Ordinary Council Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

Confirmed MINUTES

6:00pm, 07 December 2021

Council Chambers (Level 1), Civic Centre,

23 Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

 

 

wanneroo.wa.gov.au

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective

 

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

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

 

Implementation

 

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

 

·                Ordinary Council Meeting;

·                Special Council Meeting;

·                Annual General Meeting of Electors;

·                Special Electors Meeting; and

·                Briefing Sessions.

 

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

 

Evaluation and Review Provisions

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

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

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

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

 

Access to Recordings

 

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

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

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

7.         COVID-19 Pandemic Situation

During the COVID-19 pandemic situation, Briefing Sessions and Council Meetings that are conducted electronically, will be recorded.  The CEO is authorised to make a broadcast of the audio recording of such meetings accessible to the public, as soon as practicable after the meeting.

8.         Briefing Sessions and Council Meetings that are recorded.  The CEO is authorised to make a broadcast of the audio recording of such meetings accessible to the public, as soon as practicable after the meeting.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

confirmed Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

 

held on Tuesday 07 December, 2021

 

CONTENTS

Item  1              Attendances   1

Item  2              Apologies and Leave of Absence  2

Item  3              Public Question and Statement Time   2

Public Questions Received in Writing Prior to the Meeting   2

PQ01-12/21  Mr G. Te Raki, West Leederville  2

PQ02-12/21  Mr S. Pope, Landsdale  2

PQ03-12/21  Mr J. Shattock, Carramar  5

PQ04-12/21  Dr C. Howard, Mindarie  6

Summary of Public Questions and Statements during the Meeting   6

PQ05-12/21     Mr K White,  Cedar Woods Properties, West Perth  6

PQ06-12/21     Mr H Nguyen, Landsdale  7

PQ07-12/21     Mrs D Newton, Wanneroo  9

PQ08-12/21     Dr C Howard, Mindarie  10

PQ09-12/21     Mr J Shattock Secretary West Coast Masters Cycling Council  12

PQ10-12/21     Mr L Kosova LK Advisory Subiaco  12

Item  4              Confirmation of Minutes   12

OC01-12/21     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 November 2021  12

OC02-12/21     Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 15 November 2021  13

OC03-12/21     Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 26 October 2021  13

Item  5              Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion   13

OA01-12/21     ARA Award for Annual Report 2019/20  13

OA02-12/21     Freedom of Entry Award  13

OA03-12/21     Recognition and Appreciation – Mustafa Yildiz  14

Item  6              Questions from Council Members   14

CQ01-12/21     Cr Miles – State Government Submission on Ground Water Use  14

CQ02-12/21     Cr Aitken - Completion of Track at Splendid Park  14

Item  7              Petitions   15

New Petitions Received  15

Update on Petitions  15

UP01-12/21     Four Considerations for the Banksia Grove Skate Park (PT01-11/21) 15

UP02-12/21     Maintain the Signage at 12 Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks, 6030 (PT02-11/21) 16

Item  8              Reports   16

Planning and Sustainability  17

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment  17

PS01-12/21      Consideration of Actions Relating to Developer Contributions Arrangements  17

AS02-12/21      Response to Petition (PT02-08/21) requesting installation of Traffic Management on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale  24

AS01-12/21      Response to Petition (PT01-06/21) requesting pathway along Clubhouse Lane between ‘The Green Village’ and Lakelands Drive, Gnangara  30

AS03-12/21      Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery  38

PS02-12/21      Determination of Outstanding Developer Balances - East Wanneroo Cells 1-9  45

PS03-12/21      Close of Advertising - Annual Review of the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9  51

PS04-12/21      Proposed Amendment 200 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Increase Estimated Lot Yield for the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Cost Sharing Arrangement  101

PS05-12/21      Proposed Delegations to Facilitate Administration of Developer Contribution Plans - Gazettal of Amendment 185 to DPS 2. 138

PS06-12/21      Review of Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo  142

PS07-12/21      Draft Coastal Management Plan  156

Approval Services  198

PS08-12/21      Preparation of Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 – Part Zoning Normalisation of Various Structure Plan Areas  198

Assets  219

Strategic Asset Management  219

Infrastructure Capital Works  219

AS04-12/21      RFT21173 Provision of Major Works for the Construction of Sports Pavilions at Halesworth Park, Butler  219

Community & Place  226

Community Development  226

CP01-12/21     Draft Community Development Plan  226

Cultural Development  258

CP02-12/21     Arts Management and Development Policy Review   258

CP03-12/21     Corporate Risk Profile - CO-026 Heritage Risk Rated High  276

Community Facilities  279

CP04-12/21     State Government Funding Commitment: All Abilities Playground  279

CP05-12/21     State Government Funding Commitments: Wanneroo Showgrounds and Edgar Griffiths Park  283

 

Communication & Brand  293

CP06-12/21     Council Crest  293

Corporate Strategy & Performance  299

Business & Finance  299

CS01-12/21     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 October 2021  299

Transactional Finance  326

CS02-12/21     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 October 2021  326

People & Culture  388

CS03-12/21     Safety, Health and Wellbeing Policy  388

Property Services  402

CS04-12/21     Proposed Closure of Unconstructed Road Reserves - Pinjar Region  402

Council & Corporate Support  415

CS05-12/21     Donations to be considered by Council  - 16 November 2021  415

Chief Executive Office  420

Office of the CEO Reports  420

CE01-12/21     Strategic Risk Register Profile Review   420

Advocacy & Economic Development  423

CE02-12/21     Australian Automation and Robotics Precinct - DevelopmentWA Collaboration  423

Item  9              Motions on Notice   426

MN01-12/21    Councillor Chris Baker – Register - Fees, Expenses or Allowances Paid to Council Members  426

Item  10           Urgent Business   439

Item  11           Confidential  439

Item  12           Date of Next Meeting   439

Item  13           Closure   439

 

 

 

Mayor Roberts declared the meeting open at 6:00pm and read the prayer.

 

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

 

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

Please refer to agenda for details of full reports and attachments.

Item  1      Attendances

TRACEY ROBERTS, JP                       Mayor

 

Councillors:

 

CHRIS BAKER                                             North Ward

LINDA AITKEN, JP                                      North-East Ward (arrived 6:06pm)

GLYNIS PARKER                                       North-East Ward

JACQUELINE HUNTLEY                           Central-East Ward

PAUL MILES                                                 Central-East Ward

HELEN BERRY                                           Central-West Ward

NATALIE SANGALLI                                   Central-West Ward

FRANK CVITAN, JP                                    Central Ward

JORDAN WRIGHT                                       Central Ward

NATALIE HERRIDGE                                 South-West Ward

VINH NGUYEN                                            South-West Ward

JAMES ROWE                                             South Ward

BRETT TREBY                                            South Ward

 

Officers:

 

DANIEL SIMMS                                      Chief Executive Officer

MARK DICKSON                                   Director, Planning and Sustainability

HARMINDER SINGH                            Director, Assets

DEBBIE TERELINCK                            Director, Community & Place

NOELENE JENNINGS                          Director, Corporate Strategy & Performance

MUSTAFA YILDIZ                                  Executive Manager Governance and Legal

NATASHA SMART                                Manager Council & Corporate Support

LIONEL NICHOLSON                           Manager Infrastructure Capital Works

PAUL GREER                                        Manager Property

STEVE MARMION                                 Manager Advocacy & Economic Development

TESS PATTERSON                              Media & Digital Communications Advisor

YVETTE HEATH                                    Minutes Officer

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

SONET COETZEE                                      North Ward (apology)

 

There were 26 members of the public and one member of the press in attendance.

Item  3      Public Question and Statement Time

Public Questions Received in Writing Prior to the Meeting

PQ01-12/21  Mr G. Te Raki, West Leederville

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   My name is Glenn Te Raki and I represent WestCycle as the COO, WestCycle is the West Australian Peakbody for Cycling. I want to bring to the attention of the executive director and executive department the support WestCycle has for the Splendid Park cycling project. The importance this facility will have will be crucial to the direction of the sport and the growth of the sport of cycling in WA. Currently, there are no 'dedicated facilities' for criterium racing which also backs up the ability to run coaching, and skills courses to build on the grassroots of our sport. My question is, "When can we get the confirmed certainty that this project will continue to fruition so as a community we can add the use of this important facility into the future landscape of the sport and community of cycling in WA?"   Response by Director, Community and Place   The City is currently waiting for the clearing permit to be issued by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for this project.  Latest indications are that this may be provided in December.  Once the clearing permit has been received and the appeal period has passed, the City will commence the tender process for the construction of the Splendid Park cycling facility.   Based on the clearing permit process being finalised by mid-January 2022, the tender process is expected to commence at this time.  The tender process will provide an indication as to whether the facility can be constructed within the available budget and scheduled timeframes.

 

PQ02-12/21  Mr S. Pope, Landsdale

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   For the following questions I would like to clarify that I refer to the section of Landsdale Road between Mirrabooka Avenue and Alexander Drive as Landsdale Road east. I apologise in advance if the questions are long winded however I feel background information I have collated in my communication with the City of Wanneroo (City) since early 2019 is important for context to each question:   1.    Budgeting for the construction of a Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) scheme along Landsdale Road east was a resolution of Council (MN02-08/19) carried unanimously in August 2019 however, to date the project has not been included on the capital works budget for design and construction. In March of 2021 the City’s Officers informed me that “without external funding assistance the project is not proposed to proceed in the next 5-years”. Madam Mayor is Council aware that a similar resolution of Council was carried for a LATM scheme along Landsdale Road west (Mirrabooka Avenue to Hartman Drive) in December 2015 with construction occurring within a 12-month period during November 2016 and does Council agree that this creates a precedent for the timely construction of LATM projects following a resolution of Council?   Response by Director Assets   A project for the detailed design & construction of a Traffic Management Scheme on Landsdale Road between Mirrabooka Avenue and Alexander Drive is listed in the draft Capital Works Program for detailed design in 2022/23 & construction in 2023/24; noting that this will be subject to allocation of funds in the annual budgets for the above mentioned financial years.   2.    Recent traffic data provided by the City’s Officers show that primary school students walking/riding to Carnaby Rise Primary School and crossing Landsdale Road east between 8-9am are required to negotiate an average of 155 vehicles in excess of the 50km/h speed limit and most worryingly negotiate an average of 56 vehicles over 60km/h and 6 vehicles in excess of 70km/h when walking, riding or scooting to school. Global research on child road safety is unequivocal in that it shows that children have a much smaller peripheral vision field than adults and have not developed the cognitive ability to assess the speed of an oncoming vehicle as well as having undeveloped decision-making skills. Crash data for Landsdale Road east shows that in the previous 6 years there has been 14 crashes along the section of Alexander Drive to Mirrabooka Drive (excluding intersection crashes at Alexander Drive and Mirrabooka Drive). This includes 9 midblock crashes (generally attributable to speed), two at the crest of the hills with acute sight restrictions. Most worryingly three of the crashes resulted in the crash victim requiring medical attention and two separate crashes involved vulnerable road users including a cyclist and a pedestrian. The cyclist crash was at 3:45pm on a Wednesday and the pedestrian crash was at 4pm on a Wednesday. In addition to Carnaby Rise PS, a second primary school is currently being built directly adjacent to Landsdale Road east opening in 2023 as well as the newly constructed Hardcastle Park, a day-care centre site which includes land zoned as commercial for a future neighbourhood shopping centre and a future commercial site zoned on land adjacent to Landsdale Road east at Alexander Drive. Madam Mayor, based on the above does Council consider that the high volume of excessively speeding vehicles, high number of documented crashes (including vulnerable road users) coupled with the undeveloped cognitive and decision-making ability of primary school aged children to cross the road under those conditions presents an unacceptable risk of further road trauma occurring on Landsdale Road east now and as future activity centre developments occur?   Response by Director Assets   The City has no responsibility in enforcing compliance in relation to the speed limit or driver behaviour, this responsibility rests with WA Police. City officers have previously reviewed the available sightlines for pedestrian crossing at intersections across Landsdale Road and confirmed that sightlines are in accordance with Austroads guidelines. The City provides safe infrastructure for pedestrians to access the schools by providing paths and ramped pedestrian crossing points. The proposed project for the detailed design & construction of a Traffic Management Scheme on Landsdale Road between Mirrabooka Avenue and Alexander Drive will also include a re-assessment of pedestrian crossing points and associated infrastructure.   3.    In March 2021 the City’s Officers informed me that the City’s Traffic Services team has developed a LATM option for Landsdale Road east between Mirrabooka Avenue and Alexander Drive which details the installation of vertical displacement devices namely, 12 sinusoidal design speed humps at an average of 150m spacing. Madam Mayor, is Council aware that the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 states that speed humps are not considered appropriate for a local distributor road such as Landsdale Road due to noise and amenity issues for adjacent residents and emergency vehicle access issues and that the installation of a series of horizontal deflection devices such as a series of ‘modified T intersections’ will better provide a LATM solution that; caters for higher volumes so as not to disperse traffic onto local roads, allows access for buses and emergency vehicles, will reduce speed and crashes and most importantly will provide key safe crossing points for pedestrians?   Response by Director Assets   Vertical displacement devices such as raised plateaux, rubberised speed cushions and speed humps are Main Roads WA approved traffic management devices. These devices are commonly used for traffic management on local distributor roads and allow more flexibility of installation location on existing roads due to the close proximity of driveways, intersections & pedestrian crossing points which exist along these roads.  The installation of ‘modified T intersections’ along Landsdale Road is unable to be considered at all T-intersections due to the presence of existing driveways which would likely result in properties having restricted access should these treatments be installed.   4.    Madam Mayor is Council aware that the City has previously received considerable community backlash for construction of speed humps along local distributor roads due to issues of amenity, noise and the redirection of traffic onto surrounding lower order local access streets with the speed humps constructed on Blackmore Avenue in Girrawheen in 2019 being a prime example?   Response by Director Assets   All traffic treatment devices result in an increase in traffic noise due to acceleration/deceleration, tyres slipping and kerbing being caught by motorists attempting to negotiate devices with minimal reduction of speed. At the time that the City consults with the community, this increase in noise is explained to residents to allow the community to provide a better informed feedback regarding proposed traffic management schemes. The City receives occasional comments relating to traffic noise from streets with speed humps.   5.    Madam Mayor, is Council aware that due to the high number of crashes including casualty crashes on Landsdale Road east and purely as an example costing, that a capital project cost of $200,000 with a yearly operating cost of $5,000 for horizontal deflection devices returns a Benefit Cost Ratio (CBR) of 1.25 qualifying Landsdale Road east for State Blackspot funding whereby the State Government will fund 66% of the project costs if successful?   Response by Director Assets   Main Roads WA Black Spot Program guidelines require that the treatment options selected specifically address the cause of the reported crashes. City officers reviewed the possibility of applying for funding for a traffic management scheme installed along the eastern section of Landsdale Road, however the primary purpose of such a treatment is not intended to reduce the number of crashes and therefore would not qualify for Black Spot funding.   6.    Madam Mayor, is Council aware that the issue of speeding and lack of safe pedestrian crossing facilities along Landsdale Road east has been on ongoing issue for many residents in the area over the years and that former Councillor Zappa tabled a petition in 2015 (PT01-02/15) including 21 signatories requesting LATM measures along Landsdale Road east for City to reply (IN05-07/15) that it did not meet the policy as 90% of the road had not yet been developed and that this 90% development has now occurred?     Response by Director Assets   The City has been made aware of the concerns raised by residents through the City’s enquiry management system. Similarly, the City is aware of the previous petition raised as this was considered by Council at the meeting held on 21 July 2015.   7.    Does Council consider that due to the precedent by the Council resolution for Landsdale Road west LATM measures in 2015, safety and amenity factors and documented excessive speeds and crashes on Landsdale Road east and high numbers of vulnerable road users crossing the road, that construction of a LATM scheme with suitable horizontal deflection devices providing safe midblock pedestrians refuge points at key crossing points should be budgeted for and constructed before completion of the South Landsdale PS in 2023 irrespective (but mindful) of the availability for external funding avenues?   Response by Director Assets   A project for the detailed design & construction of a Traffic Management Scheme on Landsdale Road between Mirrabooka Avenue and Alexander Drive is listed in the draft Capital Works Program for detailed design in 2022/23 & construction in 2023/24; noting that this will be subject to allocation of funds in the annual budgets for the above mentioned financial years. This proposed project may include pedestrian refuge islands at pedestrian crossings.   8.    I was informed by the City’s Officers in October 2020 that in the interim that City would install reflective hand hands and tactile ground surface indicators at existing midblock pram ramp pedestrian crossings along Landsdale Road east as well as apply to Main Roads WA for centreline marking. Madam Mayor, is Council able to provide an update on the progress of these minor upgrade works?   Response by Director, Assets   This has been raised with Main Roads WA and is yet to be finalised. The City expects this to be installed within the next three months.

 

PQ03-12/21  Mr J. Shattock, Carramar

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   Will the Splendid Park cycling upgrade be completed by November 2022, the start of the West Coast Masters Cycling Council criterium season?   Response by Director Assets   The City is currently waiting for the clearing permit to be issued by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for this project.  Latest indications are that this may be provided in December.  Once the clearing permit has been received and the appeal period has passed, the City will commence the tender process for the construction of the Splendid Park cycling facility.   Based on the clearing permit process being finalised by mid-January 2022, the tender process is expected to commence at this time.  The tender process will provide an indication as to whether the facility can be constructed within the available budget; and scheduled timeframes which includes a construction period of 6 to 9 months from the date of tender award/contract execution.

PQ04-12/21  Dr C. Howard, Mindarie

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   Re PR4271 I note with concern the statement "Market Conditions at that time may further delay the commencement of construction". Given the predictions of increasing costs, won’t this lead to indefinite delay? Can the City of Wanneroo give us the certainty that Splendid Park will have no further delays?   Response by Director Assets   The City is currently waiting for the clearing permit to be issued by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation for this project.  Latest indications are that this may be provided in December.  Once the clearing permit has been received and the appeal period has passed, the City will commence the tender process for the construction of the Splendid Park cycling facility.   Based on the clearing permit process being finalised by mid-January 2022, the tender process is expected to commence at this time.  The tender process will provide an indication as to whether the facility can be constructed within the available budget; and scheduled timeframes which includes a construction period of 6 to 9 months from the date of tender award/contract execution.

Summary of Public Questions and Statements during the Meeting

PQ05-12/21       Mr K White,  Cedar Woods Properties, West Perth

PS03-12/21 Close of Advertising – Annual review of the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9   During deputation at the Briefing Session last week I asked for a Tranche 2 refund payment of $3,092,677.  Attention was brought to the fact that there was enough funds to pay for the refunds as well as finalising the two public open space repayments.  Discussion that followed related to financial risk.  Supplementary information has since been emailed to Councillors outlining how outstanding payment 1, the historic POS credit, is almost entirely self-funded with little to no need to draw on Cell 1 funds.    This leaves POS acquisition payment 2 of approximately $1.2m for 6060sqm of public open space on Lot 21 Carosa Road.  Acquiring this will have a positive impact on the value of the balance of land.  The purchase price reflects $2m a hectare.  For context, Stockland purchased the Ingham chicken farm for $1.3m a hectare and Satterley purchased 9.6ha in Drovers Place for $1.4m a hectare.  These represent top market rates for englobo land.  If I divide $2m a hectare by the DCP rate of 9 lots per hectare it equates to $225,000 per lot which is the median lot price in the City of Wanneroo.  The purchase price is equivalent to the finished lot prices.  The Cell 1 DCP clearly offers a premium that the market can’t match, it is overly generous, exceeds current market rates and does not lend itself to an extended, nor contested, nor costly acquisition process when the time comes.    I ask Council to acknowledge that the contingency already built into the $1.2m purchase price and the half million of funds that will remain in the Cell 1 account are sufficient to allow for the return of a Tranche 2 refund of  $3,092,677m of shareholder funds back to the contributing land owners in Cell 1, not to mention over $1m of additional outstanding contributions which are still to be paid into Cell 1.       Response by Mayor Roberts   Taken as a statement.

