Council Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

6:00pm, 10 August 2021

Council Chambers (Level 1), Civic Centre,

23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

The City encourages any members of the public who wish to raise a question to Council to submit this information via the City’s online forms and/or contact Council Support on 9405 5027.

 

·                Public Question online form

 

The City will make every endeavour to provide a response to any submissions at the meeting. All submissions will form part of the electronic meeting and will be recorded in the Minutes of the Council meeting.

1.         Time Permitted

 

A minimum of 15 minutes is permitted for Public Question Time at Council Meetings. If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the Presiding Member will move to the next item. If there are more questions to be considered within 15 minutes, the Presiding Member will determine whether to extend Public Question Time. Each person seeking to ask questions during Public Question Time may address the Council for a maximum of three minutes each. 

2.         Protocols

 

No member of the public may interrupt the Council Meeting proceedings or enter into conversation. 

Members of the public wishing to participate in Public Question Time at the Council Meeting are to register on the night at the main reception desk located outside of Council Chambers. Members of the public wishing to submit written questions are encouraged to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting (that is, by 12noon on the day before the meeting).

The Presiding Member will control Public Question Time and ensure that each person wishing to ask a question is given a fair and equal opportunity to do so. Members of the public wishing to ask a question must state his or her name and address before asking a question. If the question relates to an item on the Agenda, the item number and title should be stated.

3.         General Rules

 

The following general rules apply to Public Question and Statement Time:

·                Public Questions and Statements should only relate to the business of the local government and should not be a personal statement or opinion;

·                Only questions relating to matters affecting the local government will be considered at a Council Meeting, and only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered at a Special Council Meeting; 

·                Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting;

·                Questions may not be directed at specific Council Members or City Employee;

·                Questions are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely on a particular Council Member or City Employee;

·                First priority will be given to persons who are asking questions relating to items on the current Council Meeting Agenda; and

·                Second priority will be given to Public Statements. Only Public Statements regarding items on the Council Agenda under consideration will be heard.

Please ensure mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.

For further information, please contact Council Support on 9405 5000.

Objective

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

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

 

Implications

City of Wanneroo Strategic Community Plan 2017/2018 to 2026/2027:

 

“4 Civic Leadership

4.2 Good Governance

4.2.1 Provide transparent and accountable governance and leadership”

 

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

 

Implementation

This Policy shall be printed within the Agenda of all Council Meetings which include:

 

·                Ordinary Council Meeting;

·                Special Council Meeting;

·                Annual General Meeting of Electors; and

·                Special Electors Meeting.

 

To advise the public that the proceedings of the meeting are recorded.

 

Evaluation and Review Provisions

 

Recording of Proceedings

1.         Proceedings for Council Meetings; as well as Deputations and Public Question Time during these meetings shall be recorded by the City on sound recording equipment, except in the case of a meeting where Council closes the meeting to the public.

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

3.         No member of the public is to use any audio visual technology or devices to record the proceedings of a Council or Committee Meeting, without the written permission of the Mayor or the Mayors Delegate.

 

Access to Recordings

4.         Members of the public may purchase a copy of the recorded proceedings or alternatively, listen to the recorded proceedings at the Civic Centre. Costs of providing a copy of the recorded proceedings to members of the public will include staff time to make the copy of the proceedings; as well as the cost of the digital copy for the recording to be placed on. The cost of staff time will be set in the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges each financial year.

5.         Council Members may request a copy of the recording of the Council proceedings at no charge.

6.         All Council Members are to be notified when recordings are requested by members of the public, and of Council.

7.         Transcripts can be produced on the request of the Chief Executive Officer and will include staff time set by the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges.

Acronym	Meaning
ABN	Australian Business Number
ACN	Australian Company Number
Act	Local Government Act 1995
CBP	City of Wanneroo Corporate Business Plan
CHRMAP	Coastal Hazard Risk Management & Adaption Plan
City	City of Wanneroo
CPI	Consumer Price Index
DBCA	Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions
DFES	Department of Fire and Emergency Services
DOE	Department of Education Western Australia
DOH	Department of Health
DPLH	Department of Planning Lands and Heritage
DPS2	District Planning Scheme No. 2
DLGSCI	Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries
DWER	Department of Water and Environmental Regulation
EPA	Environmental Protection Authority
GST	Goods and Services Tax
JDAP	Joint Development Assessment Panel
LTFP	Long Term Financial Plan
MRS	Metropolitan Region Scheme
MRWA	Main Roads Western Australia
POS	Public Open Space
PTA	Public Transport Authority of Western Australia
SAT	State Administrative Tribunal
SCP	City of Wanneroo Strategic Community Plan
WALGA	Western Australian Local Government Association
WAPC	Western Australian Planning Commission

 

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held in the

Council Chambers (Level 1), Civic Centre, 23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

on Tuesday 10 August, 2021 commencing at 6:00pm.

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

5 August, 2021

CONTENTS

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question and Statement Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-08/21     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 July 2021  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Council Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment  2

PS01-08/21      Review of Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places  2

PS02-08/21      To consider changing the City's Environmental Advisory Committee
to an Advisory Group and review the Terms of Reference  14

PS03-08/21      Consideration of Actions Relating to Developer Contribution Arrangement  28

Approval Services  32

PS04-08/21      Planning Reform of the Western Australian Planning System
Phase 2  32

PS05-08/21      Review of Local Planning Policy No. 2.8: Licensed Premises  50

PS06-08/21      Consideration of Proposed Local Planning Policy No. 4.29:
Renewable Energy Systems following advertising  75

PS07-08/21      Consideration of Development Application for Telecommunications Facility at Lot 1450 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos (DA2021/351) 100

PS08-08/21      Preparation of Amendment No. 199 to District Planning Scheme
 No. 2 - Land Use Permissibility for Car Park in the General Rural
 and Rural Resource Zones  136

 

Assets  144

Strategic Asset Management  144

AS01-08/21      State & National Government Black Spot Program 2022-2023  144

Infrastructure Capital Works  155

AS02-08/21      Funding Committed to the City as a Result of the March 2021
State Election Campaign: Part 2  155

Assets Maintenance  164

AS03-08/21      21029 - The Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Advertising on Illuminated Street Signs  164

Community & Place  173

Corporate Strategy & Performance  173

Business & Finance  173

CS01-08/21     Financial Activity Statement for the period ended 30 June 2021  173

Transactional Finance  198

CS02-08/21     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 June 2021  198

Property Services  278

CS03-08/21     Old Yanchep Surf Club Site - Proposed Agreement for Lease and Ground Lease  278

Council & Corporate Support  316

CS04-08/21     Donations to be considered by Council - August 2021  316

Chief Executive Office  319

Governance & Legal  319

CE01-08/21     Complaint Handling Policy and Amendments to the Standing
Orders Local Law   319

CE02-08/21     Fraud and Misconduct Control and Resilience Policy Review   378

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 388

MN01-08/21    Cr Natalie Sangalli – Splendid Park Floodlighting Upgrade  388

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 407

Item  11____ Confidential_ 407

CR01-08/21     Mindarie Regional Council’s Resource Recovery Facility  407

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 407

Item  13____ Closure_ 407

 

 

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 and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

 

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

Item  1     Attendances

Item  2     Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3     Public Question and Statement Time

Item  4     Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 July 2021 be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Item  5     Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6     Questions from Council Members

Item  7     Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions

 

Item  8     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 and Sustainability

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment

File Ref:                                              2188V02 – 21/292247

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider minor amendments to Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places (LPP 4.12).

Background

LPP 4.12 was adopted by Council on the 16 August 2016 (PS04-08/16) (Attachment 1) and is due for review. The policy provides guidance for the classification and assessment of heritage places included on the City’s Local Heritage Survey (LHS). The LHS identifies and records places that are, or might become, of cultural heritage significance based on their heritage values.

 

There are two types of heritage in Western Australia, including cultural heritage, which is addressed in the Heritage Act 2018, and Aboriginal heritage, which is addressed through separate legislation (Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972). This policy focuses on cultural heritage.

 

The LPP has been reviewed in accordance with clause 5 of the Deemed Provisions of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). As a result of the scheduled review, a number of minor amendments to the policy are proposed to ensure it aligns with current State and local heritage legislation.

Detail

A number of administrative changes are proposed to align the policy with State legislation and the City’s standard local planning policy template, as well as to improve readability, including:

 

·        Updating headings to be consistent with the City’s current local planning policy template. A new heading ‘Relationship to other policies, guidelines and documents’ has been included to outline the relevant State and local legislation and policies which need to be considered when assessing a place of heritage significance;

·        Inserting a table to describe the four heritage classification categories and their desired heritage outcomes, which will ensure any extensions or alterations will reinforce the significance of a heritage place;

·        Inserting a new heading ‘General provisions to alter, develop or demolish a heritage place’ to clarify which requirements apply to all categories of heritage places; and

·        Text modifications to reference current State heritage terminology. In particular, all references to ‘management categories’ have been changed to ‘classification categories’ in accordance with the Guidelines for Local Heritage Survey 2019 (Guidelines).

Administration has prepared a track changes version of the draft revised LPP 4.12 for Council’s consideration (Attachment 2).

Consultation

In accordance with sub clause 5(2) of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2, an amendment to a LPP must be publicly advertised, unless the City is of the opinion that the proposed amendment is of minor nature and therefore does not require public advertising.

 

In this instance, the amendments are considered minor as they propose to improve the formatting and legibility of the policy, as well as ensure the terminology is consistent with relevant State heritage legislation and guidelines. Therefore, Administration recommends no public advertising be required for the draft revised LPP.

Comment

LPP 4.12 refers to places that have been identified on the LHS, and provides guidance for assessing development applications to alter, develop or demolish these places. In accordance with the Heritage Act 2018, the LHS includes all places that have been identified to have cultural heritage significance, excluding Aboriginal places which solely have significance based on their Aboriginal culture or tradition.

 

Aboriginal heritage is currently protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972, and has different development assessment requirements to those of a cultural heritage place. In particular, applications to alter or damage a registered Aboriginal site require approval from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs through a Section 18 application. Clarification has been included in the policy to outline what type of heritage this Policy refers to.

 

The policy has undergone a minor review to ensure that it remains consistent with the relevant State and local heritage legislation and policies until the upcoming review of the City’s LHS has been completed. The proposed changes will improve the formatting of the policy, ensuring that the requirements for assessing heritage applications are clear to the policy user.

 

As part of the City’s upcoming review of the City’s LHS, Administration will seek advice from a heritage consultant as to how this LPP can be revised to better guide the development of cultural heritage places within the City. The review of the LHS is anticipated to be presented to council for consent to advertise by mid-2022.

 

Until the review of the LHS, the minor changes proposed will ensure the policy remains effective in providing guidance for classifying and assessing heritage places listed on the existing LHS. It is intended that the feedback received during the LHS review will result in a major review of the policy as part of its next scheduled review.

Statutory Compliance

The policy review has been undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, and clause 4 and 5 of the Deemed Provisions of the DPS 2. 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

2 ~ A City that celebrates rich cultural histories, where people can visit and enjoy unique experiences

2.1 - Valuing cultures and history

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

There is a risk that poorly protected heritage places will be damaged or lost if not properly managed. This policy is essential in providing guidance to planners and applicants when classifying and assessing heritage places on the LHS. This will ensure all heritage places are appropriately identified and protected in the City.

 

The above risk relating to the issue contained within this report has 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 revised LPP has been reviewed to ensure it is consistent with State heritage legislation and guidelines. Upon adoption by Council, the revised LPP 4.12 would supersede the existing policy currently adopted on the City’s website.

Financial Implications

Nil.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that the final draft revised Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places is a minor amendment which does not require public advertising;

2.       Pursuant to subclause 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the final draft revised Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places, as included in Attachment 2;

3.       Pursuant to subclause 4 (4) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, PUBLISHES notice of its adoption; and

4.       FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for information.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Adopted_2016_LPP_4.12_Heritage_Places	21/284274
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Track_Changed_LPP4.12_Heritage_Places_2021_Draft	21/290339

 

 

 

AUTHORISATION         Adopted August 2016

REVIEW                       2021

 

PART 1 - POLICY OPERATION

Policy Development

This policy has been prepared under the provisions of Division 2 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

Purpose

To articulate the role of the City’s Planning Team when dealing with development and building applications and enquiries relating to heritage places included in the City’s Local Heritage Survey (LHS).

 

Objective

 

To provide an appropriate level of protection for heritage places identified on the City’s Local Heritage Survey.

 

Application

The City’s LHS is prepared in accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990. The LHS itself has no statutory implications under the Heritage Act, and is simply a list of the City’s important heritage places, prepared in consultation with the community and sent to the Heritage Council of Western Australia for public information. Council adopted the City’s Local Heritage Survey in March 2016.

 

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

 

A description of each of the four management categories is as follows:

 

Category 1: Recommended for State Register of Heritage Places

 

Highest level of protection appropriate: recommended for entry into the State Register of Heritage Places as well as inclusion in a Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 8 of the deemed provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No 2 (DPS2); provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.

 

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

 

Category 2: High Level of protection through the town planning scheme,

 

Category 2 places are included in the City’s Heritage List prepared pursuant to Clause 5.2 of the City of Wanneroo DPS2. Inclusion on the City’s Heritage List provides maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the heritage significance of the place.

 

Category 3: Retain and conserve if possible

 

Provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place. Photographic record required prior to any major redevelopment or demolition.

 

Category 4: Historic Site or Natural Place – Recognise

 

Historic site without built features or natural place. Interpret – for example with a plaque, place name, or reflection in urban or architectural design.

