Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 28 May, 2013

Civic Centre,

Dundebar Road, 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 Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 28 May, 2013 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

23 May, 2013

 

 

 

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

OC01-05/13     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 30 April 2013  1

OC02-05/13     Minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 14 May 2013  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 2

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 2

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 2

New Petitions Received  2

Update on Petitions  2

PT02-04/13      Removal of London Plane street trees, Nankeen Circle, Tapping  2

PT03-04/13      Request Bus Shelter, Land Beach Boulevard, Butler  2

PT04-04/13      Request Closure of Laneway between The Avenue and Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights  2

PT05-04/13      Request to Extend Northern Boundary of Yanchep Beach Dog Exercise Area by 250 Metres  2

PT06-04/13      Opposed to Modification of Charnwood Park, Two Rocks  3

Item  8_____ Reports_ 3

Planning and Sustainability  3

Policies and Studies  3

PS01-05/13      Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo  3

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  113

PS02-05/13      Agreement of Amendment No. 3 to the Agreed Structure Plan No. 40  113

PS03-05/13      Adoption of Amendment No. 19 to the Butler-Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27  130

PS04-05/13      Proposed Amendment No.114 to District Planning Scheme No.2: Alkimos City Centre Zoning  145

PS05-05/13      Adoption of Amendment 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Lot 133, Lot 134 & Lot 135 Village Row, Yanchep  151

Development Applications  162

PS06-05/13      Development Application for Bulk Earthworks at Lot 9000 (300) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep (DA2013/364) 162

City Businesses  171

Regulatory Services  171

CB01-05/13     PT01-04/03 - Proposed Fenced Dog Exercise Area Sheffield Park, Wanneroo  171

CB02-05/13     Application to Establish an Offensive Trade - Lot 15 (275) Carabooda Road, Carabooda  175

Other Matters  182

CB03-05/13     Appointment of Delegate to the Mindarie Regional Council  182

Infrastructure  184

Infrastructure Maintenance  184

IN01-05/13       PT02-03/13 - Request to Remove Verge Tree - 9 Towerhill Road, Alexander Heights  184

Infrastructure Projects  187

IN02-05/13       Budget Variation - 2012/2013 Capital Works Program - Caporn Street/Franklin Road State Black Spot Program   187

Tenders  190

IN03-05/13       Tender No 01305 - The Supply and Installation of Lighting of Baseball Fields and Footpaths Adjacent to Hartman Drive at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment (Stage 6A) 190

Traffic Management  200

IN04-05/13       Review of Default State Speed Limit Roads Within the City of Wanneroo  200

IN05-05/13       Parking Prohibitions Extension - Fernhill Avenue, Carramar  216

IN06-05/13       Road Safety Audit - Intersection of Anchorage Drive, Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie  220

IN07-05/13       Transport Noise Assessment - Lukin Drive, Merriwa  227

IN08-05/13       Parking Prohibitions - Orenco Bend - Clarkson Train Station Precinct  233

Other Matters  238

IN09-05/13       City of Wanneroo RoadWise Working Group - Road Safety Strategic Action Plan 2013/2014  238

 

Community Development  263

Program Services  263

CD01-05/13     Review of Facility Hire and Use Policy  263

CD02-05/13     Asbestos Removal at Mary Lindsay Homestead  277

Other Matters  282

CD03-05/13     Community Funding Policy Review 2012  282

Corporate Strategy & Performance  298

Finance  298

CS01-05/13     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 30 April 2013  298

Governance  368

CS02-05/13     Donations to be Considered by Council - May 2013  368

CS03-05/13     Delegated Authority Review   372

Other Matters  377

CS04-05/13     Yanchep Active Open Space - Deed of Agreement  377

Chief Executive Office  393

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 393

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 393

Item  11____ Confidential_ 393

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 393

Item  13____ Closure_ 393

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet 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

Cr Steffens – Leave of Absence – 22 May to 10 June 2013

 

Recommendation

 

That Council grants Cr Stuart Mackenzie a leave of absence from 28 July to 15 August 2013 inclusive.

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 30 April 2013 be confirmed subject to the following amendments:-

 

PS07-04/13         Attachment 2 on page 22, last paragraph in right hand column, insert the words "Where practicable" in front of  the words "Parking areas …"

 

CS08-04/13         Recommendation 3 being amended to:-

 

a)      Correct the reference to Delegation 7.1 to be shown as 7.12 - (Delegation 7.1 was not included in the attachment whereas 7.12 was included and the attachment forms part of the recommendation.)  The amendment to Delegation 7.1 is administrative and does not require reporting to Council; and

 

b)      Remove reference to Delegation 8.3. as it was not included as an attachment to the report which forms part of the recommendation.  Delegation 8.3 will be presented in a separate report to Council in this meetings agenda

That the minutes of Special Council Meeting held on 14 May 2013 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  

PT02-04/13         Removal of London Plane street trees, Nankeen Circle, Tapping

Cr Guise presented a petition of 29 signatures requesting removal of the London Plane street trees outside homes on Nankeen Circle Tapping due to the invasive root systems and replacing with smaller street trees.   UPDATE Report scheduled for 25 June meeting.

 

PT03-04/13         Request Bus Shelter, Land Beach Boulevard, Butler

Cr Steffens presented a petition of 28 signatures requesting a bus shelter to be erected on Land Beach Boulevard, Butler outside house number 98.   UPDATE   Report scheduled for 25 June meeting.

 

PT04-04/13         Request Closure of Laneway between The Avenue and Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights

Cr Mackenzie presented a petition of 6 signatures requesting the closure of the laneway between The Avenue and Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights to prevent its use for anti-social and criminal behaviours.   UPDATE Administration has prepared and sent a letter to all six petitioners, advising of further actions that are required from them prior to Administration considering the closure of the public accessway between The Avenue and Feathertop Rise, Alexander Heights. Until such time that information is provided by the petitioners no further action is required by the City. .

 

PT05-04/13         Request to Extend Northern Boundary of Yanchep Beach Dog Exercise Area by 250 Metres

Cr Hewer presented a petition of 500 signatures requesting the extending of the northern boundary of the Yanchep Beach dog exercise by 250 metres.   UPDATE   Report scheduled for 25 June meeting.

 

 

 

PT06-04/13         Opposed to Modification of Charnwood Park, Two Rocks

Cr Gray presented a petition of 479 signatures opposing the modification of Charnwood Park, Two Rocks, into a sports field and requesting the recommencement of negotiations with the joint developer to have two ovals in Yanchep.   UPDATE   Administration notes the receipt of the petition and advises it will be considered as part of a future report to Council regarding the results of the community consultation period relating to the proposed redevelopment of Charnwood Park.

 

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

Policies and Studies

File Ref:                                              2079 – 12/97349

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider adoption of a modified draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo (LPP 5.3) for readvertising for public comment.

 

Background

At its meeting of 5 April 2011 (item PS09-04/11), Council considered the final East Wanneroo Structure Plan (EWSP) which had been released by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in January 2011.  Part 6 of Council’s resolution on the matter was that Council:

 

“Requires Administration to prepare for Council’s consideration a Local Planning Policy to define the City’s expectations and requirements for preparing planning proposals in East Wanneroo and reaffirms its resolution of 11 December 2007 (item PD01-12/07) as the City’s interim position on planning proposals for the East Wanneroo area, until such time as an alternative policy position is adopted by Council.”

 

In response to the above Council requirement, draft LPP 5.3 was submitted to Council at its meeting of 29 May 2012 (item PS06-05/12).  Council resolved to adopt draft LPP 5.3 for public comment.

 

 

It was also resolved that Council:

 

“2.     Requests the Western Australian Planning Commission to:

 

          a)      Commit resources to the proper planning of the East Wanneroo area by undertaking the initial steps in the planning process proposed under draft Local Planning Policy 5.3, including working with the City on the preparation of a strategy to prefund the undertaking of those initial steps; and

 

          b)      Acknowledge the imperatives associated with enabling the early planning and development of the East Wanneroo area and commit to infrastructure planning and provision in the short term for East Wanneroo.”

 

A copy of draft LPP 5.3 (as advertised) is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

In accordance with Council’s resolution of 29 May 2012, draft LPP 5.3 was advertised for six weeks between 26 June 2012 and 7 August 2012 during which time 54 submissions were received.  A table summarising the submissions, Administration’s response and recommended modifications is included as Attachment 2.

 

Breakdown of Submissions by Submitter Type

 

The 54 submissions can be broken down as follows:

 

·        12 from government agencies;

·        10 from planning consultants representing landowners;

·        32 from private individuals, including people who are landowners in the Policy area, as well as people who are not.

 

Main Issues Raised in Submissions

 

A wide range of issues have been raised in the submissions.  Set out below is an overview of the main issues raised with an Administration comment on each.

 

1.       Alternative Planning Processes Proposed

 

Ten of the submissions (nos. 1 and 13 to 21) include substantial comment on the matter of the planning process proposed under draft LPP 5.3.  Most of these submissions involve proposed alternative planning processes which can be viewed as a minor variation of either the draft LPP 5.3 process (submissions 14, 17 and 18), or the alternative process proposed by the Department of Planning (DoP) in submission 1 (submissions 13, 15, 19 and 21).  A number of submissions expressed concern with draft LPP 5.3 not including definite direction as to how the initial steps in the planning process were going to be undertaken, particularly in respect to the roles to be played by the City and the State planning agencies.

 

As noted in the Background section of this report, at its meeting of 29 May 2012, Council resolved to request the WAPC to undertake the initial steps in the proposed planning process, and to work with the City on the preparation of a strategy to prefund the undertaking of those initial steps.  The WAPC was also requested to commit to infrastructure planning and provision in the short term for East Wanneroo.

 

The WAPC responded in a letter dated 10 September 2012 (refer Attachment 3), stating that the preparation of district and local level structure plans is the responsibility of local government and/or landowners.

The response made it clear that the WAPC does not see itself or DoP having any involvement, other than an advisory role, in undertaking of the next steps involved in progressing the planning of this area.  This then leaves it up to the City and/or the landowners to undertake this work.

 

Development Planning Strategies (DPS) consultants, representing a substantial proportion of the East Wanneroo landowners, lodged submissions 15 and 21, proposing an alternative process that would provide greater certainty (to the landowners and their financiers) regarding future urban use of the land to justify the substantial costs involved in the preparation of district structure plans.

