disposition for the purposes of Section 3.58 a local public notice is required.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 

 

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.4    Smart Communities - Our community and businesses have access to the right information, education and technology they need to be successful.”

Policy Implications

In accordance with the City's Tenancy Policy, this lease is considered 'commercial' and the terms are therefore by negotiation.

Financial Implications

The proposed rent of $60,000.00 per annum (plus GST), in aggregate, will be distributed to each of the seven owners in proportion with each local government’s portion of ownership.  The City's portion will therefore be $10,000.00 plus GST for the first year of the term of the lease.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       AGREES in principle to the leasing of the site currently occupied by Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd to Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd on a commercial basis for a term of five (5) years commencing 1 May 2014, with an option to renew for a further term of five (5) years, subject to the requirements of Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 and the approval from the City of Joondalup, City of Perth, City of Stirling, Town of Victoria Park, City of Vincent and Town of Cambridge;

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to publish a local public notice of its intention to enter into the Lease as per 1 above;

3.       In the event there are no submissions, NOTES the Chief Executive Officer, under delegated authority, can approve the lease; and

4.       NOTES that if any submissions or comments are received, a further report will be presented to Council for consideration.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Crown Castle Australia Pty Ltd - Proposed Lease Area

14/97935

  

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                              1859 – 14/93089

Responsible Officer:                           Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Council approval to write-off outstanding sundry debtor accounts from Commercial Waste, totalling $20,663.05 that the City has vigorously pursued and unfortunately been unable to collect. 

 

Background

Administration has undertaken a review of outstanding debts and the debts for Commercial Waste, as detailed on the Doubtful Debts Schedule are unable to be collected by the City.  This has resulted in creation of this report to council as the items are above the amounts stipulated under the Delegated Authority Register officers can authorise to be written off.

Detail

Administration have revisited / re-investigated all the companies listed below and made every effort to recoup these monies from the debtors listed but to no avail. Accounts have advised that they have followed the City's due process to recoup all debts through the City's recovery agent and now deem these accounts uncollectable.

 

Accordingly it is now considered appropriate to have the debts written off.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred between Administration teams to ensure all avenues have been pursued prior to this paper.

Comment

All avenues of debt recovery have been exhausted and there are no other alternatives available to the City to collect the monies owed. The City no longer provides any Commercial Waste Services to these customers.

 

Commercial/Industrial Waste is defined as:

 

Consisting of waste from premises, used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade, business or industrial activity but not including household or agricultural waste.

 

In addition, where the debt recovery process is unsuccessful, this is defined in general as:

(1)  Uneconomic to pursue any further (The City would expend funds in excess of the debt owed).

(2)  Change of ownership.

(3)  Unable to trace debtor.

(4)  Debtor deceased.

(5)  Other mitigating factors.

Statutory Compliance

“Section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides that:-

          (1)          Subject to subsection (2) and any other written law, a local government may –

                        (a)       when adopting the annual budget, grant* a discount or other incentive for the early payment of any amount of money;

                        (b)       waive or grant concessions in relation to any amount of money; or

                        (c)       write off any amount of money.

                        which is owed to the Local Government.

                        * Absolute majority required.”

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “4     Civic Leadership - Working with others to ensure the best use of our resources.

4.3    A Strong and Progressive Organisation - You will recognise the hard work and professionalism delivered by your council through your interactions and how our community is developing.”

Policy Implications

This is aligned with the City's Accounting Policy.

Financial Implications

The debts are provided for within the Provision for Doubtful Debts and as a result the operating position of the City will not be affected.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council pursuant to Section 6.12(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 WRITES OFF BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the outstanding amount of $20,663.05 for sundry debtors, as detailed below:

 

Name	Amount	Consultation	Comments	Last Invoice
Club XS	$3,515.74	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	11/2011
Red Turban Indian	$1,977.67	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Changed Owners Unable to Locate Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	10/2011
Malaga Cabinets	$2,351.63	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	2/2012
Saigon by Night	$1,581.21	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Changed Owners Unable to Locate Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	10/2011
Old Bailey Tavern	$1,515.37	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Over Billed in error, amount is still outstanding. Finished Early Oct 2010	12/2010
Little Italy	$1,383.10	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Changed Owners Unable to Locate Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	2/2012
West Coast Lattice	$1,167.20	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	10/2011
Homecraft Cabinets	$1,164.70	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	12/2011
Wedgewood Nominees	$800.76	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	3/2009
John Cleary Dance	$795.36	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	2/2010
Top Form Postformers	$688.36	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	4/2012
Ms Sheryl L Smith T/A The Print Shed	$658.21	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	2/2012
Healthy Tempations	$641.51	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	4/2012
TLN Fruit and Veg	$552.95	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	12/2012
Maha Liep	$552.34	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Changed Owners Unable to Locate Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	4/2013
Saigon Bida	$519.14	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Changed Owners Unable to Locate Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	4/2013
Cuzzie Customs	$797.80	Commercial Waste Manager Waste Finance	Business Closed by police - Unable to Locate Owner Debt Recovery Process Unsuccessful	5/2013
TOTAL	$20,663.05

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Projects

File Ref:                                              10943 – 14/98342

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider an amendment to the approved 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget Pathways Program and associated budget variation.

 

Background

Following detailed design and cost estimates for the installation of the Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from entrance to Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley (PR-2574), and the Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley (PR-2594) projects, issues have arisen that were not identified/costed within the originally budgeted scope of works. In addition a third project, that being the proposed Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood (PR-2593), is recommended to be deleted.

 

The City's 2013/2014 Capital Works Program includes these three fully municipally funded projects, with approved funding as identified below:

 

Project	Description	Approved Budget
PR-2574	Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley	$32,000
PR-2594	Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley	$50,000
PR-2593	Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood	$50,000
Totals		$132,000

 

Detailed design along with a review of the required funding to complete the revised scope of works for PR-2574 and PR-2594 has been completed – for design detail refer Attachment 1 (PR-2574) and Attachment 2 (PR-2594).

 

This report considers the deletion of one project and the shortfall in funding to complete revised scope of works associated with the proposed implementation of two other pathway projects identified in the table above, and seeks reallocation of funds within the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget to accommodate the additional funding requirements.

