Due to the current pandemic situation, this meeting will be conducted electronically.

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held via Video Conferencing

on 9 February, 2021 commencing at 6:00pm

 

 

COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION

 

The City of Wanneroo is committed to ensuring the safety of all attendees at public meetings. Due to the COVID-19 restrictions currently in place, the Wanneroo Council Briefing Session on Tuesday 9 February will be conducted via electronic means.

 

To ensure the safety of the members of the public, in line with State Government advice, this meeting may not be attended by members of the public, however an audio recording will be made available on the City’s Council Meeting  website as soon as practicable after the meeting.

 

Members of the public who may wish to submit a question to Council are encouraged to do so via the City of Wanneroo's website.

 

Advice on public attendance at future briefing sessions and meetings will be provided pending updated State Government and Department of Health advice.

 

Thank you for your understanding of these circumstances.

 

 

PRINCIPLES

A Council Briefing occurs a week prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting and provides an opportunity for Council Members to ask questions and clarify issues relevant to the specific agenda items before council.  The Briefing is not a decision-making forum and the Council has no power to make decisions. The Briefing Session will not be used, except in an emergency, as a venue or forum through which to invoke the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and call a Special Meeting of Council.

 

In order to ensure full transparency the meetings will be open to the public to observe the process.  Where matters are of a confidential nature, they will be deferred to the conclusion of the Briefing and at that point, the Briefing Session closed to the public. The reports provided are the Officers’ professional opinions.  Whilst it is acknowledged that Council Members may raise issues that have not been considered in the formulation of the report and recommendation, it is a basic principle that as part of the Briefing Sessions Council Members cannot direct Officers to change their reports or recommendations.

 

PROCESS

The Briefing Session will commence at 6.00pm and will be chaired by the Mayor or in his/her absence the Deputy Mayor. In the absence of both, Councillors will elect a Chairperson from amongst those present. In general, the Standing Orders Local Law 2008 will apply, EXCEPT THAT Council Members may speak more than once on any item, there is no moving or seconding items, Officer’s will address the Council Members and the order of business will be as follows:

 

Members of the public present may observe the process and there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the Briefing for a Public Question Time where members of the public may ask questions (no statements) relating only to the business on the Agenda. The Agenda will take the form of:

 

·         Attendance and Apologies

·         Declarations of Interest

·         Reports for discussion

·         Tabled Items

·         Public Question Time

·         Closure

 

Where an interest is involved in relation to an item, the same procedure which applies to Ordinary Council Meetings will apply. It is a breach of the City’s Code of Conduct for an interest to not be declared. The Briefing Session will consider items on the Agenda only and proceed to deal with each item as they appear. The process will be for the Mayor to call each item number in sequence and ask for questions. Where there are no questions regarding the item, the Briefing will proceed to the next item.

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

While every endeavour is made to ensure that all items to be presented to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting are included in the Briefing Session papers, it should be noted that there will be occasions when, due to necessity, items will not be ready in time for the Briefing Session and will go straight to the full Council Agenda as a matter for decision. Further, there will be occasions when items are TABLED at the Briefing Session rather than the full report being provided in advance. In these instances, staff will endeavour to include the item on the Agenda as a late item, noting that a report will be tabled at the agenda Briefing Session.

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

The Council Briefing Session Agenda will be distributed to Council Members on the FRIDAY prior to the Council Briefing Session. Copies will be made on the City’s website for interested members of the public. Spare Briefing Session papers will be available at the Briefing Session for interested members of the public.

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

The formal record of the Council Briefing Session will be limited to notes regarding any agreed action to be taken by staff or Council Members. No recommendations will be included and the notes will be retained for reference and are not distributed to Council Members or the public. 

 

LOCATION

The Council Briefing Session will take place via video conference.

 

 

 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 9 February, 2021

Due to the current pandemic situation, this

meeting will be conducted electronically

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Reports_ 1

Planning & Sustainability  1

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment  1

3.1                         Consideration of Actions Relating to Developer Contribution Arrangements  1

Approval Services  6

3.2                         Consideration of Development Application (DA2020/1345) -
Amendment to the Operating Hours of an existing Liquor Store -
Lot 9031 (104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler  6

3.3                         Consideration of Amendment No.182 to District Planning Scheme
No.2 - 198 Mary Street, Wanneroo  15

3.4                         Consideration of Development Application DA2020/1087 - Single
House Addition (Wind Turbine) at 10 Reigate Way Butler  36

Assets  51

Asset Operations & Services  51

3.5                         Response to Petition PT02-06/20 Address the Problems of Volume
and Speed of Traffic on Ashley Road & Waldburg Drive, Tapping  51

Infrastructure Capital Works  58

3.6                         Petition PT01-11/20 Request a Bus Shelter be Installed at Bus
Stop No.12507 (Mirrabooka Avenue after Koondoola Avenue) in Koondoola  58

Waste Services  62

3.7                         Draft Waste Plan 2020-2025 - Community and DWER Feedback  62

Community & Place  127

Community Facilities  127

3.8                         Community Engagement outcomes for the upgrade of Frederick
Duffy Park  127

3.9                         Heath Park Pavilion - Concept Design and Community Engagement Outcomes  140

3.10                      Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) -
2020 Funding Round Outcomes  150

3.11                      Halesworth Park Pavilions - Concept Design and Community Engagement Outcomes  154

Corporate Strategy & Performance  170

Business & Finance  170

3.12                      Financial Activity Statement for the period ended
30 November 2020  170

3.13                      Financial Activity Statement for the period ended
31 December 2020  199

3.14                      Mid Year Statutory Budget Review Report July to
December 2020  228

Transactional Finance  245

3.15                      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 December 2020  245

Property Services  307

3.16                      Proposed Lease to Shack Holdings Pty Ltd over a portion of
Lot 551 (120) Jindalee Boulevard, Jindalee (Jindalee Beach Kiosk) 307

Council & Corporate Support  318

3.17                      Donations to be Considered by Council February 2021  318

3.18                      Local Government Postal Elections October 2021  321

3.19                      Appointment of Delegate to WALGA North Metropolitan Zone
and Various Working Groups  328

Chief Executive Office  332

Advocacy & Economic Development  332

3.20                      uDrew Pilot Program Proposal  332

Governance & Legal  335

3.21                      Request for Extension to Review Dates and Review of Council Policies  335

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 355

Item  5_____ Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover) 355

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 355

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 355

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 355

Item  9_____ Closure_ 355

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we wish to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Whadjuk people.  We would like to pay respect to the Elders of the Nyoongar nation, past and present, who have walked and cared for the land and we acknowledge and respect their continuing culture and the contributions made to the life of this city and this region.

Item  1     Attendances

Item  2     Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3     Reports

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

Planning & Sustainability

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment

File Ref:                                              5734V05 – 21/3146

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

For Council to consider authorising various actions associated with the management of Developer Contribution Arrangements (DCA’s) under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2).

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 30 June 2020 (PS01-06/20), Council initiated Amendment 185 to DPS2 to advertise an amendment to the Scheme to facilitate a number of improvements to the provisions relating to the management of DCA’s by the City.

 

Administration has identified that there are numerous decisions required by Parts 9, 10 and Schedules 6, 7, 14 and 15 of DPS2 that are not currently able to be delegated to Administration, pending the finalisation of the Amendment to scheme. This is due to the reference to a decision by Council in relation to actions in certain sections of DPS2 (which cannot be delegated) rather than the local government (that can be delegated).  Previously, the interpretation was broadly interpreted as ‘Council’ being the same as the ‘local government’; therefore, the daily decisions such as quotations, tax invoices and the deferral of contributions were carried out by Administration. As previously reported to Council, the inability to delegate certain aspects of Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) management was an unintended consequence embedded in the drafting of DPS2, but it cannot be interpreted differently until such time that DPS2 is amended to replace the term ‘Council’ with ‘local government’. This will enable delegation to be considered for those aspects of DCP management.

 

The consequence of this is that until the Scheme Amendment is gazetted, Council is required to make these decisions. Until this occurs, all discretionary decisions relating to DCP’s in  DPS 2 that refer to ‘Council’, will need to be reported to Council for approval.

Subsequent to the finalisation of Amendment 185, Council will have the ability to determine which aspects of DCP management should be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.

Detail

Administration is required to refer a range of DCP of decisions to Council in the form of a summary report to authorise various actions, including:

 

·        Tax Invoice/ Quotations for Contributions required by conditions of subdivision or development approval;

·        Deferral of contributions requests and lodgement of a Caveat;

·        Offsetting of Cell Works credits against Infrastructure Contributions Payable (land or works); and

·        Prefunding of Cell Works.

 

In relation to the above, the actions normally occur through the subdivision process and therefore require a timely determination. Subdividers frequently require quotations on DCP, offsetting of Cell Works Credits and payment of compensation in accordance with the requirements of DPS2 to satisfy conditions of subdivision. If these requests are not processed in a timely manner, then this could lead to delays in the creation of new lots.

 

In addition, certain actions required as part of the annual review of DCP’s may require an earlier determination by Council to inform the annual review process. These decisions may be included into the DCP report to enable the timely consideration of factors affecting the annual review.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

Attachment 1 includes the details of the various aspects of DCP management that require a Council determination as follows:

 

Tax Invoices/ Quotations

 

In accordance with the relevant sections of DPS2, Council may, upon receiving a written request from an owner of land in a Cell, provide the landowners with a Tax Invoice or Quotation to enable the subdivider to pay their infrastructure Costs. The estimates are valid for a period of six months and calculated using the Infrastructure Cost per Lot (ICPL) or contribution rate approved by Council at the last annual review of costs.

 

The preparation of a Tax Invoice is the preferred manner to provide landowners with an estimate of their Infrastructure Costs, which provides a mechanism to inform and capture the contribution liability for both the landowner and the City.

 

In most cases, a landowner will request a Tax Invoice or Quotation to facilitate the contribution payment necessary to comply with the conditions of planning approval. These conditions are most commonly associated with subdivision conditions and payment is required to enable the new lots to be created.

 

All Cells and DCP areas have well defined methodologies in DPS2 for calculating landowner’s contribution liabilities, thereby ensuring clarity in the calculation of individual landowner’s obligations, as reported in Attachment 1.

 

Payment for Cell Works

 

The Local Structure Plan preparation costs for the East Wanneroo Cells are classified as Cell Work (general) and can therefore be charged to the relevant cell. Stockland Pty Ltd was the major landowner in Cell 9 and prepared the Cell 9 structure plan on behalf of all landowners. In 2015, Council adopted the Cell 9 cost estimates, which included an estimated cost for this work of $862,776. The City has been liaising with Stockland to validate the structure plan preparation costs based on Tax Invoice evidence. In 2017, the City made payment to Stockland of $390,625.54 based on the tax invoices provided and validated by Administration, however the remaining expenditure was not able to be validated, at this time, due to the lack of expenditure evidence. Stockland representatives have subsequently provided the required tax invoice evidence to the City and the total amount of the additional tax invoices equates to $397,733.60. The invoices and calculations have now been reviewed by relevant planning officers, finance officers and have been externally audited by William Buck. The payment of the remaining structure plan preparation costs to Stockland of $397,733.60 has been agreed by Stockland and will finalise their claim for reimbursement, as reflected in Attachment 1. This final payment to Stockland represents a saving of $74,417 to the Cell 9 and is considered acceptable.

Statutory Compliance

 

The completion of the annual review ensures that contribution payments, compensation and estimated costs are compliant with Council’s statutory obligations in accordance with DPS 2.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

4.2.1  Provide transparent and accountable governance and leadership”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-G09 Long Term Financial Plan	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
CEO	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O17 Financial Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy and Performance	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate Risk Registers. The annual review of the DCP assists in addressing the impacts of the strategic risk relating to Long Term Financial Planning as it ensures that appropriate budget monitoring, timing and provisions are considered. The strategic risk relating to stakeholder relationships applies as a key element in the DCP review process to maintain effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. In addition, the Corporate Risk relating to financial management would apply as awareness of financial policies and financial management at unit level will be maintained to promote accountability by business owners and an integrated approach to risk assurance.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The Tax Invoice equates to a net total amount of $102,211.74 and upon receipt of payment by the developer will increase the balances held in the relevant DCP account, as defined in Attachment 1.

 

The structure plan preparation costs form part of the Cell Works for Cell 9 and the City has validated the pre-funding through internal and external auditing. There are adequate funds currently held in the Cell 9 account to make payment to Stockland and the payment of $397,733.60 has been accepted by Stockland to finalise their claim on this cost, which is less than the estimate structure plan preparation costs approved for the Cell 9 DCP and represents a saving of 74,417 to Cell landowners.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

APPROVES the actions in relation to the management of Developer Contribution Arrangements under District Planning Scheme No. 2, as contained in Attachment 1.

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - DCP Actions

21/5650

Minuted

  

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              DA2020/1345 – 20/578347

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2020/1345) seeking to amend the operating hours of the existing Liquor Store at Lot 9031 (104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler (subject site).

 

Applicant	Geocath Pty Ltd
Owner	Connolly Boulevard Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 9031 (104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler
Site Area	3,553m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Commercial

 

Background

On 30 September 2020, the City received a development application seeking to amend Condition 2 of DA2011/845 relating to the operating hours of the existing Liquor Store at Lot 9031 (104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler (subject site). The subject site is bound by residential properties to the east, south and directly adjoining to the west, and a primary school site and a park to the north. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

At its meeting on 27 July 2010, Council (PS05-07-10) resolved to approve a development application (DA2009/1277) for a shopping centre with a total floor area of 1,255m² at the subject site. There were no conditions imposed restricting the operating hours of the shopping centre, hence, the current shopping centre operates 24 hours each day.

 

On 6 March 2012, Council (PS06-03/12) approved a further development application (DA2011/845) for 149m² of the shopping centre to be converted to a Liquor Store of 114m², with a coolroom and storage area of 35m². Condition 2 was imposed to restrict the operating hours of the Liquor Store between 8:00am to 8:30pm Monday to Saturday, and 10:00am to 8:30pm on Sunday. This condition was recommended by Administration and imposed by Council to address the submissions which raised concerns in relation to antisocial behaviour, and the associated noise and traffic impacts given the proximity of the subject site to residential properties.

 

There are nine existing liquor stores (excluding the subject liquor store) operating within a 2.5 kilometre radius from the subject site. Their operating hours vary greatly between them with many closing between 5:00pm to 10:00pm. A full schedule of the location of these nearby liquor stores and operating hours is included in Attachment 2.

Detail

This development application proposes to modify Condition 2 of DA2011/845 to change the operating hours of the Liquor Store from 8:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Saturday, and 10:00am to 10:00pm on Sunday. Liquor Store is an ‘A’ (discretionary subject to advertising) use within the Commercial zone, and therefore the application was advertised to the surrounding properties for comment.

The site plan and floor plan outlining the location of the Liquor Store is included in Attachment 3.

Consultation

Advertising was undertaken by the City in writing to the surrounding landowners located within a 200 metre radius of the subject site. A notice was placed in the Wanneroo Wrap to notify Council Members of the proposal. Advertising was undertaken for a period of 14 days commencing on 21 October 2020 and closing on 4 November 2020. Three submissions were received during the advertising period, with two objecting to the proposal and one stating they had no objections to the proposal.