 

DPS advised that the degree of certainty required could only be provided through Urban zoning of the area under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) first being in place.  It was also seen that any initial Urban zoning of the area would need to make it clear that subsequent detailed planning of the area would be addressing such matters as future regional reserves which would be required (eg: for major roads, Parks and Recreation and Public Use reserves) and buffers which may be required to existing uses such as poultry and mushroom farms.  These would require further amendments to the MRS and inclusion in District and Local Structure Plans. 

 

Given the lack of support from the WAPC to undertake the initial steps in the proposed planning process included in draft LPP 5.3 and in the light of the above, Administration is proposing a revised planning process which is summarised in Attachment 4.

 

The main changes proposed by the modified draft Policy compared to the advertised draft relate to:

 

1.       The sequencing of preparation of DSPs and Urban rezoning under the MRS: whereas the advertised draft proposed that DSP preparation occurs as the first step in the process (following a number of prerequisites being addressed), and that this inform the subsequent preparation of detailed MRS Amendments (including proposed regional reserves), the modified draft Policy has MRS rezoning to Urban as the first step in the process.  The reasons for this were discussed earlier in this report.

 

2.       The initial MRS rezoning to Urban would be informed primarily by the EWSP, with subsequent MRS amendments to reserve regional reserves being informed by DSP preparation.

 

3.       The initial MRS rezoning to Urban would occur for the total EWSP 'potential urban' area, rather than on a Precinct basis, with timing for each Precinct depending on when landowners in each Precinct decide to progress MRS rezoning to Urban for their Precinct.  (This better supports the LPP objective of aiming to provide certainty of future land use to all landowners as soon as possible).

 

4.       Two DSPs would be prepared, rather than a single DSP over the total East Wanneroo area.  This avoids the risk of an issue which may affect a small part of the East Wanneroo area delaying progression of DSP preparation for the total area.  However, in recognition that some matters may require consideration at an overall East Wanneroo level (eg: transport modelling), the modified draft Policy requires that such matters be dealt with on a collaborative basis in the preparation of the two DSP.

 

The above process has been incorporated into the recommended modified LPP included in Attachments 5 and 6.  (Attachment 5 shows the changes proposed to the advertised draft LPP 5.3 as 'tracked changes';  Attachment 6 is the recommended modified draft LPP 5.3).  This process addresses many of the comments made by the submitters who commented on the planning process part of draft LPP 5.3.

The proposed process involves the landowners being responsible for the preparation of the applications involved in each step in the process, except for the preparation of the district and local-level Development Contribution Plans (DCPs), which the City would be responsible for.

 

Administration is satisfied that because DPS represent a significant proportion of the East Wanneroo landowners, the above process will work and provide a sound basis for progressing the future urbanisation of the East Wanneroo area.

 

2.       Continuing Uncertainty About Future Use of East Wanneroo

 

Seven of the submitters (nos. 27, 28, 31, 32, 36, 37 and 41) expressed frustration that despite the considerable number of reports, studies, etc which have been undertaken for this area over a long period, the submitters still do not have certainty as to whether their land is going to become urban land, or remain rural.

 

Council has previously tried to address this issue through requesting that the WAPC initially rezone the total area determined (through appropriate studies) to be suitable for future urban use, as Urban Deferred under the MRS.  The State planning agencies have not agreed to this use of the Urban Deferred zoning mechanism for this area, meaning that zoning certainty will now only be provided if and when rezoning to Urban under the MRS occurs.  The planning process proposed under the recommended modified draft LPP 5.3 as outlined above facilitates proceeding to Urban zoning as soon as possible.

 

3.       Opposition to Urban-Rural Land Use Proposals of the EWSP

 

Three submitters (nos. 25, 30, 34) expressed opposition to the EWSP identifying their land as urban when they wanted to remain rural or rural residential, or identifying their land as rural when they wished to be included in the potential urban area.

 

The LPP 5.3 planning process as outlined in Attachment 4 is proposing that the initial MRS rezoning to Urban under Step 1 of that process be based on the EWSP future land use proposals.  However, in doing so, the process is also recognising that changes to these subregional-level land use proposals may result from the subsequent steps in the process, particularly DSP preparation, and its pre-requisites (which include implications of such matters as current preparation of the draft North West Subregion Structure Plan (NWSRSP) by DoP and WAPC).

 

The submitters who are opposed to the EWSP land use proposals will have an opportunity to make further submissions on those matters when the above steps in the LPP 5.3 process are undertaken, and when the draft NWSRSP is released for comment.

 

4.       Consideration of Environmental Issues

 

Twelve submissions (nos. 34 and 42-53) raised concerns as to whether a range of environmental issues were going to be adequately addressed e.g. impacts of possible South Pinjar industrial area; impacts of development on groundwater, wetlands, native vegetation and fauna; acid sulphate soils; adequacy of proposed ecological linkages.

 

The types of environmental issues raised above will be addressed through the revised planning process proposed to be included in the modified draft LPP 5.3, particularly through Steps 3 and 6 and the studies which will be prepared in association with the preparation of the DSPs and LSPs (as required under the City's current Structure Planning Local Planning Policy 4.2 (LPP 4.2)).  Should these detailed studies show that any areas which have been zoned Urban are in fact not suitable for such use due to environmental issues, and Urban zoning is no longer considered appropriate, this can be addressed through Step 5 of the planning process which entails a second phase of MRS Amendments.

Where issues have been raised which are not already specifically included in LPP 4.2, it is proposed that these matters be considered as part of an imminent review to be undertaken of LPP 4.2.

 

Administration Modification

 

As a result of consideration of a subdivision application which has recently been submitted for land within the policy area, two further changes to draft LPP 5.3 are also proposed by Administration:

 

1.       Clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.4 of the advertised LPP 5.3 included in Attachment 1 refer to consideration of proposals of a rural nature which may be submitted for land considered to have future urban potential.  However, there is an area of rural land in north-east Mariginiup which is shown on the EWSP as 'employment purposes', and which as a result of the State Government's Economic and Employment Lands Strategy (April 2012), might have potential for future industrial use.  In the context of clauses 2.3.1 and 2.3.4, land with potential future industrial use should be considered in a similar manner to potential future urban land.  It is therefore proposed to include reference to 'potential future industrial use' in these clauses.

 

2.       Clause 2.3.4 refers to the possible impacts a proposal of a rural nature may have on possible future urban use of land in the vicinity of the proposal, and lists examples of those types of impacts.  Fragmentation of land (which would result from a rural subdivision) has been included as another type of impact in Clause 2.3.4.

 

Recommended Modifications to Draft LPP 5.3

 

A number of the submissions received have resulted in proposed modifications to draft LPP 5.3.  The modifications recommended by Administration are included in the final column of the table at Attachment 2 of this report.

 

A modified draft LPP 5.3 has been prepared incorporating Administration's recommended modifications, and these are shown as 'track changes' in Attachment 5, and as 'accepted changes' in Attachment 6. 

Consultation

The earlier draft LPP 5.3 was advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks from 26 June 2012 to 7 August 2012 by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the 'Wanneroo Times';

·        Display on the City's website and Facebook page;

·        Letters and information sheets to landowners and relevant stakeholders.

 

The planning approach now proposed by the revised draft LPP 5.3 was discussed at the Council Forum on 7 May 2013.  If Council now decides to adopt the draft revised policy, it would be advertised for public comment in the same manner as the earlier draft version of LPP 5.3.

Comment

The main changes to LPP 5.3 relate to the planning process to be followed and these changes have been made following detailed Administration discussion with the planning consultant representing a significant proportion of the East Wanneroo affected landowners. 

These proposed changes will enable the landowners to undertake the necessary next steps in the planning process, and will provide a robust framework to progress the urbanisation of the area.

 

As the proposed modifications to draft LPP 5.3, particularly the proposed planning process, are of a reasonably substantial nature, and given the importance of this LPP in guiding the planning of this large area, it is recommended that the proposed modified LPP be re-advertised for a public comment period of three weeks.  Re-advertising is also considered appropriate given the degree of interest in this matter by affected landowners.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with DPS 2, Council is required to review the draft Policy in light of any submissions made and must then resolve either to finally adopt the draft Policy with or without modification, or not to proceed with the draft Policy.

 

While DPS 2 does not specifically provide for re-advertising of a modified draft policy following advertising, this is still able to be done if it is regarded as a recommencement of the DPS 2 process for preparing a LPP.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment”

 

          "2      Social

                   2.1     Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options"

 

          "4      Governance

                   4.1     Improve strategic partnerships"

Policy Implications

The modified draft Policy will form part of the City's Local Planning Policy Framework and will provide a clear and consistent approach to planning for the future of East Wanneroo.  Once finalised, this will supersede the policy position adopted by Council at its meeting of 11 December 2007, and subsequently reaffirmed as an interim policy position, at its meeting of 5 April 2011. 

 

The modified draft Policy is aligned with relevant State and City planning policies with the exception of Clause 1.4 of LPP 4.2: Structure Planning (LPP 4.2), which relates to the need for the preparation of DSP.  Administration intends preparing an amendment to LPP 4.2 to include a requirement for DSPs to be prepared for East Wanneroo, as well as the existing Butler-Jindalee, Alkimos-Eglinton and Yanchep-Two Rocks areas.  This report identifies a number of further aspects of LPP 4.2 which should also be considered in a review of that policy.  This will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

 

Consideration of a recent subdivision application referred to the City for comment by the WAPC has indicated that a review of the City's Local Planning Policy on Subdivision of Rural Zoned Land is required to remove some inconsistencies between that Policy and draft LPP 5.3.  It is therefore recommended that a review of Local Planning Policy – Subdivision of Rural Zoned Land be undertaken as soon as possible.

Financial Implications

The cost of preparing the Policy is being met from the Planning and Sustainability Directorate operational budget.

 

Undertaking of the planning process included in LPP 5.3 will involve costs being incurred by developing landowners in the area. 

 

It should be noted that under the Policy, the City will prepare and manage district and local-level DCPs.  However, the costs involved in doing this would be recovered by the City through the DCPs themselves.

 

There are always inherent risks involved in local governments administering DCPs for the delivery of community facilities and transport infrastructure in new urban expansion areas, such as East Wanneroo.  However, those risks can be managed and mitigated by close ongoing review and adjustment of estimated costs, forecast income from contribution payments and project timing, and alignment of the same with the capital works plan and long term financial plan.  The City would ensure that these controls are in place as part of and prior to commencement of any DCPs for the East Wanneroo area. 

