BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Council Chambers (Level 1), Civic Centre,

23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

on 09 November, 2021 commencing at 6:00pm

 

ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS DURING STATE OF EMERGENCY

As the State is now in Phase 5 of the COVID-19 roadmap, public attendance numbers at City of Wanneroo meetings has been changed accordingly, where public attendance at Briefing Sessions and Council Meetings are no longer restricted, and Council Chamber can be at full capacity.

 

There is a requirement for the City to maintain a mandatory contact register. Residents are requested to scan the City of Wanneroo SafeWA QR Code on entry to the Council Chamber or complete the manual contact register before entering Chamber.

 

For your health and safety, members of the public are reminded to:

 

·                Follow the direction of the Presiding Members and City employees when attending meetings;

·                Maintain physical distancing where possible;

·                Use the hand sanitiser that is provided by the City at the venue; and

·                Not attend a meeting should they feel unwell or if they have been in contact with a known COVID-19 case, or been overseas in the preceding two weeks.

 

Thank you for your understanding of these circumstances

 

PRINCIPLES

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

 

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

 

PROCESS

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

 

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

 

·         Attendance and Apologies

·         Declarations of Interest

·         Reports for discussion

·         Tabled Items

·         Public Question Time

·         Closure

 

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

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

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

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

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

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

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

 

LOCATION

The Council Briefing Session will take place in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre.

 

The procedure for Deputations has changed for 2021 to allow Deputations to be presented during the Briefing Session.

 

During the Briefing Session, members of the public may, by appointment, present a Deputation relating to items on the current Briefing Session Agenda. A maximum of up to ten minutes (dependent on the number of deputations received) is permitted for each deputation with up to three people to address the Council Members.

 

Please note that Deputation requests are to be received by no later than 9:00am on the day of the Briefing Session, and must relate to an item on the current Briefing Session Agenda.

 

Deputation online form

 

Please note:

 

·         Deputation requests must relate to items listed on the current Briefing Session Agenda;

·         A Deputation is not to exceed three speakers in number and only those speakers may address the Council Members; and

·         Speakers of a Deputation will collectively have a maximum of up to 10 minutes (dependent on the number of deputations received) to address the Council Members, unless an extension of time is granted.

 

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

 

For further information please contact Council Support on 9405 5000.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 9 November, 2021

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Deputations_ 1

Item  4_____ Reports_ 1

Planning & Sustainability  1

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment  1

4.1                         Close of Advertising - Alkimos - Eglinton DCP Annual Review of
Costs (2021-2022) 1

4.2                         Close of Advertising - Yanchep Two Rocks DCP Annual Review of Costs (2021-2022) 15

4.3                         Consideration of Actions Relating to Developer Contributions Arrangements  26

Approval Services  30

4.4                         Consideration of Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme
No. 2 Following Advertising  30

4.5                         Revocation of Pederick Road Agreed Local Structure Plan
No. 45 and Lot 505 Pederick Road Neerabup Agreed Local
Structure Plan No. 56  38

4.6                         Consideration of Development Application DA2020/1087 - Single
House Addition (Wind Turbine) - 10 Reigate Way BUTLER   42

4.7                         Consideration of Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme
No. 2 following advertising to allow Medical Centre as an
Additional Use at Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo  58

4.8                         Consideration of Development Application for Telecommunications Facility at Lot 1450 (9) Pacific Promenade, Alkimos (DA2021/351) 69

4.9                         Consideration of Amendment No. 201 to District Planning Scheme
No. 2 to Introduce an Additional Use of Car Park at Lot 2 (44)
Delich Road, Carabooda  114

4.10                      Review of Local Planning Policy No. 4.18: Earthworks and Sand Drift  127

4.11                      Proposed Amendment No. 186 to DPS 2 - Lot 60 (187) Hawkins Road, Jandabup  139

Assets  161

Strategic Asset Management  161

4.12                      Response to Petition (PT02-08/21) requesting installation of
Traffic Management on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale  161

4.13                      Response to Petition (PT01-06/21) requesting pathway along Clubhouse Lane between ‘The Green Village’ and Lakelands Drive, Gnangara  167

Infrastructure Capital Works  175

4.14                      Wangara CCTV Project Update  175

Parks & Conservation Management  181

4.15                      Tender Number 21207 - Provision of Tree Maintenance Services  181

Community & Place  190

Community Facilities  190

4.16                      State Government Funding Commitments: Wanneroo Showgrounds  190

4.17                      Alkimos Aquatic & Recreation Centre - Concept Design and
Community Engagement Strategy  194

Community Safety & Emergency Management Report  210

4.18                      Dog Exercise Options for Western Oval of Gumblossom
Reserve and Children's Playgrounds  210

Corporate Strategy & Performance  217

Business & Finance  217

4.19                      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 September
2021 and Quarter 1 Review of the 2021/22 Annual Budget Report  217

Transactional Finance  246

4.20                      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 September 2021  246

Customer & Information Services  306

4.21                      Revised Customer First Strategy 2021-2026 and Our Customer
Service Commitment  306

Property Services  366

4.22                      Update on Negotiations for Proposed Lease to Olympic Kingsway Sports Club (Inc.) over a portion of Lot 555, Kingsway, Madeley  366

Contracts & Procurement  378

4.23                      WALGA Energy Sustainability and Renewables Project  378

Chief Executive Office  397

Office of the CEO Reports  397

4.24                      Advocacy Campaign  397

 

Governance & Legal  402

4.25                      Review of the City of Wanneroo Standing Orders Local Law 2008  402

4.26                      Legal Representation & Costs Indemnification Policy Review   519

4.27                      Review of the Council Member, Committee Member and Candidate
Code of Conduct Complaint Handling Policy  542

Item  5_____ Motions on Notice_ 568

Item  6_____ Late Reports (to be circulated under separate cover) 568

6.1                         Motion on Notice – Councillor Chris Baker – Caretaker Election Period Policy  568

Item  7_____ Public Question Time_ 568

Item  8_____ Confidential_ 568

Item  9_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 568

Item  10____ Closure_ 568

 

 

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

Item  1     Attendances

Item  2     Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3     Deputations

Item  4     Reports

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

Planning & Sustainability

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment

File Ref:                                              23155V02 – 21/458632

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the public submission received on the Annual Review of costs for the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan (DCP).

Background

Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) was gazetted in September 2014 and introduced the DCP provisions into DPS 2. Schedule 15 of DPS2 identifies the various community infrastructure and the DCP provides estimates on the costs, estimated contributions and the timing for the delivery of infrastructure within Alkimos and Eglinton DCP. The Development Contribution Area (DCA) is defined in Attachment 1 and is reflected in DPS2 as a Special Control Area. The infrastructure costs include planning, design, project management, construction and land acquisition costs associated with the following infrastructure:

 

·        Surf Life Saving Club;

·        Public Open Space (x2);

·        Multipurpose Hard Courts (x2);

·        Community Centre (x2);

·        Library (x2); and

·        Indoor Recreation Centres (x2).

 

The DCP has an operation period of 25 years and during this time the City is required to review the various elements of the DCP at one and five year intervals as per the following:

 

·        Annually - DCP cost estimates, DCP cost indexation, contributing land area, and cost per hectare.

·        Five Yearly - Community Facility Plan (CFP) assumptions and recommendations, and full DCP review.

 

The DCP utilises the ‘per hectare’ model of calculating development contributions, which involves the levy of a contribution based on the total area of developable land; rather than the number of lots or dwellings proposed to be created as a result of subdivision. The Annual Review revises the contribution rate by apportioning the estimated remaining infrastructure costs over the remaining NCA in any particular year.

 

The Contribution payable by a landowner at the time of subdivision is calculated by multiplying the area of the proposed lots by the contribution rate approved by Council (currently $10.13 per sqm).

 

The City has collected approximately $17.4 million in contributions from landowners up to 30 June 2021.

 

The Annual Review is necessary to ensure that the cost contribution amount is correctly set to collect sufficient funds to cover the cost of approved infrastructure.

 

On 17 November 2020 (CP01-11/20), Council approved a revised CFP and the recommendations on infrastructure prioritisation and delivery, which are included in the DCP assumptions.

 

On 7 September 2021 (PS04-09/21), Council considered the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP Annual Review and resolved the following:

 

·        ENDORSES the revised Alkimos-Eglinton  Development Contribution Plan cost estimates in accordance with Schedule 14 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as outlined in Attachment 2, including:-

 

a)      Developer Contribution Plan facility cost estimate of $82,932,000;

b)      Net contributing land area remaining – 563.39 hectares; and

c)      Cost per hectare - $120,829.50 (or $12.08 per square metre).

 

·        ENDORSES the revised Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Report as depicted in Attachment 5; and

 

·        Pursuant to Clause 11.6 of Schedule 14 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 NOTIFIES affected landowners of the recommendations of the Annual Review and INVITES comment in writing from those landowners for a period of 28 days.

Detail

The DCP’s Cost Apportionment Schedule (CAS) has been revised to reflect the latest cost estimates (refer Attachment 2).  The following provides the outcomes of relevant infrastructure cost elements of the Annual Review, including:

 

·        Net Contributing Area (NCA)

·        Facility Costs

·        Land Acquisition Valuation

·        Administration Costs

·        Cost Contribution

·        Community Facility Plan (Re-Prioritisation of Facility Provision)

 

Net Contributing Area (NCA)

 

In the past six years the NCA has reduced by approximately 67 hectares from the original DCP area of 630.56 hectares (2015). The remaining NCA is estimated to be 563.39 hectares, which reflects the area of land that has contributed and any amendments to the ASP. The Annual Review applies the remaining NCA of 563.39 hectares to determine the contribution rate required to complete the required infrastructure works.

 

Infrastructure Costs

 

The costs of the DCP infrastructure is revised each year and these costs are required to be independently verified. The City engaged an external quantity surveyor (Donald Cant Watts and Corke) to prepare a revised cost estimate for the facilities up to June 2022. Overall, there has been an increase in the cost estimates from $72,028,705 to $82,932,000. The increase relates to an escalation/indexation of costs applied by the quantity surveyor to reflect market conditions. The City will continue to revise the costs annually in accordance with DPS2, until such time as the infrastructure costs have been finalised.

 

Land Acquisition Valuation

 

The estimated acquisition costs have been updated and are included into the facility cost estimates. The land valuation was completed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2, which requires the local government to appoint a licensed valuer. In this regard, the land valuation was prepared by Brian Zucal and Associates on 11 June 2021 for the 2021-2022 Annual Review period. The valuation recommends a valuation of $101 per m2. These costs form part of the overall cost estimates for each item of infrastructure, as defined in Attachment 2.

 

Administration Costs

 

In accordance with Schedule 15 of DPS 2, the following administration costs can be charged to the DCP;

 

·        Costs to prepare and administer the plan during the period of operation;

·        Costs to prepare and review estimates;

·        Costs to prepare the cost apportionment schedule;

·        Valuation costs; and

·        Costs to service loans established by the City to fund early provision of facilities.

The City has utilised the original cost estimate for administering the DCP of $76,500 per annum, which is generally consistent with the previous year’s actual expenditure.

The Administration costs are estimated for the remaining operational period of the DCP from 1 July 2021 to 8 September 2039, which equates to a remaining estimated administration cost of $1,562,211.  It should be noted that only actual Administration costs that are incurred are charged to the DCP and that these costs form part of the actual expenditure and are disclosed in the Annual Financial Statements.

 

Cost Contribution

 

The contribution rate has increased from $10.13 to $12.08 per square metre, which is a reflection of an increase in the revised facility cost estimates.

 

External Auditing

 

The Annual Review was audited by the City’s external auditors (William Buck) and a copy of their findings has been included as Attachment 3. The audit opinion concluded that the DCP costs incurred, estimated for remaining development works, and proposed rate of $120,829.50 ($12.08 per/m2) were fairly stated and in compliance to DPS 2 and SPP 3.6.

Consultation

In accordance with Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2, where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be increased, then the local government must advertise the review for a period of 28 days, prior to making a decision to increase the estimated costs.

 

Advertising was carried out between 16^th September and 14 October 2021. Administration wrote to landowners within the DCP area and made information available at the Civic Centre and on the City's website.

 

One submissions was received during advertising.

Comment

The City received one submission from Woodsome Management Pty Ltd on behalf of the majority of Alkimos-Eglinton landowners (refer Attachment 4). The salient points of the submissions are summarised below.

 

1.       Annual Review

 

·        The Alkimos Eglinton Landowner Group, namely Development WA, Eglinton Estates & Peet supports the revised cost estimates proposed in the Annual Review, including the remaining net contributing area, land valuation and cost per hectare rate.

 

Administration response – Noted

 

·        The revised facilities costs have increased from $72M to $83M, which result in an increase in the contribution rate from $10.13/m2 to $12.08/m2 (approximately 19%). It is acknowledged that the cost increase is attributed to construction costs for the Alkimos Indoor Recreation Centre and includes an additional escalation allowance due to the abnormal steel and brickwork pricing currently being experienced.

 

Administration response – Construction cost estimates will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis in accordance with the requirements of DPS2. Construction costs will be refined as site specific (detailed) designs are prepared and estimated costs updated by external consultants to ensure the most accurate cost estimates are utilised, until such time as the actual expenditure occurs.

 

·        The land valuation process is generally based on englobo, un-serviced rates at a point in time. Whereas at the point of acquisition the land is often a serviced, level lot, with a known zoning the value of which may not align with what has been collected (i.e. likely to be a higher rate). Prior to the next Annual Review the City should consider modelling this impact and provide options to the AELO to ensure adequate collections will be received.

 

Administration response – The land valuation requirement of DPS2 refers to fair market value and requires negotiation with the affected landowner to finalise the acquisition of the land in accordance with the delivery timeframes specified in DCP. The Annual Review utilises a valuation to estimate the likely acquisition costs and is generally based on the englobo land value (current undeveloped state of the land).

 

It is acknowledged that the prioritisation and timing for acquisition will impact on the estimated value of land, with consideration for constraints, zoning, access, availability of services and market demand.

 

It is also acknowledged that the estimates should include reasonable assumptions and expectations that the site will be delivered to a particular standard and capable of accommodating the required infrastructure in the most economical way possible. The City will continue to engage with the landowner group to ensure the cost estimates are as accurate as possible and will seek to establish a greater level of certainty on the site specific location and design of the infrastructure to inform the valuation process, using the best information available.

 

2.       Deletion of the Principal Shared Path (PSP) from within the Yanchep Rail Extension corridor.

 

·        The landowner group shares the disappointment of the City on this decision which we agree will likely facilitate a sub-optimal outcome for pedestrian and bike path networks, where the delivery of an alternate PSP route is transferred to individual land owners.

·        The planning framework for much of the land in the area to date has been predicated on the presumption that the PSP would be delivered.

 

Administration response – The Alkimos Eglinton DCP does not include the PSP infrastructure and therefore does not impact on the review of estimated costs in the annual review.

 

As part of separate reports in September and October 2021, Council considered this matter and has requested the State Government to include the PSP within the rail reservation.  

Statutory Compliance

In terms of DPS 2, the City must annually review the DCP and the process for this is outlined in the scheme. In line with this, landowners may object to the amount of a cost contribution and request a review by an independent expert. If this does not result in the cost contribution being acceptable to the landowners, then landowners can request that the cost contribution be determined through a process of arbitration.  A similar right exists for the process of determining the value of any land to be acquired through the DCP.

 

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 & 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 (LTFP) as it ensures that appropriate budget monitoring, timing and provisions are considered. The strategic risk relating to Stakeholder Relationships applies as a key element in the DCP review process to maintain effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. In addition, the Corporate Risk relating to Financial Management would apply as awareness of financial policies and financial management at unit level will be maintained to promote accountability by business owners and an integrated approach to risk assurance.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The proposed revision of costs for the 2021/2022 period recommends an increase in the total costs by $10.9 million from $72,028,705 to $82,932,000 and the associated contribution rate increasing from $10.13 to $12.08 per square metre.

