Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 09 December, 2014

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo

 

Council allows a minimum of 15 minutes for public questions and statements at each Council Meeting.  If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the person presiding will move on to the next item.  If there are more questions than can be dealt with in the 15 minutes allotted, the person presiding will determine whether to extend question time.

 

Protocols

 

During the meeting, no member of the public may interrupt the meeting’s proceedings or enter into conversation.  Each person seeking to ask questions during public question time may address the Council for a maximum of 3 minutes each. 

 

A register of person’s wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting is located at the main reception desk outside of the Chamber on the night.  However, members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting i.e. noon on the previous day.

 

The person presiding will control public question time and ensure that each person wishing to ask a question is given a fair and equal opportunity to do so.  A person wishing to ask a question should state his or her name and address before asking the question.  If the question relates to an item on the agenda, the item number should also be stated.

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

·             Questions should only relate to the business of the council and should not be a statement or personal opinion.

·             Only questions relating to matters affecting Council will be considered at an ordinary meeting, and at a special meeting only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered.  Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting.

·             Questions may not be directed at specific members of council or employees.

·             Questions & statements are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely on a particular Elected Member or Officer.

·             The first priority will be given to persons who are asking questions relating to items on the current meeting agenda.

·             The second priority will be given to public statements.  Only statements regarding items on the agenda under consideration will be heard.

 

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations relating to items on the current agenda. If you wish to present a deputation please submit your request for a deputation in writing, at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer or fax through to Governance on 9405 5097.  A request for a deputation must be received by Governance by 12 noon on the Friday before the Council Meeting.

·             Deputation requests must relate to items on the current agenda.

·             A deputation is not to exceed 3 persons in number and only those persons may address the meeting.

·             Members of a deputation are collectively to have a maximum of 10 minutes to address the meeting, unless an extension of time is granted by the Council.

 

Please ensure that mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.  Any queries on this agenda, please contact Governance on 9405 5027 or 9405 5018.

 

 

Objective

 

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

 

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

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

(1)     Proceedings for meetings of the Council, Electors, and Public Question Time during Council Briefing Sessions shall be recorded by the City on sound recording equipment, except in the case of meetings of the Council where the Council closes the meeting to the public. 

 

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

 

(3)     No member of the public is to use any electronic, visual or vocal recording device or instrument to record the proceedings of the Council or a committee without the written permission of the Council.

 

Access to Recordings

 

(4)     Members of the public may purchase a copy of recorded proceedings or alternatively listen to recorded proceedings with the supervision of a City Officer.  Costs of providing recorded proceedings to members of the public will be the cost of the recording plus staff time to make the copy of the proceedings. The cost of supervised listening to recorded proceedings will be the cost of the staff time. The cost of staff time will be set in the City's schedule of fees and charges each year.

 

(5)     Elected Members may request a recording of the Council proceedings at no charge.  However, no transcript will be produced without the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.  All Elected Members are to be notified when recordings are requested by individual Members.

 

Retention of Recordings

 

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

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

(7)     This policy shall be printed within the agenda of all Council, Special Council, Electors and Special Electors meetings to advise the public that the proceedings of the meeting are recorded.

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Civic Centre,

Dundebar Rd, Wanneroo on Tuesday 9 December, 2014 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

4 December, 2014

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1______ Attendances_ 1

Item  2______ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3______ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4______ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-12/14     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 November 2014  1

Item  5______ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6______ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7______ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

Item  8______ Reports_ 3

Planning and Sustainability  3

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  3

PS01-12/14      Adoption of Amendment No. 31 to the East Wanneroo Cell 4 (Hocking and Pearsall) Agreed Structure Plan No. 6  3

PS02-12/14      Adoption of Local Structure Plan No. 99 - Gnangara Rural Community  53

Development Applications  70

PS03-12/14      6 Kingsbridge Boulevard Butler - Proposed Liquor Store and Shopping Centre Extension  70

Other Matters  123

PS04-12/14      Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plans  123

PS05-12/14      Approval of Expenditure from the Environmental Initiatives Reserve  163

City Businesses  168

Regulatory Services  168

CB01-12/14      Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  168

Property  174

CB02-12/14      Proposed lease to the Wanneroo Horse & Pony Club (Inc.) over Lot 10842, Benmuni Road, Wanneroo  174

Community Safety & Emergency Management  180

CB03-12/14      Tender No 01450 - Design, Supply and Install CCTV System (Hub) At Butler Community Centre Precinct  180

Infrastructure  187

Tenders  187

IN01-12/14       Tender No 01446 - Provision of Dry Park Maintenance for a Period of Three Years  187

IN02-12/14       Tender No 01447 - Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale for a Period of Three Years  192

IN03-12/14       Tender No 01451 - Construction of Koondoola Community Centre  198

IN04-12/14       Tender No 01452 - Construction of Kingsway Baseball/Softball Clubrooms  208

Traffic Management  217

IN05-12/14       Rothesay Heights, Mindarie - Pathway - Results of Community Consultation  217

IN06-12/14       Kingsway - Wanneroo Rd to Mirrabooka Ave - Traffic Management Scheme - Community Feedback  231

Community Development  261

Community Capacity Building  261

CD01-12/14     Reconciliation Action Plan 2015-17  261

CD02-12/14     Community Funding October Round 2014 Applications  274

CD03-12/14     Budget and Grant Variation-Your Move program   297

Community Programs and Services  300

CD04-12/14     Trial for Free Use of Tennis Courts  300

Corporate Strategy & Performance  309

Finance  309

CS01-12/14      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 November 2014  309

CS02-12/14      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 31 October 2014  377

CS03-12/14      Review of Investment Policy  390

Risk and Business Improvement  403

CS04-12/14      1st Quarter Corporate Business Plan Progress Report 2014/15 (July - September 2014) 403

CS05-12/14      CEO's Review of Systems and Processes Against the Requirements of Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 - Clause 17  417

 

Governance  433

CS06-12/14      Donations to be Considered by Council - December 2014  433

CS07-12/14      Repeal and Replacement of Purchasing Policy  438

CS08-12/14      8 Year Local Law Review - Close of Submissions  476

CS09-12/14      Local Government Planners Association European Liveable Cities Tour 2015  480

Chief Executive Office  483

Other Matters  483

CE01-12/14      Delegation of Authority Over the Council Recess Period - Authority to Award a Tender  483

Item  9______ Motions on Notice_ 485

MN01-12/14     Cr Dot Newton – Lot 135 (71) Belgrade Road, Wanneroo (Drainage Sump) - Exemption for Payment - Developer Contribution Scheme (East Wanneroo Cell 3) 485

MN02-12/14     Cr Linda Aitken – Revoke a Council Decision for a Waiver of Fees and Charges to the Yanchep Two Rocks Lion Club  489

MN03-12/14     Cr Linda Aitken – Waiver of Fees and Charges for the Yanchep Two Rocks Lions' Club  492

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 495

Item  11____ Confidential_ 495

CR01-12/14     Deed of Settlement and Release - Peter Morgan and Sue Morgan, trading as the Yanchep Lagoon Beach Cafe, portion of Lot 9740 (Reserve 43792) Brazier Road, Yanchep  495

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 495

Item  13____ Closure_ 495

 

 

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

 

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

Item  1     Attendances

Item  2     Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3     Public Question Time

Item  4     Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 November 2014 be confirmed.

Item  5     Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6     Questions from Elected Members

Item  7     Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions

 

PT01-11/14      Requesting a Playground at Gidgi Park Wanneroo

Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 42 signatories requesting a Playground at Gidgi Park Wanneroo.   Update   Investigation underway with report to be presented to Council in March 2015.

 

 

PT02-11/14      Requesting 'No Parking' Signs on Berigora Avenue and Pintail Pass, Tapping

Cr Newton presented a petition of 54 signatories requesting the provision of 'No Parking' signs on Berigora Avenue and Pintail Pass, Tapping.   Update   Report to be presented to Council in March 2015.

 

 

PT03-11/14      Requesting Bollards along the nature strip of the intersection at Mirrabooka Avenue and Southmead Drive, Landsdale

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 26 signatories requesting bollards along the nature strip of the intersection at Mirrabooka Avenue and Southmead Drive, Landsdale.   Update   Report to be presented to Council in March 2015.

 

 

PT04-11/14      Requesting the City to address the management of Traffic Flow along Sandison Way, Landsdale

Cr Zappa presented a petition of 85 signatories requesting the City to address the management of Traffic Flow along Sandison Way, Landsdale.   Update   Report to be presented to Council in March 2015.

 

 

PT05-11/14      Requesting to remove, reduce or modify the traffic calming measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson

Cr Winton presented a petition of 320 signatories requesting to remove, reduce or modify the traffic calming measures on Aldersea Circle, Clarkson.   Update   This matter was dealt with by Council at Item IN06-11/14 at its 11 November 2014 meeting.

 

 

Item  8     Reports

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

Planning and Sustainability

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

File Ref:                                               3379-31 – 14/308422

Responsible Officer:                            Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 31 to the East Wanneroo Cell 4 (Hocking and Pearsall) Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 (ASP 6) and determination of this Amendment.

 

Applicant	Dynamic Planning and Developments
Owner	Magicyl Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 22 (141) East Road, Hocking
Site Area	7.9622 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 6 Zoning	Residential

 

 

Background

On 31 March 2014, Dynamic Planning and Developments, on behalf of Magicyl, lodged Amendment No. 31 to ASP 6 for the City's consideration. The amendment relates to Lot 22 (No.141) East Road, Hocking.

 

ASP 6 was first adopted by Council on 28 September 1999. Since its adoption there have been a significant number of amendments. Recent amendments to ASP 6 that have been considered and adopted by Council have proposed to recode land from either R20 or R30 to R30 or R40. These amendments have resulted in an additional dwelling yield of approximately 230 dwellings over the entirety of the structure plan area and reflect the changing trend in the residential development industry to provide smaller lot products.

 

Lot 22 East Road is currently zoned Residential with a residential density code of R20 and R30 and includes a portion of Public Open Space. The location of the Amendment area is identified on the map included as Attachment 1.

 

On 29 May 2014, a memorandum was sent to Elected Members informing them of the intention by the Manager Planning Implementation to advertise Amendment No. 31 to ASP 6 under delegated authority. No request was received by the Elected Members requiring the matter to be reported to Council for consent to advertise and as a result the amendment was advertised. A total of 49 submissions were received as outlined in the 'Consultation' section of this report.

 

It has been decided by Administration to determine the proposed Structure Plan Amendment though a report to Council rather than under Delegated Authority, due to the number and nature of submissions that were received during the advertising period.

Detail

Amendment No. 31 proposes to modify the ASP 6 Structure Plan Map and increase the residential density coding of the subject site from R20 and R30 to R30 and R40. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable a greater subdivision yield of the site to allow for the creation of smaller residential lots and to facilitate the development of a diverse mix of housing types and size within the area. Attachment 2 shows the existing ASP 6 Structure Plan Map and the proposed ASP 6 Structure Plan Map of the Amendment area.

 

Consultation

 

Amendment No. 31 was advertised for a period of 42 days by way of an advertisement placed in the Wanneroo Times on 8 July 2014, notices to surrounding landowners sent on 7 July 2014, display on the City's website and a sign being placed on-site. The advertising period closed on 19 August 2014 with 49 submissions received within this period. Of those submissions, 4 were in support of the proposal, 42 objected to the proposal, and 3 provided comment only.

 

It should be noted that the amendment proposal that was advertised proposed to re-code the subject lot from a residential density code of R20 and R30 to a residential density code of R40 over the entirety of the subject site. However, upon consideration of the nature of the submissions received, the applicant has provided the City with a modified proposal. This modified proposal was not re-advertised to the surrounding landowners as it is considered that the modification to include an area of R30 within the proposed amendment site addressed some concerns noted in the submissions in relation to the number and size of lots that could potentially be created by the proposed re-coding. The modified proposal, as shown in Attachment 2, proposes to re-code the subject site from R20 and R30 to R30 and R40; with the proposed R30 area being in the north-eastern portion of the subject site.

A summary of the submissions raised by surrounding landowners during the advertising period and Administration's response to those submissions is included as Attachment 3.

Comment

The key issues raised in the submissions received are discussed below.

Traffic Generation

 

Concerns were raised that the increased density coding of the subject lot would potentially result in traffic congestion on the surrounding road network.

 

The proposed recoding of the subject site will increase the potential dwelling yield of the subject lot from 54 dwellings under the existing R20 and R30 coding, to 99 dwellings under the proposed R30 and R40 coding. The total dwelling yield potential will therefore be increased by a maximum of 45 dwellings. Based on the Main Roads WA (MRWA) transport data, a single dwelling is assumed to generate 10 vehicle trips per day on average. Therefore an additional 45 dwellings could generate up to an additional 450 vehicle trips per day (VTPD) at the proposed R30 and R40 coding than if it remained at the existing R20 and R30 coding.

 

 

An accompanying Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) submitted with the proposal considers that approximately 5.5 VTPD is more suitable due to the smaller size of the future dwellings on the site. The MRWA data takes into account lower density and larger housing sites which typically generate a higher number of vehicle movements due to higher occupancy rates. If the 5.5 VTPD was to be used, the additional 45 dwellings could generate an additional 248 VTPD at the R30 and R40 coding than if it remained at the existing R20 and R30 coding. The City's Traffic and Transport Service Unit has assessed the TIA provided by the applicant and has confirmed that the data provided is in accordance with and meets the requirements of the Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development: Volume 2 – Structure Plans. For the purpose of this report, however, the figures being considered are those based on the MRWA trip generation data of 10 VTPD to determine the highest likely traffic generation as result of the proposed amendment.

 

The following table outlines the most recent available traffic count data on the adjoining road network; the anticipated traffic volume after construction of 99 dwellings on the subject site based on the generation of an additional 10 VTPD per dwelling; and the capacity of the roads according to the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods (LN) policy. The traffic count data provided identifies traffic volumes on the surrounding road network within an 800m radius of the subject lot. This distance is considered standard practice for structure plan amendments of this nature and is in accordance with the WAPC's Transport Assessment Guidelines for Development. Beyond this distance, traffic begins to disperse into the broader road network.

 

Road Name	Existing Traffic Count Data (VTPD)	Traffic Volume Post Construction (VTPD)	Traffic Volume Capacity (VTPD)
East Road	2,020	2,713	3,000
Hinckley Parkway	175	1,165	3,000
Copenhagen Drive	100	1,090	3,000
Manchester Drive	1,243	1,540	3,000

 

This table shows that whilst there will be an increase in vehicle movements on the local road network; the increases are capable of being accommodated within the existing road network based on the capacity of those roads.

 

As part of the TIA, an analysis was undertaken to assess the volume of traffic and potential delays at the intersections of East Road and Chatsworth Drive, and East Road and Lenore Road following development of the subject lot. The analysis concluded that there would be only minimal delays at these intersections as a result of the proposed development. It should also be noted that there are a number of proposed upgrades to the existing road network in regard to the intersection of East Road and Lenore Road as part of the City's road improvements for Lenore Road. This includes the addition of a left turn deceleration lane on Lenore Road northbound, a right turn deceleration lane on Lenore Road southbound and a left turning lane on East Road. These upgrades will work to alleviate potential pressures that may occur at this intersection.

 

Having regard to the additional traffic of 990 vehicle movements per day that are anticipated to be generated by the future development of the subject area as a result of the proposed amendment, it is not considered to significantly adversely impact on the normal flow of traffic in the surrounding area.

 

Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy

 

Concerns were raised questioning the extent to which the subject lot was within an appropriate proximity to nearby amenities.

 

 

The amendment area falls under ASP 6, and as such, the proposal is subject to the requirements of Clause 9 (b) and Table 1 of the City's Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation (LPP 3.1). Table 1 of LPP 3.1 outlines criteria and specifies distances to infrastructure and nearby amenities which a site should meet in order for the City to support an application for re-coding of that lot.

 

The proposal has been assessed against and is considered to satisfy the provisions of LPP 3.1 for the following reasons:

 

·        It is considered the amendment is appropriate within the broader planning framework as the Residential zone aims to provide a range of densities and a variety of housing to meet the needs of different household types.

 

·        The proposal is considered to satisfy the criteria of LPP 3.1 (Table 1), and summarised as follows:

o   The Amendment area is located within 600m of a Neighbourhood Centre;

o   The Amendment area is located within 400m of an existing bus route, with future provision for a high frequency bus route within 250m;

o   The Amendment area provides for public open space within 250m of all proposed lots; and

o   The Amendment area is located in close proximity to major arterial roads, educational institutions and community facilities.

The full assessment against the criteria contained in LPP 3.1 is contained in Attachment 4.

 

·        The proposal is generally in accordance with the objectives outlined in Part 9 of the City of Wanneroo Local Housing Strategy 2005 (LHS).

Statutory Compliance

This structure plan amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a structure plan amendment, Council may refuse to adopt the amendment or resolve that the amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that Amendment No. 31 to ASP 6 be approved without modifications.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of DPS 2, Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning and LPP 3.1.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 31 to the East Wanneroo Cell 4 (Hocking and Pearsall) Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 submitted by Dynamic Planning on behalf of Magicyl Pty Ltd included as Attachment 2 is SATISFACTORY without modifications and SUBMITS three (3) copies of the structure plan documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

 

2.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 31 to the East Wanneroo Cell 4 (Hocking and Pearsall) Agreed Structure Plan No. 6 documents and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

 

3.      NOTES the Schedule of Submissions included in Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission, and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Amendment 31 ASP 6	14/346259
2.	Attachment 2 - Existing and Proposed Strcuture Plan Map - Amendment 31 ASP 6	14/346262	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Submissions Schedule - Amendment 31 ASP 6	14/346440	Minuted
4.	Attachment 4 - Assessment of Amendment 31 ASP 6 against LPP 3.1	14/346451

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               16795 – 14/314735

Responsible Officer:                            Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider submissions on the proposed Local Structure Plan No. 99 - Gnangara Rural Community (LSP 99) and its acceptability for final approval and forwarding to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement.

 

Applicant	Linc Property Pty Ltd
Owner	ANZ Trustees Ltd
Location	Part Lot 10 (139) & Lot 6 (139L) Sydney Road and Lot 9501 (1K) Fortitude Boulevard, GNANGARA
Site Area	25.1896ha
MRS Zoning	Rural and Public Purpose
DPS 2 Zoning	Rural Community

 

 

Background

On 24 June 2014, the proposed LSP 99 was submitted by Linc Property Pty Ltd on behalf of the landowner, ANZ Trustees Ltd.

 

The LSP 99 area applies to Part Lot 10 (139) and Lot 6 (139L) Sydney Road, and Lot 9501 (1K) Fortitude Boulevard, Gnangara. Refer to Attachment 1 which includes a location plan of the LSP 99 area.

 

The total site area is approximately 25 hectares and contains an existing community workshop, Aboriginal Cemetery, two grouped dwellings and a private accessway from Sydney Road. The remainder of the subject site is native vegetation incorporated under Bush Forever Site No. 463.

 

Amendment No. 123 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) rezoned the subject land from General Rural to Rural Community zone and introduced Section No. 2 to Schedule 15 of DPS 2 which included a number of special provisions for the subject site relating to environmental factors.

 

On 2 September 2014, the Manager, Planning Implementation forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to Council for consent to advertise.  No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of LSP 99 commenced on 23 September and closed on 4 November 2014 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of DPS 2.

Detail

LSP 99 involves dividing the structure plan area into two precincts:

 

1.      Area 'A' (Conservation Precinct) – protect Bush Forever Site No. 463 and retain native vegetation; and

2.      Area 'B' (Community Precinct) – includes four building envelopes (two existing dwellings), the Aboriginal Cemetery site and 'Civic & Cultural' zone for community purposes.

 

The draft LSP 99 ensures that the development of the subject site is conducted in accordance with the provisions included in Section No. 2 - Schedule 15 (Clause 3.23) of DPS 2.

Proposal

The draft LSP, as shown in Attachment 2, has been prepared to provide the broad planning framework to facilitate development of the area. The preparation of this structure plan is necessary to achieve the provisions outlined under Section No. 2 – Schedule 15 of DPS 2.

 

The LSP provides the framework for the creation of the following:

 

·        Four building envelopes to continue the limited function of the land as a Aboriginal Community – two of the four already contains dwellings;

·        Protection of the Bush Forever Site so that no further development or subdivision can occur within this portion of the subject site;

·        A physical buffer between the existing rural-residential properties to the north of the subject site and the future industrial land (Wangara Industrial Extension Area – Northlink) to the south of the subject site; and

·        The continued use of the site for community purposes (albeit, significantly reduced from that previously conducted).

Consultation

The draft LSP was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by means of an on-site sign, an advertisement in the Wanneroo Times newspaper, the City’s website and letters written to adjoining landowners.  The submission period closed on 4 November 2014, with seven submissions being received.  A summary of submissions received and Administration responses are shown in Attachment 3.

 

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

 

·        The relationship between LSP 99 and Section No. 2 – Schedule 15 of DPS 2; and

·        The potential for anti-social behaviour in and surrounding the area.

 

A more detailed discussion of the major issues considered in the assessment of LSP 99 is provided in the Comment section.

