PQ01-03/26         M Curruthers, Tapping

AS03-02/26 Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Stage 1 - Local Government Act Section 3.59 Business Plan - Advertising Outcomes

Questions Taken on Notice at 24 February 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting:

1.          The agenda state that Business Plan was advertised for a period of 46 days from 30 October 2025 to 17 December 2025 including: An advertisement in the West Australian (Thursday 30 October 2025); An advertisement in Perth Now (Wanneroo - Thursday 30 October 2025); Public Notice Section on the City's website; and Public Noticeboards at all City Libraries and Civic Centre I am not sure how many rate payers spend time looking at these sites for advertising on business plans. I have better things to do with my time. My wife and I live in Tapping and only became aware of the project when we received a letter date 4th Feb 2026. Why was a letter not sent out back in October advising us of the business plan?

2.          Was the letter just an afterthought to try and appease those against? This stinks of bureaucratic BS given the nature of the project.

Response by Director Assets

1.          The Business plan for the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Masterplan was advertised as specified under section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995.

2.          The letter of 4 February 2026 was provided in response to request from the community at the public information session on 3 December 2025.

PQ02-03/26         D Owen, Carramar

AS03-02/26 Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Stage 1

Question Taken on Notice at 24 February 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting:

Enviro impact on houses 5km away Why have the council been underhanded in letting public know about this How much extra money really would it be to transfer to an already built waste facility why take it to Kwinana and not like Stirling council or somewhere closer Why pick that site and not another site further away from homes Why aren't you listening to the people who voted you in Why are you saying its only a transfer station when there is plans already for further development of the site.

Response by Director Assets

Stage 1 of the NRRP Masterplan provides a Waste Transfer Station, Community Recycling Centre and Material Recovery Facility.  The Master Plan sets aside a suitable area at the NRRP for the potential delivery of a Waste to Energy (WtE) plant in the future, if deemed suitable and viable, and subject to authority and council approvals. This is likely to be up to 20 years away, and at that time, the latest technology, safety standards and approvals would be applied to its design and operation.

PQ03-03/26         C Chapman, Quinns Rocks

AS03-02/26 Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Stage 1

Questions Taken on Notice at 24 February 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting:

1.          Has a full independent Human Health Risk Assessment been conducted for residents within 2-5km of the site been undertaken including impact to the surrounding agriculture where food is grown?

2.          Will council commit to commissioning one before Proceeding. What international precedents support 1.6 km separation from residential housing for a facility of this scale?

3.          What buffer does Kwinana have to nearest residential zoning?

4.          Kwinana commissioning coincided with documented odour complaints and public concern. Even if emissions remain within limits, amenity impact is real. What assurance can be given that Neerabup residents will not experience similar impacts?

5.          Should continued monitoring of odours and pollutants not be considered?

6.          As they are not at Kwinana Why have you not considered other sites that can accommodate future stages or even a fully recycling facility like internationally that eliminates emissions?

Response by Director Assets

1.         A Human Health Risk Assessment is not required for the Stage 1 facilities at NRRP. Any future stages of the NRRP will be undertaken with any necessary studies and assessments as required by the appropriate governing agency.

2.         The NRRP is located 1.8 km from the nearest residential area, well beyond the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommended separation distance of 200m for waste transfer stations. This is also significantly greater than similar facilities operating across the Perth metropolitan area, which have not caused undue impacts on surrounding communities.

3.         The nearest residential zoning to the Kwinana Waste to Energy (WtE) plant is 3km, noting that NRRP Stage 1 does not include a WtE plant.

4.         Any future stages of the NRRP will be undertaken with any necessary studies and assessments as required by the appropriate governing agency.

5.         Any future stages of the NRRP will be undertaken with any necessary studies and assessments as required by the appropriate governing agency, including continued monitoring.

6.         The City is committed to effective recycling of waste; however non-recyclable residual waste requires to be managed/disposed. The City will always seek to minimise the level of residual waste where possible.

PQ04-03/26         Juan, Carramar

AS03-02/26 Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Stage 1

Question Taken on Notice at 24 February 2026 Ordinary Council Meeting:

Why is the COW council members not finding a different location for the tip away from homes. The people that have purchase homes that will be affected may have the property value drop.

This is a similar situation like the overpass where the council did not listen to the people directly affected. The people affected by the tip waste smell and pollutants would be looking at seeking legal action against the council and councillors. Are they prepared for that.

Response by Director Assets

The NRRP is located 1.8 km from the nearest residential area, well beyond the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) and Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recommended separation distance of 200m for waste transfer stations. This is also significantly greater than similar facilities operating across the Perth metropolitan area, which have not caused undue impacts on surrounding communities.

PQ05-03/26         A Weatherill, Tapping

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026

Question received in writing:

1.       My question is regarding the City of Wanneroo website update titled "DWER Works Approval - Public Comment" dated 5 March 2026 for the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct (NRRP). The update states that public comment on the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) Works Approval application for Stage 1 of the project will open Monday 9 March 2026 and remain open for 28 days. However, the DWER listing for Works Approval W3210/2026/1 relating to the Waste Transfer Station (WTS) and Community Recycling Centre (CRC) at Lot 600, 570 Wattle Avenue, Neerabup currently shows a public comment closing date of 27 March 2026. Based on the information published on the City's website, residents would reasonably expect the submission period to run until approximately 6 April 2026. The closing date displayed on the DWER page suggests a significantly shorter timeframe. In addition, the DWER application and supporting documents appear to have already been publicly available prior to the date stated by the City as the start of the consultation period. Given the level of community interest in the NRRP project, it is important that residents are provided with accurate information about the timeframe available for submissions. Could you please clarify the following: The actual opening date of the DWER consultation period for Works Approval W3210/2026/1? Whether the closing date of 27 March 2026 is correct? Why the City's website states the consultation period will run for 28 days from 9 March 2026? Whether the City intends to update its NRRP project page to reflect the correct submission deadline? Clear and accurate information is critical to ensuring the community is able to participate meaningfully in the regulatory consultation process.

Response by Director Assets

The Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) has confirmed that the official advertising period is 9 March – 30 March 2026.

The City was initially advised of an incorrect timeframe; however, this has now been rectified. Both the City’s website and the DWER website now reflect the correct dates.

While the City was originally informed that the DWER consultation period was 28 days, DWER has confirmed that the standard consultation period for this type of application is 21 days. Community members may still request an extension directly through DWER, should they require additional time to provide feedback.

Please note that the previously referenced 27 March closing date was incorrect — the correct closing date is 30 March 2026.

AS01-03/26 Ashby Operations Centre Master Plan

Question received in writing:

2.       The Ashby Operations Centre report confirms the City has commissioned four separate consultant reports on the future of the depot since 2019 - from Dave Lanfear, Pracsys, Hunt Architects and ACIL Allen - at a total cost of $174,500. The preferred recommendation is to remain at the current Ashby site and invest $43 million over the next 20 years. Given that residents have faced consecutive rate increases, can the Mayor advise whether Council has considered whether any future proceeds from the disposal of City-owned land - including the Ashby site under Scenario 2 or the Neerabup freehold land - could be used to provide rate relief to ratepayers, rather than being reinvested entirely into new infrastructure? And can the Mayor advise whether $174,500 in consultant fees to reach the conclusion of staying at the existing site represents value for money?

Response by Director Assets

The allocation of any future revenue sources will be the decisions of the Council as part of the annual budget consideration/adoption. The consultants have provided specialist professional reports and advice which enables Council’s informed consideration of this matter involving significant investment. It is noted that the consultants were engaged to prepare reports on the Ashby Operations Centre Master Plan after following the City’s Purchasing Policy and value for money was a key consideration in their engagement.

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - Decision 4.5 – Long Term Financial Plan

Question received in writing:

3.       Residents voted 21-0 to rescind the Long-Term Financial Plan adopted in December 2025 on the basis that the community had not been adequately consulted. Administration is recommending Council does not support this, saying the LTFP will be reviewed annually. The LTFP includes $28.5 million for the Ashby Operations Centre and significant funding for the NRRP, yet neither of these figures was subject to dedicated community consultation before adoption. Can the Mayor advise what specific engagement was conducted with residents before the December 2025 LTFP was adopted and at what point in that process were residents informed of the NRRP related costs included within it?

Response by Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

The Long-Term Financial Plan 2026/2027 – 2035/2036 (LTFP) captures all forecast capital works for next 10 years through various informing plans which have been developed through community consultations and forecast population growth within the City.  Further, the LTFP was adopted after a thorough consultation process with Council Members who represent community aspirations and needs.

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - Decision 4.3 - Circular Economy and the Incinerator

Question received in writing:

4.       Residents voted 24-1 that any waste management solution must be part of the circular economy and must not include a waste-to-energy incinerator or similar technology. Administration's recommended response states the City "would be remiss in excluding any future options at this stage." Can the Mayor clarify whether tonight's vote on Decision 4.3 will constitute a binding commitment by Council not to progress waste-to-energy incineration at the NRRP or whether administration's recommendation effectively preserves the City's ability to pursue an incinerator in future stages regardless of what electors voted for?

Response by Director Assets

The recommendation to decision 4 .3 in report CE06-03/26 supports the commitment to a circular economy but preserves the right of the City to pursue waste management options in future stages of the NRRP subject to the appropriate engagements and approvals.

4.2 Quarterly Strategic Report

Question received in writing:

5.       The report states that Tamala Park landfill is expected to close within the next 2 to 5 years. I am asking Administration to provide a specific verbal answer tonight about what formal contingency planning has been completed if approvals, procurement or construction at Neerabup are delayed, challenged or do not proceed as currently expected. I am not seeking to be directed to a future report or review, I am asking what contingency plan exists right now?

Response by Director Assets

Should Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct stage 1 approvals, procurement or construction be not completed prior to the closure of Tamala Park Landfill facility, the City will use the Wangara Waste Transfer Station to transport the red bin (residual) waste to an appropriate facility.