 

The Annual Review was audited by the City’s external auditors (William Buck) and a copy of their findings has been included as Attachment 3. The audit opinion concluded that the DCP costs incurred, estimated for remaining development works, and proposed rate of $120,829.50 ($12.08 per/m2) were fairly stated and in compliance to DPS 2 and SPP 3.6.

 

The infrastructure facility costs and timing for delivery is subject to change in future reviews and will be used to inform the City’s Capital Works Program, Annual Budget and the Long Term Financial Plan.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the Annual Review of the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan cost estimates in accordance with Schedule 14 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as outlined in Attachment 2, including:

 

a)      Developer Contribution Plan facility cost estimate of $82,932,000;

 

b)      Net contributing land area remaining – 563.39 hectares; and

 

c)      Cost per hectare - $120,829.50 (or $12.08 per square metre).

 

 

 

 

2.       NOTES the submission received from the Alkimos Eglinton landowners in relation to Annual Review of Costs as depicted in Attachment 4;

 

3.       NOTES that the City will continue to liaise with landowners through the next 5-Year review of the Community Facility Plan to ensure the timely and economical provision of community infrastructure.

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Alkimos-Eglinton DCA Map	21/318371
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Alkimos-Eglinton DCP Annual Review of Costs Table  (2021-2022)	21/310187
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Alkimos Eglinton Annual Cost Review  Audit Report 2021	21/326758
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Submission to CoW_Annual Review 14 Oct 2021 Final	21/458003

  

File Ref:                                              23156V03 – 21/458244

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider the annual review of cost estimates for the Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan (DCP) in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 14 and 15 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2).

Background

Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) was gazetted in September 2014 and introduced the Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) provisions into DPS2. In April 2015, Council adopted the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule (PD07-04/15), which applies to the Development Contribution Area (DCA) – Refer Attachment 1.

 

The DCP is subject to an annual review requirement to ensure that the cost contribution amount is correctly set to ensure the collection of sufficient funds to cover the cost of approved infrastructure items over the life of the DCP.

 

The DCP identifies various community facilities and provides estimates on the total cost, estimated contributions and the timing for the delivery of infrastructure within the Yanchep-Two Rocks area. The infrastructure costs include planning, design, project management costs, site servicing, construction costs and land acquisition costs associated with the following infrastructure:

 

•        Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club;

•        Yanchep District Open Space; and

•        Capricorn Coastal Node Facilities.

 

The DCP was gazetted in 2014 and has an operation period of 16 years (2030). During this time period the City is required to review the various elements of the DCP at one and five year intervals as per the following:

 

Annually

 

•        DCP Cost Estimates;

•        DCP Cost Indexation;

•        Dwelling Estimates; and

•        Cost per Dwelling.

 

5-yearly

 

•        Community Facility Plan (CFP) Assumptions and Recommendations; and

•        Full DCP Review.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 7 September 2021 (PS03-09/21), Council considered the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Annual Review for the 2021-2022 Financial Year period and resolved to advertise the revised cost estimates for a period of 28 days.

 

The Annual Review recommended the following:

 

a)      An increase in the total infrastructure costs from $27,631,474 to $27,931,551 (net infrastructure cost is $25,666,218 excluding grants contribution);

b)      A decrease in the cost per dwelling from $4,047.38 to $3,909.23;

c)      A decrease in the total municipal portion of the net infrastructure costs from 35.07% to 33.52%; or $8,896,281 to $8,603,735;

 

Consultation was undertaken and concluded on 14^th October 2021.

 

Detail

 

The Annual Review of costs (2021-2022 – Refer Attachment 2) includes all costs to 30 June 2021 (audited expenditure) and the estimated remaining DCP costs, which only applies to the Capricorn Coastal Node Facility (scheduled for completion by June 2022). Figures below depicts any changes in the costs associated with each item of infrastructure (completed and estimated remaining).

 

Facility	Status	2020/2021 Annual Review	2021/2022 Annual Review	Difference
Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club	Complete	$7,938,238	$7,938,238	$0 (Complete)
Yanchep District Open Space
- Land	Complete	$6,530,040	$6,530,040	$0 (Complete)
- Oval groundworks	Complete	$2,873,996	$2,873,996	$0 (Complete)
- Oval landscaping	Complete	$5,318,646	$5,318,646	$0 (Complete)
- Pavilion	Complete	$2,776,631	$2,776,631	$0 (Complete)
Capricorn Coastal Node Facilities	Pending	$2,193,923	$2,494,000	$300,077 (Increase)
TOTAL		$27,631,474	$27,931,551	+$300,077

Figure 1 – Updated Cost Estimates for Facilities

 

Capricorn Coastal Node Facilities

 

The coastal node cost estimates are based on the original infrastructure works defined in the DCP and includes footpaths, roads, paved areas, drainage, lighting, fencing, gates, outbuildings and covered walkways.

 

An increase in the estimated costs from $2,193,923 to $2,494,000 was recommended by quantity surveyors Donald Cant Watts Corke (DCWC) to reflect the current market rates.

The landowner, Capricorn Village Joint Venture (CVJV) has obtained development approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to construct the beach activity infrastructure and it is intended that this detailed design will inform the DCP cost estimates as part of the next annual review. In this regard, Administration has initiated discussions with CVJV to consider the scope of works that could be reasonably included, with consideration for the original scope of the DCP infrastructure.

CVJV has recently initiated bulk earthworks for the coastal node and advised that the initial stage will be completed by June 2022, which includes a basic level of infrastructure (e.g. earthworks and grassing). The second stage of the development will include additional infrastructure such as playground equipment and is scheduled for completion within the 2022/23 financial year. Administration will continue to liaise with the landowner in relation to the delivery of the infrastructure and will update the cost estimates as part of the next Annual Review process.

 

Administration Costs

 

In accordance with Schedule 15 of DPS2 the following administration costs are proposed to be charged to the DCP:

 

·        Costs to prepare and administer the plan during the period of operation;

·        Costs to prepare and review estimates;

·        Costs to prepare the cost apportionment schedule;

·        Valuation costs; and

·        Costs to service loans established by Council to fund early provision of facilities.

The City has continued to utilise the original cost estimate for administering the DCP of $70,500 per annum, which is consistent with the average of the previous year’s actual expenditure (since the approval of the DCP).

The administration costs are estimated for the remaining operational period of the DCP from 1 July 2021 to 8 September 2030, which equates to a remaining estimated cost of $648,021 (approximately 9 years remaining).  It should be noted that only actual administration costs incurred have been charged to the DCP and these costs are publically disclosed as part of the City’s Annual Financial Statements.

Loans to Fund Infrastructure

On behalf of the DCP, the City has borrowed funds to the amount of $13,556,300.  The loans were required to fund the completion of the Yanchep Surf Lifesaving Club and the acquisition and development of Splendid Park. Borrowing was necessary to comply with the delivery commitments made between the landowners and the City and was a consequence of lower than estimated lot yield creation in the early stages of the DCP operation period. The future interest payable has been estimated to be $2,404,571, which includes the total estimated loan servicing cost for the life of the DCP with the repayment of the principal borrowing occurring at the end of the operational period (2030). It is noted that the loan servicing costs equate to approximately $250k per year, however if lot creation increases the loan may be repaid sooner and the extent of interest payable would reduce. Any future reduction in the principle and the associated loan repayment costs will be reflected through the Annual Review process.

Cost Apportionment and Contribution Rates

The methodology for calculating cost contributions is set out in DPS 2 and requires the cost contributions to be calculated based on the relative need generated by new dwellings.

 

The City’s contribution towards the total cost of facilities is based on the number of existing dwellings (existing demand prior to the creation of the DCP) of 3,089 dwellings and expressed as a proportion of the total estimated dwellings over the operational period of the DCP.

 

The total estimated lot yield is based on the ID Forecast projections and in effect, the lower the total estimated lot yield the higher the cost per lot and the higher the City’s proportion of the total cost. This methodology reflects the principles of State Planning Policy 3.6, which refers to a need and nexus of costs and the principle that the user pays.

 

The 2021/2022 Annual Review has identified a minor increase in the total estimated lot yield from 8,808 to 9,215, which equates to a decrease in the City’s portion of the net infrastructure costs (total infrastructure cost less grants) from 35.07% to 33.52% ($8,896,281 to $8,603,735) and a corresponding decrease in the DCP contribution rate (future subdividers) from $4,047.38 to $3,909.23 per dwelling (a decrease of $138 per lot).

 

Whilst the City’s obligation relates to a ‘fixed’ or known dwelling number (3,089), the apportionment is calculated against the total lot yield within the DCP, which fluctuates each year depending upon the actual number of lots created (since the last annual review) and estimates defined in the ID population forecasts

 

Consultation

 

In accordance Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2, where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be increased, then the local government must advertise the review for a period of 28 days, prior to making a decision to increase the estimated costs.

 

In accordance with DPS2, the Annual Review was advertised from 16 September to 14 October 2021.  Advertising included letters to landowners within the DCP area, with additional information made available at the Civic Centre and on the City's website.

 

No submissions were received during advertising.

 

Comment

 

The DCP is subject to an annual review process to ensure that the cost contribution amount is correctly set to ensure the collection of sufficient funds to cover the cost of approved infrastructure items over the life of the DCP.

 

The Annual Review of costs for the 2021/2022 period recommends an increase in the total infrastructure costs by $300,077. Whilst there is a higher overall cost to the infrastructure cost estimates, the 2021/2022 Annual Review identified a minor increase in the total estimated lot yield from 8,808 to 9,215, which results in the following:

 

·        A decrease in the City’s portion of the net infrastructure costs (total infrastructure cost less grants) from 35.07% to 33.52% ($8,896,281 to $8,603,735); and

·        A corresponding decrease in the DCP contribution rate (future subdividers) from $4,047.38 to $3,909.23 per dwelling (a decrease of $138 per lot).

 

On the basis that no submissions were received during the consultation period, Administration recommends that Council approve the Annual Review as advertised and depicted in Attachment 1.

Statutory Compliance

The Annual review of the DCP is prescribed by Part 11 of Schedule 14 of DPS No. 2. In accordance with clause 11.6, where the review of estimated costs recommends those costs be increased, then the City must in writing invite comment on the proposal from owners for a period of not less than 28 days, prior to making any decision to increase the estimated costs.

 

Whilst no submissions were received, landowners may object to the amount of a cost contribution and request a review by an independent expert. If this does not result in the cost contribution being acceptable then a determination may be made through a process of arbitration.

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 & 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 (LTFP) as it ensures that appropriate budget monitoring, timing and provisions are considered. The strategic risk relating to Stakeholder Relationships applies as a key element in the DCP review process to maintain effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. In addition, the Corporate Risk relating to Financial Management would apply as awareness of financial policies and financial management at unit level will be maintained to promote accountability by business owners and an integrated approach to risk assurance.

Policy Implications

Nil

 

Financial Implications

 

The recommendations of the Annual Review were audited by the City’s external auditors (William Buck) and a copy of their findings has been included as Attachment 3. The audit opinion concluded that the DCP costs incurred, estimates for remaining development works, and proposed rate of $3,909.23 were fairly stated and in compliance to DPS 2 and SPP 3.6.

 

The City will continue to monitor lot yield creation, interest rates and the remaining cost estimates associated with the Capricorn Coastal Node to ensure adequate funds are received to complete the works and meet the borrowing requirements of the DCP.  It is anticipated that the City will revise the remaining cost estimates based on the detailed design and will include these costs into the next Annual Review.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the revised Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan cost estimates in accordance with Clause 11.4 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as outlined in Attachment 1, including:

a)      An increase in the total infrastructure costs from $27,631,474 to $27,931,551 (net infrastructure cost is $25,666,218 excluding grants contribution);

b)      A decrease in the cost per dwelling from $4,047.38 to $3,909.23;

c)      A decrease in the total municipal portion of the net infrastructure costs from 35.07% to 33.52%; or $8,896,281 to $8,603,735;

2.       AUTHORISES the financial adjustments required to implement the apportionment of costs between the City and the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP.

 

3.       NOTES that no submissions were received in relation to Annual Review of Costs for the Yanchep Two Rocks DCP; and

 

4.       NOTES that the City will continue discussions with Capricorn Village Joint Venture to consider the revised detailed design for the Capricorn Village Coastal Node and include the revised costs and scope of works into the next annual review of costs for 2022-2023;

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Yanchep -Two Rocks DCA	21/317855
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Annual Review of Costs (2021-2022)	21/317792
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Final Yanchep Two Rocks Annual Review Audit Report 2021	21/326757

  

File Ref:                                              5734V07 – 21/458668

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.

 

It should be noted that Amendment No. 185 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 was recently approved by the Minister for Planning and an approval notice was published in the Government Gazette on 29 October 2021. Administration will shortly prepare a report to Council to consider which aspects of DCP management should be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer and sub-delegated to the relevant officers to enable decisions such as quotations, tax invoices and the deferral of contributions to be dealt with in a timely manner.

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 - November 2021

21/458655

 

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              42468 – 21/360299

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To further consider Amendment No. 192 to the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) following a public advertising period.

Background

The preparation and operation of the City’s structure plans is undertaken pursuant to the Deemed Provisions of the City’s DPS 2 (Deemed Provisions). The Deemed Provisions are established through Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The Deemed Provisions define and set out the purpose of a structure plan as follows:

 

structure plan means a plan for the coordination of future subdivision and zoning of an area of land

 

Many of the City’s structure plans are necessary planning instruments to guide ongoing subdivision and zoning of land. However, the City has a growing number of structure plans that are either already or will shortly become redundant, as their subject areas are subdivided and built out. 

 

The Western Australian planning framework intends that once a structure plan has achieved its purpose of guiding the zoning and subdivision of land, the land would be zoned under a local planning scheme (such as DPS 2) via a scheme amendment, a process referred to as ‘normalising’. Considerations could also be made at that time for a structure plan to be entirely revoked, if it is no longer needed to serve its initial purpose to guide the subdivision and initial development of land.

 

Council requesting the WAPC normalise established areas within structure plans is a normal administrative practice that ensures the planning framework remains current and relevant. In previous reporting to Council, Administration established a staged and progressive approach toward normalising and/or revoking structure plans. Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2, being subject to this Report, is intended to support the revocation of the Brighton West Village Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 52 (ASP 52), and forms part of the structure plan revocation and normalisation programming being progressed by Administration.

 

Council resolved to prepare (or initiate) Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2 at its 15 June 2021 meeting (PS05-06/21). Council’s resolution from that meeting is included in Attachment 1. Amendment No. 192 has now been subsequently advertised for public comment.

 

The current DPS 2 zoning of the ASP 52 area is ‘Urban Development’, which allowed for the preparation of that structure plan, which was adopted in March 2005. ASP 52 was prepared to guide the creation of lots through subdivision that could accommodate residential and commercial uses, pursuant to that structure plan.  Administration has identified that subdivision has been completed on the land within ASP 52 in 2011; and as such, the structure plan has served its purpose in guiding subdivision. Development also occupies all lots affected by ASP 52; except a vacant portion of Lot 1378 (6) Jindalee Boulevard, Jindalee, which is subject of a development approval.

Detail

As outlined in Administration’s previous Report for Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2 (PS05-06/21), Administration considers that ASP 52 is ready for revocation, as it has completed its function in guiding subdivision in its respective area.

 

To revoke ASP 52, normalisation needs to first occur under DPS 2. Normalisation will occur through the proposed changes to DPS 2 via Amendment No. 192.