Comment

The Relationship Between LSP 99 and Section No. 2 – Schedule 15 of DPS 2

 

Schedule 15 – No. 2 of DPS 2 relates to Lot 6 Sydney Road, Gnangara; portion of Lot 10 Sydney Road, Gnangara; and portion of Lot 50 Ocean Reef Road, Gnangara. The structure plan area directly relates to the land specified under this schedule of DPS 2.

 

The subclauses of Section No. 2 - Schedule 15 require the preparation of a structure plan which ensures development and subdivision occurs with limited impact on the Bush Forever Site. These requirements are briefly summarised below:

 

·        Preparation of a Bush Forever Rehabilitation Management Plan;

·        Identify the location of building envelopes for future dwellings;

·        Address stormwater and/or wastewater run-off;

 

 

·        Prohibit the clearing of native vegetation and all other development within the Bush Forever Site; and

·        Recognise the Western Australian Planning Commissions (WAPC) Bush Fire Protection Guidelines.

 

It is considered that the draft LSP 99 addresses all of the requirements outlined under Section No. 2 - Schedule 15 of DPS 2 for the following reasons:

 

·        A Bush Forever Rehabilitation Management Plan is included in Part 3 of draft LSP 99;

·        Four building envelopes are identified in Part 1 (Plan A) of LSP 99;

·        Clause 1.4 of Table 1b has been included in Part 1 and information has been provided in Part 2 of draft LSP 99 to ensure wastewater/stormwater does not flow from 'Precinct B' into 'Precinct A'.

·        Development is not permitted within the Bush Forever site as per Part 1 (Table 1a) of draft LSP 99; and

·        A Bush Fire Management Plan has been prepared and included in Part 3 of draft LSP 99.

 

Therefore, draft LSP 99 is deemed to meet the provisions and requirements included in Schedule 15 – No. 2 of DPS 2.

 

Anti-Social Behaviour

 

Comments were raised through public advertising of the draft LSP 99 that anti-social behaviour has occurred on-site and in the immediate vicinity in the past, which has impacted adjoining landowner's amenity.

 

It is noted that anti-social behaviour is not a valid planning consideration, however, the applicant has provided additional information to offer a better understanding of the management of the community on-site, and measures which are/have been taken to minimise any impact on adjoining residents:

 

·        Any future development within the LSP is limited to Area B – ‘Community Precinct’ which is separated from adjoining residents by Area A – ‘Conservation Precinct’;

·        The community has historically comprised of significantly more infrastructure including up to 15 houses. The LSP seeks to limit the scale and nature of any future development on the site, including a maximum of 4 dwellings;

·        The frontage of the community with Sydney Road is significantly reduced, with the interface limited to Bush Forever conservation and the access driveway. Development which was historically close to Sydney Road is now setback within the site;

·        The community has established a formal board with independent representation to assist in the management of the community;

·        A professional independent property manager has been appointed to manage the leases and ongoing tenancy of the houses on site; and

·        A security gate and surveillance cameras have been installed within the community to restrict access and deter/monitor any antisocial behaviour on site. New internal and boundary fencing limits access and movement within the site.

 

Whilst it is noted that anti-social behaviour is not a planning consideration the measures taken (as stated above) will help minimise any impacts on the surrounding landowners. The limitations imposed on the site through the LSP 99 will reduce the size and extent of the community, and in turn is also likely to reduce any negative impact on adjoining residents. It is also considered that the site is a significant benefit to the aboriginal community and aids persons in need of housing.

 

 

Merit of Structure Plan

The key elements of the Structure Plan are listed below:

1.      Draft LSP 99 will ensure the bush forever site is protected which will aid as a physical buffer between rural-residential properties to the north of the subject site, and the Wangara Industrial Extension Area to the south;

 

2.      Only four building envelopes will be approved under draft LSP 99, which will control the extent of development on-site; and   

 

3.      The provisions included in draft LSP 99 are consistent with DPS 2, and will ensure that the bush forever site is not impact by future development or subdivision.

 

Overall, the draft LSP 99 is considered by Administration to adequately address the constraints and the desired outcome of the subject site. It is therefore recommended that the draft LSP 99 be adopted by Council. 

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2.  Clause 9.6.1 of DPS 2 provides that following advertisement of a Structure Plan, Council may refuse to adopt the Structure Plan or resolve that the Structure Plan is satisfactory with or without modifications. It is recommended that the Local Structure Plan be approved without modifications.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy”

Risk Management Considerations

As Schedule 15 – No. 2 of DPS 2 requires the adoption of a Structure Plan to enforce the items listed, should the proposed LSP 99 not be adopted, there will be limited ability for the City to ensure the Bush Forever Site is not impacted through development and/or subdivision of the land. This may compromise the land and the buffer affect it has on residential dwellings north of the subject site from the industrial land to the south.

Policy Implications

The draft LSP 99 has been considered under the provisions of the City's Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that the Gnangara Rural Community Local Structure Plan No. 99 dated June 2014 submitted by Linc Property on behalf of ANZ Trustees Ltd included as Attachment 2 is SATISFACTORY without modifications and SUBMITS three (3) copies of the structure plan documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

 

2.      Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the Gnangara Rural Community Local Structure Plan No. 99 documents and AUTHORISES the Director, Planning and Sustainability to SIGN and SEAL once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

 

3.      NOTES the Schedule of Submissions included in Attachment 3, ENDORSES Administration's responses to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission, and ADVISES the submitters of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan for Draft LSP 99	14/338936
2.	Attachment 2 - Part 1 of LSP 99: Gnangara Rural Community	14/359494	Minuted
3.	Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions	14/324508	Minuted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Applications

File Ref:                                               DA2014/1218 – 14/285614

Responsible Officer:                            Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider a development application for a proposed liquor store (Liquorland) and an extension to the existing supermarket (Coles) at Lot 278 (6) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler.

 

Applicant	TPG Town Planning
Owner	Coles Property Group Development and ISPT Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 278 (6) Kingsbridge Boulevard Butler
Site Area	12,190m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
ASP 38 Zoning	Commercial

 

 

Background

The subject site is located at the corner of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Marmion Avenue, and is bound by Aberdar Lane to the south and east. Attachment 1 contains a location plan of the subject site.

 

On 27 January 2004 a development application (DA04/0820) was submitted for a shopping centre on the subject site. The proposal incorporated a supermarket comprising of 2475m² of gross floorspace, eight retail stores comprising 860m² of floorspace and a 200m² cafe. This application was approved by Administration on 5 July 2004.

 

Following the approval of this application, nine change of use applications have been subsequently approved by the City for this site. The shopping centre currently accommodates a range of retail and commercial uses. The smaller tenancies, including shops, take-away food outlets and a cafe front onto Kingsbridge Boulevard. The Coles supermarket located behind the smaller tenancies, has access available from Kingsbridge Boulevard, with a car park to the rear and the east of the building which contains 205 car bays.

Detail

The proposed development application is for a 186m² liquor store and a 502m² Gross Floor Area (GFA) extension to the existing supermarket. The proposal is for the supermarket to extend towards Marmion Avenue. The liquor store is proposed to adjoin the supermarket and will be located on the corner of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Marmion Avenue. No additional on site car parking is proposed. Attachment 2 contains the proposed plans of the development.

 

The lot is zoned Urban Development under the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2), which requires an Agreed Structure Plan to be in place as the primary statutory framework used to assess subdivisions and development applications.

The lot falls within an area zoned as Centre under the Butler-Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 (ASP 27), which requires the preparation of a separate Centre Structure Plan to provide more detailed and specific statutory provisions.

In accordance with this, the Brighton Village Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 38 (ASP 38) was prepared and approved. As per ASP 38 the site is zoned Commercial. A liquor store and supermarket are both 'P' (permitted) uses within a Commercial zone.

DPS 2 and specifically ASP 38 also set out detailed development standards for development to be assessed against.

The application is also required to have due regard for other relevant planning policies, including the City's Local Planning Policy 3.2 Activity Centre Policy (LPP 3.2) and State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres (SPP 4.2) and Liveable Neighbourhoods.

With specific reference to ASP 38, the application is subject to development standards including a maximum net lettable area (NLA), the provision of a landmark site on the corner of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Marmion Avenue and specific Main Street Precinct provisions which include setback and awning requirements. These requirements are discussed further in the report.

 

The application proposes two variations to the development provisions of DPS 2 and ASP 38, which are identified as follows:

1)      In accordance with the car parking provision of DPS 2 the proposed development requires an additional 21 car parking bays. The applicant is not proposing any additional car parking as part of this application and is requesting a 9% variation to the car parking provisions. The applicant's justification for the variation is summarised in the Applicant's Justification section of the report.

2)      The setback of the supermarket entrance to Kingsbridge Boulevard is 7m – 9m. ASP 38 requires a setback of nil – 2m.

Consultation

Public consultation was undertaken due to the proposed car parking variation. The details of the car parking variation are discussed further in this report.

 

Public consultation was undertaken for 21 days by letter to adjoining tenants and landowners commencing from 5 September 2014 and closing on 26 September 2014. This notification letter was sent to the following:

 

·        Tenants of the existing shopping centre;

·        Owners of residential lots to the west of Marchwood Boulevard (6, 8A, 8C, 8D, 10A, 10C, 10D, 12A, 12B), which adjoin Aberdar Lane; and

·        Owner of Lot 1182 (2) Marchwood Boulevard (currently vacant).

 

At the conclusion of the public consultation period, five submissions were received by the closure of the advertising period and an additional late submission, all objecting to the proposal. A plan showing those consulted and those who made a submission is included as Attachment 3. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to these are shown in Attachment 4. Full copies of each of the submissions are provided in Attachment 5.

 

The main issues raised during the advertising period are detailed below:

 

1)      Objections to the liquor store for the following reasons:

 

·        there are already enough liquor stores within the area;

·        the incompatibility of the liquor store with other existing uses, including the surrounding residential area and a child care centre.

·        comments that the liquor store will generate anti-social behaviour

 

2)      The extension will lead to additional delivery vehicles to the loading bay and service area at Aberdar Lane which will exacerbate the existing problems of noise in the early hours of the morning and the lane being blocked with waiting vehicles.

 

3)      The design of the extensions will deactivate the Main Street, being Kingsbridge Boulevard and is not in accordance with provisions of LPP 3.2, SPP 4.2 or Liveable Neighbourhoods. Comments objected to the separate entrance to the supermarket from the rear car park, the relocation the entrance along the main street and the second internal entrance to the liquor store. All these entrance points will reduce the amount of foot traffic along the main street, resulting in the main street being commercially unviable for tenants.

Applicant's Justification

Car parking

 

In support of the car parking variation the applicant has submitted a Traffic Engineering Report. As part of the report a parking survey was conducted on three days, being the 15^th, 16^th and 17^th of May 2014 (Thursday evening, Friday evening and Saturdays morning). The applicant has explained the survey times were chosen as these are the peak trading periods based on sales data and best practice approach taken in traffic and parking analysis work.  

 

The report concludes that the existing car park was 67% (Thursday evenings) to 84% (Friday evening and Saturday morning) occupied during these peak periods. This results in a minimum of 33 to 45 bays being vacant at any one time during each of the survey periods.

 

With reliance on the Traffic Engineering Report outcomes, the applicant has provided the following justification for the car parking variation:

 

·        Based on the current usage of the car park, the surplus of vacant car bays could cater for the 21 car bay variation;

·        The parking requirements of DPS 2 are higher than what has been approved in most other centres in the City. For example Wanneroo Central, Banksia Grove, Ocean Keys Centres all have parking provided at a rate of 5 bays per 100sqm of NLA or less. DPS 2 provisions of 7 bays per 100sqm of NLA are considered to be outdated and not in accordance with prevailing state policy such as the WAPC State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres (SPP 4.2) which recommends the provision of parking to commercial centres at a ratio of 4-5 bays per 100sqm of NLA;

·        There are other car bays located in the area, including eight existing on-street car bays along Kingsbridge Boulevard, directly adjoining the subject site. These bays are 10 minute maximum stay and can be utilised for customers to the proposed liquor store or existing tenancies along this street. The applicant contends these bays should be included in the car parking calculation;

·        Based on the findings from previous similar extensions to supermarkets, the extension does not translate to additional customers visiting the store, rather the extension translates to the same number of customers leaving with more goods, given that the extension allows Coles to offer a greater range of products;

·        A portion of customers will 'trip blend' (ie go to more than one destination within the centre during the same trip).

·        There are 173 bays on the northern side of Kingsbridge Boulevard which can also cater for overflow parking in periods of convergent peak.

 

Delivery Vehicles

 

The applicant has advised the existing issues with delivery trucks are being addressed by the following measures:

 

·        Most of the deliveries will occur in the morning or afternoon, with delivery times restricted between 7am and 7pm.

·        As a standard operating procedure supermarket trucks are not permitted to queue up or block access while waiting to deliver goods. Non-compliance with these requirements is handled through centre management and the supermarket distribution centre that respond to issues if they are identified.

 

The applicant has also advised that the extension allows for more efficient deliveries with trucks full of stock being utilised, rather than trucks that are partially full. On this basis no additional delivery trucks for the supermarket are required. Further, the applicant advised the majority of the stock for the liquor store will be delivered in the same trucks as the supermarket deliveries. The only additional deliveries to the site will be from specific brewers that deliver once on Tuesday and Thursday to the liquor store.  The trucks used by the specific brewers are expected to generate less noise as they will be a smaller size, generally under 10m in length as opposed to the standard semi-trailer of around 17 metres in length used for the other deliveries.

 

Compliance with ASP 38

 

Landmark sites

 

The applicant has stated the existing and proposed roof feature with ‘suspended’ look, soft timber lining and angled support poles mirrors the roof feature and built form that exists on the northern corner of Kingsbridge Boulevard. This along with the entry wall 'Brighton’ statement is intended to bookend both sides of Kingsbridge Boulevard, create an iconic entrance (landmark site) to the centre and define the beginning of the main street. 

 

Main Street Principles and Setback Supermarket Entrance

 

The applicant has advised the development was designed so the built form elements remain consistent between the north and south of Kingsbridge Boulevard. The northern entrance to the main street also has its built form set back from the corner, re-creating a community square to the corner of Marmion and Kingsbridge. This was an integral part of the existing design of the centre.

 

The distinctive roof form of the corner will simply be extended toward Marmion Avenue to incorporate the liquor store, retaining the space area in front of the supermarket entrance which is intended to act as an informal community gathering space which includes the community notice board and sheltered area that forms an outside foyer. 

Comments

Comments regarding the issues raised in the advertising period and the non compliant development standard of DPS 2 are discussed below:

 

Car Parking

 

As per the car parking requirements of Table 2 of DPS 2, the existing shopping centre requires 190 car bays to be provided on the site. Currently 205 bays are located on the subject site, resulting in a surplus of 15 bays.

The proposed additions to the supermarket and liquor store require an additional 36 bays, meaning a total of 226 bays are required on site. As part of this application no additional car bays are proposed, resulting in a car parking variation of 21 car bays.

 

Clause 4.2.1 of DPS 2 allows Council to approve an application where it does not comply with a development standard or requirement prescribed in DPS 2. This Clause can only be exercised when the requirements of clause 4.2.3 of DPS 2 have been met. Clause 4.2.3 permits the Council to vary development standards where two criteria are achieved.

 

The first criterion is for the development to have regard to Clause 6.8 of DPS 2. This Clause includes a broad range of matters that, where applicable, are to be considered by Council in the assessment of development applications. Clause 6.8 (p) specifically relates to adequate provision being made for loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking vehicles.

 

The second criterion is that the non-compliant development standard will not have an adverse impact on the users of the proposed development or the surrounding landowners and occupiers.

 

When considering the criteria of Clause 4.2.3 the following has been taken in account:

 

·        Car parking standards in DPS 2 calculate the number of car parking bays generated from each individual tenancy. This approach is appropriate for individual, isolated land uses but is not appropriate when these land use components are co-located in one activity centre because there will be ‘multi-purpose’ visits and a degree of reciprocity between uses. Taking this into consideration SPP 4.2 recommends centres provide a car parking ratio of 4 – 5 bays per 100m² of shop-retail NLA. The proposed development will provide a car parking ratio of 6.3 bays per 100m² of shop NLA. This is only marginally less than the parking ratio of 7 bays per 100m² of shop NLA in DPS 2.

·        The Centre is classified as a Neighbourhood Centre under SPP 4.2. Other Neighbourhood Centres within the City, including the Ashby Neighbourhood Centre and the Hocking Neighbourhood Centre, have been approved with approximately 20% car parking variations. In comparison the current application proposes a 9% car parking variation.

·        The applicant's Traffic Engineering Report which reflected the peak operating periods indicates that, at time of the parking surveys, there were more than 21 vacant car bays. This demonstrates the existing car park could cater for the additional car bays required for the proposed development without creating overflow car parking on the surrounding streets.

·        Two submissions questioned why a parking variation was being considered, however did not detail any specific concerns on the current usage and availability of the car park. Two other comments were received in relation to customers parking in Marchwood Boulevard. These submissions suggested the customers chose to park on the street to avoid the car park, yet did not suggest the car park was full.

·        The above calculation of car parking provisions does not include the eight car parking bays along Kingsbridge Boulevard which have a 10 minute time limit. It is expected that occupiers of these car bays will predominately visit the tenancies on the subject site. These bays provide additional car parking capacity.

 

Based on the above information Administration anticipates the parking variation is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the users of the shopping centre as there will still be sufficient parking available to customers and the proposal is unlikely to detrimentally impact the surrounding area.

 

As per clause 4.15 of DPS2 Council may accept cash payment in lieu of car parking, in order for the City to provide a public car park within the locality.

This approach is not recommended as, based on the above justification, the car parking currently provided on site will sufficiently cater for the proposed extensions. Further, there is no identifiable location within the vicinity for a public car park to be constructed to cater for customers of the proposed development.

 

Liquor store

 

A liquor store is a 'P' (Permitted) use within the Commercial zone. Under Clause 6.6 of DPS 2, Council shall not refuse an application for planning approval where it involves a 'P' (Permitted) use, by reason of the unsuitability of that use. Objections to the Liquor Store were raised from public consultation and are discussed below.

 

Incompatibility with other uses

 

Objectors raised the issue of the proposed liquor store and its location in regards to existing residential properties and a child care centre. The closest residential dwellings are located approximately 100 metres to the east of the proposed liquor store, along Aberdar Lane. The child care centre is located approximately 170 metres to the south of the proposed liquor store. The existing supermarket physically separates the residential dwellings and the child care centre from the 'liquor store.'

 

No evidence has been provided that supports the view that adverse impacts will arise from the location of the liquor store.

 

Duplication of services: the proximity of other liquor stores 

 

A number of objections raised concerns about the number of liquor stores in the area, suggesting there were enough existing liquor stores to service the surrounding community.

 

Attachment 6 shows the locations of the surrounding liquor stores. The nearest liquor stores are approximately:

 

·        250m to the north-west, along Marmion Avenue.

·        1km to the east at the intersection of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Connolly Drive.

 

There is also the "Cornerstone Tavern" located 80 metres north-east, at the intersection of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Wadhurst Road.

 

The City does not have the ability to regulate the number of liquor stores within an area and this is largely regulated by market forces. In addition, the applicant would still be required to obtain a liquor licence from the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor (DRGL) to operate the proposed liquor store. The DRGL will assess if the liquor store is ‘within the public interest’. The proposed use of a liquor store will only commence if a liquor licence is granted by the DRGL.

 

Anti-social behaviour

 

A number of objectors raised concerns about alleged anti-social and drunken behaviour that may impact the surrounding residential area and child care centre.

 

The proposed liquor store will provide for the sale of alcoholic products and does not involve the consumption of alcohol on site. For this reason, the use itself is unlikely to lead to anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is a Police matter. The DRGL will consider these issues, as appropriate, in the liquor licensing process.

 

 

Delivery vehicles

 

From the City's records it appears there have been 11 complaints regarding the delivery vehicles parking in Aberdar Lane made to the City from 2010 to present, with the majority being in 2010 and 2011. As a result, 'no parking' signs are erected in Aberdar Laneway in mid 2011.

 

During the public consultation additional complaints have been received in relation to the delivery vehicles which highlight the existing issues with the delivery trucks, specifically in relation to trucks parking in Aberdar Lane.

 

The City's Rangers Services are responsible for enforcing the no parking restriction along Aberdar Lane under the City's Parking Local Law and the Rangers will action any complaint in regards to delivery vehicles illegally parking in the laneway. Following the erection of 'no parking' signs the Rangers have regularly monitored the site to ensure no delivery trucks are parked in the laneway and have not seen any trucks during these visits. However, it is noted there has been recent complaints to the City in regards to delivery trucks still parking in the laneway.

 

As advised by the applicant, only two additional delivery trucks are required as a result of the proposed additional floor space. Based on this information, it is not expected the truck deliveries generated from the proposed development will have any significant additional adverse impact on the surrounding residences. However, given the objections raised and complaints made to the City, it would be appropriate to impose a condition that restricts the operation of all deliveries to the supermarket and liquor store.