 

A location plan indicating the advertising area and the submitters’ location are included as Attachment 1.

 

The concerns raised in the submissions include the following:

 

·        Safety issues as a result of antisocial behaviour and littering;

·        Incursion of costs to adjoining residents due to having to install additional security measures; and

·        Increase in traffic as a result of the widening of Connolly Drive and the proposed operating hours of the Liquor Store.

 

A more detailed discussion of the concerns raised in the submissions are provided in the Comment section below.

Comment

Administration has conducted an assessment of the proposal against the provisions of DPS 2, Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 Butler-Ridgewood (ASP 27) and Local Planning Policy 2.8 Licensed Premises (LPP 2.8) and all requirements have been satisfactorily addressed. The proposed operating hours are also consistent with the hours permitted under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

Concerns Raised in Submissions

The table below outlines the concerns raised in the letter of objections and Administration’s comments in respect to these.

 

Concerns	Administration Comments
Safety issues as a result of antisocial behaviour and littering.	Antisocial behaviour and littering is not a relevant planning consideration. Antisocial behaviour is a matter dealt with by the Western Australian Police. It is noted that the City’s Ranger Services are not aware of any existing concerns or police reports relating to antisocial behaviour at this Liquor Store.
Incursion of costs to adjoining residents due to having to install additional security measures.	The perception of needing to install additional security measures and associated costs due to extending the Liquor Store trading hours is not a relevant planning consideration.
Increase in traffic as a result of the widening of Connolly Drive and the proposed operating hours of the Liquor Store.	Increase in traffic as a result of the widening of Connolly Drive is not relevant to this proposal. The increase in traffic as a result of the proposed operating hours of the Liquor Store is discussed in further detail below.

Previous Council Decision

At its meeting on 20 March 2012 (PS06-03/12), Council approved the Liquor Store subject to a condition that the Liquor Store be closed at 8:30pm every day. The condition restricting the operating hours was imposed to address concerns about antisocial behaviour and associated noise and traffic impacts due to the site being located directly adjacent to residential properties. In response to Council’s previous concerns and reasons for restricting the operating hours to 8:30pm each day, Administration provides the following comments.

 

Antisocial Behaviour

 

The City’s LPP 2.8 outlines what matters are considered relevant as part of the development application process and the liquor licence process. As per LPP 2.8, antisocial behaviour and liquor harm are not considered relevant at the development application stage as they are considered in detail as part of the liquor licencing process.

 

Traffic

 

The proposed extension of operating hours for the Liquor Store (between 8:30pm to 10:00pm) falls outside of the typical peak periods of the use, meaning there will not be an increase in the number of vehicle trips during peak periods. Any increase in traffic occurring in the modified operating hours is considered to be of a low level and will have a negligible impact. The proposal does not trigger the requirement to provide any supporting traffic information or reports. Furthermore, the Liquor Store is located within an existing shopping centre that currently operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The additional increase in operating hours of the Liquor Store is unlikely to result in a large increase in patronage, but rather provides reciprocity for existing customers of the shopping centre to access the Liquor Store for their convenience.

 

In addition to the above, the City’s Traffic Services has confirmed that the proposal would not result in any traffic concerns. Therefore, the increase in traffic as a result of the modified Liquor Store operating hours is considered minor and acceptable.

 

Noise

 

In relation to noise impacts, noise generated from the site is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times. If noise is at a level that becomes a nuisance to local residents, the City will investigate the noise levels and if substantiated, require the property owner to undertake appropriate measures to ensure compliance. The assigned maximum noise levels permitted under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 are the same from 7:00pm to 10:00pm. Therefore, the Liquor Store’s current operating hours are within the same noise limits as the proposed operating hours.

 

To date, the City has not received any noise complaints in relation to the operation of the Liquor Store. Furthermore, the shopping centre is operating 24 hours a day. The City has not received any noise complaints in relation to patrons of the shopping centre. It is noted that there have previously been noise complaints relating to truck delivery times that have since been resolved, and no further complaints relating to truck delivery times have occurred since April 2019.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the noise levels are unlikely to change as a result of the increased operating hours of the Liquor Store, and where there are any noise issues, it can be sufficiently dealt with through the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

Conclusion

Administration considers that the concerns raised relating to the operating hours are either not relevant planning considerations or can be sufficiently addressed under separate legislation. As the proposed development is considered to meet the requirements of DPS 2, ASP 27 and LPP 2.8, it is recommended that Council approve the amended operating hours of the existing Liquor Store at Lot 9031 (104) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler as proposed.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 Butler-Ridgewood, and Local Planning Policy 2.8 Licensed Premises.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “2     Economy

2.1    Local Jobs

2.1.2  Build capacity for businesses to grow”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Chief Executive Officer	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O23 Safety of Community	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issues contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate risk register.  Action plans have been developed to accept this risk to support existing management systems.  This proposal aligns with the Economic objective of the existing Strategic Community Plan, Council should therefore consider the following risk appetite statement: 2.1 Local Jobs.

 

The City is keen to develop strong economic hubs for growth and employment within the region. This would involve exploring opportunities which will attract and promote investment for local businesses and job creation. The City’s Strategic Community Plan acknowledges that development initiatives (for example, in Yanchep and Neerabup) requires planning, due diligence, consultation and funding. The City acknowledges that to achieve the growth that will lead to jobs, the City needs to work strategically with partners including investors and to promote a clear vision. Therefore the City is prepared to accept a high level of financial risk provided that the City implements a risk management strategy to manage any risk exposure.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the District Planning Scheme No. 2, APPROVES the Development Application (DA2020/1345) to amend Condition 2 of the original development approval (DA2011/845) issued by Council on 20 March 2012. This Development Approval is still subject to compliance with the plans and conditions contained within the original notice of approval to commence development dated 20 March 2012 (DA2011/845), with exception to Condition 2 which is replaced by the following condition:

a)      Operating hours shall be limited to 8:00am to 10:00pm Monday to Saturday, and 10.00am to 10:00pm on Sundays.

2.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Liquor Store Amendment - 104 Kingsbridge Boulevard BUTLER	20/533384
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Surrounding liquor stores within a 2.5km radius ~ 104 Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler	21/41493
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Site plan and floor plan - Application to Extend Opening Hours (Liquor Store)  104 Kingsbridge Boulevard BUTLER	20/533393

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              39272 – 20/541439

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2).

 

Applicant	Roberts Day Town Planning
Owner	Bridgeleigh Investments Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 23 (198) Mary Street, Wanneroo
Site Area	4 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban Deferred
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource

 

Background

On 4 November 2019, Roberts Day Town Planning, on behalf of the land owner submitted the proposed amendment to allow the land uses Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling at Lot 23 (198) Mary Street, Wanneroo as additional uses. The site contains a Reception Centre and is currently zoned Urban Deferred under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Rural Resource under the DPS2.

 

Council, at its meeting of 28 July 2020, considered Amendment No.182 to DPS2 to allow land uses Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling at Lot 23 (198) Mary Street, Wanneroo as additional uses and resolved as follows (refer Item PS03-07/20):

 

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling as additional uses at Lot 23 (198) Mary Street, Wanneroo and Amends Schedule 2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

NO		STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
A40	1-40	198 Mary Street, Wanneroo	Lot 23	Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling   Condition: Development is to be in accordance with an approved Local Development Plan for the site.

and the Scheme Map accordingly;

2.       Pursuant to Section 35(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Standard Amendment for the following reason:

a)      an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area;

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

4.       Subject to approval from the Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of not less than 42 days pursuant to sub-regulations 47(2) and 47(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Attachment 1 is the location plan of the site and Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment maps.

 

The Reception Centre has been operating since 1985 and currently benefits from Non-Conforming Use rights as the property was rezoned in 2001 to Rural Resource in DPS2 wherein Reception Centre is a Not permitted (X) use. 

 

The site is located within the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan (EWDSP) area and is identified for future residential development. The EWDSP was considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission at its meeting of 25 November 2020. It was resolved not to publish the EWDSP in its final form until the District Water Management Strategy was formally approved by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).

Detail

The proposed amendment will facilitate the development of the site for approximately 140 Aged and Dependent Persons residential dwellings. The existing Reception Centre building will be adapted for the administrative purposes of the aged care facility and a portion of the buildings will become a community facility and a café. The development will provide 10% of the site as public open space (POS), which will be ceded to the Crown and be developed in accordance with the City’s standards for POS. Attachment 3 contains a concept plan of the site which will inform further planning for development of the site.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 23 September 2020, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant formal environmental assessment by the EPA and made recommendations in its advice (Attachment 5). The WAPC’s consent to initiate public consultation was therefore not required, as the EPA did not determine that a formal environmental assessment should be undertaken.

 

Prior to EPA’s decision, officers from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) the state agency which supports the EPA, inspected the site and identified a number of species worthy of retention. Based on this survey, the EPA in its advice recommended that a Local Development Plan be prepared for the site that identifies areas of consolidated remnant native vegetation in the south east and/or north east of lot 23 for conservation.

 

The EPA advice also noted that the clearing of land within the proposal area may require referral to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) due to the potential presence of the Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain Threatened Ecological Community which is protected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).

 

A 42-day public consultation period was then carried out between 8 October and 19 November 2020 by way of on-site signs, advertisement in a local newspaper, a notice was displayed at the Council offices and on the City’s website, and letters were sent to nearby landowners. Due to a delay in installing the on-site sign, the public consultation period was extended to 27 November 2020. The City received four submissions all from government agencies. ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd supported and Water Corporation of WA had no objection to the amendment proposal.

 

The Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attraction (DBCA) advised that consideration should be given for the assessment of future proposals in accordance with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act) which is consistent with the advice from the EPA.

 

The Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) was also consulted and advised that:

 

“any action or activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act must be referred to the Department for assessment.”

 

The advice provided by DBCA and DAWE are discussed in the Comment section.

 

Attachment 4 contains the schedule of submissions and Administration’s comments below.

 

Comment

 

The environmental agencies (i.e. Commonwealth and State) who have made submissions have statutory responsibilities under their various legislations for diverse environmental protection categories. The subject site does feature remnant vegetation and the submissions point to the potential for flora and fauna to be present that are covered by their respective state and federal legislation.

 

In considering the submissions Council Members should be reassured that the proponents have now been provided clear advice by these agencies on the need to protect environmental values that exist on the site. On this basis the proponent is required to satisfy those agencies that endeavours to protect specific fauna or flora present will be in compliance with the ‘environmental protection’ requirements. It is not for the City to determine the adequacy of conservation measures made in the context of these various state and federal legislative requirements.

 

The EPA determined that formal assessment under section 48A(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 was not required. However, the advice attached to the decision noted that there are environmental values of significance present on the site. The EPA advice concluded that:

 

“…the scheme amendment can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives through existing planning controls. The EPA recommends that the scheme text be modified to require the future local development plan to identify consolidated areas of remnant native vegetation for retention.”

 

 

The comments provided by DBCA and DAWE are noted below.

 

DBCA Advice

 

The DBCA advised that:

 

The Amendment area contains vegetation which has been identified as ‘Banksia woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain’ threatened ecological communities (TEC). This TEC is included by the Australian Government on the list of threatened ecological communities under the EPBC Act. The subject area was also identified in the Environmental Assessment Study conducted as part of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage EWDSP process as potentially containing vegetation which may be commensurate with State listed TEC ‘Banksia attenuata woodland over species rich dense shrublands’ (SCP 20a). Detailed vegetation assessments, including the provision of the statistical analysis of floristic community types (FCT), are required to confirm all likely TEC occurrences and mapped extent prior to future planning stages. Confirmed occurrences of SCP20a should be considered for retention and retained for conservation wherever possible.

 

DBCA supported EPA’s recommendation to identify values of retention in an LDP and advised that consideration should therefore be given to the obligations for assessment of future proposals in accordance with the EPBC Act.

 

DAWE Advice

 

The Commonwealth DAWE provided the following comments:

 

1.       The site may contain habitat for—or include—the following threatened species and communities that are listed under the EPBC Act, but are not limited to them:

 

a.       critically endangered Tuart (Eucalyptus gomphocephala) Woodlands and Forests of the Swan Coastal Plain ecological community

b.       endangered Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain ecological community

c.       endangered Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris)

d.       vulnerable Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii naso)

e.       vulnerable Chuditch/Western Quoll (Dasyurus geoffroii)

f.        endangered Glossy-leafed Hammer Orchid (Drakaea elastica)

g.       vulnerable Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)

h.       endangered Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis)

 

2.       Any action or activity likely to impact on a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act must be referred to the Department for assessment.

 

DAWE clarified that the above comments do not preclude the City from determining the amendment proposal.  However, before developing the site, the proponent will be required to undertake a self-assessment of the site against the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines.

 

In this regard it is noted that the proposed amendment includes a condition requiring future development to be in accordance with an approved Local Development Plan for the site. Considering the comments made by DAWE and DBCA, it is recommended that the following additional provision be inserted under the column:

 

 

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE) of Schedule 2 of DPS 2:

 

Insert:

 

The LDP shall include provisions on the retention of threatened species and communities in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.

 

It should be noted that the concept plan (Attachment 3) is not a statutory document and not an LDP. When an LDP is approved for the site any future development will be required to comply with that LDP.  If at a later time, an amendment is proposed to the LDP by the owner, it will have to be prepared in consultation with DAWE.

 

Conclusion

 

As this proposal to amend DPS2 is proceeding ahead of the normal MRS/DPS2 rezoning and structure planning processes there are a wide range of environmental agencies involved in determining that development of the site will properly address and respond to identified environmental values on the land.

 

All of the various environmental agencies require the developer to take action to ensure they comply with the relevant environmental legislation and regulations.  This will be done through the preparation and completion of reports and analysis by the developer which will then be submitted to the relevant environmental agencies.  That information will then feed into the creation of a local development plan, subdivision and development application processes should the proposed amendment be granted final approval by the Minister for Planning.

 

As the proposed amendment has been supported by all agencies which have responded, the application is recommended for approval subject to modifications. 

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 182 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S04 Integrated Infrastructure & Utility Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director P&S and Director Assets	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O22 Environmental Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning & Sustainability	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O26 Heritage	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk register.  Action plans have been developed to accept this risk to support existing management systems.  As detailed within the Consultation and Comment sections of this report, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has advised that the clearing of land within the proposal area may require referral to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) due to the potential presence of the Banksia Woodlands of the Swan Coastal Plain Threatened Ecological Community which is protected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and protecting the flora/fauna heritage is required.   

 

This proposal aligns with the Society objective of the existing Strategic Community Plan, Council should therefore consider the following risk appetite statement.  The City’s defined risk appetite for 1.3 Distinctive Places is articulated through the risk appetite statement as – The City’s Strategic Community Plan acknowledges that a fundamental emerging need in the community is to create accessible, local, place-based services to maintain and improve our commitment to providing Distinctive Places. The City is aware that this would require ongoing financial cost and capital expenditure which is accepted at a moderate level through a demonstrated approach subject to a robust cost benefit analysis being undertaken to mitigate any potential financial loss. The City also acknowledges that segments of the community will resist change and hence have a negative impact on its reputation. In view of this, the City is prepared to accept risk which can be mitigated by sharing risk and appropriate community consultation and engagement through partnering with appropriate agencies. The City acknowledges that it needs to manage the change to a place-based approach and the impact this may have on the current way of doing business. Therefore the City will accept a moderate amount of reputational and financial risk in order to meet these changing community service expectations.