 

It is fair to say that urbanisation of East Wanneroo cannot occur without the implementation of DCPs, due to the substantial geographical size of the area, the multiplicity of landholdings, the inability of existing infrastructure and facilities to support urbanisation of the area, and the need for timely and coordinated infrastructure and facility provision commensurate with the pace and pattern of development in the area. 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the submissions received in respect of draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo and ENDORSES the responses to those submissions prepared by Administration included in Attachment 2;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS for public comment modified draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo, as contained in Attachment 6, and ADVERTISES the policy for a period of 21 days, by way of:

a)      Advertisements in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

b)      Display on the City's website, at the Civic Centre and at the City libraries;

c)      Letters to those who made submissions on the draft Local Planning Policy 5.3 : East Wanneroo and relevant stakeholders as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability;

 

3.       REQUIRES Administration to submit a report to Council regarding changes which may be required to Council's Subdivision of Rural Zoned Land Policy to ensure alignment of that Policy with Local Planning Policy 5.3;  and

4.       NOTES that Administration is currently preparing a revised Local Planning Policy 4.2: Structure Planning, and that this will address a number of the issues raised in submissions on draft Local Planning Policy 5.3: East Wanneroo.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Draft LPP 5.3: East Wanneroo	12/45370
2View.	Summary of Submitters - Attachment 2	13/65919	Minuted
3View.	WAPC letter	12/109083
4View.	Attachment 4 - Summary of Revised Planning Process	13/58313
5View.	Attachment 5 - Draft LPP 5.3: East Wanneroo (tracked changes)	13/58349
6View.	Attachment 6 - Modified Draft LPP 5.3	13/58368	Minuted

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

File Ref:                                              2942-3 – 13/51717

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

 

Issue

To consider the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 (ASP 40), with a view to determining a formal Council position on these modifications and the structure plan amendment’s acceptability for agreement.

 

Applicant	CLE Town Planning and Design
Owner	Australand Industrial No. 140 Pty Ltd
Locations	Lot 397 (1) Kakadu Road, Yanchep Lot 9007 (161) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep Portion of Lot 9009 (108) Blackwood Meander, Yanchep
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
Current ASP40 Zoning	Mixed Use (R60)

 

 

Background

The Amendment No. 3 area is bounded by a reservation for railways (future transit railway) and an R160 coded area to the east, existing residential development and Public Purpose (High School) reserve and an R60 coded area to the south, the Yanchep District Centre (Yanchep Central Shopping Centre site) to the west and Yanchep Beach Road to the north. The location of the Amendment No. 3 area is illustrated on Attachment 1, which also includes the existing ASP 40 R-Code Plan.

 

Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 – as previously advertised and adopted by Council – proposed an increase in the residential density coding of Lot 397 (1) Kakadu Road, Yanchep; Lot 9007 (161) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep; Portion of Lot 9009 (108) Blackwood Meander, Yanchep from R60 to R100 within the existing road network. To coincide with the proposed introduction of a higher residential density code, the applicant had proposed additions to the ASP 40 text to include design provisions that would apply to the R100 coding.

 

Council, at its meeting of 13 November 2012, considered Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 (item PS04-11/12) and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40, submitted by CLE Town Planning and Design on behalf of Australand Industrial No. 140 Pty Ltd, and included as Attachment 3, is SATISFACTORY;

 

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, SUBMITS three copies of Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 included as Attachment 3, to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

 

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 included as Attachment 3, once adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

 

4.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 included as Attachment 4, ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision."

 

The amendment documentation (as advertised and previously adopted by Council), outlining proposed changes to the ASP text and proposed R-Code Plan, is included as Attachment 2.

Detail

On 20 March 2013, the WAPC resolved to adopt Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40, subject to modifications being undertaken (as included as Attachment 3). Some of the items from the WAPC resolution (items 1, 3, 4 and 6 of the WAPC resolution included as Attachment 3) required modifications to the amendment previously adopted by Council. However, to supplement changes to the amendment proposal, the WAPC has also required modifications (items 2, 5, 7 and 8 of the WAPC resolution included as Attachment 3) to the remainder of Agreed Structure Plan No. 40.

 

The WAPC resolution also had appended a revised plan (referred to as Plan 3 in the WAPC resolution), which has been included as Attachment 4. Plan 3 – being the Residential Density Code Plan – depicts a revised layout of residential densities within a modified road network which has already been approved by the WAPC through the subdivision process.

Consultation

Administration has not undertaken any further consultation following Council’s previous adoption of Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40. When considering a structure plan amendment under subclause 9.41 (a) of DPS 2, Council may determine that the structure plan amendment is satisfactory and waive public notification, when it considers that adequate publicity of the proposal has already been undertaken (recommended in this instance).

Comment

Discussion on Key WAPC Modifications

 

Following receipt of formal correspondence from the WAPC on 20 March 2013, and prior informal discussion between officers from Administration and WAPC, Administration can provide the following comment regarding the key modifications required by the WAPC-

 

Road Layout Changes

 

In the time the WAPC considered the amendment; the WAPC had received (and later approved) two subdivision applications that applied within the amendment area (WAPC subdivision references 147054 and 147243). The subdivision applications proposed an alternative road layout that is inconsistent with the road layout outlined on the current ASP 40 maps (Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3), and the proposed residential density code map originally submitted with the amendment documentation. As such, WAPC adoption of the amendment was subject to modification of:

 

·        the road layouts outlined in all Structure Plan maps (Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3) to be consistent with those approved by the WAPC through the subdivision process; and

 

·        the location of residential density codings to correlate with the changes to the road network.

 

Application of a 'Split' Density Coding

 

The application of a 'split' density coding (of R80/100 as opposed to R100) has been adopted by the WAPC, to ensure that a consistent application of higher density codings on new development sites is applied in the Perth Metropolitan Region. This practice has been applied in outer metropolitan local government areas (such as the City of Swan and the City of Armadale) by the WAPC previously.

 

The application of the split residential density coding of R80/R100 will not result in any considerable change to residential development outcomes.

 

Conclusion

 

Administration considers that the WAPC’s required modifications do not significantly or materially depart from the version of Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40, as previously advertised. Administration recommends that Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 be modified in line with the WAPC’s required modifications (as outlined in the 'Detail' section, above), for the following reasons:

 

·        The modifications required by the WAPC would result in a minimal change to the outcomes planned by the proponent (e.g. higher residential density adjacent to the Yanchep District Centre and the future South Yanchep Railway Station) as a result of this amendment, and

 

·        The modifications only affect the Proponent, and do not have an effect on other adjoining landowners.

 

Once the modifications have been implemented, it is recommended that Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 be adopted, signed and sealed under subclause 9.6.5 of DPS 2. Given that Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 has already been advertised and the modifications do not materially affect the intent of the amendment or detrimentally impact on any land, it is considered that any further public notice should be waived in accordance with subclause 9.4.1 of DPS 2.

 

The requested modifications are required to be completed before the WAPC will certify Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40, before the amendment can be finalised, agreed and become operative. Establishing a formal Council position on the WAPC’s required modifications will enable finalisation and agreement of Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40.

Statutory Compliance

Part 9 of DPS 2 provides for the assessment and determination of structure plan amendments. Pursuant to subclauses 9.6.3 (c) and 9.7.3 of DPS 2, if the WAPC requires modification to a structure plan amendment, the proponent and/or Council shall make the modifications required by the WAPC and Council shall reconsider the Structure Plan under Clause 9.4 (as discussed in the 'Consultation' section above).

 

Following this, Council may consider the structure plan amendment under subclause 9.6.1 and do one or other of the following:

 

a)      refuse to adopt the structure plan amendment; or

 

b)      resolve that the structure plan amendment is satisfactory with or without further modifications.

 

As discussed earlier, it is recommended that Amendment No. 3 to ASP 40 be deemed satisfactory subject to the modifications required by the WAPC.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment”

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed 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 Clauses 9.6.3 (c) and 9.7 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that Amendment No. 3 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 40, included in Attachment 2, is satisfactory subject to the following modifications being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability:

 

a)      On Plan 3 – the road layout and residential density codings depicted being modified to that shown in Attachment 4.

 

b)      References to R100 on Plan 3 and the Record of Amendments being replaced with R80/R100.

 

c)      References to R100 coding within Table 1C being replaced with R80/R100.

 

d)      Table 1C being modified to provide for an average lot size of 120m².

 

2.       Further to item 1. above, and pursuant to Clauses 9.6.3 (c) and 9.7 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES that the following additional modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission, included as Attachments 3 and 4 are satisfactory, subject to those modifications to the Structure Plan being made to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability:

 

a)      On Plan 1 and Plan 2 – the road layout being modified to complement that depicted on Plan 3 included in Attachment 4.

 

b)      The following paragraph being added to Section 6 of the Structure Plan text:

 

          Single and grouped dwelling development within the R80/R100 split coding is subject to the Residential Design Codes provisions for the R80 code and the variations set out in Table 1C. Multiple dwelling development within the R80/R100 split coding is subject to the Residential Design Code provisions for the R100 code and the variations set out in Table 1C.

 

c)      The words “and State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel” being added to Clause 9.6.3.

 

3.      Pursuant to subclause 9.4.1 (a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 WAIVES the requirement for further public advertising of Amendment No. 3 of Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 as the modifications outlined in items 1. and 2. above are considered to not materially alter the intent of the advertised version of Amendment No. 3 of Agreed Structure Plan No. 40; and

 

4.        Pursuant to subclause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS Amendment No. 3 of Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 once modified in accordance with items 1. and 2. above, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the duly amended document, and FORWARDS the structure plan amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Existing R-Code Plan	12/112402
2View.	Attachment 2 to Agreement Report - Submitted Documentation - Amendment 3 to the Lots 1 & 102 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep Agreed Structure Plan No	13/55409	Minuted
3View.	Attachment 3 - WAPC Resolution	13/57546	Minuted
4View.	Attachment 4 - Revised R-Code Plan appended to WAPC Adoption	13/55402	Minuted

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              3386-19 – 13/52293

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider submissions received during public advertising of Amendment No. 19 to the Butler-Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 (ASP 27) and adoption of the amendment.