Detail

The works identified through detailed design and subsequent cost estimates in addition to the original scope of works for each of the two pathway projects is as follows:

 

1.   Hartman Drive, Madeley – dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway:

-     A swale needs to be created to channel/control stormwater runoff and prevent erosion.

-     Earthworks required to construct DUP on ultimate level and alignment for second carriageway.

-     Revised construction cost estimate equates to $52,714, an increase in budget sought amounting to $23,000 (includes $2,000 contingency).

 

2.   Hartman Drive, Madeley - pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road:

-     Relocation of pedestrian crossing 90m north of Russell Road.

-     Road widening on east side of Hartman Drive to accommodate the pedestrian crossing median island.

-     An additional length of concrete pathway is required to link the pathway network to new crossing location.

-     Revised construction cost estimate equates to $73,899, an increase in budget sought amounting to $27,000 (includes $3,000 contingency).

 

The deletion of the Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue project is promoted on the basis that the construction of the second carriageway of Connolly Drive between Hester Avenue and Lukin Drive, Merriwa is currently a recommended project in the draft Metropolitan Regional Road Grant (MRRG) Road Improvement Program. Any pedestrian crossings constructed now would need to be fully reconstructed when the dual carriageway is implemented. This road project is listed in the draft 10 Year Road Capital Works Program with survey, design and documentation scheduled for 2014/2015 and construction to follow in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017.The inclusion of pathway connections and pedestrian crossings will be incorporated into the dual carriageway road project.

 

Both pathway projects in Hartman Drive are priority projects in the 2013/2014 Capital Works budget and therefore the budget variation to utilise $50,000 from the Connolly Drive project is recommended.

Consultation

No consultation was undertaken in the preparation of this report.

Comment

The increase in scope of work identified in relation to the construction of the two Hartman Drive projects is considered essential to achieve satisfactory levels of service for both pedestrian functionality and safety in the area.

 

The additional funding required to complete these projects is recommended to be sourced from the deletion of Connolly Drive project for which a total of $50,000 in municipal funding was approved by Council as part of the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget. This project has not progressed as it would be sacrificial given the City's grant funding submission for the construction of the second carriageway of Connolly Drive is expected to be approved as part of State Government's MRRG Road Improvement Program, with construction scheduled to commence in 2015/2016.

Statutory Compliance

Budget variation is in compliance with Part 6 – Financial Management of Local Government Act and Part 2 – General Financial Management of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The estimated additional proposed cost to construct the two pathway projects can be accommodated by reallocating funds through the deletion of Connolly Drive project as summarised below.

 

 

Project	Description	Municipal Funding Available Though Project Deletion	Municipal Funding Required
PR-2574	Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley		$23,000
PR-2594	Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley		$27,000
PR-2593	Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood	$50,000
Totals		$50,000	$50,000

 

Voting Requirements

 

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       AGREES to continue with the construction of the Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley (PR-2574), and the Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley (PR-2594) pathway projects, noting that budget increases in order to complete works for each project are required;

2.       APPROVES the deletion of Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood (PR-2593) pathway project from the 2013/2014 Capital Works Budget on the basis that all pathway connections and pedestrian crossings will be constructed as part of the proposed Connolly Drive dual carriageway project; and

 

3.       NOTES the following budget variation to accommodate the shortfall in funding for the construction of the Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley (PR-2574), and the Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley (PR-2594) pathway projects as follows:

Project No	From	To	Description
PR-2574		$23,000	Hartman Drive dual-use pathway west side from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex entrance to Kingsway, Madeley
PR-2594		$27,000	Hartman Drive pedestrian crossing and dual-use pathway near Russell Road, Madeley
PR-2593	$50,000		Connolly Drive pedestrian crossing at Hinchinbrook Avenue, Ridgewood
	$50,000	$50,000

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Design Detail	14/102165
2View.	Attachment 2 - Design Detail	14/102167

  

 

 

Traffic Management

File Ref:                                              5597 – 13/180547

Responsible Officer:                           A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the implementation of parking prohibitions along Paramount Drive, Wangara.

 

Background

The City has received a number of requests from business operators on Paramount Drive, Wangara concerned about road safety and parking congestion.

Detail

Paramount Drive is classified as a local distributor road in the City's Functional Road Hierarchy and connects the industrial area of east Wangara to the arterial road network. It connects between Hartman Drive in the west and Motivation Drive in the east.

 

Some of the businesses operating on Paramount Drive are not meeting their parking demand on-site with staff and customer parking demand spilling onto the street, impacting on road safety and access for adjacent businesses.  This uncontrolled kerbside and verge parking is creating an unsafe, narrower road environment that restricts commercial vehicle access.  At times, crossovers are partially obstructed making it difficult for articulated trucks to enter and exit properties. There are instances where large delivery vehicles are forced to unload/load their deliveries in the street. This not only causes disruption to passing traffic, but places the dispatchers at a higher risk.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan.

Consultation

To ascertain the level of support for the proposed parking prohibition plan, a survey letter (Attachment 2 refers) was sent out on 12 September 2013 to the 92 affected owners and business operators of properties abutting Paramount Drive with the final reply date of 7 October 2013.  The proposed parking prohibition plan shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-0 (Attachment 3 refers) was included with the survey letter.

 

In summary, of the 45 responses received (Attachment 4 refers):

 

·    24 are in favour

·    Three considered the proposal unnecessary;

·    Three others requested that the frontage of their properties not be included in the parking prohibitions;

·    Four are of the opinion that there should be no parking on either side of Paramount Drive;

·    Two suggested that the 2 hour parking limit be extended;

·    One suggested the extension of the parking prohibition to Triumph Avenue; and,

·    One requested provision for on-road deliveries; and

·    Seven did not respond in clear terms.

Comment

Given the results received from the Community Consultation, the majority of respondents concur that parking controls are necessary and there is general agreement with the proposal shown on Drawing No. 2855-1-0 (Attachment 2 refers) for the limiting of parking to two hours on the north side of the road and no stopping anytime on the south side of Paramount Drive.

 

As part of the community consultation survey, respondents were asked whether they wanted the nature strip in front of their property included in the prohibitions. When considering these responses Administration was mindful that for conformity it was not practical to agree to requests unless there were a number of adjacent properties with the same request.  One road section where there are a high number of requests for verge protection is between 33 Paramount Drive and Achievement Way.  Where a verge is not protected explicitly by parking prohibition signage Clause 58 (2) of the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law can be used to provide protection:

"A person not being the occupier of the land abutting on to a nature strip, shall not, without the consent of that occupier, drive, park or stop a vehicle upon that nature strip."