PQ06-03/26         M Caiacob, Tapping

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026

Questions received in writing:

1.       4.19 Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 Decision 4.4 - Inquiry into the NRRP. If the Administration , Which has not responded to Decision 4.4 Inquiry into NRRP in this agenda, has conflicts of Interest, has avoided addressing the issue as the public are not interested in whether the Administration thinks it has followed Due Process, or whether DWER will assess the Clearing or Works permits which do not hold this administration to account for its Planning or Processes pathways. And again talks of Stage 1, when Cr Seif has correctly clearly stated you have only consulted on the Master Plan and not stage 1, has nothing to conceal, hide or be ashamed of and has followed Due, open and accountable processes, applied relevant policies and dealt with the community in an acceptable manner why does it not approve of an investigation to clear the air, prove the waste to energy incinerator is not harmful to humans or environment and provide Council a guarantee of success?

Response by Director Assets

Any future investigations into the future stages of the NRRP will be costed and undertaken at the appropriate time will involve industry best practices and knowledge to inform Council decisions.

2.       Why has the Administration avoided answering my questions 1 & 2 from the 24th Feb Meeting regarding separation distances of Waste to Energy Incinerators to sensitive land uses Active State Policy 4.1 and states Guidance Paper 3, When previously questioned this Administration relied only on the 2013 EPA report 1468. Avoiding using and not paid DUE REGARD to Active State Policy 4.1, Guidance Paper 3 and the Waste Authority Planning and Approvals Background paper - Waste facilities and the Western Australian Planning System 2013?

Response by Director Assets

Response to question PQ04-02/26 1 & 2 are provided in the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 February 2026.

3.       After refusing a presentation from Zero Waste Australia, Has the City provided Councillors, as part of a balanced reporting system and process, with any health information, reports, papers, presentations or other advice from health professionals such as; Chief Medical Officer, Principle Allied Health Advisors, Public Health Adviser or Officer, Health and Social Policy Advisor, Health Consultants or Specialists? Please respond with specifics ie Traceable references and links.

Response by Director Assets

Any future investigations into the future stages of the NRRP will be costed and undertaken at the appropriate time will involve industry best practices and knowledge to inform Council decisions

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026

Question received in writing:

4.       In regards to the AGM motion for Investigation into NRRP. Advice to Councillors from the Administration is for DWER to assess the Citys actions!!!!! Why are the Administration and Officers advising the Councillors that 1x DWER assessment is sufficient when the AGM Inquiry motion calls for inquiry into ALL aspects of the NRRP. This was voted for and approved by the ratepayers at the AGM 2026? Will the Councillors approve the motion for Inquiry into the NRRP and support the ratepayers?

Approved response by Director Assets

Council will consider the report presented on the AGM motions and make decisions on any motion as it deems appropriate

5.       In response to Ms I. Martin’s question No 4 from PQ2-12/25 - 16 dec 2025 - and the AGM motion for an Inquiry into the NRRP. The Director Assets stated that " the NRRP Buffer Zone Area which I understand was provided by DWER" !!!!! Could I please have a clear, concise and exact answer to;

a)         Why, The Officers think DWER is to provide planning advice on Buffer Zones?

b)         What, was the exact advice and reasoning provided by DWER? (DWER Reference Number please.)

c)         Why was the City’s paid Consultant providing advice on the same planning issues?

d)         What were the exact reason(s) the City Officers mailed out community engagement letter to 5Kms whilst claiming 1.8kms was the required buffer?

e)         Why does the Director Assets claim in the provided answer of 16 Dec 2025, that the buffer is 1.8Kms when Talis state 1km on page XIV clause 4.8?

f)          How did the City’s Consultants arrive at a 1Km buffer when the Report relied upon (EPA Report 1468.) contains no distances only vague locality and zone siting?

g)         Why the Talis Report does not detail or make detailed mention or assessment of the Active State Policy 4.1 Industrial Interface - Buffers, the assisting Fact Sheet or Guidance Paper 3 to policy 4.1, when a 3 to 5kms buffer is required by law?

h)         Why do the City Officers believe (Exact reasons please) that an inquiry into the NRRP is not warranted, when there was a clear determination by the Ratepayers that the investigation is warranted including separation distances?

i)          Why the questions asked over the NRRP are the same line of questioning some Councillors are now asking over projects such as Scenic Park, Alkimos board walk, Ashby Depot etc?

j)          Why is the reasoning provided by the Administration in respect to the Inquiry into the NRRP non sensical, as the requested inquiry has nothing to do with DWER nor its environmental assessments but the City’s and Officers Actions? Please Councillors vote for an Inquiry to satisfy yourselves and your communities.

Response by Director Assets

a)         The City has utilised the EPA Guidance Statement 3 which specifies the separation distances between sensitive receptors (households, schools, etc) and various industrial facilities including waste facilities. DWER’s assessment of buffer distances is based on the EPA Guidance Statement 3 which is its common approach for its various regulator assessments.

b)         The City through the engagement of Talis discussed separation distance with the DWER during the Scoping Meeting with the DWER for the NRRP Stage 1 infrastructure (which is the only application that the DWER is currently assessing on this project).

c)          Talis has significant experience in the delivery of waste infrastructure including securing relevant approvals. 

d)         The 5km radius was in response to a request made by the community at the NRRP information session on 3 December 2025.

e)         The 1.8km buffer is the actual measurement to the nearest residential zone. Whereas the 1km stated by Talis is to the nearest single residence to the north of the site.

f)           Talis applied a 1km separation distance from the proposed WtE as per the EPA Guidance Statement 3.    

g)         Talis has significant experience in the delivery of waste infrastructure including securing relevant approvals.  The EPA Guidance Statement 3 is the document utilise as part of assessment for various waste infrastructure through the various environmental approvals.  Section 3.2 the EPA Guidance Statement 3 discusses its relationship with the Industrial Buffers policy.

h)         Any funding opportunities and certification for future stages of the NRRP will be investigated at the appropriate time as the project develops. 

i)           Council Members can ask questions and seek information before making an informed decision on any matter before Council.

j)           Any funding opportunities and certification for future stages of the NRRP will be investigated at the appropriate time as the project develops. ase refer to the response in CE06-03/26.

6.       Is the City of Wanneroo expecting any, (Green, Renewable or other), certification, accreditations or grants for; Renewable Electricity Guarantee of Origin (REGO) Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) Or similar For the NRRP.

Response by Director Assets

Any funding opportunities and certification for future stages of the NRRP will be investigated at the appropriate time as the project develops.

PQ07-03/26         N Herridge, Lansdale

Financial Activity Statement for Period Ended 31 January 2026

Questions received in writing:

1.          Can the delay of the Driver Road, Darch New Public Open Space be explained please. Is this delay due to the City of Wanneroo or the developer and why? Being this was an adopted recommendation of council in August 2025 are there any assurances for locals being put in place to ensure the development of the POS is done in a timely manner as expressed at the time from the Developer.

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

At its meeting held in June 2025 Council supported an initiative whereby the City and the developer will co-contribute to the development of the Darch Sports Public Open Space and that a Deed of Agreement underpin this process.

There has been ongoing communication between the City and the developer to progress the Deed of Agreement. Finalisation of the Deed is required prior to a contract being awarded and the works being undertaken.

Based on current status of discussions, it is expected that works will commence early in the 2026/27 financial year with exact timeframes and milestones to be confirmed once the contract is awarded.

2.          Is the additional funding allocated to the "Mirrabooka Rd roundabouts" inclusive of the Hepburn Avenue & Kingsway roundabouts?

Response by Director Assets

The additional funding allocated to the Mirrabooka Avenue roundabouts is inclusive of the Hepburn Avenue and Kingsway roundabouts. The additional funding relates to landscaping works at three roundabouts:

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Kingsway

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Hepburn Avenue

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Koondoola Avenue

The requested additional funds relate to landscaping works are higher due to the requirement for works to be undertaken at night given the high traffic volumes. Ensuring safety of workers and road users during construction.

3.          Can the City please confirm that the white line markings for the Kingsway intersection roundabout will be done as a priority due to locals concern that the new construction has created a smaller width of exit from the roundabout on the southern side?

Response by Director Assets

Temporary line marking has been installed to ensure road safety and clarity post construction.

Main Roads WA (MRWA) has been formally advised that the site is ready for road marking works. At the City’s request, MRWA is scheduling these works as a priority.

4.          Can a Councillor aide in the assistance of the technical design of an operational capital works project such as the Kingsway/Mirrabooka Rd roundabout?

Response by Director Assets

Council Members and residents may provide feedback through the community engagement process. The design of the civil construction projects like Kingsway/Mirrabooka Rd roundabout is undertaken by qualified professional Civil Designers in accordance with Australian standards.

5.          Can the delay of the Driver Road, Darch New Public Open Space be explained please. Is this delay due to the City of Wanneroo or the developer and why? Being this was an adopted resolution of council in August 2025 are there any assurances being put in place to ensure the development of the POS is done in a timely manner as expresses at the time from the developer.

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

At its meeting held in June 2025 Council supported an initiative whereby the City and the developer will co-contribute to the development of the Darch Sports Public Open Space and that a Deed of Agreement underpin this process.

There has been ongoing communication between the City and the developer to progress the Deed of Agreement. Finalisation of the Deed is required prior to a contract being awarded and the works being undertaken.

Based on current status of discussions, it is expected that works will commence early in the 2026/27 financial year with exact timeframes and milestones to be confirmed once the contract is awarded.

Kingsway Indoor Stadium Renovation

Question received in writing:

6.          Kingsway Indoor Stadium is a part of the wider Regional Space and has recently undergone many upgrades. Can the City please confirm the amounts and type of works undertaken at the Stadium within the past 2 budget cycles? Including both maintenance and new works.