 

Applicant	Urbis Town Planners
Owner	Tango Investments (WA) Pty Ltd
Location	Lot 1061 (2) Captiva Approach, Butler
Site Area	1.5907 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development
Butler-Ridgewood ASP 27 Zoning	Business

 

 

Background

In November 2012, the City received a proposal from Urbis Town Planners to amend ASP 27 by rezoning Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler from Business to Commercial with a maximum retail floor space of 3,000m² net lettable area (NLA). The site is located at the north-eastern corner of Lukin Drive and Connolly Drive. The location plan of the site is included as Attachment 1.

 

Council will recall that at its meeting of 3 April 2012 (Item PS05-04/12), it considered a development application for a business development at the subject site consisting of a drive-through food outlet, liquor store, pharmacy, convenience store, café and other tenancies  and resolved to conditionally approve the application by excluding the proposed ‘liquor store’ and ‘drive-through food outlet’. Attachment 2 contains the plan depicting the proposal.

 

An application for review (appeal) was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the Council’s decision, only in regard to the exclusion of the ‘drive-through food outlet’. Following a mediation hearing, the City was invited by the SAT to reconsider its decision. Council, at its meeting of 29 May 2012, reconsidered the matter and resolved to substitute its decision of 3 April 2012 by approving the ‘drive-through food outlet’ component of the development (Item CR04-05/12). The ‘liquor store’ component remained excluded from Council’s substituted decision.

 

Subsequently, an application was lodged to seek approval to develop the portion of the site originally intended to accommodate the ‘liquor store’ for the purposes of a ‘child care centre’ and ‘recreation centre’. Attachment 3 contains the plan showing the proposed development. Council, at its meeting of 18 September 2012 (Item PS03-09/12) considered the application and resolved to approve it (DA2011/799). The drive-through food outlet (McDonald's Restaurant) has since been constructed and is in operation.  A fence along the Connolly Drive boundary of the site has been constructed as required in the planning approval to assist in controlling pedestrian access to the site.  The other approved structures to accommodate other land uses have not yet been constructed.

 

 

 

 

On 20 December 2012, the Acting Director, Planning and Sustainability forwarded a memorandum to all Elected Members, providing the opportunity for members to request referral of the proposal to amend ASP 27 by rezoning the subject site from Business to Commercial, to Council for consent to advertise. No such requests were received and, as such, advertising of the proposal commenced on 29 January 2013 in accordance with Clause 9.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2).

Detail

The land use permissibility in the Business and Commercial Zones is generally similar. However, the land uses 'Shop' and 'Supermarket' are 'Not Permitted' ('X') in the Business Zone but Permitted ('P') in the Commercial Zone. The applicant therefore submitted the amendment proposal to rezone the land to Commercial with a maximum retail floor space of 3,000m² NLA. The applicant has provided the following justification:

 

·        In the Butler-Jindalee Agreed District Structure Plan No. 39 (ADSP 39), the subject land has been identified for a Local Centre;

 

·        The Centre Strategy for the Butler-Jindalee District allocates a retail floor space of 1,500m² for this Local Centre consisting of 300m² for food and 1,200m² for non-food;

 

·        Despite this retail floor space allocation, ASP 27 zones this subject land Business. Clearly there is an inconsistency between ADSP 39 and ASP 27. The subject proposal will remove this inconsistency; and

 

·        The Western Australian Planning Commission's (WAPC) State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres Policy (SPP 4.2) defines Local Centre as an important local community focal point that helps to provide for the main daily to weekly household shopping and community needs. It is therefore clear that Local Centres are expected to accommodate among other land uses some level of shop or supermarket.

 

Attachment 4 contains the maps showing the existing and proposed zoning of the subject site.

Consultation

The Amendment 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, a notice on the City’s website and letters to adjoining landowners. The submission period closed on 12 March 2013, and the City received four submissions – two from the general public and one each from the Department of Education and the Department of Planning. These Departments did not raise any objection to the proposed amendment. Of the two public submissions, one supported the proposal and the other objected citing traffic issues. It is noted that none of the residents residing opposite the site made submissions on the proposal.

 

A schedule of submissions containing a summary of submissions and Administration's responses is included as Attachment 5.

Comment

The issues that require consideration on the proposed amendment are discussed below:

 

 

1.         Liquor Store

 

If ASP 27 were amended in the manner proposed, to rezone the subject land to Commercial, then the developer, as of right, could develop a liquor store because it is a Permitted ('P') use in this zone.

 

Having regard to Council's previous decision to not allow a liquor store on this site and given that the applicant did not appeal to the SAT against that decision, it is considered appropriate to classify this land use as an 'A' use, meaning a use not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval only after the proposal has been advertised for public comment.  This would allow due consideration to be given to public sentiment on any proposal for a liquor store and provide for an application for review (appeal) to be lodged with the SAT if an applicant were aggrieved by a decision of Council.

 

The Statutory Section of ASP 27 does not include a specific provision relating to the Commercial Zone. It is therefore recommended that the following provision be included under Section "4.0 Provisions" of the Statutory Section of ASP 27 after subsection "4.7 Private Clubs/Recreation Zone" with a requirement to classify the use class liquor store as an 'A' use but only in the Commercial Zone located on Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler and to re-number the subsequent subsections appropriately.

 

"4.8 Commercial Zone

 

The provisions, standards and requirements of this Zone are in accordance with those applicable to the same Zone as are included in the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 with the following exception:

 

The use class 'Liquor Store' shall be an 'A' use in the Commercial Zone located on Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler."

2.         Retail Floor Space

The applicant has proposed a maximum retail floor space of 3,000m² NLA on the following basis.

 

Land use	Total retail floor space (m2)
Take away Food outlet	317
Restaurants/cafes	232
Liquor store (possible)	244
Pharmacy	232
Supermarket	1,610
TOTAL	2,635 (rounded up to 3,000)

 

In regard to the proposed Supermarket the applicant undertook an economic analysis to determine the feasibility of a 1,500m² NLA supermarket. Some of the findings of the analysis as provided by the applicant are as follows:

 

·        A trade area of 2 kilometres has a limited offer of full line supermarkets. Consequently, the residents are disadvantaged;

 

·        The anticipated population growth and spending power of the trade area indicates that there is potential to support a 1,500m² supermarket; and

 

·        A supermarket would be complementary to other land uses proposed on the subject land.

 

 

Currently the applicant has development approval for a drive-through food outlet (McDonald's Restaurant (already constructed)), Pharmacy and several other retail land uses namely, Café, Convenience Store and Bakery on this site. In addition to these retail uses, the applicant now proposes to include a Liquor Store and a Supermarket as indicated in the table above.

 

Having regard to ADSP 39 identifying this site as a Local Centre and SPP 4.2 defining Local Centres as an important local community focal point that helps to provide for the main daily to weekly household shopping and community needs, increasing the retail floor space from 1,500m² as proposed in the ADSP 39 to 3,000m² is considered to be reasonable. When developed, this centre will play an important role in providing services and facilities for the local communities. It is noted that the original application was for a floor space of more than 4,100 m² including about 2,300m² retail floor space which included the (previously refused) liquor store. Now, the applicant proposes to utilise the floor space, previously earmarked for a liquor store, to be used for a supermarket.

 

In order to limit the amount of retail floor space at this site, it is recommended that the following provision be included in the Statutory Section of ASP 27 under the above proposed Commercial Zone provision mentioned earlier in this report.

 

"Retail Floor Space

 

Retail floor space in the Commercial Zone will be in accordance with Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1: Retail Floor space provision

 

Centre	Maximum Nett Lettable Area (m2)
Local Centre at Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler	3,000

 

3.       Traffic

 

The applicant has provided a traffic report addressing primarily the two key issues of traffic volumes and capacity of the existing road network to support the anticipated traffic volumes generated by this proposal. These two key issues are discussed below. The City's Traffic and Transportation section has evaluated this report and has considered it to be satisfactory.

 

The volume of traffic generated by Business Zone versus Commercial Zone

 

The net anticipated total trips generated by the proposed development as per the current Business Zone are likely to be in the order of 3,454 vehicles trips per day or 254 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. The net anticipated total trips generated if the site were to be rezoned to Commercial are likely to be 6,235 vehicle trips per day or 340 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. Therefore there will likely be an increase of 2,781 vehicle trips per day or 86 vehicle trips during p.m. peak hour. The traffic report noted that the additional traffic resulting from the proposed rezoning, the signalised intersection of Connolly Drive/Lukin Drive and the priority controlled intersection of Connolly Drive/Captiva Approach as well as the site crossovers will continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service with minimal queuing delays.

 

Capacity of the abutting roads

 

The following trip generation has been assumed in the applicant's traffic report:

 

·        25% to and from the north via Connolly Drive/Captiva Approach;

 

·        20% to and from the east via Captiva Approach/Tarpon Link;

·        40% to and from the south via Connolly Drive/Lukin Drive; and

·        15% to and from the west via Connolly Drive/Lukin Drive.

 

From the above it is noted that 55% of the traffic generated by the proposed Commercial Development will be from south and west of the subject land. In other words, of the 6,235 vehicle trips per day generated, only 2,805 (45%) vehicle trips will be generated by the residential area to the east of Connolly Drive and to the north of Lukin Drive.

 

Captiva Approach and Tarpon Link are 20 metres wide with 7.4-metre wide carriageway. As per the WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods policy, these roads can carry a traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles per day.

 

The applicant has advised that the increase in traffic on the surrounding road network will be limited to short sections of Captiva Approach and Tarpon Link in close proximity to Connolly Drive and Lukin Drive and the results of traffic analysis indicate that there would be excess practical capacity in the order of 50 to 60% following full build-out of the site under the proposed redevelopment scenario with minimal queuing and delays to through traffic on those roads.

 

Based on a "SIDRA" traffic assessment, the traffic report concluded that Captiva Approach and Tarpon Link will operate at acceptable Levels of Service B through D. As per Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice if Captiva Approach and Tarpon Link surrounding the subject site were to carry a traffic volume of 4,800 vpd, then the Level of Service at the intersections will be B which is acceptable in normal traffic conditions. Given that only 45% of the traffic is assumed to be generated by the adjoining residential area, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to impact on the normal flow of traffic.