Administration agreed with the sightline concerns raised by businesses on the north side of Paramount Drive, where the road curves, and consequently it is proposed to move the 2 hour parking zone to the south side of the road between 30 Paramount Drive and Leadership Way while the north side of the road and nature strip, between 33 Paramount Drive and Achievement Way, has been designed a "No Standing" zone.

 

A mix of responses was received from the unit holders operating from 4 Achievement Way and 8 Paramount Drive, located at the roundabout at the western end of Paramount Drive. These units generate a high parking demand and to meet the parking needs of some of these businesses, the proposed parking prohibitions have been amended to allow parking on the verge.

 

In response to the request for provision for on-road deliveries, a Loading Zone has been added adjacent to 62/66 Paramount Drive.

 

Administration agrees that implementation of parking prohibitions is likely to move some of the parking demand onto adjacent streets and has extended the proposed parking restrictions 10m down the west side and 70m down the east side of Triumph Avenue. There are some existing bollards on the verge along the 70m section on the west side of Triumph Avenue. Therefore, the extension of parking restrictions along Triumph Avenue is expected to have no adverse effect on the adjoining properties.

 

In response to the objection from 71 Paramount Drive and the lack of response from 107 Motivation Drive, Administration considers that the parking controls on the north side of Paramount Drive, between Achievement Way and Motivation Drive, be removed.

 

Administration does not support the request to extend the 2 hour time limit. In line with the Estate Covenant covering these properties, Administration considers that in general, all businesses should cater for customers and staff parking on site and that kerb side parking should only be necessary in exceptional circumstances.

 

The amended parking prohibition plan for Paramount Drive is shown as Attachment 5.

 

The intent of the parking prohibitions along Paramount Drive is to improve safety for all road users using Paramount Drive, by ensuring an adequate width clearance of the thoroughfare and eliminating blind spots and vehicle obstructions to the crossovers. 

 

It should be noted that the proposed parking prohibitions will add an additional work commitment for the City's Parking Compliance Officers and as a consequence, will only be able to be enforced on an infrequent basis.

 

Anecdotally, the rise in vehicles parking on road verges and nature strips in Wangara can be attributed to any one or more of the following factors:

 

·    Development applications being approved by the City with variations to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) car parking requirements;

·    Potentially conservative car parking requirements under DPS 2;

·    Change or intensification of land uses over time, whereby established developments are occupied with different or more intensive land uses than originally approved, resulting in greater employment numbers and demand for car parking on site; and

·    The success of many established businesses in Wangara, which have grown in situ from small to medium or large enterprises over a number of years and now employ more staff and experience greater customer demand for parking than might have previously been the case. Whilst this is positive in economic development terms, the lack of suitable alternative sites for these businesses to relocate to and grow merely compounds the intensification of development and employment in Wangara.

 

In view of the above, it may be worthwhile for the City to conduct a more strategic appraisal of the parking trends, influences, demands and needs of the Wangara business community, to identify longer term options and solutions for managing the current parking problems affecting some parts of Wangara, rather than continuing to deal with individual requests or proposals for parking prohibitions. To this end, Administration recommends that Council give consideration to including an Action to carry out a 'Wangara Strategic Parking Review' in either the current or future Corporate Business Plan.

 

If Council agrees to include this Action in the current Corporate Business Plan, then it would need to be at the expense of another action/project(s) and may also need to be supported by additional budgetary or staffing resources. Any such Strategic Parking Review would fall within the portfolio responsibility of the Planning and Sustainability Directorate.

Statutory Compliance

The installation of parking signage will allow the enforcement of Clause 38 and 39 of the City's Parking and Facilities Local Law 2003 (as amended).

 

Control of parking on the nature strip in front of each property can be provided explicitly by parking prohibition signage or by Clause 58 (2) of the City's Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law:

 

"A person not being the occupier of the land abutting on to a nature strip, shall not, without the consent of that occupier, drive, park or stop a vehicle upon that nature strip."

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.3    Easy to Get Around - The community is well connected and accessible with an integrated transport approach for all.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The provision of parking prohibitions incurs not only the initial cost of materials and installation of the signs but also the ongoing cost of maintenance due to vandalism and graffiti. The estimated cost of materials and labour to implement these parking prohibitions is $6,500 which can be funded from the $15,000 currently allocated in PR-2657, Parking Scheme Signage and Line Marking for 2013/2014.

 

It is noted that the enforcement of parking prohibitions over an increasing number of sites across the City’s jurisdiction will also impact on the resource availability of the City’s Parking Compliance Officers to enforce all such prohibitions throughout the City.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING” (R5-35) signs on the northeast corner of the Paramount Drive/Achievement Way/Challenger Boulevard roundabout, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

2.       APPROVES the installation of “2P” (R5-2) signs on the northern side of Paramount Drive, from the Paramount Drive/Achievement Way/Challenger Boulevard roundabout to 33 Paramount Drive, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

3.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” (R5-36) signs on the northern side of Paramount Drive, from 33 Paramount Drive to the northwest corner of the Paramount Drive/Achievement Way intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

4.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” (R5-36) signs on the northeast corner of the Paramount Drive/Achievement Way intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

5.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” (R5-36) signs on the northwest corner of the Paramount Drive/Motivation Drive intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

 

6.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING” (R5-35) signs on the east side of Challenger Boulevard and the south side of Paramount Drive, between Challenger Boulevard and Triumph Avenue, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

7.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” (R5-36) signs on the southeast corner of the Paramount Drive/Triumph Avenue intersection and south along the eastern side of Triumph Avenue for the length of 22 Paramount Drive, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

8.       APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING” (R5-35) signs along the southern side of Paramount Drive, between Triumph Avenue and 30 Paramount Drive, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

9.       NOTES that "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” parking prohibitions already exist on both the southwest and southeast corners of the Paramount Drive/Leadership Way intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

10.     APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING" (R5-35) signs along the southern side of Paramount Drive, between Leadership Way and Motivation Drive, as shown on the City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

11.     APPROVES the installation of "NO STOPPING, ROAD OR NATURE STRIP” (R5-36) signs at the southwest corner of the Paramount Drive/Motivation Drive  intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