Response by Director Community and Place

A summary of works undertaken at Kingsway Indoor Stadium over the last two financial years, and associated costs is outlined in the table below:

2024/25

Additional solar panels and battery installation (Design)

$46,880

Electronic Roadside Sign

$114,500

Operational Maintenance Costs

$150,365

2025/26

Additional solar panels and battery installation (Construct)

 $260,000

Renew fire indicator panels and Emergency Warning & Intercommunications System (Construct)

$425,000

External multipurpose space (Feasibility and Design)

$90,000

2025/26

Various modifications to improve the standard of service, accessibility and safety

$97,000

To renew or replace building assets identified through asset renewal modelling

$50,000

Renewal and upgrades, including:

·         Lift renewal (Design)

·         Structural renewal of sports hall floor (Design)

·         Upgrade BBQ area (Design)

·         Upgrade foyer and concourse (Design)

·         Upgrade court louvres (Design)

$150,000

Operational maintenance costs

$167,432

Financial Activity Statement for Period Ended 31 January 2026

Questions received in writing:

7.          Can the delay of the Driver Road, Darch New Public Open Space be explained please. Is this delay due to the City of Wanneroo or the developer and why? Being this was an adopted recommendation of council in August 2025 are there any assurances for locals being put in place to ensure the development of the POS is done in a timely manner as expressed at the time from the Developer.

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

At its meeting held in June 2025 Council supported an initiative whereby the City and the developer will co-contribute to the development of the Darch Sports Public Open Space and that a Deed of Agreement underpin this process.

There has been ongoing communication between the City and the developer to progress the Deed of Agreement. Finalisation of the Deed is required prior to a contract being awarded and the works being undertaken.

Based on current status of discussions, it is expected that works will commence early in the 2026/27 financial year with exact timeframes and milestones to be confirmed once the contract is awarded.

8.          Is the additional funding allocated to the "Mirrabooka Rd roundabouts" inclusive of the Hepburn Avenue & Kingsway roundabouts?

Response by Director Assets

The additional funding allocated to the Mirrabooka Avenue roundabouts is inclusive of the Hepburn Avenue and Kingsway roundabouts. The additional funding relates to landscaping works at three roundabouts:

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Kingsway

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Hepburn Avenue

•        Mirrabooka Avenue / Koondoola Avenue

The requested additional funds relate to landscaping works are higher due to the requirement for works to be undertaken at night given the high traffic volumes. Ensuring safety of workers and road users during construction.

9.          Can the City please confirm that the white line markings for the Kingsway intersection roundabout will be done as a priority due to locals concern that the new construction has created a smaller width of exit from the roundabout on the southern side?

Response by Director Assets

Temporary line marking has been installed to ensure road safety and clarity post construction.

Main Roads WA (MRWA) has been formally advised that the site is ready for road marking works. At the City’s request, MRWA is scheduling these works as a priority.

10.       Can a Councillor aide in the assistance of the technical design of an operational capital works project such as the Kingsway/Mirrabooka Rd roundabout?

Response by Director Assets

Council Members and residents may provide feedback through the community engagement process. The design of the civil construction projects like Kingsway/Mirrabooka Rd roundabout is undertaken by qualified professional Civil Designers in accordance with Australian standards.

11.       Can the delay of the Driver Road, Darch New Public Open Space be explained please. Is this delay due to the City of Wanneroo or the developer and why? Being this was an adopted resolution of council in August 2025 are there any assurances being put in place to ensure the development of the POS is done in a timely manner as expresses at the time from the developer.

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

At its meeting held in June 2025 Council supported an initiative whereby the City and the developer will co-contribute to the development of the Darch Sports Public Open Space and that a Deed of Agreement underpin this process.

There has been ongoing communication between the City and the developer to progress the Deed of Agreement. Finalisation of the Deed is required prior to a contract being awarded and the works being undertaken.

Based on current status of discussions, it is expected that works will commence early in the 2026/27 financial year with exact timeframes and milestones to be confirmed once the contract is awarded.

Kingsway Indoor Stadium Renovation

Question received in writing:

12.       Kingsway Indoor Stadium is a part of the wider Regional Space and has recently undergone many upgrades. Can the City please confirm the amounts and type of works undertaken at the Stadium within the past 2 budget cycles? Including both maintenance and new works.

Response by Director Community and Place

A summary of works undertaken at Kingsway Indoor Stadium over the last two financial years, and associated costs is outlined in the table below:

13.       Can the City please provide an overview of any LTFP capital works listed for the Indoor Stadium within the next 2 budget cycles.

Response by Director Community and Place

Outlined below are the works listed in the City’s draft 20-year capital works program for the next two budget cycles:

14.       Being that parking is of the highest pain point within the regional space does the City currently have listed within it's LTFP a project to conduct a parking & road use study to ensure there is adequate space & usage for current levels and projected users of the next 5 years? If not, why not?

Response by Director Community and Place

Administration is currently in the process of engaging a suitably qualified traffic/transport planning consultant to undertake a comprehensive, data-driven parking and traffic assessment of the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.  The investigation will involve a parking occupancy survey (that assesses utilisation, peak demand, turnover, duration of stay, and informal/non-compliant parking) and an assessment of access and traffic flow (reviewing vehicle movements, circulation efficiency, queuing, and pedestrian conflict points). 

Surveys will be undertaken between April and June 2026 (winter sports season) to capture peak demand conditions.  The evidence-based assessment will identify capacity constraints, operational issues and safety risks, and outline short, medium and long-term recommendations to improve parking efficiency, and both vehicular and pedestrian circulation and safety.  Where the need for capital improvements are identified, these recommendations will inform future budget listings in the LTFP to support implementation.

15.       Can the City please confirm out of all of the clubroom facilities located within the Kingsway Reserve that the Kingsway Sporting (football) Clubrooms would be the only one to not receive upgrades to its facilities within the regional space outside of works of compliance across the past 10 years? And are currently still with support beams holding up the balcony which have been in place for over a number of years.

Response by Director Community and Place

Ventilation upgrades were completed to the changerooms in 2024/25.  Administration is currently progressing the design and delivery of a modular changeroom facility and building upgrade project.  Phase 1 (modular building) is scheduled for construction by the end of 2026, followed by Phase 2 (construction of the building upgrade works). The balcony at the facility is still propped up as an interim safety measure until such time as the building upgrade works can commence.

Cr Smith left the Chamber at 6:14pm due to having an indirect financial interest in
PS03-03/26 due to her father being involved in property for a future school in the area.

PQ08-03/26         N Perrignon, Carabooda

PS03- 03/26 - Proposed City of Wanneroo Submission: Draft Carabooda District Structure Plan

Question received in writing:

1.       The Carabooda District Structure Plan is now substantially progressed, with a final decision of the WAPC expected in the coming months. Lot 107 Godel Road is identified as Conservation on the DSP and this was supported by the EPA as part of their Section 16 Advice on the DSP. We understand the City previously supported a Development Application for extraction of Basic Raw Materials on this lot, which would result in removal of the vegetation. Given the advanced status of the DSP could the City please confirm their position in relation to the future use of Lot 107?

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

An ‘Industry – Extractive’ activity at Lot 107 Godel Road, Nowergup was approved by the Metro Outer Development Assessment Panel in April 2025. As part of this application the City provided a supportive recommendation as at that time the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 supported Basic Raw Materials extraction.

The Carabooda District Structure Plan was not formally lodged and therefore carried no weight to guide the City’s recommendation. Since that time, the Carabooda District Structure Plan has been formally lodged and advertised, is now classified as a ‘seriously entertained planning proposal’ and is expected to be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission in the coming months. Lot 107 is identified in the Carabooda District Structure Plan as a key component of a central 231‑hectare Regional Conservation Reserve due to its significant environmental values.

The EPA recently contacted the City to clarify its position in relation to Lot 107. The City has advised the EPA that permitting extraction and associated clearing on this site would undermine the integrity of Regional Conservation Reserve proposed by the Carabooda District Structure Plan.

The City further advised that as a result it no longer supports clearing or extraction on Lot 107 and supports its protection for conservation purposes as identified within the District Structure Plan.

Cr Smith entered the Chamber at 6:19PM.

PQ09-03/26         J MacRae, Yanchep

CP01 - 03/26 - YLFMP Community Engagement Outcomes

Question received in writing:

1.       Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question regarding the YLFMP. My name is Julie MacRae I am a representative of 74 Capricorn Esplanade. My question today is a fourth occasion where I am approaching the City of Wanneroo to resolve a matter before it becomes a dispute. Using the City of Wanneroo Risk Management Policy and the expertise of 2 Senior Project Management Engineers and 2 Work Health and Safety Professionals, a risk assessment of the FMP boardwalk from construction to insitu use has been completed. This has been forwarded to all Councillors. We have identified over 50 risks. Six of these risks are rated Catastrophic or Extreme. According to CoW Risk Management Policy, Extreme ratings are deemed unacceptable and require immediate notification to Elected members. Two of the risks have statutory mandatory reporting requirements to multiple State Government departments. The Premier Circular 2025/05 Private Property Rights Charter for WA, bold point 4 states: Public officers should consider whether there are any alternative means by which the relevant community benefit or public interest could be advanced in a manner which avoids or reduces adverse effects on private property rights in land. https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/private-property-rights- charter-western-australia-premiers-circular-202505 Given the above two points, can the CoW explain why it is proceeding with the FMP boardwalk which carries unacceptable risk according to its own policies and contravenes a Department of Premier and Cabinet Charter, when a low risk alternative that satisfies ACH and using objective data regarding coastal hazard risk and erosion has been proposed?

Response by Director Community and Place

The boardwalk shown in the FMP is a concept level alignment to improve universal access and site connectivity between Fisherman’s Hollow, the Lagoon Settlement and Mary Lindsay Homestead. Final alignment, construction method, and operational settings are not endorsed at this time and will be resolved through detailed design, environmental/heritage due diligence, geotechnical investigations and standard approvals, once the FMP has been endorsed by WAPC.

Further to the FMP, more detailed analyses will occur to determine the exact nature of the existing and proposed structures of the FMP and whether they require additional bushfire planning and design.