 

STATEMENTS

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

Category 1 and 2 Heritage Places have the greatest Heritage Value for the City of Wanneroo. As such, all Category 1 and 2 Places are included on the Heritage List established under Clause 8 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2.

 

A Planning Approval will be required for all development¹ involving places on the Heritage List, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 61 of the deemed provisions of DPS 2.

 

In addition to the usual application requirements, applicants will be requested to provide with their planning application the details set out in Clause 63 of the deemed provisions of DPS2 and a heritage impact statement prepared by an appropriately qualified and experienced Heritage Consultant with the application for Planning Approval.

 

A heritage impact statement should include an assessment of:

 

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

·    What will change;

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

·    Reasons for making the changes.

 

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

 

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

 

¹ The term ‘development’ shall have the same meaning given to it in and for the purposes of the Act but shall also include in relation to any building, object, structure or places listed on the Heritage List any act or thing that:

a) is likely to change the character of the place or the external appearance of any building; or

b) would constitute an irreversible alteration to the fabric of any building.

In the event that Council grants approval to develop or demolish a place on the Heritage List, a condition shall be imposed requiring the information as required and contained in Column

1 of the attached Table being provided prior to the lodgement of a building licence or demolition licence.

 

City will provide maximum encouragement to the owner to ensure the retention and conservation of these places, wherever possible. Owners should consider alternatives to altering the external character of the building, object, structure or place to ensure retention of these Heritage Places.

 

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

 

Review of Heritage Places

 

The Local Heritage Survey and Heritage List will be reviewed from time to time. Requests from the public wanting to add or remove a Heritage Place may be made by lodging a written request with supportive justification with the City. The decision to add or remove such a place can only be made through a resolution of full Council. Prior to Council making a decision to add or remove places, views will be sought from the owner and occupiers of the place, public comment shall be sought and advice may also be sought from the Heritage Council of WA.

 

Table 1

Minimum requirement for preparation of archival records	Detail record for Category 1 & 2	Photographic Record for Category 3 & 4
Background	✓
Statement of Significance	✓	✓
Location Plan	✓	✓
Base Plan	✓	✓
Reproduction of archival documents	✓
Heritage assessment documentation or brief written history	✓
Certificate of title	✓	✓
Photographs
-       The place and its setting	✓	✓
-       All external elevations	✓	✓
-       Significant/representative external & internal spaces	✓
-       Noteworthy items	✓	✓
Colour slides (as per photographs)	✓
Measured drawings
a) To sketch standard		✓
b) To architectural standard	✓
-       Site plan (1:500 or 1:200)	✓	✓
-       Floor plan/s (1:100 or 1:50)	✓	✓
-       Roof plan/s (1:100 or 1:50)	✓
-       External elevations (1:100 or 1:50)	✓
-       Internal elevations (1:100 or 1:50)	✓

Local Planning Policy 4.12: Heritage Places Planning and Sustainability

Local Planning Policy Framework

 

 

-       Sections (1:100 or 1: 50)	✓
-       Ceiling and joinery details (1:20 or 1:10)	✓
-       Other significant details	✓
Bibliography	✓	✓

 

File Ref:                                              1441V02 – 21/248021

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider changing the Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) to an Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) and revising the Terms of Reference accordingly.

Background

When the EAC was first endorsed by Council, it was approved by absolute majority decision as an ‘established committee’ under Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act of 1995 (the Act).

 

As part of the City’s annual Policy and Procedure review, the Administration has reviewed the groups Terms of Reference (Attachment 1). Whilst the EAC has been an established Committee since its inception, the functional operation of the Committee has been in an advisory capacity only, with no delegated power or duty to discharge.

 

This report is recommending, that the established “Environmental Advisory Committee” be disbanded and that the Council endorses the creation of the “Environmental Advisory Group” (EAG), noting that an Advisory Group is not a formal committee constituted pursuant to the Act. Further information on this recommendation is provided in the Detail section of this report.

 

Should Council approve the change from a Committee to Advisory Group; the Terms of Reference will be amended to reflect the procedural and legislative changes as required. Other minor amendments to the Terms of Reference are also proposed and are detailed further in this report for consideration, as well as being included in Attachment 2.

Detail

Terms of Reference

 

The draft revised Terms of Reference outlines the purpose and scope of the EAG. Administration is recommending that Council adopt the recommended Terms of Reference as shown in Attachment 3. The changes to the Terms of Reference are detailed in Attachment 2, with the most notable changes to the EAG Terms of Reference outlined below:

 

·        Changed appointment of new members to the Group to be by the Chief Executive Officer or Director of Planning and Sustainability based on agreed criteria;

·        Removed a requirement for there to be a quorum for a meeting. This allows greater flexibility in the running of meetings and enables time sensitive items to be presented in the absence of a quorum where necessary. It is important to note, however, that every endeavour will continue to be made to obtain a quorum; and

·        Changes to the Terms of Reference to enable the Group to provide input on projects earlier in their preparation process by referring first drafts of documents and projects that are in their conceptual phase of development, as opposed to final drafts.

 

It should be noted that there would still be Council Member membership on the EAG.

 

Change from Committee to Advisory Group

 

As the EAC has operated in an advisory capacity only, it is prudent for the Council to consider the functions of the EAC, and whether these best align to the purpose of an established Committee, or an advisory or working group.

 

Section 5.8 of the Act provides for the establishment of a Committee under the Act and defines the purpose of a Committee as being “to assist the Council and to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the local government that can be delegated to committees”. The Act prescribes the membership requirements, operations and powers that apply to an established Committee.

 

Some of these prescribed requirements for Committees are as follows:

 

1.       All membership to Committees (including deputies or a proxy member) must be appointed by Absolute Majority Decision of Council;

2.       The Committee (via an anonymous ballot process in accordance with the legislative process,) must formally elect the Presiding Member/Deputy Presiding Member. Each member is able to nominate themselves or another member, as a candidate for either position;

3.       A meeting may not be held without a quorum unless first endorsed by Council;

4.       Any Committee with a delegated power or duty is to be open to the public to attend; and

5.       All documentation relating to Committees may (by request) be made available for inspection by members of the public from the time the notice papers, agenda or documents were made available to the members of the committee.

 

The City applies the principles of good governance and transparency to Advisory and Working Groups; however there is a level of flexibility in the management for these Groups which is not permissible for established Committees. This approach can result in efficiency for the operations of these Groups such as:

 

1.       Membership can be appointed by Council or by other means (such as Chief Executive Officer or Director);

2.       The position of Presiding Member/Deputy Presiding Member may be classified as a Council Member;

3.       A meeting may be held without a quorum; and

4.       Meetings may not be open to the public and documentation may not be published.

 

Any such matters detailed above in relation to Advisory/ Working Groups are subject to the provisions endorsed within the Groups Terms of Reference. All Terms of Reference are referred to Council for endorsement regardless of whether these are for established Committees, Advisory or Working Groups.

Consultation

A report to consider changing the EAC to an EAG, along with an updated ToR for the Group was presented to Council Forum on 22 June for discussion and consideration. Both the proposed change to an Advisory Group and the draft revised ToR were supported.

 

The proposed change to an Advisory Group as well as the revised Terms of Reference were presented to the EAC at its meeting on 14 July 2021. The Committee supported the change to an Advisory Group and had comments on the draft revised ToR which resulted in some minor changes (primarily minor wording changes and addition of a clause to allow remote attendance for meetings).

Comment

As an Advisory Group, there would be more flexibility around meetings due to being less bound by fixed procedure (as required under the Act). As such, meetings can be quicker to administer, resulting in a higher consultation benefit with more frequent engagement where appropriate.

 

It is important to consider why a Committee would be established as opposed to being an Advisory Group. The benefits of changing to a group focus on improving the compliance structure and its connection with delegated authority. For example, the provision to establish a Committee under the Act is primarily to support Council to discharge (or delegate) its powers in relation to decision making. In the case of the EAC, this is not the case (i.e. the EAC does not make decisions on behalf of Council). Considering that the delegated authority for decision making does not exist with the EAC, it is more efficient for it to be an Advisory Group with regards to compliance and administration.

 

It should be noted that the Advisory Group would retain its representatives of Council as part of the Group until the end of the current term, being the ordinary Local Government Elections in October 2021.

 

Based on the above, it is recommended that Council disbands the Committee and that the Environmental Advisory Group be endorsed along with the revised Terms of Reference (Attachment 3).

 

It should be noted that if Council disbands the Committee, then no authority or power can be delegated to a Group. An absolute majority decision of Council is required to disband an established Committee.

Statutory Compliance

Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 enables the establishment of Committees to exercise powers of local government delegated to them.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

7 ~ A well governed and managed City that makes informed decisions, provides strong community leadership and valued customer focused services

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       By ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DISBANDS the Environmental Advisory Committee as an established committee under the Local Government Act 1995;

 

2.       ENDORSES the establishment of the Environmental Advisory Group; and

 

3.       APPROVES the revised Terms of Reference (as per attachment 3).

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Environmental Advisory Committee Terms of Reference	21/162073
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Environmental Advisory Group Terms of Reference - Tracked Changes	21/162080
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Environmental Advisory Group Draft Revised Terms of Reference	21/143524

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              5734V06 – 21/307242

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

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 20 April 2021 (PS03-04/21), Council supported Amendment 185 (as modified) to DPS2 and authorised execution and referral of the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commissions for approval (pending). The amendment will facilitate a number of improvements to the provisions relating to the management of DCP’s by the City.

 

In this regard, Administration previously identified numerous decisions relating to DCP management are not currently able to be delegated to Administration. This is due to DPS2 referring to Council in determining certain actions (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’.

 

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  DPS2 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 to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer.

Detail

Administration is required to refer a range of DCP 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.

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 DPS2.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

5 ~ A well planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.1 - Develop to meet current need and future growth

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

Nil

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 Report (August 2021)

21/307167

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              30442 – 21/292274

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider Phase 2 of the State Government has proposed reforms to the Western Australian Planning System.

Background

The State Government has been undertaking a program of major legislative, regulatory and policy changes to reform the Western Australian planning system.  As part of the first phase, changes have already been made to improve transparency and consistency across the planning system and reduce unnecessary red tape.  The first phase has seen changes to simplify and streamline the planning system including:

 

·        Expanding the scope of developer contributions to include community infrastructure;

·        A new State planning policy for infrastructure contributions;

·        New guidelines for development around precinct including METRONET stations;

·        Appointing a Director, Road Access and Planning within Main Roads WA;

·        Online publication of applications and planning documents;

·        New consultation requirements for complex applications;

·        Increasing the consultation period for structure plans to 42 days;

·        Requiring WAPC approval for local planning policy changes that vary the R-Codes;

·        Exemptions for planning approval for certain land uses;

·        New provisions for car parking and cash-in-lieu;

·        Trial of pre-lodgement in a temporary assessment pathway for significant development proposals;

·        Removing the option for continual extensions of time for referred applications;

·        Reducing the number of Development Assessment Panels from nine to five; and

·        Publishing WAPC agendas and minutes, improving transparency.

 

The State Government has now initiated phase two of its planning reform agenda and is seeking feedback, comments and suggestions for further reforms.

Detail

A wide range of potential reforms have been identified as part of phase two and some of the reforms include the following:

 

·        Government led structure planning for key locations with fragmented land ownership;

·        Better balance in land use, transport and road planning outcomes for key urban roads and highways;

·        Reduced duplication and conflict in decision making across State and local government;

·        Clear and consistent guidance for structure plans, planning schemes and scheme amendments;

·        A new, streamlined model for pre-lodgement of development applications;

·        A review of advertising timeframes for schemes and local planning strategies;

·        Review and reform of developer contribution plans, specifically to streamline the assessment and approvals process;

·        Reducing the number of Development Assessment Panels (DAP) to three; and

·        A new Special Matters DAP to deal with proposals of State significance.

Consultation

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is undertaking public consultation and is seeking feedback by 20 August 2021.

Comment

The State Government Action Plan for Planning Reform has already made some changes to the processing of planning matters.  The reforms proposed as part of Phase 2 provide an opportunity to further improve the planning process.  The DPLH is seeking input and feedback on Phase 2 as well as encouraging the advancement of any ideas and suggestions that will further improve the planning process.

 

Action for reform will be drawn from the feedback provided through this engagement process.  New legislative and regulatory changes will be developed that support the goals and initiatives of the State’s Action Plan for Reform.

 

The potential reforms identified by the DPLH are as shown in Attachment 1 attached to this report.

 

It is noted that the reforms listed are ‘high level’ statements and are general in nature and therefore it is difficult to clearly understand what is intended.  Feedback will, however, inform potential legislative changes in future.

 

The reforms are largely broken down into three categories as follows:

 

·        Planning creates great places for people;

·        Planning is easier to understand and navigate; and

·        Planning systems are consistent and efficient.

 

Potential specific reforms are listed under each category.

 

Administration’s comment and recommendation is provided to each potential area of reform in the table in Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Feedback provided is to be used by the WAPC to draft a second round of legislative reforms to the Planning and Development Act 2005.  It will also be used to inform changes to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Overall the reform statement represent sensible and reasonable potential reforms that are generally sound.  Reforms that simplify the planning framework and reduce red-tape and bureaucracy and increase transparency are supported.  Should the reforms be progressed, further details and consultation will be required to enable additional review, consideration and feedback from stakeholders.