 

This proposal aligns with the Society objective of the existing Strategic Community Plan, Council should therefore consider the following risk appetite statement.  The City’s defined risk appetite for 1.1 Healthy and Active People is articulated through the risk appetite statement as – All sporting activities in which local governments are involved have the potential to cause injury and/or ill health to participants, spectators and third parties.  However, the City believes the health benefits for the community outweigh these impacts, and will continue to plan, deliver, fund and permit events and activities which support a healthy and active population – subject to robust risk assessment and management that can be evidenced.    The City provides facilities that are for leisure and general recreation activities and as a facility provider; ensures facility design and support the community to utilise the facilities.  Therefore the City will accept a low to moderate level of risk to ensure health and safety impacts are reduced to ‘as low as reasonable practicable’ (ALARP) and reputation risk is restricted to low.

Policy Implications

This proposal is assessed under the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo.

Financial Implications

The owners have entered into a voluntary and binding legal agreement with the City that secures the respective landowners’ future obligations to pay development contributions on terms that are satisfactory to the City.

 

The voluntary agreement provides for the payment by the owners to the City a sum of money the City has estimated to be sufficient to address the proportional costs of providing a range of infrastructure to support urban development of the land in the future.

 

The voluntary payment will be required to be made prior to the issue of new land titles created through subdivision or prior to development of the land under the terms of a development approval.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 SUPPORTS WITH MODIFICATION Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling as additional uses at Lot 23 (198) Mary Street, Wanneroo and amends Schedule 2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

NO		STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
A40	1-40	198 Mary Street, Wanneroo	Lot 23	Retirement Village, Reception Centre, Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwelling   Condition: Development is to be in accordance with an approved Local Development Plan (LDP) for the site. The LDP shall include provisions on the retention of threatened species and communities in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.”

and the Scheme Map accordingly;

2.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to Sign and Seal Amendment No.182 to the District Planning Scheme No.2 documents in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy; and

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	20/115300
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Amendment document	20/115319
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Development Concept Plan	20/196860
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Schedule of submissions	21/5503
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - EPA Advice - Amendment No. 182 to District Planning Scheme No. 2	20/424741

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2020/1087 – 20/575593

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2020/1087) for a Single House Addition (Wind Turbine) at Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way, Butler (subject site).

 

Applicant	Wynand van Niekerk
Owner	Wynand and Estelle van Niekerk
Location	Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way Butler
Site Area	608m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 27 Zoning	Residential

 

Background

On 20 August 2020 the City received a development application for a Single House Addition (Wind Turbine) at the subject site. A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

 

The wind turbine was constructed on 8 February 2020, and on 10 February 2020 a neighbour adjoining the subject site raised a query with the City’s Compliance Services unit as to the approvals necessary for such a structure. The neighbour also expressed concerns regarding the visual impact, noise impact, and potential safety issues associated with the wind turbine. Upon investigation by the City’s Compliance Services, it was found that the necessary approvals had not been sought. The applicant then removed the structure prior to seeking approval, and therefore this is not considered a retrospective application.

Detail

The development application proposes the addition of a Wind Turbine to the existing Single House which is a “P” (Permissible) use in the Residential zone. The details of the original development application are as follows:

 

·        A 5.4 metre high wind turbine comprising of a barrel-shaped turbine atop a steel pole.

·        The wind turbine is located behind the dwelling and is setback as follows:

o   Western boundary: 4.9 metres

o   Eastern boundary: 10.9 metres

o   Southern boundary: 7.8 metres

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 2.

 

Upon assessment of the development application, it was determined that the proposal incorporated the following departures from the Deemed to Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

 

·        External fixtures which are visible from the primary street.

 

The proposal also raises concerns with regard to Clause 67 – ‘Matters to be considered by local government’ - of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘Clause 67’), particularly with respect to Cl.67(m) and 67(n) which read as follows:

 

67(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;

 

67(n) the amenity of the locality including the following –

(i)         environmental impacts of the development;

(ii)        the character of the locality;

(iii)       social impacts of the development

 

These matters are discussed further in the Comment section below.

Consultation

Advertising of the proposal was undertaken by the City in writing to the affected landowners adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1. Advertising was undertaken for a period of 21 days commencing on 23 October 2020 and closing on 3 November 2020.

 

Five submissions were received objecting to the proposal, and one in support. A submission summary with Administration’s responses is included in Attachment 3.

 

The key objections raised in the submissions were in regard to:

 

·        Visual impact of the proposed structure; and

·        Noise likely to be generated.

 

The height of the structure as advertised was a total of 5.4 metres in height. In light of the submissions received and the City’s assessment of the application, the applicant in discussion with Administration agreed to reduce the total height of the structure to 5 metres and submitted amended plans.

 

The applicant has advised that any further reduction in the height of the structure would prevent the effective operation of the wind turbine. Wind turbines do not operate efficiently where airflow is disrupted by roofs, trees and other structures.   

 

A more detailed discussion on these matters is provided in the Comment section below.

 

Comment

 

A wind turbine is not a structure typically associated with single residential dwellings. The City’s records indicate that this may be the first application of its kind within the City of Wanneroo. There are no specific guidance or standards for the assessment of residential scale wind turbines under the current planning framework. However, the wind turbine has been assessed as an External Fixture under the R-Codes.

 

The R-Codes under section 5.4.4 sets Deemed to Comply standards for External Fixtures as follows:

 

C4.3     Other external fixtures provided they are:

i.          Not visible from the primary street;

ii.          Are designed to integrate with the building; or

iii.         Are located so as to not be visually obtrusive.

 

C4.4     Antennas, satellite dishes and the like are not visible from any primary and secondary street.

 

With respect to provision C4.4 it is arguable that the proposed turbine is alike to an antenna or satellite dish; however, the City considers that these are generally static structures of a different nature to a wind turbine. The City’s assessment has therefore taken the view that the proposed wind turbine should be assessed against provision C4.3 as it establishes a set of criteria more relevant to the form of development.

 

Visibility of the proposed Wind Turbine from the Primary Street

 

The proposed wind turbine is located to the rear of the dwelling and sits at a height similar to the top of the roof. The roof of the dwelling also accommodates a solar hot water unit on a raised frame and an evaporative air conditioner. These external fixtures are of a similar height and visual impact to the turbine as viewed from the street.  As the top of the turbine will be partially visible from the primary street it therefore requires assessment under the relevant R-Codes Design Principle.

 

Integration with the existing dwelling

 

The proposed wind turbine is constructed of dark grey metal which matches the roof of the dwelling, and incorporates a steel pole for its base. The supporting structure is proposed to be set against the rear wall of the dwelling central to the lot. In this regard the structure is designed to integrate with the dwelling and complies with C4.3(ii).

 

Located so as to not be visually obtrusive

 

The proposed wind turbine is prominently visible above the roofline of the subject dwelling from the rear and sides. It will be visible from the Outdoor Living Areas of several adjoining dwellings, several of whom have objected to the proposal. Due to its height, appearance and moving nature of the wind turbine, there are multiple objections regarding the appearance of the wind turbine from their properties. Administration notes that these objections have been made after having seen the original structure installed and operational before it was dismantled (as shown in Attachment 4). Administration further notes that the only submission received in support of the proposal was from a property on the opposite side of Reigate Way to the subject site.

 

In response to the concerns raised, the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of the structure to a maximum of 5 metres in order to reduce the visual impact of the proposal. This is significantly shorter than the wall of a typical two storey house which is permitted in the Residential zone. The wind turbine is similar in height to a typical single storey house which characterises the immediate locality. It is considered that further height reduction or screening would likely prevent the effective function of the device. In light of this, the City considers that appropriate measures have been taken to minimise the visual obtrusiveness of the structure and that it therefore complies with C4.3(iii).

 

R-Codes Design Principle Assessment

 

In accordance with Part 2 of the R-Codes, if a proposal does not meet the Deemed to Comply provisions, the City is to exercise its judgement by considering the merits of the proposal having regard to the relevant Design Principles.

 

Due to being visible from the primary street, the proposed wind turbine does not meet the Deemed to Comply provisions of Clause 5.4.4 – External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities of the R-Codes C4.3; it has therefore been assessed against the corresponding Design Principle which reads as follows:

 

P4.1 - Solar collectors, aerials, antennas, satellite dishes, pipes and external fixtures integrated into the design of the building to not be visually obtrusive when viewed from the street and to protect the visual amenity of surrounding properties.

 

These concerns are also to be considered against Clause 67(m) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which encourages all development to be compatible with its locality by way of height, bulk, appearance etc. as outlined above.

While the wind turbine will be visible from the primary street, its visibility will not impact on the streetscape. Notably the existing fixtures on the roof of the dwelling (solar hot water and air conditioner) have a similar level of visibility from the primary street and these fixtures do not raise any concerns regarding their impact on the streetscape.

 

Further to this, the modified proposal is significantly shorter than the height of a typical two storey house which is around a 6m wall height and up to 9m to the top of the roof. The wind turbine is similar in overall height to a typical single storey house which characterises the immediate locality. Further height reduction or screening would compromise the functionality of the technology. In light of this, the City considers that appropriate measures have been taken to minimise visual obtrusiveness of the structure and to bring it to a scale compatible with the surrounding development. The wind turbine is therefore considered to satisfy Clause 67(m).

 

Setbacks

 

Concern was also raised by a neighbour regarding to the proximity of the wind turbine to their boundary. There are no specific setbacks for a wind turbine as the R-Codes setback requirements pertain only to walls to buildings. The R-codes anticipate that external fixtures are “integrated with the dwelling”, the setbacks of fixtures would then be determined by the setback required for the dwelling to which the fixture is attached.

 

The proposed wind turbine cannot be assessed as a “Wall” for the purposes of determining a suitable setback under the R-Codes. Administration considered that there may be other local authorities that may have adopted a planning policy regarding wind turbines which could provide some guidance in the consideration of the proposal. The City of Cockburn has adopted Local Planning Policy 5.9 – Renewable Energy Systems, and the City of Joondalup a policy titled Non-Residential Development in the Residential Zone. Both policies specifically allow for pole-mounted small-scale wind turbine systems such as the proposed development.  In both cases the policies require that wind turbines be setback from the lot boundaries at least as far as they are tall. In this case the proposed structure is 5 metres high and is setback from all boundaries a greater distance, except the western side boundary where it is setback 4.9 metres. Therefore the proposal would only comprise a minor variation from those policy standards if they were applicable within the City of Wanneroo.

 

In light of the above, Administration considers that the proposed wind turbine will not unduly impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining properties and therefore satisfies the R-Codes Design Principle and Clause 67 (m) of the Regulations due to its setback and reduced height.

Noise

A number of submissions raised concerns regarding noise generated from the wind turbine, including the level of noise likely to be generated; the disturbing frequency or sustained periods in which the noise would operate; and the likelihood of the noise to compromise sleep and quiet enjoyment of neighbours’ Outdoor Living Areas. These concerns are assessed against Clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which requires consideration of compatibility of the development with the locality, and the amenity and character of the locality.

 

In light of the concerns raised, the City’s Health Services reviewed the proposal and advised that an Acoustic Assessment against the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (‘Noise Regulations’) was not required for the proposed wind turbine as the device is similar to other fixtures such as air conditioners. Administration investigated and obtained the manufacturers specification for the proposed wind turbine and this demonstrates that the proposed structure will produce a compliant level of noise. As shown in Attachment 5, the proposed turbine (identified as the ‘Power Tree 1000w’) is expected to generate 30dBA under normal circumstances where the threshold for compliance at night time is 35dBA.

 

The 30 dBA noise level is a very low level of noise. According to the Federal Government Safework Australia website 30 dBA is equivalent to whispering.

 

It is also noted that the proposed wind turbine includes a brake which can be employed to turn the turbine off if noise threshold was exceeded for any reason, such as due to a worn or damaged bearing needing repair.

 

The above information demonstrates that the device will operate well within the limits under the Noise Regulations. In this respect the wind turbine is similar to other, more common noise-generating residential fixtures such as air conditioning units and pool pumps, and is therefore consistent with residential development. The imposition of any noise-related condition imposing further restrictions would therefore not be serving a planning purpose to protect the amenity of nearby residents and is therefore not recommended, nor is it considered necessary to satisfy the requirements of Clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 with respect to potential noise impacts.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the application as amended is recommended for approval subject to the following condition. In its modified form, and given that it complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the proposal satisfies the R-Codes Clause 5.4.4 Design Principles, and Clause 67(m) and (n) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Further to this, Administration notes the environmental benefits of the provision of renewable energy technology such as wind and solar as part of residential development. It is considered that there may be further applications for residential scale wind turbines as community support and desire for renewable energy systems continues to increase. On this basis, Administration is proposing to prepare a policy on residential scale renewable energy systems (such as wind and solar) to provide greater guidance to the community and the City in their assessment and determination.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.1    Resource Management

3.1.2  Seek alternative ways to improve energy efficiency”

 

Risk Management Considerations

There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.

Policy Implications

This application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the following:

 

·        State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes – Volume 2; and,

·        Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(c) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, SUPPORTS the Development Application (DA2020/1087), as shown in Attachment 2, for a Single House Addition (Wind Turbine) at Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way, Butler, subject to the following condition:

a)      This approval relates only to the proposed Single House Addition (Wind Turbine) as shown on the attached plans and does not relate to any other development on the lot.

2.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision; and

3.       INSTRUCTS Administration to prepare a policy to guide the assessment of development applications relating to small-scale renewable energy systems to support the use of these technologies whilst ensuring that the amenity of the relevant locality is maintained.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	21/1839
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Plans	21/1889	Minuted
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Schedule of Submissions	21/3854
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Photos	21/3505
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - Noise Specifications of Turbine Model	21/43058

 

 

 

 

 

Assets

Asset Operations & Services

File Ref:                                              3125V05 – 21/14477

Responsible Officer:                          Acting Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

For Council to consider a Petition to address the problem of the volume and speed of traffic on Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive in Tapping.

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 July 2020, (UP02-07/20) Council received a Petition, which was signed by 62 residents representing 50 properties from the Tapping area and reads as follows:

 

“We the rate payers of Ashley and Waldburg Roads area petition the Council to address the problem of the volume and speed of traffic on these roads.”

 

Of the 50 properties represented by the signatures on this petition, 26 were from residents along Ashley Road, 10 on Waldburg Drive, six from Titian Way, two from Kandinsky Approach, two from Cozens Road, one from Veronese Pass, one from Atra Avenue, one from Elion Link and one was from a resident on Dowitcher Turn.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map showing the extent of the section of Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive in question.

Detail

Ashley Drive and Waldburg Drive are classified within the City's Functional Road Hierarchy as Local Distributor Roads and have been constructed within road reserve widths varying from 27m to 20m. Currently, both roads operate under the default ‘built-up area’ speed limit of 50km/h.

 

Ashley Road comprises of a two lane bi-directional Boulevard between Wanneroo Road and Spring Hill, after which, it reduces to a single carriageway through to its eastern end at Pinjar Road. Waldburg Drive is also constructed as a two lane bi-directional Boulevard between Joondalup Drive and Spring Hill/ Galileo Avenue, after which it reduces to a single carriageway to its southern end at Ashley Road.