Emergency access and egress arrangements will be affirmed as required during detailed design with the relevant agencies, noting that the recently completed fire access track retains its primary emergency function and the City will ensure the concept does not infringe that purpose.

PQ10-03/26         C Edwards, Yanchep

CP01 - 03/26 YLFMP Community Engagement Outcomes

Question received in writing:

1.       The consultation process that has been followed by the City for the development of the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan is difficult to follow and landowners were restricted by the City in options for seeking information. At an on-site meeting with Matthew Hunt and Ian Ireland in November 2025 landowners from 74, 78 and 80 Capricorn Esp Yanchep were shown a map with 5 options (A,B,C,D,E) for locating a boardwalk along the foreshore at Yanchep.

After lengthy discussion, landowners agreed that Option E would be the least intrusive on the landscape and the four properties and more cost effective. Landowners at that meeting were asked NOT to discuss the boardwalk with the wider community, as community comments were not being considered until December 2025. Can the City explain why the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan presented for public comment in December 2025, contained only ONE option for a boardwalk for comment not FIVE options as presented to affected landowners in November at the site meeting and clarify when, with whom and at what level of consultation occurred to develop the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan.

Response by Director Community and Place

The engagement tool ‘Boardwalk Options Map’ was used as a part of the targeted engagement phase, at the group workshop, and at the landowner on site discussions. This tool was developed for illustration purposes to convey the considerations and constraints guiding the draft boardwalk concept alignment. The group session was more inclined to go with A (away from Fire Track and outside of Heritage area, aligned with contours, vegetation etc) and the Landowner discussion was keen for as far away from houses as possible and with consideration to vegetation and contours e.g. option E.  

The boardwalk alignment presented in the draft FMP reflects refinement informed by technical constraints and stakeholder input, including the explicit request from landowners to avoid the existing fire access track and to consider dune contours/slope, vegetation and constructability.

The draft FMP presents a refined concept at precinct planning level only. The alignment refinement remains subject to environmental/heritage due diligence, geotechnical investigations and standard approvals, following WAPC approval.

The presented Boardwalk alignment matches closely with the 2019 Master Plan.

PQ11-03/26         W Bowman, Yanchep

CP01 - 03/26 YLFMP Community Engagement Outcomes

Question received in writing:

1.       Hello Councillors. Please refer to the short Pros and Cons presentation pack you will have received via email contrasting Option A, an elevated boardwalk, and Option E, a boardwalk at the base of the dune.

Please note, in addition to other aspects of risk or concern, everything with a cross in that document represents some form of increased financial liability. In relation to cost, the last row in the document, a cost report was prepared for the Feb 2025 Draft Foreshore Management Plan which has the boardwalk at the Option E location. The cost is $9.1 million including all materials, labour, office costs, indirect costs and contingency. This is a total installed cost for the boardwalk only. Unfortunately, there is no cost for Option A provided in the Dec 2025 Draft Foreshore Management Plan, which is a bit surprising because you, as Councillors, are being asked to vote on a plan without a cost, at least a cost that the public can see. However, what we can say is Option A, although slightly shorter, is a more difficult and complex construction project and therefore would be a higher cost per meter compared to Option E. So, at this time, $9.1 million, is the minimum cost to be paid. So, to the pros and cons of the two boardwalk options. We know there are no impediments to building Option E, so, why is the City of Wanneroo choosing the least beneficial option in terms of compliance with the Yanchep Lagoon Management Plan principles of secondary connections, protecting the environment (coastal, vegetation and fauna), impact on landowners, accessibility, construction difficulties, and at the highest cost to ratepayers?

Response by Director Assets

The latest cost report was completed in February 2026. In this cost report the total cost of the boardwalk is estimated at $5.2m which is based on a construction cost of $3.5m, the remainder being contingencies and escalations.

It also includes allowances for revegetation and planting, as part of the Dune rehabilitation works.

These costs will be updated as part of the Implementation Plan and further refined during the detailed design phase, based on the material selection and actual location of boardwalk.

PQ12-03/26         D Bowman, Yanchep

CP01 - 03/26 YLFMP Community Engagement Outcomes

Question received in writing:

1.       My name is David Bowman, and I represent 78 Capricorn Esplanade. In submissions to the City of Wanneroo Administration, objective data was presented showing there is no coastal erosion and inundation risk for locating a boardwalk on the foreshore, or at the base of the dunes, for at least 25 years and with some projections out to 45 years. The sources of the data were: - Landgate aerial surveys between 1965 and 2019 - Dept of Transport Coast Inundation Map of February 2026 - Dept of Transport Seawater Inundation Map of February 2026 - Confirmation email from Dept of Transport Coastal Management (Feb 2026) - Cardno CHRAMP of 2018 - City of Wanneroo Coastal Monitoring Report (2016 - 2024) - Independent University study in 2012 Evidence was also presented showing there is space to construct the boardwalk at the base of the dunes and not encroach on the Aboriginal Cultural and Heritage area. In rejecting the option of a boardwalk at the base of the dune due to potential erosion, inundation and aboriginal heritage issues: Q: What was the data which the Administration used to decide that a boardwalk at the base of the dunes was likely to be subject to erosion, inundation and Aboriginal Cultural Heritage issues.

Response by Director Community and Place

The draft FMP presents a refined concept informed by technical conditions and stakeholder input at precinct planning level, alignment refinement remains subject to environmental/heritage due diligence, geotechnical investigations and standard approvals; once the FMP has been endorsed by WAPC.

The presented Boardwalk alignment was informed by coastal modelling and monitoring, and matches closely with the 2019 Master Plan. It was influenced through coastal erosion and beach accessibility issues along the Yanchep coastline and the identification of vulnerable coastal sites from the City’s Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaption plan (CHRMAP and continuing connection with the Yanchep Coastal Management Study.

PQ13-03/26         Carramar & Tapping Residents Association Inc

Item CE06 | AGM Decision 4.2 - Legal Fund for Ratepayer Associations

Question received in writing:

1.       Residents voted 17-9 at the February AGM to allocate a minimum of $1 million per year to a legal fund for incorporated ratepayer associations. Administration is recommending Council does not support this motion, citing concerns about insurance implications, conflicts of interest and governance complexity. The City spent over $180,000 on external legal firms in January 2026 alone - across HopgoodGanim, Jackson McDonald, McLeods, Kennedys Law and others, all listed simply as "Legal Fees For The City."

Can the Mayor advise how much of that legal expenditure related to matters concerning the NRRP or in response to community objections? And given that administration is confident the NRRP has followed due process, can Council explain why it is appropriate for ratepayers to fund the City's legal representation in defence of that position, while simultaneously rejecting residents' request for access to independent legal advice?

Response by General Counsel and Director Assets

The City spent $11,880 in relation to legal work for NRRP in its January warrant of payments. This amount reflects the work undertaken by the City’s external legal firm in preparing crucial legal documents such as the ground lease, management and operation agreement and recyclables specification without which the MRF in NRRP would have been inoperable. The City did not seek advice to prepare or defend the City’s position in relation to the NRRP as this was not deemed to be required, so no funds were not expended in this regard.

Item CE06 | AGM Decision 4.4 - Independent Investigation into the NRRP

Question received in writing:

2.       Residents voted 17-1 at the February AGM to authorise an independent investigation into all aspects of the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct, including its approval processes, site selection and governance. Administration is recommending Council does not support this motion, stating the City has followed due process and that DWER will provide independent assessment. Can the Mayor confirm what the scope of DWER's Works Approval assessment actually covers - specifically, whether DWER will be examining the City's site selection process, the market sounding process conducted with waste industry operators prior to community engagement or the governance decisions made in the lead-up to the application being lodged? If DWER's scope is limited to the technical Works Approval for Stage 1 only, on what basis is administration satisfied that this constitutes the full independent scrutiny residents voted for?

Response by Director Assets

DWER’s Works Approval independently examines the suitability of the location and any potential impact on surrounding land uses. It also examines the design of the facilities and their suitability to effectively manage the specific waste stream proposed for the precinct.

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct

Question received in writing:

4.         Can the City confirm whether it considers it consistent with transparent and well-governed decision-making for waste infrastructure matters, including the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct, to be discussed in a committee meeting where the public cannot ask questions?

Response by Director Assets

The City is committed to transparent and well‑governed decision‑making. Committee meetings are used to consider detailed or technical aspects of matters and support informed decision‑making, with agendas and minutes published for transparency. While public question time is not provided at committee meetings without delegations, final decisions are made by Council at meetings where public questions are permitted. The City also undertakes appropriate community consultation and engagement for major projects. Taken together, these processes are considered consistent with transparent and accountable governance.

5.         Can the City confirm whether the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct is currently included in the City's waste infrastructure planning and project delivery framework?

Response by Director Assets

Yes, the City can confirm that NRRP is part of the City’s draft Waste infrastructure plan and LTFP.

6.         Can the City confirm whether community feedback can change or stop the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct or whether the project will proceed regardless of that feedback?

Response by Director Assets

Community feedback has been considered in the ongoing design development of the NRRP Stage 1 project.

7.         Can the City confirm whether planning or enabling works for the Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct are continuing while community consultation is incomplete or not fully accessible to the public?

Response by Director Assets

The planning for Stage 1 of the NRRP is continuing with detailed design being finalised and works application and approvals being submitted.

PQ14-03/26         N Bowman, Yanchep

CP01 - 03/26 YLFMP Community Engagement Outcomes

Question received in writing:

Will the City acknowledge that a true representation of statistics regarding submission received is as follows and correct the report for this meeting, any future reports and briefings and documentation to be provided to WAPC and any other areas of state government: The statistics are: 50 (45%) opposed 30 (27%) positive 17 (15.3%) neutral 14 (12.6) mixed/ conditional

Response by Director Community & Place

The engagement statistics are provided on pages 173 – 174 of the Report. At the conclusion of the engagement period, there were 1,787 unique Your Say page visitors, resulting in 111 contributions (provided feedback or comment).