 

Normalisation will include applying zonings and density codes shown on the ASP 52 maps, and imposing them onto the DPS 2 map. A Scheme (Amendment) Map, which shows the extent of normalisation to the DPS 2 map, is provided in Attachment 2.

 

Amendment No. 192 also inserts a retail floorspace limitation of 1,000m² that ASP 52 imposes for Commercial zoned land located at Lot 1900 (10) Clew Way, Jindalee into Schedule 3 of DPS 2.

Consultation

In accordance with Council’s 15 June 2021 resolution, Amendment No. 192 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. In response, the EPA advised the City that Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2 did not warrant an environmental assessment.

 

Amendment No. 192 was then advertised for a period of 42 days between 5 August 2021 and 17 September 2021 and by way of an advertisement in the local newspaper, letters to affected landowners and occupiers, and a notice on the City’s website. The City received one submission in support of the amendment. A summary of the submission and Administration’s response is included in Attachment 3.

Comment

The Regulations (Regulation 35A) make provision for when an amendment to a local planning scheme affects a structure plan area, the amendment must include a statement that when the amendment takes effect:

 

(a)     the approval of the structure plan is to be revoked; or

(b)     the structure plan is to be amended in accordance with the statement; or

(c)     the approval of the structure plan is not affected.

 

In this case, and in light of the Regulations and Council’s previous resolution (PS05-06/21), Amendment No. 192 already includes a statement that on its approval, the WAPC’s approval of ASP 52 will be revoked.

 

Pursuant to Clause 28(3) and Clause 29A(1) of the Deemed Provisions, it is the WAPC that may revoke its approval of a structure plan. In other words, the City has no ability to revoke structure plans, but rather must request the WAPC undertake that process. Council did note in its previous resolution (PS05-06/21) that such a request would be made pursuant to a further Council resolution, when Amendment No. 192 is presented back to Council following advertising. Administration is still seeking Council’s resolution to request the WAPC revoke ASP 52.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2 has been prepared to facilitate revocation of the Brighton West Village Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 52, and is being processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Following the Minister for Planning’s approval of Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2, the WAPC can revoke the approval of the Brighton West Village Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 52 pursuant to Clause 29A(1) of the deemed provisions for local planning schemes, provided in Schedule 2 of 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

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 WAPC acknowledges in its Structure Plan Framework document (the Framework) that it may revoke its approval of a structure plan under the Deemed Provisions. One of the most common circumstances stated in the Framework is when a local planning scheme is amended to include a zoning over the land covered by the structure plan, following the finalisation of the subdivision of the land.

Financial Implications

The costs of preparing and processing Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2, as well as preparing the subsequent request to the WAPC to revoke ASP 52, can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.         Pursuant to Regulation 50 (2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, CONSIDERS the submission received in respect of Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, a summary of which is included in Attachment 3;

 

2.         Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUPPORTS Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 without modification;

 

3.         AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documents in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy;

 

4.         Pursuant to Regulation 53(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, PROVIDES the advertised Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission;

 

5.         REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission revoke the City of Wanneroo’s Brighton West Village Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 52, pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 29A(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; after the Minister for Planning approves Amendment No. 192 to District Planning Scheme No. 2; and

 

6.         ADVISES the submitter of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Detail of Council Resolution from 15 June 2021 Meeting	21/361783
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Scheme Amendment Map - Amendment 192 to DPS 2 - Normalisation of Brighton West Village ASP 52	21/192294
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Submission Schedule for Council Report - Advertising of Amendment No. 192 to DPS 2	21/432881

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              20640 – 21/362285

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider requesting the WAPC revoke the Pederick Road Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 45 (ASP 45) and Lot 505 Pederick Road, Neerabup Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 56 (ASP 56), as they are no longer required. Revocation of ASP 45 and ASP 56 would also facilitate the review of the Neerabup Industrial Area Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 17 (ASP 17).

Background

The preparation and operation of the City’s structure plans is undertaken pursuant to the Deemed Provisions of the City’s DPS 2 (Deemed Provisions). The Deemed Provisions are established through Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The Deemed Provisions define and set out the purpose of a structure plan as follows:

 

structure plan means a plan for the coordination of future subdivision and zoning of an area of land

 

Many of the City’s structure plans are necessary planning instruments to guide ongoing subdivision and zoning of land. However, a growing number of structure plans are becoming redundant. The planning frameworks in place intend that structure plans can be revoked if they no longer serve their initial purpose in guiding the subdivision and initial development of land.

 

Council requesting the WAPC revoke structure plans is a normal administrative practice that ensures the planning framework remains current and relevant. In previous reporting to Council, Administration established a staged and progressive approach toward revoking structure plans that are no longer required. In this Report, Administration is requesting Council consider revoking ASP 45 and ASP 56.

 

ASP 45 and ASP 56 were both prepared in the early-mid 2000’s as interim structure plans for specific development sites within the Neerabup Industrial Area (NIA). ASP 45 and ASP 56 were prepared prior to the preparation of ASP 17, which is a broader structure plan affecting the entire NIA. At the time ASP 45 and ASP 56 were prepared, it was not known when ASP 17 would be adopted. Therefore, preparation of ASP 45 and ASP 56 were prepared to facilitate immediate development on their respective land parcels in advance of ASP 17. The land affected by ASP 45 and ASP 56, as it is located within ASP 17, is shown in Attachment 1.

 

ASP 17 is now under review. As part of that review, ASP 45 and ASP 56 need to be revoked in order to clear the way for the planning framework for the NIA to be refreshed.

Detail

Pederick Road Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 45

 

The Pederick Road Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 45 (ASP 45) was adopted by the WAPC in March 2003, and affects only the Wesbeam Laminated Veneer Lumber Plant (Wesbeam) at Lot 1000 (190) Pederick Road, Neerabup. ASP 45 was prepared and adopted at a time before ASP 17 was adopted. Prior to the adoption of ASP 17, it was considered that the most appropriate method to expedite development of the Wesbeam facility was to adopt a ‘limited’ structure plan over just the land formerly known as portion of Lot 10053 Mather Drive (now Lot 1000 Pederick Road).

 

Land affected by ASP 45 is zoned ‘Industrial Development’ under DPS 2, which means a structure plan is required to guide and facilitate subdivision and development over the affected land. ASP 45 designates a ‘General Industrial’ zoning over Lot 1000, and prescribes that the ‘Industry – Hazardous’ land use should be an ‘X’ use. The provisions already apply under ASP 17.

 

The Wesbeam facility has now been developed, and ASP 17 is now in place to guide any further development on Lot 1000. Therefore, Administration considers that ASP 45 can be revoked, as it has served its intended purpose as being an ‘interim’ structure plan.

 

Lot 505 Pederick Road, Neerabup Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 56

 

The Lot 505 Pederick Road, Neerabup Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 56 (ASP 56) was adopted by the WAPC in May 2005. ASP 56 was prepared to facilitate the development of Mindarie Regional Council’s Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) located at Lot 801 (109) Pederick Road, Neerabup. As was the case for preparing ASP 45, ASP 56 was prepared to advance the development of the RRF, as it was not known at that time when ASP 17 was to be adopted. It was later the case that ASP 17 was adopted before ASP 56.

 

ASP 56 was prepared over land formerly referred to as Lot 505 Pederick Road, zoned ‘Industrial Development’ under DPS 2. Since the adoption of ASP 56, Lot 505 has been split into Lot 801 (the RRF site) and adjoining Lot 800 (which is a Bush Forever site now in the ownership of the WAPC). ASP 56 designates a ‘General Industrial’ zoning over Lot 801 and acknowledges that Lot 800 is a Bush Forever site, as does ASP 17.

 

The RRF facility has now been developed, and ASP 17 is now in place to guide any further development on Lot 801. Therefore, Administration considers that ASP 56 can be revoked, as it has served its intended purpose as being an ‘interim’ structure plan.

Consultation

The process of revoking structure plans outlined in Clause 28 of the Deemed Provisions does not indicate a requirement to advertise to affected parties.

 

Administration considers that advertising the proposed revocation of structure plans is not necessary in this instance, for the following reasons:

 

·        The zoning designations of the affected land parcels in ASP 45 and ASP 56 are the same as in ASP 17, which will remain effective; and

·        Having only ASP 17 in place, and not ASP 45 or ASP 56, will not change the development potential of the land affected by the proposed structure plan revocations.

Comment

Pursuant to Clause 28 of the Deemed Provisions, it is the WAPC that may revoke its approval of a structure plan. In other words, the City has no ability to revoke structure plans, but rather must request the WAPC undertake that process. It is required that such a request be made pursuant to a Council resolution.

 

Pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which was gazetted in October 2015, structure plans are documents which the City is to have ‘due regard’ to. However, at the time that the Wesbeam and the RRF facilities were developed, DPS 2 allowed for the provisions within structure plans to have the same force and effect as if they were in the scheme. Therefore, ASP 45 and ASP 56 strongly informed the City’s development assessment and approval conditions pertaining to the Wesbeam and the RRF developments.

Statutory Compliance

The revocation of structure plans can occur pursuant to the deemed provisions for local planning schemes, provided in Schedule 2 of 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

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 WAPC acknowledges in its Structure Plan Framework document (the Framework) that it may revoke its approval of a structure plan under the Deemed Provisions. One of the most common circumstances stated in the Framework is when a new structure plan has been adopted which supersedes an existing structure plan. In this case, it is considered that ASP 17 provides the necessary planning framework over the ASP 45 and ASP 56 areas; therefore, ASP 45 and ASP 56 can be revoked.

Financial Implications

The financial implications of requesting the revocation of the structure plans referred to in this Report can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission revoke its approval of the Pederick Road Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 45 and Lot 505 Pederick Road, Neerabup Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 56, pursuant to Clause 28 of the Deemed Provisions of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Location of ASP 45 and ASP 56 Areas Within ASP 17

21/364669

 

 

File Ref:                                              DA2020/1087 – 21/379363

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

Issue

 

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

 

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

Background

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

 

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

 

While this application may be the first of its kind within the City of Wanneroo, the use of renewable energy systems has become increasingly popular. In particular, solar energy systems are established as a means of reducing energy costs for property owners. Renewable energy systems on an industrial scale are also becoming more prevalent as industry and government seek to establish more viable and sustainable modes of generating energy. Large scale solar and wind farms have been developed in various parts of Western Australia to supplement the energy resources of the State as part of a high-level shift away from reliance on the use of fossil fuels. However, when the development application was initially considered at Council on 16 February 2021, there was no policy to assess the wind turbine against to ensure that it was at an acceptable standard and would not negatively impact on the amenity of a locality.

 

As such, Council, at its meeting (Item PS04-02/21) on 16 February 2021, resolved as follows:

 

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

Following this, Council (Item PS06-08/21) adopted Local Planning Policy 4.29 – Renewable Energy Systems (LPP 4.29) on 10 August 2021, which guides and controls renewable energy systems and ensures renewable energy systems are appropriately located, designed and scaled so as not to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties, streetscapes and the locality in general.

 

The application is now being presented back to Council for determination and has been assessed against LPP 4.29.

 

Detail

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

 

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

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

o   Western boundary: five metres

o   Eastern boundary: 10.9 metres

o   Southern boundary: 7.8 metres

 

Plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 2.

 

Upon assessment of the development application, it was determined that the proposal is fully compliant with LPP 4.29.

 

Notwithstanding this, the proposal incorporates the following departures from the Deemed to Comply provisions of State Planning Policy 7.3 - Residential Design Codes – Volume 1 (R-Codes):

 

·        External fixtures which are visible from the primary street.

 

This is discussed further in the Comment section below.

Consultation

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

 

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

 

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

 

·        Visual impact of the proposed structure; and

·        Noise likely to be generated.

 

The height of the structure as advertised was a total of 5.4 metres in height. In light of the submissions received and the City’s assessment of the application, the applicant in discussion with Administration agreed to reduce the total height of the structure to 5 metres and submitted amended plans. The applicant further agreed to amend the setback to the western boundary from 4.9 metres to 5 metres in accordance with LPP 4.29.

 

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

 

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

 

Comment

 

A wind turbine is not a structure typically associated with single residential dwellings. The City’s records indicate that this may be the first application of its kind within the City of Wanneroo. At the time the application was received, there was no specific guidance for this type of development within the planning framework; however, since that time, the City has adopted LPP 4.29 to provide a framework for guiding development of such structures.

 

LPP 4.29 requires wind energy systems to be setback from a boundary a distance equal to, or greater than, the total height of the system as measured from the natural ground level, limited to one wind turbine per dwelling, used for domestic or private use only, and not located within the front or secondary setback area of a lot. Wind turbines are also required to be fitted with an automatic or manual braking system and an over-speed protection device to minimise noise impacts to nearby neighbours during periods of high wind speeds. The proposed development satisfies all these provisions and is therefore fully compliant with LPP 4.29.

In addition to LPP 4.29, the Wind Turbine is also assessed as an External Fixture under the R-Codes. The R-Codes under Section 5.4.4 sets Deemed to Comply standards for External Fixtures as follows:

C4.3     Other external fixtures provided they are:

i.          Not visible from the primary street;

ii.          Are designed to integrate with the building; or

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

 

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

 

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

 

Visibility of the proposed Wind Turbine from the Primary Street

 

The proposed wind turbine is located to the rear of the dwelling and sits at a height similar to existing external structures being a solar hot water unit on a raised frame and an evaporative air conditioner. These external fixtures are of a similar height and visual impact to the turbine as viewed from the street. Whilst the reduction in height from the original 5.4 metres to 5 metres has reduced visibility of the wind turbine (as shown in Attachment 4), it will still be partially visible from the primary street and it therefore requires assessment under the relevant R-Codes Design Principle as it does not meet Section 5.4.4, C4.3(i) of the R-Codes.

 

Integration with the Existing Dwelling

 

The proposed wind turbine is constructed of dark grey metal which matches the roof of the dwelling, and incorporates a steel pole for its base. The supporting structure is proposed to be set against the rear wall of the dwelling central to the lot. In this regard the structure is designed to integrate with the dwelling and complies with Section 5.4.4, C4.3(ii) of the R-Codes.

 

Located so as to not be Visually Obtrusive

 

The proposed wind turbine is prominently visible above the roofline of the subject dwelling from the rear and sides. It will be visible from the Outdoor Living Areas of several adjoining dwellings, several of whom have objected to the proposal. Due to its height, appearance and moving nature of the wind turbine, there are multiple objections regarding the appearance of the wind turbine from their properties. Administration notes that these objections have been made after having seen the original structure installed at its height of 5.4 metres (as shown in Attachment 4) and that this has since been dismantled and the height of the proposed structure reduced to 5 metres.

 

The proposed height of 5 metres is significantly shorter than the wall of a typical two storey house (approximately 5.5m or greater) which is permitted in the Residential zone. The wind turbine is similar in height to a typical single storey house which characterises the immediate locality. It is considered that further height reduction or screening would likely prevent the effective function of the device. In light of this, the City considers that appropriate measures have been taken to minimise the visual obtrusiveness of the structure and that it therefore complies with Section 5.4.4, C4.3(iii) of the R-Codes.

 

R-Codes Design Principle Assessment

 

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

 

Due to being partially visible from the primary street, the proposed wind turbine does not meet the Deemed to Comply provisions of Section 5.4.4 – External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities, C4.3(i) of the R-Codesp. Therefore, the application has been assessed against the corresponding Design Principle which reads as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

Further to this, the modified proposal is shorter than the height of a typical two storey house which is permitted to be up to 7 metre wall height and up to 10 metres to the top of the roof. The wind turbine is similar in overall height to a typical single storey house which characterises the immediate locality. Further height reduction or screening would compromise the functionality of the technology. In light of this, the City considers that appropriate measures have been taken to minimise visual obtrusiveness of the structure and to bring it to a scale compatible with the surrounding development.