 

PQ06-12/21       Mr H Nguyen, Landsdale

AS02-12/21 Response to Petition (PT02-08/21) Requesting Installation of traffic Management on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale   1.            In relation to page 192 of report which makes reference to two crashes in 2016, one fatality and one which resulted in hospitalisation.  In 2019, there was a crash which caused property damage.  Is the City aware of the circumstances or any underlying causes of these crashes?   Response by Director Assets   The details are provided in the Main Roads database and these can be included in the Council Minutes in response to this question.   Further Response by Director Assets   Detail of three crashes are provided below:   Crash No. 1   Date 10 September 2016 Time 2:58pm Severity Fatal Location Outside No. 18 & 20 Heathfield Drive Event Nature Fell from vehicle – Person on skateboard holding onto back of car fell and hit head No. Vehicles Involved 1   Accident No. 2   Date 15 June 2016 Time 2:30pm Severity Hospital Location 30m west of The Broadview intersection Event Nature Head On – Vehicle speeding and out of control hit another vehicle coming in opposite direction No Vehicles Involved 2   Crash No. 3   Date 3 December 2019 Time 5:25pm Severity PDO Major Location Dorneywood Wy & Heathfield Dr Event Nature Rear End – vehicle hit from behind by another vehicle when turning left into Dorneywood Way No Vehicles Involved 2     2.            Given there was a fatality and another quite serious accident, would it not be competent in this report to look into the underlying causes and circumstances which gave rise to the crashes?   Response by Director, Assets   Whenever there is a fatality on the road network, Main Roads WA undertake a fatal crash report.  If this report highlights that infrastructure improvements are required, then the responsible authority is advised.  In this case if there was a need for infrastructure improvements the City would have been advised by Main Roads WA and the City would be required to act upon it.  That has not happened in this case.  The Petition has been considered primarily in line with the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy requirements.   3.            Given there were two serious crashes on the same stretch of road, shouldn’t the City in preparing this report, look into the underlying causes or circumstances rather than relying on Main Roads WA to provide that guidance to the City? It is a serious matter and the City should take initiative to look into the circumstances surrounding these two very serious crashes.   Response by Director Assets   As outlined in the previous response, all these requests are assessed based on the available traffic information and assessed in line with the City’s Local Area Traffic Management Policy and that is what has been done in this instance and details included in the report.   4.            Due to how serious these crashes were shouldn’t the City have included some information about that in the report?   Response by Director Assets   As explained earlier, the fatal crash report undertaken by Main Roads WA does consider if there is any need for any infrastructure improvements.  What that means is, did the infrastructure deficiency contribute to the crash? If that is the case, that gets highlighted and if infrastructure changes are required the City would be informed and would be implemented.  This crash happened five years ago, and my assumption is that this was not required in this instance.   5.            The traffic study completed recently gave a score of 50 out of 60 and based on the report, a score of between 30-60 indicates there is issues on the road.  Anything over 60 warrants traffic treatments.  Given that the road Heathfield Drive scored 50 out of 60, would that not be at the upper end of the scale, combined with the crashes that have occurred in the past, would that not warrant the City looking at this matter and taking some urgent action?   Response by Chief Executive Officer   As Mr Nguyen has indicated, the report highlights the fact that a score of over 50 requires some attention and the officer’s report on page 192 provides the action that Administration is  recommending to be taken in response to the score and generated through the policy.   6.            My question remains that given the score was 50 as opposed to 30 or 40, doesn’t this score warrant the City taking a serious look at this given it is at the higher end of the scale, not the lower end?       Response by Director Assets   As the CEO responded to in the previous question, if the score is between 30-60 there are some other actions that the City recommends and this has been recommended in the report. One of those actions is that administration will continue to undertake traffic data monitoring and undertake a further assessment in 12 months time.   7.            Is the City aware of the changed demographics in relation to this road?  Landsdale has nearly doubled in population since 2015/16.  Much of the demographics have changed especially on Heathfield Drive, where there are many more small children living with their parents on that road.  Is the City aware of the changed demographics in Landsdale?    Response by Mayor Roberts   We are mindful of the demographics in Landsdale and advise there is a proposed amendment on this Agenda item tonight.   8.            Is the City aware of recent accidents involving Heathfield Drive and in particular at location where the sharp bend exists?  Is the City aware of this as not everyone reports accidents?   Response by Director Assets   Not aware of any additional information other than what has been included in the report.  We have received this crash data information from the Main Roads WA website.  All reported crashes go through the WA Police and Main Roads WA access that information.  We use that in our assessments.   9.            Statement - This is a serious matter that requires urgent attention, I understand Administration’s recommendation is that the matter be considered in the 2023-24 financial year.  That is woefully inadequate.  There are many children living on that road at this point in time and it cannot wait. One death is too many and one accident is too many, do not wait till next death to take action.   Response by Mayor Roberts   You will not get any objection from any of the Council tonight with that statement, we understand the importance of that.

 

PQ07-12/21       Mrs D Newton, Wanneroo

PS04-12/21 Proposed Amendment 200 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 – Increase Estimated Lot Yield for the East Wanneroo Cell 2 Cost Sharing Arrangement   1.         In this report, Stockland and Quito are listed.  Is Quito representing Benara Nurseries?  It is important that Council Members know in case they need to declare an interest.   Response by Director Planning & Sustainability   Page 65 of the Agenda does make reference to Quito Pty Ltd (Benara’s).   2.         Will this amendment apply to the servite land if adopted, and as this has been forwarded to the EPA prior to advertising, what is the timeframe before the community can have input to this amendment?   Response by Director Planning & Sustainability   Yes it does include the servite land which is immediately north of the Council building.  The report on tonight’s agenda is subject to Council resolution but if supported, the amendment will be subject to advertising, then Council will consider all submissions received and this will be forwarded to the Commission.  Typically that can take up to 12 to 18 months depending on the submissions received.   3.         I misunderstood, I read that it would be going to the EPA prior to it being advertised publicly for 60 days.   Response by Director Planning & Sustainability   That is correct, part of the process as referred to in the recommendation, these types of scheme amendments are first referred to the Environmental Protection Authority for their consideration prior to the advertising occurring.   CP02-12/21 Arts Management and Development Policy Review   4.         Suggest policy referred to is the Visual Art Policy as the City currently does not embrace performing arts, such as music, drama and dance.  An example of an acquired piece of art was forwarded by email to Councillors and cannot see how that met any of the requirements in this policy. I urge residents to look at the art collection on the website as only some of it is displayed in Council buildings.  I found 277 pieces of art online and only 22 of them represented indigenous art.  To call it an Art Policy when it only embraces one type of art, it should be called a Visual Art Policy.   Response by Director Community & Place   The Policy references exhibitions, public art and culture for example, so it is broader than visual arts.  The City has undertaken research into performing arts that are available in the City and there is quite a number of these.  The intent of the policy is to support all types, and whilst some are supported in a stronger way than others, the intention is to move towards a more encompassing art policy.   MN01-12/21 Cr Chris Baker – Register – Fees, Expenses or Allowances Paid to Council Members   5.          I believe this request to be open and accountable is a good idea, however the meeting allowances for external councils are not paid by the City and do not affect the residents and their rates.  What would assist ratepayers is to understand the travel allowances.  For example, the amount paid to attend a meeting and separate claims to visit a resident, residents may not be aware of this.  The costs for a Council Member taking a partner to a formal dinner such as WALGA, should be listed too as that is over and above what residents expect them to receive over an annual allowance.     Response by Mayor Roberts   Taken as a statement.

PQ08-12/21       Dr C Howard, Mindarie

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   On page 200 of the Agenda, under Splendid Park Cycling Upgrade, it states that “market conditions at that time may further delay construction”.  My experience tells me this represents an indefinite delay.  I would like to thank the cycling community for turning up tonight which shows Council the importance being placed on seeing this project come to fruition.  The clubs represented here can be compared to the equivalent of the AFL in Auscycle; the WAFL in Westcycle; the AFL Masters Association in the West Coast Masters Cycling Council; the Black Knights, who are the Collingwood of Masters Racing.  Another local club sent their apologies as running a twilight game this evening.  This Club needs to outlay $2,000 to hire a field with over 100 players paying an entrance fee.   While other sports are looking for upgrades, we are yet to get a field.  No other sport has jumped through hoops like we have had to.   1.         Has Administration corresponded with the Local Government Infrastructure Program to confirm that funding can be used for this project? What correspondence has occurred and if not, why not?   Response by Director Assets   Relating to the funding of Local Roads Community Infrastructure Program, the guidelines have been received from the Federal Government and this project will qualify for that funding.   2.         What correspondence has been completed regarding formalising the Building Better Regions Funding Agreement with the Federal Government?  Is this finalised?  If not, why not?   Response by Director Community and Place   We are still in discussions with the Department to get that agreement but once we receive the agreement we expect to finalise that relatively quickly.    3.         Will the City of Wanneroo remove the clause that market conditions may lead to further delays and commit to a construction commencement and completion date?   Response by Director Community & Place   As indicated in the response to the questions provided by Dr Howard previously, the City is currently waiting for the clearing permit to be issued by the Department of Water & Environmental Regulation.  We are expecting this before Christmas but a follow-up today confirmed this permit has not been issued.  Once the clearing permit has been received and the appeal period has passed, the City will commence the tender process for the construction of the Splendid Park cycling facility.  Based on the clearing permit process being finalised by mid January, so that allows for the permit to be issued and the objection period to pass, the tender process is expected to commence at that time.  The tender process will be the part that provides an indication as to whether the facility can be constructed within the available budget and also what the scheduled timeframes will be for construction, noting that we are looking at a construction period we think between 6-9 months from the date of the tender award.  The only potential thing that could hold that up is the volatility of the market at the moment.  If tender prices come within budget, there will be no further delays but if tender prices come in higher than expected then this will need to be reported back to Council as how to deal with that.   Response by Mayor Roberts   Thank you for your dedication and commitment to safe cycling in the northern suburbs and your commitment to the community.

 

 

PQ09-12/21       Mr J Shattock Secretary West Coast Masters Cycling Council

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   In support of this proposal as it has an impact on our club as well.  Council has signed up to Main Roads Guidelines for events on public roads, which costs every organisation that puts on a bike race at least $1500 per event.  What other sport has its participants pay more than $15 per head just to take the field?  This facility in Yanchep once built, will remove a lot of the costs for bike races.  In response to my earlier question I asked, can it be completed by November this year for the start of our season, but got same answer as others, about clearing permit passed then tender process.  Does every other Council tender wait for clearing permits and appeal periods to pass before they start?  Can’t they be done in parallel rather than in a series? The prospect of having this circuit ready for criterium races at the start of the season in November is fading fast.   Response by Director Assets   We go out to market for tenders after receiving all approvals.   The reason for that is that if the tenders are called subject to approvals there is additional risk built in and do not get value for money tenders then.

 

PQ10-12/21       Mr L Kosova LK Advisory Subiaco

PS03-12/21 Close of Advertising – Annual review of the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9   Thank you to the Director Planning & Sustainability, Mark Dickson, the Manager of SLUPE, Emille Van Heyningen and Coordinator Scheme Contributions, Mike Hudson on the work they have done in preparing this report and bringing it before Council.  Thank you to Councillors also for the discussion and questions on this matter at the previous Briefing Session.  A submission on the matter was provided to Councillors yesterday and trust that staff have had an opportunity to review this and provide Council Members some advice in response, with the hope that this gives confidence to Council that if they choose to grant a tranche payment that the City will be at little to no material risk, financial or otherwise.   My clients and any past contributors who stand to benefit from the awarding of a tranche payment will be grateful If Council is to award that payment.   Response by Mayor Roberts   Taken as a statement.

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

OC01-12/21       Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 November 2021

Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Treby   That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 16 November 2021 be confirmed.   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY   OC02-12/21       Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 15 November 2021 Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Treby   That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 15 November 2021 be confirmed.   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY   Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Treby OC03-12/21       Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 26 October 2021 That Council APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY an amendment to the resolution for Item SCS03-10/21 – ‘Appointment of Delegates and Deputy Delegates to Internal and External Committees and Groups’ of the Minutes of the Special Council meeting held 26 October 2021 by adding Cr Sangalli to the list of Audit & Risk Committee Members under Recommendation 4. a).   CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 14/0

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

OA01-12/21       ARA Award for Annual Report 2019/20

The City of Wanneroo’s Annual Report 2019/20 has taken out top honours for the fourth consecutive year at the 2021 Australasian Reporting Awards (ARA).   The report was recognised with a Gold Award and the inaugural Best of Industry Sector Award (Public Administration – Local) for its eye catching design, interesting case studies and photos, and its transparent and accountable reporting.   The Gold Award recognises overall excellence in reporting, full disclosure of key aspects of core business and alignment with current legislative and regulatory reporting requirements. The 2021 ARA Awards saw the introduction of the new ‘Best of Industry Sector’ category to recognise outstanding performance in addressing the ARA criteria in addition to achieving gold, silver and bronze benchmarking standards. The winners of the Best of Industry Sector Awards are selected from among the Gold Award recipients in the industry sector. Congratulations to everyone who contributed to the City’s award winning 2019/20 report!   To present this award, please welcome Mr Alan Colegate, the Chair of the Australasian Reporting Awards Board (and also an Executive Director of Main Roads WA).

 

OA02-12/21       Freedom of Entry Award

On Sunday 28 November 2021, the City of Wanneroo welcomed the Australian Air Force Cadets of 704 Squadron and 721 Squadron to exercise the right to Freedom of Entry to the City.   Granting Freedom of Entry to a military unit is a symbolic honour dating back to medieval times that gives the right of general entry to the unit to march in the City on ceremonial occasions.   The City originally conferred the Right of Freedom of Entry to the cadets in December 2016 and it was my absolute privilege to officiate the proceedings for the young cadets to exercise that right again in 2021.   It was also an honour to accept on behalf of the City of Wanneroo, this memento from the 704 and 721 Squadron Freedom of Entry March.

 

OA03-12/21       Recognition and Appreciation – Mustafa Yildiz

I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of Council and the CEO Daniel Simms to express our appreciation and best wishes to Mustafa Yildiz as he leave the City of Wanneroo at the end of December to return to private practice.   Mustafa joined the City of Wanneroo in June 2014 as the City’s Executive Manager Governance and Legal. Mustafa has provided the City of Wanneroo with very sound and practical advice over a variety of legal and governance matters and we have all genuinely valued the manner in which he has provided his advice and his willingness to spend time with us either individually or as a Council.   Mustafa has also worked with Council from the beginning of our enterprise risk journey and it is fair to say that today the City would have one of the most developed enterprise risk frameworks within local government. Mustafa on behalf of all of us, thank you for your service and the valuable contribution you have made to our City and our Council and we wish you and your lovely family all the very best for the future.

Item  6      Questions from Council Members

CQ01-12/21       Cr Miles – State Government Submission on Ground Water Use

The State government has a submission process out at the moment about ground water users.  Is Administration aware of this process being done by the Department of Water and will a submission be put in from the City, especially given our Advocacy program is to exempt farmers from having any of their water allocation removed from them?   Response by Chief Executive Officer   Council has a strong advocacy position in respect to the impact that such a policy position will have on our growers.  The Manager of Advocacy and Economic Development met with key growers today to seek their input.  We have asked for Council to be briefed at a Forum by the Department on the study and its impacts and a submission will be provided on the position through Council.

 

CQ02-12/21       Cr Aitken - Completion of Track at Splendid Park

AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery   1.         It seems a lot of projects, including Splendid Park, are all going to be late.  Are we still working towards getting this park completed in time for the November start of the criterium program?   Response by Chief Executive Officer   The purpose of the report, AS03-12/21 is to provide Council an update on the current trend in the construction industry in Western Australia and the likely impacts on some key capital works programs.  The report serves to bring to Council’s awareness the key risks that are affecting those projects but as indicated in Splendid Park, the intention is to still continue as planned but highlighting to Council there is a potential risk within the current supercharged economy in WA of the shortage of materials and labours, so is subject to an escalation risk but continuing as planned.   2.         The cost of a bike race is $1500 per event.  If we are not able to complete the criterion track in time, would we be able to support the bike clubs with the cost of their events with some form of subsidisation?  It is to the City’s advantage to keep these events within the City of Wanneroo.   Response by Chief Executive Officer   The option is to continue to put effort into going to tender, seeking a competitive tender outcome from the tender process and if unable to achieve that, a report would be presented back to Council and can progress that discussion.   3.         What would be the timeframe for the bike clubs to submit their applications to maintain their events in the City of Wanneroo in case the track is not completed on time?  What would be the trigger for this timeframe to be identified?   Response by Chief Executive Officer   The City enjoys a good relationship with Dr Howard and the project, and there is continuing ongoing dialogue.  The trigger point would be the outcome of the tender.   Response by Director Assets   If the tenders are advertised around mid-January, after the clearing permit is granted and the appeal period has passed, a normal tender process takes about 3 months, about 4 weeks for advertising and 4 weeks for evaluation and a report to Council.  Expect a report would come to the April council meeting.   4.          So the decision would be made and contact made about then?   The Director Community & Place will keep the club informed on the tender progress and what meeting that would tender would go to.  The outcome of that report would be the trigger to provide any further actions if the tender is unable to be awarded.

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Nil

Update on Petitions

UP01-12/21       Four Considerations for the Banksia Grove Skate Park (PT01-11/21)

Cr Huntley presented a petition of 51 signatures requesting Council to consider the following four matters for the Banksia Grove Skate Park: (HPE 21/494880) 1)         Seating; 2)         Extension of concrete around the bowl; 3)         Concrete surface repairs; and 4)         Additional lighting.   Update   Further investigation is required to establish the environmental requirements and handover of maintenance responsibility of the park before a response to the Petition PT01-11/21 requesting upgrades to the Banksia Grove Skate Park at Grandis Park can be completed. It is expected that a report will be presented to the February 2022 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

UP02-12/21       Maintain the Signage at 12 Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks, 6030 (PT02-11/21)

Mayor Roberts presented a petition of 65 signatures requesting Council to maintain the signage at 12 Tapping Way, Quinns Rocks, 6030. (HPE 21/495678)   Update   Administration advises that a report is intended to be presented to the 15 February 2022 Ordinary Council Meeting.