 

Conclusion

 

Urbis Town Planners on behalf of Tango Investment Pty Ltd has requested the City to amend ASP 27 by rezoning Lot 1061 Captiva Approach from Business to Commercial with a maximum retail floor space of 3,000m² net lettable area. It is proposed to accommodate a Supermarket and a Liquor Store in addition to the existing McDonald's Restaurant and other approved land uses. As the traffic generated by the proposed development is not likely to impact on the normal flow of traffic in the vicinity of the subject site it is recommended that the proposed amendment be adopted and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan amendment has been processed in accordance with the requirements of District Planning Scheme No. 2.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “3     Economic

3.2    Support business and initiatives”

Policy Implications

This proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the City’s draft Local Planning Policy 3.2: Activity Centres and it generally satisfies the following location criteria:

 

1.         Be accessible and connected with the existing public transportation network;

2.         Provide opportunities for alternate methods of transportation other than private vehicles;

3.         Not be within the walkable catchment of another activity centre; and

4.         Be connected with the surrounding residential catchment, with no physical barriers such as major roads.

 

With regard to points 1 and 2 Transperth bus route 484 runs about 200 metres to the east of the subject site. This route runs north-south between Connolly Drive to the west and the Freeway reserve to the east within 400 metres walking distance. The network of pedestrian pathways to the site along with the designated pedestrian crossing at the signalised intersection of Lukin Drive and Connolly Drive will facilitate safe pedestrian movement to and from the Commercial development site.

 

The third point requires the local centre not to be within the catchment area of another centre. Currently a local centre to accommodate a supermarket is under construction at the south-western corner of Connolly Drive and Kingsbridge Boulevard which is about 1 kilometre to the north of the subject site. The WAPC's Liveable Neighbourhoods policy recommends a walkable distance of 400 metres to a neighbourhood centre (ie 800 metres between centres). Thus the subject proposal satisfies this criterion.

 

In regard to the fourth point above it is noted that the location does not entirely satisfy this criterion as the site is bounded by Lukin Drive to the south and Connolly Drive to the west. However, given that the ADSP 39 identifies this site for a Local Centre, the location has, in effect, already been deemed satisfactory.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that proposed Amendment No. 19 to the    Butler-Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27, submitted by Urbis Town Planners on behalf of Tango Investments (WA) Pty Ltd to rezone Lot 1061 (2) Captiva Approach, Butler from Business to Commercial and as outlined on Attachment 4 to this report is SATISFACTORY subject to the following provisions being included to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability in the statutory section of the Butler Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27 after section "4.7 Private Clubs/Recreation Zone" and renumbering the subsequent subsections appropriately:

4.8 Commercial Zone

 

The provisions, standards and requirements of this zone are in accordance with those applicable to the same Zone as are included in the City's District Planning Scheme No. 2 with the following exception:

 

 

 

The use class 'Liquor Store' shall be an 'A' use in the Commercial Zone located on Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler."

 

Retail Floor space

 

Retail floor space in the Commercial Zone will be in accordance with Schedule 1.

 

Schedule 1: Retail Floorspace provision

 

Centre	Maximum Nett Lettable Area (m2)
Local Centre at Lot 1061 Captiva Approach, Butler	3,000

 

2.       Upon receipt of structure plan documents modified in accordance with 1, above SUBMITS three copies to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

3.       Subject to 1. and 2. Above, pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No.2 ADOPTS the proposed Amendment No. 19 to the Butler-Ridgewood Agreed Structure Plan No. 27, and AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to SIGN and SEAL the amendment document once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission;  and

4.       NOTES the schedule of submissions received on Amendment No. 19 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 27, as contained in Attachment 5, ENDORSES Administration's comments and recommendations on those submissions, FORWARDS the schedule of submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Amdt 19 to ASP 27  - A 1	12/29362
2View.	Amdt 19 to ASP 27 - A 2	12/16828
3View.	Amdt 19 to ASP 27 - A 3	12/106397
4View.	Amdt 19 - ASP 27 - A4	13/58056	Minuted
5View.	Amdt 19 to ASP 27 - A 5	13/60009	Minuted

  

 

 

 

File Ref:                                              9396 – 13/53792

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2  

Previous Items:                                   PS03-08/10 Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1192/57 - Northern Suburbs Railway and Romeo Road Realignment - Ordinary Council - 24 August 2010      

 

Issue

To consider re-initiating Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) for the purpose of zoning two portions of Lot 9003 (2610) Marmion Avenue, Alkimos from the former Railways Reserve and Other Regional Roads Reserve to Centre Zone.

 

Applicant	City of Wanneroo
Owner	State of Western Australia (Landcorp & Lendlease)
Location	Lot 9003 (2610) Marmion Avenue, Alkimos
Site Area	Approximately 380 hectares
MRS Zoning	Urban, Central City Area, Parks and Recreation, Railways, Other Regional Roads
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development, Centre, Parks & Recreation, Railways, Other Regional Roads

 

Background

At its meeting on 24 August 2010, Council considered proposed Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Amendment 1192/57 – Northern Suburbs Railway and Romeo Road Realignment (Item PS03-08/10) and resolved as follows:

 

"1.     SUPPORTS Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1192/57, as advertised, and FORWARDS a copy of this report to the Western Australian Planning Commission as the basis of the City’s submission;

 

2.       REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission to automatically rezone to Urban Development under the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, the portions of the Railway Reserve being rezoned to Urban, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1192/57, pursuant to section 126 (3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

 

3.       Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to zone a portion of Lot 1003 Marmion Avenue, Alkimos, to Centre Zone, as depicted on the Scheme (Amendment) Map contained in Attachment 2;

 

4.       REFERS Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; should the EPA advise that the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

 

5.       FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission."

 

 

Relative to Part 1 of Council's August 2010 resolution, MRS Amendment 1192/57 was gazetted on 5 March 2013, thus defining the extent and alignment of reserved and zoned land under the MRS, and therefore DPS 2. Part 2 of that resolution applied to land further north of the subject lot and was unrelated to Amendment No. 114 to DPS 2. Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Council's resolution are discussed under the 'Detail' section of this report.

Detail

Parts 3, 4 and 5 of Council's resolution were not actioned because they were dependant on the MRS Amendment first being finalised, in order to determine the precise area and extent of land to be rezoned by Amendment No. 114 to DPS 2. This was particularly relevant as land that is reserved under the MRS is not zoned under a local government's planning scheme – hence, the land being removed from the regional reserves and zoned under the MRS Amendment would have been 'unzoned' under DPS 2 as a result of gazettal of that MRS Amendment.

 

MRS Amendment 1192/57 was gazetted on 5 March 2013, thus enabling Administration to act on parts 3, 4 and 5 of Council's August 2010 resolution. In doing so, however, Administration has noted that the MRS Amendment plan that was attached to the report to Council in August 2010 and which formed the basis of Council's resolution to initiate Amendment No. 114 to DPS 2, is deficient insofar as it did not propose to rezone (to 'Centre' zone) a small triangular piece of land that was removed from the Romeo Road regional reserve, near the intersection with Marmion Avenue. Furthermore, it is noted that Council's resolution at that time referred to the subject lot as Lot 1003, as it was then known, whereas the lot is now described as Lot 9003.

 

A copy of the plan that was attached to the report to Council in August 2010 is included as Attachment 1 while a revised plan showing the current and accurate extent of rezoning now required (in response to gazettal of MRS Amendment 1192/57) is included as Attachment 2.

 

With the exception of the updated lot number and zoning a small triangular piece of land along the former Romeo Road alignment, the revised version of Amendment No. 114 to DPS 2 is identical to the version agreed by Council in August 2010.

 

Consultation

 

All scheme amendments must (by law) be subject to public consultation.  The Town Planning Regulations provide that where an amendment is consistent with the MRS and State policies and strategies, and an advertising period of not less than 42 days is proposed then the consent of the WAPC will not be required to advertise the amendment. However, as Amendment No. 114 is a minor administrative amendment that will ensure DPS 2 is in line with the MRS, Administration proposes to reduce the required 42 days advertising period to 21 days in accordance with Regulation 25(2)(j)(v). As a result, the consent of the WAPC will be required, prior to advertising the proposed amendment to DPS 2.

 

The amendment will also need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

 

Subject to no objections being received from the EPA and advertising consent being granted by the WAPC the amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 21 days.  Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967:

 

·        Advertisement in a local newspaper for one week;

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

 

·        Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

·        Display on the City’s website;  and

·        Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies.

Comment

Whilst the only change technically required to Council's August 2010 resolution is to item 3, Administration proposes to also change items 4 and 5 as well to reflect the proposed consultation period of 21 days, and because the scheme amendment documentation relies on a single initiation date (rather than a date in 2010 and a date in 2013).  These changes do not warrant revocation of Council's August 2010 decision because they actually constitute a further, revised decision on the matter in response to a change of circumstance. 

Statutory Compliance

The proposed DPS 2 amendment will follow the statutory process outlined in the Town Planning Regulation 1967.

 

In accordance with Section 5.25(1)(e) of the Local Government Act and Regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, any motion to revoke or change a decision made at a Council or Committee meeting must be supported by at least 1/3 of the number of offices (whether vacant or not) of members of the Council or Committee, inclusive of the mover.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “3     Economic

3.3    Provision of timely and coordinated regional infrastructure”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council, further to its decision on 24 August 2010 in respect to item PS03-08/10:

 

1.       Pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 PREPARES Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to zone two portions of Lot 9003 Marmion Avenue, Alkimos, to Centre Zone, as depicted on the Scheme (Amendment) Map contained in Attachment 2;

 

2.       FORWARDS Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to:

 

 

 

a)      The Environmental Protection Authority for comment pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

 

b)      The Western Australian Planning Commission for its consent to advertise for a period of 21 days under Regulations 25(2)(j)(v) and 25AA of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

 

3.       SUBJECT to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority and consent to advertise from the Western Australian Planning Commission, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 114 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment pursuant to the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1: DPS2 Amendment 114 - Old	13/57851
2View.	Attachment 2: DPS2 Amendment 114 - New	13/57852	Minuted

  

File Ref:                                              7471 – 13/55469

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       5         

 

Issue

To consider Adoption of Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and the submissions received during public advertising.