 

As Local Distributor roads, both roads provide a link to a number of Local Access Roads and the arterial road network with connections to Wanneroo Road, Pinjar Road and Joondalup Drive.

 

The majority of properties fronting these roads are residential, however Tapping Primary School and Waldburg Park abuts the northern end of Waldburg Drive and Alvarez Park abuts the central section. Spring Hill Primary School and Jimbub Swamp Park lie on the North West corner of the Ashley Road/Waldburg Drive intersection and there is a retirement village located at the western end of Ashley Road. On-street parking bays and footpaths are provided along both of these roads to cater for school parents, visitors and pedestrians, including children from local schools.

 

A Transperth bus route (service 467) runs along Waldburg Drive, Ashley Road and Carosa Road, terminating at the Whitfords train station in Kingsley.

 

Both Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive are identified as local cycling routes in the City’s Cycling Network Plan

 

In listing the function and characteristics of these types of roads, Liveable Neighbourhoods gives the indicative traffic carrying capacity of a Local Distributor Road as up to 7,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Comment

In response to concerns raised in the petition from residents relating to speeding and hoon driving on Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive, and following discussion with the petition organiser, traffic counts were carried out in two locations on Ashley Road and one on Waldburg Drive in November 2020. Data was collected to investigate the traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. The results are shown in the table below:

 

Road	Date	Location	Volumes – Average Weekday Traffic (AWT)	85th Percentile Speed (Speed at  which or below 85% of the motorists are driving)
Ashley Road	November  2020	East of Watkins Loop	3680	60.4 km/h
		West of Carosa Road	3646	57.1 km/h
Waldburg Drive		South of Elion Link	1874	55.8 km/h

 

A detailed analysis of the vehicle travel speeds is summarised below:

 

	%age of vehicles
Speed (kph)	Ashley Road		Waldburg Drive
	East of Watkins Loop	West of Carosa Road	South of Elion Link
<20	0.0	0.3	0.4
20-30	0.3	1.1	1.5
30-40	1.9	7.4	9.4
40-50	27.7	43.3	45.9
50-60	53.8	40.0	37.1
60-70	14.8	7.3	5.1
70-80	1.3	0.5	0.4
>80	0.2	0.1	0.2

 

 

Further analysis of the traffic count results identified that:

 

·        Traffic volumes are at the lower end of the accepted capacity range for the functionality of the roads;

·        For Ashley Road, East of Watkins Loop:

o   70% of vehicles are travelling above the default 50km/hr built up area speed limit, with the majority of vehicles travelling between 50 and 60kph;

o   Westbound traffic has an 85%ile speed of 61.6 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 80kph throughout the day.

o   Eastbound traffic has an 85%ile speed of 58.7 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 80kph throughout the day.

o   An average of 0.15% of all vehicles, or 17 vehicles per day are exceeding 80kph

·        For Ashley Road, West of Carosa Road:

o   48% of vehicles are travelling above the default 50km/hr built up area speed limit, with the majority of vehicles travelling between 40 and 50kph;

o   Westbound (Downhill) traffic has an 85%ile speed of 58.5 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 80kph throughout the day.

o   Eastbound (Uphill) traffic has an 85%ile speed of 54.9 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 70kph throughout the day.

o   An average of 0.08% of all vehicles, or 8 vehicles per day are exceeding 80kph

·        For Waldburg Drive:

o   43% of vehicles are travelling above the default 50km/hr built up area speed limit, with the majority of vehicles travelling between 40 and 50kph.

o   Northbound (Uphill) traffic has an 85%ile speed of 54.4 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 70kph throughout the day.

o   Southbound (Downhill) traffic has an 85%ile speed of 56.7 kph, with vehicle speeds in excess of 80kph throughout the day.

o   An average of 0.20% of all vehicles, or 4 vehicles per day are exceeding 80kph

 

The above data analysis shows that a small percentage of drivers were travelling well above the built up area speed limit. Speeding and hooning such as this are unfortunately common on roads throughout the City and are primarily related to poor driver behaviour. The City does not have the authority to legislate the law in this regard, with the WA Police being the responsible authority to ensure that motorists comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1974 and associated Road Traffic Code 2000.

 

Administration has completed the assessment of Ashley Road from Watkins Loop to Pinjar Road and Waldburg Drive from Galileo Avenue to Ashley Road in accordance with the City's Local Area Traffic Management Policy, the Policy guiding the decision making process to determine whether roads require infrastructure changes or increased policing. The assessment considers a range of factors including:

 

·        Speed data;

·        Traffic volume including commercial vehicle volume;

·        Crash history;

·        Road design and topography;

·        Presence of vulnerable road users such as pedestrian/ cyclists; and

·        Activity generators such as schools/ retail/ train stations, etc.

 

A review of the Main Roads crash history database for reported crashes between 2015 to 2019 identified 1 crash on Ashley Road between Wanneroo Road and Waldburg Drive, 4 crashes on Ashley Road between Waldburg Drive and Pinjar Road and 3 on Waldburg Drive between Spring Hill and Ashley Road. Three of the crashes on Ashley Road occurred at intersections with none identified as being potentially due to speed. The crashes on Waldburg Drive all occurred in wet weather, each with a single vehicle involved.

The Traffic Management Policy requires a score of over 60 to qualify for traffic management treatments to ensure that funding is allocated to the projects that will achieve the most road safety benefits, while scores between 30 and 60 points warrant attention to law enforcement and driver education to reduce inadvertent non-compliance.

 

The results of the Traffic Management Scheme Assessment for each road is:

 

Road	Location	TMS Score
Ashley Road	East of Watkins Loop	37
	West of Carosa Road	41
Waldburg Drive	South of Elion Link	19

 

While these roads all score points in the assessment for the 85%ile speed, the topography (steep hill) and their use as a local bicycle route, the low traffic volume for this category of road, low crash record and absence of activity generators all serve to indicate that the allocation of the limited funding available for the construction of traffic management treatments cannot be justified at this time.

 

Whilst the construction of traffic treatments is not supported in this instance, it is recognised that there is a requirement for driver education on Ashley Road to address the high incidence of vehicles driving above the 50kph built up area speed limit.  Therefore, Administration proposes to:

 

·        Deploy the Speed Advisory Trailer on Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive to help educate motorists on the default built up area speed limit of 50km/hr;

·        Seek approval from Main Roads WA (MRWA) for the relocation of “Remember 50 in Built Up Areas” advisory signs to Ashley Road for a period of 6 months to remind drivers about the speed limit; and

·        Undertake follow up speed counts to monitor the traffic data in these streets.

 

Those drivers speeding excessively are more appropriately addressed by the WA Police.  Administration has shared the latest traffic data with WA Police with a request to conduct increased speed limit education and enforcement.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.5    Connected and Accessible City

3.5.1  Deliver local transport infrastructure including roads, footpaths and cycle ways to improve accessibility”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-023 Safety of Community	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community & Place	Manage
Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-001 Relationship Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy and Performance	Manage

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate Risk Register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to improve the existing management systems.

Alignment with the following risk appetite statements should also be considered:

Society: 1.2 Safe Communities. The City places a high priority on the safety of its community particularly in the public realm and the importance of hazard and risk identification, management and reduction, and will therefore accept a moderate risk to reputation, low risk to financial and safety.

Civic Leadership:  4.1 Working With Others. The City is committed to engaging with community, partners, government agencies and the broader business community to achieve agreed outcomes that are aligned to community aspirations. The City acknowledges that success in service delivery by the City cannot be achieved in isolation. It requires a collaborative approach, working with the community, partners, government agencies and the broader business community to achieve outcomes that are aligned to community aspirations. This will be achieved by being transparent with information, delivering, and maintaining a consistent message when engaging with stakeholders. The City acknowledges that working with others involves managing any potential unfavourable feedback, which could have a reputational impact however the City is prepared to accept a moderate level of reputational risk.

Policy Implications

The provisions of LATM Policy apply in assessing the request made in this petition.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the traffic assessment undertaken as per Local Area Traffic Management Policy, does not support the installation of traffic treatments along Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive;

 

2.       REQUESTS Administration:

a)      To deploy the speed advisory trailer on Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive;

b)      Write to the WA Police to undertake speed enforcement on Ashley Road;

c)      Request approval from Main Roads WA to relocate “Remember 50 in Built Up Areas” signs to Ashley Road for a period of 6 months; and

d)      Undertake ongoing traffic data monitoring on Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive.

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Location Map - Ashley Road and Waldburg Drive, Tapping

20/369582

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              25733 – 21/31068

Responsible Officer:                          Acting Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

For Council to consider a Petition requesting the installation of a bus shelter at Bus Stop 12507 on Mirrabooka Avenue, Koondoola.

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 17 November 2020, Council received Petition PT01‑11/20, which was signed by 27 residents representing 25 properties from the Koondoola area and reads as follows:

 

“We request that a bus shelter be installed at Bus Stop No. 12507 (Mirrabooka Avenue After Koondoola Av) in Koondoola. The bus stop is used by many elderly residents, some affected by illness, disability or mobility issues, who would benefit being shielded from the weather when waiting for the bus.”

 

Of the 25 properties represented by the signatures on this petition, 18 were from residents along Mirrabooka Avenue, 4 on Ellerby Way, 2 from Koondoola Avenue and 1 from Chataway Road. A location plan showing the bus stop and the surrounding area is included as Attachment 1.

Detail

Recent patronage data at Bus Stop 12507 on Mirrabooka Avenue indicates a weekday average of 19 passenger boardings per day, therefore it would qualify for shared funding of a bus shelter under the PTA grant funding agreement, which requires a minimum of 15 boardings per day. However, when assessed in accordance with Council’s Bus Stop Infrastructure Policy, the bus stop does not score as a high priority on the project list, being ranked 64 out of 86 stops that currently qualify for funding under this programme. The bus stop also does not currently score as a high priority under the Policy's discretionary project list for a fully Council funded shelter, ranked 340 out of 657 other stops at this time.

 

The long term financial plan includes $75,000 of annual funding for the installation of bus shelters each year. 60% of this is currently allocated to those shelters that are jointly funded with the PTA and 40% to shelters fully funded by the City. This usually permits 10 bus shelters to be installed each year.

 

As many requests for bus shelters are received each year, to supplement the funding, an allocation from the 2021 calendar year ‘Local Council Roads and Infrastructure Program (LCRIP)’ funding has been identified to install shelters at those bus stops which may not necessarily score high on the priority list, but would benefit the community.  Administration therefore proposes to install a bus shelter at Bus Stop 12507 as part of the 2021 LCRIP program of works, subject to resident support through the community consultation process used for all bus shelter installations.

Consultation

Administration is currently conducting community engagement to assess the level of support for the provision of a bus shelter at Bus Stop 12507, with the owners / occupiers of the adjacent dwellings.

 

The community engagement documentation comprises:

 

·        Letter outlining the proposal;

·        Map showing indicative location of bus shelter;

·        Survey form.

 

Consultation is being conducted between 22 January and February 5 2021.

Comment

Once the public comment period has closed, community feedback will be considered before commencing the preparation of a detailed plan and ultimately installation of a bus shelter.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Built)

3.5    Connected and Accessible City

3.5.1  Deliver local transport infrastructure including roads, footpaths and cycle ways to improve accessibility”

Risk Management Considerations

“There are no existing Strategic or Corporate risks within the City's existing risk registers which relate to the issues contained in this report.”

Policy Implications

The provisions of the Bus Shelter Policy apply in assessing the request made in this petition.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that Bus Stop 12507 is a low priority for installation of a bus shelter according to the prioritisation criteria set out in the City’s Bus Shelter Policy.

2.       REQUESTS Administration:

a)      Using LCRIP funding, provides a bus shelter at Bus Stop 12507 subject to community support;

b)      Following receipt of any responses received as part of the community consultation, develop a detailed design for the bus stop upgrade and seek Public Transport Authority (PTA) approval; and

c)      Pending community support and PTA approval, install a bus shelter at Bus Stop 12507.

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Bus Stop 12507 Mirrabooka Avenue, Koondoola - Locality Map

21/31089

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waste Services

File Ref:                                              2240V02 – 20/511915

Responsible Officer:                          Acting Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To discuss the responses to the Community and DWER feedback undertaken on the Draft Waste Plan.

Background

On 25 August 2020, Council considered a report AS02-08/20, which updated the City’s Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP) in alignment with the State Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030 (the Waste Strategy). Council resolved the following:

 

1.       ENDORSES the draft Waste Plan 2020 – 2025, as contained in Attachments 1, 2 & 3 for community feedback; and

 

2.       AUTHORISES Administration to submit the draft Waste Plan 2020 – 2025, as contained in Attachments 1, 2 & 3 to the Department of Water, Environment and Regulation for review.

 

To satisfy resolution 1 and 2 above a Community Engagement Plan was prepared in line withthe City’s Community Engagement Policy, which took place between 12 October and 9 November 2020. The draft Waste Plan was also submitted to the DWER.

Detail

In 2016, the City developed its first SWMP outlining its current waste management services and future waste projects and objectives.

 

The City’s existing SWMP (endorsed by Council in 2016) aligns with the West Australian Waste Strategy: Creating the Right Environment 2012. The City has undertaken a review of the current SWMP in the format provided by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) to satisfy the new Waste Strategy’s requirements for Waste Plans. As a result, the City’s Waste Plan will satisfy the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act) Waste Plan requirements, and may be submitted to DWER.

 

The purpose of the newly developed Waste Plan is to align local government waste management activities with the requirements of the new Waste Strategy, map current performance, establish a benchmark to achieve the Waste Strategy targets by 2030, monitor progress on local government achievements and design programs and activities that will support the implementation of the Waste Plan.

 

Section 40(4) of the WARR Act gives the Chief Executive Officer of the DWER (DG, DWER) powers to require local governments to include within its Waste Plan how they will manage their waste services to achieve consistency with the Waste Strategy in the protection of human health and the environment.

 

Local governments and regional Councils in Perth and Peel and major regional centres are required to develop Waste Plans for the 2020-21 financial year. In late 2019, DWER facilitated two workshops to assist local governments in the drafting of their Waste Plans in alignment with the new requirements, of which Administration attended both. For those local governments and regional Councils that already have SWMPs in place, these can be modified to incorporate the new requirements.

 

Section 6.2(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to have regard to their plans for the future (which include Waste Plans made under section 40 of the WARR Act) in the preparation of their annual budgets.

 

The Waste Plan template designed by DWER comprises three parts:

 

1.       Attachment 1 describes, in a DWER prescribed template, the City’s waste profile, services and performance in relation to objectives and targets set out in the Waste Strategy 2030. It identifies the City’s waste challenges, strategic waste and resource recovery infrastructure needs and provides a baseline to compare progress when annually reviewing and updating waste plans;

2.       The City’s Waste Plan (Attachment 2 refers) details the actions and priorities for the next five years that the City will take to contribute to the achievement of relevant Waste Strategy targets and objectives, and its performance against the actions in the previous SWMP; and

3.       A self-assessment checklist for Parts 1 and 2 (Attachment 3 refers) which assists local governments in ensuring that all key information is included in the Waste Plan. The checklist is required to be signed by the City’s CEO.

 

The City’s updated Waste Plan incorporates key priorities for 2020-2025 with clearly defined objectives, detailed actions, milestones, targets, timeframe for delivery, associated cost if known, how it aligns with the Waste Strategy objectives (avoid, recover, protect), who will be implementing, identified risks and relevant mitigation strategies for said risks.