Item  8      Reports

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

Chief Executive Officer declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 and PS04-12/21 due to the applicant previously being employed by the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549774)

 

Director Assets declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 and PS04-12/21 due to the applicant being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549865)

 

Director Planning & Sustainability declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 due to Len Kosova being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo who made a submission on the Annual Review of East Wanneroo Cells. (HP 21/549896)

 

Director Planning & Sustainability declared an impartiality interest in PS04-12/21 due to working for the applicant, Len Kosova, being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549926)

 

Cr Treby declared an impartiality interest in CP04-12/21 and CP05-12/21 due to delivering funding commitments in his role with the State Government but is precluded from any applications from the City of Wanneroo.

 

Cr Rowe declared an impartiality interest in CP04-12/21 and CP05-12/21 due to working for a Member of the State Government.

 

Mayor Roberts declared an impartiality interest in CP05-12/21 due to being the community patron of the Wanneroo Amateur Football Club. (HP 21/549623)

 

Mayor Roberts declared an impartiality interest in Item CS05-12/21 due to being a member of Two Rocks Yanchep Assisted Cancer Travels (TRYACT) (HP 21/549699)

 

Cr Sangalli declared an impartiality interest in Item CS05-12/21 due to being a member of Two Rocks Yanchep Assisted Cancer Travels (TRYACT)

 

Cr Miles declared an impartiality interest in Item CS05-12/21 due to being the President of the Lions Club of Wanneroo.

Planning and Sustainability

Strategic Land Use Planning & Environment

File Ref:                                              5734V07 – 21/496361

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

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 has prepared a report on this agenda for 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.

 

 

Prioritisation of Cell Works – Payment for Historic Public Open Space (POS) Credits

 

In accordance with Clause 9.5.3 of DPS2, if a land holding in a Cell has previously contributed land (as part of an historic subdivision) for one of the POS reserves that now form part of the Cell’s 10% POS provision (Cell Work), the present owner of such land should be allowed an appropriate adjustment (credit) towards the Infrastructure Costs payable in respect of that landholding.

 

The value of the historic contribution is to be paid at the Assessed Value for the relevant Cell at the time of subdivision. The value applied is revised annually as part of the Annual Review of costs for each cell. In this regard, it is noted that the value applied to each landholding (refer Attachment 2) reflects the recommended land valuations being reported to Council as part of a separate report on this agenda.

 

There are 24 landowners that still have residual historic POS credits within Cells 1, 3, 5 and 6 totalling $5,060,606 in Cell Works.

 

Where practicable, the City is prioritising Cell Works to expedite the closure of the cells in accordance with the recently gazetted State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP3.6), which requires the Local Government to initiate closure of a DCP within 12 months of completing the required infrastructure.

 

The historic POS credit would normally be offset against a landowner’s contributions at the time of subdivision, however Administration is recommending that these credits now be finalised as a payment rather than awaiting the landowner to subdivide. This will enable Administration to expedite and finalise this aspect of Cell Works, which could otherwise prevent the timely closure of the cell.

 

Administration is proposing to contact remaining landowners (refer Attachment 2) and where appropriate making payment. Where future contributions are required, the City will give consideration to offsetting the credit against the contribution obligation or make payment to finalise the outstanding Cell Works. It is also noted that there are several credits identified in the DCP that will require further investigation due to partial development or subdivision occurring over portion of the property, where the credit was not paid and has remained outstanding.

 

All landowners will be required to verify their entitlement (as the current landowner of the subject property) and acknowledge and accept the payment or offsetting against future contributions as full and final settlement in relation to historic POS.

 

The Cells 1, 3, 5 and 6 accounts currently hold adequate funds to make payment for the historic POS credits (Cell Works), however there is no current budget allocation which will need to be allocated (subject to Council agreement) through the mid-year budget review.

 

Approximately 140 historic POS credits have already been applied to subdivisions across Cells 1, 3, 5 and 6 and there are 24 individual credits outstanding. As defined in Attachment 2, there are 5 original landholdings that will require further investigation by Administration to determine the validity of the credit due to partial subdivisions occurring, where the POS credit was not applied. Investigation will involve consideration of entitlement and apportionment of remaining credits to the current landowners, where further subdivision potential exists.

 

The payment of historic POS credits would prioritise and facilitate finalisation of outstanding Cell Works in Cells 1, 3, 5 and 6 to enable the City to progress closure of relevant DCP’s in the future in line with the requirements of SPP3.6.

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

 

The Cells Works are required to be completed to facilitate the closure of a Cell. The prioritisation of Cell Works was previously supported by Council to demonstrate that the City effectively and economically managing the DCPS’s and providing the infrastructure defined in the relevant DCP. The historic POS credits were audited by William Buck and formed part of the annual review of costs for the 2021-2022 period, inclusive of the audited expenditure (actuals) for the 2020-2021 financial period.

 

Upon agreement by Council on the actions required to finalise the historic POS credits, Administration will proceed to engage with the affected landowners and will perform a due diligence to validate entitlement and seek and acceptance and agreement with the landowner that the payment represents full and final payment for the remaining credits.

 

It is possible that some landowners may request that the credit be offset against their future contribution obligations for the land, however this will require further consideration by Administration and may require formalisation of a deed of agreement to define the arrangement. This position is supported by Administration, as it will facilitate and progress the remaining income and expenditure for the Cell and achieve closure in a timely manner.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Rowe, Seconded Cr Miles That Council:- 1.       APPROVES the actions in relation to the management of Developer Contribution Arrangements under District Planning Scheme No. 2, as contained in Attachment 1; and 2.       APPROVES the payment to landowners within Cells 1, 3, 5 and 6 that have not previously received a historic Public Open Space credit in accordance with clause 9.5 of DPS2, as contained in Attachment 1 SUBJECT to verification by Administration of entitlement and agreement.       Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - DCP Actions (December 2021)	21/496357
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Historic POS Payment Consideration	21/503611

 

 

 

 

 

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Nguyen, Seconded Mayor Roberts   To move Item No. AS02-12/21 Response to Petition (PT02-08/21) Requesting Installation of Traffic Management on Heathfield Drive, Landsdale forward for discussion following Item PS01-12/21.   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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. Two crashes occurred in 2016, one fatal and one resulting in hospitalisation, the third occurred in 2019 and was a property damage only. These crashes do not show any pattern or underlying cause.

 

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

 

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Cvitan 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 and a further traffic assessment on Heathfield Drive in 12 months time; and 3.       ADVISES the Petition organiser of Council’s decision. Motion to Amend Moved Cr Nguyen, Seconded Cr Herridge That recommendation 2.c) be amended to insert the words “prepare traffic management options and cost estimates for Heathfield Drive for discussion with Council Members in no later than” between the words “and” and “12 months”.   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, and prepare traffic management options and cost estimates for Heathfield Drive for discussion with Council Members in no later than 12 months’ time; and Carried Unanimously Substantive Motion as Amended 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, and prepare traffic management options and cost estimates for Heathfield Drive for discussion with Council Members in no later than 12 months’ time; and 3.         ADVISES the Petition organiser of Council’s decision. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan - Heathfield Drive, Landsdale

21/469030

 

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Wright, Seconded Mayor Roberts   To move Item No. AS01-12/21 Response to Petition (PT01-06/21) Requesting Pathway along Clubhouse Lane between ‘The Green Village’ and Lakelands Drive, Gnangara forward for discussion following Item AS02-12/21.   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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 8.

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 are 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), which identifies the subject area as part of Precinct 11, which is Stage 1 of development. 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. The EWDSP details an indicative road layout in the vicinity of Clubhouse Lane, which shows modification to the layout of the existing Lakelands Drive. The existing east-west portion of Lakelands Drive is proposed to extend west and connect with Golfview Place (providing a connection between Badgerup Road and Sydney Road). This east-west road is proposed to connect to the north-south portion of Lakelands Drive with a T intersection to the immediate south of The Green Lifestyle Village. The EWDSP provides the high-level framework for the preparation of local structure plans, which will confirm the location of neighbourhood connector roads. The local road network will be determined at the subdivision stage. The footpath network will be confirmed through the local structure planning and subdivision processes.

 

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, a local structure plan for the relevant precinct could be put in place to demonstrate 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

 

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Rowe 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 list the detailed design and construction of a 60m x 1.5m wide concrete path between Moonah Drive and Lakelands Drive as part of 2022/2023 Recurring Program Minor Pathways; and 3.       ADVISES the Petition organiser of Council’s decision. Motion to Amend Moved Cr Wright, Seconded Cr Cvitan To remove the word “that” after “NOTES” and the wording following the word “Policy” in recommendation 1., insert a new recommendation 3. as shown and renumber accordingly. 1.       NOTES that the pathway assessment undertaken as per the Pathways Policy, does not support the installation of a path along Clubhouse Lane; 3.      REQUESTS Administration to list the detailed design (inclusive of assessment of stormwater drainage, removal of trees and community engagement) of 170m of footpath on the eastern side of Clubhouse Lane in the draft Long Term Capital Works Program in accordance with the request set out in the Petition; and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Substantive Motion as Amended That Council:- 1.       NOTES the pathway assessment undertaken as per the Pathways Policy; 2.       REQUESTS Administration to list the detailed design and construction of a 60m x 1.5m wide concrete path between Moonah Drive and Lakelands Drive as part of 2022/2023 Recurring Program Minor Pathways; 3.      REQUESTS Administration to list the detailed design (inclusive of assessment of stormwater drainage, removal of trees and community engagement) of 170m of footpath on the eastern side of Clubhouse Lane in the draft Long Term Capital Works Program in accordance with the request set out in the Petition; and 4.       ADVISES the Petition organiser of Council’s decision. Carried Unanimously

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

 

Procedural Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Mayor Roberts   To move Item No. AS03-12/21 Infrastructure Capital Works Program Delivery forward for discussion following Item AS01-12/21.   CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

File Ref:                                              7188V03 – 21/498555

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the impact of the current construction industry activity on the City’s capital works program.

Background

The current heightened Perth Metropolitan area construction activity in the West Australian economy is resulting in significant cost increases for Local Government projects; including delays in project delivery timelines impacting the current year and future year’s program affordability and deliverability.

 

The City’s Project Management Framework provides regular and proactive reporting on the delivery of its capital works program and recent tender bids received by administration are demonstrating a significant increase in cost above the City’s current estimates for some major and medium sized projects.

 

High level market research indicates the current market pressures could continue for the short to medium term future, potentially requiring adjustment of the current Capital Works Program. This report considers the current market impact on the capital works program.

Detail

Administration has concerns of the impact of the increased prices on the City's infrastructure projects delivering best value for money in FY 2021/22 if progressed at the current market rates and also forecasts that, in some cases, projects scheduled for delivery in FY 2022/23 may be affected. Having concerns, Administration proposed to review the potential impact in the following way:

 

·    Research building and civil construction sector performance indicators;

·    Liaison with neighbouring metropolitan Local Authorities;

·    Delivery Confidence Assessment on capital works portfolio;

·    Impacts on grant funding;

·    Impacts on user groups/stakeholders; and

·    Proposed mitigation measures

 

 

 

Building and Civil Construction Industry Bodies - Advice and Market Indicators

 

The Civil Contractors Federation Western Australia (CCFWA) has presented several bulletins indicating the following;

·    12 months ago the civil construction industry was uncertain how COVID would impact the industry;

·    Governments regarded infrastructure construction work as essential;

·    Federal and State Government committed to a pipeline of major road and rail & infrastructure projects;

·    Substantial incentives for new home buyers were offered, as a stimulus for the housing sector construction work; and

·    Surge in private sector land development activity - in 2019/20, 8000 new housing lots were constructed. In 2020/21 nearly double that number.

 

Civil construction investment by the five main State Government infrastructure agencies and corporations – Main Roads, Public Footpath Authority (PTA), Development WA, Western Power and Water Corporation over the past decade is around $3.5 billion a year.  This FY (2021/22) investment will exceed $4 billion - mainly due to increased spending on transport projects. Next financial year it is forecast to be close to $5 billion.

 

Notes from ABS Producer Price Indexes for the quarterly growth, end of June 2021 indicate growth in Civil Engineering and Building construction (+1.8%), increases in wages and materials driven by public sector investment in transport infrastructure projects.

 

These increases in both private and public sector activity are putting great pressure on the available pool of skilled workers in WA. Previously in times of increased activity and greater demand for skilled workers such as these, the construction industry has been able to respond by looking interstate. However COVID-19 related border restrictions have prevented that in the recent past. In summary, the very strong theme coming through is that the critical skills shortage is adding significantly to the supply chain bottlenecks already being experienced, increasing costs and delays to infrastructure projects delivery.

 

There is some indication that supply chain issues may ease over the next 1-2 years, however skills shortage is likely to remain a serious issue. These factors may still be affected by COVID lockdowns, border (domestic and international) restrictions and social distancing requirements.  The broader construction sector outside of Western Australia is forecast to recover in late 2021 and 2022 creating competition for local skills.

 

Also, a less obvious theme that comes through information reviewed is a reminder that more builders and contractors go into insolvency in a boom than during normal times.  Commentary on the subject refers to the current situation as a “profitless boom” for the building companies as, due to supply and skills shortages, some builders are making smaller profits - in some cases running at a loss.  These factors (supplies and skills) also create the potential for contract defaults which could put builders out of business very quickly.

 

Neighbouring Local Authorities - Experience and Strategies

The Cities of Joondalup, Stirling and Swan were contacted regarding their current project delivery performance and their strategies to address the rise in current building costs impact on capital program delivery.

 

In summary, it is apparent these organisations are facing similar challenges with regard to reduced tender submissions and increased tender prices, largely driven by skills shortages, higher material costs and delays in material supplies. Responses from the LG's indicate that recent tender bids received, aside term contracts, highlight costs have shifted significantly.

 

The Local Government sector has identified and implemented a combination of strategies to deliver best value for their communities, including but not limited to; deferral of projects, review of project scope, sourcing additional funds and consulting with WALGA for procurement advice.

 

Most Local Governments also deploy Fixed Term Contracts (FTC’s) for the provision of services and goods for both operational and capital work delivery. Due to the structure of FTC’s, pricing is fixed for the short term to medium term (1-3 years) and contractor’s prices are fixed except for nominal Consumer Price Index related increases/decreases. A significant portion of the capital works program is completed under these contracts, thereby limiting the extent of high cost variation on the City’s project portfolio.

 

To date, the FTC’s established by the City have fielded little to no requests for price increases. The global impacts of the rising crude oil price is forecast to have some impact on the City’s Asphalt Contract as bitumen prices have increased.  This may reduce the extent of the City’s road renewals (resurfacing) program and the Metropolitan Regional Roads Group (MRRG) Road Rehabilitation Program.

 

Portfolio Delivery Confidence Assessment on Capital Works Projects

As at mid-November 2021, 156 infrastructure projects with an annual budget of $52.1M, all listed for delivery in the FY 2021/22. A further 8 projects will be added to this portfolio in the next few months as a result of state election commitments made to the City in March 2021.  There are potentially more projects to be added as further detail of the state election commitments is agreed with funding providers.

 

A Delivery Confidence Assessment rating (Green/Amber/Red) of the 156 current project portfolio, completed in mid-November 2021 indicated:

·    Green (High confidence that projects/project phases will be completed with minimal market impact) - 134 Projects (86%) / $30.5M (58%)

·    Amber (Medium to high confidence that projects/project phases will be completed however with some market impact and/or schedule delay) - 15 Projects (10%) / $8.9M (17%)

·    Red (Low confidence that projects/project phases will be completed due to market impact and other factors) - 7 Projects (4%) / $12.7M (25%)

Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken with neighbouring Local Authorities, building and civil construction advisory groups and grant funding bodies.

Comment

The City’s Project Management Framework ensures appropriate community engagement plans are prepared for all capital works projects from the concept phase through the build to project completion. The projects highlighted in this report will require review of the existing project specific stakeholder engagement plans and proactive communications implemented to ensure stakeholders are kept abreast of current developments and are also informed of any required temporary facility provision arrangements in the event a project is delayed.

 

The FY2021/22 adopted and 2022/23 proposed capital projects where the current market conditions are significantly threatening the deliverability and/or “value for money” expectation are summarised in the table below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Name	Budget Impact		Grant Funding Impact	User Group Impact	Comments
	2021/22	2022/23
PR-2955 Halesworth Park, Butler, New Sports Facilities   (Multi-year project)	Y	Y	Y	Y	·   Construction was scheduled to commence 2nd quarter 2021/22; ·   Current tenders recommended to be declined Nov 2021 due to market cost impacts (Refer Item AS03 on this agenda); ·   Construction procurement to be delayed until Oct 2022; ·   Temporary facilities to continue and consider increasing.
PR-2664 Landsdale Library and Youth Innovation Hub, New Building   (Multi-year project)	Y	Y	Y	N	·   Construction was scheduled to commence 4th quarter 2021/22; ·   Order Magnitude Costing (OMC) forecast exceeds budget due to market cost impacts; ·   Value engineering review underway; ·   Procurement may be delayed until late 2022 or 2023.
PR-2455 Clarkson Youth Centre, Clarkson, Upgrade Building and Open Space   (Multi-year project)	Y	Y	Y	Y	·   Construction was scheduled to commence 4th quarter 2021/22; ·   Order Magnitude Costing (OMC) forecast exceeds budget due to market cost impacts; ·   Value engineering review underway; ·   Complete detailed design in 2021/22; ·   Construction procurement to be delayed until July 2022.
PR-4297 Wangara Industrial Area, Wangara, New CCTV Network   (Multi-year project)	Y	N	Y	N	·   Construction was scheduled to commence 3rd quarter 2021/22; ·   Tender price for full fibre and hybrid (fibre/4G) systems exceeds budget due to market cost impacts; ·   All tenders declined; ·   Design for “4G only” option underway; ·   Construction procurement for “4G” Option in February 2022; ·   Market conditions at that time may further delay the commencement of construction
PR-4202 Montrose Park, Girrawheen, Upgrade Changeroom   (Multi-year project)	Y	Y	N	Y	·   Construction was scheduled to commence 3rd quarter 2021/22 ·   Order Magnitude Cost (OMC) forecast exceeds budget due to market cost impacts; ·   Value engineering review underway; ·   Detailed design underway; ·   Construction procurement to be delayed until August 2022.
PR-4271 Splendid Park, Yanchep, Upgrade Splendid Park Cycling Path   (Multi-year project)	Y	Y	Y	Y	·   Construction** was scheduled to start in 4th quarter 2021/22 (refer note below this table); ·   Detailed design completed; ·   Clearing approvals due in February 2022; ·   Current Order Magnitude Cost (OMC) forecast indicates sufficient budget available; ·   Potential for construction procurement in 4th quarter 2021/22 or earlier subject to clearing permit approval; ·   Construction likely to commence around July 2022; ·   Market conditions at that time may further delay the commencement of construction.
PR-4283 Heath Park, Eglinton, New Sports Amenities Building   (Multi-year project)	N	Y	Y	Y	·   Construction scheduled to commence in 3rd quarter 2022/23, over two years; ·   Order Magnitude Costing (OMC) forecast exceeds budget due to market cost impacts; ·   Value engineering and staging review underway; ·   Awaiting CSRRF funding application outcome in February 2022; ·   Detailed design scheduled to be progressed from March 2022; ·   Repeat QS estimate when detailed design completed; ·   Confirm construction timing then based on market indicators; ·   Temporary facilities to continue.
PR-4287 Frederick Stubbs Park, Quinns Rocks, Upgrade Car Park and Surrounds   (Multi-year project)	N	Y	N	N	·   Construction scheduled to commence in 2023/24; ·   Order Magnitude Costing (OMC) forecast exceeds budget; ·   Value engineering review underway; ·   Repeat OMC estimate when detailed design is completed toward end of 2021/22. Confirm construction timing then based on market indicators.