12.     APPROVES the installation of “LOADING ZONE” (R5-23) signs on the southern side of Paramount Drive adjacent to 62/66 Paramount Drive, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

13.     APPROVES the installation of “2P” (R5-2) signs on the southern side of Paramount Drive, from 30 Paramount Drive to  Leadership Way/Paramount Drive intersection, as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2855-1-1 (Attachment 5 refers);

14.     ADVISES the owners and business operators along Paramount Drive of Council's decision; and

15.     LISTS for consideration an action to carry out a Wangara Strategic Parking Review in the City's Draft 2014 – 2018 Corporate Business Plan.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Location map of Paramount drive, Wangara	13/187397
2View.	Survey letter - Parking Prohibitions - Paramount Drive, Wangara	14/88433
3View.	2855-1-0 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Paramount Drive, Wangara	13/187121
4View.	Community Consultation Survey Results - Parking Prohibitions - Paramount Drive, Wangara	14/88988
5View.	Paramount Drive, Wangara - Amended Parking Prohibition Plan for Council Endorsement	14/91704	Minuted

  

 

 

 

  

 

Community Development

Capacity Building

File Ref:                                              2308 – 14/101181

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider a waiver of Fees to provide additional facility hire support to the North Coastal Women's Shed from 1 July to 19 December 2014 as the group strives to develop and maintain sustainability from 2015 onwards.

 

Background

The North Coastal Women's Shed (NCWS) has developed from community discussions at the Open Space Forum Imagine Merriwa held at the Addison Park Club Rooms in Merriwa on Tuesday 19 November 2013. A women's shed was identified by the community as a way to create a space for women of all ages and backgrounds in Merriwa, surrounding areas and the North Coastal Corridor, to come together through activities and special community projects.  The NCWS is led by a committee comprising community members living in the City of Wanneroo. 

 

The City of Wanneroo and Department of Health have supported the group as it navigates to becoming an Incorporated Association.  The group plans to submit papers for incorporation in early May 2014 once the period of Notice of Incorporation is complete.  Until it achieves incorporation status, the NCWS is receiving short term support from the Yanchep Two Rocks Home Support Group as an auspicing body for fundraising purposes and the public liability insurance required for fundraising activities.  In addition, the NCWS has established a facebook page with 135 'friends' from across the far northern suburbs. 

Detail

Administration has been supporting the NCWS in its establishment and in finding a venue to meet.  Raising funds for venue hire and other outlays will take time, however, the North Coastal Women's Shed recognises a need to commence providing opportunities for its members to gather and participate in activities.  Tuesday 29 April 2014 has been nominated by the group for a soft opening at Addison Park Club Rooms in Merriwa.  Venue hire for this activity is being met through a contribution to the NCWS from the Department of Health.

 

Following this launch, the NCWS wishes to continue meeting from 8am to 4pm, starting with one day per week, with an option for increasing to two and possibly three days per week over the period 1 July to 19 December 2014. 

 

The following arrangement for payment of venue hire costs for the July to December 2014 period has been requested by the NCWS: 

 

1^st day/week booked                                          100% of fee waived

2^nd day/week booked                                         50% of fee waived

3^rd or subsequent day/week booked                  0% of fee waived

 

The cost to Council through loss of income for this request from the NCWS is:

 

1^st day/week        maximum $4,940 during the period 1 July to 19 December 2014

2^nd day/week       maximum $2,470 during the period 1 July to 19 December 2014

 

The NCWS does not qualify for fully subsidised use of City facilities under the terms of the City of Wanneroo Facility Hire and Use Policy.  Until the NCWS receives its incorporated status as well as Australian Tax Office charitable and not-for-profit status and has its own public liability insurance, it will not qualify for 50% subsidised use under the Facility Hire and Use Policy or a 50% waiver of fees under the terms of the Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy. 

Consultation

Administration has met regularly with representatives from the North Coastal Women's Shed and continues to provide advice and support to assist with the establishment and sustainability of the group.

Comment

The City recognises the value of this important community led initiative.  Supporting this initiative mirrors, and is consistent with, the support provided during the establishment of the Wanneroo Men's Shed.

 

The establishment of the North Coastal Women's Shed will address important community issues including improving family community health, supporting vulnerable families and providing a space for new friendships and links for women who experience isolation and disengagement. 

 

Support for venue hire costs as requested by the group could provide an opportunity for the NCWS to establish itself and undertake planning to fully meet its on-going operational costs. This request however, cannot currently be met under the terms of the Facility Hire and Use Policy or the Donations, Sponsorships and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy.  There is no capacity for Administration to waive these fees under delegation.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

 

2.2 Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.

 

The proposal also aligns with the following priorities within the City's Public Health Plan 2014/15 – 2016/17:

 

 

Priority Area 3:  Mental Health Promotion

 

Strategy 1:  Provide supportive social environments for positive mental health.

 

Strategy 2:  Strengthen Community Engagement by providing opportunities for participation in community activities.

Policy Implications

The City's Donations and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy does not support 100% waiver of fees.

 

The group does not currently meet the City's Facility Hire and Use Policy requirements for subsidised facility hire and use.

Financial Implications

The forgone income to Council as a result of waiving fees consistent with this request is $7,410 over the period 1 July to 19 December 2014. It is recommended that this waiver of fees is provided from Award Governance Donations Account 717143-1207-316.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES, as an exception to the City's Donations and Waiver of Fees and Charges Policy, a waiver of fees for use of the Addison Park Clubrooms by the North Coastal Women's Shed to a maximum value of $7,410, during the period 1 July to 19 December 2014 from Award Governance Donations Account 717143-1207-316.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Program Services

File Ref:                                              6520 – 14/83691

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider the proposed concept plan for the development of Cheltondale Park, Madeley.

 

Background

Cheltondale Park is located at 27 Cheltondale Drive, Madeley and is a 0.8ha undeveloped public open space.  The park is classified as a local park and currently has no existing amenities on site.