 

It is recommended that a condition of planning approval be applied that requires delivery vehicles and delivery times to be scheduled to avoid the need for vehicles to park along Aberdar Lane. The condition should also include a restriction on delivery hours, to avoid excessive noises from delivery vehicles at unreasonable hours, particular on Sundays and public holidays. It is recommended that deliveries occur between 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Saturday and deliveries on Sunday and public holidays occur between 8.00am and 6.00pm.

 

In conjunction with this condition, the delivery trucks will still need to adhere to the 'no parking' signs along Aberdar Lane, and any non compliance with these signs will be subject to action by the City's Ranger Services.

 

Shop-Retail Net Lettable Area (NLA)

 

ASP 38 restricts the Centre to a maximum of 4500m² of shop-retail NLA. The Centre consists of the subject site and the two lots to the north, being 5 and 11 Kingsbridge Boulevard. The application proposes an additional 352m² NLA for the supermarket and 90m² NLA for the liquor store, totalling 542m² NLA. This additional NLA means the total shop-retail NLA for the Centre is 3590m², within the permitted maximum.

 

Landmark Sites

 

ASP 38 requires a landmark site to be provided on the corner of Kingsbridge Boulevard and Marmion Avenue. ASP 38 states "Any building developed on a landmark site must pay special attention to built form and urban design to recognize the visual prominence of these sites and their key role in defining the character of the village. Special attention should be given to street address and presence, window locations, roof form, articulation of corner works, materials and colour".

 

As noted by the applicant, the building has been designed to reflect the existing design on both the current site and the building to the north of Kingsbridge Boulevard, creating a similar built form and landmark element. It is considered this design, including articulated awning, timber panels to the corner of the site and extensive glazing, satisfies the landmark requirements of ASP 38 and harmonise the development along Kingsbridge Boulevard.

 

Main Street Principles

 

Several objectors have raised a number of concerns with regard to the proposed development, contending that it is not consistent with main street principles.  A summary of the objections and Administration's comments are provided below.

 

·    The proposed development in inconsistent with the main street design requirements of ASP 38.

 

ASP 38 identifies Kingsbridge Boulevard as the main street. The Structure Plan includes specific development requirements in order to achieve a desired built form outcome along Kingsbridge Boulevard. An assessment against the specific development requirements of ASP 38 is detailed in the table below:

 

Requirement	Proposed
The building setback adjacent the Kingsbridge Boulevard main street Precinct shall be between nil and 2.0 metres for any portion of a building which fronts that portion of that road unless otherwise agreed by Council.	The proposed Liquor Store is setback 2.0m from Kingsbridge Boulevard.   The supermarket entrance is setback 7m – 9m from Kingsbridge Boulevard. This issue is discussed in a later section of this report.
The building line adjacent the Kingsbridge Boulevard shall consist of a generally continuous façade incorporating continuous awnings and/or colonnades, and may only be broken for minor incursions associated with the following:   •   Pedestrian access and public open space •   Vehicle driveway access and parking as nominated on Plan No.2 – Concept Plan •   Landscaping and courtyards •   Other uses or features deemed appropriate by Council   All buildings fronting the main street shall be provided with a continuous awning or colonnade. The width of the awning shall have a minimum of 2.0 metres projecting over the road reserve, with minimum 2.75 metres ground clearance.	A continuous facade to Kingsbridge Boulevard has been provided from the existing tenancy to the new liquor store tenancy.                     An awning has also been provided, extending from the existing awning along Kingsbridge Boulevard. The awning projects 2.0m - 2.5m from the liquor store and 6m – 8m from the supermarket, with a ground clearance of 5.0m, reflecting the current design.
The ground floor of any building adjacent the main street precinct shall not be more than 0.5m above street level or not more than an average of 0.5m for sloping sites.	The ground floor of the liquor store and supermarket does not exceed 0.5m from street level and matches the finished floor level of the existing tenancies along Kingsbridge Boulevard and the existing supermarket.
Entry doors from main street shall be at grade with adjoining paving.	The entry door of the liquor store and supermarket are at grade with the existing paving along Kingsbridge Boulevard.
All buildings shall be designed to address the street frontage and to minimize blank facades to street or car park frontages.	The liquor store addresses the street with a facade incorporating glazed shopfront windows and entrance facing Kingsbridge Boulevard.   It should be noted that the liquor store also proposes an additional internal entry door from the supermarket.   The supermarket proposes an entrance to both Kingsbridge Boulevard and the existing rear car parking, in line with the current design. The entrance from Kingsbridge Boulevard is setback 7m – 9m and is located on the lot truncation.

 

·    Setback of Supermarket Entrance

 

The entrance to the supermarket is required to be set back a maximum of 2.0m from the main street and designed to address this street frontage. Due to the proposed location of the liquor store the supermarket entrance is proposed to be relocated further towards Marmion Avenue and is proposed to be setback 7m – 9m from Kingsbridge Boulevard. The existing supermarket entrance is setback 8.5m from Kingsbridge Boulevard.

                                     

The proposed design of the supermarket entrance is therefore similar to the existing design, in which the entrance is set back to create a prominent awning, part of the landmark element, on this corner, matching the existing development on the northern side of Kingsbridge Boulevard. Administration considers that there would be no significant design benefit in requiring the supermarket entrance to be setback 2m from Kingsbridge Boulevard and that in doing so, it may detract from the prominence and symmetry of the landmark entrance to the main street from Marmion Avenue.  The presentation of this corner as a landmark element is a requirement of the structure plan. 

 

In order to vary this development standard, Council must be satisfied the variation satisfies Clause 4.2.3 of DPS 2. As discussed previously in this report, Clause 4.2.3 requires the variation have regard for Clause 6.8 of DPS 2 and that the non-compliant development standard will not have an adverse impact on the users of the proposed development or the surrounding landowners and occupiers.

 

Given the current setback of the supermarket entrance, it is considered the variation satisfies the provisions of Clause 6.8 and it is not anticipated that the setback will have an adverse impact on the users of the Centre or the surrounding landowners and occupiers. On this basis, whilst the proposed supermarket entrance does not meet the structure plan setback requirements, administration considers the proposed design to be acceptable.

 

·    The customer pathway to the main street from the rear carpark is via the supermarket, this is inconsistent with established main street principles.

 

The existing design of the shopping centre was approved as part of the original application (DA04/0820), broadly in accordance with the provisions of ASP 38. This design requires customers to travel by foot from the car park to the rear of the lot, either around or through the existing supermarket in order to access the Kingsbridge Boulevard.

 

 

The current application maintains this existing egress and ingress design through the supermarket, with customers still having the ability to access the Kingsbridge Boulevard via a footpath along Marmion Avenue or the eastern side of the shopping centre or passing through the supermarket. Administration acknowledges that the existing and proposed designs do not reflect best practice main street principles.  The application of the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods must be balanced against the primary statutory planning considerations, namely DPS 2 and ASP 38 and the clearly established configuration of the centre as previously approved and constructed.  The pathway through Coles will be maintained which will continue to allow access to the main street. 

 

·    Correct main street design sees the anchor tenant face directly on to the main street with pedestrian traffic movement along the street past specialty retailers towards the anchor tenant from car parking.  This is not achieved through the proposed design.

 

Main street design as referred to in Figure 68 of Liveable Neighbourhoods is not achieved through the existing approved centre design.  This is also not achieved through the proposed small scale extension because of the location of rear car park and southern entrance to Coles.  Notwithstanding this, the location of the existing and proposed Coles entrance on the western side of the main street necessitates customers that park in the eastern car park to walk past all of the specialty retailers. By also moving the Coles main street entrance further to the west, this should also encourage activation of the proposed liquor store (something that may not occur if the Coles main street entrance were to remain in its current location).  The liquor store also provides another destination tenancy along the main street, which may provide further opportunities to activate this space.

 

·    The application before the City focuses activity away from the main street towards the carpark located directly to the rear of the anchor tenant.

 

The proposed development in this regard is no different than what currently exists at the centre. The application proposes to relocate the existing entrance from the car park 8m to the south-west. No additional entrance from the car park is proposed. Administration acknowledges that the location of the rear car park and rear entrance to Coles is not optimum from the perspective of the activation of the main street, however, this is unlikely to be significantly exacerbated by the proposed development and the City must have regard to what is currently approved and built on site.

 

·    Despite seeking a substantial increase in retail space and proposing an additional tenancy on the main street, the applicant has not proposed to bring the anchor tenant forward onto Kingsbridge Boulevard, as should be the case in a main street centre.

 

An entrance to Coles currently exists on the main street and is setback 8.5 metres. The proposed development seeks to relocate this entrance 7 metres to the west of the existing entrance and be setback between 7 and 9 metres from the main street.  Refer to comments above in relation to setback and the entrance design.

 

·    The applicant's proposal to provide an internal doorway between the proposed liquor store and the supermarket is counter-intuitive to the centre's main street focus.

 

The development proposes two entrances to the liquor store, one from the supermarket and the other from the main street.  Based on the information by the applicant this is a standard part of the Coles/Liquorland fitout and allows customers flexibility. There is currently one other tenancy along the Main Street that has more than one entry to their store.

 

·    By deactivating the main street, it will lead to the main street becoming commercially unviable for tenants as a destination that is unsafe and undesirable.

 

Administration considers that the proposed development is unlikely to significantly exacerbate the current situation.

 

Compliance with District Planning Scheme No.2

 

The subject site is zoned Commercial under ASP 38. One objectives of the Commercial zone is to 'provide a wide range of uses within the existing commercial areas, including retailing, entertainment, professional offices, business services and residential'.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the range or vitality of uses or pedestrian movement within the Centre.

 

Further, Clause 6.8 of DPS 2 requires all development applications to have due regard for a broad range of matters that, where applicable, are to be considered by Council in the assessment of development applications. A few relevant items in the list are discussed below.

 

Clause 6.8 (j) states 'any social issues that have an effect on the amenity of the locality'. As part of this application, no social impact assessment was conducted.

 

Clause 6.8 (n) states 'the preservation of the amenity of the locality'. This application is for an extension of the supermarket and a proposed liquor store, both being 'P' (permitted) uses.  It is not anticipated the proposed development will have any significant impacts on the amenity of the locality.

 

Compliance with other Policies

 

The application is required to comply with the statutory development standards of DPS 2 and ASP 38, unless varied in accordance with Clause 4.2 of DPS 2 as discussed above. Approval is ultimately granted by the City under the DPS 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).  Clause 6.8 of DPS 2 requires all applications to have due regard for State Planning Policies and any relevant policy or strategy of WAPC, including SPP 4.2 and Liveable Neighbourhoods. Administration has also given due regard to the City's Local Planning Policy 3.2 – Activity Centres.

 

Administration considers that whilst the existing centre is not an exemplar of main street design principles as advocated in Liveable Neighbourhoods, the proposed development has been assessed against the relevant provisions of ASP38 and DPS 2 and is on balance an acceptable development.

 

Conclusion

Many of the issues raised in submissions on this application are acknowledged and are reasonable.  The centre, as currently approved and built, is not ideally configured to support the activation of the Main Street on Kingsbridge Boulevard, however it is not considered reasonable to address these configuration issues though this relatively small scale extension proposal.

 

In summary, the following key judgements are considered salient in the determination of this proposal:

 

(a)     The extent of the activation of the Main Street is primarily determined by the location of the car parking area at the south and east of the development, and these would be unchanged by this proposal.  Administration contends that this entrance location is unlikely to significantly alter the existing patterns of pedestrian movement;

 

(b)     It could also be reasonably argued that an additional tenancy frontage on Kingsbridge Boulevard will contribute to its activation, and by locating the entrance to the anchor tenancy at the opposite end of the main street to the eastern car park that pedestrian movement past each tenancy frontage is maximised;

 

(c)     It is also reasonable to assume that additional retail floor space within the overall centre will increase its relative attractiveness as a destination, and encourage greater use and activation the centre.

 

There are three broad options in dealing with this application.

 

Should Council be of the opinion that the proposed variations to DPS2 are unsupportable on planning grounds or the design as submitted does not meet the necessary planning requirements, then it would be appropriate to refuse the application.

 

In the event that Council is broadly supportive of the application, but considers that the entrance to the anchor tenancy may not be located in the optimum position to facilitate activation of the main street, then it would be appropriate to defer determination of the application in accordance with Clause 6.9.1 of DPS2 to enable detailed investigation of options for the redesign of this aspect of the proposal.  

 

The third broad option is the conditional approval of the application as submitted.  On balance this option is recommended by Administration for the reasons as set out in this report.

Statutory Compliance

The application is assessed against the provisions of DPS 2 and ASP 38. The development proposes a car parking variation to DPS 2 and Council needs to exercise discretion under Clause 4.2 of DPS 2 in order to approve the variation.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “3     Economy - Progressive, connected communities that enable economic growth and employment.

3.2    Growing Business - Our community is a preferred place for business to locate and grow.”

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      APPROVES the application submitted by TPG Town Planning Urban Design and Heritage on behalf of the landowners for a liquor store and supermarket extension at Lot 278 (6) Kingsbridge Boulevard, Butler, subject to compliance with the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Implementation:

a)      This approval only relates to the proposed liquor store and supermarket extension. It does not relate to any other development on the lot;

b)      The use of the approved premises shall conform to the District Planning Scheme No. 2 definition of a liquor store which states:

          "means any land or buildings the subject of a liquor store licence granted under the provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act 1998";

c)      The windows to the street elevations of the development shall be non-reflective and visually permeable, and thereafter be maintained as such;

d)      The movement of vehicles for delivery purposes shall be restricted to between 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Saturday and 8.00am to 6.00pm Sunday and Public Holidays and delivery vehicles shall not queue in Aberdar Lane;

e)      The entrance doors to the supermarket and liquor store facing Kingsbridge Boulevard shall remain open during the trading hours of those stores;

f)       All piped and wired services, mechanical plant, equipment and service and storage areas are to be screened from public view to the City's satisfaction. Relative to this condition, details of such screening shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the commencement of development;

g)      The parking areas and associated access indicated on the approved plans shall not be used for the purpose of storage or obstructed in any way at any time, without the prior written approval of the City;

h)      Detailed landscaping and reticulation plans, for the 3 metre setback area along Marmion Avenue and adjacent road verges, shall be lodged to the City for approval prior to the commencement of development. Planting and installation shall be in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plans; and

2.      ADVISE the submitters of their decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan	14/313229
2.	Attachment 2 - Proposed Plans	14/313246
3.	Attachment 3 - Location of Advertising and Submitters	14/343431
4.	Attachment 4 - Schedule of Submissions	14/291755
5.	Attachment 5 - Submissions	14/338904
6.	Attachment 6 - Location of Existing Liquor Stores	14/313235

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF WANNEROO

6 KINGSBRIDGE BOULEVARD – EXTENSION TO EXISTING SHOPPING CENTRE

  SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSIONS FOLLOWING ADVERTISING

(Closed 26 September 2014)

 