** Note - Construction originally scheduled to commence in late 2021. North Coast Cycling Facility Master Plan Implementation Working Group advised on 22 November 2021 that the procurement process can begin after the resolution of the clearing permit process and formalisation of Federal Government funding agreements.

For any other capital works projects encountering delivery issues related to market impacts, Administration will apply one or multiple of the following risk mitigation strategies:

·    Review specific program/project scope, risk profile, proposed build methodologies, construction schedule and any other contractual obligations such a funding conditions

·    Major building and construction projects undertaking design phase, to continue

·    Any major projects where a previous procurement exercise has returned low value for money be analysed for contributing factors to price received, including: specification and quality requirements, supply of materials and labour, construction methodologies, construction staging and requested schedule;

·    Potential to apply “value-add” engineering in the revised design phase;

·    Any major building or civil projects commencing construction early in the 22/23 CWP be reviewed for need and construction delayed to start in Q3/Q4 of FY 22/23, if market appears to be trending toward offering better value for money;

·    Existing Term Contracts be utilised to the maximum potential;

·    Construction team and plant to be utilised to maximum potential; and

·    Design to be utilised to maximum potential to mitigate reduced external consultant availability.

 

For new sports amenities building projects, such as at Heath Park and Halesworth Park, a delay in the provision of these facilities will adversely impact user groups who the City has been working with to relocate to those venues. These impacts can be minimised through the provision of temporary facilities at both venues. Heath Park already has some temporary facilities however these may need to be increased if the second oval is completed before the facility is constructed. Administration will consult with user groups to determine the scope of temporary facilities required.

 

Current market response to the provision of temporary facilities indicates a 3-6 month lead time is required by suppliers. The City has previously acquired temporary facilities and it will be possible to redeploy some units thereby reducing the cost impact on budget. The cost impacts for the provision of additional temporary facilities will be addressed through the mid-year budget review.

 

Administration will develop a stakeholder management plan to communicate with the affected community groups including the implementation of a communications plan, to inform the broader community.

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

5.3 - Responsibly managed and maintained assets

Risk Management Considerations

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

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S24 Strategic Asset Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Assets	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-O15 Project 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 strategic and corporate risk registers.  Action plans has been developed to manage this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The market response to tenders is demonstrating significant cost increases for the build of facility type projects. The projects most at risk are those where new tenders are required and from recent experience current contractors bids received by the City have shifted as much as 50 percent from budgeted and or Quantity Surveyor estimates.

 

The City’s existing budget preparation and management processes, including Mid-Year and Long Term Plan reviews should address and report on those projects where value for money delivery is a concern and a required adjustment of the project schedule – may provide benefits in both the short and long term.

 

Grant funding conditions will need to be reviewed before any project scope or delivery schedules are adjusted to ensure relevant grant funding bodies are proactively engaged as there is a potential risk for grant funding to be withdrawn if funding conditions are not met. Indications from Federal and State government agencies are that they are aware of the issues arising from the current market and economy dynamic and are reviewing funding arrangements and timelines in light of this. Timelines for delivery of the Federal stimulus packages via Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (Phases 1 and 2) have already been adjusted.

 

As explained earlier in the report the market impacts are likely to result in delays of approx. $9.5M worth of project expenditure from 2021/22 Approved Capital Works Program to 2022/23.  Budget adjustments will continue to be reviewed and presented to Council for consideration/endorsement as part of the forthcoming Mid-Year Budget Review in March 2022. This may also require a review of the proposed 2022/23 Capital Works Program as part of the 2022/23 Budget process.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Moved Cr Sangalli, Seconded Cr Treby That Council:- 1.       NOTES the details in this report of the market impact on the 2021/22 and 2022/23 infrastructure capital works delivery; and 2.       NOTES the delays in the construction phase of the following projects, with budget adjustments to be reflected as part of the 2021/22 Mid-Year Review and 2022/23 Annual Budget processes, as required: a)    PR-2955 Halesworth Park, Butler, New Sports Facilities; b)   PR-2664 Landsdale Library and Youth Innovation Hub, New Building; c)   PR-2455 Clarkson Youth Centre, Clarkson, Upgrade Building and Open Space; d)   PR-4297 Wangara Industrial Area, Wangara, New CCTV Network; e)   PR-4202 Montrose Park, Girrawheen, Upgrade Change- room; and f)    PR-4271 Splendid Park, Yanchep, Upgrade Splendid Park Cycling Path.     Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              5734V07 – 21/496696

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To determine appropriate actions for reconciling outstanding Developer Balances associated with the East Wanneroo Cost Sharing Arrangements (Cells 1-9).

Background

Developer Balances were noted and included in the annual reviews for the East Wanneroo Cells Development Contribution plans (DCPs) during 2019 and were reported by both William Buck and the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as requiring investigation and resolution by the City. In this regard, the developer balances are financial anomalies associated with Development Contribution Plan (DCP) payments required under District Planning Scheme Number 2 (DPS2) and those actually received at the time of subdivision or development of the land.

 

There are a range of factors identified that have led to the outstanding balances including calculation errors, unreconciled provisional (interim) rates (prior to a DCP being in place) and historic agreements between the City and some landowners regarding the calculation of contributions.

 

The developer balances are identified and recorded as either credits or liabilities and involve 40 developers across Cells 1 (Ashby/Tapping), 2 (Sinagra), 4 (Hocking/Pearsall), 5 (Landsdale), 6 (Madeley/Darch), 7 (Wangara) and 8 (Wangara - east).

 

All outstanding developer balances relate to contributions prior to 2006, with a significant number of these that were paid as ‘interim’ contributions (prior to 2001).

 

Due to the age of the transactions, it was necessary for Administration to investigate whether the relevant legal entity’s still exist, the potential to pursue and reconcile the relevant Cell accounts and consider the relevant factors.

Detail

Administration has reconciled Developer Balances into the financial systems to correct the errors associated with nominal value, deceased estates and deregistered companies and involved a total (net) correction of $170.17. These balances did not warrant the dedication of resources or represent a viable and economical use of Cell funds to pursue.

 

However, there remains several more significant actions requiring resolution by Council, including the following:

 

Ø Return $228,500 (plus interest) from the relevant DCP accounts to 16 landowners that paid more than the required contribution.

                                                                                                                                         

Ø Retain the outstanding developer balance payment associated with 10 landowners (landowner liability) of $648,799 within the relevant Cell account for those landowners that;

o  Incorrectly received a credit for contributions paid above the estimated lot yield (9 lots per hectare); resulting in a shortfall in their contribution payments.

 

o  Did not make an adjusting payment for balances associated with interim contributions (pre-2001), where the developer/legal entity was not able to be located or contacted to reconcile the contribution payment.

 

o  Could not be located or identified to verify whether the legal entity still exists. The liability retained pending confirmation at full development and either offset against potential excess funds or be written-off at that time.

 

In June 2021, Administration wrote to the last known address of these landowners with an option to either pay the outstanding balance or offset the liability against excess funds in the cell (at closure). At this stage, none of the original landowners have agreed to make payment and therefore the balances should be retained (accrued), pending closure of the cell.

 

It is noted that most of the affected cells are likely to have adequate excess funds to reconcile the balances for these landowners at full development. In this regard, there is potentially high costs in pursuing debt recovery from transactions over 20 years old, so it is recommended that the developer balances accrued as an outstanding payment pending closure of the Cell at which time a developers outstanding liability can be offset against any potential excess funds that they may otherwise be entitled. This recommendation is consistent with Clause 9.6.3 of DPS2, which specifies that any excess that an owner may be entitled to receive shall be reduced by the amount of any shortfall in the payments made by that owner to their assessed Infrastructure Costs.

 

Ø In East Wanneroo Cell 5 there were 2 landowners that subdivided between 1993 and 2004. The Cell 5 DCP and associated cost estimates were not approved by Council until 2001.The City applied an interim rate pending an ICPL rate being approved by Council, which was subsequently appealed to the Minister for Planning. The Minister subsequently determined a contribution rate of $2,500 per lot, which excluded a contribution towards 10% POS, which was provided free of cost by the subdivider.

Because the Minister determined the rate (and associated POS provision) there is no ability to over-ride or reconcile the decision and therefore the adopted ICPL cannot be reconciled by requesting a further payment from the landowners. In these circumstances, it is recommended that Council authorises the use of the Minister’s rate (which includes $2,500, plus an allowance calculated for the POS provided) to reconcile the outstanding balance of $320,298 for these owners.

 

Consultation

 

Developer Balances have formed part of the annual review of costs for the relevant East Wanneroo Cells, which forms part of the statutory consultation requirements of DPS2. The 2021-2022 Annual Review of Cell 1-9 was recently advertised between 16 September and 28 October 2021 and will be reported to Council in December 2021.

Comment

It is recommended that Council authorises the recommended actions to address the outstanding developer balances for the East Wanneroo DCPs, as follows (refer Attachment 1):

 

1.   Return $228,500 (plus interest) from the relevant DCP accounts to those landowners that paid more than the required contribution.

 

2.   Retain balances of $648,799 within the relevant Cell account pending closure, at which time the outstanding balance can be offset against a landowners excess funds.

 

3.   Utilise the East Wanneroo Cell 5 ICPL rate approved by the Minister of Planning to reconcile the outstanding balance of $320,298.

Statutory Compliance

In terms of DPS2, the City must annually review the DCP. The Annual Review process, including consultation requirements, is outlined in DPS2. 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.

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

 

The above risks relating to the issue contained within this report have been identified and considered within the City’s Strategic 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. In addition, the strategic risk relating to Stakeholder Relationships applies as a key element in the DCP review process is maintaining effective engagement with relevant stakeholders.

 

The retention of developer balances in the Cell accounts until full development utilises existing provision in DPS2, which enable the City to reduce any landowner’s entitlement to excess funds by an outstanding liability. In most Cells, there is likely to be excess funds that are adequate to offset the outstanding balances, however there is a risk that the excess funds may not occur or be utilised in the provision of cell works. In this regard, Council needs to consider that pursuing the developers balances now may not be the most economical manner to address the liability with no guarantee of successful recoupment; and that DPS2 specially provides for the reduction of any liability by excesses generated in the relevant Cell.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Developer Balances were noted and included in the annual reviews during 2019 and were reported by both William Buck and the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) as requiring investigation and resolution by the City.

 

The Developer Balance findings were audited by William Buck and formed part of the annual review of costs for the 2021-2022 period, inclusive of the audited expenditure (actuals) for the 2020-2021 financial period.

 

Upon agreement by Council on the actions required to finalise the developer balances, Administration will make the required adjustments to the City’s financial and associated DCP spreadsheets.

 

In this regard, it is noted that the recommended actions have already been actioned into the City’s Financial system (where required) to satisfy the City’s financial reporting requirements, however if any further changes are required by Council to the approach recommended by Administration then further changes to the financial system may be necessary to resolve the outstanding developer balances.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Miles, Seconded Cr Cvitan That Council as recommended by the Audit & Risk Committee AUTHORISES the following actions to finalise the outstanding Developer Balances for the East Wanneroo Cells (1-9).   1.       Return $228,500 (plus interest) from the relevant DCP accounts to those landowners defined in Attachment 1 that paid more than the required contribution;   2.       Retain balances of $648,799 within Cells 3, 4, 5 and 6 pending closure, at which time the outstanding balance shall be offset against the landowner’s return of excess funds; and   3.       Utilise the East Wanneroo Cell 5 ICPL contribution rate approved by the Minister of Planning to reconcile the outstanding balance of $320,298.     Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Developer Balances - Attachment

21/482286

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chief Executive Officer declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 due to the applicant previously being employed by the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549774)

 

Director Assets declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 due to the applicant being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549865)

 

Director Planning & Sustainability declared an impartiality interest in PS03-12/21 due to Len Kosova being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo who made a submission on the Annual Review of East Wanneroo Cells. (HP 21/549896)

File Ref:                                              5734V07 – 21/451444

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       13         

 

Issue

To consider the Annual Review of Cell Costs for the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9 Developer Contributions Arrangements and Administration’s recommended response to public submissions received during the public advertising.

Background

The East Wanneroo Cells include the areas of Wanneroo, Ashby, Tapping, Sinagra, Hocking, Pearsall, Landsdale, Darch, Madeley and Wangara (refer Attachment 1).

 

The City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) provides the statutory basis for the administration and management of Developer Contributions Plans (DCP). DPS 2 requires the City to review the East Wanneroo Cell Costs. This includes the review of Estimated Lot Yields (ELY) for Cells 1-6 and 9 (residential Cells), the remaining area of the industrial Cells 7 and 8 to be developed,  actual expenditure in the previous financial year and the costs associated with completing the remaining Cell Works.

 

On 7 September 2021 (PS02-09/20), Council considered the draft Annual Review of Costs for 2021-2022 (refer Attachments 2-10) and resolved to advertise the Annual Review for a period of 42 days from 16 September 2021 to 28 October 2021. The Annual Review included revised cost estimates, land valuations and recommended an Infrastructure Cost Per Lot (ICPL) for each cell as listed below. In addition the Annual Review for each Cell now includes a Capital Expenditure Plan (CEP) to assist Administration to prioritise Cell Works and to complete a Status Report on the progress of each Cell, as required by the recently gazetted State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP3.6).

Detail

The City received 2 submissions during advertising, which specifically relate to Cells 1 and 7.

 

No submissions were received in relation to the Annual Review for the other Cells.

 

A summary of the landowner’s submission and Administration’s response is reflected below:

 

1.    Submission 1 – Cell 1 (refer Attachment 11) – Request for return of remaining excess funds in East Wanneroo Cell 1 (Tranche 2 payment) & Closure of Cell 1 - Submission by Cedar Woods, Peet and Satterley.

·    Request for return of excess funds - On 4 June 2019 (PS02-06/19) Council approved the return of estimated excess funds in Cell 1 to previous contributors for the amount of $22,679,632 and retained a contingency amount of $3,092,677 (12% of applicable estimated excess as at June 2019) pending the remaining estimated contributions being received and finalisation of remaining Cell Works.

 

The landowners have requested Council to approve the return of the retained contingency of $3,092,677 because the reasons for not paying a Tranche 2 are no longer relevant and there is a high degree of certainty for the remaining income and cell works. Additional income has now been received and excess funds are now likely to be higher than the previous estimates made by Council in June 2019. In this regard, the financial position of the cell as depicted in the annual review reflects the following:

 

a)   Remaining Cell Works in Cell 1 only relates to Public Open Space (POS) acquisition ($1,804,176) and administration costs of $96,278 (based on $48,139 per year for two years).

 

b)   The current balance of the Cell 1 reserve account is $4,940,728. Therefore, if the City issued the Tranche 2 payment today, it would still retain $1,848,051 in funds for Cell 1, which exceeds the remaining land acquisition costs by $43,875.

 

Whilst the Annual Review indicates future income of $1,693,786 there will be higher than estimated lot yields (plus interest) and the ability to off-set POS compensation against landowner contributions.

 

To conclude this matter as quickly, amicably and equitably as possible, the landowners reiterate their repeated requests for Council to approve a Tranche 2 refund (of $3,092,677) from the contingency currently held, consistent with the terms approved by Council in June 2019 (Tranche 1 refund).

 

·    Closure of Cell 1 - The landowner’s have requested the opportunity to work closely with the City to advance the closure of the Cell 1 DCP once the Tranche 2 refund has been approved, recognising that closure of the Cell is likely to take in the order of 3 – 5 years to conclude. To assist the City in its consideration, the landowner’s suggest that all remaining POS be acquired and remaining income secured through various arrangements.

 

If Council prioritises the remaining Cell Works and pursue closure of the DCP, the landowners have suggested a range of actions for consideration (refer submission Attachment 11), which reflects various clauses of DPS2 and SPP3.6. In particular, it was suggested that remaining landowners that have not subdivided could pay contributions based on the Estimated Lot Yield and Deeds of Agreement used to secure future contributions.

 

Administration Response

 

·    Request for return of excess funds - In accordance with Councils decision in June 2019, the City has already returned $22,679,632 in excess funds to Cell 1 landowners with the exception of a contingency ($3,092,677). Council’s agreement to make a pre-payment was based on estimated excess funds at full development of the cell, which has not yet occurred and the contingency was intended to be retained pending finalisation of remaining income and expenditure. Until all contributions and Cell Works have been finalised and audited there is potential for financial variances. It is also noted that DPS2 does not require the return of excess funds until full development of the Cell.

 

It is acknowledged that additional funds have been received and significant progress made by the City to finalise the remaining Cell Works, including the completion and auditing of all major construction works (e.g. Pinjar Road duplication).

 

In relation to the remaining POS expenditure, the finalisation of the Cell Works is being prioritised to achieve financial accountability for the remaining costs as soon as possible.

The capital expenditure plan (CEP) defines the following estimated timeframes for Cell 1;

 

o  Outstanding POS Acquisition (6060m2) in 2022/2023 of $1,246,542; and

o  Outstanding Historical POS Acquisition in 2021/2022 of $557,634

 

The Historic POS Credit is a fixed value amount, which utilises the Cell 1 Assessed Value. Administration will be seeking to finalise this credit through discussions with the landowner. POS acquisition represents the greatest risk for financial variance particularly if the land valuation is disputed by the landowner. Notwithstanding, Administration will be prioritising discussions with the landowner to ascertain the landowners’ willingness to finalise the acquisition as soon as possible.

Administration advises that the East Wanneroo Cell 1 account holds adequate funds to pay the retained contingency amount, however this is not recommended until the remaining POS acquisition costs have been finalised, due to potential variances and cost escalation. Once the remaining POS acquisition has been completed Administration will prioritise the closure of the Cell and the return of any excess funds to the contributing landowners.

·    Closure of Cell 1 - The City welcomes the suggestions and will continue to work closely with all affected landowners to bring about an accountable closure to the Cell in a timely manner. The recommendations are generally supported and are consistent with the requirements of DPS2 and SPP3.6. The City will continue to prioritise the Cell Works and will be considering a range of possible options to finalise the East Wanneroo Cells (1-9), including any required amendments to the provisions of DPS2 to facilitate this.

 

It is also advised that Administration has been investigating a range of improvements to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). Administration will be reporting to Council on various operational, monitoring and reporting requirements for DCPs and the consideration of options to enable cells to be finalised or closed. In this regard, it is anticipated that a report will be presented to Council in early 2022 to consider various improvements and to initiate an amendment to DPS2.

 

Recommended Action

 

It is recommended that;

 

·   Request for return of excess funds - Council supports the prioritisation of all remaining Cell Works within Cell 1 in accordance with the proposed CEP to establish an accountable position on the remaining Cell Costs, prior to releasing the remaining contingency amount of $3,092,677. In this regard, the CEP indicates that arrangements to finalise the remaining Cell 1 works should be determined by 20 June 2023 and Administration will work proactively to try and deliver this earlier.

 

·   Closure of Cell 1 - Council advise the landowner’s that the City will continue to inform and engage with landowners on the progress of the Cell Works prioritisation and the closure of Cell 1.