 

Setbacks

 

Concern was also raised by a neighbour regarding to the proximity of the wind turbine to their boundary. At the time of advertising there were no specific setbacks for a wind turbine as the R-Codes setback requirements pertain only to walls and buildings; however, as per LPP 4.29 the turbine is required to be setback as far as it is tall. Given that the wind turbine structure is 5 metres in height it must be setback a minimum of 5 metres from all boundaries in order to achieve compliance with LPP 4.29. The proposed setbacks are 5 metres from the western boundary, 10.8 metres from the eastern boundary, 7.8 metres from the southern boundary and 26.8 metres from the front boundary. Administration therefore considers that the proposed wind turbine will not unduly impact the adjoining properties by reason of setbacks.

Noise

A number of submissions raised concerns regarding noise generated from the wind turbine, including the level of noise likely to be generated; the disturbing frequency or sustained periods in which the noise would operate; and the likelihood of the noise to compromise sleep and quiet enjoyment of neighbours’ Outdoor Living Areas.

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

 

The 30 dBA noise level is a very low level of noise. According to the Federal Government Safework Australia website 30 dBA is equivalent to whispering. It is also noted that the proposed wind turbine includes a brake which can be employed to turn the turbine off if the noise threshold was exceeded for any reason, such as due to a worn or damaged bearing needing repair.

 

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

 

Notwithstanding the above, noise generated from the wind turbine is required to comply with the Noise Regulations at all times. If noise is at a level that becomes a nuisance to the nearby residents, the City will investigate the noise levels and if substantiated, require the property owner to undertake appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the Noise Regulations.

Conclusion

In light of the above, the application as amended is recommended for approval. In its modified form, and given that the information provided by the manufacturer demonstrates that it complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, the proposal satisfies the R-Codes Section 5.4.4 Design Principles and all other relevant provisions of the R-Codes, and is fully compliant with LPP 4.29.

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and with Local Planning Policy 4.29 – Renewable Energy Systems.

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

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

Policy Implications

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

 

·        State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes – Volume 1; and,

·        Local Planning Policy 4.29 – Renewable Energy Systems

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

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

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

2.       ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - DA2020/1087 - 10 Reigate Way Location / Consultation Plan	21/1839
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - DA2020/1087 - Plans	21/1889
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - DA2020/1087 - Schedule of Submissions - 10 Reigate Way BUTLER	21/3854
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - DA2020/1087 - Photos - 10 Reigate Way BUTLER	21/3505
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - DA2020/1087 - Noise Specs	21/43058

 

 

File Ref:                                              42708 – 21/414415

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant	Planning Solutions
Owner	David Palmer
Location	Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo
Site Area	1,369m2
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Residential R20

 

Background

On 13 April 2021, Planning Solutions on behalf of the landowner lodged Amendment No. 193 to DPS 2 to consider including the land use ‘Medical Centre’ as an Additional Use at the subject site. Medical Centre is a use that is listed as an ‘X’ (Not Permitted) use in the Residential Zone. Attachment 1 contains the location plan.

 

Council, at its meeting of 13 July 2021 considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS02-07/21):

 

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow the use class Medical Centre as an Additional Use at Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo and AMENDS:

a)   Schedule 2 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

No		Street/Locality	Particulars of Land	Additional Use and Conditions (where applicable)
A43	1-43	845 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	Lot 1 on Diagram 55592	Medical Centre (‘D’ Use)

b)   The Scheme Map accordingly.

2.       Pursuant to Section 35(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Standard Amendment for the following reasons:

a)      The Amendment is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for the Residential zone; and

b)      The Amendment would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of this amendment.

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

4.       Subject to approval from Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of not less than 42 days pursuant to Regulation 47(2) and 47(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment Text and Map.

 

It is noted the site contains a single storey building with a residential appearance, which has been operating as a dental centre since 1979. The dental centre currently includes two consulting rooms, a reception area, a staff room, a storeroom and a bathroom. There are a total of three dental practitioners (only two operating at any time), three dental nurses and one administration officer employed at the facility. On a typical day, there are between eight to twenty appointments per day, with each appointment generally ranging from 20 minutes to two hours depending on the nature of the visit. The dental centre currently opens from 8:30am to 5:00pm Monday and Wednesday to Friday, 8:30am to 6:00pm on Tuesday and 8:00am to 1:00pm on Saturday. ‘Medical Centre’ is defined under DPS 2 as a premises that accommodates two or more consulting rooms, therefore, the existing operations of the dental centre fall within this land use.

Detail

Proposal

 

The subject site fronts onto Wanneroo Road and comprises the dental centre and seven parking bays. The site is bound by residential properties to the north, south and west. The proposal (as adopted by Council through Item PS02-07/21) seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Introducing ‘Medical Centre’ as an Additional Use on Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo and amending Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses as follows:

 

No		Street/Locality	Particulars of Land	Additional Use and Conditions (where applicable)
A43	1-43	845 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	Lot 1 on Diagram 55592	Medical Centre (‘D’ Use)

 

2.       Amend the Scheme Map accordingly.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 12 August 2021, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 26 August 2021 and 8 October 2021 by way of an on-site sign, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. The City did not receive any submissions during the advertising period.

Comment

Compatibility with the Residential Zone

The subject site is located within the Residential zone. The objectives of the Residential zone as set out in DPS 2 are to:

 

a)      Maintain the predominantly single residential character and amenity of established residential areas;

b)      Provide the opportunity for grouped and multiple dwellings in selected locations so there is a choice in the type of housing available within the City;

c)      Provide the opportunity for aged persons housing in most residential areas in recognition of an increasing percentage of aged residents within the City; and

d)      Provide for compatible urban support services.

 

The proposed Medical Centre Use is considered to be consistent with objectives (a) and (d) of the Residential zone for the following reasons:

 

·        The site operates within a single storey dwelling that has been repurposed for the dental centre and is considered to be an urban support service compatible within the surrounding residential area. This maintains the single residential character and amenity of the established residential area.

·        Noise generated from the site is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times. If noise is at a level that becomes a nuisance to local residents, the City will investigate the noise levels and if substantiated, require the property owner to undertake appropriate measures to ensure compliance. To date, no complaints have been received relating to noise generated from the dental centre and no submissions were received during the advertising period. In addition, the current operating hours are during standard business hours which do not exceed past 6pm. Therefore, the noise generated from the dental centre is minimal and will ensure that the amenity of the established residential area is maintained.

·        The WAPC Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines states that a Transport Impact Statement (TIS) is required for development where it generates moderate volumes of traffic of 10 to 100 vehicle trips in the peak hour. It also states that an increase in traffic of less than 10 per cent of the road capacity would not have a material impact on any particular section of the road. Wanneroo Road is a primary distributor road which is capable of accommodating 35,000 vehicles per day. A TIS was not requested as the traffic generated from the dental centre is less than 10 per cent of the capacity of Wanneroo Road. The traffic generated for the dental centre would not have a material impact on Wanneroo Road and is unlikely to impact the amenity of the residential area.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed scheme amendment classifies Medical Centre as a ‘D’ (discretionary) use. In doing so, this will ensure that a development approval would be required to operate a Medical Centre, which the City could impose conditions on the scale and intensity of the use of the premises including setting operating hours and the number of practitioners on site. The development approval conditions would apply to the current and future operators of the site, ensuring that the City is able to address any potential impacts on the amenity of the nearby residential properties.

 

Existing Medical Centres

 

There are a number of Medical Centres operating within one kilometre of the subject site along Wanneroo Road. A map of these locations is included in Attachment 3.

 

 

The four Medical Centres are appropriate along Wanneroo Road for the following reasons:

 

·        Wanneroo Road is a major freight route and carries high volumes of traffic, which provides more commercial exposure;

·        There are less residential properties in close proximity to their location due to larger road reserve widths; and

·        There is a different level of amenity to existing residential properties compared to suburban areas.

 

Given the above, this type of Additional Use is not uncommon along Wanneroo Road and could satisfy the objectives of the Residential zone. Notwithstanding this, all proposals are considered on their merits, and in this instance, the proposed amendment has demonstrated that the Medical Centre land use satisfies the objectives of the Residential zone, specifically along Wanneroo Road.

 

Conclusion

 

In light of the above, Administration is of the view that the proposed Medical Centre as an Additional Use to the subject site satisfies the objectives of the Residential zone as it provides an urban support service that can have minimal impacts to the amenity of the established residential areas specifically as the subject site is located along Wanneroo Road. Therefore, it is recommended that Amendment No. 193 be supported and forwarded to the WAPC for its consideration.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 193 has been processed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and 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:

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

3.2 - Attract and support new and existing business

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S12 Economic Growth	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Chief Executive Officer	Manage

 

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

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s DPS 2.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.        Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 SUPPORTS the standard Amendment No. 193 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to amend Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) Additional Use to allow the land use Medical Centre at Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo and AMENDS Schedule 2 of the District Planning Scheme No. 2, as follows:

No		Street/Locality	Particulars of Land	Additional Use and Conditions (where applicable)
A43	1-43	845 Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	Lot 1 on Diagram 55592	Medical Centre (‘D’ Use)

2.         Pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 PROVIDES the advertised Amendment No. 193 to the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with the City’s recommendation.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Scheme Amendment No. 193 - Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	21/197781
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Scheme Text and Map - Scheme Amendment No. 193 - Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	21/419543
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Existing Medical Centres Map - Scheme Amendment No. 193 - Lot 1 (845) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo	21/197936

  

File Ref:                                              DA2021/351-02 – 21/442667

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       8         

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).

 

The application is made on behalf of Stilmark Holdings Ltd which describes itself as:

 

“a specialist developer and investor in telecommunications tower infrastructure in Australia.”

 

Stilmark is what is known in the telecommunications industry as a “TowerCo”. The term is used to describe a company that specialises in owning and operating mobile phone towers, which then derives its revenue from leasing access to their towers. TowerCo’s like Stilmark are often separate companies to the telecommunications carriers like Optus, Telstra and Vodaphone. 

 

The monopole will be used as a telecommunications site by Optus to improve the quality of the existing coverage for the Optus network. The monopole will also be able to accommodate a second mobile network carrier. The proposed monopole will, in addition to improving the quality of the existing Optus network coverage, also include equipment to deliver the new generation of 5G mobile phone technology.

 

The new 5G technology delivers both significantly increased speed and greater volumes of data transfer over the mobile phone network. However 5G services are likely to require additional towers and micro cell antennas in the City in order to deliver the higher capacity services.

 

Whilst the proposed tower along with associated network provider will enhance existing network coverage in the area it is not in itself necessary for the provision of mobile services in the area.

 

Previous Consideration by Council

 

This application was originally presented to Council on 10 August 2021 (Item number PS07-08/21) with a recommendation for refusal, however the item was referred back to Administration for further investigation. Council also raised a number of questions relating to:

 

·        The location of submitters in close proximity to the proposed monopole;

·        The number of submitters raising concerns due to coverage

·        The location and size of nearby telecommunications infrastructure

·        The existing coverage within the area and the impact on emergency services communication

 

In response to these questions, Administration advised the following:

 

·        Of the 220 submitters, 26 were within 200 metres of the proposed development and 140 were within 1 kilometre;

·        Of the 220 submitters, five raised concerns due to coverage;

·        There are three nearby telecommunications towers located within Alkimos, Eglinton and Carabooda which provide coverage to the area. These towers range from 55 metres to 60 metres in height. None of the existing towers are located on Residential zoned land;

·        The existing telecommunications infrastructure provides full 4G coverage for all three main providers (Optus, Telstra and Vodafone/TPG) to the surrounding area;

·        The intent of the proposed infrastructure is to improve capacity on the network. The applicant has also advised that the proposal is intended to provide Optus 5G services, which are currently unavailable; and

·        The proposed monopole has the structural capacity to accommodate a second carrier, should that be required.

 

Prior to the item being presented to Council for determination, the proprietors of the subject site advised Administration that they would be willing to make modifications to the proposal, in order to address concerns raised in the report. The proposed modifications included:

 

·        Reducing the height of the monopole from 25 metres to 20 metres; and

·        Painting the monopole in a non-competing colour with the surrounding area (N53 blue-grey).

 

Council’s intent of deferring the proposal back to Administration was to enable the applicant to provide amended plans and photomontages to demonstrate the proposed modifications. Administration has since received the amended plans and photomontages, and have re-considered the application accordingly.

 

State Administrate Tribunal

 

On 30 August 2021, Administration received orders from the State Administrate Tribunal (SAT) due to the application not being determined within the statutory timeframe. On 23 September 2021 Administration attended a directions hearing at SAT, and the orders were as follows:

 

1.       The applicant is to provide additional information as discussed at the directions hearing to the respondent by 1 October 2021;

2.       Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider the decision on or before 16 November 2021; and

3.       The matter is listed to a directions hearing, to be conducted by teleconference, at 9.30am on 26 November 2021.

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 20 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.

 

Plans depicting the proposal are included in Attachment 2. For reference, the plans previously presented to Council are included as Attachment 3.

 

Upon assessment of the modified 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. Following Council’s deferral of the application, two additional submissions were received for a total of 220 submissions. Of these submissions, 210 objected to the proposal, five 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 4, and a plan depicting the landowners who were notified in writing is shown in Attachment 5.

 

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 modified 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.

 

AssessmentAgainst 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 20 metres, the monopole remains clearly visible from existing habitable spaces within the surrounding homes. As noted in Attachment 6, 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 6). ·      As a result, the proposed monopole remains highly visible due to its location on the subject lot, despite the reduction in height.
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 20 metres meets the minimum requirement needed to provide adequate coverage for the area; ·      The monopole has been designed using non-reflective materials and a non-competing colour to reduce the visual impact of the proposal; ·      Notwithstanding the above, whilst it is acknowledged that the additional coverage is necessary for the area, Administration maintains the view that the height of the monopole at 20 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 may be compromised; and

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

 

The proposed monopole is located centrally 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 6, there are several POS areas within close proximity to the proposed monopole, some of which incorporate landmark elements. The protection of visual amenity in these areas is considered to be of significant importance to the character and identity of the area.

 

It is acknowledged that efforts have been made to limit the scale and appearance of the monopole through using a non-competing colour, non-reflective materials and landscaping. Additionally, the applicant provided modified photomontages reflective of the monopole at 20 metres in height (Attachment 7) 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 include the existing commercial buildings on the subject site, existing trees (particularly Norfolk Island pine trees), the landmark elements and the local topography. For reference, the photomontages subject to the previous design at 25 metres in height are included in Attachment 8.

 

Whilst the above comments have been considered, the landscaping and topography alone do not substantially screen the visibility of the monopole throughout the immediate and surrounding area. As noted in Attachment 6, 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 the 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, Administration maintains the view that 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 character, streetscape appearance and visual amenity of the area.

Concerns Raised in Submissions

In response to the other 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	The City acknowledges that the proposal has been designed using non-reflective materials and a non-competing colour to assist in reducing the visual impact on the surrounding area, as well as utilising existing screening elements in the area. However, the height at 20 metres and location within close proximity to residential land, POS areas and landmark elements will detract from the desired character, 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 a preferred location given the land is privately owned.

Conclusion

Whilst Administration supports the provision of enhanced telecommunications services across the City, support for individual proposals is dependent on the extent to which an application meets the provisions of Council’s Telecommunications Infrastructure Policy and the Planning Framework. In this regard the application has not in Administration’s assessment demonstrated compliance with the City’s Policy and the planning framework.

 

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 monopole’s visual prominence in the area will be mitigated. Whilst further modifications have been implemented since Council’s deferral of the application, Administration maintains the view that that the location of the monopole within a centralised position of the suburb, its proximity to residential land, communal spaces, and landmark elements will still 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. 