No.	Summary of Submission	Administration Response	Recommendation
	Robin and Helen Tham – 8C Marchwood Boulevard, Butler
1	Why is the City accepting this application when there is already more traffic as a result of extended shopping centre hours and Sunday trading.	The City does not govern shopping centre opening hours. Sunday trading and extended shopping hours do not increase the total amount of vehicles accessing the site at any one time, only that the vehicles access the site for a longer period of time.	Noted.
2	Concern that the extension will lead to more delivery trucks, which already block the street (Aberdar Lane) and generate noise in early hours of the morning.	The applicant has advised that there will be two additional delivery trucks to the site, one delivery on Tuesday and another delivery on Thursday. All other additional product being delivered to the site as a result of the increased floor space will be catered within the current delivery trucks. The applicant advised the extension will allow for more efficient deliveries, rather than higher frequencies as full trucks of stock can be delivered, rather than trucks that are half full. Coles advised most of the deliveries will occur in either the morning or afternoon and as part of standard operating procedures for supermarket trucks which are not permitted to queue up or block access while waiting to deliver goods. Non-compliance with these requirements is handled through centre management who may be contacted should issues arise.   In order to ensure delivery trucks attend the site at appropriate hours, it is considered appropriate to condition the delivery times and to schedule deliveries to avoid vehicles queuing in Aberdar Lane.   Also, there are 'no parking' signs erected along Aberdar Lane and any illegal parking will be action by the City's Rangers Services in accordance with the City's Parking Local Laws.	Condition.
3	There are enough existing liquor stores in the surrounding area to service the needs of the community. An additional liquor store is not required.	A liquor store is a ‘P’ or permitted use within the commercial portion of the Agreed Structure Plan No 38 Brighton Village Centre (ASP 38). The number and location of 'liquor stores' is driven by market demand and regulated by the State Government through Liquor Licensing controls.  The appropriateness of issuing a licence for a liquor store is a matter for the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor who will determine the application for a liquor license as part of an assessment and approval process. A liquor store would commonly form part of a Neighbourhood Centre such as this and would commonly be located adjacent to the supermarket.	Noted.
	T & L Maitland – 6 Marchwoord Boulevard, Butler
4	There is already an excessive amount of liquor stores in the surround area, including: - Corner of Connolly Drive and Kingsbridge Boulevard, - The Cornerstore Tavern - Thirsty Camel Liquor Outlet - Licensed restaurant opposite Cornerstone Tavern	As per response to comment No. 3 above.	Noted.
5	The existing loading bay will be utilised for all deliveries to the site, which will increase with the proposed liquor store. The current deliveries to the site occur every day. Coles have previously indicated that they operate within a time frame for deliveries. From personal experience I have found them to operate outside of these hours. I have concerns relating to trucks being parked outside of the premises and to the trucks operating outside of the allotted delivery times.	As per response to comment No. 2 above.	Condition.
6	As there are surrounding residential homes and nearby child care centre (14 Marchwood Boulevard), there are concerns that the lifestyle of these areas will be negatively impacted.	The liquor store is located at the furthest possible distance (on the site) from the residential dwellings and child care centre. In both cases, the existing shopping centre separates the residential dwellings and the child care centre from the liquor store. A liquor store is a 'P' (permitted) uses on the site and is not an uncommon use in a Neighbourhood Centre.	Noted.
7	Why is additional car parking not being proposed? Why is a variation being permitted?	The applicant's have submitted a Traffic Engineering Report in support of the parking variation which indicates there is sufficient on-site parking to cater for the proposed addition. The car parking variation is discussed in detail in the report.	Noted.
8	What is the reasoning for the proposed location of the liquor store as opposed to a location where parking is available directly adjacent to the entry? Why can't the liquor store be relocated to an area that is more accessible to their customers and at a further distance from the existing residential area.	The applicant has advised that the liquor store is proposed in this location as an extension to the main street tenancies in accordance with ASP 38, which encourages activated tenancies trading onto the main street. The applicant also comments that the liquor store co-located with a supermarket is a development model that commonly exists across centres in WA and throughout Australia.   Liquor store customers can utilise the on-street car parking along Kingsbridge Boulevard or the parking on-site to access the store. The liquor store is proposed in the location that is the furthest distance from the existing residential area.	Noted.
	Jon Kelly C/- Brighton Village Newsagency Shop 11/6 Kingsbridge Blvd, Butler
9	The proposed application is considered to be a 'P' or 'Permitted Use'. However there are inconsistencies between the application and the Structure Plan and the relevant policies. The nature of the Structure Plan means that not all 'Permitted Uses' will be suitable for approval at the Centre.	The subject site is zoned 'Commercial' under ASP 38 and the land use permissibility's for a 'Commercial' zone are outlined in the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2. A liquor store and supermarket and both 'P' (permitted) uses within a 'Commercial' zone.	Noted.
10	The Structure Plan identifies that the centre is to be a Main Street Precinct and therefore should be consistent with main street Design Principles as detailed in Planning Policy 4.2 and Liveable Neighbourhoods.   The applicant has stated in previous correspondence that “In addition we have maintained the obligation to ensure that the main street tenancies are accessible active facades to Kingsbridge Boulevard and the customer path connecting the on-grade car park via the Coles store to the Boulevard is retained.”   The current design relies on a pathway to the main street via the supermarket. This contradicts the design principles of main street Design Principles.	ASP 38 provides the primary statutory document in which the application is assessed and ASP 38 provides specific Main Street development standards.   The application is considered to satisfy these development standards, except the setback of the supermarket entrance to the Main Street. An assessment against the individual Main Street development standards is provided in the report.   The existing design of the shopping centre was approved as part of the original application (DA04/0820), broadly in accordance with the provisions of ASP 38. This design requires customers to travel by foot from the car park to the rear of the lot, either around or through the existing supermarket in order to access the Kingsbridge Boulevard. The current application maintains this existing egress and ingress design through the supermarket, with customers still having the ability to access the Kingsbridge Boulevard via a footpath along Marmion Avenue or the eastern side of the shopping centre or passing through the supermarket.   Administration acknowledges that the existing and proposed designs do not reflect best practice main street principles.  The application of the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods must be balanced against the primary statutory planning considerations, namely DPS 2 and ASP 38 and the clearly established configuration of the centre as previously approved and constructed.  The pathway through Coles will be maintained which will continue to allow access to the main street.	Noted.
11	The Structure Plan clearly identifies Kingsbridge as being the main street for the centre. The proposal seeks to refocus the main street foyer towards Marmion Avenue. The foyer should remain in its current location.	The entrance maintains access to the centre via Kingsbridge Boulevard. The entrance from the supermarket to the Main Street is proposed to move 7m to the west from the existing access position.   The location of the existing and proposed Coles entrance on the western side of the main street necessitates customers that park in the eastern car park to walk past all of the specialty retailers.  By moving the Coles main street entrance further to the west, this should also encourage activation of the proposed liquor store (something that may not occur if the Coles main street entrance were to remain in its current location).  The liquor store also provides another destination tenancy along the main street, which may provide further opportunities to activate this space.	Noted.
12	The current design deactivates the main street and encourages foot traffic to enter the anchor tenant directly from the rear car park. As a result, the majority of commercial activity is focused on and limited to the anchor tenant. Under the proposed design there is no need for foot traffic to move from the car park along Kingsbridge Boulevard to the supermarket.	The proposed development in this regard is no different to what currently exists at the centre.  Administration acknowledges that the location of the rear carpark and rear entrance to Coles is not optimum from the perspective of the activation of the main street, however, this is unlikely to be significantly exacerbated by the proposed development and the City must have regard to what is currently approved and built on site.	Noted.
13	The applicant has proposed an internal doorway between the proposed liquor outlet and the supermarket. This feature is designed to benefit the anchor tenant and is counter-intuitive to the Centres main street interests, creating a barrier with internal doorways.	The development proposes two entrances to the liquor store, one from the supermarket and the other from the main street.  Based on the information by the applicant this is a standard part of the Coles/Liquorland fitout and allows customers flexibility. There is currently one other tenancy along the Main Street that has more than one entry to their store.	Noted.
14	The proposal seeks to increase car parking requirements to the rear of the lots. As a result it will create one dominate car park to the rear of the anchor tenant.	No additional car parking is proposed on the site and the car park will remain unchanged. In relation to car parking variation, refer to the response to comment No.7.	Noted.
15	There are currently problems with the previous design due to a rear doorway into the anchor tenancy that requires customers to travel through the anchor tenancy to reach the main street. This proposal will result in: 1.   The main street being deactivated 2.   Making the area commercially unviable for tenants. 3.   Create a destination which is unsafe and             undesirable.	In relation to the rear doorway to the anchor tenancy refer to response to comment No. 10 above.   Given the existing layout of the Centre, it is considered the proposed development is unlikely to significantly exacerbate the current situation.	Noted.
16	The previous approval has an existing rear doorway that has had an adverse impact on the function of the centre. The centres design encourages car trips over foot traffic and discourages activity on the main street. Customers park at the rear car park and enter and leave through the rear entrance without accessing the main street.   As a result of this design there have been a series of knock-on impacts that further exacerbated problems associated with the Centre's design. The supermarket operates in a manner that discourages and impedes access to the main street in the following ways:   1.   The supermarket controls access (by key) to the front entrance of the foyer and supermarket. It is common for the supermarket to key-lock the front entrance doors before the close of trade in order to focus foot traffic towards the rear car park. 2.   The supermarket encourages staff to park in the Marchwood Boulevard   for the purpose of preserving rear car park bays for its customers. This action limits customer access to the main street. 3.   The landscaping facing Marmion Avenue is maintained to a lower standard than that addressing the rear entry.	Administration acknowledges the current design, because of the location of the rear supermarket entrance and the car park, do not reflect best practice main street principles.    However, the existing design of the shopping centre was approved as part of the original application (DA04/0820), broadly in accordance with the provisions of ASP 38 and the current proposal is unlikely to significantly exacerbate that situation.   In regard to the opening times of the centre, the supermarket is open from 8am to 9pm weekdays, 8am to 5pm Saturdays and 11am to 5pm Sundays. Access from the rear car park to Kingsbridge Boulevard is also provided via a footpath along Marmion Avenue or the eastern side of the shopping centre.   A condition is recommended which requires the supermarket entrance foyers to be open (not key locked) during the entire operating hours of the supermarket.   In regard to landscaping, the applicant has advised the landscaping on the Marmion frontage will be reinstated and rejuvenated to ensure a high quality aesthetic is maintained. A condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a landscaping plan, which will need to be assessed and approved by the City.	Noted.
17	For the application to be consistent with the Structure Plan, as a minimum it must comply with the following:   1.   The anchor tenant should move forward to face directly on to Kingsbridge Boulevard; 2.   The new proposed entrance from the rear car park to the supermarket should not be approved. 3.   The foyer should remain in its current location. 4.   The internal entry between the supermarket and the liquor outlet should not be approved.   The application has a blatant disregard for the Structure Plan, the orderly and proper planning of the Centre and planning system in general.	Access to the supermarket is maintained from Kingsbridge Boulevard with the new entry foyer of the supermarket being moved 7m to the west along Kingsbridge Boulevard to accommodate a new tenancy. The supermarket entrance has been setback from Main Street and reflects the existing built form on the northern side of the street. The proposed setback is consistent with the existing entrance setback off Kingsbridge Boulevard.   No additional entrance from the rear car park is proposed. Instead the application proposes to relocate the existing entrance 8m to the south-west. On this basis there is no justification to remove the rear entrance.   The development proposes two entrances to the liquor store, one from the supermarket and the other from the main street. Based on the information by the applicant this is a standard part of the Coles/Liquorland fitout and allows customers flexibility. There is currently one other tenancy along the Main Street that has more than one entry to their store.   With the exception of the setback of the supermarket entrance to the Main Street, all other provisions of ASP 38 have been satisfied (car parking variation proposed is a variation to DPS 2, not ASP 38).	Noted.
	Valerie Turnbull – 8D Marchwood Boulevard, Butler
18	There are many existing liquor outlets in the vicinity. The existing 'Thirsty Camel', the IGA liquor store, the Cornerstone Tavern and a licensed restaurant. Adding an additional liquor store will increase the antisocial behaviour within the area.	As per response to comment No. 3 above.	Noted.
19	The Child Care Centre located within the area will be impacted as a result.	As per response to comment No. 6 above.	Noted.
20	There are existing issues with the trucks delivering to Coles currently that will be made worse with an additional liquor store. There are existing issues where trucks park in Aberdar Lane and cause traffic hazards.	As per response to comment No. 5 above.	Condition.
21	The drivers on the vehicles parking within Aberdar abuse the residents. Furthermore the trucks knock over bins on Aberdar Lane.	As per response to comment No. 2 above.	Condition.
22	As per advertising, there will be no additional parking spaces despite an increased floor area and will result in further car parking problems. Customers currently park in Marchwood Boulevard to avoid the chaos in the parking area and leave their trolleys in the street.	As per response to comment No. 7 above. The parking located along Marchwood Boulevard is for public usage and not private bays. It is therefore reasonable for members of the public, including customers to the supermarket to park along this street. Complaints about trolleys being left is a supermarket management issue which should be directed towards the supermarket operators.	Noted.
	Judith D Roche – 8D Marchwood Boulevard, Butler
23	Aberdar Lane is currently being used by Coles for delivery trucks. As a result of the trucks queuing along Aberdar Lane, other vehicles in the area are forced onto the footpath. Rubbish bins in the area are frequently knocked over as a result. Furthermore the private vehicles must reverse with impeded vision to allow other drivers to pass by. I have been verbally abused by the drivers of the delivery vehicles.	As per response to comment No. 2 above.	Noted.
24	An extension to the shopping centre would require more frequent deliveries. The current situation demonstrates that any increase would be impractical. The dangerous situation that currently exists would be exacerbated by the proposal to not provide additional parking. Currently shopping centre customers park in Marchwood Boulevard to avoid parking in the Centre. Trolleys are left along Marchwood Boulevard.	As per response to comment No. 2 and No. 22 above.	Noted.
25	I object to the proposed liquor store. There are many existing surrounding liquor stores including IGA liquor store, Thirsty Camel, Cornerstone Tavern and a licensed restaurant. What trading hours would apply to Coles' liquor store. A liquor store would attract noisy night traffic. Would additional security be provided to the area if necessary due to anti-social behaviour.	In regards to the location of liquor stores as per response to comment No. 7 above.   The trading hours of the liquor store are required to be in accordance with the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor requirements. Security is not considered to be a planning consideration and therefore is not considered as part of the application. Any provided security will be as per supermarket operator's discretion.	Noted.
26	Previous correspondence with the City indicated that conditions will be added as part of approval. Previous management of Butler Coles has had no regard for the concerns of residents or Council's by-laws in regard to delivery trucks parking in Aberdar Lane. Who would police these proposed conditions.	Any illegal parking of any vehicles along Aberdar Lane will be enforced by the City's Rangers.   Previous approvals for the site did not limit trade hours of the delivery vehicles. The proposed conditions will be as per the existing planning approval and therefore deliveries outside of permitted hours will be enforced by the City's Planning Compliance Team.	Noted.
27	Since purchasing my property, the opening hours at Coles have increased. There is no longer a day free of traffic. A liquor store located close to homes would inevitably lower the value of the properties.	Devaluing of property is not considered to be a planning concern.	Noted.
	Chris Minchinton, Director Professional Northern Coast – tenant at shopping centre (Late Submission)
28	The Application is inconsistent with requirements of the Structure Plan and City’s policy framework.	As previously discussed under responses to Submission No. 3, the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Structure Plan No.38 and DPS 2. A car parking variation has been proposed, refer to response No. 7.	Noted.
29	These type of Shopping Centres, should be in accordance traditional “Main Street” principles as integrated , safe and vibrant places to provide a focus for community activity	The application is subject to specific Main Street provisions of ASP 38. An assessment against these provisions is provided in detail in the report.	Noted.
30	Customer(Shopper) traffic should directed towards main street tenancies along Kingsbridge Boulevard, and not via rear car park. This is very important, as it severely influences how people use the centre.   The application before the Council, focuses activity away from the main street towards the car park, located directly to the rear of the anchor tenant.   Pedestrian traffic currently is directed, in the majority towards rear car park, which has the effect of a major impact on street front tenancies, who have the right to benefit from these customers, based on the original design of such a Centre.	As per response to comment No. 12 above.	Noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                               7018 – 14/331388

Responsible Officer:                            Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the revised Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plans (DCPs) following gazettal of Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

 

Background

Amendment No. 122 to DPS 2 proposed to introduce DCPs to collect funds for the provision of district level community facilities in the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks localities.  The Amendment was adopted by Council, with recommended modifications, at its Meeting on 25 June 2013.

 

The Amendment was finally approved by the Minister for Planning on 19 August 2014 and subsequently published in the Government Gazette on 9 September 2014.

 

The provisions of the approved Amendment No. 122 state that the City has 90 days from the date of publication in the Government Gazette to adopt the DCP Report and Cost Apportionment Schedule that set out how the DCP costs will be shared between affected landowners and identifies the cost contribution amount that will apply under these DCPs.  As the facility cost estimates and land valuations associated with the DCP were prepared in 2011, this process involves a review of all actual and estimated costs associated with the implementation of the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs to bring them up to date.

 

Administration has completed a review of the DCP cost estimates and is required to present a revised DCP Report to Council for adoption prior to the revised costs coming into effect.

 

In addition, when Council considered the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (CFP) at its Meeting on 7 February 2012, it resolved to require Administration to:

 

"...review the CFP in light of any submissions received on Amendment No. 122 and to submit a report on the same, concurrently with Council’s consideration of Amendment No. 122 for final approval;"

 

It was not possible for a report on the CFP to be presented to Council for consideration in June 2013 at the same time as Amendment No. 122 as the final list of facilities to be included in the DCPs was not known until the Minister for Planning made a determination on Amendment No. 122 in August 2014.  Accordingly, this report will also address the alignment of the CFP with the approved DCPs.

 

Detail

The DCP report that was considered by Council at its Meeting on 7 February 2012 for the purpose of adopting Amendment No. 122 for public advertising, addressed both the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs, as they both had the same proposed timeframes and cost contribution methodologies.

 

The DCPs approved by the Minister and published in Government Gazette now have different characteristics, and as a result Administration has prepared separate DCP Reports for the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP (refer Attachment 1) and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs (refer Attachment 2).

 

These DCP reports incorporate the Cost Apportionment Schedule and include details of all facility cost estimates and actual or estimated administration costs associated with the preparation and operation of the DCPs.

 

To inform the preparation of the new Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Reports, Administration engaged licensed quantity surveyors (Donald Cant Watts Corke Pty Ltd) and land valuers (Independent Land Valuers of WA) to prepare revised facility cost estimates and land valuations.

 

Outlined below are summaries of the revised Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs following gazettal of Amendment No. 122, relative to the details of the DCPs when Council adopted Amendment No. 122 in June 2013:

 

Alkimos-Eglinton DCP

 

	As Adopted by Council 2013.	As Gazetted and Revised 2014 (Draft)
DCP Timeframe	25 years	25 years
Cost contribution methodology	Per hectare	Per hectare
Developable Area	787ha	631ha
Number of Facilities	11	11
Total Cost of Facilities	$84,843,192	$75,951,039
Administrative Costs	$1,466,398	$1,495,001
Contributions Collected & Interest	$2,032,000	$5,422,834
Cost Contribution (per hectare)	$107,054 / ha	$114,221 / ha

 

As a result of the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP review, the developable area has been refined to more accurately reflect approved Local Structure Plans, resulting in a reduction of the developable area from 787ha to 631ha (a reduction of 156ha).  This involved excluding regional reserves, industrial zoned land and other non-residential land uses from the developable area calculation.  Refining the scope of facilities and preparing preliminary concept plans has resulted in a reduction in the estimated facility costs of just under $9 million.

 

Combined, these changes result in an increase in the per hectare cost contribution of $7,167.  Relative to the number of dwellings remaining to be developed, the cost contribution rate equates to an increase of approximately $69 per dwelling (i.e. $3,750/dwelling to $3,819/dwelling, based on an assumed 18,860 dwellings) from the current interim contribution rate set out in Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions (LPP 3.3).

 

Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP

 

	As Adopted by Council 2013.	As Gazetted and Revised 2014 (Draft)
DCP Timeframe	10 years	10 years
Cost contribution methodology	Per dwelling	Per dwelling
Projected Dwellings	8,788	4,282
Number of Facilities	3	3
Total Cost of Facilities	$28,504,011	$31,340,768
Administrative Costs	$603,898	$622,501
Contributions Collected & Interest	$183,750	$717,589
Cost Contribution (per dwelling)	$3,291 / dwelling	$7,297 / dwelling

 

As a result of the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP review, the projected number of dwellings has been reduced from 8,788 to 4,282.  This reflects a slower than anticipated rate of development in the 10 year timeframe of the DCP and not a reduction in the overall dwelling yield anticipated in Yanchep-Two Rocks.  Administration has used dwelling projections from i.d. forecast (the City's consultant demographers) to calculate the revised dwelling number as Administration's records indicate that the i.d. projections more closely align to the number of lots granted clearance by making a development contribution, than the dwelling projections from the Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plan (YTRDSP), which were used in the original projections. 

 

Facility costs have increased by just under $3 million as a result of additional planning and design work providing further definition to the scope of these facilities and associated works.  The cost increase is largely due to additional coastal protection and servicing works associated with the coastal location of the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club, as well as the size and scope of the Yanchep Active Open Space project being larger than originally allowed for in the original facility models used to inform the cost estimates.

 

Combined, these changes result in an increase in the cost contribution of over $4,000 per dwelling from what was originally anticipated when Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) was adopted by Council.

 

Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan

 

The requirement to review the CFP in light of submissions made on Amendment No. 122 arose from some disagreement in 2011 between Administration and the Alkimos Eglinton landowners (AELO) over the list of facilities to be included in the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP.  AELO were proposing to include additional facilities (i.e. BMX tracks and Bowling clubs) that were not included in the CFP.  In order to progress Amendment No. 122 it was necessary for the CFP to be adopted, and the resolution requiring the CFP to be reviewed prior to finalisation of Amendment No. 122 gave some comfort to the AELO that due consideration would be given to their views on the list of facilities to be included.

 

Administration has worked through this issue with the AELO.  The outcome is that the list of community facilities included in the gazetted Alkimos-Eglinton DCP is consistent with that shown in the CFP.  As a consequence, no further review of the CFP to ensure consistency with the DCP is necessary.

 

Consultation

Alkimos-Eglinton DCP

 

Since it became known that approval of Amendment No. 122 by the Minister for Planning was imminent, Administration has been working with the AELO to resolve outstanding issues associated with the detail of the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP.  These are outlined below.

 

·    Facility Scope and Cost

 

Administration has been working with the AELO to agree on the scope and cost of the library, community centre and public open space facilities included in the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP.  This process has involved the engagement of an architect to prepare preliminary concept plans to inform the cost review process.  This process is now complete, and has resulted in a reduction in the total cost to deliver the community facilities in Alkimos Eglinton from $84.9 million to $75.9 million (a reduction of $9 million).  This brings to the total cost in line with the expectations of the AELO group and as a result, there is overall support for the revised Alkimos-Eglinton DCP costs from the AELO.

 

·    Developable Area

 

Administration has also been working with the AELO to more accurately calculate the developable area on which contributions are to be based under the 'per hectare' methodology.  A landowner's developable area is calculated by deducting a number of statutory (e.g. Regional Road and Parks and Recreation reservations) and non-statutory (un-developable land uses such as school sites and non-residential land uses such as commercial and industrial) exclusions from the total site area.

 

Landowners were concerned that the standard deduction for non-residential land uses originally proposed by the City was not appropriate for the significant areas of City Centre land and mixed use in the DCP area, and that these areas needed to be treated differently. As a consequence, in consultation and agreement with Administration, AELO have more accurately calculated their developable areas based on Local Structure Plans and analysis of mixed use residential development.

 

The additional work has resulted in the developable area figures being less than what was originally identified by the City using set assumptions.  This results in a higher 'per hectare' rate than what was originally calculated by the City in 2011.  Despite this, the landowner group is supportive of the revised figures as they are based on approved structure plans and better reflect the actual area of land to be developed for residential purposes within the DCA.

 

·    Treatment of collected contributions

 

Through the consultation process, the AELO have sought clarity on how the difference between the interim contribution rate specified in LPP 3.3 and the final cost contribution rate to apply through the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP will be addressed. 

 

Alkimos Eglinton landowners reiterated concerns made during the advertising of revised LPP 3.3 that there is a 'virtual' shortfall in contributions resulting from interim contributions made to date being based on a 'per lot' rate less than what the ultimate contribution rate will be.  Landowners are of the view that the difference between the interim rate and the actual DCP rate should not be met by the balance of developable land (i.e. through the DCP) but should be made up by some other means and funded from other sources (such as grant funds, interest earnings, or municipal funds).

 

Council considered the matter of how to treat the virtual shortfall in contributions when it considered the revised LPP 3.3 in December 2013 (PS01-12/13) and resolved as follows:

 

"AFFIRMS that the gazetted cost contribution rate in the area covered by Local Planning Policy 3.3 and Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 will be based on the full cost of delivering the community facilities planned for that area, minus the value of contributions collected (plus accrued interest) prior to gazettal of Amendment No. 122, and apportioned between remaining developing landowners."

 

The circumstances and Administration's position surrounding this issue have not changed.  It is considered that the alternate strategy of actively sourcing grants and other funding contributions where possible for individual DCP projects is more appropriate to reduce the cost impact on developing landowners.  This is already done as a matter of course by Administration for eligible capital works projects.  The AELO, however, still consider that the shortfall in contributions (currently estimated at $2.4 million) should be taken off the total cost to be apportioned between landowners in the first instance, and made up through interest earnings and grant contributions.  AELO intend to make a submission to Council on this matter with a view to resolving the issue prior to the final costs being endorsed by Council.  Administration will proactively work with the AELO to try to find an agreeable solution to this issue during the consultation period.

 

Yanchep Two Rocks

 

Administration did not have outstanding issues to resolve with the Yanchep-Two Rocks landowners (YTRLO) through the review process, but did meet with the group on 20 November 2014 to present and discuss the outcomes of the review.  None of the YTRLO supported the cost increase proposed in the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP and were of the view that the dwelling projections used by Administration in its review of the DCP were too conservative.  The YTRLO indicated that their own estimates of dwelling creation for each of their developments were more closely aligned to the YTRDSP projections, and that development in the Yanchep and Two Rocks localities to date has been focussed on infrastructure provision (e.g. installation of pump stations) and addressing planning requirements in preparation for the creation of lots.  They expected that dwelling numbers would start to increase much more than has been the case in recent years, but acknowledged that further work was required to review each of the dwelling projections in detail.  Administration and the YTRLO group have agreed to work together to agree on an appropriate dwelling number on which to base the calculation of cost contributions under the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP as part of the consultation period, prior to Council adopting the final DCP Report.

 

YTRLO were also keen to review all aspects of the reviewed DCP and work with Administration to come to an agreed position, prior to the final costs being adopted by Council.

 

Formal consultation

 

As the review of the DCP is recommending an increase in the cost contribution for both Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks, clause 11.6 of Schedule 17 of DPS 2 requires the City to invite comment from affected landowners for a period of not less than 28 days before making any decision to increase the costs to apply through the DCP.

 

Given that the consultation period will be over the Christmas/New Year and January school holiday period, it is recommended that the consultation period be extended to at least 42 days to ensure sufficient time for landowners to provide comments.