 

 

2.   Submission 2 – Cell 7 (refer Attachment 12) – Request Council to prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment and re-calculate the contribution rate for Cell 7 using the correct methodology as set out in clause 9.6.5 of DPS2 – Submission on behalf of a major landowner within Cell 7 (LK Advisory on behalf of Keneric Project Management Pty Ltd).

 

·    Request Council to prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment - Keneric Project Management Pty Ltd (KPM) subdivided a significant portion of Cell 7 and contributed over $1.6 million towards infrastructure in 2015. The Gnangara road works have not been delivered and there is still no certainty to deliver these works within a reasonable timeframe. The landowner has requested Council write to government members to secure a funding commitment and acquire all remaining land required under the DCP and amend the timing reflected in the Cell 7 CEP to the 2023/24-2024/25 financial years.

 

·    Requests Council to re-calculate the contribution rate for Cell 7 using the correct methodology as set out in clause 9.6.5 of DPS2 - The ICPL rate applied to KPM in 2015 was $13.15 per/m2 and this rate was revised/reduced to $9.73/m2 in 2019, increased to $11.37 in 2020 and is now proposed to decrease to $11.12 in this annual review.

 

The methodology applied by the City is different to the DPS2 methodology, which refers to dividing the gross costs for the Cell by the total cell area capable of being developed to derive an ICPL rate. If the City utilises its current methodology then there could be significant fluctuations in the ICPL rate and an inability to refund potential excess funds to landowners that paid contributions at higher ICPL rates if there are further savings in the estimated costs.

 

Administration Response

 

·    Request Council to prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment – The submission relates to the future realignment of Gnangara Road between Hartman Drive and the Whitfords Avenue/Wanneroo Road intersection. The existing length of Gnangara Road with the signalised intersection with Wanneroo Road would then need to be downgraded to cater for the local traffic demands. The portion of the realignment adjoining Wanneroo Road (Lena Nursery) is reserved as Primary Regional Road (PRR) in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is the responsibility of the WAPC and MRWA to acquire and construct. The section of Gnangara Road located east of the PRR is reserved as Other Regional Road and is the responsibility of the City to deliver through the DCP. The new section of Gnangara Road will be constructed to a District Distributor Road (DDR) standard.

 

The City has progressively acquired land that has been funded by the relevant DCPs with the exception of two remaining parcels at the western end. Whilst discussions have been initiated with these landowners the acquisitions have not been finalised. There has been only tentative support provided by MRWA to proceed with their remaining acquisitions.  MRWA currently has no funding for commitment for land purchase and will not commence until funding is guaranteed and as such, there is no firm date given by MRWA.

 

Administration will continue to liaise with relevant agencies, including the landowner representative and Main Roads (MRWA) to establish an acceptable timeline. MRWA has commenced project development and subject to having continued funding available in the 2022/23, it is anticipated a 15% design will be completed by June 2023. The design will be shared with the City at the appropriate stage and the City will continue to review and prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment project as soon as practicable.

 

The Annual Review recommends that a CEP be introduced to provide greater certainty in the delivery timeframes for the remaining infrastructure, which defines the following timeframes for completion of the Cell Works, including;

 

o  Remaining District Distributor Road (DDR) Land Acquisitions (2 for Gnangara Road) in 2021-2023 (approx. $1.5 million shared between Cells 6 and 7); and

o  Gnangara Road construction in 2026-2028 (approx. $9 million shared between Cells 6 and 7).

 

The CEP currently identifies the Gnangara Road project as ‘under-review’, however includes 2026-2028 financial year for construction. Unlike other smaller projects, the City requires an integrated approach with MRWA, the State Government (funding), City of Joondalup and affected landowners to deliver the project. The CEP now forms part of the Annual Review and when clarification is provided through the detailed design and funding arrangements, the estimated timeframes in the CEP can be revised.

 

The City recently met with representatives from MRWA and the landowner’s representative to discuss how this project could be delivered sooner, however given the complexities in delivering this project, amending the CEP to bring forward the infrastructure timing at this stage is not supported until greater clarification is obtained.

 

·    Requests Council to re-calculate the contribution rate for Cell 7 using the correct methodology as set out in clause 9.6.5 of DPS2 – The formula in DPS2 refers to the gross costs being divided by the total developable area of the cell to calculate an average rate for the Cell. The averaging methodology works effectively when there are no significant increases in cell costs, however if increases occur after most contributions have been received, then there is limited opportunity to recoup or smooth the costs retrospectively by obtaining additional contributions from previous subdividers.

 

In these situations, the City is required to pursue other funding options, as prescribed by SPP3.6, which could include paying for the shortfall through municipal funds.

 

The Annual Review requirements of DPS2 enable Council to consider and include any relevant factor as part of the Annual Review process. Administration has recommended apportioning the remaining costs over the remaining landowners as a relevant consideration/factor to ensure adequate funds will be received to finalise the Cell Works. In this regard, if a significant variation in remaining costs occurs then it would be open to Council to consider an alternative rate to ensure equity in the apportionment of costs.

 

It is further advised that the advertised contribution rate of $11.12 per/m2 is only a minor reduction to the previously (2020-2021) adopted rate of $11.38 per/m2 and Administration has validated the landowners calculation of the average methodology rate of $11.18 per/m2.

 

The contribution rate of $13.15 was applied to the KPM’s subdivision in 2015 and was calculated using the average methodology in 2006 (noting that the Annual Review did not occur between 2006 and 2019). The reduction in the rate since this time is mainly attributed to interest generated on the Cell accounts, the deletion of several local roads from the Cell 7 Agreed Structure Plan and fluctuations in estimated costs. 

 

The ‘average’ contribution rate methodology represents a risk that a significant increase in remaining costs could not be applied to the DCP, as an average rate cannot be retrospectively applied to enable the increase to be recouped. Should excess funds occur at full development then the excess funds would be equitably returned in accordance with the requirements of DPS2 to all landowners based on the value of contributions paid by that landowner.

 

On this basis, Administration recommends that the advertised contribution rate of $11.12 per/m2 for Cell 7 be approved without modification.

 

Recommended Action

 

It is recommended that;

 

·     Request Council to prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment - Council supports the prioritisation of the Gnangara Road realignment and continues to liaise with relevant agencies, including the landowner representative and Main Roads (MRWA) to establish an acceptable timeline; and request Administration to write to the Minister for Transport, the City of Joondalup and MRWA to encourage consideration and prioritisation of the Gnangara Road realignment project as soon as practicable.

 

·     Requests Council to re-calculate the contribution rate for Cell 7 using the correct methodology as set out in clause 9.6.5 of DPS2 - Council dismiss the objection and approve the advertised contribution rate of $11.12 per/m2 for Cell 7.

Consultation

In accordance with the provisions of DPS 2, the City advertised the proposed land value for a period of 28 days and the revised Cell Costs for a period of 42 days. The Annual Review for the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9 was advertised for a total period of 42 days from 16 September 2021 to 28 October 2021 and included advertisements in the Wanneroo Times, the West Australian, letters to affected landowners and on the City’s website.

Comment

In accordance with DPS 2, the East Wanneroo Cell 1-9 developer contribution arrangements are 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 infrastructure items. 

 

Council’s decision in June 2019 resulted in the return of over $22 million dollars in excess funds to previous contributors and the contingency amount ($3,092,677) is not recommended to be released until the Cell Works have been finalised and audited due to the potential for financial variances.

 

In accordance with the recently gazetted SPP3.6, Administration is recommending that the remaining POS expenditure be prioritised to achieve financial accountability for the remaining costs as soon as possible.

 

The City will continue to work closely with all affected landowners to bring about an accountable closure to all Cells in a timely manner. Administration will be reporting to Council on various operational, monitoring and reporting requirements for DCPs and will be considering options to enable cells to be closed in a timely manner.

 

The City will continue to liaise with relevant agencies, including the landowner representative and Main Roads (MRWA) to establish an acceptable timeline to prioritise the Gnangara Road realignment project as soon as practicable. However, the City requires an integrated approach with MRWA, the State Government (funding), City of Joondalup and affected landowners to deliver the project and given the complexities in delivering this project, the infrastructure timing cannot be brought forward until greater clarification is obtained.

Statutory Compliance

In line with DPS 2, the completion of the Annual Review as outlined in this report will satisfy the City’s statutory obligations to complete Annual Reviews for the 2020/2021 financial year.  External auditing of the DCP accounts has been completed in line with the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.  If the objections are not addressed to the satisfaction of the objectors, Council will be required to refer the objection for commercial arbitration in accordance with the provisions of 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-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

 

The above risks have been identified and considered within the City’s existing Strategic Risk Register. 

 

The Annual Review has been undertaken to ensure that adequate contingency is held to fund the remaining Cell Works and recognises factors that may affect a particular Cells income and expenditure estimates.

 

The work undertaken by the City in relation to the Internal Transactional Review and proper interpretation of the provisions of DPS 2 along with the completion of the Annual Review for all Cells reduces the City’s risk of impacts on trust, probity and accountability as it will bring the City to a level of compliance. 

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

To support the Annual Review (Cells 1-9), William Buck was engaged to perform audit to ensure the accuracies of the calculated ICPL rate. The relevant audit reports finalised and delivered to the City in August 2021. The audit reports have confirmed that the adjusted contribution rates associated with Cells 2, 3, 7 and 8 are fairly stated and in compliance with DPS 2.

 

In relation to Cells 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9, the audit reports have highlighted that the methodology of DPS 2 cannot be utilised to establish a reasonable ICPL rate for remaining (undeveloped) landowners. In these Cells, due to the relatively small number of remaining landholdings, Administration recommends that the ICPL rates be retained until consideration has been given to improving the DPS2 provisions as recommended by SPP3.6.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Cvitan That Council:- 1.       NOTES the public submissions received during the public consultation period for the East Wanneroo Cells 1-9 Annual Review of costs; 2.       ENDORSES the recommended response made by Administration as described in the comments section of this report and appended as Attachment 13; 3.       APPROVES the Annual Review of Cell Costs for Cells 1-9 in accordance with Clause 9.14.3 and 9.11.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, as defined in the below table: a)      Cell 1 - ICPL rate of $18,019 and Land Valuation of $1,870,000; b)      Cell 2 - ICPL rate of $24,880 and Land Valuation of $1,870,000; c)      Cell 3 - ICPL rate of $18,083 and Land Valuation of $1,880,000; d)      Cell 4 - ICPL rate of $23,328 and Land Valuation of $1,930,000; e)      Cell 5 - ICPL rate of $30,909 and Land Valuation of $2,010,000; f)       Cell 6 - ICPL rate of $24,678 and Land Valuation of $2,070,000; g)      Cell 7 - Contribution rate of $11.12 per/m2 and Land Valuation of $2,140,000; h)      Cell 8 - Contribution rate of $31.54 per/m2 and Land Valuation of $2,040,000; i)       Cell 9 - ICPL rate of $29,947 and Land Valuation of $2,010,000; and 4.       REQUESTS Administration to prioritise the remaining Cell Works, including the finalisation of the detailed design and remaining land acquisition for Gnangara Road and write to the Minister for Transport, the City of Joondalup and MRWA to advocate for the required funding and resource commitment to deliver this project. carried 8/6   For the motion:           Mayor Roberts, Cr Berry, Cr Cvitan, Cr Herridge, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Sangalli and Cr Treby Against the motion:   Cr Aitken, Cr Baker, Cr Huntley, Cr Miles, Cr Nguyen and Cr Wright

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Cells 1-9 Consolidated Location Plan	19/162679
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Cell 1 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/341545
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/341548
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Cell 3 - Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/341550
5⇩.	Attachment 5 - Cell 4 Summary of Income and Expenditure	21/341808
6⇩.	Attachment 6 - Cell 5 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/341552
7⇩.	Attachment 7 - Cell 6 Summary of Income and Estimates Estimates	21/341554
8⇩.	Attachment 8 - Cell 7 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/535012
9⇩.	Attachment 9 - Cell 8 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimate	21/341558
10⇩.	Attachment 10 - Cell 9 Summary of Income and Expenditure Estimates	21/341560
11⇩.	Attcahment 11 - Submission on Cell 1	21/478442
12⇩.	Attachment 12  - Submission on Cell 7	21/478445
13	Attachment 13 - Summary of Submissions Table - Cell 1- 9 Annual Review (2021-2022)	21/513811

 

Chief Executive Officer declared an impartiality interest in PS04-12/21 due to the applicant previously being employed by the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549774)

 

Director Assets declared an impartiality interest in PS04-12/21 due to the applicant being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549865)

 

Director Planning & Sustainability declared an impartiality interest in PS04-12/21 due to working for the applicant, Len Kosova, being the former Director of Planning and Sustainability at the City of Wanneroo. (HP 21/549926)

File Ref:                                              43428 – 21/500717

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a request by LK Advisory to amend District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS2) to increase the Estimated Lot Yield (ELY) for East Wanneroo Cell 2 from 9 lots per hectare to 15 lots per hectare and introduce a new methodology for charging contributions for group housing sites with a density coding of R25 and higher.

 

Applicant	LK Advisory
Owner	Stockland Property Group and Quito Pty Ltd
Location	Sinagra
Site Area	214 hectares (Cell 2)
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development

Background

The City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) provides the statutory basis for the administration and management of developer contributions. The scheme provisions were originally prepared in the late 1990’s in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Planning Bulletin No. 18 (PB 18), which provided the framework for implementing DCPs.  In April 2001, Amendment 816 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 introduced Part 9 and Schedule 6 for the East Wanneroo Planning and Developer Contribution Arrangements (now referred to as Development Contribution Plans – DCP’s).

 

The East Wanneroo Cells include the areas of Wanneroo, Ashby, Tapping, Sinagra, Hocking, Pearsall, Landsdale, Darch, Madeley and Wangara.

 

The DCP cost estimates, land valuation and ICPL rates are subject to an annual review requirement to ensure that the cost contribution amount is correctly set to collect sufficient funds to cover the cost of approved infrastructure items over the life of the DCP. Whilst DCP costs will vary from time to time, significant excesses in funds should not normally occur.

 

In Cells 4, 5, 6 and 9, the land is predominately developed (most more than 90%) and the potential for over-collection in these Cells has created difficulties in calculating the ICPL rates for the remaining landowners. In these Cells, Council has agreed to retain the ICPL rates pending finalisation of the Cell Works (which are being prioritised), at which time the City can reconcile remaining contributions from hold-out landowners and return excess funds, if required. 

 

The Cell 2 DCP covers the suburb of Sinagra and includes the land generally bounded by Wanneroo Road to the west, Pinjar Road and Caporn Street to the north, Griffiths Road to the east and Dundebar Road to the south (refer Attachment 1)

 

Cell 2 has a significant area of land remaining to be subdivided (approximately 55% of the Cell area) and there has been significant increases to the residential density codes in this Cell  from the originally anticipated R20 density, which is likely to generate additional excess funds.

 

The remaining major landowners in this Cell include Stockland, Quito Pty Ltd (Benara’s), Sinagra, Garbin and the Order of the Servants of Mary. The application was made on behalf of Stockland Pty Ltd and Quito Pty Ltd. The other remaining landowners (and previous contributors) will be consulted as part of the amendment process.

 

The applicant proposes to amend the provisions of DPS2 by increasing the ELY from 9 lots per hectare to 15 lots per hectare, which could address the potential over-collection of funds in Cell 2 and result in lower contribution rates being calculated for the remaining landowner’s.

 

In April 2021, State Planning Policy 3.6 – Infrastructure Contributions (SPP3.6) was gazetted and recommends that in situations where a significant variation in cost estimates occurs, the contributions should be reconciled and excess funds returned to owners that paid over the adjusted amount, as soon as circumstances permit.

 

In considering a fundamental amendment to the methodology for calculating contributions for remaining landowners, it will also be necessary to consider making a pre-payment of excess funds to previous contributors (based on their actual lot yields) to ensure the costs are being apportioned equitably.

 

Detail

 

Site

 

The subject site includes the suburb of Sinagra as defined in the Cell 2 Agreed Structure Plan Map depicted in Attachment 2.

Proposal

Amendment 200 (refer Attachment 3) was submitted on behalf of Stockland Property Group and Acumen Development Solutions (for Quito Pty Ltd), the two largest landowners in Cell 2, who own a total of 72.25 ha (64%) of the remaining developable land in Cell 2.

 

The applicant proposes the introduction of higher ELY of 15 lots per hectare to reflect their projected lot yields for this Cell and therefore reduce ICPL rate charged on a per lot basis for future subdividers. This is turn would mitigate the potential for significant excess funds being received, as has occurred in some other Cells due to higher than estimated lot yields occurring.

 

The applicant has made representations to the City that up to 1,712 more contributions than estimated using the current ELY of 9 lots/ha (904 lots) could occur based on the subdivision potential defined in the Agreed Structure Plans and the associated residential density codes. In this regard, the applicant has suggested that the current ICPL of $24,880 could collect up to $40 million more than is necessary to fund all Cell Works.

 

The proposal (as described in Attachment 2) seeks to amend the relevant clauses of DPS 2 that relate to East Wanneroo Cell 2 (clauses 9.6.2 to 9.6.4) to replace 9 lots per hectare with 15 per hectare to enable the gross costs of Cell Works to be estimated and apportioned over a greater number of estimated lots, therefore reduce the ICPL rate. In this regard, the applicant has suggested that the ICPL rate could reduce from approximately $25k to $15k).

 

The Amendment also proposes to introduce a smaller lot area for calculating and charging contributions for group housing sites in Cell 2, where an R25 density code (or higher) would be charged by dividing the group housing lot area by 350m2 (currently 450m2 irrespective of density coding). The applicant has proposed this clause to ensure that the proposed ELY of 15 for Cell 2 would be achieved irrespective of whether the landowner subdivided into free-hold lots or developed the land for group housing. In this regard, the current provisions of DPS2 prescribe that only one contribution would be charged lots less than 900m2. This area would reduce to 700m2 for land coded R25 and above.

 

Whilst it is anticipated that most landowners will create free-hold lots, the reduction in the group housing area calculation would provide a fail-safe mechanism to ensure the higher ELY will still be achieved regardless of whether landowners subdivided in accordance with the minimum average density code or larger group housing lots. This new provision will mitigate a potential loophole and ensure landowners pay a reasonable number of contributions to align with the increased ELY and the associated reduction in the ICPL for this Cell; and maintain the user pays principles of SPP3.6.

 

The applicant has suggested that Amendment 200 will correct a flawed and outdated ELY calculation methodology under the Scheme to better accord with actual and planned lot yields.

 

It was further suggested that this will avoid the over-collection of DCP contributions, which adds unnecessary costs to the subdivider, inflates the costs of providing land to the market and could result in Council needing to return excess funds to contributing landowners. 

 

Further the applicant states that the Amendment will benefit all past, present and future developers in Cell 2, by ensuring that:

 

•      Ample funds are collected to deliver the remaining Cell Works without any financial risk to the City;

 

•      Surplus contributions paid by landowners/developers in the past are equitably accounted for and refunded; and

 

•      Current and future landowners/developers only make contributions at the rate needed to fund their DCP liabilities.

 

The applicant has suggested that the City will still maintain ample contingency to protect the City from any risk of a shortfall in future contributions and that the City can manage any risk through the annual review process.

Consultation

Before advertising, a proposed amendment is required to be referred to the EPA to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) set out the criteria for the various types of local planning scheme amendments.  In terms of the Regulations, an amendment a development contribution plan, is considered to be a ‘complex’ amendment, which requires obtaining the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) consent to advertise the amendment.