 

The City’s final Waste Plan as adopted and endorsed by Council must be submitted to DWER by 31 March 2021.

 

The first progress report on the implementation of the City’s Waste Plan is required by DWER on 1 October 2022 and annually thereafter.

Consultation

In preparing the Waste Plan, consultation has occurred with both internal and external stakeholders.

 

Following on from the endorsement of the draft Waste Plan for community feedback, an Engagement Plan was prepared in line with the City’s Community Engagement Policy, which took place between 12 October and 9 November 2020. Online there was 265 page views from 126 different residents. The draft waste plan was also sent to DWER to comment.

Comment

Three responses were received from residents which are outlined below:

 

Resident	Administrative Comment
I live in Darch and would like to comment on the Waste Plan for the Shire. We applaud the Shire for taking this action of increasing the recycling bin size and encourage residents to reduce waste into landfill. We also applaud the opportunity to have green waste bins as I have previously requested the Shire to cycle times for green waste verge pick-ups. My reasoning is ours is in the summer months and trees and shrubs do not like being trimmed back in the summer heat but this request was rejected. I would also like to ensure our general waste bin size is not reduced. We have children and grandchildren who visit on a regular basis and often do require the additional size bin so any reduction would affect our ability to dispose of waste. We will certainly embrace the recycling program but please not at the expense of general waste. It is absolutely pointless addressing one issue and creating another. Yes I understand we have to reduce our landfill footprint however we should still maintain our ability to utilise the landfill when required. Thanks for your time and sincerely hope the size of the general waste bins are not compromised.	Many thanks for providing feedback on the City's Draft Waste Plan. The City will not be reducing the size of your general waste bin. From mid next year householders will have the option to downgrade to a smaller bin (140L) if they so desire.
With regards to the Waste Management plan, we as a family believe the new larger recycling bins send the wrong message, particularly because there are more problems with recycling these days. We should be reducing volumes of waste and recycling rather than just moving the contents of the various bins since we anticipate poor recycling by households abusing the new larger bins. We also believe that it should be possible to request a smaller general waste bin, with an appropriate reduction in cost. On average, our household could easily put out our main bin once a month (except for the hygiene factor) due to composting, recycling and careful waste management. We have NOT requested a larger recycling bin, we rarely fill that either.	Thank you for your feedback on the City’s Draft Waste Plan.  From mid next year householders will have the option to downgrade to a smaller general waste bin (140L) if they so desire.
The City recently sought comment on a draft Waste Plan for 2020-2025. On behalf of the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group I would like to raise comments and questions about points in the plan. 1. Waste/resource recovery precinct An action is the plan is to "facilitate the development of a resource recovery precinct within the City of Wanneroo". We acknowledge the potential benefits of co-locating activities associated with the processing of waste materials to maximise recovery of resources. Such a precinct could generate noise and air pollution so separation from sensitive land uses is important. Is the Tamala Park landfill site being considered as a location for this precinct? Or the Neerabup Industrial Area (where the composting facility is located)?   2. Waste to energy The plan notes that waste to energy is a likely option and this is shown in the 'transition plan' (Appendix A of the plan). We are concerned that waste to energy could diminish the drive for waste avoidance and the recovery of materials. Further, air pollution and the disposal of residual waste from any incineration process will likely be a matter of community interest.   3. Kerbside waste collection The plan appears to show a large increase in general waste disposal in 2019/20 as compared with previous years (page 11). Does the City know the reasons for this increase?   4. Kerbside bulk waste collection The sight of apparently useful materials like furniture being put out ahead of annual kerbside collections is a concern. Is was good to read in the plan that the City has recovered some material by processing pick-ups through the Materials Recovery Facility. A different approach that maximises recovery of materials would align with the Waste Strategy goals. The plan suggests 'community drop off' as the City's preference (Appendix A), which could help manage demand as well as aid resource recovery.   5. Waste education We have seen the City's marketing to encourage residents to use the 'right bin'. As well as separation at source, it would be good to see waste education efforts promote waste avoidance. The Mindarie Regional Council's Earthcarers training and community activities emphasised waste awareness and practical action to reduce waste. It is most unfortunate that the council retrenched its waste education team and so ended what we thought was the sort of waste education needed in the community. We urge the City to incorporate waste avoidance in its waste education program. This could include continuing Earthcarers’ activities and connecting with the people that took part in past training and events. As well as engaging with local schools, community groups like the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group could be allies in promoting less waste.   Your reply to these comments about the City's Waste Plan would be appreciated.	Thank you for your comments. The consultation period on the City’s Draft Waste Plan ended on 9 November 2020. However we are still happy to take the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group’s responses in to account, and would like to provide the following response to each of your points:   1.       Resource recovery precinct – The City does not own or control the land at Tamala Park; this is under the management of Mindarie Regional Council. Rather, the City proposes that a portion of City-owned land in the Neerabup Industrial Area potentially be used as a site for a resource recovery precinct. The site, if utilised, is distant from the major residential areas in the City and potentially offers good transport links and superb co-location opportunities. There is still a great deal of work to undertake prior to this area being developed, however, and any future facilities would be subject to the necessary Works Approval and Licence requirements of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.     2.   Waste to energy – The City is committed to the principles set in the Western Australian Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030, which stipulates that resources should be managed in alignment with the principles of the Waste Hierarchy and a circular economy. Intrinsic in these models is the need to ensure that the value of resources is maintained once their initial use is ended. To that end, the City is currently implementing a three bin kerbside collection system to ensure that all potentially recyclable materials (that is, those materials that are recyclable under modern resource recovery infrastructure models) are separated from those materials that cannot. Only those residual materials would potentially be available for recovery through a thermal treatment process; recovery is deemed a more sustainable disposal model than landfill, which the City is looking to move away from. The City is midway through the implementation of its Waste Education Plan 2018/19–2022/23 which provides the foundations for community education and communication programs in relation to waste, and which aligns with the principles of the Waste Hierarchy. Through these programs the City seeks to inform the community on what it can do to minimise the amount of waste it produces in the first instance, prior to ensuring that it effectively utilises the waste collection services provided, thereafter.   3.      Kerbside Waste Collection – The increase in waste disposal in 2019/20 is primarily due to the unfortunate fire which took place at the City’s then recycling contractor’s facility in November 2019. As a result of this, approximately 4000 tonnes of materials which would ordinarily have been sent for recycling was actually sent to landfill due to there being insufficient recycling capacity in Western Australia for an extended period. This ceased once greater capacity was made available in May 2020 and a new contract commenced with an alternative contractor.   4.   The Service Delivery Review process, undertaken in 2018, identified that the delivery of community drop-off facilities throughout the City is likely to maximise recovery, provide greater choice to residents and, in time, reduce service delivery costs in to the future. As a result, once the work currently under way on the delivery of a three bin kerbside collection service is completed, the City will look to develop its plans for the implementation of greater community waste drop-off choices in to the future.   5.   The City’s Waste Education Plan currently incorporates waste avoidance into its activities, and is due for review next year. The updated draft Plan, once developed, will be made available for public comment prior to final endorsement by Council. The City is currently reviewing the “gaps” left by the Mindarie Regional Council’s decision to retrench its waste education activities, to determine what it can do to fill these. Those activities which the City determines that provide value and that it can deliver itself may be included in the updated Plan, dependent upon resource availability. The City currently seeks to work closely with local schools to deliver key waste avoidance/ resource recovery messaging and also welcomes the opportunity to continue its work with the community, generally, and specifically with community groups such as Quinns Rocks Environmental Group, in to the future. For information, in 2020, the City’s waste education officers undertook a total of 28 waste education face to face activities, attended 10 community events, facilitated 14 community workshops and delivered 4 school engagements. The City appreciates the feedback delivered by the Quinns Rocks Environmental Group on this subject, and would welcome the opportunity to discuss these, and other matters relating to waste management, in future.

 

Feedback from DWER is outlined below:

 

Thanks again for submitting the City of Wanneroo’s draft waste plan for review.   First of all, congratulations on putting together such a well thought out Waste Plan. It really sets out the City’s current and future waste priorities clearly and was pleasure to review – so thanks for this.   Our feedback on the plan mostly relates to clarifying or asking for context around some of the information provided in the plan and is provided in ‘comments’ in the Waste Plan template and the Word version of the City’s draft Waste Plan.   If you have any questions regarding our feedback or wish to clarify anything, please contact us. We’re happy to help as much as we can.

 

In parallel with the development of this Waste Plan, the City is currently developing its first Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Strategy (CCAMS). Through the community engagement consultation process for that document, residents have indicated their wish for the City to set more aspirational targets with respect to environmental sustainability. To this end, the Waste Plan proposes that the City adopts the general “Avoid” targets set in the Waste Strategy for the whole state rather than the less stringent targets that have been stated for local governments. Please see each set of targets, in the table below:

 

	Per capita % waste reduction by 2025	Per capita % waste reduction by 2030
General Waste Strategy Target (Proposed)	10%	20%
Local Government Waste Strategy Target	5%	10%

 

The City has already reduced its per capita waste by approximately 10%, based upon 2018/19 data, six years in advance of the proposed target date.

 

Administration believes that the comments received from both the community and DWER fall generally in line with the draft which Council previously endorsed on 25 August 2020, and propose to finalise the current draft document with minimal changes to that previously endorsed by Council. This would be presented to Council for endorsement on 16 February 2021. The final endorsed and adopted Waste Plan will be a publically available document, which the community will be able to view and use to better understand the strategic waste intentions of the City.

Statutory Compliance

The WARR Act gives the CEO of DWER powers to require local governments to include within its Waste Plan how it will manage its waste services to achieve consistency with the Waste Strategy in the protection of human health and the environment.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “3     Environment (Natural)

3.3    Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Waste

3.3.3  Create and promote waste management solutions”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-021 Competitive Service Costing	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community & Place	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-022 Environmental Management	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning & Sustainability	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic/ Corporate risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The development of a Waste Plan was undertaken in accordance with the Waste Management Services Policy (CS07–04/15).

 

“The City of Wanneroo is committed to ensuring that its waste management services support the Strategic Plan to improve management, recycling and re-use of waste.”

Financial Implications

Expenditure associated with the adoption and implementation of the SWMP forms part of the Annual Waste Services operational budget. Financial implications from projects and initiatives resulting from the implementation of each of the actions from the adopted Waste Plan will be considered in the detailed analysis of each action and included in future reports to Council as necessary.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council: -

1.       ENDORSES the Waste Plan 2020 – 2025, as contained in Attachments 1, 2 & 3; and

 

2.       AUTHORISES Administration to submit the Waste Plan 2020 – 2025, as contained in Attachments 1, 2 & 3 to the Department of Water, Environment and Regulation.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Waste Plan City of Wanneroo	20/7735[v2]	Minuted
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Waste Plan 2020-2025	19/379587[v6]	Minuted
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Self Assessment Checklists CoW.DOCX	20/17095	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Community & Place

Community Facilities

File Ref:                                              39637 – 20/539359

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept plan and community engagement outcomes for the upgrade of Frederick Duffy Park, Wanneroo.

Background

Frederick Duffy Park (the Park) is located at 16 Mudalla Place and is classified as a Neighbourhood Passive Park (Attachment 1). The Park is irrigated with an existing playground that is due for renewal in 2021/22, with the GIS investigation noting the following:

 

Item	Current Status
Park Size / Hierarchy	2.5 ha / Neighbourhood Passive Park
Reserve No.	33141
Lot No.	9199
Property Type	Public recreation
Ownership	Crown Land – City of Wanneroo managed
Aboriginal Sites	None listed on GIS
Bush Forever	None listed on GIS

 

Other existing public open spaces within a walkable catchment of the Park (400m – 800m or a 5 - 10 minute walk) include:

 

Park	Location	Comment
Wanneroo Showgrounds	21K Ariti Avenue, Wanneroo - 400m south west	Active Reserve and showgrounds, separated by Wanneroo Road.
Jindinga Park	27 Jindinga Way, Wanneroo - 200m west	Passive park used as a thoroughfare and listed for path lighting in 2021/22.
Barndie Park	18 Barndie Way, Wanneroo - 280m east	Small local passive park with play equipment.
Beelara Park	14 Ruthin Way, Wanneroo 600m south	Passive park with play equipment.
Goolema Park	21 Goolema Place, Wanneroo - 330m north	Passive park with play equipment.

 

As part of the City’s Passive Park Development Program that upgrades to parks in line with Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space (LPP4.3), Frederick Duffy Park is listed for design in 2020/21 and construction in 2021/22.

Detail

To inform the concept development for the Park, Administration undertook an initial community engagement process from 23 March to 3 April 2020. This process was combined with community engagement for Jindinga Park, due to the proximity of the parks and noting that Jindinga Park is also listed for design and construction over 2020/21 and 2021/22.

 

Initial Community Engagement Process

 

As a part of the initial community engagement process, an information letter was sent to a total of 1,083 residents and homeowners (Attachment 2).

 

The information letter sought feedback on the levels of use of the Park, level of support for upgrading the Park and the type of upgrades residents would like to see at the Park. A summary of the 12 consultation responses received is as follows:

 

·        Twelve respondents (100%) said they use the Park;

·        The main uses of the park include (noting that respondents could select multiple options):

1.       Passive recreation: Nine respondents (75%)

2.       Use the playground: Eight respondents (67%)

3.       Active or sporting: Six respondents (50%)

·        Twelve respondents (100%) support the development of Frederick Duffy Park;

·        The key requests being (noting that respondents could select multiple options):

1.       Fitness equipment: Seven respondents (58%)

2.       Nature playground: Four (33%)

3.       BBQ area: Three (25%)

4.       Seating: Two (17%)

5.       Drink fountain: Two (17%)

 

A summary of the comments provided by residents is as follows:

 

Comment	Response
Park is very popular with birds and dog walkers.	Noted.
It’s a great park with a suitable size and mature trees which allows for both passive and active recreation.	Noted.
It’s a great park, well maintained and needs some upgrades to the play equipment	Noted.
This area has a secondary school not far from it and has a young adult, teenage and adult population that would support some fitness equipment.	Fitness equipment to be considered within project scope.
A BBQ and table area would also make it more of a community spirited area.	BBQ area with 2 x picnic shelters and rubbish bin to be considered within project scope and budget.
Drink fountain that both dogs and birds can access.	Drink fountain to be considered within project scope and budget - include within BBQ area.
Current issues with dog faeces – additional bins and signage.	Additional bin to be included in BBQ area.
Nature playground for young kids	Playground upgrade to include nature style elements with combination sand and rubber softfall.
Replace sand with rubber or mulch softfall.	As above.
Don’t replace sand with rubber softfall	As above.
Basketball would just annoy the surrounding residents.	Noted.
Install a basketball hoop.	Not recommended due to impact on resident amenity.
Because of the recent loss nesting hollows in the park, it would be a good thing to provide some appropriate next boxes to encourage the bird population to continue to visit the Park.	Consider as part of scope – consult with Parks and Conservation Maintenance.
Flying fox and board games	Consider, subject to remaining funds.
Small skate park	Not recommended, low priority due to existing skate park at Wanneroo Showgrounds.
Need extra lighting, there is a single light in the centre and the street lighting is average.	Not recommended, need not justified i.e. only received one request.