 

Administration, however, considers the reforms could be far more extensive, in particular, in relation to the followings areas:

 

·        The focus of state government resources should be on strategic planning matters and policy guidance to allow local government to deal with local decision making for its local community.  In particular, local structure plan and subdivision applications should be dealt with by local government who review, assess and then make a recommendation to the state government for a final decision based on the strategies and policies prepared by the state government.  This is an example of duplication of effort that could be eliminated.  Local government authority should be increased to reflect the above.  As an example, if local structure plans were dealt with in their entirety by local government, the overall time-savings would be significant.  Experience suggests that savings of up to 12 months could be achieved if there was no requirement for state government approval.   Where individual local governments are unable or unwilling to follow state government strategic direction then the authority to do so could be removed;

·        Developer Contribution Plans (DCPs) – the City agrees that there should be review and reform of DCPs to streamline the assessment and approval process.  However, in addition it is recommended that state government should be responsible for preparing and managing DCPs and not local government.  This will ensure consistency and simplify implementation across local government.  Local government are currently wearing all the reputational and financial risk particularly with new State Planning Policy 3.6 which sets a cap on community infrastructure of $5,000 per dwelling; and

·        Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) – The DAPs process has generally added to the complexity of dealing with development applications and to the workload of local government.  A comprehensive review of DAPs is recommended to investigate their effectiveness, efficiency, processes and procedures to consider the benefit and advantages they provide to the planning system.

 

Local government is the closest form of government to the local community and is well placed to deal with detailed planning through local knowledge and experience.  As long as state level strategic objectives are being achieved and statutory timeframes are being met, then local government should be afforded and granted the necessary authority to manage and implement local planning outcomes.

 

Performance reporting that has been undertaken by WALGA over the last four years indicates that local government has achieved a high level of compliance with meeting statutory timeframes.  The most recent figures published in March 2021 for the year 2019/2020 show that for the 30 benchmark Councils that participated that on average 93% of all applications where determined within the required timeframes.  The City of Wanneroo achieved a figure of 97% determined within the required timeframes.

 

Similar performance monitoring of state government should be introduced as part of the proposed increase in transparency to provide an understanding of timeframes which may lead to the ability to focus on other areas that could benefit from red-tape reduction and further planning reform.

 

WALGA Draft Submission

 

The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) has prepared a draft submission responding to the proposed reforms as well as recommending a number of further reforms.  WALGA sought feedback and endorsement from its members on the content of the submission by 4 August 2021.  Given the timeframe, it was not possible to present the draft WALGA submission to Council for consideration, but it has been reviewed by Administration.  The draft WALGA submission raised similar matters to those identified in Attachment 2.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

7 ~ A well governed and managed City that makes informed decisions, provides strong community leadership and valued customer focused services

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

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

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.       Advises the Western Australian Planning Commission that it SUPPORTS the potential reforms identified as Phase 2 to the Western Australian Planning System subject to the comments and recommendations as contained in Attachment 2; and

 

2.       REQUESTS a further opportunity to review and consider the potential reforms as they are developed to enable additional feedback to be provided.

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Planning Reform Phase 2 Action Plan	21/299893
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Planning Reforms Phase 2 Comments table	21/276008

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              21033 – 21/292061

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider Local Planning Policy No. 2.8: Licensed Premises (LPP 2.8) which is due for review.

Background

At its 11 October 2016 meeting (PS02-10/16 refers), Council resolved to adopt LPP 2.8 as contained in Attachment 1.  The purpose of existing policy LPP 2.8 is to guide discretionary planning decisions for licensed premises and to outline the City’s role and responsibilities in the liquor licensing process under the Liquor Control Act 1988.  A review of LPP 2.8 was scheduled to be conducted in 2021.

Detail

The purpose of the review is to ensure that the policy remains fit for purpose, is current and is achieving it objective.  To this end, Administration has completed its review for Council’s consideration.

 

Some amendments and changes to LPP 2.8 are proposed that simply align the policy with the current template and format applied by the City to ensure consistency.  The City has received 20 applications associated with licensed premises since LPP 2.8 was adopted.  A review of a number of these applications has also been undertaken.  This review has identified that applications for licensed premises have been assessed consistently against the provisions of the policy and no issues or problems as a result of, or because of LPP 2.8.

 

As Administration has not identified any significant, operational problems with the policy, only minor modifications are proposed to LPP 2.8 including:

 

·        Reformatting to be consistent with the City’s current Local Planning Policy template;

·        Correcting minor typographical errors;

·        Replacing references to ‘liquor store or tavern’ with ‘licensed premises’ throughout the policy to be consistent with the title of the policy and to ensure any proposal for a ‘licensed premises’ can be easily identified as being subject to the policy;

·        Incorporating additional definitions including child care centre and licensed premises to make the policy more self-sufficient and easier to use.

 

A copy of the amended LPP with modifications highlighted and marked is contained in Attachment 2.

Consultation

Advertising of amendments to a LPP is not required in accordance with Clause 5(2) of the Deemed Provisions where in the opinion of the Local Government, the amendments are minor.

 

Given that the amendments proposed are minor in nature i.e. reformatting, typographical and spelling corrections and changes for consistency with DPS 2 and Regulations advertising is not required.

 

A copy of the amended LPP 2.8 is contained in Attachment 3.

Comment

The review of LPP 2.8 did not identify any major shortcomings or the need to significantly amend the policy and therefore no need to make any major changes.  Overall the changes to LPP 2.8 are minor and do not change to the intent or purpose of the policy.

 

Council has recently adopted Amendment No. 172 to DPS 2.  Amendment No. 172 seeks to align DPS 2 with the model provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.  Amendment No. 172 is still subject to advertising for public consultation, consideration by the WAPC and ultimately approval by the Hon. Minister for Planning.

 

It is anticipated that Amendment No. 172 will be finalised in the latter half of 2021.

 

The intent of Amendment No. 172 to align DPS 2 with the model provisions which provide a model to ensure all local government planning schemes are consistent.  As part of the changes to be introduced, definitions for ‘liquor store – large’, ‘liquor store – small’ and ‘small bar’ will be incorporated into DPS 2 and by extension, these definitions will become applicable in LPP 2.8.  In this regard the proposed amendment to LPP 2.8 to replace references to ‘liquor store or tavern’ with ‘licensed premises’ ensures any proposal for a ‘licensed premises’ will be captured by the requirements of the policy.

Statutory Compliance

Council can resolve to amend a local planning policy in accordance with Clauses 4 and 5 of the Deemed Provisions as contained in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

7 ~ A well governed and managed City that makes informed decisions, provides strong community leadership and valued customer focused services

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

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

Amendments to LPP 2.8 are intended to update the City’s guidance for assessing and determining applications for licensed premises in the City and the process for considering intervention in liquor licensing proceedings under the Liquor Control Act 1988.

Financial Implications

The cost of undertaking the review of LPP 2.8 can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to subclause 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that the draft revised Local Planning Policy No. 2.8: Licensed Premises is a minor amendment which does not require advertising;

2.       Pursuant to subclause 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the final draft revised Local Planning Policy No. 2.8: Licensed Premises as included in Attachment 3;

3.       Pursuant to subclause 4 (4) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, PUBLISHES notice of its adoption; and

4.       FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for information.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Local Planning Policy No. 2.8  Licensed Premises  - Current version	16/354795
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Local Planning Policy No. 2.8  Licensed Premises - Amended Version	21/313595
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Local Planning Policy No. 2.8  Licensed Premises - Final Version	21/313599

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              42314 – 21/292158

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider proceeding with the adoption of Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems following public advertising.

Background

At its meeting on 16 February 2021, (item PS04-02/21) Council considered an application for a Wind Turbine as an addition to a single house located at Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way, Butler.  Council resolved

 

“That the Motion be deferred to a future Council meeting pending the adoption of the Small-Scale Renewable Energy Systems Policy.”

 

Administration drafted a Policy and at its 11 May 2021 meeting (item PS06-05/21 refers) Council resolved to advertise draft Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems (LPP4.29) as included as Attachment 1.

Detail

The proposed LPP 4.29 was prepared under the provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to provide guidance on the development of renewable energy systems within the City that provide power to a dwelling or a business primarily for its needs.

Consultation

Draft LPP 4.29 was advertised for public comment between 20 May 2021 and 25 June 2021 by way of:

 

·        An advertisement published in the 20 May 2021 edition of the Wanneroo Times newspaper;

·        Display at the City’s Civic Centre and on the City’s website;

·        Letter to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage;

·        Letter to the applicant for the proposed wind turbine; and

·        Letters to those who made a submission on the proposed wind turbine.

 

Two responses were received at the conclusion of advertising period and these are discussed further below in the report under the Comment section.

Comment

As noted above, two submissions have been received following consultation on the proposed policy.  Both submissions are detailed in the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 2 to this report.  Administration’s response and recommendation is provided to each matter raised.  A summary of the matters raised is discussed below.

 

The first submission identified that they had installed ‘quite a few residential wind turbines within the Perth metro area over the last 13 years’, that ‘there are no viable subsidies for installing wind turbines’ and also that ‘some Councils won’t allow wind turbines anymore due to noise issues’.

 

The second submission raised concerns about the amenity impacts and the safety and structural integrity of wind turbines.

 

Having regard to the matters raised in the submissions and a review of the draft policy, Administration is of the view that only minor changes are required to draft LPP 4.29 that renumber some clauses so as to clarify that certain provisions apply to renewable energy systems in all areas of the City as shown in the ‘track changes’ version (highlighted in red) in Attachment 3.  It is recommended that the proposed LPP 4.29 be adopted as shown in Attachment 4.

 

The purpose of proposed LPP 4.29 is to provide guidance and controls for renewable energy systems to ensure that they meet an acceptable standard and do not adversely impact on the amenity of a locality.

 

The use of renewable energy systems has become increasingly popular.  In particular, solar energy systems are well established in residential, commercial and industrial applications, but there are no known examples of wind turbines in the City.

 

The adoption of a LPP will assist applicants when considering the installation of renewable energy systems and provide the City with guidance when assessing applications and enable a consistent approach and decision making.

 

Subject to the proposed LPP being endorsed by Council, Administration will assess the application submitted for a wind turbine at Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way, Butler that was deferred at the May 2021 meeting.  A report will be prepared and presented to a future Council meeting for the application to be determined.

Statutory Compliance

The preparation of new policies is required to be prepared and processed in accordance with Clause 4 of the Deemed provisions of DPS 2.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

7 ~ A well governed and managed City that makes informed decisions, provides strong community leadership and valued customer focused services

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

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 proposed Local Planning Policy is intended to establish standards and direction for the City to consider, assess and determine applications for development approval.

Financial Implications

The cost of undertaking the necessary actions for Council to proceed with the proposed LPP 4.29 can be met from existing operational budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that two submissions were received in respect to the advertising of Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems and notes Administrations response as contained in Attachment 2;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 4(3)(b)(ii) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 PROCEEDS with Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems as included in Attachment 4;

3.       Pursuant to Clause 4(4) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice on the City’s website of its decision to adopt Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems;

4.       FORWARDS a copy of Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems, as included in Attachment 4, to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for information; and

5.       Writes to the applicant for the proposed wind turbine at Lot 1265 (10) Reigate Way, Butler and to those who made a submission on the proposed Local Planning Policy No. 4.29: Renewable Energy Systems to inform them of this decision.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Draft Local Planning Policy No. 4.29:   Renewable Energy Systems	21/160785
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Local Planning Policy No. 4.29  Renewable Energy - Summary of Submissions	21/326818
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Draft Local Planning Policy No. 4.29  Renewable Energy Systems - Track changes	21/312652
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Local Planning Policy No. 4.29:  Renewable Energy Systems - Final version	21/312657

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2021/351-02 – 21/294087

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

To consider a development application (DA2021/351) for Telecommunications Infrastructure (Monopole) at Lot 1450 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos (subject site).

 

Applicant	SAQ Consulting
Owner	Blackmont Capital Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 1450 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos
Site Area	3255m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 73 Zoning	Commercial

 

Background

On 26 February 2021 the City received a development application for Telecommunications Infrastructure (Monopole) at the subject site.

 

The site is 3255m² in area and is zoned Urban Development under the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and Commercial under Agreed Structure Plan No. 73 – North Alkimos (ASP 73).

 

The subject site is bound by Shorehaven Boulevard to the north, Pacific Promenade to the west, Waypoint Mews and residential land to the south and public open space (POS) to the east. A location plan of the subject site is included in Attachment 1. Currently, the site is approved and developed for use as a Liquor Store and three shop tenancies (DA2015/1929).

Detail

This application proposes the construction of Telecommunications Infrastructure,  which is a ‘D’ (Discretionary) use in the Commercial zone. The details of the development are as follows:

 

·        One monopole with a total height of 25 metres, located in the south-west corner of the site. The base of the monopole is setback 1.9 metres from the eastern boundary and eight metres to the southern boundary;

·        Six panel antennas mounted no higher than the top of the monopole;

·        One equipment cabinet setback 10 metres from the southern boundary and 1.2 metres from the eastern boundary. The equipment cabinet will have a maximum height of approximately two metres;

·        A metre panel located next to the monopole;

·        Six bollards surrounding the base of the monopole; and

·        Additional landscaping.

 

The monopole is intended to provide additional coverage for the Optus network, and has facilities to accommodate a second network provider. Plans depicting the proposal are included in Attachment 2.

 

Upon assessment of the development application it was determined that the proposal incorporates the following variations to the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5):

 

Policy Provision	Comments	Compliance
L2	·    The proposed monopole should not be located on a lot which adjoins a lot zoned ‘Residential’. The proposal adjoins Residential zoned lots to the south	No
L3	·    The proposal should be located away from street boundaries and behind any buildings that exist on the same land. The monopole it is not concealed by a building on the southern boundary	No
D1	·    Given the lot also abuts POS in addition to not being concealed by a building on the southern boundary, it is not screened from view from the public domain, and therefore may result in a loss of amenity	No

Consultation

LPP 2.5 states that variations to the ‘Deemed-to-Comply’ criteria of the Policy, may be considered subject to public consultation. As noted above, the proposal does not meet L2, L3 and D1 of LPP 2.5, and therefore public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the City’s consultation procedure.