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

Should the applicant progress the matter to a hearing at SAT, costs could be in the order of $10,000 - $25,000 depending on the devotion of the matter. Financial implications of a SAT hearing can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budgets.

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 character, 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 - Modified Plans - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 2)	21/442414
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - DA2021/351 - Previous Development Plans (for reference) - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 3)	21/237608
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - DA2021/351 - Schedule of Submissions - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 4)	21/242178
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - DA2021/351 -  Map of Advertising Area - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 5)	21/130490
6⇩.	Attachment 6 - DA2021/351 - Surrounding Area Context - Telecommunications Facility - 1/9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 6)	21/300508
7⇩.	Attachment 7 - DA2021/351 - Revised Photomontages - Telecommunications Facility - 9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 7)	21/442409
8⇩.	Attachment 8 - DA2021/351 - Previous Photomontages (for reference) - Telecommunications Facility - 1/9 Pacific Promenade ALKIMOS (Attachment 8)	21/239662

  

File Ref:                                              43849 – 21/443636

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a request to amend District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) by introducing an Additional Use of ‘Car Park’ at Lot 2 (44) Delich Road, Carabooda (subject site).

 

Applicant	Rowe Group
Owner	Mr Mark Bonomelli, Mrs Deborah Bonomelli, Mr Stephen Michell and Mrs Terri Michell
Location	Lot 2 (44) Delich Road, Carabooda
Site Area	25.76 hectares
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Resource and Landscape Enhancement

 

Background

On 14 September 2021, Rowe Group lodged Amendment No. 201 to DPS 2 to introduce an Additional Use of ‘Car Park’ on the subject site. Car Park is a ‘Not Permitted’ (X) use in both the Rural Resource and Landscape Enhancement zones. The purpose of the additional use scheme amendment is to facilitate the storage of recreational vehicles, in particular caravans, on the subject site.

History of Caravan Storage DPS 2 Amendments

On 17 September 2018, the City received Amendment No. 170 to DPS 2 seeking to introduce an Additional Use of ‘Storage Yard’ at Lot 31 (90) Rousset Road, Jandabup (Lot 31). Lot 31 is zoned General Rural under DPS 2, with Storage Yard a Not Permitted (X) use in the General Rural zone. The purpose of the scheme amendment was to facilitate the storage of caravans, boats, trailers, sea containers and scaffolding on the property. A Storage Yard is defined in DPS 2 as:

 

Storage Yard: means any land or buildings used for the storage of goods, equipment, plant or materials.

 

Amendment No. 170 was supported by Council and ultimately approved by the Minister for Planning, and gazetted on 8 May 2020.

 

The demand for the storage of recreational vehicles (particularly caravans) on rural lots is a growing trend as residential lot sizes have continued to decrease in recent years. As lot sizes decrease it limits the ability to adequately and safely store vehicles such as caravans and boats on a property.

 

In response to this, Administration investigated the issue and prepared Amendment No. 199 to DPS 2, which was presented to Council on 10 August 2021. Amendment No. 199 seeks to make ‘Car Park’ an ‘A’ land use in the General Rural and Rural Resource zones. Whilst the Storage Yard land use (adopted for Amendment No. 170) does support the storage of recreational vehicles, the Car Park land use is considered to more accurately address the planning merits of the issue. Amendment No. 199 was adopted by Council for the purpose of advertising.

 

In addition, the City recently received two Additional Use scheme amendments on behalf of landowners within the City who are seeking to make Car Park a ‘Discretionary’ (D) land use specific to their property. Both amendments were progressed in response to investigation by Administration that determined the businesses were operating without the correct planning approvals. The amendments are being progressed as there is no certainty on what the outcome of Amendment No. 199 will be, as the Minister for Planning and not the City is the final decision maker. The following amendments were subsequently presented to Council on 7 September 2021:

 

·        Amendment No. 194 (PS07-09/21): Introducing the Additional Use of Car Park at Lot 802 (1954) Wanneroo Road, Neerabup; and

·        Amendment No. 198 (PS06-09/21): Introducing the Additional Use of Car Park at Lot 108 (252) Neaves Road, Mariginiup. The amendment area is located within East Wanneroo and includes a condition that the use will expire three years after the land is transferred to Urban under the MRS, so as to not compromise the future planning of East Wanneroo.

 

Both of the abovementioned scheme amendments were adopted by Council for the purpose of advertising.

Detail

Site

The subject site is zoned Rural under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and has two zones over separate portions of the site under DPS 2.  The front two thirds of the lot is zoned Rural Resource and the rear third of the lot zoned Landscape Enhancement. The subject site is bound by large rural landholdings to the north, south and east that are also zoned Rural Resource under DPS 2. These lots are primarily used for intensive agricultural purposes consistent with the objectives of the Rural Resource Zone.

 

To the west is a large rural lot that is predominantly zoned Landscape Enhancement, with the south eastern corner of the lot subject to a Rural Resource zoning. The lot is owned by the State of Western Australia who recently purchased the land.

 

The site is accessed from Delich Road, which has access to Wanneroo Road via Walding Street.

 

A Location Plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

Proposed Car Park Operations

 

The additional use scheme amendment (if approved) will allow for the Car Park land use to be considered on the subject site. Detailed matters such as the scale, location and operating hours would therefore be subject to separate consideration through a development application, if the amendment is approved. However, for context the applicant has advised that the Car Park land use is intended to support the following:

 

·        A business that would allow for the storage of caravans, motor homes, camper trailers, boats, cars and trailers in the south western portion of the subject site, as illustrated in Attachment 2;

·        It is anticipated that the business would operate between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Sunday;

·        Upon maturity of the business, approximately 300 vehicles are expected to be stored on the subject site at any given time; and

·        The business would generate approximately five to 10 vehicle trips a day, with higher vehicle volumes anticipated on weekends and holiday periods.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the location and operations of the business will be confirmed through a development application.

Proposal

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Introducing Car Park as an Additional Use on Lot 2 (44) Delich Road, Carabooda and amending Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses as follows:

 

Number		Street/Locality	Particulars of Land	Additional Use and Conditions (where applicable)
A46	1-46	44 Delich Road, Carabooda	Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 48357	Car Park (D)

 

2.       Amend the scheme map accordingly.

 

3.       Illustrated in Attachment 3 is the current and proposed zoning of the subject site. As illustrated, the Additional Use A46 is proposed to be applied to the subject site in its entirety.

 

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

 

1.       The amendment was prepared in response to the increasing demand for caravan storage within the City due to the continued trend of decreasing lot sizes in urban areas. The increase in demand has arisen from landowners seeking an ‘affordable’ caravan/boat parking option in proximity to their primary residence. The service is therefore considered essential and needed to meet the demands of local residents within the City.

 

2.       The City has supported similar uses throughout the municipality, including multiple additional use scheme amendments, being Amendment No. 194 and Amendment No. 198. The City has also considered this issue more broadly though Amendment No. 199 that seeks to make Car Park an ‘A’ land use (discretionary subject to advertising) in both the Rural Resource and General Rural zones.

 

3.       The proposed development does not cause any adverse impacts on the surrounding landowners within the area and is proposed to be located in the south-western portion of the subject site, adjacent to a vacant lot owned by the State of Western Australia. The intent is to include vegetation screening along the property boundary to screen the use from the surrounding area (refer Attachment 2), which would be confirmed through a development application if the scheme amendment is approved.

 

4.       The subject site has suitable access to Wanneroo Road, which is a ‘Primary Regional Road’ under the MRS. Therefore, there will be minimal impacts on the surrounding road network. The land use is also a typically low generator of traffic, and it is anticipated that vehicle volumes would be consistent with other rural land uses that are encouraged within the area.

 

5.       The Car Park land use has minimal impact on the environment and does not require a significant level of investment. As such, the land can be easily remediated if the Car Park use was to cease, allowing other rural or similar land uses to be pursued on the site.

 

6.       The proposed scheme amendment has demonstrated consistency with the policy framework, including State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials, State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning and State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.  

Consultation

The proposed amendment to DPS 2 is considered to be a ‘complex’ amendment in accordance with Part 5 – Division 1 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) for the following reason:

 

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

 

In this regard, the City’s Local Planning Strategy has not yet been prepared to guide consideration of the Car Park land use within the Rural Resource and Landscape Enhancement zones. Further, this will allow Amendment No. 201 to follow the same procedures as those set out for the recently adopted Amendment No. 194, Amendment No. 198 and Amendment No. 199 which, as discussed above, all relate to the consideration of the Car Park land use in rural areas.

 

Where a scheme amendment is required to be advertised, the amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary prior to advertising. As a complex amendment, the proposal is also subject to referral to the WAPC for consent to advertise, prior to formally commencing public consultation.

 

Subject to the advice of the EPA and consent from the WAPC, the amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 60 days. Advertising will be undertaken in the following manner:

 

·        Advertisement in the local newspaper;

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

·        Displaying a notice in Council offices;

·        Displaying information related to the proposal on the City’s website; and

·        Referral in writing to persons/agencies that may have an interest in the proposal.

 

Following consultation, the proposal will be presented back to Council for a decision to either support the amendment with or without modifications, or not support the amendment in accordance with the Regulations.

Comment

DPS 2 Zoning and Objectives

 

The subject site is zoned both Rural Resource and Landscape Enhancement under DPS 2. As noted previously, the front two thirds of the lot is zoned Rural Resource whilst the rear third of the lot is zoned Landscape Enhancement.

 

The objectives of the Rural Resource zone are to:

 

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

 

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

 

The Car Park land use is not considered to be wholly compatible with the objectives of the Rural Resource zone, which favours rural and horticultural activities and basic raw material extraction. However, this is not dissimilar to other permissible uses within the zone, including Civic Building and Restaurant. As the scheme amendment is proposing to introduce an additional use to the site the ability to undertake the range of uses encouraged within the zone will not be restricted. The Car Park land use can also be easily removed to enable a range of alternate uses allowable in the zone to be undertaken.

 

In addition, the site is largely vegetated and contains a number of Tuart trees, which are listed as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) by the Federal Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) and protected under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The clearing of any Tuart trees would therefore require the applicant to consult with DAWE in accordance with the EPBC Act.

 

Given the objectives of the Rural Resource zone encourage land uses that typically require large scale clearing of land (e.g. Intensive Agriculture, Extractive Industry) the Car Park land use is considered to be more appropriate and site responsive in this location. As illustrated in the applicant’s concept plan (refer Attachment 2) the proposed vehicle storage business is unlikely to result in much, if any, clearing of vegetation on the site given its proposed in an existing area of cleared land.

 

As such, the additional use will facilitate an appropriate form of development that will have minimal disturbance to the existing vegetation on the site.

 

Further, the objectives of the Landscape Enhancement zone are to:

 

a)      Enable a range of activities and land uses that support the characteristics of the landscape, including agricultural and horticultural land uses, and small-scale tourism activities;

 

b)      Ensure that development maintains the rural character of the locality and does not adversely affect the existing landscape and scenic values;

 

c)      Facilitate development that:

 

i.        Is compatible with the landscape amenity and rural character of the Zone;

ii.       Will not have a detrimental impact on sensitive land uses;

iii.      Is coordinated and compatible with surrounding land parcels; and

iv.      Does not necessitate the provision of large scale unplanned and uncoordinated service infrastructure and community services.

 

d)      Encourage land use and management practices compatible with landscape and environmental conservation; and

 

e)      Encourage the preservation of vegetation and fauna and the protection of areas of visual or landscape quality.

 

The proposed Car Park land use does not align with the objectives of the Landscape enhancement zone which is intended to accommodate agricultural and horticultural activities, and uses of higher amenity that encourage small scale tourism developments that are compatible with the landscape qualities of the locality. Ordinarily, Administration would have concern about the introduction of the Car Park land use within the Landscape Enhancement zone based on the intent of the objectives as outlined above. However, upon review of the application the Car Park land use is considered suitable in this location with regard for the following:

 

·        Due to the constrained location of the Landscape Enhancement zone at the rear of the site it is difficult for this land to support a number of the uses that are encouraged by the objectives of the zone, such as Holiday Accommodation, Reception Centre or Restaurant;

·        It is unlikely that the portion of the lot zoned Landscape Enhancement will actually be used to support the proposed Car Park business. As outlined in the applicant’s concept plan (refer Attachment 2) the use is intended to  be located in an area of cleared land that is zoned Rural Resource;

·        Should the owner seek to expand the business within the Landscape Enhancement zone this would require a development application and approval from the City. Through the application process the City could consider the suitability of the proposal to ensure the landscape values of the land are not affected; and

·        The application of the additional use to the entire subject site is more uniform from a planning perspective whilst also providing flexibility for the landowner.

 

It is noted that the area subject to the additional use of Car Park could be limited to the portion of the lot that is zoned Rural Resource. However, given the constrained application of the Landscape Enhancement zone on the subject site it is not considered necessary to limit where the additional use is applied. If the Car Park land use is proposed within the Landscape Enhancement zone the City can consider the suitability of this through the development application process. 

 

In response to addressing this issue more broadly, the subject site is also considered to offer an alternative for recreational vehicle storage to Service or General Industrial zoned land, to ensure this land remains available for more intensive industrial purposes. As outlined in DPLH’s (then Department of Planning) Economic and Employment Lands Strategy industrial land is already limited in supply. In addition, limiting the storage of recreation vehicles to industrial zoned land may increase the operating costs, and subsequently storage costs for customers, for a business to remain commercially viable. This is a valid planning consideration in the context of this issue as the increased demand for recreational vehicle storage can, in part, be attributed to the changes in land use planning that have resulted in decreased lot sizes.

 

The additional use of Car Park is therefore considered to be compatible in the proposed location, will not undermine the objectives of the Rural Resource or Landscape Enhancement zones and responds to a valid planning issue.

 

SPP 2.5: Rural Planning

 

State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning (SPP 2.5) outlines a range of considerations relevant to rural planning proposals. The policy measures include the protection of biodiversity and the landscape, as well as primary production and basic raw materials (discussed below). SPP 2.5 recognises that intensive agriculture is an important contributor to the state’s economy and makes reference to Carabooda as one of the locations responsible for yielding much of the state’s agricultural produce.

 

Whilst intensive agricultural land uses should generally be encouraged within the area, for the reasons previously discussed in this report relating to the environmental values of the site and existence of TEC’s, the Car Park land use is considered to be a more sympathetic form of development. As Car Park will be introduced as an additional use to the site it will also have no impact on the potential use of the land for agricultural purposes if required.

 

Further, Carabooda has a limited amount of water licenses available for issue by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER). The applicant has advised that the landowner does currently hold a limited water license, however it does not have sufficient capacity to support agriculture production on the site. Whilst an additional water license could be purchased if one became available, Administration is of the view that there are more suitable locations within the Carabooda area for agricultural production due to the landscape values and biodiversity that are present on the site.

 

Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of SPP 2.5.

 

SPP 2.4: Planning for Basic Raw Materials

 

State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials (SPP 2.4) was prepared to protect the limited availability of basic raw material resources close to Perth, which have been in decline as planning and environmental impacts render many locations inappropriate for extraction. The subject site has not been identified by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) as having any significant geological supplies. Therefore, further consideration of SPP 2.4 is not required.  

 

State Planning Policy 3.7

 

The subject site is located within a Bushfire Prone Area as designated by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES). Under the provisions of State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7) a scheme amendment is classified as a strategic planning proposal and is required to be supported by bushfire planning information.