 

Concept Development

 

Based on the outcomes of the initial community engagement process, to options were developed for the Park, as outlined within the table below:

 

	Option 1	Option 2
Playground Upgrade	Flying fox, climbing net, junior combination unit, toddler combination unit, swings, rocker, accessible playhouse and car.	Junior combination unit, toddler combination unit, swings, rocker, accessible carousel and hammock.
Fitness Equipment	Four station fitness equipment unit.	Obstacle course fitness trail.
BBQ area	Accessible picnic shelters, double bbq and drink fountain.	As per Option 1.

 

These concepts have been included within (Attachment 3).

 

The design philosophy for both two options is to provide accessible equipment for a range of ages and incorporate a market garden theme to reflect the history of the local area and enhance a sense of place.

 

Both options allow for the development of the park as a single stage for construction as part of the 2021/22 budget. The proposed schedule will see construction commence in November 2021 and completed by December 2021.

Consultation

Based on the two concept options, a second round of community engagement was undertaken from 6 to 29 November 2020 and included the following consultation strategy:

 

·        Distribution of an information letter and illustrative concept plans (Attachment 4) to 712 local residents and homeowners within 400m radius of the Park; and

·        Inclusion of the concept designs and online survey link on the City’s web site.

 

At the close of the consultation period Administration received a total of 17 responses, which represents a 2% return rate.

 

The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the two design options they preferred. A summary of the 17 responses is as follows:

 

·        14 respondents prefer Option 1 (82%);

·        One respondent prefers Option 2 (6%);

·        One respondent did not support the upgrade (6%); and

·        A response was received from the Department of Education in support of the overall development, with no preferred option (6%).

 

Other comments provided by respondents include:

 

Feedback	Comment
Include a path connecting the Central Gathering Circle (2) down to the corner bend of Nolyang Crescent (alleyway)	Consider design options pending available budget.
Need to be maintained, weeds and bindy to be sprayed.	Frederick Duffy is included in the broadleaf spray program and treated when required, with the last service 14 September 2020. A follow up site inspection confirmed there has been no resurgence.
Will any trees be removed?	No trees will be removed in either of the Options.
Request for dog poo bags.	Not recommended as the park does not meet the installation criteria.
Is it possible to swap the play house from Option 1 to the Carousel in Option 2?	Not recommended. Each of the options is designed within the available budget and any substitutions would require a redesign due to the cost differences.
All dogs must be on a lead. Maybe consider making one corner a fenced dog only area.	Not recommended, not within project scope or compliant with LPP4.3.
Entire park needs to be fenced with one meter high cyclone fence as a physical barrier to prevent trail bikes entering the park and damaging the turf. We have seen former residents “rip up the park” with trail bikes at night.	This feedback has been noted, however this is not recommended, noting that this is not compliant with LPP4.3.
It would be amazing it there could be a toilet.	Not recommended, noting that this is not compliant with LPP4.3.
Ideally would like both fitness equipment and obstacle course.	Not recommended due to over provision as per LPP4.3
It would, in my opinion, be a total waste of my rates money, to do any form of upgrade to this park. It would have no benefits, attract no new people into the area, and the general cost of upkeep would be more than any benefit obtained. It is very rare that I ever see children using the Park. 95% are walking their dogs, 5% are walking through. The existing benches are damaged more than they are sat on. There is plenty of cover provided by all the trees. It is a happy and peaceful environment just as it is with many native birds and wildlife in residence. It would be a great pity to change this.	The intention of the upgrade is to provide additional amenity for the existing residents. It is noted that the usage comments are contradictory to all other feedback received.

Comment

Both options for the development of the development of the Park are in line with the standard requirements of Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space and within the allocated project budget.

 

Based on the outcomes of the community engagement process Option 1 is recommended by this report, pending available budget and noting the inclusion of an additional path from the Central Gathering Circle to Nolyang Crescent, subject to budget capacity.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Executive Leadership Team	Manage
Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O20 Productive Communities	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage
Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O17 Financial Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Community consultation has been undertaken as per the Community Engagement Policy. The development of the Park is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space.

Financial Implications

Frederick Duffy Park is listed in the Long Term Financial Plan as follows, noting that the cost of the Park’s development is within the project budget (excluding the development of the additional path requested in the community engagement process):

 

Year	Project #	Asset Location	Work Description	Total Cost
2020/21	PR-4239	Frederick Duffy Park	Design Passive Park	$18,000
2021/22	PR-4239	Frederick Duffy Park	Construct Passive Park	$257,750
			Total	$275,750

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ENDORSES the Frederick Duffy Park Concept Plan (Option 1), as shown in Attachment 3 of this report;

 

2.       NOTES that the construction of the proposed development is planned to commence in November 2021 and be concluded by December 2021; and

 

3.       RECOGNISES and THANKS the community for its involvement in the community engagement process for this project.

a.                      

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Frederick Duffy Park Aerial	20/539469
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Frederick Duffy Park and Jindinga Park Consultation Letter	21/10426
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Frederick Duff Park Concept Plans	20/490025	Minuted
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Frederick Duffy Park Consultation Letter	20/539315

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              40782 – 20/540643

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept design and community consultation outcomes for the Heath Park Pavilion in Eglinton.

Background

Heath Park (the Park) is an existing active reserve located at 90 Heath Park, Eglinton (Attachment 1). The property type is Crown Land vested in the City of Wanneroo for purposes of recreation.

The Park is used by the Alkimos Rugby League Club and Eglinton Districts Cricket Club. The current total weekly usage by sporting clubs for the Reserve is approximately 27 hours per week during winter, and six hours per week during summer.  There is also additional casual use due to the provision of a small skate plaza and dog exercise area.

A GIS investigation of the Reserve indicates the following:

Item	Current Status
Park Size / Hierarchy	4.89 ha / Neighbourhood Active Reserve (expanding to District with second playing field)
Reserve No.	52677
Lot No.	8022
Property Type	Crown Land - City of Wanneroo Managed
Ownership	City of Wanneroo
Aboriginal Sites	None listed on GIS
Bush Forever	None listed on GIS

Other active reserves within the vicinity include:

Park	Location	Facilities
Forestay Park	182 Skysail Ave 1.03km South	One large open space, cricket pitch. Further Development required
Leatherback Park	1 Fairy Pde, Alkimos 3.5km South	Single multi-purpose active reserve, , sports amenities building, car park, rider education facility and floodlighting
Kingsbridge Park	55 Kingsbridge Boulevard 6.8km South East	Single multi-purpose active reserve, community centre, sports amenities building, tennis courts x2, car park and skate facility.

 

 

The City’s Active Reserve Master Plan, endorsed by Council at its meeting on 11 October 2016 (CP01-10/16), identified a number of upgrades for the Reserve. These include:

·        Two senior full-sized multi-purpose ovals (complete middle 2016);

·        Floodlighting both ovals; and

·        Sports Amenities Building.

 

One oval is complete (with supporting floodlighting to 100 Lux). The current site for the future oval to the west is currently owned by Stockland (the Developer), and is subject to their future planning.

Detail

Concept Development

Administration has prepared a draft concept design (Attachment 2) and 3D images (Attachment 3) for the development of the proposed Pavilion at the Reserve. The proposed building inclusions are outlined in the table below:

Element	Description
Changerooms	6 x 60m2 unisex change rooms each with showers, toilet and basins (with capacity to provide an additional two)
Storerooms	4 x 20m2
First Aid Room	10m2 (with possible additional room in future expansion)
Umpires Room	12m2 includes shower and toilet (with possible additional room in future expansion)
Male, Female and Accessible Toilets	Male and female toilets that are separate facilities from change rooms and two separate universal access toilet (one internal access and on external) total 35m2
Kiosk	2 x 25m2 with external servery
Cleaners	5m2
Plant Room	10sqm
Bin Store	11m2
Multi-Purpose Room	100m2 multi-purpose room.
Furniture Store	16m2

The proposed design of the Pavilion seeks to meet the operational requirements of current and future users of the Reserve and has been informed by the intended use of the adjacent playing fields to maximise use and flexibility. There is also a future school planned to the north of the site and it is likely there will be a shared use arrangement for the reserve.

The building is consistent with the City’s existing level of provision for pavilions servicing a Neighbourhood Active Reserve, noting that the Pavilion will be available for general community use (outside of sporting use) and will be designated as a neighbourhood community centre. This supports the principles identified within the recently adopted Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (2020).

The location of the Pavilion is somewhat limited due to the location of the existing carpark and playing area dimensions as shown in (Attachment 4).

 

Project Schedule

The proposed timeframe for the delivery of the Sports Amenities Building is as follows:

*Due to CSRFF grant conditions, construction cannot commence until after the grant has been awarded.

Consultation

Community Consultation Process

The community consultation process was undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy for a 21 day period from 12 October to 1 November 2020 and included the following elements:

·        378 letters sent to surrounding residents;

·        Information provided on the City’s “Your Say” page;

·        Advertising for feedback on the City’s various social media platforms;

·        Notification to other sporting clubs in the northern corridor;

·        Direct communication with relevant stakeholders including:

o   Resident Sporting Clubs

§  Alkimos Tigers Rugby League

§  Eglinton Districts Cricket Club

o   Stockland (the Developer)

Public Comment Outcomes

At the close of the community consultation period, Administration received a total of five responses, which is a return rate of approximately 1.3%. These are summarised below:

·        Ensure clear views from clubroom to either oval;

·        “Coastal” colour scheme;

·        Verandah space on viewing areas (all around the building);

·        Shortened delivery timeframe (requested end of 2021/22); and

·        Consider expanded area delivered at the same time.

 

 

The following request was made by the Alkimos Rugby League Club:

 

·        Central kiosk located on Eastern side.

 

The following comments were made by the Developer, and will be considered during the next phase of the project:

 

·        Further discussions will need to occur in relation to the implementation of a gravity fed sewer system, noting that a private pump sewer system may be required; and

·        Minor earthworks will be required to accommodate the building pad for the Pavilion.

Comment

Regarding the feedback received from stakeholders, the following comments have been made.

Administration is of the view that the proposed facility provision is appropriate for a district level active reserve of this size, is consistent with amenities provided at other reserves and will encourage active, healthy lifestyles within the community.

It should be noted that the design provided to the community is at the concept stage only and is subject to change as a result of the detailed design phase.

Statutory Compliance

The City will be required to secure the necessary development and building approvals prior to the commencement of construction.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Chief Executive Officer	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O20 Productive Communities	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate risk register.  Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The design has been undertaken in line with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space and Access and Inclusion Plan. The Community Consultation process has been undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

Financial Implications

The Heath Park Pavilion is currently listed in the Capital Works Program as PR-4283 as follows:

Year	Work Asset Item	Total Cost	Funding Source
			Municipal	Grants*
2020/21	Design	$40,000	$40,000	$0
2021/22	Detailed Design	$300,000	$300,000	$0
2022/23	Construction	$1,669,500	$649,833	$1,019,667
2023/24	Construction	$1,389,500	$1,389,500	$0
TOTAL		$3,399,000	$2,379,333	$1,019,667

 

The current cost estimate, at concept stage is $3,000,000 (exc. GST).

 

Due to the nature of the facility and the strong rugby league presence at Heath Park,  Administration wrote to the National Rugby League Western Australia (NRLWA) in December 2020 with a view to seek a contribution towards the construction of the facility. At the time of writing this report, Administration has not received a response to the request and is in the process of following up with NRLWA.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the Heath Park Pavilion concept plan, as shown in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 of this report, as the guiding design for the Pavilion;

2.       NOTES that construction of the proposed development is planned to commence in September 2022 and be concluded by August 2023; and

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Site Map - Heath Park, Eglington	20/227296
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Heath Park Pavilion - Concept Design - Floor Plan	20/416187	Minuted
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Heath Park Pavilion - Concept Design - 3D Views	20/416188	Minuted
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Available Land Area - Heath Park Pavilion - Stockland	20/559770

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              41146 – 20/567875

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil

Previous Items:                                   CP03-08/20 - Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) - 2021/22 Funding Round - Ordinary Council - 25 Aug 2020 7:00pm       

Issue

To consider the outcomes of the Department of Local Government, Sports and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) 2020 grant round.

Background

Through the CSRFF grant, DLGSC allocated $10M (annual and forward planning) for the 2020 funding round to provide financial assistance to community groups and Local Governments to develop basic infrastructure for sport and recreation. The program aims to increase participation in sport and recreation with an emphasis on increasing physical activity, through the development of sustainable, good quality, well-designed and well-utilised facilities.

 

At its meeting held on 25 August 2020, Council considered report CP03-08/20 and resolved the following:

 

That Council:-

1.       SUBMITS the following Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund applications to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for the 2020/21 funding round with the following assessment, project rating and prioritisation, noting a total grant amount sought of $1,377,503:

Project	Assessment	Project Rating	Priority
PR-4271 Splendid Park New Cycling Facility	Satisfactory	Well planned and needed by the municipality	1
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	Satisfactory	Well planned and needed by the municipality	2
PR-4213 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Installation	Satisfactory	Well planned and needed by the municipality	3

2.       NOTES that the construction phase of each project is dependent on the successful outcome of the Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund applications for the 2021/22 funding round (or securing other external funding at least to the equivalent value) and/or funding being identified as a result of the review of the Long Term Financial Plan, with a further report to be presented to Council in March 2021 advising the outcomes of all applications.

Detail

Administration has received advice from DLGSCI in regards to the outcomes of the 2020 CSRFF grant round, with the results being as follows:

 

Project	Project Cost	CSRFF Requested	CSRFF Approved (2021/22)
PR-4213 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Upgrades	$343,000	$114,219	$114,219
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	$1,561,000	$500,918	$400,000
PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility	$2,287,100	$762,366	$0
Total	$4,191,100	$1,377,503	$514,219

 

A summary of each project in respect to project status, impact of the funding outcome and recommended action is as follows:

 

PR-2967 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Upgrades

 

Successful with a CSRFF grant of $114,219. Concept plan, costings and design documentation was completed in the 2019/20 year, with construction proposed to occur in the 2020/21 financial year.

 

PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building Design and Construction

 

Successful with a CSRFF grant of $400,000 (grant application was for $500,918).  As a result a budget adjustment for an additional $100,918 in municipal funds will be required for the project to continue. Concept plan and initial costings have been completed in the 2019/20 year, with construction proposed in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 financial years.

 

PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility

 

Unsuccessful with a CSRFF grant application of $762,366. As a result a budget adjustment for an additional $762,366 in municipal funds will be required for the project to continue. Concept plan and initial costings had previously been completed in July 2020, with the project currently in detailed design. Currently, construction is proposed to commence in 2021/22.

Consultation

Consultation has been ongoing with the relevant stakeholders/sporting clubs to ensure they are kept updated with the progress of the projects. Future project specific consultation will be undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

Comment

The City has been successful in obtaining $514,219 in funding requested from the 2020 CSRFF grant round. The remaining project that was unsuccessful is still recognised as needed by the community.  It is acknowledged that a review of funding capacity through the City’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) will be required for the Dalvik Park and Splendid Park projects, which may impact the respective project schedules.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Chief Executive Officer	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Corporate risk register.  Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The projects are currently listed within the Long Term Financial Plan as follows:

 

Description	Municipal (3)	Cont.	CSRFF Funds (2)	Reserve	Total Cost (1)
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	$1,074,000	$0	$400,000	$87,000	$1,561,000
PR-4213 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Upgrades	$228,781	$0	$114,219	$0	$343,000
PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility	$1,524,734	$0	$762,366	$0	$2,287,100

 

Notes:

(1) Total project cost estimate.