 

The application was advertised for public consultation for a period of 14 days between 15 April 2021 and 30 April 2021 in accordance with LPP 2.5 and Clause 64(3) of the Deemed Provisions of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). Advertising was undertaken by way of a notice placed on the City’s website, in the Wanneroo Times, a sign erected on site, and in writing to landowners within a 200m radius of the subject site. At the conclusion of the comment period, 218 submissions were received. Of these submissions, 209 objected to the proposal, four were in support and five provided general comments, but did not provide a position. A summary of all submissions received and Administration’s responses are shown in Attachment 3, and a plan depicting the landowners who were notified in writing is shown in Attachment 4.

 

Planning issues raised during the advertising period and following detailed assessment by Administration relate to:

 

·        Non-compliance with Local Planning Policy 2.5;

·        The location, height and prominence of the monopole resulting in a negative visual impact on the amenity of the suburb and the residents, particularly being so close to the entrance of the suburb and POS;

·        Overshadowing from the monopole to residential properties; and

·        The location of the monopole being more appropriate in industrial locations (i.e nearby Water Corporation land south of the site).

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues raised during the public consultation period as well as those considered in the assessment of the application is provided in the Comment section. Other matters raised are discussed in the summary of all submissions.

 

Comment

The development application has been assessed against the following planning documents:

 

·        LPP 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure;

·        State Planning Policy 5.2: Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2); and

·        The Matters to be Considered by Local Government, included in Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2.

 

Assessment against LPP 2.5

 

The application proposes the following variations to the ‘Deemed-to-Comply’ provisions of LPP 2.5.  In response to the proposed variations, Administration provides the following comments:

 

Deemed-to-Comply Provisions	Variations to the Deemed-to-Comply Provisions	Administration Comments
L2: Proposed telecommunications infrastructure is not located on a lot where an adjoining lot is zoned Residential, Mixed Use, Special Rural, Rural Community, Landscape Enhancement or Special Residential.	The proposed infrastructure is located on a lot where the adjoining lots to the south are zoned Residential.	·     The monopole is located approximately eight metres from Residential zoned land to the south. At a proposed height of 25 metres, the monopole would be clearly visible from existing habitable spaces within the surrounding homes. As noted in Attachment 5, the existing properties to the south of the subject site utilise the area at the front of their homes for outdoor activities, and would therefore have their amenity impacted by the proposal.  ·     The proposed monopole also abuts Residential zoned land to the east, however the land is reserved for Drainage & POS, which is owned and managed by the City. Therefore, the monopole will not impact any residential properties in this location, but may impact the amenity and enjoyment of this space once fully developed. ·     The ground level of the subject site is approximately 1.5 metres higher than the POS land, which may further exacerbate the overall impact.
L3: Proposed telecommunications infrastructure situated in the ‘Business’, ‘Commercial’, ‘Civic and Cultural’, ‘Service Industrial’ or ‘General Industrial’ zone should be located away from street boundaries, and behind any buildings that exist on the same land.	The proposed infrastructure is situated in the Commercial zone, however, is not concealed by a building along the southern boundary	·      The proposed monopole is located approximately 27 metres from the southern street boundary (Waypoint Mews), however it is isolated on the lot and is not concealed by the main building. ·      The base of the proposed monopole will be concealed from the street by the existing two metre high brick fence and landscaping, though while this may assist in reducing the visual impact of the monopole as viewed from the street, it is still clearly visible from the surrounding area (see Attachment 5). ·      As a result, the proposed monopole remains highly visible due to its location on the subject lot.
D1: The applicant demonstrates that the proposed telecommunications infrastructure is confined to a height and dimension that balances the need to provide for appropriate network coverage for the surrounding area, whilst minimising loss of amenity in the locality.	The height and dimensions of the proposed monopole has been designed to provide optimal network coverage, however given the proximity to residential areas, may result in a loss of amenity in the locality.	·      This area of north Alkimos and south Eglington has been identified as lacking mobile phone service. The closest telecommunications infrastructure is currently located in south Alkimos and north Eglington. The proposed location has been selected to provide optimal mobile coverage and connectivity to meet the growing demands from the increased population in north Alkimos and south Eglington. The proposed height at 25 metres is required to provide adequate coverage for the area; ·      The monopole has been designed using non-reflective materials and neutral colours to reduce the visual impact of the proposal ·      Notwithstanding the above, whilst it is acknowledged that the additional coverage is necessary for the area, as discussed above the height of the monopole at 25 metres and prominent visibility within an existing suburban area is not considered appropriate due to the adverse visual amenity impacts it creates.

 

SPP 5.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure

 

Policy Measure 5.1.1(ii) of SPP 5.2 is the same as ‘Deemed-to-Comply’ criteria ‘D2’ of LPP 2.5, in that Telecommunications Infrastructure should be located and designed to minimise visual impact and whenever possible:

 

a)      be located where it will not be prominently visible from significant viewing locations such as scenic routes, lookouts and recreation sites;

b)      be located to avoid detracting from a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land;

c)      not be located on sites where environmental, cultural heritage, social and visual landscape values maybe compromised; and

d)      display design features, including scale, materials, external colours and finishes that are sympathetic to the surrounding landscape.

 

The proposed monopole is centralised within the existing suburban area and is highly visible from the primary entry point to the Shorehaven Estate along Marmion Avenue. Additionally and as noted in Attachment 5, there are several small POS areas within close proximity to the proposed monopole, some of which incorporate landmark elements. The protection of visual amenity in these areas is of considerable importance.

 

It is acknowledged that efforts have been made to limit the presence of the monopole through using neutral colours, non-reflective material and landscaping. Additionally, the applicant provided photomontages (Attachment 6) to demonstrate that from several residential and POS vantage points to the north, west and east of the subject site, the proposed monopole is generally concealed by existing vertical elements. These elements includes the existing commercial buildings on the subject site, existing trees (particularly Norfolk Island pine trees), the landmark elements and the local topography.

 

Whilst the above comments have been considered, the landscaping and topography alone would not adequately screen the monopole throughout the area. As noted in Attachment 5, there are several vantage points where the monopole would be the prominent feature in the area. In addition, the reliance on landmark elements to screen proposed development is not considered appropriate, as they are intended to enhance the aesthetics and historical significance of the area. As such, it should not be utilised for the screening of separate infrastructure. The proposed location adjacent to the entry of the Shorehaven Estate, POS and landmark elements will detract from the desired streetscape appearance and visual amenity of the area. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to adequately satisfy the requirements set out in SPP 5.2.

 

Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of DPS 2

 

In accordance with Part 4 of DPS 2, notwithstanding any noncompliance, Council may approve the application where deemed appropriate. In accordance with Clause 4.2.3, the power to approve an application where there is a non-compliance can only be exercised where Council is satisfied that approval of the development would be appropriate having regard to Clause 67 of DPS 2 and that the non-compliance will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding inhabitants (existing and future) and the locality. As the proposal does not comply with LPP 2.5, it has been assessed against Clause 67 and the impact of the surrounding locality as discussed below.

 

	Matters to be Considered by Local Government	Administration Comments
c	Any approved state planning policy	As noted previously, the proposed development is not considered to be consistent with Policy Measure 5.1.1(ii) of SPP 5.2, as the proposed monopole is considered to significantly impact the visual amenity of the area.
g	Any local planning policy for the Scheme area	As discussed above, aspects of the proposal do not meet the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of LPP 2.5, and the impact on the visual amenity of the locality is not considered appropriate.
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	As discussed above, the proposal is not considered compatible with the proposed location for the following reasons:   ·    The proposed monopole is directly adjacent to Residential zoned land and will impact the amenity of the surrounding land; ·    The proposed monopole is poorly concealed on the subject site and remains highly visible within the surrounding area, including several areas of POS, the entrance to the Shorehaven Estate and significant landmark elements; and ·    The accumulative impact resulting in adverse impacts to the desired streetscape appearance and visual amenity of the area

Concerns Raised in Submission

In response to the other main town planning concerns raised in the submissions received, Administration provides the following comments:

 

Concerns raised in Submissions	Administration Comments
The location, height and prominence of the monopole resulting in a negative visual impact on the amenity of the suburb and the residents, particularly being so close to the entrance of the suburb and POS	As discussed above, the City acknowledges that the proposal has been designed using non-reflective materials and neutral colours to assist in reducing the visual impact on the surrounding area, as well as utilising existing screening elements in the area. However, the height and location within close proximity to residential land, POS areas and landmark elements will detract from the desired streetscape appearance and visual amenity of the area.
Overshadowing from the monopole to residential properties	Under Local Development Plan No. 15 – North Alkimos (LDP 15), the provisions of overshadowing are exempt for all development. It is therefore considered that the impacts from any overshadowing to adjoining residential properties is acceptable. This however, does not override the potential impacts on amenity as discussed above.
The location of the monopole being more appropriate in industrial locations (i.e nearby Water Corporation land south of the site)	The Water Corporation land to the south-west already has an existing tower (approximately 1.7 kilometres away) which is currently utilised by Optus. Notwithstanding, the City is not involved in selecting the site and is unable to designate the preferred location given the land is privately owned.

Conclusion

In light of the above, it is evident that efforts have been made by the applicant to reduce the visual amenity impacts on the surrounding residential area and to demonstrate how the monopoles visual prominence in the area will be mitigated.  However, Administration considers that the location of the monopole within a centralised position of the suburb, its proximity to residential land, communal spaces, and landmark elements will result in detrimental impacts on the desired streetscape appearance and visual amenity of the area. It is therefore recommended that Council refuse the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure at Lot 1450 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s DPS 2.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

5 ~ A well planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.1 - Develop to meet current need and future growth

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-O22 Environmental Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning and Sustainability	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 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.  Alignment with the following risk appetite statements should be considered for 3.4 Activated Places.

 

The City places a high priority on the importance of promoting, protecting and activating local areas including the beaches, bush land and open spaces to meet community expectations. As such community engagement is an important focus as well as building capacity for communities to be involved in place activation and creating distinctive places. The City seeks to pursue initiatives that activate distinctive places and supports improvements made to local amenities that retain or complement natural landscapes within the built environment.  Therefore the City will accept a low risk in relation to governance/compliance and reputation.

Policy Implications

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the following:

 

·        District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2);

·        Agreed Structure Plan No. 73 – North Alkimos (ASP 73);

·        Local Planning Policy 2.5: Telecommunications Infrastructure (LPP 2.5); and

·        State Planning Policy 5.2: Telecommunications Infrastructure (SPP 5.2).

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 68(2)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, REFUSES to grant development approval for the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Monopole) at Lot 1540 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos for the following reason:

a)      The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of LPP 2.5 and SPP 5.2, and Clause 67 (m) of the Deemed Provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2, as the scale, visibility and location of the Monopole is not compatible with the surrounding residential development and is inconsistent with the desired streetscape appearance and amenity of the surrounding locality.

2.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - DA2021/351 - Location Plan - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 1)	21/242164
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - DA2021/351 - Development Plans - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 2)	21/237608
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - DA2021/351 - Schedule of Submissions - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 3)	21/242178
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - DA2021/351 - Map of Advertising Area - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 4)	21/130490
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - DA2021/351 - Surrounding Area Context - Telecommunications Facility - 1/9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 5)	21/300508
6⇩.	Attachment 6 - DA2021/351 - Photomontages - Telecommunications Facility - 1/9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 6)	21/239662

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              43301 – 21/307539

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 199 to DPS 2, which proposes to make permissible the ‘Car Park’ land use discretionary subject to advertising (or an ‘A’ use) in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones.

Background

Current Situation

 

Administration has been receiving an increased number of enquiries and complaints in respect to caravan storage. Administration has noted that the demand for places for caravan parking in particular (but also boats, trailers and trucks) is driven largely by the ongoing trend for decreasing residential lot sizes. This trend has resulted in new residential properties typically only being capable of parking two cars on site. Vehicle owners on many new and existing residential lots are therefore looking for options for parking vehicles such as caravans, boats and trucks that they wish to own but cannot keep at their address.

 

The City’s Parking Local Law 2015 (Local Law) works to limit where caravans and commercial vehicles can be parked. This is to ensure that parking of large vehicles does not become unsightly (particularly in residential areas), and to ensure that movement of vehicles on local roads is not impeded. Clause 4.14 of the Local Law prevents parking of heavy and long vehicles on a road carriageway for a period exceeding one hour; and Section 7.9 of the Local Law prevents commercial vehicles and caravans from parking on verges.

 

Several landowners within the City’s rural areas have been offering up their lots to respond to the issues above, and to accommodate parking of caravans, trailers and boats for a fee.

 

Previous and Current Planning Considerations

 

Administration’s intention to date has been to deal with land use and permissibility changes in the City’s rural areas holistically, through an extensive and thorough strategic planning process. Administration is currently preparing the City’s Local Planning Strategy which will set out the City’s objectives for the City’s rural areas; as well as addressing the social, environmental, resource management and economic factors that affect, and are in turn affected by land use and development. While the Local Planning Strategy preparation is proceeding, it is a lengthy process which Administration anticipates could take up to three years.