 

The applicant provided a Bushfire Management Plan (BMP) in support of the scheme amendment that determined the site would have a ‘moderate’ level of bushfire risk. This is predominantly due to the proximity of the site to Yanchep National Park. The BMP assessment did determine that further consideration will need to be given to access and egress the site, as the lot currently only has access via one constructed road. The suitability of the existing access arrangements and the need to implement any design solutions or upgrades can be considered following review by DFES (if the amendment is advertised) and would ultimately be implemented at the development application stage. The information provided in the BMP has demonstrated that the scheme amendment is capable of satisfying SPP 3.7 and is therefore sufficient for this phase of the planning process.

 

As part of the development application process Administration would also further consider the location of the development to ensure any bushfire management measures do not result in the clearing of any of Tuart trees on the site, given their classification as a TEC.

 

The BMP assessment is therefore considered to appropriately address this phase of the planning process and will be referred to DFES for review and comment if the amendment is adopted for advertising. Administration can consider the suitability of the amendment further once a response from DFES has been provided.

 

Traffic

 

The applicant has advised that the Car Park land use is anticipated to generate an average of five to 10 vehicle trips per day. In accordance with the WAPC’s Transport Impact Assessment Guidelines, proposals that generate less than 10 vehicle trips in the peak hour are considered low impact developments that are unlikely to have any measurable impact on the road network.

 

Access to the site is via Benara Road and Delich Road, both of which are unsealed rural roads approximately 5 metres in width and are not designed to cater for high traffic volumes. More detailed consideration of the traffic generated from the site would be considered at the development application stage if the amendment is approved. However, based on the estimated vehicle volumes the development is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network and will generate traffic volumes that are consistent with a range of land uses that are encouraged within the Carabooda area, such as Intensive Agriculture.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed request to amend DPS 2 by introducing an Additional Use of Car Park is considered to be a compatible form of development that has demonstrated it satisfies the relevant legislation and planning framework. The concept plan (refer Attachment 2) illustrates that the business will operate from an existing area of cleared land that is not currently used for agricultural purposes and will facilitate retention of the sites biodiversity and landscape values, whilst also providing a service that has a demonstrated community need. Further consideration will be required with respect to bushfire management and protection of the TEC vegetation identified on the site. However, these matters can be considered in further detail following advertising, and through the development application process if the amendment is approved.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Amendment No. 201 is adopted for the purpose of advertising, for the reasons outlined in this report.

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory processes outlined in 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:

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

3.2 - Attract and support new and existing business

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S12 Economic Growth	Moderate
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-O20 Productive Communities	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report has been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic and Corporate risk registers. Action plans are in place to manage and mitigate this risk.

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas, State Planning Policy 2.5: Rural Planning and State Planning Policy 2.4: Basic Raw Materials.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 201 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow the Additional Use of Car Park at Lot 2 (44) Delich Road, Carabooda by including the following within Schedule 2 – Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses:

 

No		Street/Locality	Particulars of Land	Additional Use and Conditions (where applicable)
A46	1-46	44 Delich Road, Carabooda	Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 48357	Car Park (D)

 

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 201 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 copies of the Amendment No. 201 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

4.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 201 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

 

5.       Subject to approval from the Environmental Protection Authority and the Western Australian Planning Commission, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 201 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of not less than 60 days pursuant to Regulation 38 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	21/445332
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Concept Plan	21/445344
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Current and Proposed DPS 2 Zoning	21/445363

 

 

File Ref:                                              23916 – 21/415223

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider Local Planning Policy No. 4.18: Earthworks and Sand Drift (LPP 4.18) which is due for review.

Background

At its 6 December 2016 meeting (PS12-12/16 refers), Council resolved to adopt LPP 4.18 as contained in Attachment 1.  The purpose of existing policy LPP 4.18 is to provide guidance for the assessment of development applications for earthworks and the requirement for dust management measures to be used during earthworks on-site as part of development or subdivision approval.  This adoption of LPP 4.18 in December 2016 followed an extensive review of the City’s former Sand Drift Control Policy, which was originally adopted in 1999 and then reviewed in 2003 and 2005.  The need for the 2016 review arose following the occurrence of some significant issues and complaints regarding sand drift and dust issues in various parts of the City but primarily in and around new subdivision works and bulk earthwork proposals.

 

The objectives of LPP 4.18 ensure that landowners, residents and occupiers of property adjacent to land where earthworks are being carried out are not affected by sand drift.  The policy sets out responsibilities to manage sand drift matters.  LPP 4.18 provides guidance on appropriate sand drift management measures and enforcement procedures for adverse impacts of earthworks on adjoining and nearby properties.

 

In addition to LPP 4.18, the City is proactive in writing to developers annually in the lead up to the warmer months when winds can also be stronger and cause potential sand drift issues.  The letters remind developers of the need to actively manage areas that are prone to sand drift and warn of potential compliance action and penalties that may be imposed by the City.  This is coupled with a pro-active sand drift inspection program that is carried out through late spring and summer each year whereby Compliance Officers undertake inspections of areas identified as being potentially problematic and then liaising with developers and landowners to rectify and take measures to minimise the impact of sand drift.  This year, letters were sent out on 5 November 2021 and this marks the commencement of the pro-active inspection program.

 

The introduction of the LPP 4.18 and the City’s pro-active approach has led to significantly reduced issues of sand drift and related complaints.

Detail

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

 

Only minor amendments and changes to LPP 4.18 are proposed in order to align the policy with the current policy template and format applied by the City to ensure consistency.  A review of a number of applications that have been submitted to the City and assessed since the policy was adopted has been undertaken.  This review has identified that applications for earthworks and sand drift have been assessed consistently against the provisions of the policy and no issues or problems have occurred as a result of, or because of the provisions in LPP 4.18.

 

As Administration has not identified any significant operational problems with the policy, only minor modifications are therefore proposed to LPP 4.18 including:

 

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

·        Correcting minor typographical errors;

·        Updating terminology; and

·        Modifying some wording to clarify the intent and requirements.

 

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 updating terminology and clarifying text, Administration considers that advertising is not required.

 

A copy of the amended LPP 4.18 is contained in Attachment 3.

Comment

Given the major review undertaken in 2016 and the current review of LPP 4.18 has not identified any need to significantly amend the policy, there is no need to make any major changes.  Overall the changes to LPP 4.18 are minor and do not change to the intent or purpose of the policy.  The adoption of LPP 4.18 in 2016 led to improvements to the manner in which earthworks are undertaken thereby limiting issues of sand drift.  The policy also led to a more efficient and effective compliance process whenever any issues have arisen.

 

It is noted that the current Yanchep Rail Extension (YRE) works being carried out by the Public Transport Authority which is extending the railway from Butler station to Yanchep involves extensive earthworks.  The contractors undertaking those works are aware of the policy and have referred to it extensively in their management of earthworks.  The extent of the works involved with the YRE project have been a good test of the policy and it has proven to be effective. 

 

From Administration’s perspective the LPP has assisted in assessing various applications for earthworks and in managing sand drift issues that have occurred.  Further, there has been no reported problems or issues from Industry to the City about the application of LPP 4.18.

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:

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

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 4.18 are minor and align it with the current template and format.  Other changes are typographical corrections and text changes to improve legibility.

Financial Implications

The cost of undertaking the review of LPP 4.18 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. 4.18: Earthworks and Sand Drift 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. 4.18: Earthworks and Sand Drift 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. 4.18:  Earthworks and Sand Drift - Current version	21/486591
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Local Planning Policy No. 4.18:  Earthworks and Sand Drift - Amended version	21/486593
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Local Planning Policy No. 4.18:  Earthworks and Sand Drift - Final version	21/486599

 

 

File Ref:                                              40949 – 21/433582

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         2

Attachments:                                       4         

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant	LK Advisory
Owners	D & H Nominees Pty Ltd Wadia, Dilesh Hasmukh Wadia, Dilesh Gordhandas Ladha Wadia, Keeshan Wadia, Pramila Wadia, Ushma Dilesh
Location	Lot 60 (187) Hawkins Road, Jandabup
Site Area	10.7437 hectares
MRS Zoning	Rural
DPS 2 Zoning	General Rural

 

Background

On 23 June 2020, the applicant submitted a proposal to amend DPS 2 to allow Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre as additional uses on the subject land.

 

Council, at its meeting of 17 November 2020 considered the proposal and resolved as follows (refer Item PS PS05-11/20):

 

“That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre as additional uses on Lot 60 (187) Hawkins Road, Jandabup and Amends Schedule 2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

NO		STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
A42	1-42	187 Hawkins Road, Jandabup	Lot 60	Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre.

and the Scheme Map accordingly;

2.       Pursuant to Section 35(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a Standard Amendment for the following reason:

a)      amendment relating to a zone or reserve that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone or reserve;

3.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority; and

4.       Subject to approval from the Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of not less than 42 days pursuant to sub-regulations 47(2) and 47(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Attachment 1 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment maps.

Detail

Site

The subject land is bound by Wirrega Road (unconstructed) to the north and Lake Jandabup to the west and south. It has a frontage of approximately 636 metres along Hawkins Road and a depth of 170 metres. The site was historically used for cropping and grazing and is almost entirely cleared of vegetation with the exception of grasses, hay and some isolated pockets of trees. The subject land slopes downwards towards Lake Jandabup by approximately nine metres. Four severely dilapidated structures representative of the former agricultural use of the property remain on the site. 

 

Lake Jandabup to the west of the site is a Parks and Recreation Reserve in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and Regional Parks and Recreation in DPS 2.

 

Attachment 2 is a location plan of the subject land.

 

The subject site is located within the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan (EWDSP) which was formally adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission (Commission) on 11 August 2021. The EWDSP will guide the progressive urbanisation of East Wanneroo over the next 50 years.

 

The EWDSP area comprises 28 precincts with the subject land located in Trichet Road Precinct 13, which is identified as Suburban Neighbourhood meaning that it is planned to be zoned and developed for residential housing. Precinct 13 falls within Stage 3 of development of the EWDSP area which is forecasted to be developed beyond 2051.

 

The EWDSP Map is at Attachment 3 indicating the location of the amendment area.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant seeks to amend DPS 2 by inserting Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre as additional uses on the subject land. If approved, this amendment will facilitate the future development of a Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre on the land for which a development application would be required.

 

At present, a Place of Worship is operating at 3 Buckingham Drive, Wangara. This Place of Worship was approved under delegated authority in June 2012 with a condition limiting the number of attendees (including staff) to a maximum of 250 people. It is intended the Place of Worship activity will relocate to the subject site should the necessary approvals be granted.

 

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

 

1.       The Commission’s ‘State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning’ identifies that some rural land may be suitable to accommodate facilities that serve a regional or sub-regional catchment. This could include regional attractors or facilities such as places of worship. The proposed additional uses will service a broader regional catchment for worshippers.

 

2.       Under the EWDSP, the land to the north of the site is designated for Tourism Opportunities. The development of the Hindu Temple on the subject land will itself be a cultural tourism attractor representing a perfect transitional use between the Suburban Neighbourhood designation to the south and tourism orientated land to the north.

 

3.       The EWDSP contemplates future subdivision and development of Precinct 13 wherein the subject land is situated occurring as Stage 3 development in 2051 or later. This timeframe cannot be used as a basis to sterilise the entire precinct and prevent all development from occurring for the next 30+ years.

 

4.       The uses proposed are better suited to the long-term urbanisation of the area over the next 30+ years than a commercial rural/agricultural use of the property, which would likely need to be scaled down and relocated out of the area in future due its potential incompatibility with the approaching urban front.

 

5.       As outlined in the EWDSP, the subject land will be located within the 400-metre catchment centred south of Wirrega Road making the site ideal for development of near-centre land uses. Furthermore, the subject land is situated approximately two kilometres north of the future Gnangara Train Station thereby providing worshippers within and beyond the structure plan area with ready access to the subject land through a variety of private and public transport options.

 

6.       The Place of Worship (Hindu Temple) will be a destination for spiritual growth and enlightenment, relaxation, peaceful worship, meditation, quiet contemplation, cultural celebration and community and family festivities.

 

7.       The proposed uses can harmoniously exist in both rural and urban zones making them ideally suited for transition of the area from rural to urban over the next three decades and beyond.

 

8.       The wide road frontage will enable ample setbacks for future development allowing for generous amounts of on-site car parking, vehicular access/egress and circulation, landscaping and utility areas for sewerage and effluent disposal.

 

9.       The proposed additional uses will not be intrusive or offensive impacting on the existing rural or future residential neighbours.

 

10.     The amendment proposal will ensure that present, future and prospective landowners/occupiers in the area are aware of the pre-existing entitlement to operate a Place of Worship and Reception Centre on the property thereby mitigating any complaints arising from perceived land use conflicts in future.

Consultation

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 12 August 2021 and 24 September 2021 by way of on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. Administration received 14 submissions, comprising eight objections, three letters of support and three non-objections.

 

A summary of the key issues raised in the objections and Administration’s response is provided below:

 

#	Issue	Response
1.	Future development will result in an impact to the rural amenity of the area caused by an increase in traffic, an increase in noise generated by the development and the built form of the development blocking views to the Jandabup Nature Reserve.	This application proposes the inclusion of an ‘Additional Use (Place of Worship and incidental Reception Centre)’ into the City’s DPS 2.   As per Administration’s previous reporting and Council’s decision at its meeting on 17 November 2020, the proposed ‘Place of Worship’ and incidental Reception Centre, will serve a regional function and is considered to be complementary to the General Rural zone in this specific context and is unlikely to impact on the rural character and amenity of the surrounding rural area.   Notwithstanding, compatibility with the surrounding development is a question of whether the future development associated with the additional use will adversely impact rural character and amenity and/or degrade the land on which it is to be located by way of generation of noise, odour, traffic, dust or the appearance of the development.   More information surrounding traffic is provided under the ‘Traffic’ section of this report however traffic impacts of individual developments are addressed through the Development Application process.   The impact of any development on views in the Rural zone is not specifically part of the planning framework, however the impact of any future development on the character, landform, and amenity of the area will be considered through the development application process. An application for this type of development would also likely be considered by the City’s Design Review Panel.   While these above matters are relevant in the planning context, they can all be adequately addressed under the relevant planning framework at the development application stage.
2.	The proposed land use does not reflect future planning for the area under the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan.	The use of the land for a ‘Place of Worship’ is considered to be consistent with the future suburban residential nature of the ‘Suburban Neighbourhood’ designation applied to the subject site under the EWDSP.   Under DPS 2, a ‘Place of Worship’ is capable of approval in a residential area.   More information is provided under the ‘Future Planning Context’ section of this report.
3.	There is already an excessive amount of ‘Places of Worship’ in the locality.	The planning framework does not generally operate to determine the quantity of any particular land use within a given area as this should be driven by business and community needs. The need and want for the delivery of a particular use is driven by market and community demand and may be limited or controlled by the amount of land zoned for commercial, industrial or residential uses.   However, as the application proposes to introduce a use that is ordinarily prohibited in the Rural zone, it is necessary to determine whether the land use (Place of Worship) is an appropriate use in the context of the area it is proposed to be located.   As above, the Commission’s ‘State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning’ identifies that some rural land may be suitable to accommodate facilities that serve a regional or sub-regional catchment. This could include regional attractors or facilities such as places of worship. The proposed additional use will service a broader regional catchment for worshippers.   In addition, the nearest Place of Worship is located approximately 3km from the subject site to the south west, being the ‘Amitabha Buddhist Association’.   It is not considered that the inclusion of the additional use in DSP 2 over the subject site will result in a proliferation of ‘Places of Worship’ in the locality.

 

A summary of the submissions are provided at Attachment 4.

 

Consultation with other Agencies

 

As part of the referral and consultation process, Administration referred the application to the following external agencies for comment:

 

·        Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

·        Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) through the EPA;

·        Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) through the EPA;

·        Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH);

·        Department of Agriculture;

·        Western Power Corporation;

·        ATCO Gas; and

·        Water Corporation.