(2) CSRFF grant amount sought based on eligible project costs.

(3) Municipal contribution being two thirds of the total cost.

 

 

As noted there exists a funding shortfall for the 2021/22 financial year as follows, based on the current scope of the projects:

 

Project	Grant Requested	Grant Award	2021/22
			Shortfall
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	$500,918	$400,000	$100,918
PR-4213 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Upgrades	$114,219	$114,219	$0
PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility	$762,336	$0	$762,336
TOTAL			$863,254

 

As a result, a further review of funding capacity through alternative external funding or additional municipal funding via the LTFP will be required.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the outcome of the City of Wanneroo's Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund applications for the 2020 funding round resulting in the budget shortfall as follows:

Project	Grant Requested	Grant Award	2021/22
			Shortfall
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	$500,918	$400,000	$100,918
PR-4213 Ferrara Park Sports Floodlighting Upgrades	$114,219	$114,219	$0
PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility	$762,336	$0	$762,336
TOTAL			$863,254

2.       NOTES that the following projects are still considered to be needed by the community, however will be subject to a review of funding capacity through the 2021/22 budget process (based on the prioritisation identified below):

Project	Priority	2020/21
PR-4271 Splendid Park Cycling Facility	1	$762,336
PR-2792 Dalvik Park, New Sports Amenities Building	2	$100,918

3.       REQUESTS that the Mayor write to the Minister for Sport and Recreation seeking an increase in the allocation for the CSRFF Fund and the establishment of a separate funding allocation, available to Local Government for the development of regional sport and recreation infrastructure; and

4.       REQUESTS that the Mayor write to the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Member for Butler outlining the lack of cycling infrastructure within the City of Wanneroo’s northern coastal corridor and noting the positive impact the Splendid Park Cycling Facility will make in terms of cycling facility provision.

 

 

Attachments: Nil

File Ref:                                              23756V030 – 21/1357

Responsible Officer:                          Director Community and Place

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

To consider the proposed concept design and community consultation outcomes for the Halesworth Park Pavilions (hard courts and ovals) in Butler.

Background

Halesworth Park (the Park) is a 12ha site located over three lots (Attachment 1). The Public Open Space (POS) underwent a master planning process in 2006, which was reviewed in the 2014/15 financial year (Attachment 2), the outcomes of which have previously been reported to Council at its meetings held on 28 April 2015 (CD02-04/15) and 10 November 2015 (CD03-11/15). Both the initial master plan process and subsequent review were undertaken in collaboration with the Department of Education (DOE) and with the relevant developers, being LWP and the Satterley Property Group.

A GIS investigation of the Reserve indicates the following:

Item	Current Status
Park Size / Hierarchy	12 ha / District Active Reserve
Lot	24 Halesworth Parade	101 Santorini Promenade	41 Amble Grove
Reserve No.	51292	N/A	N/A
Lot No.	8210	2018	2019
Property Type	Crown Land - City of Wanneroo Managed	Freehold	Freehold
Ownership	City of Wanneroo	Minister for Education	State of Western Australia
Aboriginal Sites	None listed on GIS	None listed on GIS	None listed on GIS
Bush Forever	None listed on GIS	None listed on GIS	None listed on GIS

Other active reserves within the vicinity include:

Park	Location	Facilities
Heath Park	90 Heath Avenue, 4.5km North	Single multi-purpose active reserve (2 x Rectangular fields), lit to 100 Lux (LED), car park, temporary facilities and fenced in dog exercise area.
Kingsbridge Park	55 Kingsbridge Boulevard 1.8km South	Single multi-purpose active reserve, lit to 50 Lux, community centre, sports amenities building, tennis courts x2, car park and skate facility.
Leatherback Park	1 Fairy Parade, Alkimos 1.5km North	Single multi-purpose active reserve, lit to 100 Lux, sports amenities building, car park and rider education facility.
Marlinspike Park	44 Marlinspike Boulevard 1.1km West	Further Development required – site constraints, likely unable to host older junior and senior sports due to size.

The City’s Active Reserve Master Plan, endorsed by Council at its meeting on 11 October 2016 (CP01-10/16), identified a number of requirements for the Reserve. These included:

·        Two floodlit senior full-sized multi-purpose ovals;

·        16 Hardcourts;

·        Sports Amenities Building;

·        Cricket Nets;

·        Playground; and

·        Car Park

 

The civil construction is currently in progress with an estimated completion date of 19 April 2021 (South Oval) and 19 July 2021 (North Oval). The current landscape plan, as per construction, is included within (Attachment 3). The civil construction contract includes the provision of the following:

 

·        Two senior full-sized multi-purpose ovals, floodlit to 100 Lux (LED) suitable for Large Ball Sport, Amateur competition;

·        16 Hard Courts (eight were built by the Department of Education on School property) floodlit to 250 Lux (LED) suitable for both Tennis play and Netball competition;

·        Cricket Nets floodlit to 500 Lux (LED), suitable for cricket net training;

·        Athletics Infrastructure;

·        Playground, Fitness Equipment, Picnic shelters and BBQ provision;

·        Path network, lit; and

·        Two x car parks to service both the ovals and the hardcourts

 

The project includes the delivery of two Sports Amenities Buildings (Pavilions). The main building (Halesworth Park Pavilion) will service the two playing fields, with the second building (Halesworth Courts Pavilion) servicing the hard courts (tennis and netball) with construction due to commence in 2021/22. 

Detail

Pavilion Buildings Concept Development

Administration engaged Bollig Design Group to progress concept development and detailed design for both buildings. The current plans for the buildings have been included within Attachment 4 (Halesworth Park Pavilion) and Attachment 5 (Halesworth Courts Pavilion).

The key components of each of the buildings are as follows:

Element	Description
	Park Pavilion	Courts Pavilion
Social Facilities	·    Multi-Purpose Room (1 x 200m2 or 2 x 100m2) with separate kiosks serving North and South Ovals; ·    Associated Female, Male and Universal Access Toilets.	·    Multi-Purpose Room (100m2) with 1 x Universal Access Toilet, provided either as a part of the initial construction or as a future stage.
Sport Facilities	·    2 x First Aid Rooms to service North and South Ovals; ·    2 x Unisex Umpire Change Rooms; ·    6-8 x Unisex Change Rooms (Dry 40m2, Wet 20m2); and ·    Accessible Showers.	·    1 x First Aid Room w/direct Court and Ambulance bay access; ·    1 x Unisex Umpire Change Rooms; ·    2 x Unisex Change Rooms (Dry 35m2, Wet 20m2); and ·    1 x Match Office (22m2) with external servery to Courts.
Public Amenity	·    2 x External Universal Access Toilets (one to face North, one South) on timer lock.	·    External Male and Female Toilets; ·    External Universal Access Toilet and Shower (Not operated by Timer Lock).
General	·    Cleaners Room; ·    Communication Rooms; and ·    Electrical and AV Cabinet.	·    Cleaners Room; ·    Communication Rooms; and ·    Electrical Cabinet.
Storage	·    External: 4 x Store Rooms, 1 x Bin Store; ·    Internal: MPR Store x 2, Kiosk Stores x 2; ·    Provision of an external storage shed for Athletics to accommodate larger storage requirements.	·    External: 3 external store rooms and bin store area; ·    Internal: MPR Store x 2 and Kiosk Store 6m2

The proposed design of the Pavilions seeks to meet the operational requirements of the future users of the Reserve and has been informed by the intended use of the adjacent playing fields and courts to maximise use and flexibility. The design captures the need to facilitate the use of both the North and South oval at the same time by different user groups.

Both John Butler Primary School and Alkimos College are located to the west of the site and it is likely there will be a shared use arrangement for the reserve, and the building has been designed to accommodate general community use outside of sporting use. This supports the principles identified within the recently adopted Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facility Plan (2020). 

Consultation

Community Consultation Process

The community consultation process for the building design was undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy for a 14-day period from 6 January to 20 January 2021 and included the following elements:

·        1066 letters sent to surrounding residents (Attachment 6);

·        Information provided on the City’s “Your Say” page;

·        Notification to all sporting clubs in the northern corridor; and

·        Notification to the following State Sporting Associations (SSA’s):

 

o   Athletics West;

o   Baseball WA;

o   Football West;

o   Lacrosse WA;

o   National Rugby League WA;

o   Netball WA;

o   Rugby Union WA;

o   Softball WA;

o   Tee Ball WA;

o   Tennis West;

o   Touch Football WA; and

o   West Australian Football Commission

 

The SSA’s above were provided the opportunity to comment on the concept design in October 2020. The feedback has been considered as part of the design process. Comment was also sought from the users of the Splendid Park and Grandis Park facilities with a specific focus on capturing lessons learnt (i.e. the positive and negative aspects of the facility design) to help inform the design.   

 

The feedback from this process has been supportive, with comments reinforcing the need for multiple unisex change rooms, consideration of storage needs and consideration of the ratio of toilets to showers in wet areas.

Public Comment Outcomes

At the close of the community consultation period, Administration received seven responses, which is a return rate of approximately 0.67%. The comments are summarised below:

·        No objection to the building works and the layout of the clubhouse looks good;

·        The low response rate may be due to previous engagement processes.

Comment

Administration is of the view that the proposed facility provision is appropriate for a district level active reserve of this size, is consistent with amenities provided at other reserves and will encourage active, healthy lifestyles within the community.

It should be noted that the design provided to the community is at the concept stage only and may be subject to change as a result of the detailed design phase.

Statutory Compliance

The City will be required to secure the necessary development and building approvals prior to the commencement of construction.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “1     Society

1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.1  Create opportunities that encourage community wellbeing and active and healthy lifestyles”

 

 

“1      Society

                   1.1    Healthy and Active People

1.1.2    Facilitate opportunities within the City to access peak and elite activities”

“3      Environment (Built)

3.4    Activated Places

3.4.2  Provide safe spaces, centres, and facilities through our infrastructure management and designs for community benefit and recreation”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S23 Stakeholder Relationships	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Chief Executive Officer	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O17 Financial Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers.  Action plans have been developed to manage these risks to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The design has been undertaken in line with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space, and the Access and Inclusion Plan. The Community Consultation process was undertaken as per the City’s Community Engagement Policy.

Financial Implications

PR-2955 Halesworth Park is currently listed in the City’s Long Term Financial Plan as follows:

 

Year	Work Asset Item	Total Cost		Funding Source
			Grants	Contribution	Reserve
2020/21	Construction	$10,987,994	$500,000	-	$10,487,994
2021/22	Construction	$5,748,235	$3,500,000	$1,268,000	$980,235
2022/23	Construction	$1,859,500	$1,750,000	-	$109,500
TOTAL		$18,595,729	$5,750,000	$1,268,000	$11,577,729

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Halesworth Park Pavilions Concept Plans, as shown in Attachment 5 and Attachment 6 of this report, as the guiding design for the Pavilions;

2.       NOTES the construction of the proposed development is planned to commence in June 2021 and be concluded by June 2022; and

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

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Halesworth Park Aerial Map	21/1025
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Halesworth Park 2015 Master Plan Revision	15/65211
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Halesworth Park Current Layout	21/4365
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Halesworth Park Pavilion Floor Layout and Elevation	21/5819	Minuted
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - Halesworth Court Pavilion Floor Layout and Elevation	21/5820	Minuted
6⇩.	Attachment 6 - Halesworth Park Building Community Engagement Letter	20/574427	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

File Ref:                                              37350V02 – 20/558016

Responsible Officer:                          Director Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

For Council to consider the Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 30 November 2020.

Background

In accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the Financial Activity Statement has been prepared in compliance with the following:

“Regulation 34(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, which requires a local government to prepare a statement of financial activity each month, presented according to nature and type, by program, or by business unit. The statement of financial activity will be presented by nature and type.  

Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, which requires a local government to adopt a percentage or value, calculated in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances. 10% and a value greater than $100,000 will be used for the reporting of variances.”

 

The City was not able to comply with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 r. 34 (4) for the November 2020 Financial Activity Statement due to Council being in recess from 16 December 2020 to 31 January 2021. This matter has been communicated to the Minister of Local Government, Heritage, Culture and the Arts via a letter dated 14 December 2020.

Detail

Financial Activity for the period ended 30 November 2020

 

Council adopted the Annual Budget for the 2020-21 financial year on 20 July 2020 (SCS01-07/20). The budget changes proposed in the Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 31 October 2020 and First Quarter (Q1) Budget Review of the 2020/21 Annual Budget have been included in the November 2020 Financial Activity Statement as the reports were adopted by Council on 17 November 2020 (CS01-11/20 and CS02-11/20 respectively). The figures in this report are compared to the Revised Budget.

 

Overall Comments Month-to-Date

Results from Operations

 

The Financial Activity Statement report for the month of November 2020 shows an overall favourable variance from Operations before Non-Operating Revenue and Expenses of $2.5m.

 

The favourable variance is due to higher revenue of $1.0m from Rates, Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions, and Fees & Charges and underspends in operating expenditures of $1.5m from Employment costs, Materials & Contracts, Insurance expense, and Utility Charges.

 

 

Capital Program

 

During November 2020, $4.5m was spent on various capital projects of which $2.4m was spent on roads and sport facilities (Refer to Attachment 3 for more details).

 

Overall Comments on Year-to-Date (YTD) Figures

Results from Operations

 

The Financial Activity Statement year-to-date report of November 2020 shows an overall favourable variance from Operations of $13.4m.

 

 

Capital Program

 

At the end of November 2020, $17.7m was expended on various capital projects of which $10.2m was spent on roads and sports facilities.

 

The variance is mainly attributable to the Halesworth Park project due to delay in the project timeline and Domestic Waste vehicles progress payment.

 

 

 

Investment Portfolio Performance

 

 

Detailed Analysis of Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1)

Comments relating to the Statement of Comprehensive Income are provided under the following two sections of this report:

a)      Current month comparison of Actuals to Budgets; and

b)      Year to date Actuals to Budgets; where the variance is higher than reporting threshold or item of interest to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues

Note 1        Rates

Month to Date - (Actual $185k, Revised Budget $0k)

The variance is favourable by $185k as a result of higher interim rates generated on residential properties than anticipated during the month.

Year to Date - (Actual $135.1m, Revised Budget $134.7m)

The variance is favourable by $422k as a result of additional properties created and levied in rates database in line with updated schedule received from Landgate.

Note 2        Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

Month to Date - (Actual $2.0m, Revised Budget $1.4m)

The favourable variance of $548k mainly relates to:

·        Early receipt of 50% of Bushfire Mitigation Activity Fund Grant (2020/21 program) of $302k, which will enable the provision of treatment activities to help reduce bushfire risk within the City of Wanneroo; and

·        Late receipt of balance amount of Bushfire Mitigation Activity Fund Grant (2019/20 program) of $206k from Department of Fire and Emergency Services.

 

Year to Date - (Actual $8.4m, Revised Budget $3.4m)

The favourable variance of $5.0m mainly relates to unbudgeted waste related income received. 