 

Amendment No. 170 to DPS 2 is an approved amendment affecting Lot 31 (90) Rousset Road, Jandabup, a four-hectare site zoned General Rural under DPS 2. Lot 31 is zoned Urban Deferred under the MRS and falls within the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan area. Amendment No. 170 allows for Lot 31 to be used as a ‘Storage Yard’, to store caravans (over 200), boats, cars, trailers, sea containers and scaffolding. As the storage of items on Lot 31 was broader than just vehicles, the amendment allows the Additional Use of ‘Storage Yard’ to be carried out on that lot. The amendment was approved by the Minister for Planning in April 2020. Given that Storage Yards allow for storage of a broad range of materials, and supports activity beyond the scope of the issues already identified in this report, it is not recommended that Storage Yard be permissible in the rural zones more broadly.

 

Administration has recently received two separate proposals from rural landowners to amend DPS 2 to make permissible caravan, boat, car and trailer parking facilities on their properties. Both properties are zoned General Rural where this land use is currently prohibited. Those amendments do not propose to make a land use broadly permissible across the General Rural zone, but rather as ‘Additional Uses’ limited to two specific properties. Administration considers that those amendments can progress independently to Amendment No. 199.

 

Landowners in the rural areas (particularly in North Wanneroo) have faced issues and uncertainties around access to water, due to impacts of climate change and urban encroachment. The issue of water has also been compounded by the State Government’s proposal to reduce water allocations to growers by ten per cent by 2028, which threatens to potentially reduce the viability of agricultural and horticultural businesses. Rural landowners are in turn looking for more innovative ways of making use of their landholdings.

Detail

It is considered that in order to facilitate the parking of private vehicles (including caravans, boats, trailer and trucks) in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones, an amendment to DPS 2 can be prepared. Administration has prepared draft Amendment No. 199 for Council’s consideration which proposes to make the ‘Car Park’ land use discretionary (subject to advertising) within the General Rural and Rural Resource Zones. Table 1 (or the ‘Zoning Table’) of DPS 2 will be amended by inserting “A” in Table 1 for the Car Park land use in the Rural Resource and General Rural columns.

 

Administration considers that Car Parking premises would not be appropriate to be located in the Special Rural, and Landscape Enhancement Zones, where there is an emphasis in preserving the natural landscape as set out in the objectives for both zones under DPS 2.

 

There is already a land use definition of ‘Car Park’ in DPS 2, which is as follows:

 

car park : means premises used primarily for the parking of private vehicles or taxis whether open to the public or not but does not include any part of a public road which is used for the through movement of traffic or premises on or in which vehicles are displayed for sale or premises set aside to meet a specific parking requirement under the Scheme. The term includes the land required on site for access and manoeuvring to enable vehicles to gain access to car parking bays.

 

The above definition encompasses not just cars (as the name of the land use may allude to), but an array of vehicles such as caravans, boats, trailers, cars and trucks – provided that these vehicles are for private or personal use only.

 

The amendment also proposes to introduce the following provisions into DPS 2, relevant to the General Rural and Rural Resource zones respectively:

 

3.16.4    In considering the use or development of Car Park in the General Rural Zone, Council may support the parking of any vehicle type, regardless of size and carrying capacity, provided that all vehicles parked onsite are for private or personal use only. The parking of vehicles used for trade, professional or any other commercial purpose is not permitted.

 

 

3.17.5    In considering the use or development of Car Park in the Rural Resource Zone, Council may support the parking of any vehicle type, regardless of size and carrying capacity, provided that all vehicles parked onsite are for private or personal use only. The parking of vehicles used for trade, professional or any other commercial purpose is not permitted.

 

Administration’s explanations for the proposed amendments to DPS 2 are provided for in the ‘Comment’ section of this Report.

 

Administration considers that draft Amendment No. 199 to DPS2 meets the following criteria for ‘Complex Amendments’ in the context of Regulation 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (Regulations):

 

“an amendment that is not addressed by any local planning strategy”

 

This is due to the fact that the City’s Local Planning Strategy has not yet been prepared and there are no other strategies in place that identify the need to include this type of activity in the City’s General Rural or Rural Resource zones.

Consultation

If initiated for the purpose of advertising (or ‘prepared’ as per the term used in the Regulations), this ‘complex amendment’ will be referred to the WAPC for its consideration prior to advertising. The WAPC will undertake an assessment to determine whether it is satisfied that the amendment is suitable to be advertised. The amendment will also be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal, and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to the WAPC and the EPA being satisfied with the complex amendment (with or without modifications), it will then be advertised for public comment for a period of 60 days in the following manner:

 

a)      A notice will be placed in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area;

b)      A copy of the notice will be placed in the Civic Centre;

c)      A copy of the notice will be sent to each public authority likely to be affected by the amendment; and

d)      A copy of the notice and the amendment will be placed on the City’s the website.

Comment

Parking of Vehicles – Private vs Commercial Use

 

DPS 2 defines the term ‘vehicle’ as outlined below:

 

Vehicle: includes motorcycles, boats, caravans and trailers

 

The vehicle types referred to in the above definition is not exhaustive; and the term ‘vehicle’ can also encompass trucks, cars and buses.

 

DPS 2 then refers to the terms ‘private vehicles’ and ‘commercial vehicles’. Although there is no definition for ‘private vehicle’, Administration construes this term as meaning any vehicle for personal or private use. The definition of ‘Car Park’ (as outlined in the Detail section above) allows for ‘private vehicles’ to occupy a car park, with the type, size and carrying capacity of ‘private vehicles’ being undefined.

 

DPS 2 also defines ‘commercial vehicle’. However the definition prevents consideration of private trucks being parked in a Car Park as the parking of commercial vehicles is specifically defined under DPS 2 as a Transport Depot land use.  This is because the definition of ‘commercial vehicle’ in DPS 2 is based solely on the size and design of a vehicle. 

 

Administration has considered how to amend DPS 2 to allow the parking of personal trucks in an approved Car Parking land use on rural lots without the activity being defined as a Transport Depot (i.e. commercial vehicles which should be located in industrial and commercial areas).

 

A simple approach is proposed. This is to state that the Car Parking land use in the General Rural and Rural Resource zone can accommodate any type of vehicle provided that the vehicle is not used for a trade, profession or other commercial purpose which would be considered as a Transport Depot in DPS 2. This avoids the conflict with the Transport Depot land use and achieves Council’s intent to allow parking of personal vehicles in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones.

 

Economic Benefit

 

DPS 2 already permits parking of caravans, boats, trailers and trucks in the Service Industrial and General Industrial zones. However, parking of vehicles is a use that generates a low level of use of the land and is thus is not likely to be commercially viable in well serviced industrial estates which command high land values. Use of well serviced industrial lots for Car Parking would also not generate a significant level of employment, and therefore not generate the economic benefits of more intensive industrial activities within these areas.

 

Car parking for caravans, boats, trailers and trucks will not require the level of infrastructure provided to industrial lots. Enabling Car Parking in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones will provide a more attractive proposition for the activity while freeing up land in the industrial zones to be used for more intensive industrial activities.

 

Advice from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

 

Administration has liaised with a senior officer at the DPLH to obtain their views on how to enable parking in the City’s rural zones through the planning process. The advice received from DPLH recommends the City complete its Local Planning Strategy first, and that the Strategy incorporates discussion on issues such as demand for vehicle parking in rural areas.

 

The City’s Local Planning Strategy will be a comprehensive document that will not be completed in the short term. There is a clear need to address this matter more swiftly than through the Local Planning Strategy; and therefore Administration recommends that a separate scheme amendment be prepared on this matter rather than waiting for the Local Planning Strategy to be prepared.

 

The officer at the DPLH expressed the view that the WAPC’s support for more immediate amendments to DPS 2 addressing this issue would be less likely in the absence of a finalised Local Planning Strategy. This does not assist in addressing the more immediate problem in addressing demand for parking of vehicles in rural areas. While this advice is a consideration it does not prevent Council from proceeding with an amendment.

 

Objectives of Relevant Zones

 

The proposed amendment needs to be considered against the objectives of the zones where Council considers Car Parking should be made permissible.

 

 

The objectives of the General Rural Zone are to:

 

(a)     accommodate agricultural, horticultural and equestrian activities;

 

(b)     maintain and enhance the rural character and amenity of the areas designated for rural use and to protect their ground water and environmental values.

 

The objectives of the Rural Resource Zone are to:

 

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

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

 

As outlined above, the objectives of the rural zones seek to accommodate and protect rural uses; whilst maintaining the rural character and amenity of respective areas. Administration is of the opinion that the Car Park land use, while not directly aligning with the objectives of the General Rural and Rural Resource zones, could be managed and controlled through conditions and standards to ensure the Car Park land use minimises or avoids impacts on the rural use, character and amenity in these zones. Should the Car Park land use cease to operate, the land is reasonably able to be remediated so that it could again be used for rural purposes.

 

Establishing ‘Car Park’ as discretionary in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones would require consideration of each application against these objectives and would be assessed on a case by case basis on their merits through a development application process subject to community consultation.

 

Policy Considerations

 

Council adopted Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) at its 9 April 2019 Meeting (PS01-04/19). LPP 5.3 provides an overriding principle that there be a general presumption against subdivision and development that may detrimentally impact on the orderly and proper planning of the area, specifically prior to more detailed planning. In applying this principle, LPP 5.3 states that the City shall not support any planning proposals that may compromise the preparation of a planning framework which will enable urban development to occur in the East Wanneroo area in an orderly and proper manner. Although making permissible the Car Park land use in East Wanneroo through DPS 2 amendments would intensify land use on rural lots, they are uses that could easily cease to operate and relocate to accommodate urban development in the future. Therefore, the principle in LPP 5.3 would not be compromised.

 

In assessing proposed Amendment No. 199, the WAPC will likely consider whether what is proposed meets the requirements of the State Planning Framework, including the objectives and policy measures contained within State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning (SPP 2.5). SPP 2.5 seeks to protect and preserve rural land for rural purposes, whilst minimising land use conflicts. The establishment of the ‘Car Park’ use should not significantly interfere with surrounding landowners carrying out their own rural pursuits. Similarly the Car Park activities can be controlled, and land use conflicts minimised, through the development assessment process. A car park has a light touch on the land. Should the car park use cease to operate the land can easily be reinstated so that it can be used for rural purposes.

 

 

Potential Impacts of Subject Land Use in Rural Zones

 

The parking of caravan, boats, trailers or trucks on a rural property (for private use) may not significantly affect the potential for surrounding rural properties to be used for rural pursuits; such as agriculture. However, Administration notes the potential for land use conflicts and amenity impacts that the ‘Car Park’ land use may have in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones. The potential amenity impacts and mitigation measures are discussed below:

 

·        The parking of caravans, boats, trailers and trucks is likely to present at least some visual impact on adjoining landowners. Visual impacts could, however, be reduced by way of distancing these uses from boundaries, limiting the scale of these uses, and/or the application of landscaping and screening.

·        The ‘Car Park’ land use is likely to increase traffic volumes on local rural roads, compared to other surrounding rural uses. This would be most prevalent at certain times such as weekends and holiday periods.

·        The increased activity on a rural lot with the Car Park land use could generate higher levels of noise. Noise impacts from such activities could be mitigated through imposing existing noise regulations, as well as controlling operating hours through development approval conditions.

·        Development approval for parking of caravans, boats and trailers could be time limited (5 or more years), so as to reduce the prospect of causing long-term planning impacts on the surrounding rural area.

 

Parking of commercial vehicles on rural properties (Transport Depot) is likely to result in significant amenity impacts on surrounding areas.

 

Should Amendment No. 199 be approved by the Minister for Planning, landowners seeking to establish a Car Park on a rural lot would be required to obtain development approval. There are provisions within DPS 2 already, which will assist the City in mitigating impacts of the Car Park land use; however only to a limited degree. Relevant existing provisions within DPS are:

 

·        Clauses 3.16.3 (a) and 3.17.3 of DPS 2 stipulate that buildings and development should be set back 7.5m from a front boundary and four metres from a side or rear boundary in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones;

·        Clause 67 of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions list a series of matters that the City must have due regard to in considering an application for development approval. Such matters include consideration of:

o   The compatibility of development in its setting;

o   The amenity of the locality; including environmental impacts, character and social impacts;

o   Whether provision for landscaping is adequate, including whether trees and other vegetation should be preserved;

o   The amount of traffic and adequacy of access to and from a site – as well as arrangements for the manoeuvring and parking of vehicles; and

o   Any submissions received in respect to a proposal.

·        Clause 72 of the DPS 2 Deemed Provisions allow the City to impose conditions on a development approval, limiting the period of time for which development approval is granted.

 

In the event that Amendment No. 199 to DPS 2 is approved, and further guidance is needed in implementing the controls of DPS 2, Council could later consider the need for a local planning policy if required.

 

 

Conclusion and Recommended Way Forward

 

An amendment to DPS 2 to make Car Parking - caravan, boat, trailer and truck parking (for private use) permissible on rural properties has been prepared responding to Council’s request in part. The proposed resolution to prepare (or initiate) Amendment No. 199 to DPS 2, to make Car Park discretionary subject to advertising (or an ‘A’ use) in the General Rural and Rural Resource Zones is set out in the Recommendation.

 

Administration is of the view that the parking of trucks used for commercial purposes - Transport Depot should not be included in the proposed amendment given the high intensity of the use and potential for significant amenity impacts on surrounding properties.

Statutory Compliance

The DPS 2 amendment process is prescribed in the Planning and Development Act 2005 as well as the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

5 ~ A well planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.2 - Plan for and manage land use

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O03 Strategic Land	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning and Sustainability	Manage

 

The above risk 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

State and local planning policies relevant to this report are identified and discussed in the Comment section of this report.