 

Other existing public open space within walkable catchment of the Park (400m – 800m, 5 minute to 10 minute walk) includes:

 

Park	Location	Use
Amstel Park	Lockeport Approach, Madeley	Newly developed passive park with a play combination unit, kick a-bout space, picnic shelters. Retention of 4.5ha bushland.
Wicklow Park	15 Blackheath Place, Darch	0.8ha public open space with seating
Belvoir Park	80 Belvoir Parkway, Darch	2ha open space with play equipment and shelters
Susan Park	60 Gnangara Road, Madeley	5ha Undeveloped park

Detail

The draft concept plan for the development of the Park is included within Attachment 1 and provided for the following elements:

 

·        Basket Swing;

·        Boardwalk;

·        Cable way;

·        Bin;

·        Path network

·        Picnic table; and

·        Limestone block seats

 

The draft concept plan incorporates water-wise design principles by using native planting, stabilised crushed limestone paths, retention of the remnant bushland and trees, while maintaining small areas of irrigated grass.  The design of the park has taken into consideration public open space provision within the surrounding area, noting the availability of both active and passive, irrigated and un-irrigated parks within the immediate area.

 

The design philosophy which underpins the concept plan is that of "nature play". The difference between nature play and conventional playgrounds is primarily in the type of materials used to create the play environment. Conventional playgrounds use 'off the shelf' prefabricated plastic modules, where as nature play spaces use raw materials such as rocks, sand, logs, trees and plants to create the play environment.

Nature play spaces offer play and learning value that differs from conventional playground design and provides play experiences which are open ended in terms of exploration, challenges and perceived risk. Most recently, the nature play design philosophy has been implemented at the Kingsway Regional Playground with great success.

 

The draft concept plan allows for the development of the park in a single stage, within the current available budget of $308,800 in the 2013/14 financial year.

Consultation

The community consultation period was conducted between 14 January and 8 February 2013 and included the following consultation strategy, as endorsed by Administration's Community Consultation Review Panel:

 

·        Distribution of the draft concept plan and public comment forms to residents and landowners within a 400 metre radius of Cheltondale Park; 

·        On site community meeting held on 30 January 2013 to allow interested members of the public to view and discuss the draft concept plan with the relevant City of Wanneroo staff members and;

·        Inclusion of the concept plan and comment form on the City's web site under the 'Your Say" section. 

 

Administration received a total of 122 comment forms from the 717 mailed out to residents; a response rate of 17%.  The comment form requested residents to consider the proposed features and rate these in order of preference from 1 to 10 with 1 being the most favoured and 10 being the least for proposed park amenities. 

 

There were 118 that supported the plan and only four submissions that did not want Cheltondale Park to be developed.  These respondents felt that the City should resolve the traffic issues surrounding Cheltondale Drive, and that as Amstel Park was being developed at the time, saw no reason for another park with the same equipment developed in the area. Thirteen forms were not included in the analysis for preference of park features as they were not numbered correctly or not numbered at all, however their comments were still considered.  Of the 118 comment forms that stated they would like the park developed, their comments were examined more closely and were divided into one of four categories. Of those:

 

·        43 respondents fully supported the plan with no changes to the design  (35.25%)

·        43 respondents supported the plan but with some minor changes          (35.25%)

·        32 respondents supported the plan but with significant changes and;               (26.22%)

·        04 respondents do not support the development of Cheltondale Park              (3.28%)

 

Key comments received at the onsite community consultation and on the comment forms were as follows:

 

·        To provide more play equipment, in particular for children of a younger age group;

·        Centralise the green space and playground;

·        To clear the vegetation and trees to make way for a larger kick-about space.

 

For a summary of the community consultation results, please see Attachment 2.

 

 

As a result of reviewing the outcomes of the consultation process, and the need to achieve greater consolidation within the concept plan, Infrastructure Projects advised of the requirement for the City to apply for a clearing permit from the State Department of Environment and Conservation and also potentially the Federal equivalent, depending on the level of clearing required.

Comment

To finalise the design for Cheltondale Park, Infrastructure Projects engaged GHD Pty Ltd to conduct tree and vegetation surveys.  The outcomes of this survey provided the detail included in the submission of an application for a clearing permit to the State Department of Environment and Conservation.  Based on the information submitted by the City's Environmental Assets Officer to support the application, a clearing permit was approved Attachment 3 on 27 February 2014 and the duration of the permit issued is from 29 March 2014 – 29 March 2019. The City's Landscape designers have developed the final concept plan Attachment 4 in order to satisfy the majority of residents comments while at the same time limiting the amount of clearing.

 

As a result of the above comments the final concept design Attachment 4 has been amended and now includes:

 

·        The provision of additional, more traditional, play equipment in place of a flying fox;

·        A consolidated turf area to a single 995m² area to the north west of the site;

·        The play equipment has been relocated from its original position to surround the main turf area of the park and;

·        Minimal clearing of the site which remains within the scope of the clearing permit.

 

The comments and outcomes presented in this report are a direct result of the information received during the community consultation process.

 

The proposed programming of works will see construction commence in June 2014 and conclude in October 2014.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Policy Implications

The City's Local Planning Policy 4.3 Public Open Spaces was used as the guiding framework for the development of the draft concept plan.

Financial Implications

An allocation of $308,800 (Attachment 5) is listed in the Capital Works Budget 2013/2014 under PR-2321 for the development of Cheltondale Park.  The estimated cost for implementing the final concept plan is in the order of $308,741.

Due to the complexity of the design for this park, and as a result of the additional surveys and application for clearing permits, construction has been deferred resulting in the need to carry forward the capital budget to the 2014/15 financial year.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSES the Cheltondale Park redesigned final concept plan depicted as Attachment 4;

 

2.       NOTES that the development of Cheltondale Park will be carried forward into the 2014/2015 Financial Year; and

 

3.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the local community for their involvement in the community consultation component of the project.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Cheltondale Park - Draft Concept	14/84790
2View.	Assessment of Cheltondale Park Public Consultation Results	13/31445
3View.	Cheltondale Park - Clearing Permit	14/73079
4View.	Cheltondale Park - Final Concept	14/83629	Minuted
5View.	Estimate Costs Cheltondale Park, Madeley REV 2	14/84769

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              9392 – 14/94190

Responsible Officer:                           Director Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1).

 

Background

Administration appointed Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) in April 2013 through a Request for Quotation process to undertake the City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1) (the Audit).

 

The objectives of the Audit were as follows (listed in priority order):

 

·        To undertake an audit of existing safety signage in place at Clayton's Beach to ensure that the signage in place is appropriate, to the required standard and reflects the nature of the risks present at Clayton's Beach.