 

The City must then, in accordance with clause 11.7 of Schedule 17 of DPS 2, consider any submissions received and, within 90 days, decide whether or not to increase the costs applicable through the DCPs.  Administration will therefore need to prepare a report in the New Year for Council to consider the submissions received and to adopt the revised costs.

Comment

Alkimos Eglinton

 

The reviewed Alkimos-Eglinton DCP Report presents a significant refinement of the DCP cost estimates and developable area details from what was previously considered by Council.  The facility cost estimates have been more closely aligned to the proposed location and scale of facilities through additional concept planning work, and as a result have decreased from previous estimates.

 

Although the indicative 'per hectare' cost contribution for the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP is proposed to increase as a result of a more accurate developable area calculation, when translated to a 'per dwelling' figure it represents only a small cost contribution increase from what was originally envisaged prior to the commencement of the review process.

 

Administration has extensively consulted and collaborated with the AELO in the preparation of the Alkimos-Eglinton DCP.  Notwithstanding this, formal consultation with these landowners is still necessary as the cost contribution for this DCP has marginally increased.  This consultation period will also be used to resolve the matter of the shortfall in contributions.

 

Yanchep Two Rocks

 

The cost contribution for Yanchep Two Rocks is projected to increase much more than anticipated when Amendment No. 122 to DPS 2 was adopted by Council in 2013.  At that time the estimated cost contribution was $3,291 per dwelling compared to $7,297 per dwelling now proposed in the revised DCP (a difference of $4,006 per dwelling).  While the overall estimated cost to deliver the facilities has increased, the primary factor influencing the increased cost contribution rate is the projected number of dwellings to be developed within the 10 year timeframe of the DCP. 

 

The dwelling estimates in the original Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP that was advertised for public comment and subsequently adopted by Council were sourced from the YTRDSP, which was prepared by consultants acting on behalf of the landowners and endorsed by Council. These estimates were considered to be the most appropriate to use at the time as they projected through to build out of the DCA and were aligned to developer intentions around urban form and development staging.  No other viable projections were available at that time.

 

More recent dwelling estimates for Yanchep-Two Rocks prepared by i.d. forecast (the City's consultant demographers) were released in November 2013 after the preparation and adoption of the DCP.  A review of both projections by Administration has found that the i.d forecast figures more closely reflect actual growth patterns in the DCA, and may now be the most appropriate projection on which to base the DCP.  The i.d. projections have historically proven to be accurate estimates of population and development growth and are based on known development plans and growth trends.  However, they suggest that dwelling growth in the 10 year period of the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP will be less than half of what was originally envisaged by the YTRDSP and this has a significant impact on the cost contribution rate.

 

The feedback received from YTRLO on the difference between the YTRDSP and i.d. forecast dwelling projections indicate that further work is required to identify and select the best projection on which to base the DCP cost contributions.  Administration has committed to work with the YTRLO to resolve this issue through the formal consultation period required on the revised DCP and prior to the matter being reported back to Council in the New Year.

Statutory Compliance

Clause 10.1 of Schedule 17 of DPS 2 states that the City is required to adopt and make available a development contribution plan report and cost apportionment schedule to all landowners in the DCP area within 90 days of the DCP coming into effect.  The 9 December 2014 Council Meeting date falls 91 days after the date of Amendment No. 122 being published in the Government Gazette.  Due to the time required to review all of the facility cost estimates and obtain updated land valuations it has not been possible to report to Council any earlier than 9 December 2014.  Administration has advised the AELO and YTRLO groups of this issue and sought comment on whether this raised any concern.  The AELO had no concerns with presenting the revised DCPs to Council on 9 December 2014.  YTRLO also raised no concerns, provided that there will be further opportunity for review and comment on the revised DCPs prior to their final adoption.  It is recommended that this additional consultation occur in accordance with the following requirements of DPS 2.

 

Clause 11.6 of Schedule 17 of DPS 2 states that where the review of estimated costs recommends that the costs be increased, then the local government shall invite comment on the proposal from landowners in writing for a period of not less than 28 days, prior to making any decision to increase the estimated costs.

 

Clause 11.7 of Scheduled 17 of DPS 2 states that the local government shall consider any submissions received and within 90 days of the closing date for submissions decide whether the estimated costs are to be maintained or increased, and to notify landowners of Council's decision.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.1    Great Places and Quality Lifestyle - People from different cultures find Wanneroo an exciting place to live with quality facilities and services.”

Risk Management Considerations

Administration is recommending that Council initiate consultation with affected landowners on the proposed cost increases for the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs.  This consultation process aims to minimise the risk to Council by working with stakeholders to understand the reasons for the proposed increase and consider potential options to reduce the extent of the increase.

However, there is still a risk that the final costs in the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCPs will not be considered acceptable by one or more landowners – particularly in Yanchep-Two Rocks as the YTRLO have already stated that the cost increase proposed in the draft DCP report would not be acceptable.  If an agreeable solution cannot be negotiated with affected landowners, then the cost review process may become subject to independent review, as provided for by clause 11.8 of Schedule 17 of DPS 2.

There are some options available to reduce the cost contribution rate and these are outlined below:

 

·    Review and potentially increase the projected dwelling figures or developable area

 

Increasing the number of dwellings or developable area on which the cost contribution is calculated will have the most impact on the cost contribution rate.  The risk with this approach is that incorrectly estimating the number of dwellings or area of developable land will result in an under or over-collection of funds.  Under collecting will result in a funding shortfall that must ultimately be met by Council.  Over collecting will result in excess funds which must then be reimbursed to landowners who have made contributions.

 

The DCP needs to be managed closely to ensure that it is 'cost-neutral' to the City, and reviewed regularly to ensure that any estimates and assumptions are as accurate as possible.  The City is required to review all estimated costs and assumptions (such as developable area of dwelling estimates) on an annual basis and part of this review would be to compare projected growth against actual growth.  If dwelling growth is tracking less than anticipated the cost contribution would need to be revised to reflect a more appropriate dwelling projection.

 

·    Reduce facility scope

 

Reducing the scope of the facilities involves removing certain elements (e.g. floodlights from the playing field) or reducing the quality of construction.  This option may save money and reduce the cost contribution rate, but is contrary to the main reason for establishing the DCPs, which was to provide the facilities required for the community.  The risk of this option is that the revised facility scope may not meet community need or expectations.

 

·    Council contribution

 

At present, 100% of the cost is being levied from developing landowners to reflect the need for the facilities that arises from their developments.  To reduce the cost contribution amount, Council may wish to make a financial contribution towards the partial or full cost of some of the facility elements (e.g. the cost of coastal protection works for the Yanchep Surf Life Saving Club).  Additionally, in the case of the Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP, Council may wish to make a contribution towards the overall costs of delivering facilities in recognition of the reduction in the projected number of dwellings to be delivered in the 10 year period of the DCP.

 

There is a risk that this option would impact on the delivery of other projects in the capital works budget.

 

·    Amendment to DPS 2

 

Other options to reduce the cost contribution amount involve an amendment to DPS 2 in order to change the details of the scheme text relating to the DCP.  This could include the removal of a facility from the DCP, or extending the timeframe of the DCP to potentially increase the number of dwellings that might contribute towards the cost of facilities.  These options would require careful consideration and are not recommended at this point in time unless other options have been exhausted.  Any proposal to amend the DCP requirements in DPS 2 would be subject to Council endorsement, public advertising and the approval of the Minister for Planning.

 

 

 

By implementing a contribution arrangement and collecting contributions, Council has committed to the delivery of the facilities identified in the DCP at the times specified therein (subject to population and land availability), and takes on the risks associated with this, including potentially having to make up any shortfall in funding at the time of construction and/or to construct the facility at the required point in time, regardless of whether sufficient funds have been collected at that time to do so. 

Policy Implications

LPP 3.3 provides for an interim cost contribution rate that applies until such time as the actual costs to be applied through the DCPs are endorsed by Council.  This Policy will need to be rescinded on Council's adoption of the final DCP costs and cost apportionment schedule.  This would need to occur at a future Council Meeting following formal consultation with affected landowners.

Financial Implications

The review of the Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP Reports following the gazettal of Amendment No. 122 has resulted in the following:

 

·        Alkimos-Eglinton DCP –  the delivery of 11 facilities with an estimated cost of $75.9 million (revised from $84.9 million), resulting in a cost contribution of approximately $130,000 per hectare (revised from $100,000 per hectare); and

 

·        Yanchep-Two Rocks DCP - the delivery of 3 facilities with the estimated cost of $31 million (revised from $29 million), resulting in a cost contribution of $7,297 per dwelling (revised from $3,291 per dwelling).

 

In the Alkimos Eglinton DCP, Administration has aimed to stage the timing and type of facilities to be delivered with the collection of contributions to pay for those facilities at the times when they will be demanded by the future population of the area, in an attempt to minimise or avoid the need for borrowings.  In Yanchep Two-Rocks, however, the delivery of the Yanchep Active Open Space and Surf Life Saving Club will likely require Council pre-funding (and subsequent recoup of costs through the DCP) due to the evident need for these facilities and the available value of contributions not yet being sufficient to cover the cost of these facilities.

 

Contributions will be deposited into a reserve account until they are required, and may only be used for the purposes outlined in the DCPs. Surplus funds at the end of the life of the DCP must be either returned to those developers that paid the funds or, where that is not possible, used to fund the provision of additional facilities or improvements in the relevant development contribution area. All interim development contributions received to date, in accordance with LPP 3.3, have been held in reserve accounts dedicated to each DCP area. The reserve account for Alkimos Eglinton currently contains approximately $5.4 million dollars in collected contributions, while the Yanchep Two Rocks reserve account contains approximately $718,000 in collected contributions.

 

It should be noted that developer contributions can only be used to fund the acquisition of land (where necessary) and construction of new community facilities and not for operating costs associated with the City’s running of these facilities.  As such, those operating costs will need to be factored into the City’s 10 year financial plan and relevant annual budgets in future.

 

The administration of the DCPs will be managed closely to ensure it is ‘cost-neutral’ to the City, with any additional or borrowing costs incurred by Council (including interest on any new loans) being recouped through ongoing annual reviews of both DCPs.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      NOTES that the list of facilities in the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan is consistent with the facilities identified in the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan and AGREES that no further review of the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan to ensure consistency with the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan is necessary;

2.      NOTES the revised draft Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Report and revised draft Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Report included at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively;

3.      NOTES that the review of estimated costs for the Alkimos-Eglinton Development Contribution Plan and Yanchep-Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan is proposing an increase in the cost contribution for those Plans pursuant to Clause 11.4 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme No. 2; and

4.      Pursuant to Clause 11.6 of Schedule 17 of District Planning Scheme NOTIFIES affected landowners of the proposed cost increases and INVITES comment in writing from those landowners for a period of 42 days.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.	Attachment 1 - Draft Alkimos Eglinton Development Contribution Plan Report	14/346373	Minuted
2.	Attachment 2 - Draft Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan Report	14/346376	Minuted

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                               6903 – 14/312393

Responsible Officer:                            Director Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider approval of expenditure from the Sustainability Investment Fund (SIF), in accordance with the SIF Expenditure and Reporting Policy.

 

Background

Since the 2010-2011 financial year, Council has set aside an annual sum of $50,000 in the Environmental Initiatives Reserve, for the Sustainability Investment Fund (SIF).

 

The role of the SIF is to fund initiatives aimed at reducing the City’s environmental footprint and reducing the City’s utility/energy bills.  Utility cost savings from initiatives funded through the SIF are redirected back into the Environmental Initiatives Reserve (EIR), thus growing the funding available to undertake further initiatives in future.

 

In October 2012, funds from the SIF were used to install a 36 kilowatt solar panel system on the Aquamotion building, a high electricity use building, in order to reduce electricity costs.  Following on from this success, 24 kilowatt solar panel arrays were installed at both Clarkson Library and Kingsway Sporting Complex in August 2014 with the inverter capacity to add additional panels at a later date.

 

Since the Aquamotion solar panel system was installed, the electricity savings have been closely monitored. The savings from the reduction in electricity usage have been calculated to be $13,228 in the 2013/14 financial year and this amount has been credited to the Sustainable Investment Fund in accordance with the fund's policy. This means that after only 5 years, the solar panel array would have been paid for in full and beyond this time will be generating net savings for the City. This payback period is considered to be a sound financial investment for the City.

 

Given that solar panel arrays at Clarkson Library and Kingsway Sporting Complex were only installed in August 2014, there has been only 2 months monitoring of the energy production from these systems. However, initial data show that the expected kilowatt production is being achieved and that ongoing savings will be generated.

 

There is currently $118,000 available in the SIF for future sustainability initiatives which includes the savings generated from the Aquamotion solar panel system during the 2013/14 financial year.

 

At its Meeting on 29 April 2014 (PS09–04/14) Council resolved to:

 

"REQUEST administration report on the proposed investment plan for the Sustainability Investment Fund (SIF), for the 2014/2015 year to Council by December 2014."

 

Accordingly, this report outlines the proposed investment plan for the SIF for the 2014/2015 financial year for Council's consideration.

 

 

 

 

Detail

The following projects are proposed for the 2014/15 financial year:

 

1.      Additional solar panels at Aquamotion, Clarkson Library and Kingsway

 

Given the success of the existing solar panel installations at Aquamotion, Clarkson Library and Kingsway to date, it is considered worthwhile adding additional solar panels to expand these systems to the full capacity of their inverters. This means that 5 kilowatt of panels will be added to Aquamotion (currently 31.5 and will become a total of 36.5 kilowatt) and Clarkson Library and Kingsway will each have 12 kilowatt of panels added (currently 24 kilowatt and will become a total of 36 kilowatt). This will maximise the number of panels on each building to match the current inverter capacity.

 

All three facilities have the following characteristics:

 

·        large energy consumption on most days of the week;

·        north facing roofs; and

·        large number of visitors.

 

The above characteristics are beneficial for offsetting energy usage with cleaner power sources, maximising the sun's exposure (power production) and ensuring high public visibility to demonstrate environmental leadership to the community.

 

In addition to upgrading the panels to meet system capacity, it is proposed to install a small monitoring device at Aquamotion to enable easier access to energy production data for this system. This device was installed at Clarkson and Kingsway, but not included when the Aquamotion system was installed.  The inclusion of the device at Aquamotion will improve the City's ability to accurately measure energy savings from the solar panel system.

 

2.      Voltage Optimisation system at Aquamotion

 

In addition to the solar panel project, Administration is proposing to install a voltage optimisation system at Aquamotion. Voltage optimisation systems are electrical energy saving devices that are installed in series with mains electricity supply to regulate the voltage input to meet the electrical equipment requirements of the facility.

 

A voltage optimisation system reduces the voltage being drawn from the grid that is not required for optimum performance of plant and equipment and in doing this, improves equipment efficiency, reduces maintenance and capital replacement costs and reduces energy costs.

 

Voltage optimisation achieves energy savings by accurately controlling the incoming voltage. In simple terms, the incoming voltage from the grid is taken, the amount required is used and the excess voltage is sent back to the grid, thus reducing the overall electrical consumption of the site.  This ensures that energy savings are maximised without compromising the supply.

 

Voltage Optimisation system technology has been around for some years. In 2011, the City of Gosnells installed the technology at their Leisure World aquatic facility at a cost of $33,617.  Following installation, annual electricity usage fell by 10.6% with an annual cost saving of $18, 371.  This resulted in a payback period for the project of less than 2 years. There have been no maintenance issues recorded to date despite a 10 year guarantee being in place.

 

 

 

Administration's investigation has found that all plant and equipment at Aquamotion would be unaffected by installing Voltage Optimisation and would run more efficiently and last longer. Financial savings as a result of this system have been calculated to be around $28,000 per annum.

Consultation

Consultation with relevant business units has confirmed support for the proposal.

No disruption to power usage or service delivery is expected during installation. Ongoing maintenance for the systems would be minimal.

Comment

The SIF offers great potential for a demonstration of Council's commitment to its environment and achieving outcomes in a financially viable way.

 

Installing solar energy systems will reduce the City's greenhouse gas emissions.  Providing additional solar panels on the roof of Aquamotion, Clarkson Library and Kingsway Sporting Complex is an environmentally sound initiative that will yield immediate and long term financial savings to the City.

 

The installation of a voltage optimisation system is also seen as an effective and appropriate use of the SIF and should yield immediate savings with minimal effort and risk.

Statutory Compliance

Should Council support the proposed investment for the SIF, Administration will proceed with obtaining formal quotations to undertake these projects. 

As the expenditure will be from a Council reserve account, a future report to Council will be required to authorise this expenditure.  Furthermore, as this expenditure is unbudgeted, pursuant to Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 Council must approve this expenditure by Absolute Majority. 

Accordingly, once formal quotations have been received, a separate report will be presented to Council on this matter.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.1    Environmentally Friendly - You will be part of a community that has a balance of environmentally friendly development and conservation areas for future generations to enjoy”

 

Risk Management Considerations

Solar panels are visible to members of the public and demonstrate Council's commitment to the environment. Solar panels yield immediate and long term savings for the City while reducing our reliance on carbon emitting coal fired electricity.  There are no risks envisaged with committing expenditure to this project.

 

 

Voltage Optimisation system technology has been around for some years and has successfully been installed at other similar facilities.  There are no risks envisaged with committing expenditure to this project.

 

Both the solar panel upgrade project and the proposed Voltage Optimisation system project represent a sound financial investment for the City of Wanneroo.

 

Financial Implications

 

Preliminary cost estimates to complete this work have been obtained, and the financial implications of the proposed projects are outlined in the table below:

 

 

Provisional quotations indicate that the total cost of upgrading the three existing solar panel systems and adding a monitoring system to Aquamotion is approximately $50,000 excluding GST. The expected cost savings per year to the City of Wanneroo as a result of the panel installations are approximately $12,801 per annum. On this basis, the new panels are expected to have a ‘pay back’ period of approximately 3 - 4 years, assuming utility prices remain unchanged.

Initial investigation has indicated that the cost of installing a Voltage Optimisation system will be approximately $55,000, excluding GST. The yearly electricity savings after installation have been calculated to be approximately $28,500. On this basis, the Voltage Optimisation system is expected to have a 'pay back' period of less than two years.

With a total cost of both projects approximately $105,000, excluding GST, they are less than the $118,000 Sustainability Investment Fund budget for the 2014/15 financial year.

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      SUPPORTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the proposed Investment Plan for expenditure from the Sustainability Investment Fund in 2014/15 financial year to install:

a)   additional solar panels and energy monitoring system at Aquamotion;

b)   additional solar panels at Kingsway Indoor Stadium and Clarkson Library; and

 

c)   a voltage optimisation system at Aquamotion; and

2.      NOTES that Administration will proceed with seeking formal quotations for the projects identified in 1. above and that a further report will be presented to Council seeking approval by absolute majority of the expenditure from the Environmental Initiatives Reserve, following confirmation of project costs.

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

File Ref:                                               2323V04 – 14/317025

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider five applications for an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs.

 

Background

Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 (Amendment 2008 GG 508) stipulates:

 

“A person shall not keep or permit to be kept on any premises more than:

 

a)      2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age; or

 

b)      6 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age if the premises are situated on a lot having an area of 4 hectares or more,

 

unless the premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or have been granted exemption pursuant to section 26(3) of the Dog Act and have planning approval under the town planning scheme.”

Detail

Five applications have been made under the Dog Act 1976 and are submitted for consideration. Each application has been assessed against the City's Application to Keep More than Two Dogs Guidelines and Scoresheet.

 

The application to keep more than two dogs at 30 Dressler Way, Girrawheen which was deferred at the Council meeting held on 11 November 2014 will not be resubmitted until the objectors' claims can be fully investigated.

 

As part of the assessment process, Rangers have inspected all of the properties to ensure means exist on the premises at which the dogs will ordinarily be kept for effectively confining the dogs within the premises.

Consultation

Where applications have been received by the City to keep more than two dogs, residents immediately adjoining the applicant’s property in question are consulted by letter to ascertain if they have any objections.

Comment

In considering these applications for exemption, the following two options are available:

 

a)      Council may grant an exemption pursuant to Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 subject to conditions; or

 

b)      Council may refuse permission to keep more than two dogs.

 

Application One: 18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo

 

Description of Dogs:	1.      Male tan Kelpie/Red Heeler X - sterilised 2.      Male cream Australian Terrier - unsterilised 3.      Female white/tan Border Collie/Kelpie X – unsterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 700m2
Objections:	Two (two neighbours consulted)

 

The applicants are seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo. The applicants would like to keep three dogs at the property as they have had three dogs registered previously with the City and recently had to euthanize their older dog.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is not adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep indoors and outdoors at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties two objections were received regarding barking and yapping made by the dogs on the property and also smell and state of the backyard. The objection of smell and state of the backyard is substantiated as the City has history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, two complaints had been lodged with regard to the number of dogs at this property. The applicant subsequently submitted the application soon after the complaint. The complainant was one of the neighbours that objected to this application. Complaints from the same neighbour that objected have also been received regarding dogs wandering from the property and the state of the backyard, these complaints have been substantiated. In addition, four complaints had been lodged from the same complainant with regard to alleged barking dogs; none of these complaints have been substantiated.