Of the 111 contributions:

•           61 (55%) were not opposed:

•           30 (27%) positive;

•           14 (12.6%) mixed/conditional;

•           17 (15.3%) neutral or not defined

•           50 (45%) were opposed

The responses were broadly constructive, demonstrating a strong desire to protect what people love about the Lagoon, while also supporting improvements that enhance safety, access, amenity and cultural connection.

The overall community sentiment consistently values:

•           Environmental protection, keeping bush and dunes intact.

•           Light‑touch design, maintaining the “Yanchep feel”.

•           Community safety, connectivity, and family‑friendly facilities.

PQ15-03/26         M Hudson, Mindarie

AS03-03/26 - PT 05-06/25 Request for Night Time Closure and Increased Security of the Public Boardwalk and Jetty at the South-West Corner of Mindarie Marina - Results of Public Consultation

Question received in writing:

1.       Given that the residents directly adjacent to the Mindarie Marina boardwalk and jetty-particularly those on Southampton Lane-are the individuals and families most consistently and materially impacted by ongoing nighttime disturbances, can the Council please clarify how it weighs and prioritises the mental health, safety, and overall wellbeing of these directly affected residents against broader community feedback, including submissions from individuals who are not exposed to these impacts on a daily basis? In particular, we note that some objections reference occasional use of the marina at night; however, there are multiple alternative paths and roadways in the area suitable for such use. By contrast, the jetty and boardwalk are wooden structures over water that significantly amplify noise, resulting in a constant and highly intrusive impact on nearby homes-effectively comparable to living alongside major roads-with residents experiencing ongoing sleep disruption and fatigue. It's like living on railway line ... Further, concerns have been raised regarding safety, including feedback provided during community engagement that even rangers feel unsafe attending the area at night due to antisocial behaviour with knives. Given these factors, does the City apply any formal weighting or framework to ensure that decisions appropriately reflect the severity, frequency, and proximity of impact on directly affected residents and their families, rather than being determined primarily by the volume of broader community responses?"

Response by Director Assets

The report does not attempt to assign a weighting to the location of the responder; however, the report details the comments provided and numbers for and against the closure.  

Response by Director Community & Place

In terms of ranger attendance “A system review indicates two reports of anti-social behaviour over the past 12 months”.

In terms of the comment that rangers feel unsafe attending the area at night due to anti-social behaviour with knives, Rangers will not attend reports of anti-social behaviour where there are weapons present. This is a matter for the WA Police.

PQ16-03/26         J Willemse, Mindarie

AS03-03/26 - PT05-06/25 Request for Nighttime Closure and Increased Security of the Public Boardwalk and Jetty at the South-West Corner of Mindarie Marina - Results of Public Consultation

Question received in writing:

1.       Question relating to Safety, Mental Health & Reactive System Failure: "Can the Council please provide clarity on the frequency of incidents and enforcement activity associated with the Mindarie Marina boardwalk and jetty-specifically, how often Rangers, Marina Security personnel, and/or Western Australia Police Force have been required to attend issues such as trespassing, antisocial behaviour, or disturbances. Further, how does the City assess not only the operational impact of these repeated incidents, but also the cumulative impact on the mental health, wellbeing, and quality of life of directly affected residents, including ongoing sleep disruption, stress, and safety concerns arising from persistent nighttime disturbances? In particular, under the current largely reactive model, residents are frequently required to contact security or police late at night, often remaining on calls for extended periods and then waiting-sometimes for hours-for follow-up contact, including return calls from unidentified police numbers. This process itself contributes to further sleep deprivation, anxiety, and ongoing disruption to daily life.

          Given these factors, has the Council considered whether a more proactive approach-such as a structured nighttime closure-would more effectively reduce incident frequency, lessen the burden on enforcement resources, and materially improve the wellbeing of residents, rather than continuing with a reactive only response model?"

Response by Director Assets

The report does not attempt to assign a weighting to the location of the responder; however, the report details the comments provided and numbers for and against the closure.  

Response by Director Community & Place

In terms of ranger attendance “A system review indicates two reports of anti-social behaviour over the past 12 months”.

In terms of the comment that rangers feel unsafe attending the area at night due to anti-social behaviour with knives, Rangers will not attend reports of anti-social behaviour where there are weapons present. This is a matter for the WA Police.

PQ17-03/26         G James, Girrawheen

Girrawheen Hub

Statement received in writing:

I would like to submit my support for the proposed redesign of the Girrawheen Hub District.

I was born and raised here. I have lived in Girrawheen throughout my childhood until my early 20s and returned in 2010 when we purchased a home and began to raise our family.

The services that have been available to us as residents of Girrawheen have been dismal. My grandmother used to attend the Senior Citizens centre when I was in primary school. It still looks the same as it did then. I am 46 years old. The same can be said for the library and outdoor area.

When the hub opened, we were so excited and very grateful for this addition to our community. We attended many workshops there. It was quickly apparent that the space simply wasn’t suitable to accommodate the community interest.

So many fantastic workshops I attended were crowded and fit poorly into the space. I was hoping to rent the space for my own movement classes, but the hub space simply wasn’t suitable.

My 3 children are avid readers and while we love our local library, we drive to other areas to use libraries too, as it's just nicer. My kids have gotten older and notice their surroundings more these days. They have started commenting on how our library looks so old when these other libraries look big, bright clean and new (and this was before Landsdale library opened). They now say things like "we don’t live in a nice area, do we mum".

With subdivision taking place more and more in Girrawheen, it is vital our growing community has these upgraded facilities for our children, for our seniors and for everyone in between. We need public spaces that inspire and are beautiful, that create a sense of community pride and allow members of the community to come together in a variety of ways. 

We dearly wish this project will go ahead as planned and ask you to fully support the plan.

PQ18-03/26         N Herridge, Lansdale

Alexander Drive Shared Footpath

Questions received in writing:

1.         Can the City please explain the delay in the construction of the Alexander Drive Shared Footpath beyond its current construction point end at Arduaine Street, when this will likely restart and an estimated time frame for end of construction at Gnangara Road?

Response by Director Assets

Administration confirms that delays to Alexander Drive Shared Footpath beyond its current construction point end at Arduaine Street is due to Western Power design, programming of Western Power service adjustment works, and construction delays.

With most of the utility adjustment works now progressed, construction of this section has commenced and with completion anticipated by August 2026.

2.         Confirm where the funding for this project came from, DCP or ratepayer funds?

Response by Director Assets

Administration confirms that this project is funded by DCP.

3.         Does the City intend to replant along the full stretch of the shared path to reinstate the vegetation that was removed and complete the buffer nature strip zones that have been left to deteriorate due to the construction rather than replanting during the last few years?

Response by Director Assets

The project allows for a staged revegetation works over a 2-year period.

Hartman & Prindiville Drive Intersection

Questions received in writing:

4.          Can the City please confirm the particulars of the delay to the Hartman & Prindiville Drive lights intersection and the new timeframe for delivery?

Response by Director Assets

The delays to the project are due to Main Roads and Western Power approvals, with approval from Western Power still pending.

Construction, starting with service relocations, is scheduled to commence in October 2026 and is expected to be completed by 30 June 2027.

5.          Noting this is a black spot project, can this delay be communicated by the City to the general public?

Response by Director Assets

The City remains on track to complete the project in line with the approved Black Spot program conditions of the MRWA Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG).

An update on the project will be placed on the City’s website.

PQ19-03/26         T Carroll, Girrawheen

AS05-03/26 Girrawheen Hub Redevelopment Update

Statement received in writing:

As a Girrawheen resident, I'm writing to express my strong support for the Girrawheen Hub Redevelopment and to thank Council for progressing this important project for our community.

The Girrawheen Hub is a central point for our community, bringing together the library, community spaces, programs and groups that help people connect, learn and access support close to home. Improving the Hub's facilities, safety and accessibility is an important and timely step toward ensuring everyone, regardless of age, ability, culture or language, can participate fully in community life.

At present, the Hub's ageing infrastructure and layout make it harder than it should be for older residents, people with disability, parents with prams and anyone with mobility challenges to move through the site comfortably and independently. A well-designed redevelopment is needed to support dignity, independence and participation.

The 6064 area is home to many older residents, as well as people from a wide range of cultural backgrounds. That diversity is our strength, but it also means our community facilities must be flexible and welcoming, with accessible entries and pathways, comfortable gathering areas, and spaces that can host programs that suit different ages, abilities and cultural needs.

I'm hopeful the redeveloped Hub will better support seniors' activities, learning and development activities, multicultural events, youth programs, and intergenerational initiatives that reduce isolation and strengthen social cohesion. Reducing social isolation not only matters for health and wellbeing as we age, but also for community safety. When people feel connected, know their neighbours, and spend time in shared community spaces, informal support networks grow and concerns are more likely to be noticed and addressed early.

These are all factors that research commonly associates with lower levels of antisocial behaviour and violence. Investment in places like the Girrawheen Hub is one of the most practical ways Council can build community wellbeing. When people have a safe, accessible and attractive place to meet, they are more likely to volunteer, join local groups like our community garden, attend events, and look out for one another. This kind of everyday community connection also helps create safer neighbourhoods through greater passive surveillance and a stronger shared willingness to protect and care for public places.

I strongly support the Girrawheen Hub Redevelopment and encourage Council to continue progressing the project as a priority.

Cr H Nguyen left the Chamber at 6:47PM and did not return.

PQ20-03/26         I Martin, Carramar

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - AGM Motion 4.3

Questions received in writing:

Regarding the Motion I put forward on 5th Feb re a legal fund for ratepayer groups, the terms and condition I submitted were omitted from the formal submission by a problem with the portal loading. I raise the fact that they were missing and requested they be included as part of the Motion. I read them out and asked they be included but they are not included in the minutes.