·        To undertake an audit of existing safety signage in place at the balance of the City's current swimming beaches to ensure that the signage in place is appropriate, to the required standard and reflects the nature of the risks present at each of the identified beaches. 

·        To undertake an audit of coastal risks present at Clayton's Beach and development of a risk management plan.

 

The scope of the Audit was as follows:

 

·        Priority 1 – conduct signage audit at Clayton's Beach.

·        Priority 2 – conduct signage audit at the balance of the City's main beaches as identified in section 4.

·        Priority 3 – undertake a coastal risk assessment for Clayton's Beach, including (but not limited to) the following:

o  Undertake Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment;

o  Review of incidents;

o  Conduct stakeholder interviews to assist in ascertaining risk associated with the beach;

o  Indicative assessment of beach usage levels – calculation of Facility Visitation Rates (FVR);

o  Develop a Risk Register and actions to mitigate the identified risks using the relevant Australian Standards as they relate to Risk Management, Water Safety Signage and Public Information signage;

o  Development of an itemized action plan for the implementation of the mitigating actions identified as a result of the risk register, providing an indicative cost;

o  Consideration of provision of beach patrols and other remote communication devices to assist in improving communication in emergency situations; and

o  Provide a consolidated coastal risk and safety signage audit for Clayton's Beach;

 

 

 

The priorities identified above, were set with the objective of ensuring that all signage was in place prior to the commencement of the 2013/14 summer season, commencing on 1 December 2013, as defined in the City's contract with SLSWA for the provision of beach safety services.

 

It should also be noted that Council considered report CD01-07/13 in relation to petition PT01-05/13 which sought the implementation of a local beach policy that identifies swimming and non swimming beaches. The petition further stated that the policy should include the erection of adequate "No Swimming" or "Danger" signs which can be understood by people from both English and non-English speaking backgrounds and that these signs should be put in place on designated beaches or beaches where there are "notorious strong currents, example Claytons Beach Mindarie".

 

The petition stated that "the City of Wanneroo, together with Surf Life Saving WA and local community representatives should develop a strategy to prevent any further loss of life at identified dangerous beaches."

 

As a result Council resolved to:

"1.     NOTES petition PT01-05/13, comprising of 1,247 signatures, requesting; that a local beach policy be developed; erection of adequate "No Swimming" or "Danger" signs at designated beaches, and; that the signage erected is able to be understood by people from both English and non-English speaking backgrounds;

2.       NOTES that the petitioner's concerns in relation to adequate signage will be addressed by the City of Wanneroo Costal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1); 

3.       NOTES that the development of a Local Beach Policy will be considered once part one and two audit reports have been reviewed; and

4.       ADVISES the petitioner of the progress of the City of Wanneroo Costal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1)."

Detail

Part 1 of the audit process has been completed, with the following reports being received by Administration:

 

·        Access and Safety Signage Report # 1 - Mindarie South (Clayton's Beach);

·        Access and Safety Signage Report # 2 - Two Rocks Cluster;

·        Access and Safety Signage Report # 3 - Yanchep Cluster;   

·        Access and Safety Signage Report # 4 - Quinns Cluster; and    

·        Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment – Mindarie South (Claytons Beach)

 

Copies of each of the reports are available in the Elected Member's Reading Room and have been placed on the Elected Member's Portal.

 

Access and Safety Signage Report

 

Key components of each of the Access and Safety Signage Reports include; site identification, analysis of beach type, site background information, provision of an existing beach access and signage schedule and a recommended signage schedule.

 

In terms of recommended signage, the Audit reports identified a number of different signage types, as follows:

 

 

 

Signage Type	Description
Level 1 Road Signs	To provide specific advice to beach users accessing the beach via the local road network (e.g. nearest patrolled beach and no lifeguard service).
Level 2 Car Park Signs	To provide advice at car park entry points to the beach.
Level 3 Open Access Sign	To be used at main access points.
Level 3 Access Sign (Defined Access)	To provide advice at defined points of entry (i.e. stairs, trail access points etc).
Level 3 Individual Signs	To provide specific advice (i.e. no dogs)
Level 4 Individual Hazard Signs	To advise of specific hazards.
Rip Sign	To advise of the presence of rips in the area and how to escape them.

 

Level 2 Car Park Signs and Level 3 Open Access Signs provide a significant level of detail including:

 

·        Beach name;

·        Emergency contact advice;

·        Information on specific hazards and warnings relevant to the beach, via pictograms and accompanying wording;

·        Advice on the nearest patrolled beach (beach name, distance and direction) and reference to the Surf Life Saving Australia Beach safe web site (www.beachsafe.org.au);

·        Advice in relation to supervision of children around water; and

·        Regulatory signage relevant to the area (i.e. no dogs, no littering, no vehicles, no camping etc).

 

Level 3 Access Signs (Defined Access) are similar to Level 2 Car Park Signs and Level 3 Open Access Signs, however they provide hazard warnings which are more specific to the beach location. It should be noted that one of the key outcomes of the report were to ensure that all of the above signage is consolidated at each beach entry point. The report indicates that multiple signs serve to dilute the effectiveness of hazards warnings by diverting the attention of the beach user from one sign to the next. Having all related information on the single sign, will avoid this from occurring.

 

The signage recommended within the report is consistent with the following standards and guidelines:

 

1.       SLSA Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines  (2007) 1^st Edition

2.       AS/NZS 2416.1:2010  Water safety signs and beach safety flags - Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas (ISO 20712-1:2008, MOD)

3.       AS/NZS 2416.3:2010  Water safety signs and beach safety flags - Guidance for use

4.       National Aquatic and Recreation Signage Style Guide; Third Edition (July 2006)

5.       ISO 7010: 2011. Graphical symbols – Safety colours and safety signs – Registered safety signs

The beach names identified within Section 2 of each report – Site Identification  list the Surf Life Saving Australia ABSAMP Beach Identifier (i.e. WA 881 – Mindarie south for Clayton's Beach), the City of Wanneroo name as per the City of Wanneroo Coastal Management Plan (Part 1) and then the name the beach is known by in the local community. As much as possible, the signage reflects the name used by the local community to avoid confusion.