 

The above agencies provided either no objection or no comment on the proposal, with the exception of the EPA, DBCA and DWER which provided advice to Administration as part of the referral process pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. These comments are provided below.

 

Environmental Protection Authority

 

In accordance with the Council’s resolution at its meeting on 17 November 2020, the amendment was referred to the EPA for comment pursuant to sub-regulations 47(2) and 47(4) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

As part of that referral process, the EPA together with DBCA and DWER notified Administration that Jandabup Lake is located within Jandabup Nature Reserve, which is part of Bush Forever Site 324 and contains a diverse vegetation community and is predominantly mapped under their Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain lakes) Policy 1992 as a Conservation Category Wetland (CCW).

 

A CCW is considered to be the most environmentally sensitive wetland category under the Environmental Protection Policy.

 

The wetland management category is assigned to a wetland based on the evaluation of its attributes, functions and values. It provides guidance on the nature of management and protection the wetland should be afforded. The categories applied to the Swan Coastal Plain in Western Australia are Conservation (CCW), Resource Enhancement and Multiple Use.

 

The Environmental Protection Policy prohibits the filling, excavating, mining, discharge or disposal of effluent and construction or alteration of a drainage system for the drainage into or out of an identified wetland, unless authorised under the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

 

The EPA has prepared and adopted ‘EPA Guidance Statement No. 33’ to guide the assessment of planning proposals within or abutting a wetland. The guidance statement states that a CCW should generally be afforded a 50m minimum wetland separation distance to any development.

 

This is provided as a base separation distance for all CCWs, subject to the submission of environmental reporting and management plans which can result in a reduced the separation distance based on the specific wetland’s environmental significance and management measures proposed.

 

Notwithstanding, the EPA has noted that part of the general 50m separation distance would overlap the subject site and as such, has advised that future development within the amendment area as result of the proposed additional use has the potential to impact groundwater and surface water hydrology, quantity and quality associated with Jandabup Lake and wetland vegetation communities through:

 

·        Changes in pervious surfaces,

·        Stormwater runoff and disposal from impervious surfaces (buildings and carparks),

·        Hydrocarbon runoff from vehicles,

·        Groundwater abstraction from the superficial aquifer for landscaping,

·        Nutrient runoff from landscaped areas, and effluent disposal; and

·        The use of fill to achieve appropriate separation between the development and the groundwater table.

 

The EPA initially requested that the City obtain further information from the applicant to demonstrate the future development’s ability to address the issues associated with impact to the Bush Forever site and the neighbouring wetlands.

 

However, following further discussions between the applicant, Administration and the EPA, it was ultimately concluded that these issues could be dealt with at a Development Application stage and through modification to the proposed Scheme Amendment text in the form of environmental conditions associated with the Additional Use.

 

Subsequently, on 26 July 2021, the EPA advised Administration that the Scheme Amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.

 

Further detail has been provided under the ‘Environmental Considerations’ section of this report.

Comment

Traffic

 

The applicant has not provided a traffic report to support the amendment on the basis that more detailed information is necessary to determine the maximum capacity for the future facility to be built if the amendment is successful. Administration accepts this and notes that detailed consideration of traffic impacts should be undertaken at the development application stage.

 

Despite this, Administration has considered the vehicle movements associated with the current Place of Worship in Wangara and applied that to the proposed site as a rough guide as to the level of activity and traffic that may result from a future development. The Wangara Place of Worship has approval for a maximum of 250 people. 

 

An estimated 126 vehicle movements per day are generated by the existing Place of Worship. These movements, in addition to an estimated 400 vehicle movements per day associated with the nearby rural properties (50 properties to the north at a rate of 8 vehicle trips per day each), is unlikely to result in significant impact on the existing road network. This is based on Main Roads WA standards which indicate that Hawkins Road can accommodate approximately 6000 vehicles per day (vpd) with current volumes of 786vpd based on traffic counts undertaken during January 2020.

 

Hawkins Road is currently a 20 metre wide rural road providing access to approximately 50 rural properties to the north of the subject site and it is identified as a proposed minimum 35 metre wide Integrator Arterial Road under the EWDSP. A traffic report is not required to support this scheme amendment proposal in this circumstance as more detailed consideration of the specific traffic impacts associated with a future development on the surrounding road network will be undertaken at the development application stage.

 

Future Planning Context

 

As noted above, Administration received submissions which contended that the proposed land use is not consistent with the future planning for the area.

 

Council at its meeting on 17 November 2020 considered the proposal against the relevant planning framework including the objectives of the General Rural zone outlined in DPS 2, State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning (SPP 2.5), the EWDSP, Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) and State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7) in order to evaluate the land use’s appropriateness in the current planning context and it’s future context and concluded as follows:

 

·        The additional use will serve a regional function and is considered to be complementary to the General Rural zone in this specific context;

·        The proposed uses will serve a regional catchment for the Hindu population throughout the City and beyond which meets the criteria for non-rural uses that can be considered on Rural zoned land as detailed in SPP2.5.

·        The proposed land uses will be consistent with the planned residential context of the subject site and surrounding sites as per the EWDSP; and

·        The proposed amendment meets the overriding principle of LPP 5.3 as it will not detrimentally impact on the orderly and proper planning of the area.

 

At the time of Council’s original resolution, the EWDSP was in its final draft form but was subject to modification as a result of its own advertisement process.

 

The Commission considered all of the submissions received and endorsed the EWDSP, subject to finalisation of the District Water Management Plan in November 2020. The District Water Management Plan was finalised in July 2021 and the EWDSP has since been formally adopted by the Commission on 11 August 2021. The subject site was not modified as a result of the consultation process. 

 

It is noted that the EWDSP shows an indicative park link adjacent to the site. The proposed Scheme Amendment will not impact the delivery of this park link.

 

The EWDSP as it applied to the subject site was not modified as a result of the advertisement process. As such, Council’s resolution of support regarding the appropriateness of the proposed additional land use in its future planning context is still relevant.

 

The EWDSP describes suburban neighbourhoods as:

 

Residential areas of average medium density, each with an identity drawn from a layout, and built form character which is responsive to natural features and the landscape. These areas are permeable and legible to all users and provide a broad range of housing choices around a focal point of community activity.

 

Intended land uses identified for suburban neighbourhoods include residential, local centres and primary schools.

 

Under DPS 2, a ‘Place of Worship’ is capable of approval in a residential area. The use of the land for a ‘Place of Worship’ is considered to be consistent with the future Suburban Neighbourhood designation identified by the EWDSP.

 

Based on the above, and consistent with Council’s previous decision, it is considered that the proposed land use will be consistent with the EWDSP and the overriding principle of LPP 5.3 as it will not detrimentally impact on the orderly and proper planning of the area.

 

Environmental Considerations

 

As noted by the EPA, the subject site is in proximity to Jandabup Lake which is identified under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain lakes) Policy 1992 as a Conservation Category Wetland (CCW).

 

The EPA Guidance Statement 33 recommends that a CCW is generally afforded a 50m wetland separation distance to any development. Part of this separation distance would overlap the subject site. Currently there is no specific mapping of a wetland buffer as the process to identify a suitable buffer from the wetland has not yet been carried out.

 

Administration concurs with the EPAs view that any intensification of development on the site carries the potential to impact the environmental values associated with the neighbouring wetland and bush forever site and needs to be effectively managed.

 

The City has prepared and adopted ‘Local Planning Policy 4.1: Wetlands’ (LPP 4.1) on 16 October 2018 which articulates Council’s position on wetland protection and management, and is to be considered by applicants, Administration, and Council in the design, assessment, and determination of planning proposals.

 

LPP 4.1 outlines the following objectives:

 

1.       To ensure development within the City of Wanneroo appropriately protects and manages the environmental attributes of wetlands; and

 

2.       To ensure development within the City of Wanneroo recognises the value and benefit of wetlands to the local environment and community.

 

LPP 4.1 also states that the following plans may be required at the Development Application Stage to inform the environmental considerations of a nearby wetland.

 

·        Map illustrating the extent and classification of wetland.

·        Wetland buffer study in accordance with wetland buffer guidelines developed and adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

·        Separation distance determination in accordance with relevant Water Quality Protection Notes developed by the Department of Water.

·        Ecological values assessment.

·        Rehabilitation management plan.

 

Through discussion with the EPA and the applicant, it was agreed that the following information should be a minimum requirement for any Development Application for a ‘Place of Worship’ at the subject site:

 

·        A Water Management Plan;

·        Information to demonstrate adequate setbacks and buffers from adjacent wetland;

·        A Wetland Management Plan; and

·        Information to demonstrate compliance with the Government Sewerage Policy

 

In order to address the above objectives of the LPP 4.1 and to satisfy the matters raised by the EPA, Administration recommends the following conditions be included in the Scheme Amendment text in addition to the existing scheme provisions in order to satisfy the relevant environmental framework:

 

“Any development application for a Place of Worship is to be accompanied by the following documentation to the satisfaction of the local government on advice from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions:

 

a)   A Water Management Plan to address potential development impacts to the adjoining Lake Jandabup from changes to surface and ground water hydrology and water quality;

 

b)   Information to demonstrate adequate setbacks and buffers from adjacent wetland boundaries, consistent with State policy and guidance;

 

c)   A Wetland Management Plan for the buffer to Lake Jandabup, consistent with State policy and guidance;

 

d)   Information to demonstrate compliance with the Government Sewerage Policy.”

 

The above provisions were provided to the EPA and the applicant as part of the referral process. The EPA and the applicant have both provided their written support for the proposed provisions.

 

Incidental Reception Centre

 

Under the City’s DPS 2, an incidental use means a use of a premises which is ancillary and subordinate to the predominant use.

 

The applicant has stated that the ‘Reception Centre’ will be proposed to be used for incidental and ancillary religious ceremonies connected to the ‘Place of Worship’.

 

For clarity the ‘Reception Centre’ is only permitted where it is incidental to the predominant ‘Place of Worship’ land use, and by the nature of an incidental use. It cannot operate alone.

 

Should the amendment proceed as recommended, the future use of the site will need to demonstrate that the reception centre component does not operate independently to the place of worship.  The Development Application process will also require the use to be incidental.

 

Notwithstanding, for the purposes of clarity in the proposed Scheme provisions it is considered appropriate to remove the word ‘incidental’ before ‘Reception Centre’ and insert an additional condition that states:

 

A ‘Reception Centre’ is only permitted where it is incidental to a ‘Place of Worship’.

 

Consequently, any application for a ‘Place of Worship’ at a Development Application stage has the opportunity to include an incidental ‘Reception Centre’ in its operation as long as it is ancillary and subordinate to the predominant ‘Place of Worship’ land use.

 

This modification has been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above, Administration recommends Council support the proposed Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

As a result of advertisement and referral to the relevant agencies, it is also recommended that the amendment documentation be modified to include the environmental provisions as notated above in order to control the impact any future development may have on Jandabup Lake and the Jandabup Nature Reserve and to include a condition of the additional use which clarifies the incidental nature of the ‘Reception Centre’.

 

Considering the matters noted above, it is recommended that the amendment proposal be adopted with modifications and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 186 has been processed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

In accordance with Regulation 17(2), Council is required to consider the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 186 and must resolve to either (a) adopt the amendment with or without modification, or (b) not proceed with the amendment.

 

Further, pursuant to Regulation 18(1), within 28 days of the passing of that resolution, Administration must provide the WAPC with (among other things) a schedule of submissions and Council's recommendation and response to the submissions, together with particulars of any modifications recommended to the amendment.

 

Administration recommends that Council adopts Amendment No. 186 in accordance with Regulation 17(2)(a), subject to the modifications outlined in this report being recommended to the WAPC, in accordance with Regulation 18(1)(c).

 

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 Planning	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

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

 

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

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O23 Safety of Community	Low
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.” 

Policy Implications

East Wanneroo District Structure Plan

District Planning Scheme No. 2

State Planning Policy 2.5 – Rural Planning

State Planning Policy 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas

Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo

EPA Guidance Statement No. 33

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, NOTES that the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, as included in Attachment 4;

2.       Pursuant to Regulation 50(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUPPORTS Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 modified as follows:

 

NO		STREET/ LOCALITY	PARTICULARS OF LAND	ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)
A42	1-42	187 Hawkins Road, Jandabup	Lot 60	Place of Worship and Reception Centre.   Conditions: 1.   A ‘Reception Centre’ is only permitted where it is incidental to a ‘Place of Worship’.   2.   Any development application for a Place of Worship is to be accompanied by the following documentation to the satisfaction of the local government on advice from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation and Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions:   (a)  A Water Management Plan to address potential development impacts to the adjoining Lake Jandabup from changes to surface and ground water hydrology and water quality;   (b)  Information to demonstrate adequate setbacks and buffers from adjacent wetland boundaries, consistent with State policy and guidance;   (c)  A Wetland Management Plan for the buffer to Lake Jandabup, consistent with State policy and guidance;   (d)  Information to demonstrate compliance with the Government Sewerage Policy.

and the Scheme Map accordingly

3.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documents in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy; and

4.       Pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and subject to Item 2. above, PROVIDES Modified Amendment No. 186 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

5.       NOTES that under Regulation 34(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 that Amendment 186 is a standard amendment.

6.       NOTIFIES submitters of Council’s decision.

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Amendment document	20/399538
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Location Plan	20/363250
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - East Wanneroo District Structure Plan Map	21/441378
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Submission Schedule - Scheme Amendment - Amendment No. 186 - To introduce the Additional Uses of  Plac 2	21/441354

 

 

 

 

 

Assets

Strategic Asset Management

File Ref:                                              3120V08 – 21/470101

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Issue

To consider a Petition requesting the installation of traffic management on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale to address issues of speeding, accident near misses and traffic safety.

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 10 August 2021, Council received a Petition signed by 50 residents representing 24 properties from the Landsdale, Koondoola, Darch and Gnangara areas and reads as follows:

 

“WE, the undersigned, all being Residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council’s consideration:-

 

That the City of Wanneroo URGENTLY:

 

1.    NOTE the traffic safety issue faced by residents on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale caused by motor vehicles travelling at excessive speed on this road which has sharp bend along it;

2.    NOTE the many “near-misses” experienced by motorists and residents on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale arising from motor vehicles travelling at excessive speed around the sharp bend;

3.    NOTE that Heathfield Drive, Landsdale is home to many young families with young children and motor vehicles travelling at excessive speed is a real and present danger for these young children;

4.    TAKE action, including installing traffic treatment, to address the safety issue outlined above.

Of the 24 properties represented by the signatories on this petition, 21 of the properties were in Landsdale, with 11 being from Heathfield Drive and the remaining from the adjoining streets.

 

Requests for traffic management on Heathfield Drive have been considered by Council previously. At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 11 November 2014, Council considered a Motion on Notice (MN01-11/14) - Request for Traffic Treatments on Heathfield Drive and resolved as follows:

 

That Council:-

 

1.    REQUESTS Administration to prepare a community engagement process to inform traffic management plan for Heathfield Drive, Landsdale;

2.    ADVISES the community of the process to inform the police of hoon behaviour; and

3.    Report to Council by June 2015 for consideration and funding allocations as part of the 2015/2016 budget process.

 

Subsequently, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 February 2016, Council considered a report (AS02-10/16) detailing the results of community consultation for the installation of a traffic management scheme on Heathfield Drive and resolved as follows;

 

That Council:-

1.    DOES NOT SUPPORT the installation of a Traffic Management Scheme along Heathfield Drive, Landsdale; and

2.    ADVISES the respondents of Councils decision.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map showing the location of Heathfield Drive within the road network.