1.       Terms 1 Funds of $1million be set aside in the City of Wanneroo's annual budget for Incorporated Ratepayer Group's legal expenses incurred in opposing or seeking to modify or restrict City of Wanneroo's projects. The funds will be allocated equally across Wards.

2.       Incorporated Ratepayers Group are defined as a group of ratepayers in a defined Suburb who have incorporated to ensure that the City of Wanneroo protect the health, wellbeing, & environment whilst advancing community inclusion as stakeholders in the City of Wanneroo's future planning.

3.       All Incorporated Ratepayers' groups be notified of the budget item by mail and asked to nominate as an interested party annually within 30 days of the start of the financial year, to have access to the fund in that year.

4.       Funds can only be used for legal advice or legal representation by an Incorporated Community Ratepayer groups to provide them with legal recourse when there is need to ensure that a social license is included from the onset of a proposed plan by the City of Wanneroo officer, the CEO or the Council.

5.       Unused funds in any given year will accumulate annually and a CPI increase applied in line with the CPI adjustment applied to city rates annually.

6.       At the end of each financial year unused funds will be preserved in the "Incorporated Ratepayer Group's Legal Fund" and held in reserved by the City of Wanneroo as funds for Incorporated Ratepayer Groups to use for matters relating to proposed projects that have implications for community Health, Wellbeing and environment

7.       Incorporated Ratepayers Groups can pool their allocation if there is agreement with one or more group to seek legal recourse on a project or proposal.

I was not the only person who had issues with submitting a motion for the AGM so I would again ask that these terms be include and asked the Council members to support this motion to safeguard democratic fairness. It is clear that the administration does not want scrutiny or fairness, but the Council are here to represent the people, and we are asking you to put the people first.

Response by General Counsel

Please note the Electors AGM Minutes of 5 February 2026 will be updated to reflect the above request.

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - AGM Motions 4.4 and 4.5

Question received in writing:

8.       Neerabup is located on the Swan Coastal Plain, an area with sandy soils, limestone, and seasonal wetlands. Lake Neerabup is an important wetland that has influenced how the area has been used over time. Neerabup is part of Noongar country and has been lived on for over 40,000 years. The Noongar people used the wetlands for food, water, and travel and had strong cultural and spiritual connections to the land. The name "Neerabup," meaning "swampy place" or "small basin," reflects this wetland environment. Today, Neerabup has a small population and remains mostly rural. It includes farms, quarries, a golf course, wineries, and light to general industrial area. While nearby suburbs are becoming more urban, Neerabup has kept its rural character and environmental importance. Do the City of Wanneroo agree this description of Neerabup?

Response by Director Planning & Sustainability

The City acknowledges there are geomorphic, environmental and cultural attributes in the Neerabup locality as noted in the question – as well as existing land use activities including agriculture, recreation, quarrying and industry.  At a strategic level, however, much of the Neerabup locality has been planned by both the City and the State Government as a major employment precinct supporting industrial and manufacturing activities.

The City and the State Government has, and will continue to, undertake land use planning in the Neerabup Industrial Area, so that unacceptable impacts from industrial development over environmentally or culturally sensitive areas are avoided.  Similarly, the strategic and land use planning in place for the Neerabup locality does not prevent the continuation of existing non-industrial land uses.

CE06-03/26 - Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - AGM Motion 4.4

Question received in writing:

9.       Have the council engaged with alternatives to the current Masterplan for waste management? If so, who and when?

Response by Director Assets

The Neerabup RRP Masterplan was developed to provide with City with sustainable and secure waste management processes and infrastructure, controlled and managed by the City with capacity to accommodate the population growth expected within the City.

PQ21-03/26         R Casey, Merriwa

CE06-03/26 **Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026

Question received in writing:

Councillors, You will have read Administration's statement that "Addison Park currently accommodates a junior sized AFL field and supports a range of sporting activities by both senior and junior sporting clubs." However, I have received written confirmation from the City that: "Addison Park is not currently used by any senior clubs for formal fixtures and is mainly viewed by clubs as a backup space due to undulations in the playing surface", and that the ground is currently used by Quinns Districts Junior Football Club and Quinns Rocks Junior Cricket Club. Can Administration clarify the following:

1.       Whether any current or projected demand analysis supports the provision of senior sport facilities at Addison Park, having regard to: existing nearby senior facilities, and local demographic characteristics unlikely to change significantly in the foreseeable future?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

Administration has undertaken an analysis of the sporting spaces within the City’s Northeast Ward which shows that demand for sporting space in the North‑East Ward currently exceeds supply.  The review also confirms a gap in senior‑sport infrastructure across the area.  The review also found that some grounds remain underused because they only cater for junior sport or lack appropriate supporting amenities. With increasing club memberships, year‑round competitions, and rising enquiries from new clubs, pressure on existing parks is expected to continue.

In this context, Addison Park’s location and layout would help address the shortage of senior‑sized facilities, although the number of existing nearby senior reserves and stable local demographics are still important considerations in determining future need. 

The outcomes of this analysis will be considered as part of the City’s preparation of a Community Infrastructure Plan which will determine whether there is a need to further consider upgrades to Addison Park to increase its capacity to accommodate senior sport.

2.       Whether the following existing senior sporting facilities are considered within an acceptable service radius of Addison Park? Dalvik Park (Merriwa) Ridgewood District Park Gumblossom Park (Quinns Rocks) Abbeyville Park (Mindarie) Anthony Waring Park (Clarkson)

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

All of the existing senior sporting facilities listed are considered to fall within an acceptable service radius of Addison Park.

3.       Whether any upgrade or extension of the existing playing field would require the removal of a significant number of trees and remnant bush (master plans indicate approximately 25 mature trees and more than 40 grass trees), and if so, provide the estimated canopy loss?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

Previous investigations undertaken by the City indicate that expanding the playing field to accommodate a senior sized AFL oval would require the removal of some mature trees and areas of remnant vegetation.  The extent of any canopy loss has not been calculated as there is no agreed design in place.

4.       Whether Merriwa is identified in the City's Urban Forest Strategy as a priority suburb for tree planting due to canopy cover of less than 5%?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

Merriwa is not included in the City’s annual street‑tree planting program, although residents are still able to request verge trees, and the City maintains street‑tree data for the suburb. It is considered to have a low urban heat‑island risk (90% low) and does contain <400 m² lots, indicating increased residential density. Merriwa’s approximate tree canopy cover is only 3%, placing it below the 5% threshold, yet its urban canopy priority is classified as low, meaning it is not identified as a high‑priority suburb for canopy intervention despite its limited tree cover.

5.       Whether "Neighbourhood Sport" is a recognised classification under: Liveable Neighbourhoods, and/or the Public Open Space Classification Framework or other relevant State planning guidance?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

While “Neighbourhood Sport” is not a specific classification listed within Liveable Neighbourhoods, the document does include reference to both ‘sport’ and ‘recreation’ functions. These were used as the basis for the City’s classifications in Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space, which was then tailored to defining and planning for different levels of sporting provision within the local context

6.       The current utilisation status of the sports amenities building, including: whether any clubs are using (as opposed to given access to) changerooms or showers, and why toilets at the facility remain locked? Will Administration also explain:

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

The changerooms and clubroom are included with the reserve bookings, and clubs receive access for an additional hour after the end of their reserve allocation. Some clubs use both the changeroom toilets and clubroom, while others do not.

Clubs also differ in how they manage access to toilets and changerooms, particularly when children are involved - some open the toilets at the start of training so parents and children can access them throughout the session, while others monitor and restrict access for safety reasons, opening toilets only upon request.

7.       Why, after approximately eight years of engagement (including public questions, deputations, an internal audit, a petition, and an FOI process), further delay is considered necessary before preparing a new masterplan for public consultation?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

Given the time that has elapsed since the preparation of the City’s Active Reserve Masterplan, further work is required to ensure any future planning for Addison Park is grounded in a current, evidence‑based understanding of community need. This will be determined through the City’s Community Infrastructure Plan.  Should this confirm a need for additional senior sporting spaces within Merriwa, an updated master planning process will be required in consultation with the local community to ensure that coordinated upgrade plans properly reflect the needs and expectations of the broader community. This approach promotes transparency, fairness, and sound decision‑making after several years of varied engagement activity.

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

8.       Why the draft 2022/23 Addison Park masterplan (costing $18,650 + GST) has not been presented to Council?

The draft 2022/23 Addison Park masterplan has not been presented to Council because additional work is required to ensure that any proposed improvements are informed by a robust, well‑supported understanding of community need.

9.       The rationale for discontinuing the draft $4.5 million masterplan while not ruling out future senior sport development at the site?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

The draft 2022/23 Addison Park masterplan has been discontinued because additional work is required to ensure that any proposed improvements are informed by a robust, well supported understanding of community need.

10.     Whether the recently installed barbecue and picnic setting complies with: AS 1428 (Design for Access and Mobility), the City's Landscape Design Specification WD13A, and the Disability Discrimination Act; and if not, whether rectification works are planned?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

The newly installed barbecue and picnic setting will be reviewed to ensure it meets the City’s accessibility expectations. While the DDA applies to access in public spaces, it doesn’t set technical rules for outdoor furniture, and the Premises Standards (from 1 May 2011) only apply to buildings, not stand‑alone park items like picnic tables. The City will confirm the installation against AS 1428 guidance, the DDA, and its own design specifications, and if any barriers to access are identified, rectification works will be planned to ensure the facilities are inclusive and usable for all community members.

11.     Will Council formally consider the resolution passed unanimously (21- 0) at the Annual General Meeting of Electors and determine whether: existing tree canopy at Addison Park will be retained, and priority will be given to delivering community-requested amenities, including public toilets and accessible pathways?

Response by Acting Director Community & Place

Council considered this matter at is meeting on 24 March 2026 – refer CE06-03/26.

PQ22-03/26         K Williams, Banksia Grove

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct

Statement:

Ms Williams made a statement about Black Cockatoos and the significance to Aboriginal people and the importance to protect for the future and requests consideration be taken in the development of NRRP. 