 

 

 

In relation to the existing Beach Access and Signage Schedule, it should be noted that some of the recommended risk treatments have been addressed through the installation of the recommended signage at each beach location. The balance of the recommended risk treatments will be addressed via the part 2 Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment.

 

Access and Safety Signage Report # 1 - Mindarie South (Clayton's Beach)

 

A total of 15 signs were recommended for this location. Refer to Attachment 1 for summary of signage locations.

 

In developing this schedule, the strategy undertaken by SLSWA was to ensure that early advice was provided to beach users accessing Clayton's Beach by car, providing advice on the nearest patrolled beach and that Clayton's Beach did not have a patrol service in place. Specific advice is provided at the car park entry point to the beach, with hazard warnings being reinforced as the beach user progress from the car park, down the stairs and onto the beach. Likewise, hazard and information signage is provided at each of the trail entry points that lead onto the beach. This strategy developed for Clayton's Beach has been generally applied to the other cluster locations.

 

Access and Safety Signage Report # 2 - Two Rocks Cluster;

 

A total of 19 signs were recommended in this cluster. Refer to Attachment 2 for summary of signage locations.

 

Access and Safety Signage Report # 3 - Yanchep Cluster;   

 

A total of 24 signs were recommended for this cluster. Refer to Attachment 3 for summary of signage locations.

 

Access and Safety Signage Report # 4 - Quinns Cluster;     

 

A total of 39 signs were recommended for this cluster. Refer to Attachment 4 for summary of signage locations.

 

The City's Infrastructure Directorate will be responsible for undertaking regular documented inspections of the signs. This will occur on a monthly basis during the winter period, with the frequency of inspections being increased to fortnightly during the summer months.

 

Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment – Mindarie South (Claytons Beach)

 

The key components of this report included a summary of the proposed key risk treatments, summary of key recommendations, overview of scope and context, assessment methodology, risk assessment findings and implementation priorities with a suggested actions register to track implementation of the recommendations.

 

The hazard identification and risk assessment process was undertaken using the Surf Life Saving Australia Aquatic Public Safety Risk Assessment program, which is endorsed by the International Life Saving Federation. The assessment also included reference to the following:

 

·        The Australian Beach Safety and Management Program (ABSAMP);

·        The Australian Coastal Public Safety Guidelines;

·        Beaches of the Australian Coast – A guide to their nature, characteristics, surf and safety;

·        The National Aquatic and Recreation Signage Style Manual; 

 

 

·        Standard AS/NZS 2416.1:2010  Water safety signs and beach safety flags - Specifications for water safety signs used in workplaces and public areas (ISO 20712-1:2008, MOD); and

·        Standard ISO 7010: 2011. Graphical symbols – Safety colours and safety signs – Registered safety signs.

 

A summary of the proposed key risk treatments and recommendations is outlined below.

 

1.       Access Infrastructure & Ongoing Capital Works/Maintenance Programs

·        Remove informal and undefined access tracks;

·        Erect barriers to restrict and/or promote usage of specific beach entry points;

·        Maintain defined access paths and barriers;

·        Maintain appropriate and effective signage at entry points and along defined access tracks and monitor;

·        Improve conditions and control (gates) of beach access tracks for emergency vehicles.

·        Refer to recommendation 4 of the report.

 

2.       System of Safety Signage

·        Maintenance of approved beach safety signage and monitor and remove any non conforming signage.

·        The report also recommends the implementation of a regular inspection regime, individual numbering of signs and the use of emergency location signage identifiers.

·        Refer to recommendation 5, 6 and 7 of the report.

 

3.       System of Supervision – Lifesaving Service Level Analysis

·        An assessment of service levels has been completed and provides a range of options relating to the provision of lifesaving services.

·        The report indicates that, in the opinion of SLSWA, the implementation of a flagged swimming area should focus on the beach south of Clayton's beach, linking into the beach access provided via the Catalina development. In the interim, the report suggests that swimmers should be directed to Quinns Beach, where a direct surveillance and rescue service is currently in place. The report also indicates that "Clayton's Beach is at times an unsuitable location for swimming for those individuals that lack awareness, skill and experience with rip currents and waves. The implementation of a direct surveillance and rescue service is likely to send mixed messages and encourage individuals to swim at this location." (refer to page 41of the report).

·        The report recommends that the City consider the implementation of CCTV at the site, which would be publicly available and which would provide monitoring and data collection function to assist in the management and future planning related to the beach.

·        Given the high degree of use of the beach by surfers, the report also recommends that the City consider 'activity zoning' for the beach, separating swimmers from surfers. Fishing would also be considered in this process.

·        Refer to recommendation 8, 16 and 17 of the report.

 

4.       Existence of Coastal/Beach Emergency Action Plans

·        The report notes that a well planned and rehearsed Emergency Action Plan (EAP) can greatly improve emergency response and is of significant importance in the management of emergency situations.

·        EAPs currently exist for Yanchep Lagoon and Quinns Beach, however there is no EAP in place for Clayton's Beach.

 

·        As a result, the report recommends the development, implementation and review of an EAP for Clayton's Beach.

·        Refer to recommendation 9 of the report.

 

5.       Education and Awareness Programs

·        The report identifies the benefits of an effective education campaign and highlights the SLSWA BeachSAFE initiative. The report also provides an example template of an education and awareness program for the City (refer to page 50 of the report).

·        The report recommends that the City should invest in coastal aquatic safety education and awareness programs to improve risk mitigation at Clayton's Beach and other beaches within the City.

·        The report also recommends that the City use QR codes at higher use locations to provide a direct link to the BeachSafe web site and language interpretation service.

·        Refer to recommendation 10 and 11 of the report.

 

6.       Emergency Response Beacons/Alarms/Phone

·        The report identifies the various options available in relation to the use of this type of technology and highlights the benefit that this provides in improving response times and therefore survival rates.

·        Equipment of this type can either be mobile (currently used by SLSWA in their provision of beach safety services at the City's beaches) and fixed units (refer to page 54 of the report).

·        The report recommends that the City work with SLSWA and WA Police to trial the installation of a permanent Emergency Response Beacon/Alerts at Clayton's Beach.

·        Refer to recommendation 16 of the report.

 

7.       Public Rescue Equipment

·        The report reviews the different type of public rescue equipment (PRE) that is available, based on 'reach rescue' and 'throw rescue' scenarios.