 

Subject to no objections being received from the EPA and advertising consent being granted by the WAPC the amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 60 days.  In line with the Regulations, the following advertising process is proposed:

 

·    Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

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

·    Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·    Display on the City’s website; and

·    Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

Comment

Compared to the other East Wanneroo Cells, which are between 80%-97% developed, Cell 2 is in a unique position because it is less than 50% developed. Administration believes that this provides the opportunity for Council to consider fundamental changes to the operational clauses of DPS2 to address the potential for excess funds in this cell. In this regard, it is anticipated there is approximately 100 hectares of net residential area remaining to be developed in this cell, which was previously sterilised by the Inghams Poultry Farm Buffer.

 

Amendment 200 proposes to change the ELY for the Cell 2 DCP from 9 lots per hectare to 15 lots per hectare to reflect more realistic lot yields, which are closer to the actual lot yield generated in Cell 2. Further, Administration believes that the remaining undeveloped land is likely to achieve higher lot yields based on the density coding shown in the agreed structure plans, which includes Cell 2 and the Wanneroo Town Centre.

 

Amendment 200 will provide the opportunity for Administration to determine a true rate for previous contributors and make a reconciling adjustment on the basis of equity if required. In this regard, the applicant has indicated a potential return of approximately $6 million to previous contributors and a reduced ICPL rate of approximately $15k based on an ELY of 15.

 

Whilst the City has not verified these amounts in detail, an indicative review confirms that a reduction in the ICPL rate and potential return to previous landowners would occur. In this regard, a reconciling payment would only be made if the Cell holds adequate funds to make payment, with consideration for any Cell Work commitments and prioritisation. In this regard, the current account balances is approximately $9 million and the recent Annual Review for Cell 2 identified $27 million in POS acquisition and $5 million District Distributor Road acquisition and construction is remaining.

 

Any re-imbursement or reconciling payment to previous contributors would be need to be apportioned based on the value of contributions paid by the landowner and with consideration for equity and fairness.

 

This proposed Amendment aligns with the Cell 2 DCP and State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP 3.6) and would ensure that the method for calculating future lot yields and contribution income will be transparent, fair and reasonable. Administration will continue to complete annual reviews for Cell 2 (and other Cells) and will amend cost estimates, valuations and consider relevant factors such as lot yield creation and remaining areas capable of being developed to ensure ICPL rates are set at reasonable levels to fund the remaining Cell Works.

 

Should Amendment 200 not be initiated, it is likely that Council would be required to consider other actions (such as retaining ICPL rates) through the annual review process to address the potential for over-collection of contributions and Cell closure, as is being experienced in other cells.

Administration recommends that Council supports changing the ELY from 9 lots per hectare to 15 lots per hectare. If this change does not occur the City could over collect funds, which would impact on housing affordability in this area. An estimated lot yield of 15 dwellings per hectare is considered reasonable and generally reflects what has already been delivered in this cell and is consistent with likely lot yields based on the agreed local structure plans.

 

A lower ICPL rate will still collect sufficient funds to deliver the remaining Cell Works on the basis that the higher ELY is achieved. Administration will continue to monitor and review cell costs and make recommendations through the Annual Review process to ensure this occurs. If Amendment 200 is ultimately approved by the Minister for Planning, Council will be required to consider a revised ICPL rate with consideration for a reconciling payment to previous contributors as part of the Annual Review process.

Statutory Compliance

The scheme amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

The applicant has referred to Amendment 200 as a standard amendment Pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, however it is Administrations recommendation that Council resolve that Amendment No. 200 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 be classified as a complex amendment because it is amending a development contribution area provision, as described in the regulations and would be consistent with previous decisions of Council.

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 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.

 

Whilst DCP costs will vary from time to time, significant excesses in funds should not normally occur.

 

DPS2 provides the head of power in relation to the East Wanneroo Cells and does not require excess funds to be returned until full development.

 

It is recognised that fluctuations in cell costs and contribution rates are considered a natural consequence of the annual review process, however if the annual reviews are up to date, then this will minimise any financial risk to the City.

 

Administration will ensure that a thorough review of the outstanding works estimates, consideration for financial impacts and risk levels will be undertaken to inform Council through the annual review and enable consideration of all relevant factors to ensure the DCP’s are managed in an effective and economical manner.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Huntley That Council:-   1.       PREPARES Amendment No. 200 to the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend the District Planning Scheme No. 2 by. a)      Replacing the second sentence of sub-clause 9.6.2 with the following:          This will be calculated by determining the number of hectares in the Area of a Cell and multiplying that area by 9 in the cases of Cell 1 and Cells 3 to 6, multiplying that area by 13 in the case of Cell 9, and multiplying that area by 15 in the case of Cell 2;   b)      In sub-clause 9.6.3 (a) (i), replacing the description for variable B (1) in the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot calculation with the following:           in the case of Cell 1 and Cells 3 to 6 the lots produced at the rate of 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner, in the case of Cell 9 at the rate of 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the land holding of an owner, and in the case of Cell 2 at the rate of 15 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent to the land holding of an owner; or   c)       In sub-clause 9.6.3 (a) (ii), replacing the description for variable D in the Infrastructure Cost Per Lot calculation with the following:           D = in the case of Cell 1 and Cells 3 to 6 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 9 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of a Cell, in the case of Cell 9 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 13 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of that Cell, and in the case of Cell 2 the number of lots to be produced to achieve 15 lots per hectare for the Area equivalent of the unsubdivided balance area of that Cell.   d)      Amending sub-clause 9.6.4 (a) to read as follows:        (a)     where Council identifies land as having the potential or the capability of being developed for grouped dwellings, or any other non-public purpose land uses, the Infrastructure Cost per lot will be charged on the basis that the lot has residential subdivision potential at the time it is created. This shall be calculated by Council as follows:   (i)    In the case of land in Cells 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, by dividing the total area of the lot by 450m2;               (ii)   In the case of land in Cell 2, by dividing the total area of the lot by 450m2 for land coded R20 or lower, and by 350m2 for land coded R25 or higher;   (iii)  In the case of land in Cell 9, by dividing the total area of the lot by 500m2. 2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 200 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a complex amendment because it is amending a development contribution area provisions; 3.       Pursuant to Regulation 37(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, SUBMITS two (2) copies of the Amendment No. 200 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration; 4.       Pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 REFERS Amendment No. 200 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. 200 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. 6.       NOTIFY the applicant that Council considers Amendment 200 to be a complex scheme amendment and is required to follow the process described in the  Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.     Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - East Wanneroo Cell 2 (Sinagra) Agreed Structure Plan	21/510304
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Cell 2 - Modified Amendment 200 Report	21/507578

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              40771 – 21/470272

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a proposed new Instrument of Delegation relating to operational matters associated with Developer Contribution Plans (DCP’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 to facilitate a number of improvements to the provisions relating to the management of DCP’s by the City, including replacing the term Council with Local Government in Part 9 of DPS2.

 

In this regard, numerous decisions relating to DCP management were not able to be delegated to Administration due to DPS2 referring to ‘Council’ in determining certain actions (which cannot be delegated) rather than the ‘local government’ (that can be delegated).  The consequence of this is that until the Scheme Amendment is gazetted, Council was required to make these decisions and all discretionary decisions relating to DCP’s in DPS2.

 

Administration had previously interpreted Council as being the same as the local government in making daily decisions such as quotations, tax invoices and the deferral of contributions. These actions are associated with the subdivision process and therefore require a timely determination on quotations, payment for Cell Works and deferral of contributions in accordance with the requirements of DPS2; and if these requests are not processed in a timely manner then it could lead to delays in the creation of new lots.

 

Amendment 185 (the Amendment) to DPS2 was approved by the Minister for Planning on 20 October 2021 and published in the Government Gazette on 29 October 2021 (No. 183, PL402) and as such certain operational decisions, previously a function of Council, may now be delegated to the CEO, 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.

 

Detail

 

The operational requirements are currently being reported to Council in the monthly DCP Actions Reports and are recommended for delegation.  This will ensure that all subdivision and development requirements that are time-sensitive are dealt with in a timely manner and remove the need for the monthly DCP Actions report to be presented to Council.

 

The function to be delegated primarily relate to the preparation of estimates and quotations on Infrastructure Costs (contributions payable) and payment for land and Cell Works in accordance with the requirements of DPS2.

 

In this regard, the following is proposed for delegation to the CEO, and sub-delegations to be delegated, including:

 

·    All matters which arise out of the imposition of conditions on subdivision approvals issued by the Western Australian Planning Commission and the City’s Approval to Commence Development in relation to Infrastructure Costs;

 

·    Determination of prefunding requests by a landowner/s for cell works or DCP Infrastructure defined in DPS2.

 

·    Other than compulsory taking of land, any acquisition of land identified as a Cell Work in DPS2, where the value of the land applied is calculated using the assessed valuation for a particular Cell that has been approved by Council as part of the Annual Review of costs for that Cell; and

 

·    Deferral of Infrastructure Costs in accordance with DPS2.

 

Consultation

 

All relevant internal stakeholders have been consulted.

 

Comment

 

The proposed Instrument of Delegation as set out in Attachment 1 provides for the delegation of administrative functions relating to DCP’s as part of the subdivision and development processes, which will streamline the City’s administration of DCP’s. The proposal includes a sub delegation by the CEO to the Director Planning and Sustainability.

 

It is important for Council to note that delegating a power does not transfer that power to the delegate, it merely replicates it and Council retains the ability to exercise any power or duty delegated to the CEO.

Statutory Compliance

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2 – Deemed Provision for local planning schemes

 

82.     Delegations by local government

 

1.   The local government may, by resolution, delegate to a committee or to the local government’s CEO the exercise of any of the local government’s powers or the discharge of any to the local government’s duties under this scheme other than this power of delegation.

 

2.   A resolution referred to in subclause (1) must be by absolute majority of the Council of the local government.

 

The relevant clauses under DPS2 for which delegation is being sought incudes clause 9.10, 9.12, sub clause 9.14.3(e); and clause 14 of Schedule 14. 

 

Strategic Implications

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

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

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

 

Risk Management Considerations

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

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Rowe That Council DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer the power to prepare estimates and quotations on Infrastructure Costs and contributions payable to the City of Wanneroo and payments for Cell Works in accordance with the requirements of DPS2 as set out in the instrument of delegation shown in Attachment 1.       Carried BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITy 14/0

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Attachment 1 -  Instrument of Delegation

21/470264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              2079V02 – 21/475831

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the revised Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) for Council’s consent to advertise. 

Background

The current LPP 5.3 was adopted on 9 April 2019, well before the formal release of the East Wanneroo District Structure Plan (EWDSP) in August 2021. The EWDSP sets out the long term vision for the development of over 8,300 hectares of land which will deliver approximately 50,000 homes for 150,000 residents and up to 20,000 new jobs. The EWDSP area is divided into 28 precincts, each of which will require a local structure plan to be prepared prior to subdivision and development occurring.

 

Although the EWDSP has been finalised, there are still a number of steps that need to be completed before assessment of local structure planning can commence:

 

·     Preparation of a district developer contribution plan (DCP);

·     Reservation of land under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for regional and arterial roads, a transit corridor, parks & recreation and high school reservations;

·     Lifting of urban deferment or rezoning of land to urban or industrial under the EMS and subsequent rezoning under City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). 

 

Despite the EWDSP clearly stating the district-level processes must be completed prior to formal commencement of any precinct level processes, the City is (and will continue to) receiving requests to comment on rezoning proposals under the MRS and to accept local structure plans for assessment prior to these processes being completed.

 

Now that the EWDSP has been approved, it is necessary to update the City’s LPP 5.3, to align with the EWDSP and to clearly set out the City’s approach and processes with respect to dealing with applications for local structure planning, scheme amendments, subdivision and development within the EWDSP area.

 

A copy of the current LPP 5.3 is provided as Attachment 1. A copy of the revised LPP 5.3 is provided as Attachment 2. A track changes version has not been provided due to the significant changes in formatting to the new local planning policy template.

Detail

Now that the DSP is in place, the review of LPP 5.3 has been undertaken to ensure the coordinated planning and development of the area as intended by the EWDSP is achieved. The review includes general policy provisions in relation to MRS amendments, amendments to DPS 2, applications for local structure plans, and subdivision and development applications. It also includes a general requirement for a statement of impact and sense of place statement to be prepared.

 

 

 

The following specific changes to LPP 5.3 are proposed:

 

·     Reformatting of policy to align with the City’s current local planning policy template and to improve readability;

 

·     Inclusion of policy objectives and matters to be considered when assessing applications to amend DPS 2 and proposed development;

 

·     The ‘General policy provisions’ section has been split into five sections to individually deal with proposals including:

 

o  MRS amendments (lift urban deferment or rezoning to urban/industrial);

o  Amendments to DPS 2;

o  Applications for local structure plans; and

o  Subdivision and development applications.

 

·     A new requirement for a statement of impact to be submitted by proponents for DPS 2 amendments and development applications; and

 

·     A new requirement for a Sense of Place Statement to be submitted with applications for local structure plans to ensure the EWDSP and the City’s vision for East Wanneroo is achieved.

Consultation

The advertising requirements for amending LPP 5.3 follow the same procedures as those outlined in the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Deemed Provisions) related to the procedure for making a new planning policy. Advertising is required for a minimum period of 21 days, however it is recommended that this be extended to 42 days and include:

 

·     Writing to the UDIA, Property Council and other stakeholders;

·     Holding a community drop in session(s);  

·     Publishing the draft Policy on the City’s website and making it available for viewing at the City’s Civic Centre; and

·     Placement of an advertisement in a local paper circulating the area during the consultation period.

Following advertising, a summary of any submissions received and Administration’s response to those submissions will be included in a report to Council to consider final adoption of LPP 5.3. Depending on the nature of any submissions received LPP 5.3 may proceed with or without modifications.

Comment

LPP 5.3 was prepared to provide guidance on the consideration of planning proposals (including amendments to the MRS and DPS 2, subdivision and development applications) in advance of the preparation of the EWDSP. The policy should be revised to respond to the final EWDSP and provide clarity on the City’s approach and expectations for planning proposals within the district structure plan area moving forward as part of the implementation of the EWDSP. It is vital for the City to maintain a clear and consistent approach to development in East Wanneroo. There is a risk that the City will be under pressure to accept local structure plans and/or facilitate development in a manner that does not align with the process outlined in the EWDSP. Deviating from this process could have significant consequences to the City including:

 

·    financial implications through potential underpayment of developer contributions;

·    uncoordinated development due to final reserve widths and alignments not being known; and

·    design of the precinct not having regard to regional reservations or environmental implications informed by detailed studies being undertaken through the district DCP process.

 

Maintaining a strong and consistent position adopted through this policy will ensure decisions relating to East Wanneroo are properly informed and enable good planning outcomes to occur. 

 

 Policy objectives and matters to be considered

 

The existing LPP 5.3 is based on the following overriding principle:

 

“There shall be a general presumption against subdivision and development that may detrimentally impact on the orderly and proper planning of the area, specifically prior to the finalisation of a district structure plan, a local structure plan and development contribution schemes.”

 

The revised policy replaces this overriding principle with three policy objectives to align with the City’s current local planning policy format:

 

1.    To ensure any subdivision and development within the EWDSP area will not compromise the progression of development in accordance with the EWDSP.

2.    Enable the continued lawful use of land in a manner that will not compromise development in accordance with the EWDSP.

3.    Ensure the vision of the EWDSP and the City’s Place Framework is achieved.

In addition, the revised policy includes a section on matters to be considered as part of the City’s assessment of proposals within the EWDSP area. Consideration of these matters will enable proposals to be assessed in a reasonable and pragmatic manner to ensure development will not compromise the progression of urbanisation yet avoid sterilisation of land which may not be urbanised for a number of years (Stages 2 and 3 are expected to develop from 2031 and 2051 respectively). The City will also consider requiring a separation distance between urban development and existing rural uses to avoid land use conflicts, particularly where urbanisation is occurring ahead of the staging plan outlined in the EWDSP.

 

The City’s recommended approach to planning proposals for Council’s consideration is as follows:

 

Amendments to the MRS

The revised policy states the City will not support applications to lift urban deferment or to rezone land to urban or industrial until:

 

a)      The district level developer contribution plan has substantially commenced (scheme amendment initiated by Council and public consultation commenced) to facilitate contributions for regional and district level infrastructure; and

b)      The MRS has been amended to reserve any regional reserves identified as being required by the DSP for the subject land.

This is generally consistent with the existing policy and the EWDSP.

Amendments to DPS 2

The recommended approach in the revised policy states that the City will not support amendments to DPS 2 to facilitate urban development unless the land is zoned Urban under the MRS and all requirements relating to MRS amendments have been met. The policy notes that the Western Australian Planning Commission may concurrently rezone land under DPS 2 in these circumstances.

 

In addition, the policy provides a position on how the City will deal with amendments to DPS 2 for additional uses which do not relate to urbanisation (such as for a Place of Worship or a Reception Centre). Such proposals are recommended to be considered against the policy objectives, matters to be considered, and will be required to be submitted with a statement outlining the likely impact of the amendment.

 

Local Structure Plans

As outlined under the background section above, there are a number of matters which must be completed before the City can accept local structure plans for assessment. It is imperative the district DCP has substantially commenced (scheme amendment initiated by Council and public consultation commenced) prior to formally commencing assessments to ensure certainty for contributions towards acquisition of land and construction of arterial roads, construction of district level community facilities, groundwater management systems and wetland and foreshore management plans. Lack of certainty with respect to contributions could lead to financial implications for the City, for instance this could lead to the City being responsible for any financial shortfalls if contributions are not adequate to cover the relevant infrastructure.

 

The revised policy outlines that despite the above formal processes, the City may informally consider structure plans to progress the resolution of planning issues subject to the proposal complying with the requirements of the EWDSP. However, formal assessment would only occur following significant progress of the district level planning stages.

 

In addition, the policy requires a Sense of Place Statement to be prepared by the proponent (in consultation with the City) and submitted with their local structure plan for each precinct. This statement will need to be prepared in line with the City’s overarching vision for the EWDSP area, which will be prepared and presented for consideration by Council prior to the final approval of LPP 3.5. A Sense of Place Statement template will be prepared prior to the revised policy being formally adopted. This will assist those proponents who are actively working in precincts to enable them to commence this work early in the process to ensure their structure plan design is informed by these matters rather than these matters being fitted around their structure plan design. The Policy also emphasises the City strongly encourages early pre-lodgement consultation.

 

It is likely that once the district DCP is substantially commenced, the City will receive enquiries to progress planning in some Precincts earlier than identified by the staging plan of the EWDSP. Section 6 of the EWDSP sets out the staging of development and identifies there may be situations where development may occur ahead of the intended development front. Proponents would be required to demonstrate why this should occur, that adjacent precincts will not be disadvantaged or development potential compromised, demonstrate support from service providers and pre-fund the capital costs associated with necessary infrastructure provision. Any enquiries for early staging will be dealt with following the process outlined in the EWDSP. The City must be mindful that progression of planning in this scenario could result in expectations from residents that community facilities are provided earlier than ordinarily expected. This issue can be considered on a Precinct by Precinct basis during the assessment of local structure plans.