AS07-09/25 Response to Petition PT05-06/25? Nighttime Closure & Increased Security of Public Boardwalk and Jetty

Question received in writing:

1.       What measure will Council take to make families feel more secure in the Mindarie Marina area? We have been notified by the Rangers in a meeting, that they don’t feel safe to attend after dark as individuals carry knives. So, if the Rangers don't feel safe and anti-social behaviour is increasing what will Council do to enforce safety measures in Mindarie Marina precinct?

Response by Director Community & Place

Management of the Mindarie Marina precinct is not the sole responsibility of a single organisation or entity. Responsibility for addressing issues within the precinct is determined by the precise location of the issue and the nature of the behaviour being reported. Depending on these factors, responsible stakeholders may include Marina Management, the City and the State Government, each of whom has defined roles and responsibilities within the precinct.

The City takes reports of anti‑social, aggressive or concerning behaviour seriously and prioritises the safety of the community and its officers at all times.

City Rangers respond to matters that fall within the City’s jurisdiction in accordance with their legislative powers and based on a risk‑based assessment. Where it is safe and lawful to do so, Rangers may undertake education, compliance or enforcement activities, or liaise with Marina Management, State Government agencies and other stakeholders as appropriate.

Any behaviour that is threatening, violent or presents an immediate risk to public safety falls outside the City’s enforcement powers. WA Police have overarching responsibility for responding to criminal, violent or threatening behaviour and should always be contacted directly in these circumstances. Rangers will not attend, or will withdraw from, situations where there is an identified safety risk and will refer the matter to WA Police for attendance.

The precinct is supported by existing CCTV infrastructure, including a combination of public and private systems operated by relevant stakeholders. Where required as part of a police investigation, CCTV footage may be accessed by WA Police through appropriate channels. The presence of CCTV assists with incident review, evidence gathering and broader community safety objectives, but does not replace the need to contact WA Police where threatening behaviour is occurring.

Some reported behaviours may be disruptive or concerning but may not constitute an offence under local laws. In these instances, the City may continue to monitor the situation, provide education, increase patrols or coordinate with Marina Management, State Government agencies and other stakeholders to address the issue.

Members of the public are encouraged to contact WA Police directly on 000 if there is an immediate threat to safety, or 131 444 for non‑urgent police matters. Ongoing or non‑urgent concerns can also be reported to the City or Marina Management to support coordinated management of the precinct and proactive community safety measures.

PQ24-03/26         J Mongoo, Banksia Grove

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct Public Consultation

Question:

1.       How many consultations have you had with indigenous community members and when will the City meet with the Aboriginal community. 

Response by Director Assets

The City undertook community engagement on the NRRP project from October to December 2025 and it was open to all community members.

It is noted that the City undertook a search for relevant heritage sites using the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) online Aboriginal Inquiry System (AHIS) as part of the Masterplan. This identified two sites approximately 2km to the west and one site approximately 2km to the east, and nothing registered for Lot 600.

Notwithstanding the above, the City will be contacting the relevant people from the Aboriginal community to discuss this project with them.

2.         What research has been done to protect the habitat of the black cockatoos in that area.

Response by Director Assets

For the NNRP a native vegetation survey for that site was undertaken and based on that survey a clearing permit application was submitted to DWER and as a condition there was the removal of six trees and in return part of the rehab plan requirement of planting 12 trees, but the design plan is looking at planting an additional 20.

PQ25-03/26         K Richter, Carramar

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct

Questions:

1.       I submitted a detailed submission on 20 November 2025. To date no response has been received, and why, and what was the intent of the CoW in allowing the Community to submit their concerns.

Response by Director Assets

The City updated the Frequently Asked Questions document available on the project webpage with responses to all the questions received from the community. These answers also included the presentation, and a recording was uploaded to the web site.

Administration has since provided a direct response to the detailed submission from this resident. 

2.       If the submission was read in its entirety, it would have been noted that I expressly asked that all environment approvals required for this project we provided with the timeline so that the community can take part in submissions. Can the CoW tell me when did they apply for the native vegetation clearing permit?

Response by Director Assets

The application to clear native vegetation for the NRRP project site was submitted on 28 March 2025 and the grant letter was issued on 5 January 2026.

3.       At the November 2025 community engagement session, I asked if any environment approvals had been applied for and I was told no.  Can CoW explain why there was no honesty regarding environmental approval.

Response by Director Assets

The process for applying for native vegetation permits is when an applicant, like CoW, makes an application, the department receives the application and advertises it on their website for public comment for a certain period.  This is a public document so there is no concealing of any information, and the public can provide comments to the department. 

The department then considers the submission and comments before making a decision. After the permit is issued there is a 21-day appeal period for anyone to lodge an appeal.

4.       The Work Approval Application on DEWAR website.  What is CoW applying for? 

Response by Director Assets

The application is for Stage 1 for NRRC. It has three facilities, the first the Community Recycling Centre, the second Waste Transfer Station, and the third Material Recycling Facility

5.       On the DEWAR website it says the CRC, WTS and MRF are included in the application, however, in an email from the City in early March it states the MRF will be subject to a separate application at a later date. 

Response by Director Assets

The Works Application has always been for the three facilities, the CRC, WTS & MRF, and this is what has been submitted to DWER. The documentation and advertising clearly refer to the three facilities.

However, the email referenced in March didn't include a clear reference to the process relating to the MRF. This has been clarified on the project webpage (30 March 2026) with the following:

“In the project news released on 5 March 2026, the City of Wanneroo advised that the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) Works Approval for the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) would be made at a later stage. However, the Works Approval for the MRF will be made in two stages.

One as part of the current Works Approval for the NRRP Stage 1 for the construction of the MRF and a second after construction for the operation of the MRF by the successful operators of the facility.

This does not add to the Stage 1 facilities but provides for more efficient delivery of the MRF.”

6.       There are discrepancies in the City’s Application. Box ticked for EPA referral, and it states 195 tonnes per annum. 

Response by Director Assets 

Regarding the referral to EPA.  We have been conveying this in community engagement. The community or City of Wanneroo, as a client, can refer the matter to the EPA.

CE06-03/26 **Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026 - AGM motions - NRRP

Question received in writing:

1.       Who selected Lot 600 Wattyl Avenue for the NRRP? How was the site selected? When was the site selected?

Response by Director Assets

The site was selected as part of an investigation undertaken as part of the masterplan. A full summary of sites considered and rationale for the decision are contained within the report. A link to the document is available on the City Website ‘Your Say’ - Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct | Your Say

NRRP Public Consultation

Question received in writing:

2.       In hindsight, does the City agree that the online consultation through the website is the right way to consult as not everyone goes onto the website.

Response by Director Assets

As a result of feedback there was a community information session and at that session there was a request for a further and there will be a further session where submissions can be made as well as questions.

PQ27-03/26         C Hammond OAM, Carabooda

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct

Statement:

I have been a resident of Wanneroo since 1980 and have been an active volunteer with several community organisations, and for the past 8 years with Carramar Tapping Resident Group and have campaigned on many issues including the Wanneroo Road flyover and park upgrades.

We are now faced with an infringement on the health and wellbeing of our community. We certainly didn’t sign up for what you voted on. The livestream of the AGM was shut down, preventing residents watching proceedings, which was an attack on our civil rights. 

At the last Council meeting I submitted a Petition with over 700 signatures and we filled Council Chambers.  Speakers were restricted to 3 minutes, when dogs on leashes were given at least 5 minutes.

Surely people’s health and the destruction of the environment is a lot more important and then to have residents thrown out during the meeting disgusts me.  Of all my years living in Wanneroo this must be the lowest of the lows for the City of Wanneroo. Is this what democracy looks like?  I don’t think so.  

In your wisdom you decided to ignore the groundswell of opposition, limited the electorate to a timely input by going by the backdoor.  I am disgusted by the way Council has treated us especially our Ward Members who have ignored us for the past few months and pushing their own barrows. Why did this not get advertised in January last year and better still a subject in the last council elections, then you decide to send out a letter to residents with in 5km radius, just before you closed off a chance to respond. 

Cr Smith left the Chamber at 7:26PM due to having an indirect financial interest in
PS03-03/26 due to her father being involved in property for a future school in the area.

PQ28-03/26         M Zagar, Carabooda

PS03-03/26 Proposed City of Wanneroo Submission: Draft Carabooda District Structure Plan

Statement:

I represent the landowners of the Carabooda West precinct and am part of a Nowergup farming family business established in 1967. 

There's a very small but glaring omission to the District Structure Plan.  The most important and beneficial piece of land has been left out - Lake Nowergup, the "jewel in the crown" and a vital natural asset.

The omission of Lake Nowergup from the plan as comparable to building communities like Alkimos without beach access or Wanneroo without access to Lake Joondalup. Integrating Carabooda West into the DSP would enable the development of a world-class tourism, recreation, and lifestyle precinct—described as a "Kings Park of the north"—benefiting all residents.

Incorporating this area would not delay the DSP, as required studies could proceed separately via an amendment. The inclusion aligns with the DSP’s purpose of serving the holistic interests of the City of Wanneroo, not just developers.

Five Key Benefits are:

1.          Precedent Success: Examples like East Wanneroo show that integrating lakes and natural areas with urban development fosters recreation, environmental appreciation, and community identity.

2.          Health and Social Benefits: Access to nature improves physical and mental health, reduces antisocial behaviour, and strengthens social cohesion and environmental stewardship.

3.          Strategic Location: Lake Nowergup's proximity to major infrastructure like the freeway and MetroNET enhances its potential as a regional destination.

4.          Community Opportunity: This is a once-in-a-generation chance to create a distinctive, connected, and vibrant precinct.

5.          Environmental Integration: Inclusion supports sustainable planning and long-term ecological and urban harmony.