 

Proponent – Amendment 127 to DPS 2

Shrapnel Urban Planning

 

Location	Lot 133 (7) Village Row, Yanchep
Owner	Jomapet Pty Ltd
Site Area	502m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Residential (R20)
ASP 49 Zoning	Not within ASP 49

 

Location	Lot 134 (5) Village Row, Yanchep
Owner	Jomapet Pty Ltd
Site Area	1446m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Centre
ASP 49 Zoning	Commercial (R40)

 

Location	Lot 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep
Owner	Petric Properties Pty Ltd
Site Area	1668m2
DPS 2 Zoning	Centre
ASP 49 Zoning	Commercial (R40)

 

 

Background

Lots 133 (7), 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep are located at the intersection of Village Row and Marmion Avenue, Yanchep. The sites are bound by residential development to the north, west and south, with Marmion Avenue forming the eastern extent of the Amendment area. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

 

Lots 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep are zoned ‘Centre’ under DPS 2. Council at its meeting on 16 December 2003 (PD05-12/03) resolved to adopt Agreed Structure Plan No. 49 – Yanchep Village Centre (ASP 49), which encompasses Lots 134 and 135 Village Row, Yanchep. The Structure Plan zoned Lots 134 and 135 ‘Commercial’ (with a residential density coding of R40), and allowed commercial development to occur on these lots. Following the Adoption of ASP 49, Administration issued planning approvals in August 2004 under Delegated Authority for the commercial buildings currently situated on Lot 134 and Lot 135.

 

Lot 133 (7) Village Row, Yanchep is currently zoned Residential R20, and is vacant.

 

On 8 May 2012, the City received an application from Shrapnel Urban Planning to amend DPS 2 to rezone Lots 133, 134 and 135.

 

 

Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment maps. In relation to this application, Council at its meeting of 16 October 2012 (refer Item PS02-10/12) considered the proposal and resolved as follows:

 

"That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 14(4)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, PREPARES Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to:

 

a)      Rezone Lots 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep from ‘Centre’ to ‘Commercial’, as shown in Attachment 2;

 

b)      Rezone Lot 133 (7) Village Row, Yanchep from ‘Residential’ to ‘Commercial’, as shown in Attachment 2;

 

c)      Apply a residential density code of R40 to Lots 133 (7), 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep; and

 

d)      Modify Schedule 3, by removing the following entry:

 

LOCALITY	DESCRIPTION OF CENTRE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES	NLA (m2)
YANCHEP	Portion of Lot 1010 on Diagram DP27575, 65 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep	550

 

          and replacing the above entry with the following:

 

LOCALITY	DESCRIPTION OF CENTRE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES	NLA (m2)
YANCHEP	Lots 134 and 135 on Deposited Plan 38436 and Lot 133 on Deposited Plan 35744 (4, 5, & 7) Village Row, Yanchep.	550

 

2.       REFERS Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority for comment, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

 

3.       Subject to no objection being received from the Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967;

 

4.      FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

 

5.       Subject to 1. and 2. above and pursuant to Clause 9.7 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, DETERMINES the proposed revocation to Agreed Structure Plan No. 49 – Yanchep Village Centre is SATISFACTORY, and ADVERTISES the proposed revocation for a period of 42 days."

 

Detail

The City understands that Amendment No. 127 – as submitted by Shrapnel Urban Planning – is intended to accommodate an expansion of the commercial development currently situated on Lot 134, which comprises a Medical Centre, Office, Hairdresser and Pharmacy. One concept provided by the proponent, although only indicative at the present time, is for Lot 133 to be amalgamated with Lot 134. The land currently within Lot 133 is proposed to accommodate additional car parking to cater for an eastward expansion (towards Marmion Avenue) of the commercial development on Lot 134. This concept is depicted on the plan included as Attachment 3.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 17 December 2012, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.  The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 15 January 2013 and 26 February 2013 by way of the following:

 

·        The installation of signage within the Amendment area,

·        Advertisement in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times local newspapers on 15 January 2013;

·        An advertisement in the Sun City News local newspapers on 24 January 2013,

·        A notice made available for viewing at the Civic Centre and the City’s website,

·        Letters to the landowners of properties where identified on the plan included as Attachment 4; and

·        Letters to relevant State Government agencies.

 

Administration received four submissions, all of which related to the proposed DPS 2 amendment and none of which commented specifically on the proposed revocation of ASP 49. Although none of the submissions specifically objected to the proposals, some comments did highlight concerns regarding possible built form outcomes following the adoption of the amendment. The table included as Attachment 5 provides a summary of the submissions and Administration’s response.

Comment

Comment on Expansion of Amendment Area

 

The City received a submission requesting that Lot 136 Lady Lindsay Cove be included within the amendment area. It was requested that this lot be rezoned to 'Commercial'. Administration is not prepared to support the expansion of the Amendment area to include Lot 136, as the DPS 2 amendment proposal as previously initiated by Council (and thereafter advertised to the public) was only to rezone Lots 133, 134 and 135 Village Row. Given that Lot 136 is at a significantly lower topographical level than Lots 133, 134 and 135 and that Lot 136 is orientated toward Lady Lindsay Cove, Administration does not consider it appropriate that this lot be included into the Amendment area.

 

Potential Impact of Additional Development in the Amendment Area

 

Comments from local residents and Main Roads Western Australia have highlighted potential amenity and safety issues that could arise from further development within the Amendment area.

 

 

Although a concept development plan was submitted as supporting documentation with the amendment (refer Attachment 3), built form outcomes and traffic impacts would be addressed as part of any future development application within the amendment area.

 

Conclusion

 

Considering the matters noted in the table included as Attachment 5, it is recommended that the amendment proposal be adopted without modification and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission. Subject to the Minister for Planning finally adopting the amendment, ASP 49 can then be revoked as it would then be redundant. 

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment”

Policy Implications

The Revocation of the City's Agreed Structure Plan No. 49 – Yanchep Village Centre 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 Town Planning Regulation 17(2) ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to as depicted in Attachment 2:

 

a)      Rezone Lots 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep from ‘Centre’ to ‘Commercial’, as shown in Attachment 2;

 

b)      Rezone Lot 133 (7) Village Row, Yanchep from ‘Residential’ to ‘Commercial’, as shown in Attachment 2;

 

c)      Apply a residential density code of R40 to Lots 133 (7), 134 (5) and 135 (4) Village Row, Yanchep; and

 

d)      Modify Schedule 3, by removing the following entry:

 

 

LOCALITY	DESCRIPTION OF CENTRE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES	NLA (m2)
YANCHEP	Portion of Lot 1010 on Diagram DP27575, 65 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep	550

 

and replacing the above entry with the following:

 

LOCALITY	DESCRIPTION OF CENTRE AND COMMERCIAL ZONES	NLA (m2)
YANCHEP	Lots 134 and 135 on Deposited Plan 38436 and Lot 133 on Deposited Plan 35744 (4, 5, & 7) Village Row, Yanchep.	550

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 (1) (g) AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the amendment documentation;

 

3.       FORWARDS the amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Honourable Minister for Planning grant final approval to the Amendment;

 

4.       NOTES the Schedule of Submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 5, ENDORSES Administration’s comments and recommendations in response to those submissions, FORWARDS the Schedule of Submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submitters of its decision;

 

5.       NOTES that no submissions were received in respect of the public notification of the revocation of Agreed Structure Plan No. 49;

 

6.       SUBJECT to the Honourable Minister for Planning granting final approval to the Amendment No. 127 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 and pursuant to subclause 9.7.1 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, RESOLVES:

 

a)      To REVOKE Agreed Structure Plan No. 49, and

 

b)      REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission approve the revocation of Agreed Structure Plan No. 49.

 

7.       SUBJECT to the approval being granted by the Western Australian Planning Commission for the revocation of Agreed Structure Plan No. 49 in accordance with item 6 (b). above, PUBLISHES notice of the revocation of Agreed Structure Plan No. 49 in the Wanneroo Times, North Coast Times and Sun City News newspapers for two consecutive editions.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Attachment 1 - Location Plan - Amendment 127 to DPS2	12/85225
2View.	REVISED Attachment 2 - DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO. 2 - AMENDMENT 127 to DPS 2	12/108374	Minuted
3View.	Attachment  3 - Concept Drawings of Expansion of Commercial Development on Lot 133-134	12/108376
4View.	Attachment 4 - Map Depicting Extent of Advertising	13/60931
5View.	REVISED Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions - Amendment 127 to DPS 2	13/60024	Minuted

  

 

 

 

Development Applications

File Ref:                                              DA2013/364 – 13/58566

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider allowing a departure from the provisions of Local Planning Policy 4.2 – Structure Planning by supporting a development application for bulk earthworks at Lot 9000 (300) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep, prior to the Yanchep City Local Structure Plan No. 68 (LSP 68) being agreed by both the City and Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

Applicant	Taylor Burrell Barnett Town Planning and Urban Design
Owner	Peet Limited
Location	Lot 9000 (300) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep
Site Area	147.79ha
DPS 2 Zoning	Urban Development

 

 

Background

On 18 September 2012 Council resolved that the Yanchep City Local Structure Plan No. 68 was satisfactory, subject to certain modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) being made in accordance with the Administration comment provided in Attachment 1 (to Item PS01-09/12), and the Department of Planning (DoP) Officer to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Sustainability.

 

The required modifications have now been made, with the structure plan now awaiting signing and sealing by the City and final certification by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

On 13 March 2012, the City received a development application from Taylor Burrell Barnett Town Planning and Urban Design (the applicant) on behalf of Peet Ltd to commence bulk earthworks within the north-eastern portion of Lot 9000 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep. A location plan, depicting the context of the site and the proposed earthworks area, is included as Attachment 1, while the development application plans depicting the extent of works within the site and the proposed levels are included as Attachment 2.

Detail

In undertaking the approved site works for Stage 3 of the ‘Yanchep Golf Estate’ subdivision (WAPC 143298), approximately 60,000m³ of surplus fill and topsoil is to be removed from the 'Cut Area' annotated on Attachment 1, to achieve the site levels indicated within the subdivision approval. The earthworks required within Stage 3 have been approved as part of the subdivision application, and as such do not require further consideration by the City of Wanneroo. Any approval given would relate only to the proposed fill area, topsoil stockpile area and proposed haulage route.

 

The surplus fill is to be relocated from the Stage 3 subdivision 'Cut Area' to the proposed 'Fill Area' (as shown on Attachment 1), located within the balance lot (formerly Lot 609) created by subdivision WAPC 143298, the plan of which is included as Attachment 3.