 

The dogs at the property have previously received three cautions for dog related offences.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 not be granted.

 

Application Two: 29 Jade Loop, Carabooda

 

Description of Dogs:	1.      Male black/brown German Shepherd - unsterilised 2.      Female tan Cocker Spaniel - sterilised 3.      Male tan Cocker Spaniel – sterilised 4.      Male tan Cocker Spaniel - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 20065m2
Objections:	Nil (two neighbours consulted)

 

The applicants are seeking permission from the City to keep four dogs at 29 Jade Loop, Carabooda. The applicants would like to keep four dogs at the property as when they moved to Carabooda they did not realise that they were only allowed two dogs on their property.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep indoors and outdoors at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, an investigation was conducted in relation to more than two dogs at the property and as a result it was discovered that the applicant had five dogs at the property. The applicant advised the City in 2011 that she had re-homed two of the dogs to an address in Applecross and advised that the third dog will be going to her brother's house in Ellenbrook and that they would only be visiting her property on an ad-hoc basis. The City documented the information given and advised the dog owner that a more than two dog application was no longer required. As a result of a dog attack investigation in 2013 it came to light that the dog owner was still housing five dogs at her property and she was requested to submit a more than two dog application. When the City received the application it became apparent that the dog owner was requesting to keep six dogs at the property. Under the City's Animals Local Law 1999, Council is only permitted to allow five dogs on a property less than 4 hectares, therefore the applicant was advised to re-home one dog and reapply.

 

The applicant has previously received five infringements and one caution for dog related offences.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 not be granted.

 

Application Three: 3 Kevo Place, Landsdale

 

Description of Dogs:	1.      Male black Standard Poodle - sterilised 2.      Male champagne Standard Poodle - sterilised 3.      Male black/brown King Charles Cavalier – sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 768m2
Objections:	Nil (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 3 Kevo Place, Landsdale. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as the dogs will be relocating back to Australia from Sweden in early 2015.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep inside at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Four: 11 Cinnamon Meander, Two Rocks

 

Description of Dogs:	1.      Male brown/white Border Collie - sterilised 2.      Male grey/black Blue Heeler - sterilised 3.      Female black Border Collie  – sterilised 4.      Female black/white Border Collie X - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 11182m2
Objections:	Nil (four neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep four dogs at 11 Cinnamon Meander, Two Rocks. The applicants would like to keep four dogs at the property as they have moved in together and each own two dogs.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep inside and outside at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

A check of the City’s records reveals that prior to this application being made no complaints had been received by the City regarding this address.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Five: 21 Eveleigh Boulevard, Clarkson

 

Description of Dogs:	1.      Male grey/white Cavalier/Shih Tzu X - sterilised 2.      Male black Poodle/Maltese X - sterilised 3.      Female black Cavalier/Toy Poodle X - sterilised
Property Zoning / Size:	Residential / 142m2
Objections:	One (two neighbours consulted)

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 21 Eveleigh Boulevard, Clarkson. The applicant would like to keep three dogs at the property as she regards them as her family since her parents passed away.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs as per Clause 13 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep in the house at night.

 

Upon consultation with neighbouring properties one objection was received regarding barking, whining and yapping made by the dogs on the property. The objection is unsubstantiated as the City has no history or records to support the claim.

 

A check of the City's records reveal that prior to this application, one complaint had been lodged with regard to the number of dogs at this property. The applicant subsequently submitted the application soon after the complaint. The complainant was the neighbour that objected to this application. In addition, the neighbour that objected to this application also lodged a complaint with regard to alleged barking dogs; this complaint was not substantiated.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

Statutory Compliance

The exemptions sought to Council’s Animals Local Law 1999 are permissible under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

Nil

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.      GRANTS an exemption under the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 for the respective applicants to keep more than two dogs at the following properties:

3 Kevo Place, Landsdale;

11 Cinnamon Meander, Two Rocks; and

21 Eveleigh Boulevard, Clarkson;

2.      ADVISES that the exemption relating to the three properties in Recommendation          1 are subject to the following specified conditions:

a)      If any one of the dogs die or is no longer kept on the property, no replacement is to be obtained;

b)      Any barking by the subject dogs is to be kept to a minimum;

c)      This exemption may be varied or revoked if any complaints are received which are considered reasonable;

d)      Any and all unregistered dogs are to be registered with the City of Wanneroo within 14 days;

 

3.      REFUSES an exemption to the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Law 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 for the applicants at:

         18 Gazelle Place, Marangaroo; and

         29 Jade Loop, Carabooda;

4.      ADVISES the applicants listed in Recommendation 3 that they may appeal Council’s decision by writing to the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of receiving notice of Council’s decision; and

5.      ADVISES all adjoining neighbours of these decisions in relation to all the properties listed in the above recommendations.

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Property

File Ref:                                               4561 – 14/270172

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider entering into a new lease with the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club (Inc.) (WHPC) over Lot 10842 (159) Benmuni Road, Wanneroo, part Crown Reserve 40012.

 

Background

The WHPC currently leases part Crown Reserve 40012, Lot 10842 on Deposited Plan 187739 being the whole of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume LR3144 Folio 896 (Attachment 1 refers) and otherwise known as 'Estrel Park' which incorporates a clubroom, storage shed, grass riding areas and the cross country course.

 

Crown Reserve 40012 is a category “C” reserve vested in the City for 'equestrian' purposes under a Management Order with power to lease for any term not exceeding 21 years, subject to the consent of the Minister for Lands.

 

The land is currently zoned as 'Parks & Recreation' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and 'Regional Parks & Recreation' in the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2)

 

Lot 10842 is a designated Bush Forever site and therefore associated constraints regarding retainment and protection apply.

 

The WHPC was established in 1965 and is actively affiliated with the Pony Club Association of Western Australia (PCAWA). It provides equestrian associated services to it 70 active members, the majority of which are aged twelve years and under. The WHPC exists to promote the development of young people, encouraging an awareness of responsibility, sportsmanship and self discipline. The horse is used as the main centre of interest around which to cultivate strength of character and self-discipline.

 

The WHPC is a long term tenant and originally leased the premises for a twenty-one (21) year term which expired 31 August 2008. Subsequently, Council, at its Ordinary Council Meeting of 23 September 2008 (CS03-09/08) resolved to approve a six (6) year lease commencing 1 October 2008, expiring 30 September 2014. The lease has been held over with the WHPC becoming a monthly tenant on the same terms and conditions of the expired lease.

 

In November 2005 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) published a draft document for public comment called the 'East Wanneroo Land Use and Water Management Strategy – November 2005' that addressed land use in relation to converting areas from rural to urban, and water management strategies in East Wanneroo.  Following consideration of comments received, a final report was released by the WAPC and the then Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI): "The future of East Wanneroo – Land use and water management in the context of Network City – August 2007". 

 

One of the recommended actions of the above final report was that the DPI 'define a sustainable urban structure and form' for the southern part of the East Wanneroo area, which the August 2007 report designates as 'possible future urban'.  This has led to the preparation by the WAPC and the Department of Planning (DOP) of the 'East Wanneroo Structure Plan' (a 'Subregional Structure Plan') (EWSP), the final version of which was released in January 2011.

 

The current position on planning for this area is that there is a requirement for rezoning to be undertaken under the MRS and the City's DPS2 along with the preparation of District Structure Plans. It is anticipated that the recommended outcomes are likely, in the medium term, to have a direct effect on the existing rural surroundings adjacent to Lot 10842 and the future viability of the equine industry in the region.

Detail

The WHPC has written to the City requesting a new lease.

 

Under the City’s current Tenancy Policy, the WHPC is categorised as a 'not-for-profit' entity and the lease is to be negotiated at no cost to the City.

 

The City and the WHPC have negotiated a new lease for the leased premises subject to Council and the Minister for Lands approval of the following essential terms:

 

Lease Premises:	Existing buildings and land as shown hachured on the plan (Attachment 1 refers)
Lease Term:	Two (2) years and six (6) months
Commencement Date:	1 January 2015
Lease Rental:	$1.00 per annum
Permitted Purpose:	Equestrian purposes
Rates, Taxes and Outgoings:	The lessee will be responsible for all rates taxes, assessments, impositions and outgoings for electricity, gas, water and telephone/broadband used in relation to the Premises whether billed directly or otherwise.
Building Insurance:	Lessee responsibility
Public Liability Insurance:	Lessee responsibility - $20 million minimum
Other Insurance (including contents, plate glass et cetera):	Lessee responsibility
Maintenance of Premises and Cleaning:	Lessee responsibility
Statutory Compliance:	Lessee responsibility
Structural Maintenance:	Lessor responsibility
Proposed Special Condition 9.1:	A 'Bush Forever' special condition clause has been included in the proposed new lease stating that the entire leased premises is subject to State Government 'Bush Forever' constraints. Removal of trees and other vegetation is not to be carried out without the prior consent of the lessor and no new bridle tracks are to be constructed
Proposed Special Condition 9.2:	An 'East Wanneroo Structure Plan' (EWSP) special condition clause has been included in the proposed new lease stating that the EWSP is likely to have an effect on the existing rural surroundings and the future viability of the equine industry in the region

Consultation

The essential terms of the proposed new lease have been prepared in consultation with the WHPC.

 

Administration has received in-principle consent to the proposed new lease from the Department of Lands (DOL) on behalf of the Minister for Lands pursuant to Section 18 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Comment

The WHPC has been a stable tenant since 1987 and the proposed new lease will allow the WHPC to continue its tenancy in accordance with the City's Tenancy Policy.

 

The WHPC provides an equestrian based recreational service to residents in the Wanneroo and wider area. There are limited clubs of this nature to accommodate equestrian interests in the metropolitan area north of Perth and the land’s purpose under the City's Management Order is clearly defined as for 'equestrian' purposes. However, given the uncertainty of the medium term future of the equine industry as a result of the EWSP, Administration suggests that the term of the proposed new lease should reflect this unknown element. A short term lease is considered the most appropriate timeframe for the WHPC at this moment in time. 

Statutory Compliance

The proposed lease is considered an exempt disposition under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, which states:

“30(2)    A disposition of land is an exempt disposition if –

            (b)  the land is disposed of to a body, whether incorporated or not –

                        (i)      the objects of which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and

                        (ii)     the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions;”

 

The main objectives of the WHPC as per its constitution are as follows:

 

·    encourage young people to ride and to learn to enjoy all kinds of sport connected with horses and riding;

 

·    provide instructions in riding and horsemastership and to instil in members the proper care for their animals and gear;

 

·    promote the highest ideals of sportsmanship, citizenship and loyalty, thereby cultivating strength of character and self-discipline; and

 

·    hold horse and pony sports for young people who are eligible for Pony Club Membership until the end of the year in which they attain the age of 25 years.

 

The WHPC is an educational and sporting entity and therefore an exempt disposition under Regulation 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Risk Management Considerations

Administration recommends that the proposed new lease is approved as it clarifies each party's ongoing responsibilities for Lot 10842 under the proposed agreement.

Lot 10842 is subject to State Government 'Bush Forever' constraints and the proposed new lease outlines that the WHPC is prohibited from removing vegetation or creating new bridal tracks without the prior consent of the City.

Given the uncertainty of the medium term future of the equine industry as a result of the EWSP, a short term lease tenure has been negotiated instead of the usual standard five (5) year lease tenure protocol for 'not-for-profit' entities as categorised under the City's Tenancy Policy. The EWSP is a high level strategic document to guide future amendments to the MRS and to provide a framework to guide the preparation of more detailed structure plans for East Wanneroo. The future viability of the equine industry in the area will continue to be monitored by Administration in relation to how the WAPC and the DOP consider the planning of the East Wanneroo area should be progressed and what immediate impact this is likely to have on Lot 10842 and the future of the WHPC in the region.

Policy Implications

The proposed new lease has been negotiated in accordance with the 'not-for-profit' guidelines as outlined in the City's Tenancy Policy apart from the period of tenure proposed.

Financial Implications

In recognition of the benefit to the community provided by the WHPC and in accordance with the City's Tenancy Policy, the lease fee applicable will be $1 per annum (peppercorn). The WHPC will be responsible for all costs of cleaning, utility outgoings, relevant insurances, rates and taxes, repairs and maintenance, operational compliance matters and all other costs associated with the leased premises.

 

The City will be responsible to meet any costs in relation to the structural integrity of the buildings contained within the leased premises.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.      APPROVES the lease of Lot 10842, Benmuni Road, Wanneroo (Attachment 1 refers) to the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club (Inc.) for a term of two (2) years, and six (6) months commencing 1 January 2015, in accordance with the City's Tenancy Policy for a 'Not-for-Profit' organisation; and

2.      AUTHORISES the affixing of the Common Seal of the City of Wanneroo to a lease between the City and the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club (Inc.) in accordance with the City's Execution of Documents Policy.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - leased area

14/271270

Minuted

  

 

 

Community Safety & Emergency Management

File Ref:                                               19230 – 14/306997

Responsible Officer:                            Director City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider the evaluation of Tender Number 01450 for the Design, Supply and Installation of a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System (Hub) at the Butler Community Centre Precinct.

 

Background

A budgeted amount of $350,000 has been listed in the 2014/2015 Capital Works Program against project PR-2472 for the "Expansion of CCTV Network – Butler Community Centre".

 

Following an extensive assessment process at the commencement of installing fixed CCTV hubs at sites throughout the City, Administration, some Elected Members and other key external stakeholders were involved in an extensive assessment process.  At this time, twenty five (25) sites were considered and to date the locations listed below have been installed as per high priority selection.  These CCTV sites have been funded by Federal and State Government Grants and Municipal funds:

 

Alexander Heights/Marangaroo (5 cameras)

o  Alexander Heights Community Centre Car Park

o  Mirrabooka Avenue/Rawlinson Drive

o  Mirrabooka Avenue

o  Paloma Park Car Park

o  Paloma Park Skate Park

 

Clarkson (6 cameras)

o  Clarkson Skate Park

o  Neerabup Road/Key Largo Drive

o  Ocean Keys Boulevard/Celebration Boulevard

o  Ocean Keys Boulevard/Key Largo Drive

o  Ocean Keys Boulevard/Pensacola Avenue

o  Ocean Keys Boulevard/Santa Clara Crescent

 

Girrawheen (5 cameras)

o  Balgonie Avenue/Iverna Place

o  Marangaroo Drive/Balgonie Avenue

o  Abutting Newpark Shopping Centre Car Park

o  Templeton Crescent/Blackmore Avenue

o  Templeton Crescent/Hudson Avenue

 

 

 

Wanneroo Town Centre (8 cameras)

o  Wanneroo Road

o  Wanneroo Road/Dundebar Road

o  Dundebar Road (Hotel Entry)

o  Dundebar Road/Rocca Way

o  Dundebar Road (Police Station)

o  Rocca Way

o  Civic Drive

o  Aquamotion (Rear)

 

Hainsworth Community Centre Precinct (5 cameras)

o  Cameras located around the perimeter of the Community Centre

 

Carramar Community Centre (2 cameras)

o  Cameras located at the front of the Community Centre

 

Banksia Grove Community Centre (2 cameras)

o  Cameras located at the front of the Community Centre and at the eastern side focussing on the barbecue area

 

Butler Community Centre has been identified as a high priority for fixed CCTV cameras due to an increase in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity around the vicinity.  Preliminary advice from the City's CCTV contractor in relation to this site is that the cost to install CCTV is likely to be in the higher cost range due to the need to establish a wireless link back to the Civic Centre Control Room. 

Detail

Tender Number 01450 for the design, supply and install of a CCTV system (hub) at Butler Community Centre Precinct was advertised on the 20 September 2014.

 

The CCTV system will form part of the larger CCTV network and will be capable of being accessed and controlled from the City's CCTV Control Room.

 

The Price Schedule contained costs of installation of high definition CCTV cameras, poles/brackets, electrics (including underground conduits), recording equipment, licensed backhaul microwave communications link/s.  Camera locations were derived by Community Safety Administration to achieve the vision required.

 

The target schedule for procuring, installing and commissioning the CCTV system is as follows:

 

Tender Release	20 September 2014
Close of Tender	17 October 2014
Contract Start Date	10 December 2014
Contract End Date	30 June 2015

 

 

Tenders Received

Four tender submissions were received and have been listed in Tender Price ascending order as tabled below:

 

Tenderer	Tender Price
Aspect Group (WA) Pty Ltd	$102,783.78
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	$187,062.25
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	$239,499.69
Prestige Alarms	$282,077.00

 

Tenderers were required to provide details of the establishment of licensed communications microwave link from the cameras to the Civic Centre Control Room.  As compliance with this requirement was not addressed by Aspect Group (WA) Pty Ltd, this tender submission was excluded from further consideration.

 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of the Project Manager Community Safety and Emergency Management, Senior Emergency Management/Community Safety Officer, Coordinator Information Technology, Coordinator Building Maintenance.  The Contracts Officer oversaw the consensus meeting, price evaluation and overall score assessment.

 

The three (3) conforming tender submissions received were evaluated in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

1	Previous Experience and Resources	45%
2	Price for Goods and Services Offered	25%
3	Demonstrated understanding of the methodology required to deliver the services	20%
4	Occupational Health and Safety Management	10%

 

1.   Experience and Resources (45%)  

Each tenderer was assessed on previous experience with similar projects and relevant resources.

 

Prestige Alarms has extensive experience in design, supply and installation of CCTV systems.  Prestige was the City's original CCTV installation contractor for the Safer Suburbs and Wanneroo Town Centre CCTV projects in 2010 and more recently Prestige installed CCTV systems at Hainsworth, Banksia Grove and Carramar Community Centres.  Prestige has also constructed communications masts, support infrastructure and microwave links for Northern Star Resources and Regis Resources.

 

Downer detailed extensive experience with the provision of CCTV systems at Port Hedland, Fremantle, Perth City and Cockburn.  The submission contained information on the installation of two links however it did not document how the links will work and what is required to establish a line of sight.

 

Cerberus Technologies detailed previous and present CCTV projects, including the City of Fremantle, Northbridge Tunnel, Wangara, Dampier Wharf and PSQ Group.  The submission lacked detail regarding the scope of works and type of services resulting in a lower ranking.

 

The ranking according to the information provided is as follows:  

Tenderer	Ranking
Prestige Alarms	1
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	2
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	3

 

2.   Price (25%)  

This was assessed on the price schedules submitted by each tenderer that gave a price for:

(a)  Preliminaries which included design costs, operational manuals, training, as built drawings, safety and traffic management, defects and maintenance provision;

(b)  Camera costs, including camera housing, installation, poles/brackets, connection links, software, licences, hardware; and

(c)  Cost of options (extra cameras/housings and installation)

The Tender Assessment Panel found that out of the three compliant tenders received, Prestige Alarms fully documented the cost of establishing licensed communications microwave equipment, including the frequency range from the Butler CCTV hub back to the Civic Centre Control Room.

The ranking based on price is as follows:

Tenderer	Tender Lump Sum	Ranking
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	$187,062.25	1
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	$239,499.69	2
Prestige Alarms	$282,077.00	3

 

 

3.   Methodology sources (20%)  

Tenderers were assessed on their detailed methodology and proposed equipment provisions in regard to the project in its entirety.       

Prestige Alarms provided detailed methodology with step by step description and allocation of responsibilities to complete the scope of works.  The submission included options including methods and reasoning behind each proposal and which will be the best solution for the City of Wanneroo with nil disruption to the current microwave link to Clarkson Library resulting in this company's high ranking.

 

Downer provided detailed proposed methodology for completing the services, however stated that pricing may vary depending on approvals for antenna pole installation design and method.  The submission also did not allow for upgrades for storage to the Civic Centre equipment, resulting in a lower ranking. 

 

Cerberus Technologies provided a methodology plan and timelines for aspects of the work required, however the suggested timeline did not capture the lengthy process of installing microwave communication link.  This was reflected in this tenderer receiving a lower ranking.

Prestige Alarms offer was assessed as being the highest for this criterion due to the detailed attention to tender requirements and constraints.      

 

The following ranking was given as a result of the information provided:        

Tenderer	Ranking
Prestige Alarms	1
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	2
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	3

 

4.   Occupational Health and Safety (10%)    

Tenderers were assessed on their detailed effective Occupational Health and Safety management system.  Prestige Alarms, Downer and Cerberus Technologies each provided adequate Occupation Health and Safety policies.  Each submission contained safe work method statements, risk assessment, hazard reports and checklists for recording various safety activities and inspections.  Sample forms were submitted evidencing their use in the workplace.  However Prestige Alarms submission provided the Tender Assessment Panel with a higher level of confidence through demonstration of precision in assessment, reporting and management of OH&S related matters. 

 

Ranking of the tenderers based on OH&S, quality and risk is noted as follows:       

Tenderer	Ranking
Prestige Alarms	1
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	2
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	3

 

5.   Overall Weighted Score:        

The overall scoring of tenders based on the weighted selection criteria is as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Prestige Alarms	1
Downer EDI Engineering Electrical Pty Ltd (Downer)	2
Cerberus Technologies Pty Ltd	3

Prestige Alarms was assessed as having achieved the highest weighted overall ranking and is therefore recommended by the Tender Assessment Panel as the preferred Tenderer.