 

 

 

Note 3        Fees and Charges – Including Waste Service Fee

Month to Date - (Actual $1.6m, Revised Budget $1.4m)

At the time of the Budget preparation, the City had a cautious approach in regards to the timing of the anticipated revenue for 2020/21 due to COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted a low base line for the first half of the financial year. The original 2020/21 budget has been revised at the Q1 budget review.

The favourable variance of $232k for the month of November is due to:

·        $257k – Higher than anticipated number of building services applications and development assessments mainly due to the State Government stimulus on new housing development; offset by

·        $25k – Low user entry fees and Aquamotion memberships than anticipated.

 

 

Year to Date - (Actual $39.1m, Revised Budget $37.6m)

Reasons for the favourable variance of $1.4m are summarised as per below:

·        $812k – Income streams for building assessment services and planning assessment services are running ahead of year to date budgets due to the increase in activity in the residential housing sector with new builds taking advantage of the stimulus grants being offered. Whilst the end of year budgets were revised up as part of the Q1 review, due to the uncertainty of the grant arrangements a cautious approach was applied with regard to the monthly phasing of anticipated additional income which will be revised at the mid year budget review;

·        $172k – Increased revenue from annual health assessment application licence fee;

·        $123k – Building assessment search fee income higher than anticipated;

·        $124k – Domestic waste fee higher than anticipated; and

·        $168k – Higher than anticipated various other fees and charges.

Note 4        Interest Earnings

Month to Date - (Actual $325k, Revised Budget $343k)

The variance is adverse by $18k but within the reportable threshold.

Year to Date - (Actual $2.1m, Revised Budget $1.8m)

Interest earnings are favourable by $297k mainly due to higher investment portfolio balance than anticipated.

Expenses

Note 5        Employee Costs

Month to Date - (Actual $5.9m, Revised Budget $6.1m)

The variance is favourable by $1.1m due to lower employee costs mainly arising from deferred recruitment to fill in vacant roles.

Year to Date - (Actual $30.0m, Revised Budget $31.9m)

The variance is favourable by $1.9m due to reasons noted above.

Note 6        Materials & Contracts

Month to Date - (Actual $5.1m, Revised Budget $6.2m)

The favourable variance of $1.1m is mainly related to:

·                Lower contract expenses by $421k for maintenance of parks, road reserves and park structure and rates collection services due to timing differences;

·                Lower material expenses by $184k due to some delays in maintenance of domestic waste trucks, parks, park irrigation and sport grounds;

·                Lower consulting fees by $111k for property management, planning services and park equipment maintenance;

·                Lower sponsorship expenses by $110k mainly due to timing difference of contribution to community men’s shed;

·                Lower debt write-off of $98k as there have been lower than expected financial hardship applications; and

·                Lower usage of parks maintenance vehicles and park structures, domestic waste collection and support bushfire services by $58k.  

Year to Date - (Actual $27.3m, Revised Budget $31.1m)

The variance is favourable by $3.8m due to:

·                Lower contract expenses by $1.1m for maintenance of parks, road reserves and bushland and rates collection services due to timing differences;

·                Lower material expense of $692k to maintain road reserves, waste domestic plant, pathways, operations centre and park irrigation equipment;

·                Lower contributions & donations expense of $299k of which $130k relates to Pitstop park within land development  management services and $169k relates to donations to community funding which is a timing difference;

·                Lower debt write-off of $223k as there have been lower than expected financial hardship applications;

·                Consulting fees for development and review of integrated planning framework, property management and special projects are lower by $425k;

·                Lower membership subscription of $148k which is a timing difference;

·                Lower utilisation of vehicle of $154k due to less commute;

·                Lower refuse removal expense of $132k; and

·                Lower advertising expenses of $138k.

 

Note 7        Utility Charges

Month to Date - (Actual $799k, Revised Budget $844k)

The variance is favourable by $45k due to lower water consumption, electricity and gas usage offset by higher mobile telephone expenses.

Year to Date - (Actual $3.8m, Revised Budget $4.1m)

The variance is favourable by $290k due to lower electricity usage amounting to $252k of which $65k is relates to Street Lighting.

Note 8        Insurance

Month to Date - (Actual $-89k, Revised Budget $74k)

The City received second credit instalment of 2020-21 Contribution Assistance Package from its insurer (LGIS), resulting in a favourable variance of $163k.

Year to Date - (Actual $123k, Revised Budget $366k)

The favourable year to date variance of $244k is a result of the City’s receipt of a credit from its insurer (LGIS) with the City opting to offset the insurance premium. 

 

Non Operating Revenue & Expenses

Note 9        Non Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

Month to Date – (Actual $2.4m, Revised Budget $1.7m)

The variance is favourable by $711k, which is mainly attributable to:

State Government grants of $313k:

·        Early receipt of $383k grant for upgrade intersection of Mirrabooka Avenue and Rawlinson Drive;

·        Late receipt of $212k for construction of Yanchep Splendid Skate Park (PR-4145) offset by;

·        $282k funding not yet received for Hartman Drive Duplication.

Federal Government grants of $414k:

·        Early receipt of $116k grant for renewal of various transport infrastructure assets on a priority basis from Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications;

·        Early receipt of $185k for upgrade sports floodlighting – Paloma Park; and

·        Late receipt of $113k grant for Edgar Griffiths Park carpark, which was anticipated in October 2020.

Year to Date – (Actual $5.8m, Revised Budget $7.4m)

The variance is unfavourable by $1.6m, which is attributable to:

State Government grants of $112k:

·        $1.6m for Hartman Drive Duplication based upon $950k of restricted grants that have not yet been recognised as income, and $600k of funding not yet received offset by;

·        Late receipt of $727k related to Pinjar Road duplication, which was anticipated in 2019/20;

·        Receipt of $115k higher than anticipated for Road Resurfacing Program;

·        Early receipt of $185k for upgrade sports floodlighting – Paloma Park; and

·        $375k of grant received earlier than anticipated for Mirrabooka/Rawlinson intersection upgrade.

Federal Government grants of $1.0m:

·        $1.0m grant for Halesworth park sport facilities not yet received.

Cash Contribution of $496k:

·        $496k cash contribution has not yet been recognised as income pending confirmation of obligations required to be carried out.

 

Note 10      Contributed Physical Assets

Month to Date – (Actual $1.3m, Revised Budget $0k)

In November 2020, $1.3m of various assets were handed over to the City by developers. The actual asset is recorded as and when assets are handed over to the city.

Year to Date – (Actual $1.3m, Revised Budget $0k)

As noted above.

Note 11      Profit / Loss on Asset Disposals

Month to Date – (Combined Actual $520k, Combined Revised Budget $0k)

The favourable variance of $520k is a result of a higher proceeds relating to Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) than anticipated.

Year to Date – (Combined Actual $1.2m, Combined Revised Budget $-13.7m)

The variance is favourable by $14.9m mainly due to delay in take over of ownership of Ocean Reef Road and Gnangara Road by Main Roads WA. The City is awaiting the appropriate transfer documentation from Main Roads WA to process the ownership transfer.

Note 12      TPS & DCP Revenues

Month to Date – (Actual $-148k, Revised Budget $288k)

The unfavourable variance of $436k is mainly due to a reversal of accrued income related to last financial year (2019/20) for Cell 9, which is a timing difference.

 

Year to Date – (Actual $6.2m, Revised Budget $6.1m)

The favourable variance of $120k is mainly due to higher than the anticipated Interest Income from TPS & DCP funds held in interest bearing deposits.

Note 13      TPS & DCP Expenses

Month to Date – (Actual $-1.6k, Revised Budget $264k)

The favourable variance of $1.8m is mainly due to a reversal of accrued expense related to last financial year (2019/20) for Cell 9, which is a timing difference.

Year to Date – (Actual $358k, Revised Budget $2.2m)

The favourable variance of $1.8m is mainly due to delayed acquisition of Public Open Space (POS) Lot 150 Landsdale and delay in finalising payments for Historic POS - Lot 19 Kingsway & Lot 820 Landsdale.

 

Statement of Financial Position (Attachment 2)

 

 

Note 1 - Net Current Assets

When compared to the opening position at 30 June 2020 Net Current Assets have increased by $116.8m, which is predominately due to levying of 2020/21 Rates and Waste Service Fees in July 2020.

Within the Current Assets, Current Receivables of $57.0m are mainly comprised of collectable Rates and Waste Service Fees debtors of $50m and Emergency Services Levy of $1.6m, with the remaining balance attributed to General Debtors of $5.4m.

Note 2 - Non-Current Assets

Non-Current Assets position as at 30 November 2020 have increased by $1.3m from 30 June 2020 Actuals. The movement is due to increase in Work in Progress and Asset Acquisition of $19.2m partially offset by accumulated depreciation of $17.9m (estimated).

 

Note 3 - Non-Current Liabilities

Non-Current Liabilities position as at 30 November 2020 have decreased by $35k due to change in the interest bearing liabilities (Lease).

The existing loan with the Western Australia Treasury Corporation remains unchanged making up 37% of total Non-Current Liabilities.

Note 4 – Equity

The City conducted a Second Internal Transaction Review of Cells 1 - 9 based on a further refinement to the interpretation of Cell Works under District Planning Scheme 2 (DPS 2). This review focused on projects which was not previously identified in the previous review including the removal, replacement and rebuilding of Cell Works.

Council, at its 14 December 2020 Council meeting, endorsed the municipal recoupment of Cell Works based on the revised interpretation of Cell Works to include:

 

·        All pathways greater than 2.1 metres wide (previously only 2.1 metre Dual Use Paths were included), including 3.0 metre wide Principle Shared Use Paths;

·        All Cells Works, including rebuilding, resurfacing, replacement and improvement;

·        Preliminary and general costs (e.g. design, traffic management) relating to the simultaneous construction, repair, removal, replacement or improvement of both the first and second carriageway pavement have been shared between the City and Development Contribution Plans (DCPs).

The findings of the Second Internal Transactional Review have resulted in $3.8 million being recouped from the DCPs into municipal. The financial adjustments have been incorporated in the 2019/2020 financial year and included into the expenditure of each Cell.

It is recommended to transfer $3,818,197.42 of total recoup amount from the Second Internal Transactional Review of Cells 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to Asset Renewal Reserve, which needs to be replenished.

Financial Performance Indicators

The table below presents data on relevant financial ratios, comparing the minimum standard expected as per the DLGSCI status at the year to date figures, and at the same period of the last year.

A green highlight is used where the minimum standard is met or exceeded. Highlighted in red is below the standard (where relevant).

The asset ratios will be published as part of the Statutory Financial Statements.

 

Capital Works Program

The status of the Capital Works Program is summarised by Sub-Program in the table below:

 

 

During November 2020, $4.5m was spent. Details of significant expenditure for the month are included in Attachment 3. As at 30 November 2020, the City has spent $17.7m, which represents 24.3% of $72.8m 2020/21 Capital Works Revised Budget.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The City’s forecast spend of $66.2m represents 91% of the 2020/21 revised budget.

 

 

To further expand on the Capital Works Program information above, selected key capital projects updates are provided in the Top Capital Projects attachment to this report (Attachment 4).

 

Capital Changes

In November 2020, there were no changes to the 2020/21 Capital Works budget.

Investment Portfolio (Attachment 5)

In accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (and per the City’s Investment Policy), the City invests solely in Authorised Deposit taking Institutions (ADI’s):

At the end of November 2020, the City held an investment portfolio (cash & cash equivalents) of $458.7m (Face Value), equating to $461.3m inclusive of accrued interest. This total portfolio consists of restricted cash of $341.5m and un-restricted cash of $119.8m.

The City’s year to date investment portfolio return has exceeded the UBS Australia Bank Bill rate index benchmark by 0.54% pa (0.98% pa vs. 0.44% pa); however, it is noted that Interest Earnings were budgeted at a 1.00% yield.

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has lowered the Cash Rate at 0.1%, which is affecting the City’s ability to attract higher interest rates from ADI’s.

Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 6)

The Rate Setting Statement represents a composite view of the finances of the City, identifying the movement in Surplus/ (Deficit) based on the Revenues (excluding Rates), Expenses, Capital Works and Funding Movements, resulting in the Rating Income required.  It is noted that the closing Surplus/ (Deficit) will balance to reconciliation of Net Current Assets Surplus/ (Deficit) position as detailed on the following page. Whilst a year-to-date surplus of $124.6m is reported, this amount will progressively reduce towards the balanced position by year-end as operational and capital expenditures are incurred for the remainder of the financial year.

 

 

*The change in the AASB Standard 15 and 1058 have resulted in the City now recognising Grants and Contributions received as a liability when performance obligations have not yet been met.

**The change in the AASB Standard 15 has resulted in the City now recognising a contract asset when performance obligations have been met, however the Grants and Contributions not yet received.

Consultation

This document has been prepared in consultation with Administration for review and analysis.

Comment

In reference to Statement of Comprehensive Income in the report, the following colours have been used to categorise three levels of variance:

Revenues:

·        Green > 0%;

·        Amber -0% to -10%; and

·        Red > -10%.

Expenses:

·        Green > 0%;

·        Amber -0% to -10%; and

·        Red > -10%.

Statutory Compliance

This monthly Financial Activity Statement report does not comply with Regulations 34 (4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, which requires the Statement of Financial Activity is to be presented at an ordinary meeting of Council within 2 months after the end of the month to which the statement relates and recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which it is presented.

The City was not able to comply with the above regulation due to Council being in recess from 16 December 2020 to 31 January 2021. This fact has been communicated to the Minister of Local Government, Heritage, Culture and the Arts via a letter dated 14 December 2020.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2017 – 2027:

 “4     Civic Leadership

4.2    Good Governance

4.2.2  Provide responsible resource and planning management which recognises our significant future growth”

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
Financial Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Executive Management Team	Manage

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage this risk to support existing management systems.

 

In pursuing growth under the Economic objectives of the existing Strategic Community Plan, Council should consider the following risk appetite statements:

 

“Local Jobs

 

The City is prepared to accept a high level of financial risk provided that the City implements a risk management strategy to manage any risk exposure.

 

Strategic Growth

 

The City will accept a moderate level of financial risk for facilitating industry development and growth.

 

Any strategic objective including ongoing planning, funding and capital investment to develop infrastructure strategic assets carries financial risks.”

Policy Implications

·        Accounting Policy;

·        Investment Policy;

·        Financial Cash Backed Reserves Policy; and

·        Strategic Budget Policy.

Financial Implications

As outlined in the report and detailed in Attachments 1 to 6.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statement and commentaries on variances year to date Budget for the period ended 30 November 2020 consisting of:

a)      November 2020 year to date Financial Activity Statement;

b)      November 2020 year to date Net Current Assets Position; and

c)      November 2020 year to date Material Financial Variance Notes.

2.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the following funds transfer to the Asset Renewal Reserve:

Transfer $3,818,197.42 of total recoup amount from the Second Internal Transactional Review of Cells 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to Asset Renewal Reserve.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Statement of Comprehensive Income November 2020	20/560071	Minuted
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Statement of Financial Position November 2020	20/560073	Minuted
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Significant Capital Expenditure November 2020	20/557808	Minuted
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Top Projects 2020-21 November 2020	16/151914[v56]	Minuted
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - Investment Report November 2020	20/557839	Minuted
6⇩.	Attachment 6 - Rate Setting Statement November 2020	20/562901	Minuted