Financial Implications

The costs in preparing this amendment to DPS 2 can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       PREPARES Amendment No. 199 to the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend the local planning scheme by:

a)      modifying Table 1 (Clause 3.2 – The Zoning Table) to make the ‘Car Park’ land use discretionary subject to advertising (‘A’) in the General Rural and Rural Resource Zones;

b)      Introducing the following as a new Clause 3.16.4, relative to the General Rural Zone:

3.16.4   In considering the use or development of Car Park in the General Rural Zone, Council may support the parking of any vehicle type, regardless of size and carrying capacity, provided that all vehicles parked onsite are for private or personal use only. The parking of vehicles used for trade, professional or any other commercial purpose is not permitted.

c)               Introducing the following as a new Clause 3.17.5, relative to the Rural Resource Zone:  

3.17.5   In considering the use or development of Car Park in the Rural Resource Zone, Council may support the parking of any vehicle type, regardless of size and carrying capacity, provided that all vehicles parked onsite are for private or personal use only. The parking of vehicles used for trade, professional or any other commercial purpose is not permitted;

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 199 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Complex Amendment for the following reason:

                   An amendment that is not addressed by any local planning strategy.

3.       Pursuant to Regulation 37(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUBMITS two (2) copies of the Amendment No. 199 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration;

4.       Pursuant to Section 81 and Section 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 199 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

5.       Subject to satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Authority and the Western Australian Planning Commission, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 199 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of 60 days pursuant to Regulations 38 and 76A of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

6.       REQUESTS Administration investigate the issue of commercial vehicle parking in the City and to present those investigations to Council Members for discussion.

 

Attachments: Nil

 

Assets

Strategic Asset Management

File Ref:                                              3120V07 – 21/304009

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

To consider projects submitted for funding through the 2022/2023 State and Federal Government Black Spot Programs.

Background

The State and Australian Federal Governments have both committed to reductions in casualty crashes on Australian roads through Black Spot Programs. These programs are primarily reactive and target road locations where crashes have occurred, although some allowance is made for proactive applications supported by a formal Road Safety Inspection (RSI).

Detail

An invitation for submissions for the 2022/2023 State and Australian Government Black Spot Programs was issued by Main Roads WA (MRWA) in March 2021, with a closing date of 9 July 2021. To assist with the preparation of submissions, the MRWA Crash Analysis Reporting System (CARS) provides annual crash data for a five-year period which currently extends from January 2016 to December 2020.  The crash data is provided to MRWA by the WA Police and the Insurance Council of Australia.

 

The Black Spot Program Development and Management Guidelines require Black Spot projects based on crash data to meet a minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) to ensure the proposed remedial works are cost effective. The BCR is the ratio of the benefit to the community of the expected reduction in crashes versus the cost of the proposed remedial treatment.

 

Successful State Government Black Spot projects are funded two-thirds by the Program and one-third by local government and are based on all recorded crashes, fatalities, casualties and property damage.  The criteria for the program are as follows:

 

·        For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is five crashes over a five-year period;

·        For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is average of two crashes per kilometre per five-year period;

·        Value of works between $2,000 and $3,000,000; and

·        Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 1.0.

 

Successful Australian Federal Government Black Spot projects are fully funded by the Program and are based on casualty crashes, fatalities or personal injury. The criteria for the program are as follows:

 

·        For intersections, mid-block or short road sections (<3kms), the crash criterion is three casualty crashes over five-year period;

·        For road lengths (>3kms), the crash criterion is 0.2 casualty crashes per kilometre over five-year period;

·        Value of works between $2,000 and $2,000,000; and

·        Minimum Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) = 2.0.

Administration has investigated the qualifying crash locations for both programs to determine the appropriate remedial treatments and associated costs. Dependent on the proposed treatment, cost and the resultant BCR, projects are nominated for either or both the State and Australian Government Black Spot programs.

Alternatively, another option to secure funding is available through a supporting Road Safety Inspection for projects where the minimum crash criterion is met, but the cost of an appropriate submission may not return a BCR > 1.0.

 

It is anticipated that the Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) will assess nominations between July and October 2021 and that the Minister for Transport is anticipated to announce the approved projects in May 2022.

 

The projects submitted to Main Roads WA for funding consideration by the 9 July 2021 deadline, including their traffic/road safety issues and proposed remedial treatments are as follows:

 

1.       Marangaroo Drive / Girrawheen Avenue, Girrawheen (refer Attachment 1)

Marangaroo Drive is defined as a ‘District Distributor A’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated four lane dual carriageway. Girrawheen Avenue is a ‘Local Distributor’ road and is constructed as a two-lane median separated road. The intersection is a three-leg T-intersection. The five-year crash data indicates a total of 43 crashes occurring at this intersection.

 

The intersection pre-qualifies for both State and Federal funding under the Blackspot Program.

 

Treatment

 

It is proposed to upgrade the intersection to a modified dual-lane roundabout to improve safety by removing high severity crash types and reducing vehicle speeds through the intersection. These changes will also include relocation of the existing bus stops. The bus stop on the north verge of Marangaroo drive will be relocated 85m east and the bus stop on the south side of Marangaroo Drive will be relocated 35m east. The children’s crossing will be relocated a further 125m east of the intersection and closer to the relocated bus stops to improve pedestrian crossing safety for students in the morning and afternoon peak times.

 

The project cost for these works is estimated at $1,980,000 and is a Road Safety Inspection supported submission due to the low BCR. Due to the need for the project to relocate services and acquire land, the project is to be staged over two years, with funding requested in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 programmes.

 

2.       Two Rocks Road, Yanchep (refer Attachments 2 & 3)

Two Rocks Road is defined as a ‘District Distributor B’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a line separated dual lane single carriageway. The road currently has no street lighting along its length and has a number of crests in the road. The five-year crash data indicates a total of five crashes occurring along this road, primarily in the area where the crests occur and at times where lighting would be operating.

The road pre-qualifies for State funding under the Blackspot Program.

Treatment

It is proposed to install 12.5m high lighting poles with 170W LED luminaires to provide lighting along the length of Two Rocks Road from Reef Break Drive to Templetonia Boulevard/Capricorn Esplanade. These changes will increase visibility at night, thereby improving overall safety on Two Rocks Road which acts as the only connection between Yanchep and Two Rocks.

The project cost for these works is estimated at $1,167,500 and is a BCR supported submission.

3.       Jindalee Boulevard / Investigator Parade, Jindalee (refer Attachment 4)

Jindalee Boulevard is defined as a ‘Local Distributor’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a median separated two lane dual carriageway. Investigator Parade is a ‘Local Access’ road and is constructed as a median separated two lane dual carriageway. The intersection is a four-way intersection. The five-year crash data indicates a total of seven crashes occurring at this intersection.

The intersection pre-qualifies for State funding under the Blackspot Program.

Treatment

It is proposed to upgrade the intersection to a modified single-lane roundabout to improve safety by removing high severity crash types and reducing vehicle speeds through the intersection. Implementing the roundabout also provides a priority indicator for cars utilising the intersection that will help to control vehicle movement and alleviate the potential of serious crash types occurring. The changes will also include the installation of two asphalt speed humps on Jindalee Boulevard on the approaches to the proposed roundabout. These speed humps will slow traffic from the east and west of the roundabout and allow a continuous flow of traffic in all directions.

The project cost for these works is estimated at $129,500 and is a BCR supported submission.

4.       Trichet Road, Jandabup / Wanneroo (refer Attachment 5)

Trichet Road is defined as a ‘Local Distributor’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and is constructed as a line separated dual lane, single carriageway. The road is situated in a rural zoned area and is unkerbed. The road provides a main connection between Franklin Road defined as a ‘Primary Distributor’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy and Hawkins Road defined as a ‘District Distributor A’ road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy The five-year crash data indicates a total of eight crashes occurring along the road.

The road section pre-qualifies for both State and Federal funding under the Blackspot Program.

Treatment

It is proposed to increase the effective width of the road by widening both sides through the installation of sealed road shoulders. Installing sealed shoulders will allow road users to have space to recover their vehicle in the event that they deviate outside the road edge lines. It will also allow residents accessing their driveways to pull onto the side of the road safely, reducing the impact on the flow of traffic.

The project cost for these works is estimated at $900,000 and is a BCR supported submission.

Consultation

Subject to the project receiving a funding allocation and being included in the City’s Capital Works Program, community engagement will be undertaken during the projects’ development and delivery phases.

Comment

The projects selected have been identified to maximise the opportunity for the City to address the traffic safety concerns at these locations by utilising funding under the competitive selection process.

 

Applying for projects under the State and National Black Spot program enables the City to use available municipal funds more effectively, so that more improvement works and upgrades can be completed annually and identified accident Black Spots can be made safer.

The table below summarises the projects being submitted for the 2022/2023 funding round:

PROJECT	BCR	Project Cost 2022/23	CoW Cost 2022/23	State Cost 2022/23	Australian Government Cost
1.  Marangaroo Drive / Girrawheen Avenue, Girrawheen *	0.47	$1,980,000	$673,200	$1,306,800	$1,980,000
2.  Two Rocks Road, Yanchep	2.98	$1,167,500	$389,167	$778,333	$1,167,500
3.  Jindalee Boulevard / Investigator Parade, Jindalee	4.36	$129,500	$43,167	$86,333	$129,500
4.  Trichet Road, Jandabup / Wanneroo	3.5	$900,000	$300,000	$600,000	$900,000
TOTAL:		$4,177,000	$1,405,534	$2,771,466	$4,177,000

Note: Marangaroo Drive / Girrawheen Avenue to be funded over two years.  City of Wanneroo cost $197,200 in 2022/23, $476,000 in 2023/24 if a State funded Black Spot project, $0 if a Federal funded project.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

5 ~ A well planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.4 - People can move around easily

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

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

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O04 Asset Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Assets	Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The budget required to fund the City’s Black Spot submissions depends on the success of the proposed submissions. Successful projects may receive full funding by the Australian Federal Government or two-third funding by the State Government.

The total cost of the submitted projects is $4,177,000 with a maximum municipal component of $1,405,534 (if all submitted projects are successful in obtaining State funding). The Long Term Capital Works Program currently lists $1,166,113 municipal funding for the projects listed in this report. If any of the projects are successful in receiving Australian Federal Government funding, the Municipal component will be reduced. The exact funding requirements will be considered and listed for Council’s consideration in the 2022/2023 budget process.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the submission of the following City of Wanneroo projects for funding consideration as part of the 2022/23 State and Australian Government Black Spot Programs:

a)      Marangaroo Drive / Girrawheen Avenue intersection, Girrawheen – modified dual-lane roundabout;

b)      Two Rocks Road, Yanchep – installation of street lighting;

c)      Jindalee Boulevard / Investigator Parade, Jindalee – modified single-lane roundabout; and

d)      Trichet Road, Jandabup / Wanneroo – installation of sealed shoulders

2.       NOTES that the Long Term Capital Works Program will require amendment to reflect the funding of projects approved through the 2022/23 State and Australian Government Black Spot Programs.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Marangaroo Black Spot Concept drawing	21/305027
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Two Rocks Road Black Spot Concept sheet 1	21/305021
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Two Rocks Road Black Spot Concept sheet 2	21/305010
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - 2021 Blackspot application - Jindalee Boulevard - Mini Roundabout - Concept drawing	21/237062
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - CONCEPT PLAN - Trichet Road - Blackspot submission 2022_23	21/286402

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              42035 – 21/310881

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider the additional list of projects that have been identified to receive funding from the WA State Government following commitments made during the March 2021 election process including the City’s budget implications.

Background

As part of the March 2021 State Election a number of commitments were made for roads, transport and traffic safety projects within the City of Wanneroo that have since been confirmed by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) as noted below and as per Attachments 1 and 2:

·        Huntington Parkway, Landsdale – Two permanent speed indicator signs     $40,000

·        Gnangara Road, Madeley – Two permanent speed indicator signs               $40,000

·        Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade - Intersection upgrade                  $200,000

·        Flynn Drive, Neerabup -  Upgrading                                                       $22,500,000

 

The grants for these four road and traffic treatment projects cover the full delivery costs, including City administration costs. Approved funding for each of the Huntington Parkway, Gnangara Road and Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade projects will be recouped by the City from MRWA following Council endorsement to accept the grant.

 

As per Attachment 2, the $22.5M Flynn Drive, Neerabup – Upgrading consists of a $20M State Government commitment and a $2.5M Australian Government commitment, the latter via the Urban Congestion Fund (UCF).  Both portions of the grant are to be paid to the City and administered by MRWA. To access the $2.5M Australian Government (UCF) funding, the City will be required to complete a Project Proposal Report (PPR) for submission to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC).  The PPR will be assessed by DITRDC and subsequently approved by the relevant Minister.

 

Approval is sought from Council to accept these grants.

Detail

Huntington Parkway, Landsdale – Speed indicator signs $40,000

 

Current situation: An election commitment was made to the City for installation of permanent speed indicator signs as an anti-hooning measure.

 

Recommendation: Council to accept the funding and list the project in the 2021/22 CWP.

 

Gnangara Road, Madeley – Speed indicator signs $40,000

 

Current situation: An election commitment was made to the City for installation of permanent speed indicator signs as an anti-hooning measure

 

Recommendation: Council to accept the funding and list the project in the 2021/22 CWP.

 

Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade $200,000

 

Current situation: This project is listed in the City’s 2021/22 Capital Works Program (CWP) as a (State) Black Spot project to improve safety at the intersection.  Works involve installing a left turn on the western leg, realign seagull-island and add a cycle lane. Being State Blackspot funded, obligation is for one third of funding from Municipal source(s).  Therefore, the City was funding $66,000 of the total project cost of $198,000 (PR-4273). With this becoming an election commitment project it will be fully funded by the State, with Municipal savings of $66,000. 