The surplus fill is to be transported via a hauling track, a portion of which traverses the Sun City Country Club. A private legal agreement has been arranged between the applicant and the affected landowner to facilitate the movement of fill across the Sun City Country Club land. The remainder of the haulage route, proposed to be 10m wide and bordered by a 1.8m-high wind fence, is located within the balance lot.

 

In order to undertake the fill works proposed, a portion of existing vegetation within the 'Fill Area' will be cleared, before the topsoil is removed and stored in the area annotated as 'Topsoil Stockpile Area' on Attachment 1. The vegetation across Lot 9000 was assessed in the context of LSP 68 and was not found to be of any regional or local significance. The existing vegetation in the proposed fill area was assessed as 'Degraded' within the Yanchep City Structure Plan Vegetation and Fauna Management Strategy (VFMS) prepared in 2010 by Coffey Environments. Within the VFMS a 'Degraded' environment is one in which 'basic vegetation structure has been severely impacted by disturbance'. It is considered that any clearing of vegetation within the proposed fill area will not result in loss of significant vegetation.

 

The existing 'Fill Area' site levels vary from AHD 34 metres in the south-western portion of the proposed earthworks area to AHD 25 metres in the north-eastern portion of the area. The surplus fill is to be placed in compacted layers of 300mm to the design contours shown in Attachment 2, with a maximum height of 4.0m and an average depth of fill of approximately 2.0m. Levels are proposed to be graded from west to east in order to achieve a smooth transition across the proposed earthworks area. The topsoil stored in the stockpile area will be spread over the compacted fill to facilitate ground stabilisation for dust control purposes.

Comment

The proposed 'Fill Area' and 'Topsoil Stockpile Area', as depicted in Attachment 1, are zoned Urban Development under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) and are covered by proposed LSP 68. The subject area is proposed to be zoned Residential under LSP 68.

 

Proposed LSP 68 is not yet ‘agreed’ and operational under DPS 2, as it is yet to be officially signed and sealed by the City and certified by the WAPC;  however, both are administrative formalities from this point. 

 

The process for considering development prior to the agreement of a structure plan (where a structure plan is required) is addressed within Clause 9.11 of DPS 2 and clarified through LPP 4.2. Clause 1.2 of LPP 4.2 states that, pursuant to DPS 2, an agreed structure plan is required as a prerequisite to Council’s support of a subdivision or consideration of an application for planning approval, unless Council determines that the proposal is for the purpose of: 

 

a)      The amalgamation of lots or part lots;

 

b)      The consolidation of land for “superlot” purposes to facilitate land assembly for future development; or

 

c)      The purpose of allowing access or the provision of services or infrastructure that would not prejudice future development outcomes.

 

The proposal involves modifications to site levels outside of the approved subdivisional area that cannot reasonably be determined to fall under any of the circumstances provided for under Clause 1.2 of LPP 4.2. That aspect of the proposal is therefore not considered to accord with LPP 4.2. The applicant has, however, justified the proposal on the following bases:

·        The subject development has no negative impact upon any adjoining landowner, in that the only affected landowner (Sun City Country Club) has provided its support for the development through the legal agreement to traverse its land in the transfer of the fill; and

 

·        The subject development has no negative environmental impact, with the vegetation to be cleared in a degraded condition, the fill of inert and uncontaminated composition, and any dust or erosion to be managed through compaction and reinstatement of topsoil.    

 

Administration is in agreement with the above points and has no objection to departing from the aforementioned provision of LPP 4.2 in this instance, to grant conditional development approval for the proposed earthworks as depicted in Attachment 2.

 

Should Council approve the application for bulk earthworks, the applicant would accept the risk that any development undertaken at this preliminary stage may need to be modified at a later date, in response to any impending WAPC subdivision approval or engineering design drawings and finished road and lot levels approved by the City. Furthermore, any subsequent development applications for the site pertaining to its use or the construction of buildings will be assessed against the statutory framework that is in place at the time of lodgement and following the ‘agreement’ of LSP 68. 

Statutory Compliance

This application has been assessed in accordance with the City of Wanneroo’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 and Local Planning Policy 4.2 – Structure Planning.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment”

Policy Implications

As discussed above, subclauses 1.1 and 1.2 contained within the “Policy Table” of LPP 4.2 require an Agreed Structure Plan to be in place as a prerequisite to Council’s consideration of an application for planning approval.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the development application submitted by Taylor Burrell Barnett Town Planning and Urban Design on behalf of Peet Limited in accordance with the provisions of District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the proposed Bulk Earthworks at Lot 9000 (300) Yanchep Beach Road Yanchep as shown on the plans included as Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions being met to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation:

1.       This approval only relates to the proposed clearing and bulk earthworks (movement of soil for cut and fill purposes) as shown on the attached plan. It does not relate to any other development on the subject lot;

2.       A Dust Management Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval prior to any works commencing on site. The plan shall be implemented thereafter to the satisfaction of the Manager, Planning Implementation;

3.       All batters shall be stabilised to the specification and satisfaction of the City of Wanneroo;

4.       All works shall be carried out in accordance with the City’s Policy Standards and Specifications pertaining to earthworks;

5.       Earthworks shall be limited to 0700 – 1700 hours Monday to Friday and 0730 – 1700 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays or public holidays;

6.       The proposed earthworks levels shall be designed so as to integrate with adjoining sites;

7.       All stormwater shall be collected and retained on site;

8.       All remnant vegetation that is to be retained must be protected by installing conservation protection fencing to the City’s satisfaction prior to any earthworks commencing;

9.       The applicant shall be responsible and liable for any alterations to the clearing, bulk earthworks or engineering design of the project that may result from the City’s future approval of subdivision engineering drawings pertaining to the area subject of this application;

10.     No construction, work, plant, material or earthworks shall intrude onto adjacent land, road reserves or any proposed POS without prior approval of the City;

11.     Upon completion of the works, certification from a practicing Geotechnical Engineer shall be submitted to the City confirming that earthworks, filling and compaction were completed and controlled in such a manner that resulted in a suitable building platform for the intended land use;

12.     Compaction and stabilisation must be carried out to the satisfaction of the City. Only clean fill shall be used on site;

13.     All works shall be in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines for the Development and Subdivision of Land;  and

 

14.     No burning of cleared vegetation shall be permitted without prior written approval from the City.  The Applicant is to refer to Department of Environment and Conservation guidelines for alternative methods of treating cleared vegetation.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Location Plan	13/62942
2View.	Development Application Plans (3 pages)	13/62914	Minuted
3View.	Plan of Subdivision (WAPC 143298)	13/59477

 

 

  

 

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

File Ref:                                              2496 – 13/50913

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider a petition with 117 signatures opposing the construction of the proposed fenced dog exercise area at Sheffield Park, Wanneroo.

 

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 15 November 2011, a Motion on Notice (MN01-12/11) was passed whereby "Council CONSIDER the proposal to provide a pilot dog exercise park and that funding be listed for consideration in the 2012/13 capital works budget for this proposal".

 

In January 2012 Administration considered the following site options for the provision of a fenced dog exercise park:

 

·        Kingsway Reserve – not recommended due to the high usage of all areas of the reserve by various sporting groups.

·        Paloma Park – not recommended as this reserve was to be the subject of a master planning process in 2012.

·        Charnwood Reserve – not recommended as this site is not central and therefore, not ideal as a pilot area.

·        Lake Joondalup Park – not recommended as this area forms part of Yellagonga Regional Park and may be subject to restrictions under the Parks Management Plan.

·        Sheffield Park – recommended due to its central location, on street car parking and an internal path network that provides universal access.

·        Edgar Griffiths Park – recommended due to its central location and provision of shade (in the undeveloped area of the park).

 

In October 2012 Elected Members were advised via a memorandum that Administration had identified Sheffield Park as the preferred location for the fenced dog exercise area. At that time Elected Members were invited to comment on the location and proposed community consultation strategy.

Detail

In response to requests from residents, Council has allocated funds for a pilot fenced dog exercise park in the 2012/13 Capital Budget. The proposed location is Sheffield Park, Stockholm Road, Wanneroo from Montreal to Sheffield Street.

 

Sheffield Park was chosen because it:

 

          a)      is centrally located within the City of Wanneroo;

 

          b)      is a flat grassed passive reserve;

 

          c)      has an internal path network that would allow universal access; and

 

          d)      has formal on street parking for patrons.

 

The exercise area was to have been delineated by approximately 450 metres of 1.2 metre high PVC coated chain link fencing incorporating up to six pedestrian gates, and one double gate to allow access by Council maintenance vehicles.

Consultation

The community consultation process commenced on 23 January 2013 and closed on          15 March 2013. The following strategy was used to engage the community:

 

·    A media release was published in the Link as a feature article on 5 February 2013;

·    Notices were published on the City of Wanneroo web-site and Facebook page;

·    A letter drop carried out to approximately 300 houses in the immediate vicinity of Sheffield Park; and

·    A sign was erected in Sheffield Park.

 

At the end of the consultation period Administration had received a total of 35 responses to its invitation to comment on the proposal including a petition containing 117 signatures that is the subject of this report.

 

Another response was received on 20 March 2013 after the closing date for the community consultation period making a total of 36 responses. Twenty seven respondents were in favour of the fenced dog exercise area, and 9 were opposed (including the petition with 117 signatures).

 

The majority of the 117 signatories to the petition live in close proximity to Sheffield Park with 47 of those living in Stockholm Road directly across the road from the park. Due to their proximity to the park, it is these respondents who are most likely to be impacted should the project proceed as proposed. Of the 27 respondents who are in favour of the proposal, at least 14 of those do not live close to the park with four of those living outside of the City's boundaries.

Comment

There has been overwhelming opposition, from those residents living in close proximity to Sheffield Park, against the provision of a fenced dog exercise area at this location. On that basis it is likely that any proposal to construct a fenced dog exercise area at an alternative park or reserve close to residential housing will attract a similar level of opposition from nearby residents.

 

The community consultation process in relation to the provision of a fenced dog exercise area has highlighted some community misconceptions in relation to the exercise of dogs within the City of Wanneroo.

 

It is evident for example, that there is a perception by some that dogs cannot be exercised off lead in any of the City's parks and reserves unless signed otherwise. This is not true as, under the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 2003, dogs may be exercised off lead in all of the City's parks and reserves except for the Wanneroo Showgrounds, the netball courts at Kingsway Sporting Complex, Frederick Stubbs Reserve in Yanchep, and all foreshore reserves other than those portions set aside for this purpose at Two Rocks Beach, Yanchep Beach and Quinns Rocks Beach.