·        The report recommends that the City and SLSWA undertake to further test this equipment at Clayton's Beach. It should be noted that the testing would be undertaken by SLSWA in various conditions at the beach throughout the year to ascertain the suitability of this equipment and practicality for use by the public This testing would not include the public and the equipment would not be available to the public outside of the testing program.

·        Refer to recommendation 13 of the report

 

8.       Dune Vegetation Maintenance

·        The report considers the risk to beach users as a result of erosion that has occurred at the beach and recommends that, where practical, the City implements engineering options to reduce this risk.

·        The report also recommends that dune re-vegetation programs be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure they do not adversely impact on the provision of safety and emergency services at that location, that vegetation does not impact on visibility of signs.

·        Refer to recommendation 14 and 15 of the report.

 

9.       Monitoring and Review

·        The report identifies that ongoing monitoring and review of the risk treatment options implemented will be critical in the ongoing effectiveness of those options in addressing current risks, but also managing new hazards and risks.

 

 

·        The report, also recommends that this review process should also include the active capturing and analysing of data in relation to the usage of the beach and that this is used to inform future strategies.

·        Refer to recommendation 17 of the report.

 

10.     Communication and consultation

·        The report recommends a process to undertake an annual review of the current beach safety service, including the development of a forum of relevant stakeholders to identify issues and risk and to develop appropriate strategies.

·        Refer to recommendation 1, 2 and 3 of the report.

 

The Request for Quotation for Part 2 of the Audit has closed with an appointment to be made by the end of April 2014. The scope for Part 2 of the Audit is to undertake a coastal risk assessment for the balance of the City's beaches. The outcomes of the Part 2 Audit will be reported to Council once they become available.

 

Implementation

 

As stated earlier in the report, the signage recommendations resulting from Part 1 of the Audit were implemented prior to the commencement of the 2013/14 summer season, with the inspection and maintenance of the signage is ongoing.

 

In terms of the recommendations resulting from the Clayton's Beach Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment, it is intended that a multi-disciplinary work group will be formed by Administration to progress each of the recommendations listed. This working group will draw officers from each of the Directorates within Administration. Implementation of this and further Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments has also been listed within the City's Ten Year Capital Works Program, with a proposed annual capital budget allocation of $75,000 for the period 2014 - 2018.

 

As per Council's resolutions from its meeting on 23 July 2013, the development of a Beach Policy will be undertaken once the Part 2 Audit process has been completed.

Consultation

An extensive community consultation process was undertaken as a part of the Part 1 Audit process. This process was managed by SLSWA and included:

 

·        Officers from the City's Community Development, Infrastructure, Planning and Sustainability and City Businesses Directorates;

·        Representatives of the Yanchep and Quinns Mindarie Surf Life Saving Clubs;

·        Representatives of the Whitfords Volunteer Marine Rescue;

·        Community members through direct conversations, site visits and an on-line survey. The survey was promoted through the City's web site and Wanneroo Link and through the SLSWA web site and the local surf clubs. 

 

The review process for each of the reports involved meetings with officers from each of the City of Wanneroo Directorates listed above. Site inspections of each and every sign location were also undertaken collectively by SLSWA and Officers from the City's Community Development and Infrastructure Directorates.

Comment

The completion of Part 1 of the Audit process has provided the City with a wealth of information in relation to each of its existing swimming beaches including:

 

·        Site identification, beach type analysis and general background information;

·        An audit of existing beach access and signage;

·        Recommended beach signage for each of the City's swimming beaches; and

·        A detailed risk assessment and recommendations in relation to Clayton's Beach.

 

Part 2 of the Audit process will complete this work by undertaking risk assessments and providing recommendations for the City's remaining beaches. An Expression of Interest Process will be used to appoint suitable consultants to undertake this work. Once completed, the City can commence the process of implementing the recommended risk mitigation actions through its Capital Works Program and forward budgets.

 

It is expected that the Part 2 audit process will be completed by September 2014. The completion of the Part 2 audit process will enable Administration to commence the development of a local Beach Policy.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

The actions and recommendations are consistent with the City's Risk Management Policy and Risk Appetite.

Policy Implications

Development of a Local Beach Policy will be commenced on completion of Part 2 of the Audit.

Financial Implications

The costs of Part 1 and 2 of the Audit have been met by the existing 2013/14 operating budget.

 

The beach safety signage recommendations resulting from the four reports included in Part 1 of the Audit have been implemented by Administration at an estimated cost of $55,000, which has been met by the existing 2013/14 operating budget.

 

An annual allowance of $75,000 has been made within the draft 2014/15 10 Year Capital Works Budget, for the four year period from 2014/15 to 2017/18 to enable the implementation of the outcomes from the Clayton's Beach Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment and the Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments to be undertaken during Part 2 of the audit process. This work has also been reflected in the draft 2014/15 Ten Year Capital Works Program.

Voting Requirements

Simple  Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       RECEIVES the City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 1), including the following reports:

a)      Access and Safety Signage Report # 1 – Mindarie South (Clayton's Beach);

b)      Access and Safety Signage Report # 2 – Two Rocks Cluster;

c)      Access and Safety Signage Report # 3 – Yanchep Cluster;

d)      Access and Safety Signage Report # 4 – Quinns Cluster; and

e)      Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessment – Mindarie South (Claytons Beach)

2.       NOTES that the signage recommendations resulting from the four Access and Safety Signage Reports were fully implemented prior to 1 December 2013;

3.       NOTES that the implementation of the Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments has been listed on the City's draft Ten Year Capital Works Program, with a annual capital budget allocation of $75,000 to facilitate the implementation of the outcomes, commencing in the 2014/15 financial year;

4.       NOTES that the Request for Quotation process for the appointment of a consultant to complete the City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 2) – Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments will be completed by the end of April 2014; and

5.       SUPPORTS the development of a Beach Policy once the City of Wanneroo Coastal Risk and Safety Signage Audit (Part 2) – Coastal Aquatic Risk Assessments has been completed, which is anticipated to be by September 2014.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Recommended Signage Locations – Clayton's Beach	14/100976
2View.	Recommended Signage Locations – Two Rocks Cluster	14/100990
3View.	Recommended Signage Locations – Yanchep Cluster	14/101000
4View.	Recommended Signage Locations - Quinns Cluster	14/101006