 

The 2021/22 CWP includes several road and traffic treatment projects, with funding from the City’s own sources provided to meet the minimum requirement of “Own Source” expenditure as required under Roads to Recovery (R2R) guidelines. The most accurate position on this compliance will be known after the 2020/21 R2R Annual Report is finalised around October.  It is therefore proposed that $66,000 be considered a “Municipal Surplus” at this stage, noting that it may need to be brought back into the Roads and/or Traffic Treatments capital subprograms later in 2021/22, if required. Similarly, this municipal funding may also be allocated to projects considered by Council on 13 July 2021 (Item CE01-07/21).

 

Recommendation: Council to accept the funding and adjust funding source on existing project. Municipal saving to be returned to the Strategic/Projects Initiatives Reserve, subject to further analysis by Administration.

 

Flynn Drive, Neerabup - Upgrading $22,500,000

 

Current situation: This project has been included in the City’s Advocacy Plan for many years, however had been unsuccessful in securing grant funding. In November 2020, $250,000 Municipal funds were allocated to the project for design work to commence for the ultimate dual carriageway, from Wanneroo Road to Old Yanchep Road.  This design tender was subsequently awarded to Cossil & Webley in March 2021 and is progressing well.

 

As an outcome of the extended advocacy effort by the City, the State and Australian Governments have committed $22.5M to the upgrading works, with the following procedure (as per Attachment 2) for recouping the funding:

 

1.       State Government component ($20,000,000)

 

a.       Milestone 1: 40% ($8,000,000) of project commitment following advice of funding commitment;

b.       Milestone 2: 40% ($8,000,000) of project commitment after incurred expenditure on the project has exceeded 40% of the approved funding; and

c.       Milestone 3: 20% ($4,000,000) of project commitment upon certification of satisfactory project completion of work

 

2.       Australian Government component ($2,500,000)

 

a.       Milestone 1: $2,000,000 upon completion of State Milestone 1, above; and

b.       Milestone 2: $500,000 upon acceptance by DITRDC of a post-completion report for the project.

 

Following receipt of the election commitment confirmation letter, Administration has confirmed with MRWA that the letter is satisfactory evidence of the State and Federal commitments, with no further grant agreement negotiations required. There may be a need to sign a funding agreement with the Australian Government for $2.5m finding commitment. MRWA has indicated that the City can commence work immediately on the three smaller project commitments, with only the Flynn Drive grant being dependent on the approval of the PPR. Administration has commenced preparation of the PPR and will submit as soon as possible.

 

Recommendation: Council to accept the Flynn Drive funding as per the grant offer by MRWA (Attachment 2). Council to delegate authority to the CEO to finalise the Project Proposal Report (PPR) in consultation with MRWA and approve/execute appropriate funding agreements. Milestone payments received are proposed to be held by the City as “Restricted Cash” and brought in to the CWP as needed throughout the project delivery.  

Consultation

Lists of potential projects for funding were provided to candidates in the lead up to the State election. Extensive internal discussions were held to ensure that the project lists were comprehensive and linked to work already on the City’s Capital Works Program (CWP), with the potential to be brought forward if grant funding could be successfully secured. Of the four project commitments detailed above, only Marmion Ave/Santa Barbara Parade - Intersection Upgrades and Flynn Drive, Neerabup - Upgrading were advocated for by the City leading into the election.

 

Administration is not typically notified/advised of election commitments prior to their announcements and as such is generally unable to directly influence project scope or cost estimates. Once the City is advised, consultation is then undertaken with the Departments and relevant stakeholders to determine a suitable scope of works, resourcing and scheduling. It is noted that Administration is continuing to follow up on other election funding promises made and updates on funding of these projects will be provided to Council as new information becomes available.

Comment

Delivery of the projects will be subject to Administration completing the appropriate project planning and resourcing schedule. Timing of the delivery and completion of the respective projects will be agreed with the MRWA. There may be the requirement for one additional Project Manager, pending finalisation of the resource requirements to deliver these projects which are additional to the adopted 2021/22 budget.

 

It is recommended that Council accepts all four funding offers.

Statutory Compliance

Part 6 – Financial Management of the Act and Part 2 – General Financial Management of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 makes provision for budget variations.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

5 ~ A well planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.4 - People can move around easily

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-G09 Long Term Financial Planning	Low
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 Risk register. Action plans have been developed to manage/mitigate/accept this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The below table summarises the grant values described above:

 

Project	Grant	Total
Huntington Parkway, Landsdale, New Speed Signs	$40,000	$40,000
Gnangara Road, Madeley, New Speed Signs	$40,000	$40,000
Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade – Intersection Upgrade	$200,000	$200,000
Flynn Drive, Neerabup - Upgrades	$22,500,000	$22,500,000
TOTAL	$22,862,000	$22,862,000

 

Subject to Council approval, there will be a need to amend the adopted 2021/22 Budget and 20 Year CWP to reflect the inclusion of these projects. This will include an immediate budget adjustment (increase) within 2021/22 CWP of $250,000 for Flynn Drive Upgrade (PR-4347) for completion of the design work, anticipated utility provider design fees and authority approvals. The 20 Year CWP will be updated with the Flynn Drive future year allocations as part of the of the 2021/22 LTFP process.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS the external funding as outlined above subject to the Chief Executive Officer executing the required funding agreements, as applicable, with Main Roads Western Australia and the Australian Government’s Department of Infrastructure Transport Regional Development and Communications for the following projects:

a)      Huntington Parkway, Landsdale – Speed indicator signs: $40,000;

b)      Gnangara Road, Madeley – Speed indicator signs: $40,000;

c)      Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade – upgrade: $200,000;

d)      Flynn Drive, Neerabup – Upgrades: $22,500,000; and

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to:

a)      Finalise the Project Proposal Report (PPR) for Flynn Drive Upgrades for the Department of Infrastructure Transport Regional Development and Communications in consultation with MRWA;

b)      Receive payments for Flynn Drive Upgrades which are to be held by the City as “Restricted Cash”;

c)      Include the Flynn Drive - Upgrade funding into the 20 Yr CWP as part of the 2021/22 20YR CWP/LTFP process;

3.       APPROVES the following budget adjustments to reflect receipt of additional funds from the State and Federal Government:

Project	GL Account / Capital Project	Current Budget	Muni	Grant	Revised Budget
Marmion Avenue/Santa Barbara Parade - Intersection upgrade	PR-4273	$198,000	-$(66,000)	$200,000	$200,000
Municipal surplus to be allocated to other projects			$66,000
Flynn Drive, Neerabup - Upgrades	PR-4347	$200,000	$0	$250,000	$450,000

4.       APPROVES the unbudgeted expenditure of the following projects to be funded from the accepted State and Federal Government grants:

Project	Project Number	Current Budget	Muni	Grant	Revised Budget
Huntington Parkway, Landsdale, New Speed Signs	PR-New	$0	$0	$40,000	$40,000
Gnangara Road, Madeley, New Speed Signs	PR-New	$0	$0	$40,000	$40,000

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - 2021 Election Commitments Advice - Four City Road Upgrades (MRWA)	21/307787
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - 2021 Election Commitments Advice - Flynn Drive upgrades (MRWA)	21/310367

 

 

 

 

 

Assets Maintenance

File Ref:                                              41314 – 21/293497

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Issue

To consider Tender No. 21029 for the Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Advertising on Illuminated Street Signs.

Background

The City is currently under contract with Directional Systems Australia Pty Ltd (DSA) for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs (01141) that is due to expire on 31 March 2022 after a ten-year contract period.

There are currently 50 illuminated street signs installed throughout the City which are owned by DSA. Contract 01141 specifies that the contractor shall remove the signs within 14 days of the expiry of the contract period, unless the agreement is re-tendered or other agreement is made prior to expiry.   

The City is seeking to have Tender 21029 in place to commence at expiration of the current contract 01141 to ensure a smooth transition between contracts.

The 50 existing signs owned by DSA are backlit by LED globes allowing for one advertiser on each display. As part of the tender specification, there is an option to have Static Electronic Display (S.E.D) signs installed throughout the City. The S.E.D signs would require the City’s necessary approvals and align with the City’s policies. The S.E.D signs will provide a comprehensive high-quality digital electronic display which can have multiple instantaneously changing advertisements, inclusive of a City advertisement if we choose to do so.

Detail

Tender No. 21029 for the Supply, Installation and Advertising on Illuminated Street Signs was advertised on 5 May 2021 and closed on Tuesday 1 June 2021.

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

 

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

·        Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd;

·        Directional Systems Australia Pty Ltd; and

·        Focus on Signs

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel comprised:

·        Manager Asset Maintenance,

·        Technical Officer – Contracts Administration,

·        Principal Specialist Traffic Services and

·        Coordinator Safety Systems.

 

Probity Oversight

Oversight to the tender assessment process was undertaken by an external Probity Advisor (William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd) and the City’s Contracts Officer. 

Tender submissions were evaluated in accordance with the Procurement and Evaluation Plan (PEP).  The PEP included the following selection criteria:

The Annual Revenue was included as a weighted criterion as this will be an income generating contract and as part of the evaluation assessment it provided an equitable comparative projected income which removed the need to undertake a value for money assessment.

All tender submissions received were conforming and were included in the evaluation process. All tenderers required to achieve a minimum acceptable qualitative score (as determined by the City) for each of the qualitative criteria detailed above.

Evaluation Criteria 1 – Sustainable Procurement (20%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on tenderers’ sustainable procurement policy and practices.

 

Sub Criteria - Environmental Considerations (5%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on tenderers’ environmental policy and practices.

The assessment of this criterion determined the following ranking:

 

 

 

Sub Criteria - Buy Local (10%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the responses provided, detailing the following information:

 

·        Purchasing arrangements through local businesses;

·        Location of tenderer’s offices and workshops;

·        Residential municipality of staff and subcontractors; and

·        Requirement for new employees arising from award of the contract.

The assessment of this criterion determined the following ranking:

 

Sub Criteria - Reconciliation Action Plan (2.5%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the responses provided that relate to:

·        Relationships - building positive relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous people;

·        Respect – recognising the contribution of Indigenous people to Australia and learning more about the history, culture and diversity in a two-way communication process; and

·        Opportunities – attracting, developing and retaining organisational talent to build opportunities for aboriginal employment, training, development and mentoring.

The assessment of this criterion determined the following ranking:

Sub Criteria - Disability Access & Inclusion (2.5%)

An assessment was made to determine the ranking based on the responses provided that relate to:

 

·        People with disabilities have the same buildings and facilities access opportunities as other people;

·        People with disabilities receive information in a format that will enable them to access information as readily as other people are able to access it;

·        People with disabilities receive the same level and quality of service from staff as other people receive;

·        People with disabilities have the same opportunities as other people to make complaints; and

·        People with disabilities have the same opportunities as other people to participate in any employment opportunities.

 

The assessment of this criterion determined the following ranking:

Evaluation Criteria 2 – Occupational Health and Safety (15%)

Evidence of safety management policies and practices were assessed from the tenderers submissions. The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers responses to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Questionnaire included within the tender documentation.

All tenderers provided details of their safety management systems with the following ranking:

Evaluation Criteria 3 - Demonstrated Experience and Capacity (25%)

The tenderer’s relevant experience in illuminated street signage and their knowledge of local government procedures as well as their ability to meet the requirements of the contract were assessed in this criterion. The tenderer’s current workload and resources to fulfil the requirements of the contract were also assessed as part of this criterion.

The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Criteria 4 – Provision of Infrastructure and Maintenance Methodology (25%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderer’s programme for installation of new replacement and/or upgrade options for the 50 existing illuminated street signs under contract 01141. The tenderer’s maintenance and hazard response methodology was also assessed as part of this criterion. The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Evaluation Criteria 5 – Annual Revenue (15%)

For this criterion the tenderers were assessed based on their proposed annual revenue structure to provide an equitable comparative projected income to the Principal over the contract period. The assessment of this criterion has resulted in the following ranking:

Overall Weighted Assessment and Ranking

Tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the Tender Evaluation Plan with the following key observations:

·        The tenderer’s submissions were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, capability and safety management systems to undertake the tender.

·        The tenderers’ concept designs, warranties, installation and maintenance programs for the illuminated street signs complied with the tender specifications.

·        The tenderer’s annual revenue was evaluated to provide an equitable comparison for projected income to the Principal over the life on the contract.

 

The overall weighted assessment resulted in the following tender ranking:

 

Consultation

Consultation with a number of internal stakeholders including considerable contribution from the City’s Legal Services team as well as input from external stakeholders was undertaken as part of this tender process.

Comment

The tender submission from Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd achieved the highest ranking in accordance with the assessment criteria and weightings as detailed in the Procurement and Evaluation Plan and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.

 

As part of Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd tender submission there were some clarifications of the specification and conditions of Contract that were identified which are considered acceptable.

Statutory Compliance

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995. The tendering procedures and evaluation complied with the requirements of Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

Signs installed under the contract will require development approval and Main Roads WA’s approval, as applicable.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

3 ~ A vibrant, innovative City with local opportunities for work, business and investment

3.2 - Attract and support new and existing business

 

   5 ~ A well-planned, safe and resilient City that is easy to travel around and provides a connection between people and places

5.3 - Manage and maintain assets

Enterprise Risk Management Considerations

 

Financial and Performance Risk

Financial Risk

 

A financial risk assessment was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd advised that Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd has been assessed with a satisfactory financial capacity to meet the requirements of the contract.

 

Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd has outlined in its Tender submission that all 50 illuminated street signs will be replaced with new signs within the first 90 days of the contract. There will be a slight loss of income to the City during this transition period, however this will be recovered within the first few months of the new contract as the annual revenue is substantially greater than what is currently being received under contract 01141.