The landowners respectfully requested that the City of Wanneroo either include Carabooda West in the current DSP or direct that it be incorporated through the earliest possible amendment after adoption.

Response Director Planning & Sustainability

The City of Wanneroo does not decide on DSP boundaries but can submit recommendations to the DPLH.  While City of Wanneroo cannot directly approve the boundary change, it may advocate for an amendment to include Carabooda West in the DSP.

Cr Smith entered the Chamber at 7:26PM.

PQ29-03/26         T Scarren, Carramar

Neerabup Resource Recovery Precinct

Statement:

There has not been enough time to provide input.  There was a governance report due at this meeting and it’s not been done.  Delaying advice on the day the report was due is unacceptable.  When requesting an inquiry into the NRRP processes that took officers about twelve months to complete, a fifteen-month governance delay seems, in my mind, very lax. Consultation with first nations people is required.

Moved Cr Wright, Seconded Cr Huntley

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 February 2026 be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

12/0

For the motion:              Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr V Nguyen, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, and Cr Wright

Against the motion:      Nil

CQ01-03/26        Councillor Berry – AGM Livestream

The livestream was stopped on the night of the AGM, as Deputy Mayor Miles questioned the livestream, as such discussion took place with the Mayor, CEO and General Counsel.  My recollection is Counsellors have no decision in stopping the livestream, it is up to the Mayor as the Presiding Member.  Can we ensure the correct information is minuted?

Response from General Counsel

Cr Berry’s recollection is correct.  Cr Miles raised that there was a discrepancy on the front of the AGM Agenda. That information was inconsistent with the information in the Recording of Meetings Policy, so a decision was made to stop the recording at that time, but future AGMs will be livestreamed.

CQ02-03/26        Councillor Berry - MRC Questions at OCM 24 February

Many questions were asked about the MRC and those responses to Carramar and Tapping Residents Association (CRRA) have not been received, is it possible that Councillors also get a copy of the answers when they are supplied to the CRRA?

Response from Director Assets

A copy of the City’s letter and the Mindarie Regional Council’s response will be provided to the CRRA and also to Councillors.

CQ03-03/26        Deputy Mayor Miles - Wanneroo Bush Fire Brigade

The Wanneroo Bush Fire Brigade 4 x 4 is past its used by date.  The brigade has raised this matter with the Minster and local member. Has the City received any correspondence from them, and have you been able to progress the replacement of the vehicle?  I understand that the vehicle which should have been received this year has been passed onto someone else.

CEO Response

The question will be taken on notice.  There has been some correspondence received and this will be circulated to Councillors in the next few days. 

Moved Cr Miles, Seconded Cr Rowe

That petition PT01-03/26 be received and forwarded to the relevant Directorate for reporting back to Council.

Carried Unanimously

11/0

For the motion:              Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, and Cr Wright

Against the motion:      Nil

Moved Cr Figg, Seconded Cr Seif

Pursuant to clause 5.2 of the Standing Orders Local Law 2021 the following reports are voted en bloc:

1.       PS01-03/26 - Consideration of Amendment No.235 to District Planning Scheme No.2 to Introduce an Additional Use of Restricted Premises at Strata Lot 2,
20 Prindiville Drive, Wangara;

2.       PS04-03/26 - **Consideration of Draft Local Planning Policy 4.26 – Exemptions from Development (Planning) Approval;

3.       AS06-03/26 - **PT01-11/25 - Response to Petition - Deterioration of Verges and Smaller Parks - Alkimos Beach And Alkimos Vista;

4.       AS07-03/26 - **PT04-11/25 - Response to Petition - Proper Maintenance of Picasso Park, Alkimos;

5.       CS02-03/26 - Warrant of Payments for the period to 31st January 2026;

6.       CE01-03/26 - Extension to Review Date of the City's Corporate Governance Framework;

7.       CE03-03/26 - Risk Management Framework Review;

8.       CE06-03/26 – **Consideration of Minutes and Decisions of the Electors' Annual General Meeting held 5 February 2026;

9.       CR01-03/26 - CEO Performance Review - Appointment of Consultant for Annual Review & Approval of the Annual Review Timeline;

10.     CR02-03/26 - CEO Performance Review Policy Review.

Carried Unanimously

11/0

For the motion:              Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, and Cr Wright

Against the motion:      Nil

Applicant

Rowe Group

Owner

240k Pty Ltd

Location

Strata Lot 2 (Unit 3) 20 Prindiville Drive, Wangara

Site Area

300m²

MRS Zoning

Industrial

DPS 2 Zoning

Light Industry

Moved Cr Figg, Seconded Cr Seif

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No.235 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to allow the use class Restricted Premises as an additional use at Strata Lot 2, 20 Prindiville Drive, Wangara and AMENDS Schedule 2 – Specified additional uses for zoned land in Scheme area to add reference to Strata Lot 2 as follows:

and the Scheme Map accordingly;

2.       Pursuant to Section 35(2) of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 235 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 is a ‘Standard Amendment’ for the following reason as contained within Section 34 of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

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

3.       Subject to approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission, ADVERTISE Amendment No. 235 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 pursuant for a period of not less than 42 days pursuant to Regulation 47(2) and 47(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Carried Unanimously

*11/0

For the motion:              Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, and Cr Wright

Against the motion:      Nil

1⇩.

Attachment 1 - Site Plan

26/52437

2⇩.

Attachment 2 - Location and Zoning Plan

26/52480

3⇩.

Attachment 3 - Proposed Zoning

26/52487

Applicant

TBB Planning

Owner

Leo Alfred Marzo

Location

Lot 5 (330) Sydney Road, Gnangara

Site Area

4.102 Hectares

MRS Zoning

Rural - Water Protection

DPS 2 Zoning

Rural

Moved Cr Wright, Seconded Cr Miles

That Council, pursuant to Regulation 37(1c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, DOES NOT SUPPORT Amendment No. 236 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to amend Schedule 2 – Specified Additional Uses For Zoned Land in Scheme Area (Clause 3.4) to allow the land use Warehouse/Storage at Lot 5 (330) Sydney Road, Gnangara as an Additional Use for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed Additional Use – Warehouse/Storage is inconsistent with the objectives of the Rural Zone of the Metropolitan Region Scheme, as it does not support the protection of rural land for primary production, nor the sustainable management of the rural landscape and its environmental values;

2.       The proposed Additional Use – Warehouse/Storage is inconsistent with the objectives of the Rural Zone in Part 3 – Zones and Use of Land of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2;

3.       The proposed Additional Use – Warehouse/Storage would introduce a non-rural land use outcome well in advance of the intended urban transition of the locality and is not supported by the applicable strategic and statutory planning framework governing the interim Rural zoning of the land;

4.       The proposed Additional Use – Warehouse/Storage presents a significant risk of establishing an undesirable and unsustainable planning precedent for industrial type activities to occur in the Rural zone, with the potential to erode the existing rural character and amenity of the area and undermine the objectives of the Rural zone; and

5.       The City of Wanneroo’s draft Local Planning Strategy does not identify a need for including ‘Warehouse/Storage’ as an Additional Use in the Rural zone, and the Strategy’s discussion of diversification relates to rural supportive and tourism related activities, not storage-based or industrial type land uses.

carried

10/1

For the motion:           Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith and Cr Wright

Against the motion:   Cr Huntley

1⇩.

Attachment 1: Current Location

26/22898

2⇩.

Attachment 2: Current Zoning and the Proposed Additional Map

26/39217

3⇩.

Attachment 3: Proponent’s Justification

26/23805

Moved Cr Rowe, Seconded Cr Wright

That Item CP01-03/26 - Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan - Community Engagement Outcomes be brought forward in the Order of Business of this Agenda.

Carried Unanimously

11/0

For the motion:              Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, and Cr Wright

Against the motion:      Nil

Stop

LGA

2026-Jan

Weekday

Boardings

Alightings

29489: Brazier Rd Yanchep Lagoon

City of Wanneroo

11

14

Moved Cr Rowe, Seconded Cr Huntley

That Council APPROVES the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan Draft for submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission for their consideration and approval.

lost

1/10

For the motion:             Cr Rowe

Against the motion:       Mayor Aitken, Cr Berry, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Huntley,
Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Seif, Cr Smith, Cr Wright

Moved Cr Coetzee, Seconded Cr Figg

That Council:

1.         APPROVES the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan Draft for submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission for their consideration and approval, with the following conditions:

a)         ENDORSE the inclusion of a clear and enforceable design parameters within the Yanchep Lagoon Foreshore Management Plan requiring that a minimum elevation for the proposed coastal boardwalk be established, while allowing the structure to be positioned higher where necessary to avoid significant existing vegetation or respond to identified environmental and cultural conditions;

b)        DIRECT that the proposed coastal boardwalk alignment delivers an optimal balance between environmental and cultural protection, user experience, and functional connectivity to car parks, access points, and key movement corridors, ensuring the precinct operates cohesively and safely;

c)         REQUIRE that the final boardwalk alignment will be determined only after comprehensive on‑site investigations, including assessment of vegetation, dune systems, environmental sensitivities, and other relevant technical constraints; and

d)        REQUIRE that, upon completion of all site investigations, a refined boardwalk alignment and elevation profile be returned to Council for formal approval, prior to the commencement of detailed design, cost estimation, or progression of subsequent project phases.

carried

9/1

For the motion:           Mayor Aitken, Cr Coetzee, Cr Figg, Cr Miles, Cr Parker, Cr Rowe,
Cr Seif, Cr Smith and Cr Wright

Against the motion:   Cr Berry

1.

Attachment 1 - Draft Yanchep Lagoon - Foreshore Management Plan

26/98215

2.

Attachment 2 - Yanchep Foreshore Management Plan Concept

26/56745

3.

Attachment 3 - Pedestrian Connections

26/56750

4.

Attachment 4 - PSP Network

26/56751

5.

Attachment 5 - Parking Provision

26/56760

6.

Attachment 6 - Rehabilitation and Conservation areas

26/56763