 

 

Subdivision and development applications

It is possible the City may be asked by the DPLH to comment on subdivision referrals within the EWDSP area which do not relate to urbanisation. The revised policy outlines that the City will consider all applications for subdivision in the EWDSP area against the matters to be considered in the policy in addition to any other relevant requirements of DPS 2, a relevant state planning policy and local planning policy.

 

The current Policy provides guidance on how the City will deal with applications of a rural nature. The revised policy simply refers to development applications to recognise not all development occurring in east Wanneroo is rural in nature. All development applications will be considered having regard to their potential impact on the progression of development in accordance with the EWDSP. This includes the proximity to roads subject to future widening (for which more detailed planning is yet to occur), parklands, parkland links and future high school sites. The cumulative impact of alterations and additions will be considered against the existing impact, to determine whether the alteration and/or addition crosses a threshold that results in an undesirable impact. The policy outlines the City may consider time limitations for development applications. 

 

A number of privately owned lots have been identified as ‘Parklands (subject to confirmation)’. These sites were identified through the EWDSP as having the potential to contain high quality vegetation and threatened ecological communities. Any application for development approval prior to the local structure planning process will require a flora and fauna survey to determine the quality of the on-site vegetation. Assessment of the flora and fauna survey will be undertaken with the DPLH to determine the suitability of the land as a regional parks and recreation reserve, on a case by case basis. 

 

Statement of impact

The revised policy outlines the information to be provided in a statement by proponents, which will inform the City in its assessment of the impact of their proposal on the surrounding area and future urbanisation. The statement will trigger the minimum information required for this purpose and it may be possible additional information is necessary depending on the location and/or scale of the proposal. 

Statutory Compliance

The review of LPP 5.3 has been prepared in accordance with Division 2 – Local Planning Policies of the Deemed Provisions which outlines the procedures for how a local government may amend a local planning policy.

Strategic Implications

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

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

7.1 - Clear direction and decision making

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO-C01 Compliance Framework	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Executive Manager Governance and Legal	Manage

 

Risk Title	Risk Rating
CO O01 Relationship Management	Moderate
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Corporate Strategy and Performance	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 manage this risk to support existing management systems.

Policy Implications

The review of LPP 5.3 has been undertaken by Administration to ensure that the City achieves its strategic goals and by conforming to current statutory and legislative provisions through the use of local planning policies.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Treby That Council:- 1.       Pursuant to Division 2 – Part 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, resolves to ADOPT draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo, as contained in Attachment 2, for the purpose of advertising; 2.       ADVERTISES Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo for a period of 42 days by way of the following: a)      Writing to the UDIA, Property Council and other stakeholders; b)      Holding a community drop in session(s);   c)      Notification in a local paper circulating the area at the commencement of the advertising period; and d)      Publishing draft LPP 5.3: East Wanneroo on the City’s website and making it available for viewing at the City’s Civic Centre.     Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Local Planning Policy 5.3 East Wanneroo (Adopted)	19/144903
2⇩.	draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo	21/467166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              26223 – 21/492702

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider the City’s draft Coastal Management Plan (draft CMP) (Attachment 1) for consent to advertise.

Background

In July 2012, Council adopted the Coastal Management Plan 2012 (CMP 2012) to address issues associated with the management and use of the City’s beaches.  The CMP 2012 contained eight recommendations for the City’s investigation and action, with the intent that the outcomes of these investigations would inform a subsequent, more comprehensive CMP.

 

Preparation of the CMP was placed on hold following the gazettal of State Planning Policy 2.6: State Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6), in July 2013 which required a Coastal Hazard Risk Management & Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) to be prepared for areas affected by coastal hazards over a 100 year planning timeframe.  Council, on 21 August 2018, adopted the final CHRMAP.  Following the completion of the CHRMAP, the City progressed with the development of the draft CMP.

 

To support the preparation of the draft CMP, environmental consultants were engaged to investigate the technical elements relating to the coastline, including coastal processes; vegetation and flora; fauna and habitat; and social and cultural environment.  The outcomes of this investigation is reflected in the draft CMP.

 

Detail

 

The draft CMP provides a framework to guide the management and use of the City’s 32 km coastline, including the coastal foreshore reserve and beaches over the next 15 years.  In order to accommodate the City’s population growth, it aims to facilitate access to the beach for the City’s communities whilst ensuring that this does not detrimentally impact on the environment. 

 

The draft CMP identifies existing and proposed development along the coastline, including location of future beach access, coastal nodes and dog beaches.  In addition, it outlines how the City will manage environmental impacts such as coastal erosion and degradation of vegetation and dunes. 

 

The draft CMP has been prepared to align with the State Government’s SPP 2.6 and its State Coastal Planning Guidelines (SPP 2.6 Guidelines) and reflects the City’s strategic policies and plans including the Strategic Corporate Plan, the Local Environmental Strategy, the CHRMAP and Place Framework.

 

The draft CMP discusses the key challenges associated with managing the City’s coastline and recommends a series of actions and guidance for the management and use of the coastline under the following key themes:

 

 

 

·    Theme 1: Access and enjoyment

 

The access and enjoyment theme addresses access to the beach, existing and proposed dog beaches and the identification of dedicated swimming and water sport only areas.   This also includes the continuation of the City’s coastal dual use path network from Joondalup up to North Two Rocks.

 

·    Theme 2: Infrastructure and facilities

 

The infrastructure and facilities theme outlines a hierarchy of coastal nodes (regional, district or local), along the coastline in accordance with SPP 2.6 and as identified in structure plans, the level of infrastructure and facilities that will be provided within the coastal foreshore in line with the hierarchy, where they should be located, and their durability within a coastal environment.

 

The draft CMP also includes an action to audit coastal infrastructure to aid maintenance and management of coastal infrastructure.

 

·    Theme 3: Coastal processes

 

The CMP implements the CHRMAP by identifying where community facilities and other coastal infrastructure can be located by taking into account coastal erosion.  This section of the draft CMP considers the natural processes that affect the City’s coastline in line with the CHRMAP, and recommends actions and guidance to manage these coastal processes and limit the impact of coastal erosion in the infrastructure within the foreshore.

 

·    Theme 4: Environmental management

 

The draft CMP facilitates the protection of the natural foreshore and revegetation of degraded reserves and Bush Forever areas.  This environmental management focusses on ensuring that the community’s access to the beach and the location of infrastructure in the foreshore minimises its impact on the environment.  This also includes the City’s management responses to vegetation degradation and dune erosion, rehabilitation, pest management, controlled access, fauna protection and the digitisation of the vegetation community mapping to aid with vegetation monitoring and protection.

 

·    Theme 5: Heritage

 

The City’s foreshore area includes a number of places which hold Aboriginal or cultural heritage significance. The draft CMP identifies the general area of known sites, and recommends that the City continues its commitment to ensuring sites and places of significance are protected as development along our coastline increases.

 

Once adopted, it will inform the development of and amendments to structure plans, foreshore management plans (FMPs), asset management plans, future CHRMAPs, development applications and the City’s coastal infrastructure projects.

 

The CMP will be reviewed after 10 years or as required by Council, to ensure the management actions and guidelines remain relevant.  This review will be informed by a review of the City’s CHRMAP.

 

Consultation

 

Administration proposes to undertake an extended community consultation period of 42 days, commencing 13 December 2021.   This extended consultation period takes into account the Christmas and New Year holiday period. 

 

To enable comments and feedback on the draft CMP, community engagement initiatives will include:

·    A number of community drop-in sessions;

·    A notice on the ‘Your Say’ page;

·    A community survey;

·    Letters to relevant State agencies, developers and relevant community groups;

·    Advertising notices in a local newspaper;

·    Notice of the draft CMP in Council offices; and

·    Advertising via the City’s media and social media channels.

 

Engagement will also be undertaken with the City’s youth, in collaboration with Administration’s Community Development – Youth Services team.

 

Comment

 

As one of the fastest growing local governments in WA, the population in our coastal corridor, from Mindarie to Two Rocks, is expected to grow from 51,700 currently to 152,000 residents by 2041. As our population increases, so too will the demand to access the beach and for recreational opportunities to be provided.  At the same time, it is crucial to ensure that the provision of coastal access and infrastructure provision in the foreshore does not negatively impact on the environment.  

 

The draft CMP’s 5 themes will facilitate this as follows:

 

Theme 1: Access and enjoyment

 

·     Dual Use Path Network

 

To support the continued development of the City’s coastal dual use path network, the draft CMP provides an indicative alignment of the intended dual use path network along the coastline, from Mindarie in the south to Two Rocks in the north.  The draft CMP outlines the existing and future network, also highlighting existing sections of the network that may require upgrade during the life of the CMP.

 

This indicative alignment of the path has been informed by existing structure plans, FMPs and the Department of Transport’s Long-term Cycle Network, which received the support of the City at its May 2020 Council Meeting.

 

·     Existing dog beaches & potential extensions

 

The City currently has three dog beaches at Two Rocks, Yanchep and Quinns Rocks which provide a total of 2.2 kilometres of beach for dog exercise. Since the development of the CMP Part 1, the City has experienced a dog population growth of over 2,100 dogs per year and this strong growth is expected to be maintained into the future. 

 

Administration investigated opportunities to extend existing dog beaches, in addition to identifying new dog beaches for future development, which has been informed by:

 

o  existing and future demand;

o  accessibility (location of access points and parking);

o  impact of the extension on existing use of nearby beaches; and

o  User safety and seasonal weather patterns of beaches. 

 

 

 

Based on this, the following is recommended:

 

·      Quinns Dog Beach

 

Administration does not recommended an extension to the Quinns Dog Beach which is currently 995 metres long.  Quinns experiences the highest visitation rates of its three dog beaches, however, this could be alleviated by the extension of some dog beaches and provision of an additional dog beach(es) within the City.  The existing access arrangements for an extension to the dog beach at this location are not ideal for users.   Council previously did not support petitions requesting for the extension of the dog beach, due to community objection and potential increase in unwanted interactions between beach users.

 

·      Yanchep Dog Beach

 

Administration recommends an extension to the Yanchep dog beach a further 360 metres to the south, which would result in a dog beach with a total length of 1.1 kilometres.  This extension could be readily accommodated as there are a number of existing access paths to the beach and infrastructure such as parking, bins and drink fountains.   It is recommended that this extension be considered in the medium term (within 10 years) to align with anticipated population increase.  

 

·      Two Rocks Dog Beach

 

Administration recommends the extension of the Two Rocks dog beach which is currently 490m long, by approximately 110 metres to the south.  An extension further south is not recommended, as Two Rocks Beach is the main swimming beach for the local community, and it may result in conflict between dog walkers and other beach users, particularly users who are not comfortable around dogs that are off-leash.  It is recommend that this extension occur in the short to medium term (5-10 years).

 

New dog beaches

 

It is recommended that the draft CMP identifies four potential new dog beaches at Alkimos, Mindarie, Eglinton and North Two Rocks.

 

·      Alkimos

 

Alkimos Beach is recommended as a future dog beach location, and Administration considers Alkimos Beach to be suitable location given its expected future population and is supported by the developer.  The proposed dog beach is recommended to commence at the current (temporary) surf lifesaving club beach access to the existing beach access path located 90 metres north of the main access to the Eden Beach coastal node.  It is recommended that Alkimos dog beach have a staged approach, with the delivery of the northern portion of the dog beach being provided once the temporary surf lifesaving club has relocated further north to its permanent location. This would help ensure that the surf lifesaving activities could continue without being impacted by dog walkers.

 

·      Mindarie

 

Administration recommends Mindarie Beach as a potential dog beach, as the beach remains useable in winter and likely to reduce demand on Quinns Dog Beach by attracting residents from surrounding established suburbs.  The dog beach would provide approximately 1.1km of dog beach in this location, commencing from the access path from the new carpark at Tamala Park, south of Mindarie that is currently under construction, to the southern boundary of the City.

 

·      Eglinton and North Two Rocks

 

Although Eglinton and North Two Rocks are unlikely to be developed during the timeframe of this CMP, it is recommended that these locations be included in the CMP as potential future dog beaches subject to further investigation.  This will establish the City’s intention to provide a dog beach within Eglinton and North Two Rocks prior to residents moving to the area, helping to reduce potential objections that may occur with a new change of use or access to a beach.  The City’s investigation and delivery of these beaches would be coordinated with the increase in population in these two areas. 

 

·     Animal beach

 

Following on from the CMP 2012, the City has undertaken investigations into the potential for a horse beach within the City.  However, it has been found that a significant majority of the coastline is not suitable for horses due to submerged rocks along the shoreline making it unsafe for horse exercise, as well as a lack of appropriate beach access to support such use. 

 

Mindarie Beach was identified as being potentially suitable as it had limited submerged rocks.  However, it was found that in order to provide the access and parking sufficient for vehicles and horse floats, it would have required the removal of a significant amount of priority vegetation within the Bush Forever reserve.   Investigations determined that the detrimental environmental impacts on the Bush Forever reserve, associated with the provision of a horse beach at Mindarie, substantially outweighed the benefits gained from having a horse beach at that location. 

 

It is noted that the City of Joondalup has a horse beach (Hillarys Horse Beach) at Pinnaroo Point.  Hillarys Horse Beach is located immediately north of Hillarys Dog Beach and provides infrastructure to accommodate vehicle and float parking and turning.

 

Due to the lack of safe and useable beaches currently accessible along the City’s coastline, Administration is not recommending an animal beach to be provided within the draft CMP. 

 

·     Swimming/water sport only areas

 

The community has previously raised concerns with the City regarding the proximity of watercraft such as kite surfboards to swimmers, in particular when they have entered the swimming enclosure at Quinns Beach.

 

There is currently only one demarcated ‘water sport area’ along the City’s coastline, located off the coast of Quinns Rocks (north of the Quinns Rocks swimming enclosure), allowing both motorised and non-motorised water craft (e.g. kite surfers and jet skiers). The water sports areas would allow for the enjoyment of the coastline by kite surfers, jet skiers, paddle boarders and the like, whilst limiting conflict with other users such as swimmers.

 

To address this issue, it is recommended that a trial ‘swimming only’ beach be identified at Quinns Rocks (within the swimming enclosure) to trial the segregation of swimmers from propelled water sport activities.   The trial is recommended over the 2022/23 summer and the results will enable the City to determine whether a permanent swimming only beach is appropriate. It should be noted that the surf lifesaving activities, which currently occur within the swimming enclosure, would be able to continue unrestricted despite a ‘swimming only’ designation.

 

In addition to the designation of a ‘swimming only’ area, Administration identified potential ‘water sports areas’ along the City’s coastline.  Recommended locations for these are adjacent to coastal nodes at Mindarie, Jindalee, Alkimos, Eglinton, Yanchep and Two Rocks.

 

Theme 2: Infrastructure and Facilities

 

·     Coastal nodes hierarchy

 

It is recommended that the draft CMP applies a hierarchy for the City’s established and future coastal nodes in accordance with SPP 2.6. The application of a coastal node hierarchy only relates to development within the foreshore reserve and does not limit the extent of any development that may be provided on private land adjacent to the coast.  Applying a coastal node hierarchy provides greater certainty for developers and the community on the level of infrastructure that can be provided and maintained in a certain area. 

 

Subsequent to the finalisation of the draft CMP, the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.21 – Coastal Assets (LPP 4.21) will be reviewed to align with the CMP and outline the acceptable levels of infrastructure within coastal nodes and foreshore reserve areas.

SPP 2.6 defines a coastal node as a distinct and discrete built area within a coastal foreshore reserve, including development such beach carparks, access, parks, play equipment, cafes and surf lifesaving clubs.  The coastal node hierarchy is as follows:

 

o  A regional coastal node attracts people from the region, intrastate, national and international areas and are often larger in scale and area. They offer commercial and retail opportunities. Mindarie Marina is an example of an established regional coastal node.  Yanchep Lagoon, which is currently a district ‘beach’ in the local structure plan, is recommended to be identified as a regional coastal node by the draft CMP to be reflective of the intended level of development for Yanchep Lagoon.

 

o  A district coastal node caters mainly for visitors within the City and provide moderate levels of recreational amenities. They may offer a limited variety of commercial and retail opportunities. Shorehaven Beach is an example of an established district coastal node in the City.  Jindalee Coastal Village is identified as a regional ‘beach’ in the District Structure Plan, however, its topography, accessibility, and narrow beach depth limit the visitor capacity and level of infrastructure that can be provided. On this basis it is recommended that the draft CMP identifies this as a district coastal node.

 

o  A local coastal node classification applies to local beaches, which are generally accessed by locals. They provide basic levels of infrastructure akin with their lower levels of use. Leeman’s Landing in Two Rocks is an example of a local coastal node within the City.

 

Theme 3: Coastal processes

 

The City’s coastline is impacted by coastal processes including coastal erosion and sea wrack accumulation and the affected areas have been identified by the CHRMAP. The City already undertakes mitigation works to address these issues, including beach re-nourishment and erosion reduction measures.  In the summer of 2021/22, the City will trial the natural removal of seaweed at Leeman’s Landing; and this trial would move the seaweed from the beach by mechanically pushing the seaweed into the water during favourable tide conditions, to assist its natural dispersion and movement off-shore.

 

In line with the recommendations of the CHRMAP, the draft CMP includes a recommended action to investigate the introduction of a special control area in the City’s planning scheme over land identified as vulnerable by CHRMAP.  In addition, the draft CMP reiterates the need for development within the foreshore reserve to have due regard to the CHRMAP and setback infrastructure appropriately to minimise risk.

 

Theme 4: Environmental Management

 

In addition to continuing the City’s ongoing works to address the protection, conservation and enhancement of its natural environment, it is also recommended that the draft CMP identifies an action to investigate the digitisation of vegetation community mapping and condition monitoring.  This would enable better monitoring of vegetation composition, condition and extent over time.  This action would enable Administration to investigate the potential for this to occur, including cost and resource implications.

 

Theme 5: Heritage

 

The City has a number of heritage places located within the coastal foreshore reserves which are of Aboriginal or cultural heritage significance. Due to cultural privacy and protection, some of these locations of significance are not publicly identified. The draft CMP recommends the continued protection of the City’s Aboriginal and culturally significant sites within the coastal reserve, and advocates for their preservation, in collaboration with Federal and State agencies.

 

Statutory Compliance

 

The draft CMP has been developed in accordance with the matters outlined under SPP 2.6 and SPP 2.6 Guidelines (as amended November 2020).

Strategic Implications

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

1 ~ An inclusive and accessible City with places and spaces that embrace all

1.3 - Facilities and activities for all

 

 

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

       2.1- Valuing cultures and history

 

4 ~ A sustainable City that balances the relationship between urban growth and the environment

                   4.2 – Manage and protect local biodiversity

4.3 - Manage natural assets and resources

 

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

5.2 - Plan for and manage land use

5.3 - Manage and maintain assets

5.4 - People can move around easily

5.5 - People feel safe in public places

 

Risk Management Considerations

Risk Title	Risk Rating
ST-S06 Climate Change	High
Accountability	Action Planning Option
Director Planning and Sustainability	Manage

 

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

 

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

Policy Implications

Once the draft CMP has been completed, Administration will undertake a review of LPP 4.21 to align it with the CMP.

Financial Implications

The preparation of the draft CMP is covered by the City’s operational budget. The majority of the actions outlined within the draft CMP can be undertaken under the existing operational budgets of relevant Service Units.