 

Performance Risk

 

Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd has extensive experience with illuminated street signs and has a strong track record working with numerous local governments across Western Australia. Independent reference checks have indicated that Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd has comparable contracts with other Local Governments across Australia with minimal issues whilst providing works and services to a high standard. In addition, Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd has had no disputes or claim history as stated in their submission.

 

Social and Environmental (Sustainable Procurement) Considerations

Wherever possible the illuminated street signs shall be designed, erected and maintained in accordance with sustainable design principles, including the use of L.E.D lighting and solar energy technology.

 

Broader Economic Impact Implications for the City of Wanneroo

The contractor has indicated that they will endeavour to employ local residents and where possible to source materials locally within the City.

 

The contract also provides local businesses with an opportunity to advertise their business on the illuminated street signs as a first priority, therefore supporting local companies and positively benefiting the local economy.

 

Additionally, the City will be allocated advertising space for the promotion of City events, community messaging, services and community groups. This reduces advertising costs to the City and the need for extra signage.

Policy Implications

Tenders were invited in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Purchasing Policy.

Financial (Budget) Implications

This contract is an income generating contract providing revenue to the City. The revenue generated by this contract is substantially greater than what is currently being received under contract 01141.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Claude Outdoor Pty Ltd for Tender No. 21029, for the Supply, Installation, Maintenance and Advertising on Illuminated Street Signs, for an initial period of five years, with two, five-year extension options.

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - 21/293566 - 21029 - Confidential memorandum to tender report	Confidential
2.	Attachment 2 - 21/299324 - 21029 - Letter Probity Advisor	Confidential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This attachment is confidential and distributed under separate cover to all Council Members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration Use Only

Attachment 1 – HPE #21/293566

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This attachment is confidential and distributed under separate cover to all Council Members.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration Use Only

Attachment 2 – HPE #21/299324

 

 

 

 

 

Community & Place

 

Corporate Strategy & Performance

Business & Finance

File Ref:                                              37350V02 – 21/317465

Responsible Officer:                          Director, Corporate Strategy & Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Issue

For Council to consider the Financial Activity Statement (FAS) for the period ended 30 June 2021.

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.”

Detail

Council adopted the Annual Budget for the 2020-21 financial year on 20 July 2020 (SCS01-07/20). The mid-year review (MYR) was conducted in January and adopted by Council on 16 February 2021 (CS03-02/21). The budget changes proposed in the Financial Activity Statement (FAS) for the period ended 30 April 2021 have been included in this report as the report was adopted on 15 June 2021 by Council (CS01-06/21). The figures in this report are compared to the Revised Budget.

 

The un-audited financial position reported as at 30 June 2021 is draft and subject to change with the end of the year adjustments.

Overall Comments Month-to-Date

Results from Operations

 

The Financial Activity Statement report for the month of June 2021 shows an overall favourable variance from Operations before Non-Operating Revenue and Expenses of $213k.

 

This resulted by lower than expected Operating Revenue of $575k (due to lower Interest Income, lower Fees & Charges and lower Rates Income) offset by better than anticipated results from Operating Expenses (due to lower Employee Costs, lower Utility Charges and lower Materials & Contract Costs).

 

High-level comments by Total Operating Revenue and Total Operating Expense are provided in the table below:

 

 

Capital Program

 

During June 2021, $6.6m was spent on various capital projects of which $1.6m was spent on Roads and $1.5m on Sports 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 June 2021 shows an overall favourable variance from Operations of $10.4m.

 

 

Capital Program

 

At the end of June 2021, $52.0m was expended on various capital projects of which $16.5m was spent on Sports Facilities and $9.9m on Roads. Further detail on the Capital Works Program is provided under the Capital Works Program section of this report. The estimated carry forward amount is $12.7m and details were presented to Council as part of the 2021/22 Budget adoption.  

 

 

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 $100k, Revised Budget $0k)

The variance is favourable by $100k as a result of higher interim rates generated mainly on residential properties than anticipated during the month.

Year to Date - (Actual $136.3m, Revised Budget $136.1m)

The variance is favourable by $209k as a result of higher interim rates generated on commercial properties than anticipated up to June 2021.

Note 2        Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

Month to Date - (Actual 4.8m, Revised Budget $4.7m)

The variance is favourable by $79k, closely aligning to budget (+1.7%). During the month $4.2m was received from the Grants Commission being an early part payment of the 2021/22 distribution.  As part of the year-end adjustments these monies will be transferred to the Strategic Projects/Initiatives Reserve and then released in 2021/22.

 

Year to Date - (Actual $16.9m, Revised Budget $16.8m)

The variance is favourable by $159k, which is within the reportable threshold.

 

 

 

 

 

Note 3        Fees and Charges – Including Waste Service Fee

Month to Date - (Actual $1.2m, Revised Budget $1.5m)

The overall variance of Fees and Charges is unfavourable by $371k, with the main contributors being lower than budgeted Facility Booking Fee Income ($167k lower) and User Entry Fee Income ($144k lower).

Year to Date - (Actual $48.7m, Revised Budget $48.5m)

The variance is favourable by $251k (+0.5%) which is under the reportable threshold.

Note 4        Other Revenue

Month to Date - (Actual $57k, Revised Budget $105k)

The variance is unfavourable by $48k being a reflection of earlier receipting compared to budget expectations.

Year to Date - (Actual $951k, Revised Budget $751k)

The variance is favourable by $201k, due to the receipt of funds which were not forecast.

Expenses

Note 5        Employee Costs

Month to Date - (Actual $5.3m, Revised Budget $5.7m)

The variance is favourable by $459k due to lower employee costs mainly arising from deferral of recruitments to manage COVID-19 financial impact.

 

Year to Date - (Actual $71.3m, Revised Budget $75.2m)

The variance is favourable by $3.9m mainly due to the above reason. The realised portion will be adjusted once the year-end provisions are finalised as part of the end of year process.

Note 6        Materials & Contracts

Month to Date - (Actual $7.2m, Revised Budget $7.3m)

The variance is unfavourable by $128k, which is within the reportable threshold.

 

Year to Date - (Actual $64.9m, Revised Budget $70.4m)

The variance is favourable by $5.7m mostly due to:

·        Lower Contract Expenses of $2.3m for maintenance of park land & irrigation, park building & furniture, road reserves, beach land & bushland and provision for emergency services;

·        Lower Consulting Fees of $1.1m mainly due to delays in undertaking of special projects for Planning Services, Place Management, Environmental Management and provision of Information Technology Services;

·        Lower Contribution Expenses of $440k; and

·        Lower Debt Write Off of $322k.

Note 7        Utilities

Month to Date - (Actual $550k, Revised Budget $799k)

The variance is favourable by $249k due to lower than anticipated trend in usage. Year to date amounts are in line with the budget.

Year to Date - (Actual $9.3m, Revised Budget $9.5m)

The variance is favourable by $281k, with the reason for the variance noted above.

Note 8        Insurance

Month to Date - (Actual $49k, Revised Budget $74k)

The variance is favourable by $25k, which is within the reportable threshold.

Year to Date - (Actual $606k, Revised Budget $880k)

The favourable year to date variance of $274k is a result of the City’s receipt of a credit from its insurer. The City opted to offset this credit against the insurance premium. 

 

Non-Operating Revenue & Expenses

Note 9        Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies & Contributions

Month to Date – (Actual $436k, Revised Budget $4.0m)

The variance is unfavourable by $3.5m, which is mainly attributable to:

·        Early receipt of $800k grant for implementation of the three bins system. The grant was received in March 2021 but budgeted for in June 2021;

·        Early receipt of $620k from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) related to various projects as part of WA Recovery Plan but budgeted for in June 2021; and

·        The balance of unfavourable variance is mainly due to various restricted grants received in 2019/20 have not been recognised yet as an income per the accounting standard (AASB 1058). This will be adjusted as part of the end of financial year adjustment when performance obligations have been substantially assessed and confirmed.

 

 

Year to Date – (Actual $18.9m, Revised Budget $16.1m)

The variance is favourable by $2.8m, which is attributable to;

State Government grants of $727k:

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

Cash Contribution of $2.1m:

·        Late receipt of $1.0m relates to Halesworth Park sport facilities project, which was anticipated in 2019/20;

·        Late receipt of $1.6m relates to Marmion Avenue dualing project, which was anticipated in 2019/20; partially offset by

·        $469k of cash contribution has not yet been recognised as an income pending confirmation of obligations required to be carried out per AASB 1058.

Note 10      Contributed Physical Assets

Month to Date – (Actual $8.1m, Revised Budget $2.3m)

In June 2021, $5.8m of various assets, were handed over to the City by developers. The actual assets are recorded as and when assets are handed over to the City.

Year to Date – (Actual $20.3m, Revised Budget $9.1m)

The variance is favourable by $11.2m. The actual assets hand overs by developers are higher (and earlier) than anticipated.

Note 11      Profit /( Loss) on Asset Disposals

Month to Date – (Combined Actual $112k, Combined Revised Budget -$824k)

The favourable variance of $936k is a result of a higher proceeds relating to land sales from Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) than anticipated.

Year to Date – (Combined Actual $2.7m, Combined Revised Budget -$13.1m)

The variance is favourable by $15.8m mainly due to the delay in the formal handover of Ocean Reef Road and Gnangara Road by Main Roads WA. The City has received the letter from the Minister for Transport, Planning and Ports and it is expected to be appropriately recorded as part of the end of year finalisation process.

Note 12      TPS & DCP Income

Month to Date – (Actual -$6k, Revised Budget $1.5m)

The unfavourable variance of $1.5m is mainly due to delay receipt of headworks levies for Cells 1, 2 and 5.

Year to Date – (Actual $9.1m, Revised Budget $11.1m)

The variance is unfavourable by $2.0m mostly due to the delay in estimated receipt of headworks levies by $1.1m for Cell 9.

 

 

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 $33.0m, which is predominately due to lower Operating and Capital expenditure than budgeted. The cash position is expected to further reduce with the finalisation of end of year entries and transfers to Reserves.

Within the Current Assets, Current Receivables of $16.2m are mainly comprised of collectable Rates and Waste Service Fees debtors of $10.4m and Emergency Services Levy of $0.9m, with the remaining balance attributed to General Debtors of $4.9m.

Note 2 - Non-Current Assets

Non-Current Assets position as at 30 June 2021 have increased by $19.1m from 30 June 2020 Actuals. The movement is due to increase in Work in Progress and Asset Acquisition of $58.6m partially offset by accumulated depreciation of $39.5m.

Note 3 - Non-Current Liabilities

Non-Current Liabilities position as at 30 June 2021 have decreased by $91k due to movement in provisions.

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

Financial Performance Indicators

The table below presents data on non-asset related financial ratios, comparing the minimum standard expected as per the Department of Local Government Sports and Cultural Industries (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 2020/21 Statutory Financial Statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Works Program

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

 

 

For the month of Jun 2021, the City incurred $6.6m of capital expenditure. As at 30 June 2021, the City has spent $52.0m. This represents 76% of the 2020/21 Capital Works Revised Budget of $68.6m. It is estimated that the City had approximately $12.7m of outstanding commitments as at 30 June 2021. Including open commitments it represents 94% of the 2020/21 Capital Works Revised Budget of $68.5m. The final carry forward amounts and outstanding commitments can be determined after finalisation of the 2020/21 financial year-end adjustments.

 

Details of significant expenditure for the month are included in Attachment 3. The estimated carry forward amount is $12.7m, and details were presented to Council as part of the 2021/22 Budget adoption.  This position will be reviewed via a separate report which will be presented to Council shortly on any proposed changes to the carry forward amount.

 

 

 

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).

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 June 2021, the City held an investment portfolio (cash & cash equivalents) of $408.8m (Face Value), equating to $409.9m inclusive of accrued interest. This total portfolio consists of restricted cash of $335.0m and un-restricted cash of $79.6m.

The City’s year to date investment portfolio return has exceeded the UBS Australia Bank Bill rate index benchmark by 0.51% p.a. (0.57% p.a. vs. 0.06% p.a.); however, it is noted that Interest Earnings were budgeted at a 1.00% yield. The prevailing historically low Reserve Bank of Australia Cash Rate at 0.1% is affecting the City’s ability to attract higher interest rates from ADI’s.

Rate Setting Statement (Financial Activity Statement) (Attachment 6)

The Rate Setting Statement (Financial Activity 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 below. Whilst a year-to-date surplus of $48.2m is reported, this amount is expected to reduce once all the final end of year entries and transfers to Reserves are captured.

*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 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 comply with Regulations 34 (1) and 34 (4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2021 – 2031:

7 ~ A well governed and managed City that makes informed decisions, provides strong community leadership and valued customer focused services

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-017 Financial Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	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

·        Financial Hardship – Collection of Rates and Service Charges Policy;

·        Fee, Waivers, Concessions and Debt Write-off Policy and

·        Strategic Budget Policy.

Financial Implications

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

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the Financial Activity Statement and commentaries on variances to year to date Budget for the period ended 30 June 2021 consisting of:

a)      June 2021 year to date Financial Activity Statement;

b)      June 2021 year to date Net Current Assets Position; and

c)      June 2021 year to date Notes to the Material Financial Variances.

2.                                    

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Statement of Comprehensive Income June 2021	21/322338
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Statement of Financial Position June 2021	21/322355
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Significant Capital Expenditure June 2021	21/322357
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Top Projects 2020-21 - June 2021 - 20210210	16/151914[v63]
5⇩.	Attachment 5 – Investment Report June 2021	21/322365
6⇩.	Attachment 6 – Rate Setting Statement June 2021	21/322354