Consultation

Following an extensive assessment process at the commencement of installing fixed CCTV hubs at sites throughout the City, Administration, some Elected Members and other key external stakeholders were involved in an extensive assessment process.

Comment

The price for the design, supply and installation of a CCTV system is largely driven by advances in technology and the installation of new licensed backhaul microwave communication links.

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel assessed each tender submission for relevant detailed scope of works in regard to the installation of a dedicated carrier grade licensed backhaul communication link/s.  This component of the project is imperative as it ensures connection from the Butler site back to the City's CCTV Control Room.  It was evident that the Prestige Alarms clearly understood the City's requirements and identified this essential aspect of the tender. 

Prestige Alarms demonstrated a good knowledge of system compatibility to the City's existing wireless data network including frequency ranges and addressing any upgrades and relocation of existing links as necessary. 

 

The Tender Evaluation Team agreed that the two other conforming tender submissions did not clearly address this risk.  

 

The evaluation process determined that the tender from Prestige Alarms clearly covered all criteria and therefore is the recommended Tenderer.  Prestige Alarms is also the City's current holder of the Security Maintenance Contract and have a long history of providing satisfactory service that meets the City's needs. 

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.3    Safe Communities - We feel safe at home and in our local area.”

Risk Management Considerations

A financial risk assessment of Prestige Alarms was conducted by Corporate Scorecard.  The report returned a strong rating of 7.25 out of 10, indicating they have the financial capacity to undertake the work. 

 

It is imperative that the successful tenderer has the required expertise, knowledge, staff, equipment and financial capacity to undertake all components of the contract requirements, particularly in regard to the provision of a dedicated carrier grade licensed backhaul communications link.  Prestige Alarms has been assessed as meeting these requirements thus mitigating the identified risks.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Project Financial Status:

 

EXPANSION OF CCTV NETWORK – BUTLER COMMUNITY CENTRE (PR-2472)
	Estimated Expenditure	Budget
Capital Works Program 2014/15		$350,000
Design, Supply & Install CCTV System, inclusive of microwave links, building approval fees, and software (recommended Tender)	$282,077
Construction Contingency (10% rounded)	$6,800
Total Estimated Expenditure	$288,877
Total Budget		$350,000
Estimated Project Surplus (Held in Reserve)		$61,123

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Prestige Alarms for Tender Number 01450 for the Design, Supply and Installation of a CCTV System (Hub) at Butler Community Centre Precinct for a total lump sum of $282,077.

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Infrastructure

Tenders

File Ref:                                               19138 – 14/330551

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01446 – Provision of Dry Park Maintenance within for a Period of Three Years.

 

Background

Dry parks are unirrigated and as such require a different type of management than irrigated active and passive parks. Whilst all parks require a set of standard maintenance tasks to ensure a safe and usable space, currently dry parks in the City are only maintained four to six times per year. Due to this limited maintenance servicing of dry parks, there are periods when grass growth, accumulation of litter and weed control do not meet the expectations of the community and park infrastructure such as bollards and play units can potentially present hazards to the park users.

 

To ensure a visually attractive, safe and useable public open space as well as the ongoing safety of the public, maintenance servicing of these areas was proposed to be undertaken seventeen times a year. A review of the overall resources indicated that external contract resources are required to deliver this increased service.

 

This report considers the evaluation outcome of a tender for the provision of dry park maintenance for a period of three years.

Detail

Tender No. 01446 for the Provision of Dry Park Maintenance for a Period of Three Years was advertised on 4 October 2014 and closed on 21 October 2014. A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type	Lump Sum Price
Contract Duration	Three years
Commencement Date	5 January 2015
Expiry Date	4 January 2018
Extension Permitted	Yes, Two periods of 12 months or part thereof
Rise And Fall Included	Perth All Groups CPI increases upon extensions

 

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

–    Parker family trust T/a Lawn Doctor

–    Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total

–    Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd

–    Turfmaster Facility Management

–    Landscape and Maintenance Solutions Pty Ltd

–    Cobey Maintenance Services

 

The Tender Evaluation Team, consisting of the Coordinator Parks Maintenance North, Coordinator Parks Maintenance South and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Item No	Description	Score
1	Price for the services offered	40%
2	Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations	20%
3	Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services	20%
4	Demonstrated occupational health and safety management	20%

Price for the Services Offered (40%)

This criterion was based on lump sum prices submitted with the tender documentation and has ranked the tenderers as follows:

 

Tenderer	Lump sum price over a three year period	Rank
Lawn Doctor	$622,728.00	1
Landscape and Maintenance Solutions	$707,892.60	2
Sandpoint Ltd T/A LD Total	$885,093.12	3
Turfmaster	$908,656.20	4
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	$1,505,740.32	5
Cobey Maintenance	$5,126,744.00	6

 

Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' experience in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances.

 

All tenderers provided details of contracts explaining the type of work performed for their clients ranging from various local authorities, land developers and other private agencies.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers' being ranked equally under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Lawn Doctor	1
Landscape and Maintenance Solutions	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A LD Total	1
Turfmaster	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	1
Cobey Maintenance	1

 

Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' staff resources and plant and equipment listed for use in carrying out the services under this contract, and the tenderers' proposed methodology to utilise the resources to deliver the services.

 

All tenderers other than Skyline Landscape Services provided a good methodology including suitable personnel assigned to this contract as well as the appropriate plant and equipment and an annual maintenance program with description of various tasks required within the scope of the tender.

 

Skyline Landscape Services methodology was not as descriptive with certain items omitted from the maintenance program.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Lawn Doctor	1
Landscape and Maintenance Solutions	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A LD Total	1
Turfmaster	1
Cobey Maintenance	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	2

 

Demonstrated occupational health and safety management (20%)

Evidence of safety management policies, procedures and practices was assessed from the tender documents.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers' submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) policy documentation, working documentation and responses to an OH&S Management System Questionnaire.

 

Lawn Doctor, LD Total, Turfmaster and Skyline Landscape Services adequately answered the questionnaire and provided documentation including comprehensive safety policies and procedures, accident and incident reports, a training matrix, job safety analysis forms, working procedures, hazard report forms including working examples demonstrating the active use of safety systems.

 

Landscape and Maintenance Solutions also provided an Occupational Safety & Health Management Plan including a hazard assessment, incident report form and employee induction. However, only one completed JSA was provided as working document which is reflected in the ranking.

 

Cobey Maintenance provided a safety and environmental management plan as well as an incident report form. The only completed document provided was a daily job safety environmental analysis form which is reflected in the ranking.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Lawn Doctor	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A LD Total	1
Turfmaster	1
Cobey Maintenance	2
Landscape and Maintenance Solutions	2

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderer’s submissions were reviewed in accordance with the weighted score analysis process with the following observations being of significance:

–    the key aspect of the tender evaluation is price.

–    the companies’ bids were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, ability and safety management systems to undertake the tender.

The overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer	Score
Lawn Doctor	1
Landscape and Maintenance Solutions	2
Sandpoint Ltd T/A LD Total	3
Turfmaster	4
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	5
Cobey Maintenance	6

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The tender submission from Lawn Doctor achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.

 

A financial assessment of Lawn Doctor was undertaken as part of the tender evaluation process and the outcome of this independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd has verified that Lawn Doctor has been assigned a score of 6.67 indicating that it has a sound financial capacity to undertake the requirements of the contract.

 

Reference checks have indicated that Lawn Doctor has previously provided a satisfactory service delivery to its customers.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Risk Management Considerations

The condition of dry parks including associated infrastructure can deteriorate quickly if not regularly maintained. The inability of a contractor to supply these services will have an impact on the City's ability to deliver services to residents. The undertaking of these maintenance works in a safe manner is also important as any non compliance can result in safety risks to public and operators. Therefore it is imperative that the successful tenderer has the required experience, staff, equipment and financial capacity to meet the contract requirements. Lawn Doctor is assessed to meet these requirements, thus mitigating the identified risks.

 

In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the maintenance sites. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Based on the recommended tender's lump sum price, the three-year average annual value of the contracted services is $207,576 per annum, which is slightly above the estimated cost. This is mainly due to the inclusion of some tasks in the specification which were not originally intended to be undertaken as part of these tendered works.

 

The lump sum price of $622,728 for a three year period is accommodated in the Parks and Reserves Maintenance operating budget on an annual basis.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Lawn Doctor for Tender No. 01446 for the Provision of Dry Park Maintenance for a period of Three Years commencing on 5 January 2015 for a lump sum price of $622,728 with an option to extend the contract for a further two 12 month periods, or part thereof, with a Perth All Groups CPI price adjustment applied at each extension of the contract.

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                               19141 – 14/306607

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01447 for the Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale for a Period of Three Years.

 

Background

The City made a strategic decision a number of years ago to contract out parks and streetscape maintenance works in Butler and the suburbs northwards due to a number of factors such as travel times for the City's own crews and the type of assets being built in those parks by the land developers. The undertaking of parks maintenance in the northern areas (Butler, Yanchep and Two Rocks) of the City by contractors has proved successful.

 

As a result of growth throughout the City, there was a need to review the overall allocation of resources to undertake parks and streetscape maintenance. Accordingly, a review of the type of parks in the southern growth area of the City, mainly south of Gnangara Road/Ocean Reef Road was undertaken. The type of assets built in parks in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale is similar to those built in Butler. Therefore it was considered that a 'contract' approach is likely to be more suitable for implementation in these parts of the City, leaving the City's own crews to be redirected to other areas.

 

This report considers the evaluation outcome of a tender to undertake parks and streetscape maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale.

Detail

Tender No. 01447 for the Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale for a Period of Three (3) Years was advertised on 27 September 2014 and closed on the 14 October 2014.  A copy of the tender document has been placed in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Essential details of the contract are outlined below:

 

Contract Type	Lump sum price
Contract Duration	Three years
Commencement Date	5 January 2015
Expiry Date	4 January 2018
Extension Permitted	Yes, Two periods of 12 months or part thereof
Rise And Fall Included	Perth All Groups CPI increases upon extensions

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

–    Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

–    Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total

–    Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd

The Tender Evaluation Team, consisting of the Coordinator Parks Maintenance North, Acting Coordinator Parks Maintenance South and the Contracts Officer, has evaluated the tender submissions in accordance with the following selection criteria:

 

Item No	Description	Score
1	Price for the services offered	40%
2	Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations	20%
3	Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services	20%
4	Demonstrated occupational health and safety management	20%

Price for the Services Offered (40%)

 

This criterion was based on lump sum prices submitted with the tender documentation and has ranked the tenderers as follows.

 

Tenderer	Lump sum price over a three year period	Rank
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	$879,867.19	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total	$1,523,837.07	2
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	$2,337,427.00	3

 

Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations (20%)

 

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' experience in supplying services of a similar nature and circumstances.

Environmental Industries currently provides similar contracted services to the City to a satisfactory standard. Environmental Industries provided details of other relevant contracts and clients including LWP Property, Cedar Woods, PEET Developments, Serco, Burswood Park, the City of Bunbury, City of Melville, City of Joondalup, City of Swan, and the Shires of East Pilbara and Roebourne.

LD Total currently provides similar contracted services for the City which it performs to a satisfactory standard.  LD Total provided details of other relevant contracts and clients including the City of Cockburn, City of Kwinana, Satterley Property Group, Brighwater Group, St John of God Hospital and a number of education campuses within Western Australia.

 

Skyline Landscape Services commenced works on the 18 August 2014 for the City providing services under Contract No. 01420 – Provision of Streetscape Maintenance for Arterial Roads. This is streetscape maintenance only service which is performed to a satisfactory standard. This tenderer also provided details of contracts and clients including Brookfield Johnston (Western Power Sites), City of Nedlands, NSW Transport, Transfield, Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and North Sydney Council. 

 

The information provided has demonstrated that all three tenderers have extensive experience resulting in them being ranked equally.

 

 

Tenderer	Rank
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	1

 

Demonstrated understanding of the methodology to deliver the services and allocation of sufficient resources to undertake the services (20%)

Assessment of this criterion considered the tenderers' staff resources and plant and equipment listed for use in carrying out the services under this contract, and the tenderers' proposed methodology to utilise the resources to deliver the services.

 

Environmental Industries and LD Total provided a good methodology explaining site supervision, mowing, weed control, traffic management and litter collection and described resources to deliver the services including relevant staff qualifications and adequate plant and equipment, such as ride-on mowers, trucks, tractors, weed control application equipment, a skid steer loader and relevant minor plant.

 

Skyline Landscape Services provided good general methodology but did not supply a list of plant, equipment or personnel to be used in this contract.

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

 

Tenderer	Rank
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	2

 

Demonstrated occupational health and safety management (20%)

Evidence of safety management policies, procedures and practices was assessed from the tender documents.  The assessment for safety management was based on the tenderers' submitted Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) policy documentation, working documentation and responses to an OH&S Management System Questionnaire.

 

All three tenderers adequately answered the questionnaire and provided documentation including comprehensive policies and procedures, demonstrated the use of working documentation including comprehensive risk assessments, hazard reports; induction check lists, training records, work injury/incident reports and toolbox records. 

 

The information provided has resulted in the tenderers being ranked as follows under this criterion:

Tenderer	Rank
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total	1
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	1

 

 

Overall Weighted Score

The tenderers' submissions were reviewed in accordance with the weighted score analysis process with the following observations being of significance:

–    the key aspect of the tender evaluation is price.

–    the companies submissions were evaluated in accordance with the selection criteria and were assessed as having the necessary resources, previous experience, ability and safety management systems to undertake the tender.

The overall weighted score has resulted in the following tender ranking:

Tenderer	Score
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	1
Sandpoint Ltd T/A L D Total	2
Skyline Landscape Services Pty Ltd	3

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The tender submission from Environmental Industries achieved the highest score in accordance with the assessment criteria and weighting as detailed in the tender document and is therefore recommended as the successful tenderer.

 

A financial assessment of Environmental Industries Pty Ltd was not undertaken for this tender as an assessment was conducted on the 18 September 2014 as part of the tender evaluation process for Tender No. 01442 - The Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance North. The outcome of that independent assessment by Corporate Scorecard Pty Ltd advised that Environmental Industries had been assigned a score of 7.40, indicating that it had a strong financial capacity to meet the requirements of that contract.

 

The following table lists the parks and streetscape maintenance contracts awarded to Environmental Industries since 2011:

 

Contract N0	Title	Contract period	Recorded issues
01119	Provision of Streetscape Maintenance in Butler North	2011 to 2013	One Notice of default and works rectified by Environmental Industries
01225	Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Butler (west)	2012 to 2015	None of significance
01323	Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Yanchep and Two Rocks	2013 to 2016	None of significance
01331	Provision of park and Streetscape Maintenance in Butler East	2013 to 2016	None of significance
01442	Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance North	2014 to 2017	None of significance

 

As mentioned under the Demonstrated relevant similar experience with achievement of client expectations criterion, Environmental Industries has carried out similar contracted services for other local authorities as well as for the City of Wanneroo.

Statutory Compliance

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

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “1     Environment - A Healthy and sustainable natural and built environment

1.2    Conserve Water - We will have a community that encourages water conservation resulting in access to the right amount of water to meet our requirements”

 

"2      Society – Healthy, safe, vibrant and connected communities

2.2    Healthy and active people – We get active in our local area and we have          many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle

2.3    Safe Communities – We feel safe at home and in our local area"

Risk Management Considerations

The condition of active and passive parks including associated infrastructure can deteriorate quickly if not regularly maintained. The inability of a contractor to supply these services will have significant impact on the City's ability to deliver services to residents. The undertaking of these maintenance works in a safe manner is also important as any non compliance can result in safety risks to the public and operators. Therefore it is imperative that the successful tenderer has the required experience, staff, equipment and financial capacity to meet the contract requirements. Environmental Industries Pty Ltd is assessed as meeting these requirements, thus mitigating the identified risks.

 

In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the maintenance sites. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

 

Contract Performance reporting will form a part of quarterly performance reports to the Audit Committee.

Policy Implications

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

Financial Implications

Based on the recommended tenderer's price, the three-year average annual lump sum value of contract services is $293,300. Prior to the preparation of the tender documents, an analysis of the maintenance work and associated costs was undertaken. The analysis indicated that the value of a contract to maintain parks in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale is likely to be in the order of $465,000 subject to market conditions. The recommended tenderer, Environmental Industries' tender price for this contract is considered to be extremely competitive.

The lump sum price of $879,867.19 for a three year period is accommodated in the Parks and Reserves Maintenance operating budget on an annual basis.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority.

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Environmental Industries Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01447 for the Provision of Park and Streetscape Maintenance in Madeley, Darch and Landsdale for a Period of Three Years commencing on 5 January 2015 for a lump sum price of $879,867.19 with an option to extend the contract for a further two 12 month periods, or part thereof, with a Perth All Groups CPI price adjustment applied at each extension of the contract.

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                               19370 – 14/276157

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   CD02-12/12 - Koondoola Community Facilities Needs and Feasibility Study CD02-12/12 Agenda; CD02-12/12 Resolution

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 01451 – Construction of Koondoola Community Centre.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 11 December 2012, considered Item No CD02-12/12 - Tender No 01451 – Construction of Koondoola Community Centre and resolved as follows:

"1.     ENDORSES the Koondoola Hall Needs and Feasibility Study Draft Report confirming the ongoing need for a community facility within the suburb of Koondoola with Koondoola Park being the preferred site for the development of a new community centre;

2.      ENDORSES Option B as the preferred design option for the facility as a single stage project as detailed in Attachment 3 to this report;

3.      NOTES the estimated project cost being $2,173,000 (Option B), with a total of $2,200,000 currently being available for this project within the City's 10 Year Capital Works Program (2012/13 – 2021/22);

4.      APPROVES IN PRINCIPLE the disposal of the land on which the current Koondoola Hall and Community Kindergarten are located and the proceeds be  used to recoup the costs of the new community facilities;

5.      APPROVES the submission of a Lotterywest grant for a minimum of $300,000 based on the implementation of Option B; and

6.      NOTES that a further report will be provided to Council on the project at the pre-tender stage."

The concept design was prepared, reviewed by South Ward Councillors, and subsequently endorsed by Administration. This was followed by a Public Tender to appoint a consultancy team for detailed design services. The result of the tender was reported to, and approved by, the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy and Delegated Authority. Concurrently, a Cost Planner was also appointed through the same process.

A copy of Administration endorsed Concept Plan is attached (Attachment 1).  It is noted that colours and material choice as depicted on the plan has, following detailed design, been varied therefore the plan as attached needs to be considered as "illustrative".

In following up on the resolutions as noted above, Administration proceeded straight to tender in lieu of reporting back to Council as resolved in Item 6 on the basis that the pre-tender estimate was within 12% of the project budget and considered to fall within expectations.

Detail

Tender No 01451 was advertised on Saturday 4 October 2014 and closed on Tuesday,
 4 November 2014.

A copy of the tender as advertised has been made available for perusal in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Tenders Received

Nine tender submissions were received and have been listed in Tender Price ascending order as tabled below:

Tenderer	Tender Price
PCIB Group	$2,413,427.92
BISTEL Construction	$2,492,970.00
Badge Construction	$2,500,889.00
CPD Group	$2,556,468.00
McCorkell Construction	$2,571,866.00
Firm Construction	$2,754,241.29
Cercon Building	$2,843,616.00
Robinson Build-Tech	$2,866,898.75
Adrina Project Management	$3,344,550.00

Tender Assessment

The Tender Assessment Panel comprising of the Coordinator Building Projects, Coordinator Facilities, Building Projects Officer (as voting members), Contracts Officer as observer, and the project’s Architectural Consultant as advisor, evaluated the Tenders in accordance with the following weighted selection criteria, along with reference checking and risk assessment. 

1	Price	40%
2	Organisation Experience	15%
3	Key Personnel Experience	15%
4	Understanding of Tender and Methodology	15%
5	OH&S, Quality & Risk	15%

On initial review all submitted tenders were deemed compliant with tender requirements.

1.   Price (40%)

The ranking based on price is as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
PCIB Group	1
BISTEL Construction	2
Badge Construction	3
CPD Group	4
McCorkell Construction	5
Firm Construction	6
Cercon Building	7
Robinson Build-Tech	8
Adrina Project Management	9

The lowest five tenders are within $158,000 (6.5%), which in accordance to the Cost Planner’s report, is considered to be an excellent outcome, indicating very competitive tendering.

2.   Organisation Experience (15%)

The top two tenderers as ranked under this criterion provided good offers as demonstrated by the relevant completed projects presented. However, in comparison, Badge Construction’s organisational experience exceeded the criterion through demonstration of significant number of relevant completed projects within the similar budget range and expected quality. CPD Group, although also considered to have exceeded this criterion, demonstrated less relevant projects.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

The ranking of tenderers based on the tender submissions received was assessed as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Construction	1
CPD Group	2
McCorkell Construction	3
Robinson Build-Tech	4
Firm Construction	4
Adrina Project Management	5
PCIB Group	6
Cercon Building	7
BISTEL Construction	7

3.   Key Personnel Experience (15%)

The tender submissions presented by BISTEL Construction and Badge Construction outperformed the remaining tenderers through nomination of more experienced teams.