Detail

Heathfield Drive extends from Mirrabooka Avenue to The Broadview in Landsdale, a length of 425m. The road is classified as a Local Distributor in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy with a 50kmh speed limit and has a road reserve width of 20 to 22m. The carriageway width varies from 7.5m to 13m with median islands extending approximately one third of its length from the Mirrabooka Avenue intersection east. It is neither a Public Transport Authority (PTA) Transperth bus route nor a school bus route. It is one of 4 roads servicing Landsdale that provide access from Mirrabooka Avenue between Gnangara Road and Hepburn Avenue.

 

All the properties fronting Heathfield Drive are residential in nature. Broadview Park is located at the eastern end of the road where it terminates with The Broadview at a 3-way roundabout controlled intersection. Landsdale Forum Shopping centre is located 200m from the eastern end of Heathfield Drive. The closest school (Landsdale Primary School) is located 300m north-east of the eastern end of Heathfield Drive. A 2m wide path is located on the south side of the road and extends along the full length of the road.

 

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

 

Traffic counts were completed in September 2021 and recorded the following;

 

·        Date of count: 13 September 2021 to 20 September  2021

·        Traffic Volume = 5,513 vpd

·        85th percentile speed (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) – 54km/h

·        Mean Speed = 47.2 km/h

Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Comment

In order to objectively determine whether Heathfield Drive warrants having Traffic Management implemented along its length, Administration assessed the road in accordance with the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy (LATM Policy). The policy guides the decision-making process to allow the limited funding available to be prioritised and to determine whether roads require infrastructure changes or increased policing. The assessment considers a range of factors including:

 

·        Speed data;

·        Traffic volume including commercial vehicle volume;

·        Crash history;

·        Road design and topography;

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

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

 

A review of the Main Roads crash history for reported crashes between Jan 2016 to Dec 2020 identified three crashes along Heathfield Drive. All crashes occurred during the daytime and in dry conditions.

 

The request for the installation of traffic management on Heathfield has been assessed as per the provision of the Local Area Traffic Management Policy, which identifies the roads where speeding vehicles are more prevalent, crashes are occurring or a high level of pedestrian activity exists to determine those locations where physical works will have the highest impact. The assessment under the Policy results in an overall score which then determines the level of intervention required.  Roads scoring 60 or above to be considered for traffic management treatments. Scores between 30 and 60 points indicate that while there are issues on the road, which will require addressing when funding becomes available, measures such as increased attention to law enforcement and driver education should be employed in the interim. Scores between 0 and 30 indicate that the issues occur less frequently and should be reported to and dealt with by the WA Police.

 

In the case of Heathfield Drive the score was 50, indicating that the construction of traffic management treatments is not warranted at this stage.

 

Whilst the score indicates that the issues on Heathfield Drive do not give it sufficient priority to fund the construction of traffic treatments at present, it is recognised that there is a requirement for driver education of the speed limit. As such, Administration will complete the following:

 

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

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

·        Undertake follow up speed counts after 12 months to continue to monitor the movement of traffic in this street.

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
CO-023 Safety of Community	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community & Place	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-001 Relationship Management	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage

 

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

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

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

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

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The cost to deploy the speed advisory trailer and signage is included in the annual operating budgets.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

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

2.       REQUESTS Administration to:

a)      Deploy the speed advisory trailer on Heathfield Drive;

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

c)      Undertake ongoing traffic data monitoring on Heathfield Drive.

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan - Heathfield Drive, Landsdale

21/469030

 

 

File Ref:                                              3120V08 – 21/473781

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Issue

To consider a Petition requesting the installation of path on Clubhouse Lane (east side) between “The Green Village” southern boundary and Lakelands Drive.

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 15 June 2021, Council received a Petition (PT01-06/21) signed by 117 residents representing 84 properties from the Gnangara area and reads as follows:

 

“WE, the undersigned, being residents and ratepayers residing in The Green Lifestyle Village, Clubhouse Lane, Gnangara, do formally request council’s consideration for the installation of a footpath in Clubhouse Lane to run between the boundary of the village at Lenzo Rd to connect with the existing footpath in Lakelands Dve.

 

The village has the potential to house nearly 600 residents, many in an advanced age group, and they have to walk this very busy road to exit the village. There have been many near misses between speeding cars and pedestrians recently. This very dangerous situation needs to be rectified urgently.”

 

Of the 84 properties represented by the signatures on this petition, 82 of the properties were in Gnangara, with 21 being from Clubhouse Lane, 17 from Sawgrass View, 13 from Belfry Road and the remainder from adjoining streets.

 

Refer to Attachment 1 for a locality map showing the location of the section of Clubhouse Lane where the path is being requested for installation.

Detail

Clubhouse Lane is a 780m long cul-de-sac road extending north from Lakelands Drive to connect with the Lakelands Country Club. The road is classified as a Local Access road in the City’s Functional Road Hierarchy with a 50kmh speed limit and has a road reserve width of 20m.

 

The carriageway width varies from 6m to 12m with median islands extending for the majority of the road length adjacent to The Green Lifestyle Village as it was upgraded as part of the development. It is neither a Public Transport Authority (PTA) Transperth bus route nor a school bus route.

 

As Clubhouse Lane runs between the Lakelands Country Club Golf Course and The Green Lifestyle Village, only the east side of the road has residential properties along it. While these properties front onto Clubhouse Lane they gain vehicle access by laneways behind them, with pedestrian access provided onto Clubhouse Lane only

 

The Green Lifestyle Village and Clubhouse Lane exist within an area zoned “Special Rural” and consequently there are no shops, schools or public open spaces in the area. A 2m wide path is located on the east side of the road and extends along the full length of the road.

 

In listing the function and characteristics of these types of road, Liveable Neighbourhoods gives the indicative traffic carrying capacity of a Local Access road as up to approx. 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

 

Traffic counts completed in February 2020 recorded the following;

 

Date of count: 25/02/2020 to 03/03/2020

Traffic Volume = 506 vpd

85^th percentile speed (speed at or below which 85% of drivers are travelling) – 54km/h

Mean Speed = 45 km/h

 

Vehicle access to Clubhouse Lane from Sydney Road is along Lakelands Drive. A 1.8m wide concrete footpath runs along the northern side of Lakelands Drive from Sydney Road to Clubhouse Lane. This path provides a connection to the bus stop on Sydney Road and the Lakelands Lifestyle Village.

Consultation

No community consultation has been undertaken in preparing this report. However Administration contacted the petition organiser to confirm the intent of the request and the path alignment. The petition organiser confirmed they are requesting the path to be constructed on the east side of Clubhouse Lane to connect directly to the path on Lakelands Drive.

Comment

In order to objectively determine whether Clubhouse Lane warrants the need for having a footpath installed at its southern end, Administration assessed the project in accordance with the City’s Pathways Policy (Policy). The Policy prioritises requests for pathways using a scoring matrix, which considers;

 

·        Speed data

·        Traffic Volume

·        Road Hierarchy

·        Topography and Vegetation

·        Development density; and

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

 

Clubhouse Lane has been assessed in accordance with this policy, resulting in a pathway prioritisation score of eight.

 

The City is currently constructing pathways with a prioritisation score of 48 or more and as such, this project does not qualify for construction at this time. The City prioritises requests for pathways in order to maximise benefit to the community. Under this policy, pathways are generally not considered in rural or semi-rural areas such as Clubhouse Lane as they generally sacrificial in areas identified for future development that would require developers to upgrade the adjacent roads to incorporate new pavements, kerbing, drainage and path infrastructure.

 

Although the assessment for the footpath under the policy does not currently warrant construction, Administration has investigated the feasibility of constructing a path along this section of road and identified a number of issues. The verge on the eastern side of Clubhouse Lane is only 3-4m wide and contains a high number of trees whose roots would prevent the construction of the path. Additionally, the installation of kerbing and drainage would be required as the road is currently constructed with a centreline crown and drains in to the verges. The construction of a footpath on the eastern verge of Clubhouse Lane is therefore not considered to be feasible.

 

Furthermore, a large portion of the rural road network in Gnangara will ultimately be modified as a result of the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan (EWDSP). In August 2021, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage approved the EWDSP, which covers the 8000 hectare land parcel bound between Flynn Drive, Pinjar Road, Caporn Street, Franklin Road / Lenore Road and Ocean Reef Road. More specifically, the EWDSP details the ultimate internal road layout in the vicinity of Clubhouse Lane and indicates that Lakelands Drive will ultimately terminate as a T-intersection to the immediate south of The Green Lifestyle Village. Golfview Place will form part of the east/west through road and extend west to connect between Badgerup Road and Sydney Road. This will result in the Southern portion of Clubhouse Lane being disconnected from the section of the road adjacent to The Green Lifestyle Village and the footpath network in the area completely revised.

 

Refer Attachment 2 for extract from the EWDSP Map.

 

Administration has also investigated an alternate option for facilitating a footpath connection between The Green Lifestyle Village and the footpath on Lakelands Drive. The option proposes to construct a 60m x 1.5m wide concrete path from the southern end of Moonah Drive along the south side of the connection road in the Lakelands Drive road reserve to connect with the path opposite the boundary of No. 184 & 194 Lakelands Drive. On-site inspections have confirmed there is adequate verge available and no trees present.  This would provide a connection from the footpath network constructed within the Lifestyle Village and the footpath on Lakelands Drive in the interim ahead of the changes that will occur as part of the EWDSP.

 

Refer Attachment 3 for a location plan for the alternative footpath.

 

Separately to the Petition, Administration has also met recently with representatives from The Green in relation to acquisition of the unconstructed road reserve between Lakelands Drive and Clubhouse Lane. Administration has provided feedback that closure of the road reserve would not be entertained until such time as the EWDSP does not show the road reserve being required as a Neighbourhood Connector road. Alternatively land use planning processes for a local planning strategy for the relevant Precinct under the EWDSP would need to have been completed demonstrating whether there is a need for the road reserve to support the urbanisation of the area.

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
CO-023 Safety of Community	Low
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community & Place	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-001 Relationship Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy and Performance	Manage

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

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

Society: 1.2 Safe Communities.

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

Civic Leadership:  4.1 Working With Others.

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

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

The cost of installing 170m of footpath on the eastern side of Clubhouse Lane is estimated to be $115,000.

 

The cost of installing the alternative path option is estimated to be $15,000. Subject to Council’s consideration and approval, this can be considered in the PR 2707 - New Minor Pathways programme in the 2022/23 Capital Works Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the pathway assessment undertaken as per the Pathways Policy, does not support the installation of a path along Clubhouse Lane;

2.       REQUESTS Administration to undertake detail design and construction of a 60m x 1.5m wide concrete path between Moonah Drive and Lakelands Drive as part of the 2022/2023 Capital Works Program; and

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

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Clubhouse Lane - Locality Plan	21/471190
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - East Wanneroo District Structure Plan – Map Snapshot Image	21/473843
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Aerial - Lakelands Drive, Gnangara - Connecting Footpath	21/474504

 

 

 

 

Infrastructure Capital Works

File Ref:                                              41322V03 – 21/250400

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2

Previous Items:                                   CE01-10/19 - 2019 Federal Election Commitments and Funding Agreements - Ordinary Council - 15 Oct 2019 7.00pm

                                                            AS02-09/21 - Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program - Phase 3 Extension - Ordinary Council - 07 Sep 2021 6:00pm       

Issue

To receive an update on the response to Tender 21149 – Construction of Wangara CCTV Project and direction on the design and construction preference for the CCTV network in the Wangara business district.

Background

At its October 2019 meeting, Council was notified of and accepted $850,000 grant funding from the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications to construct a CCTV network in the Wangara Industrial Area (Item CE01-10/19-2019 refers).

 

The purpose of this CCTV network is to assist with monitoring the ingress/egress of vehicles in the industrial area as well as providing overall surveillance.  Information gathered via the CCTV cameras will be shared with the WA Police as per the Memorandum of Understanding currently in place between the Minister for Police and the City of Wanneroo and will support the reduction of criminal and anti-social behaviour throughout the area.

 

Consultants WSP were engaged to design the proposed CCTV network. Following internal and external consultation the final design consists of 14 camera poles with 27 cameras comprised of a combination of multi-directional and licence plate recognition cameras covering the main routes through the industrial area as per the map shown in Attachment 1.

Detail

Tender No. 21149 for the Construction of the Wangara CCTV Project was advertised on Saturday 18 September 2021 and closed on Friday 15 October 2021.

 

One addenda was issued that addressed clarifications following the non-mandatory briefing and site visit and did not impact the scope of works included in the original tender document.

 

Two design option costs were requested through the tender process:

 

·        Option 1 – A full fibre network connection to all 14 poles terminated at a communications hub to be constructed at the Wangara Greens Recycling Facility. All data will be stored in this communications hub and transmitted back to the Civic Centre’s control room via an NBN connection; and

·        Option 2 – A hybrid option network that provides a fibre connection to eight poles terminated at a communications hub at the Wangara Greens Recycling Facility as per option 1, with the remaining six poles to be standalone poles, with data stored at each pole and downloaded / accessed via an “on demand” 4G connection.

 

Both options utilise smart poles and include provision for the poles to be connected directly to an NBN service should that become an option in the future.

Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with the relevant stakeholders throughout the design process to ensure that user requirements are met including through the City’s “Your Say” page. Communication with both internal and external stakeholders will continue throughout the duration of the construction works in the form of website updates and notification to nearby residents / businesses.

Policy Implications

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

Comment

Despite 29 companies accessing and downloading the tender documentation, only one tender submission was received. Costs for the respective options are provided in the Confidential Attachment 2.

 

Administration does not believe that the tender submission received represents value for money and the Chief Executive Officer (under Delegation) will consider and decide the tender outcome. It is believed that the tender prices have been impacted due to the current high demand for construction activities and the lack of available work force personnel.

 

Administration is therefore seeking to further redesign the proposed network and to return to market to obtain submissions for a third option. The third option will provide costs to construct 14 standalone poles with data stored at each pole and downloaded / accessed via an “on demand” 4G connection.

 

It is also noted that at its September 2021 meeting Council approved, in principle, the inclusion of $370,000 additional funding for the Wangara CCTV project from the Phase 3 LRCIP (AS02-09/21). At the time of acceptance it was anticipated that this would cover the shortfall between building a hybrid option or a full fibre option. Administration is therefore seeking to retain the funding allocation from LRCIP for the Wangara CCTV project to allow the standalone poles connected by 4G option to be constructed.

 

The intention is to go to market for the third 4G option in order to complete the procurement process.

 

The Federal Government representative, administering the Community Development Grant, has been notified of the delay.  They are agreeable to the idea of granting an extension of time for the project and shall be providing an official response in due course.

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.

 

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

5.5 - People feel safe in public places

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O02 Technological Advancement	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy & Performance	Manage
Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O23 Safety of Community	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Community and Place	Manage

 

The above risk/s 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 this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Based on the tenderer’s lump sum price, expenditures incurred to date, contingencies and associated works, the project total cost /estimated expenditure for each option is summarised in the Confidential Attachment.

 

The project is funded by a combination of Federal Government grants and municipal funding as summarised below:

 

PR-4297 - Wangara Industrial Area, Wangara, New CCTV Network:

 

·        $850,000 from Federal Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications under their Community Development Grant;

·        $370,000 from LRCIP Phase 3 Grant; and

·        $54,903 from Municipal Funds

 

Anticipated operational cost for this project shall be funded from Operating Expenditure budget.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Receives the update for the Wangara CCTV project; and

2.       That Council DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to consider and determine any recommendation from the procurement process for the redesigned Option 3 – Standalone pole solution for Wangara CCTV project, subject to confirmed budgetary provisions and the requirements of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Map of Wangara	21/487240
2.	Attachment 2 - 21149 Wangara CCTV Project  Confidential Attachment	Confidential