 

Where implementation actions have been proposed which may have financial implications that fall outside of the City’s existing operational budgets, the timeframes of these actions have been set for the medium and long-term and can be considered at the appropriate time taking into account the City’s financial position.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Baker, Seconded Cr Wright That Council APPROVES the draft Coastal Management Plan included as Attachment 1 being released for public consultation for an extended period of no less than 42 days, with feedback to be submitted at a future Council Meeting for consideration.     Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.

Draft Coastal Management Plan

21/497837

 

 

 

Approval Services

File Ref:                                              42952 – 21/291910

Responsible Officer:                          Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider initiating Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2, to normalise the zoning of land affected by Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 (ASP 36) and Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 (ASP 48).

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 contained within 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 with subject areas becoming substantially 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’. The planning framework does not prevent a ‘partial normalising’ of structure plan areas if substantial areas are subdivided and built out, as is the case with a number of the City’s structure plans.

 

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. In this Report, Administration is requesting Council consider initiate a normalising of parts of the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas, and to amend those structure plans to exclude areas where zoning will be normalised under DPS 2.

Detail

Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2 proposes to normalise already subdivided portions of the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 (ASP 36) and Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 (ASP 48). Normalisation will include taking those zones, reserves and residential density codes set out within the structure plans, and inserting them into DPS 2. The extent of normalisation proposed for each structure plan area through Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2 is shown on the Scheme (Amendment) Maps included in Attachment 1.

Information and mapping from Administration pertaining to the structure plans subject to the partial normalisation is included in the following attachments:

·     Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 (ASP 36) – in Attachment 2; and

·     Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 (ASP 48) – in Attachment 3;

 

As discussed later in the Report, following the Minister for Planning’s approval of Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2, the WAPC will also need to undertake amendments to ASP 36 and ASP 48 to ‘exclude’ the normalised areas from those structure plans. To facilitate the structure plan amendments, Amendment No. 197 is proposed to include the following statement:

 

Upon approval of Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, the plans contained within Part 1 of City of Wanneroo’s Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 and the Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 are to be amended by the Western Australian Planning Commission to the extent shown on the Structure Plan (Amendment) Maps.

 

The Structure Plan (Amendment) Maps referred to in the above statement are included in Attachment 4 of this Report.

 

Administration considers that proposed Amendment No. 197 to DPS2 meets the following criteria for ‘Basic Amendments’ in the context of Regulation 34 of the Regulations:

 

An amendment to the scheme map that is consistent with a structure plan, activity centre plan or local development plan that has been approved under the scheme for the land to which the amendment relates if the scheme currently includes zones of all types that are outlined in the plan.

Consultation

The Regulations do not require ‘basic amendments’ to be advertised, unless the Minister for Planning directs the City to advertise pursuant to Regulation 61(1). Alternatively, should the WAPC not consider the amendment to be a ‘basic amendment’, the City may be directed to advertise the amendment as a ‘standard amendment’ or ‘complex amendment’ as the case may require. If the proposed DPS2 amendment is presented and initiated by Council, the amendment will need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to Sections 81 and 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

The Deemed Provisions do not outline a procedure to undertake consultation regarding the WAPC’s amendment to ASP 36 and ASP 48 required after the Minister for Planning’s approval of Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2. Administration considers that advertising the proposed amendments to the structure plans is not necessary in any case, as the amendments will not materially change development potential of the affected lots.

Comment

Administration has identified that subdivision has been completed on substantial portions of land within the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas; and as such, a partial normalisation of those structure plans can occur.

 

Although there is no urgency to commence the partial normalisation of ASP 36 and ASP 48, Administration has proceeded to undertake this work for the following reasons:

 

·        There are numerous other structure plans that require a partial or complete normalisation of zonings, but contain significant built form variations to the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Administration is deferring considerations to normalise those structure plans whilst the DPLH undertakes a major review of low and medium density standards of the R-Codes. The R-Codes review impacts on how those structure plans will be normalised.

 

·        Although there are vacant land parcels in the portions of the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas to be normalised, there are adequate controls through DPS 2 and the Residential Design Codes to guide any remaining development. Development on the remaining lots in these areas can occur without the need for a structure plan, as discussed below.

 

Normalising portions of the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas provides an opportunity to gain a better understanding on how partial normalisation of structure plans will be processed by the WAPC; in advance of more complex partial structure plan normalisation amendments to DPS 2 that the City will need to prepare in the future.

 

Normalisation of Portion of ASP 36 Area – Status and Consequence

 

ASP 36 effects over 74 hectares of land in Jindalee and Quinns Rocks. Amendment No. 197 proposes to normalise the zoning of a substantial portion of the ASP 36 area (61 hectares) which has been subdivided and largely built out.

 

Normalisation of established residential areas through Amendment No. 197 will be given a ‘Residential’ zoning under DPS 2, with density codings that align with those in ASP 36. Normalisation will also affect public open space, drainage and utility reserves; with Amendment No. 197 proposing to impose local scheme reserves for the purpose of ‘parks and recreation’ (over public open space areas) and ‘public use’ (over drainage and utility sites).

 

There are approximately 650 dwelling lots located within the portion of ASP 36 to be normalised; of which only approximately 20 lots within this area remain vacant. All the vacant lots are owned by individuals and not the developer.

 

The only structure plan provisions that can be applied to the vacant lots are those contained in the R-Code Variation Table (Table A of ASP 36). Table A is encompassed within Attachment 2. The need for development approval is typically the case when variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions to the R-Codes are sought; and Table A provides for variations to the R-Codes that can be applied without the need for development approval.

 

Table A would cease to have effect for the vacant lots in the portion of the ASP 36 area that becomes normalised.  However, the R-Codes do provide for design principles that allow the standard deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes to be varied (on merit) in a manner consistent with the provisions of Table A or otherwise.

 

Therefore, the only consequence in normalising the subject portion of ASP 36 would be that a small number of vacant lot owners would need to seek development approval where they seek to vary the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. This is the same as is required for other landowners located in most residential areas outside the ASP 36 area.

 

Normalisation of Portion of ASP 48 Area – Status and Consequence

 

ASP 48 affects over 68 hectares of land in Two Rocks. Amendment No. 197 proposes to normalise approximately 21 hectares of the ASP 48 area which has been subdivided and partly built out.

 

The lots which are to be normalised have a Residential and Mixed Use zoning designation (with various density codings) under ASP 48, which will likewise be imposed in DPS 2 through Amendment No. 197. Normalisation will also affect public open space, drainage and utility reserves; with Amendment No. 197 proposing to impose local scheme reserves for the purpose of ‘parks and recreation’ (over public open space areas) and ‘public use’ (over drainage and utility sites).

 

There are approximately 230 lots located within the portion of ASP 36 to be normalised, of which approximately 70 remain vacant. Approximately ten of the vacant lots remain in the ownership of the developer.

 

ASP 48 offers no specific development provisions for further development of these lots. By ASP 48 being silent on development provisions, other documents in the Planning Framework (including DPS 2, the R-Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.27: Mixed Use Zones) are then relied upon to guide future development of these lots; should the subject lots become normalised. 

 

Amendments to ASP 36 and ASP 48

 

The Regulations (Regulation 35A) make provision for when an amendment to a local planning scheme affects a structure plan area, the amendment includes either of the statements, 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.

 

Normalising the zoning of parts of the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas would make those structure plans redundant for those areas. As a result, a corresponding amendment to ASP 36 and ASP 48 will need to be undertaken, to recognise the normalisation of the respective parts of ASP 36 and ASP 48. The extent of amendments proposed will be to the structure plan maps, as outlined in the Structure Plan (Amendment) Maps prepared and provided in Attachment 4. Administration is therefore proposing that Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2 include a statement in accordance with Regulation 35A(b) of the Regulations that the structure plans will be amended. The amendment will then be undertaken by the WAPC pursuant to Clause 29A(2) of the Deemed Provisions.

Statutory Compliance

Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2 is being prepared to facilitate normalisation of substantial parts of the Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 and Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 areas, as the structure plans have served their purpose for these areas. Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2, can be 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. 197 to DPS 2, amendments to Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 and Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 will then occur pursuant to Clause 29A(2) 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’s Structure Plan Framework document acknowledges how structure plans are prepared with the view to future incorporation into a local planning scheme. What is proposed ‘incorporates’ part of the ASP 36 and ASP 48 areas into DPS 2.

Financial Implications

The financial implications of preparing Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2, and assisting the WAPC in its undertaking of amendments to ASP 36 and ASP 48, can be met from the current Planning and Sustainability operational budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Moved Cr Parker, Seconded Cr Baker That Council:-   1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, PREPARES Amendment No. 197 to City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, to amend the local planning scheme by:   a)      Rezoning various residential lots and adjoining road reserves located within the City of Wanneroo’s Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 from ‘Urban Development’ to ‘Residential’ (with residential density codings of R20, R30 and R40), as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 1 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report) and as consistent with that structure plan;   b)      Rezoning portion of Lot 15167 (30P) Rupara Circle, Quinns Rocks (on DP: 37480) from ‘Urban Development’ to ‘Residential (R20)’, as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 1 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report);   c)      Reclassifying the following land parcels from the ‘Urban Development’ zone to ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Parks & Recreation’:   ·        Lot 8014 (20) Windjammer Parkway, Jindalee (on DP: 56907); ·        Lot 8015 (18) Watersun Gardens, Jindalee (on DP 50638); ·        Lot 15528 (19) Brigantine Drive, Jindalee (on DP: 40501); ·        Lot 15529 (8) Portsmouth Street, Jindalee (on DP: 40501); ·        Lot 8004 (15) Forecastle Avenue, Jindalee (on DP: 64298); and ·        Lot 8001 (61K) Maritime Drive, Jindalee (on DP: 404198),   as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 1 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report);   d)      Reclassifying the following land parcels from the ‘Urban Development’ zone to ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Use’:   ·        Lot 8006 (46) Masthead Close, Jindalee (on DP: 46267); ·        Lot 14874 (1) Hampshire Drive, Quinns Rocks (on DP: 35178); and ·        Lot 14854 (1P) Hampshire Drive, Quinns Rocks (on DP: 35178),   as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 1 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report);   e)      Rezoning various residential lots and adjoining road reserves located within the City of Wanneroo’s Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 from ‘Urban Development’ to ‘Residential’ (with residential density codings of R20, R25 and R30), as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 2 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report) and as consistent with that structure plan;   f)       Rezoning the following lots from ‘Urban Development’ to ‘Mixed Use (R40)’:   ·        Lot 719 (67) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013); ·        Lot 720 (69) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013); ·        Lot 721 (71) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013); ·        Lot 722 (73) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013); and ·        Lot 723 (75) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013),   as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 2 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report);   g)      Reclassifying the following land parcels from the ‘Urban Development’ zone to ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Parks & Recreation’:   ·        Portion Lot 500 (25) Ashmore Avenue, Two Rocks (on DP: 54122); ·        Lot 1005 (49) Fawkner Road, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013); ·        Lot 1002 (18) Wistari Circle, Two Rocks (on DP: 45227); and ·        Lot 1001 (8) Montebello Boulevard, Two Rocks (on DP: 45225),   as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 2 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report)   h)      Reclassifying Lot 1010 (8) Abrolhos Close, Two Rocks (on DP: 45225) and Lot 1013 (85) Ashmore Avenue, Two Rocks (on DP: 52013) from the ‘Urban Development’ zone to ‘Local Scheme Reserve – Public Use’, as shown on Scheme (Amendment) Map 2 (included as Attachment 1 of this Report);   2.       Pursuant to Regulation 35A(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 include the following statement:   Upon approval of Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2, the plans contained within Part 1 of City of Wanneroo’s Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 and the Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48 are to be amended by the Western Australian Planning Commission to the extent shown on the Structure Plan (Amendment) Maps (refer Attachment 4 of the Report);   3.       Pursuant to Regulation 34 and Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a basic amendment for the following reason:   An amendment to the scheme map that is consistent with a structure plan, activity centre plan or local development plan that has been approved under the scheme for the land to which the amendment relates if the scheme currently includes zones of all types that are outlined in the plan;   4.       Pursuant to Section 81 and Section 82 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, REFERS Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority;   5.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 documents in accordance with the City’s Execution of Documents Policy;   6.       Pursuant to Regulation 58 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, PROVIDES Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and   7.       REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission amend the City of Wanneroo’s Lot 12 Jindalee Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 36 and Lot 501 Two Rocks Road, Two Rocks Agreed Local Structure Plan No. 48, to the extent outlined in Resolution Item (2) and pursuant to Schedule 2, Clause 29A(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; after the Minister for Planning (or their delegate) approves Amendment No. 197 to District Planning Scheme No. 2.   Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1⇩.	Attachment 1 - Scheme (Amendment) Maps - Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2	21/464162	Minuted
2⇩.	Attachment 2 - Structure Plan Extracts and Other Information - ASP 36	21/365653
3⇩.	Attachment 3 - Structure Plan Extracts and Other Information - ASP 48	21/365871
4⇩.	Attachment 4 - Structure Plan (Amendment) Maps - Attachment to Council Report - To Support Amendment No. 197 to DPS 2	21/464394	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assets

Strategic Asset Management

AS01-12/02 moved to page 30

 

AS02-12/21 moved to page 24

Infrastructure Capital Works

AS03-12/21 moved to page 38

 

File Ref:                                              23757V02 – 21/497553

Responsible Officer:                          Director Assets

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the decline of tenders received for Tender No. 21173 for the provision of major works for the construction of two sports pavilions and a storage shed for the City of Wanneroo at Halesworth Park, Butler - refer Attachment 1.

Background

The project is listed in the 2021/22 Capital Works Program to construct the following three buildings at Halesworth Park, Butler:

 

a)  Sports Pavilion; inclusive of change rooms, toilets, showers, umpires rooms, first aid rooms, store rooms, two kitchen/kiosks, bin store, comms rooms, cleaners room, UATs and UA Showers, multi-use corridor/meeting rooms/pre-function area, and two multipurpose rooms.  Building inclusive of all necessary services, air conditioning, security and CCTV, Communications and AV systems.  Provision of soft and hard landscaping infill is also required to tie into existing surrounding area. Relocation of temporary storage units, toilets and removal of services;

 

b)  Court Pavilion; inclusive of change rooms, toilets, showers, umpires room, match office, first aid room, store rooms, kitchen/kiosks, bin store, comms rooms, cleaners room, UATs, and multipurpose room. Building inclusive of all necessary services, air conditioning, security and CCTV, Communications and AV systems.   Provision of soft and hard landscaping infill is also required to tie into existing surrounding area; and

 

c)  Store Shed (for Little Athletics); Building inclusive of all necessary services, and tie in to CCTV.

 

Detail

Tender No. 21173 for Construction of Sports Pavilions at Halesworth Park, Butler, was advertised on 21 August 2021 and closed on 20 September 2021.

 

The Tender included provisions for undertaking construction of the buildings as Separable Portions (as advised in the Contract):

·    Separable Portion SP1; Building A & C – Main Pavilion & Store Shed

·    Separable Portion SP2; Building B – Court Pavilion

·    Separable Portion SP3; Building A, B & C – Main Pavilion & Court Pavilion, Store Shed

 

Essential details of the proposed contract are as follows:

 

Item	Detail
Contract Form	Major Works AS4000
Contract Type	Lump Sum
Contract Duration	15 months
Commencement Date (Subject to Tender Award)	2 weeks after receipt of Letter of Award
Date for Practical Completion	Separable Portion SP1; Building A & C – Main Pavilion & Store Shed delivered within 15 months after award
	Separable Portion SP2; Building B – Court Pavilion delivered within 15 months after award
	Separable Portion SP3; Building A, B & C – Main Pavilion, Court Pavilion & Store Shed delivered within 15 months after award
Defects Liability Period	+12 months (for each building)
Completion Date	16 March 2024
Extension Permitted	No
Rise and Fall	Not applicable

 

Four entities attended a Pre-Tender Briefing Session held on site on 25 August 2021.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following two companies:

 

 

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel TEP) comprised:

·    Senior Project Manager (Chair) - Infrastructure Capital Works

·    Building Projects Officer – Infrastructure Capital Works

·    Project Manager – Infrastructure Capital Works

·    Planning Officer – Community Facilities

·    Occupational Safety & Health Officer – People and Culture.

·    Architect – Bollig Design Group (non-voting)

Probity Oversight

Oversight to the tender assessment process was undertaken by William Buck Consulting (WA) Pty Ltd and in conjunction with the City’s Contracts Officer.

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

 

Pricing was not included in the qualitative criteria but formed part of the overall Value for Money (VFM) assessment for the project.

 

*Tenderers must achieve a minimum acceptable qualitative score (as determined by the City) for each of the mandatory qualitative criteria detailed above to progress for further evaluation.

 

Overall Value for Money Assessment and Comment

The Tender Evaluation Panel considered that:

·    As a result of only two tenderers submitting prices, this has compromised the competitive tender environment;

 

·    Both tender price submissions received for this project are significantly higher than the project budget allocations; and

 

·      The two price submissions do not represent an acceptable value for money outcome for the City regardless of any qualitative assessment undertaken and that both tender submissions be declined.

Comment

Only two tenderers submitted prices, which has compromised the competitive tender environment.  Both tender price submissions received for this project are more than the remaining project budget available, and do not represent an acceptable Value for Money outcome for the City.  This was confirmed by Borrell Rafferty (The Project Cost Consultant) in this financial assessment of each submission.

 

As both tender price submissions do not represent an acceptable value for money outcome for the City; it is proposed that Council declines all tenders received.

 

Administration is reviewing the options that may be available to progress this project, which may include project scope review, detailed design review by the architects, value engineering options, estimated cost reviews by QS and feedback from tenderers. A further procurement process for the construction of these pavilions will be undertaken later in 2022 following the completion of the options review.

 

The delay in the construction of these pavilions is likely to have an impact on the user groups identified to use these facilities. Further consultations will be held with the relevant user groups and other stakeholders to identify suitable options; such as short-term temporary accommodation or changes at other local facilities; that may be implemented to support their activities.

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:

1 ~ An inclusive and accessible City with places and spaces that embrace all

1.3 - Facilities and activities for all

Policy Implications

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

Financial (Budget) Implications

Both tender price submissions received for this project are at least 50% more than the project budget and do not represent an acceptable value for money outcome for the City. The submitted tender pricing reflects general price increases of +30% to +40% currently seen within the construction industry. The confidential Attachment 2 provides further details of submitted pricing received for both tenderers compared against the overall project budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Moved Cr Rowe, Seconded Cr Cvitan 1.       That Council DECLINES all tenders received for Tender No. 21173, for the provision of Major Works for Construction of Sports Pavilions at Halesworth Park; and 2.       NOTES that Administration will review the impact of the delay in delivering the Sports and Court Pavilions at Halesworth Park, Butler; and identify alternative measures and implement a stakeholder management plan.  Carried Unanimously

 

Attachments:

1.	RFT21173 PMO16061 - Construction of Sports Pavilion, Halesworth Park, Butler - Confidential Attachment 1	Confidential
2⇩.	Site Map Pavilions at Halesworth Park Butler - Attachment 2	21/514904

 

 

 

 Attachment 1 –           RFT21173 PMO16061 - Construction of Sports Pavilion, Halesworth  Park, Butler - Confidential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administration Use Only

Attachment 1 – Confidential