BISTEL Construction was ranked the highest as it exceeded the criterion by nomination of key personnel with relevant experience of more than 20 years, holding relevant registrations and professional memberships above the tender requirement.

The tender submission from Badge Construction was also a good offer, exceeding the criterion by proposing a highly experienced team, holding the required registrations and professional memberships; however, the Tender Evaluation Team considered that BISTEL Construction's proposed Key Personnel was marginally a better all round team.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

The ranking of tenderers for this criterion is noted as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
BISTEL Construction	1
Badge Construction	2
CPD Group	3
McCorkell Construction	4
Firm Construction	5
PCIB Group	6
Robinson Build-Tech	6
Adrina Project Management	7
Cercon Building	8

4.   Understanding of Tender and Methodology (15%)

The Tender Assessment Panel determined that the top two tenderers under this criterion both met the required level of understanding of the tender with detailed and relevant methodology provided. Nevertheless, Badge Construction's offer was assessed as being the higher of the two due to detailed attention to tender requirements and constraints.

Second in ranking, Bistle Construction, although its understanding of tender and methodology was considered to have no deficiencies, in comparison with Badge Construction the Tender Evaluation Team noted that it was less detailed and less specific.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

On the information provided, the tenderers were assessed and ranked as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Construction	1
BISTEL Construction	2
Robinson Build-Tech	3
Adrina Project Management	3
McCorkell Construction	4
CPD Group	5
Firm Construction	6
Cercon Building	7
PCIB Group	8

5.   OH&S, Quality & Risk (15%)

All tenderers, with the exception of Cercon Building and Robinson Build-Tech, were found to have reasonable administration systems in place in relation to risk and quality management hence satisfying the criterion. However, the tender submission from Badge Construction, BISTEL Construction, and PCIB Group, exceeded the criterion through demonstration of comprehensive attention to safety and quality control.

In further assessment by the Tender Evaluation Panel, the tender submission from Badge Construction provided the Panel with confidence through demonstration of its higher level of sensitivity and precision in assessment, reporting, and management of OH&S related issues. The tender submissions from BISTEL Construction and PCIB Group were assessed and then ranked based on the level of departure in documentation presentation as compared to Badge Construction's tender submission.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

Ranking of the tenderers based on OH&S, Quality and Risk is noted as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Construction	1
BISTEL Construction	2
PCIB Group	3
McCorkell Construction	4
Firm Construction	5
CPD Group	6
Adrina Project Management	7
Robinson Build-Tech	8
Cercon Building	9

6.   Overall Ranking Assessment

The overall scoring of tenders based on the weighted selection criteria is as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
Badge Construction	1
BISTEL Construction	2
McCorkell Construction	3
CPD Group	4
Firm Construction	5
PCIB Group	6
Robinson Build-Tech	7
Adrina Project Management	8
Cercon Building	9

 

Badge Construction was assessed as having achieved the highest weighted overall ranking and is therefore recommended by the Tender Assessment Panel as the preferred tenderer.

Key characteristics of Badge Construction are:

·    Significant relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Suitably qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully;

·    Strong financial status; and

·    Strongly recommended through reference checks.

Works Program

Should Tender Award as recommended be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program would be implemented:

 

Construction Tender Award Notification	15 December 2014
Construction Commencement on Site	12 January 2015
Practical Completion	18 January 2016

Consultation

No consultation was undertaken in relation to the tender process.

 

Comment

The cost estimate provided by the Cost Planner during early stage of detailed design process indicated an overall project cost of $3.7M, which was $200,000 over the estimated project budget. Consequently, a cost reduction exercise was initiated and resulted in the following measures being implemented:

·    Consideration of the solar panels, stormwater tanks, entry shade structure and the tower as optional items;

·    Selection of standard but robust materials;

·    Avoid unfamiliar construction methods;

·    Design the facility to the minimum requirements as required by the Project Plan (including the Functional Brief) and Building Code of Australia;

·    Rigorous cost management applied, with more than eight cost reviews provided during the detailed design process; and,

·    Design adopted a dematerialisation approach by reducing wherever possible the number of different materials and removing touch up finishes, hence reducing the number of required trades.

On further review, three of the optional items (solar panels, stormwater tanks, and entry shade structure) were removed from further consideration given they were not found to be integral to the concept design.

The only optional item retained in the scope is the tower structure (ie; estimated at $40,000). The architectural design team recommended inclusion of the tower in the project as it was viewed to be an integral component of the concept, in term of identity of the building.

Despite the cost management review as implemented, the construction estimate prior to advertising for tender settled at approximately $466,000 over the pre-concept construction estimate of $2.61M. Part of this is due to the increase in scope of work for unforeseen conditions (e.g. connection to Water Corporation sewer main by way of private pump station and associated sewerage reticulation adjustment) and a Development Approval condition that required floodlighting to be added to the car park. The associated overall cost of these additional items is estimated at $150,000.

The "Needs and Feasibility" stage indicated a clear need for a new community facility within the suburb of Koondoola and identified Koondoola Park as the most appropriate site for the new facility. This was based on:

·    Link to the existing sporting facilities provided at Koondoola Park;

·    Close proximity to public transport route;

·    Link to the adjacent school and Koondoola Open Space (Bushland Reserve);

·    Space for growth and for spill over areas for activities contained within the facility; and

·    Minimal impact on surrounding residents. 

As a result, it was noted by Administration that the provision of a Community Centre at the Koondoola Park site has the potential to become a key activation point within the local community, not only providing facilities which are very much needed within the community, but also providing a basis from which service provision could occur (both by the City and through external agencies) to support the needs of the community and to assist the community to grow and develop.

With this in mind, the design philosophy for the community centre was to develop a facility that would be a focal point in the community, creating a sense of ownership and providing a basis for activation. The facility's architecture and design features were to reflect this and also compliment its public open space location, while catering for a wide range of community uses.

Critical to the success of the facility is to maintain the functional elements (activity spaces) within the facility, as these provide the space for community activity and therefore, activation. Whilst savings may be made through the reduction of these spaces, this is not a recommended approach, as it serves to only limit the flexibility, potential use and therefore effectiveness of the facility as a catalyst for community activation. By the same token, changes to the architecture of the building will have the same impact. The building's design is unique; it responds to its surroundings and provides the functionality required to support community activity. It could be said that the contemporary nature of the building's architecture and its point of difference when compared to other similar facilities provided within the City, reflects the hopes and aspirations of the local community.

In overall consideration of the tender evaluation process and the significance of this particular project, it is recommended that the project proceed without alteration to the building's design or functionality, with the tender as submitted by Badge Construction for Tender 01451 Construction of Koondoola Community Centre accepted for its fixed lump sum of $2,500,889. 

Statutory Compliance

Tender submissions received were invited and evaluated against predefined selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. The tendering procedures and evaluation were progressed as required by the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

The following project related approvals have or will be required to be actioned:

·    A Development Approval has been issued by the City's Planning and Sustainability Directorate for development of the Koondoola Community Centre building and its associated car park and landscape works.

·    A Clearing Permit has been issued by Department of Environment Regulation for the trees that are required to be removed as a result of the construction of the new carpark.

·    A Building Permit is required to be obtained by the contractor awarded the tender prior to commencement of construction.

·    An Occupancy Permit will be required to be obtained by the contractor awarded the tender prior to Practical Completion.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Risk Management Considerations

In consideration of risk associated with this tender it is advised that Badge Construction tender assessment was further scrutinised by Corporate Score Card Pty Ltd, with the following advice noted:

 

a)   Financial Check:

“The subject is trading in a profitable manner and the size of its annual revenue indicates that the contract in question is within its operating capacity.

Working capital and net tangible worth were both observed to be sound for the contract in question at 30 June 2014.

The subject has experience with contracts of a greater value than the contract in question.”

b)   Risk Check:

“Apart from normal business practice, there is no requirement for any additional risk mitigation action(s) to be implemented

c)   Assessment Results:

“On the basis of information obtained, the subject has been assigned with a Score of 8.69 (out of 10), indicating that it has a Very Strong financial capacity to undertake the contract in question.

The Score assigned is based on the most recent full year finalised Financial Statements (30 June 2014).”

 

In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the project site. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The project financial status is presented as per the table below, noting that a portion of the project budget is to be listed for Council consideration as part of the 2015/2016 Capital Works budget process.

 

KOONDOOLA COMMUNITY CENTRE (PR-1561)
	Estimated Expenditure	Budget
Capital Works Program 2012/13		$200,000
Capital Works Program 2013/14		$900,000
Capital Works Program 2014/15		$1,000,000
Capital Works Program 2015/16 (as listed)		$1,400,000
Total expended and committed to date (includes Architectural & Cost Planner Services fees)	$214,729
Construction Cost (recommended Tender)	$2,500,889
Construction Contingency (15% rounded)	$375,000
Building Approval Fees (estimate)	$10,000
Concept Design/Project Management Charges	$100,000
Total Estimated Expenditure	$3,200,618
Total Budget		$3,500,000
Estimated Project Surplus (Held in Reserve)		$299,382

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Badge Construction for Tender 01451 Construction of Koondoola Community Centre for its fixed lump sum price of $2,500,889. 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Concept Plan

14/327882

  

File Ref:                                               19430 – 14/276161

Responsible Officer:                            A/Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1  

Previous Items:                                   CD01-04/14 - Outcome Of Community Sporting & Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Application for the 2013 Funding Round CD01-04/14 Agenda; CD01-04/14 Resolution

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 01452 – Construction of Kingsway Baseball/Softball Clubrooms.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting of 1 April 2014, considered Item No CD01-04/14 - Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund allocations from the Department of Sport and Recreation for the 2013/2014 funding round and resolved as follows:

"1. NOTES the outcome of the City of Wanneroo's Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) application for the 2013 funding round as follows

Project	Cost of Project	CSRFF Grant Award	Award Year
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex – Baseball Clubrooms	$1,920,000	$225,000 $175,000	2014/15 2015/16
Total	$1,920,000	$400,000

2.  LISTS for consideration the following amendments to the City's 10 Year Financial Management Plan:

Project	Project No	Total Cost	Budget Year 2014/15		Budget Year 2015/2016
			Municipal Funds	Grant Funds	Municipal Funds	Grant Funds
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex – Baseball Clubrooms"	PR-1283	$1,920,000	$975,000*	$225,000	$545,000	$175,000

The concept design was prepared, reviewed by representatives from the Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club and the Vikings Softball Club, and subsequently endorsed by Administration. This was followed by a Public Tender to appoint a consultancy team for detailed design services. The result of the tender was reported to, and approved by, the Chief Executive Officer in accordance to City’s Procurement and Purchasing Policy and Delegated Authority. Concurrently, a Cost Planner was also appointed through the same process.

 

A copy of Administration endorsed Concept Plan is attached (Attachment 1).  It is noted that colours and material choice as depicted on the plan has, following detailed design, been varied therefore the plan as attached needs to be considered as "illustrative".

 

Detail

Tender No 01452 was advertised on Saturday 4 October 2014 and closed on Tuesday
4 November 2014.

A copy of the tender as advertised has been made available for perusal in the Elected Members Reading Room.

Tenders Received

Eleven tender submissions were received and have been listed in Tender Price ascending order below:

Tenderer	Tender Price
PCIB Group	$1,581,165.84
McCorkell Constructions	$1,589,329.00
Rivett Construction	$1,600,295.00
Solution 4 Building	$1,606,873.00
BE Projects	$1,633,652.41
CPD Group Pty Ltd	$1,664,372.81
BISTEL Construction	$1,668,469.00
Robinson Build-Tech	$1,711,457.54
Firm Construction	$1,906,681.87
Devlyn Construction	$1,953,342.00
Cercon Building	$1,979,939.70

Tender Assessment

The Tender Assessment Panel comprising of the Coordinator Building Projects, Coordinator Facilities, Building Projects Officer (as voting members), Contracts Officer as observer, and the project’s Architectural Consultant as advisor, evaluated the Tenders in accordance with the following weighted selection criteria, along with reference checking and risk assessment. 

1	Price	40%
2	Organisation Experience	15%
3	Key Personnel Experience	15%
4	Understanding of Tender and Methodology	15%
5	OH&S, Quality & Risk	15%

On initial review of the submitted tenders, they were all deemed compliant with tender requirements.

1.   Price (40%)

The ranking based on price is as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
PCIB Group	1
McCorkell Constructions	2
Rivett Construction	3
Solution 4 Building	4
BE Projects	5
CPD Group	6
BISTEL Construction	7
Robinson Build-Tech	8
Firm Construction	9
Devlyn Construction	10
Cercon Building	11

The four lowest tender prices submitted are within $25,707 (1.63%) of the lowest tender price, which in accordance to the Cost Planner’s report, is considered to be an excellent outcome, indicating very competitive tendering.

2.   Organisation Experience (15%)

The top four tenderers as ranked under this criterion all provided good offers as demonstrated by the relevant completed projects included in the tender submissions. However, in comparison, Robinson Build-Tech marginally outperformed the others by presenting a higher number of relevant projects within the similar budget range and expected quality. As a result, McCorkell Constructions, Firm Construction, and CPD Group although having provided adequate relevant projects, were in comparison with Robinson Build-Tech ranked equal second by the Tender Assessment Panel.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

The ranking of tenderers based on submissions received was assessed as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
Robinson Build-Tech	1
McCorkell Constructions	2
Firm Construction	2
CPD Group	2
Rivett Construction	3
Solution 4 Building	4
Devlyn Construction	4
PCIB Group	5
BE Projects	5
Cercon Building	6
BISTEL Construction	7

3.   Key Personnel Experience (15%)

The top five tenders as ranked under this criterion had no deficiencies. Bistel Construction exceeded the criterion through nomination of a more experienced team with relevant experience of more than 20 years, holding relevant registrations and professional membership above the tender requirement.

Tender submissions from McCorkell Constructions, Firm Construction, CPD Group, and BE Projects were all assessed as good offers proposing experienced teams, holding the required registrations and memberships, but did not exceed the criterion.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

 

 

The ranking of tenderers for this criterion is noted as follows:

Tenderer	Ranking
BISTEL Construction	1
McCorkell Constructions	2
Firm Construction	2
CPD Group	2
BE Projects	2
Robinson Build-Tech	3
PCIB Group	4
Solution 4 Building	5
Devlyn Construction	5
Cercon Building	6
Rivett Construction	6

4.   Understanding of Tender and Methodology (15%)

The Tender Assessment Panel assessed that the top three ranked tenderers under this criterion were all meeting the required level of understanding of the tender, with proper methodology provided hence meeting the criterion.

McCorkell Constructions and CPD Group (both ranked as equal second), although meeting this criterion by providing adequate detail and methodology, by comparison provided less in depth responses.

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

On the information provided, the tenderers were assessed and ranked as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
BISTEL Construction	1
Solution 4 Building	1
Robinson Build-Tech	1
McCorkell Constructions	2
CPD Group	2
Firm Construction	3
BE Projects	4
Cercon Building	4
Rivett Construction	4
PCIB Group	5
Devlyn Construction	5

5.   OH&S, Quality & Risk (15%)

The top two tenders as ranked under this criterion, BISTEL Construction, and PCIB Group, exceeded the requirements through demonstration of comprehensive attention to safety and quality control and provided the Tender Assessment Panel with more confidence above the other tender submissions.

 

 

 

McCorkell Constructions, Firm Construction, and CPD Group (ranked second equal) met the requirements of this criterion and were ranked accordingly.

 

The remaining tenderers were ranked based on the level/content of information provided.

Ranking of the tenderers based on OH&S, Quality and Risk is noted as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
BISTEL Construction	1
PCIB Group	1
McCorkell Constructions	2
Firm Construction	2
CPD Group	2
Solution 4 Building	3
Rivett Construction	3
BE Projects	4
Robinson Build-Tech	5
Cercon Building	6
Devlyn Construction	7

6.   Overall Ranking Assessment

The overall scoring of tenders based on the weighted selection criteria is as follows:

 

Tenderer	Ranking
McCorkell Constructions	1
CPD Group	2
BISTEL Construction	3
Robinson Build-Tech	4
Solution 4 Building	5
Rivett Construction	6
PCIB Group	7
BE Projects	8
Firm Construction	9
Cercon Building	10
Devlyn Construction	11

 

McCorkell Constructions was assessed as having achieved the highest weighted overall ranking and is therefore recommended by the Tender Assessment Panel as the preferred Tenderer.

Key characteristics of the preferred tenderer, McCorkell Constructions, are:

·    Significant relevant experience with similar projects;

·    Suitably qualified key personnel to enable the services to be rendered successfully;

·    Strong financial status; and

·    Strongly recommended through reference checks.

 

Works Program

Should Tender Award be supported by Council, then the following indicative Works Program would be implemented:

 

Construction Tender Award notification	15 December 2014
Construction Commencement on Site	12 January 2015
Practical Completion	18 January 2016

Consultation

Throughout the architectural design stages the resident sports clubs were engaged to confirm acceptance of the design and through this process, ensuring that the original functionality requirements were maintained.

 

It is noted that no consultation was undertaken in relation to the tender process.

Comment

The cost estimate provided by the Cost Planner during early stage of detailed design process indicated an overall project cost of $2.35M and as a consequence, a cost reduction exercise was initiated that resulted in the following measures being implemented:

·    Removal of the solar panels, stormwater tanks and automatic ventilation louvers following a judgment call by the consultancy team on the basis that the approved budget had not allowed for these items, and also, that they had not been identified in the Functional Brief; 

·    Selection of standard but robust materials;

·    Avoid use of unfamiliar construction methods;

·    Design the facility to the minimum requirements as required by the Functional Brief and Building Code of Australia;

·    Thorough cost management with more than four cost reviews provided during the detailed design process; and,

·    Design adopted a dematerialisation approach by reducing wherever possible the number of different materials and removing touch up finishes, hence reducing the number of required trades.

Cost increase incurred was in part due to the increase in scope of work for unforseen conditions (ie: presence of asbestos containing material in the existing building), the addition of an access ramp, stairs and retaining walls. The associated overall cost of these additional items is estimated at $80,000.

It is recommended that the tender submitted by McCorkell Construction for Tender 01452 - Construction of Kingsway Baseball/Softball Clubrooms be accepted for its fixed lump sum of $1,589,329. 

Statutory Compliance

Tender submissions received were invited and evaluated against predefined selection criteria in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations. The tendering procedures and evaluation were progressed as required by the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

 

 

 

The following project related approvals have or will be required to be actioned:

·    Development Approval is not required as confirmed by the City's Planning and Sustainability Directorate.

·    A Building Permit is required to be obtained by the contractor awarded the tender prior to commencement of construction.

·    An Occupancy Permit will be required to be obtained by the contractor awarded the tender prior to Practical Completion.

Strategic Implications

The proposal aligns with the following objective within the Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023:

 “2     Society - Healthy, safe, vibrant and active communities.

2.2    Healthy and Active People - We get active in our local area and we have many opportunities to experience a healthy lifestyle.”

Risk Management Considerations

In consideration of risk associated with this tender it is advised that Badge Construction tender assessment was further scrutinised by Corporate Score Card Pty Ltd, with the following advice noted:

a)   Financial Check

 “The subject is trading in a profitable manner and the size of its annual revenue indicates that the contract in question is within its operating capacity.

Acceptable levels of working capital and net tangible worth for the contract in question at 30 June 2014.

The Liquidity and gearing positions were observed to be better than the industry Median.

Previous experience undertaking contracts up to $20M.”

b)   Risk Check

 “Apart from normal business practice, there is no requirement for any additional risk mitigation action(s) to be implemented.”

c)   Assessment Results

Comment noted as follows:

“On the basis of information obtained, the subject has been assigned with a score of 8.1 (out of 10), indicating that it has a strong financial capacity to undertake the contract in question.

The score assigned is based on the 2013/2014 finalised financial statements.”

In addition, prior to the commencement of the contract work, the appointed contractor will be inducted to the project site. Ongoing auditing of the contractor's work practices during the course of works will be undertaken to ensure compliance with the OHS requirements.

Policy Implications

Nil

 

Financial Implications

The project financial status is presented as per the table below, noting that a portion of the project budget is to be listed for Council consideration as part of the 2015/2016 Capital Works budget process.

KINGSWAY BASEBALL/SOFTBALL CLUBROOMS (PR-1283)
	Estimated Expenditure	Budget
Capital Works Program 2012/13		$100,000
Capital Works Program 2013/14		$350,000
Capital Works Program 2014/15		$1,000,000
Capital Works Program 2015/16 (as listed)		$720,000
Total expended and committed to date    (includes Concept Design/Project Management charges and Architectural & Cost Planner Services fees)	$212,283
Construction Cost (recommended Tender)	$1,589,329
Construction Contingency (15% rounded)	$250,000
Building Approval Fees (estimate)	$6,000
Total Estimated Expenditure	$2,057,612
Total Budget		$2,170,000
Estimated Project Surplus (Held in Reserve)		$112,388

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by McCorkell Construction for Tender 01452 - Construction of Kingsway Baseball/Softball Clubrooms for its fixed lump sum price of $1,589,329.

·                            

 

Attachments:

1.

Concept Plan

14/331443