 

Furthermore, some of the respondents who support the provision of a fenced dog exercise area have suggested that the fence be 1.8 metres in height rather than the proposed 1.2 metres high. They have expressed concerns that their dogs would easily be able to jump a 1.2 metre high fence which in turn may suggest they cannot effectively control their dog when off lead. Regardless of whether the dog is in a fenced area or not, the owner is required to exercise effective control of their dog at all times when off lead. Effective control is defined as the dog returning readily to the owner when called to do so.

 

Many of the respondents opposed to the construction of a fenced dog exercise area at Sheffield Park believe the money allocated to this project could be better spent providing facilities for the enjoyment of families using the park. They have suggested things such as playground equipment, shelters and barbecues.

 

Three options have been identified with regard to the future of the fenced dog exercise area within the City of Wanneroo. They are:

 

1.       That the City proceeds with the construction of a fenced dog exercise area at Sheffield Park. This is not recommended as opposition from nearby residents to its construction at this site is overwhelming.

 

2.       That the City considers other sites for the construction of a fenced dog exercise area. Should this option be chosen it will be necessary to start the process of community consultation over again, and for the funding allocated in 2012/13 to be carried forward to 2013/14.

 

3.       That the City does not proceed with the construction of a fenced dog exercise area at all. The provision of such a facility may be questionable given that dogs can already be exercised off lead in most of the City's parks and reserves, and that dogs are required to be under the effective control of their owner whether in a fenced area or not.

Statutory Compliance

This petition was presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting of 2 April 2013 in accordance with the requirements of Clause 3.10 the City of Wanneroo Standing Orders Local Law 2008.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “4     Governance

4.6    Provide and maintain a high standard of governance and accountability”

Policy Implications

Nil

 

Financial Implications

Council has allocated $21,700 in the 2012/13 Capital Budget (PR-2327) for the provision of a fenced dog exercise area. To date an amount of $478 has been expended against this budget for community consultation.

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       RESOLVES not to proceed with the provision of a fenced dog exercise area at Sheffield Park, Wanneroo following receipt of a petition with 117 signatories opposing the provision of such a facility at that location;

2.       RESOLVES not to proceed with the provision of a fenced dog exercise area at any location within the City of Wanneroo on the basis that, under the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 dogs may already be exercised off lead in all of the City's parks and reserves except for the Wanneroo Showgrounds, the netball courts at Kingsway Sporting Complex, Frederick J Stubbs Grove Reserve in Yanchep, and all foreshore reserves other than those portions set aside for this purpose at Two Rocks Beach, Yanchep Beach and Quinns Rocks Beach; and

3.       NOTES that the implementation of Recommendation 2 will result in a budget saving of $21,222.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil

 

File Ref:                                              2452 – 13/64939

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider an Application to Establish an Offensive Trade (caged egg production facility) at Lot 15 (275) Carabooda Road, Carabooda as required by the Health Act 1911 and the City's Health Local Law 1999.

 

Background

This Report was presented at the Ordinary Meeting held on 30 April 2013 (CB 07-04/13). As a result of considering this report Council resolved the following:

 

"PROCEDURAL MOTION

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Mackenzie

That the item be referred back to Administration for further review relating to the Environmental Code of Practice for Poultry Farms and Code of Practice for Poultry.

 

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY"

Detail

The Lot 15 (275) Carabooda Road, Carabooda property was previously used for chicken meat production, which didn't require approval and registration under the Health Act 1911. There is no overall Planning Use Approval, however chicken farming is a permitted use and building licences have been issued in the past for chicken sheds on the property.

 

The Applicant purchased the property in March 2009 and since that time has modified the infrastructure on site to convert the property from chicken meat production (Broiler Farming) to include caged egg production. This use requires approval and registration as an Offensive Trade under the Health Act 1911 and the City's Health Local Law 1999.

 

Following receipt of an odour complaint in early 2012, Administration discovered that the property had been converted to egg production and instructed the Applicant of the need to apply for approval to establish an offensive trade. An Application was subsequently received on 6 March 2012, but has been held in abeyance while determining if planning approvals for the site were required.

 

At the time of writing this report the Applicant had not lodged an Application to Commence Development Approval. However, because an Application to Establish an Offensive Trade and an Application to Commence Development Approval are covered by separate legislation and it is not a statutory requirement for planning approval to be granted prior to the approval of an Application to Establish an Offensive Trade, the lack of planning approval should not necessarily hold up the other.

 

 

Health Services has assessed the application with the Environmental Code of Practice for Poultry Farms and Code of Practice for Poultry as these standards were produced by State Government departments in association with the chicken industry and are deemed to be best practice. If approved by Council, the Registration will be conditioned in accordance with these Codes and other applicable legislation such as the Fly Eradication Regulations.

 

As this is an existing facility and was constructed prior to the implementation of the Codes, not all areas are fully compliant.  A review of the application and property indicates that the following areas do not comply with the code in respect to separation distances:

 

Code of Practice Guidelines	Existing Facility
Poultry sheds should be at least 100 metres from the boundary of the poultry farm	Poultry sheds are located approximately 20m from the property's side boundaries
Poultry farms should be sited on 20 hectares if the area is square, however 40 hectares is recommended to allow for expansion and incorporate a building envelope with the required buffers	The facility is located on an 8.1ha property

 

It should also be noted that the Department of Conservation and Environment's "Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors" suggests a separation between an intensive poultry farm and a sensitive land use of 300 - 1000m depending on size.  The closest residence is situated approximately 180m to the East of the nearest chicken shed.  This may result in noise/odour complaints from existing residences and any future dwellings that may be constructed on neighbouring properties. It should be noted that since the odour complaint in early 2012, no further complaints have been received due to improved manure management. 

 

The Applicant advises that there are approximately 150,000 chickens on site used for egg production and around 15 tonnes of manure is produced each week.  The property contains a total of eight chicken sheds, five traditional naturally ventilated sheds and three fan forced tunnel ventilated sheds 

Consultation

Pursuant to the offensive trade application requirements, the proponent placed a Public Notice in the West Australian on 5 March 2012 and the Wanneroo/Joondalup Times on 13 March 2012.  There were no submissions received during the 30 day comment period.  

Comment

The City's Administration (Health Services) acknowledges that the existing setbacks and construction of the poultry sheds on this property do not meet the Environmental Code of Practice for Poultry Farms (2004) as indicated in the table above because these sheds were built and in operation during the early 1980's before these Codes were established. Some shed extensions have occurred while the Code was in operation as allowed in the policy below.

 

The Western Australian Planning Commission's Statement of Planning Policy No. 4.3 – Poultry Farms Policy states the following in relation to existing sheds:

 

5.2 Expansion of Existing Poultry Farms

5.2.1       Applications to expand existing poultry farms located in a rural zone which is not identified for short or medium-term urban or rural-residential development may be permitted. This applies particularly to egg production farms where there is no increase in bird-stock numbers. (Proposed poultry farm expansions on water resource management areas are required to comply with the Water and Rivers Commission Draft Guidelines for Poultry Sheds.

5.2.2       New sheds on an existing poultry farm should be no closer than 100 metres from the poultry farm boundary (unless the nearby land does not contain an existing or proposed use sensitive to poultry farm operations, in which case the Commission could require a lesser setback distance). In cases where there is an existing shed located closer than 100 metres from a poultry farm boundary a new shed should generally be located no closer than the existing shed from that boundary. In making its determination the Commission will consider the Environmental Code of Practice: Poultry Industry (Department of Environment Protection).

 

This Policy indicates that some of the existing sheds on the property may possibly be extended.

 

The Applicant has advised that the facility houses 150,000 chickens and it was proposed that if approved, the Registration be limited to this number due to the facility not meeting current setback requirements. The sheds however are not at full capacity and the Applicant is still progressing towards housing additional chickens.

 

In addition to the above, the facility also contains a mixture of non-caged and caged chickens. The non-caged chickens do not meet the definition of an offensive trade and therefore the Application to Establish an Offensive Trade only relates to the caged egg production area of the facility and it is not possible to put a limit on the total number of chickens under this application, as it relates to both caged and non caged birds on the property.

 

The Code of Practice for Poultry (in WA) stipulates the stocking densities allowed in the chicken sheds. The total number of chickens that can be reared on the property therefore, is determined by the number of sheds currently on the site and the proposed Registration Conditions reflect this.

 

The Code of Practice for Poultry (in WA) stipulates the stocking densities for caged and non-caged systems. For the age and type of cages used on the property the minimum cage floor area per bird is 450cm² and for non-caged adult chickens the bird density is 30kg/m². Pullets (young Chickens) are also reared on the property from hatchlings to laying and the minimum stocking rate for these chickens is also is 30kg/m². These chickens are smaller however and therefore more chickens can be kept in the same area. Of the eight sheds, two are used for rearing Pullets, one is used for caged eggs, one for packing and four for non-caged chickens. The packing shed which was previously a chicken shed, is currently being changed over to stock additional chickens.

 

For information purposes, the previous owner of the property reared meat chickens and under the Code, 247,716 chickens were permitted in the sheds.

 

Under the Code, if all the sheds were used for non-caged layers, a total of 205,385 chickens would be permitted on the property and if all the sheds were used for caged chickens, a total of 266,000 chickens would be permitted on the property. The number of chickens currently on the property is around 150,000.

 

The predominant land use in this area of Carabooda remains rural with rural activities surrounding these poultry sheds.

 

The Heath Act requires all offensive trades including caged bird systems to be registered on an annual basis and the fees are set by the Department of Health, annually.

 

In granting consent under section 187 of the Health Act 1911, the City may impose reasonable conditions of consent in order to prevent or diminish the offensiveness of the trade and to safeguard public health including, without limitation, conditions relating to:

 

a)      site requirements;

b)      building fitout specifications;

c)      food hygiene, storage and preparation;

d)      ventilation;

e)      effluvia, vapours and gases;

f)       rodent and vermin control;

g)      sanitary convenience;

h)      effluent and rubbish disposal.

 

Should a facility registered as an Offensive Trade not comply with its conditions of approval, the City has the option of taking legal action or not renewing the registration.  The facility would be in breach of the City's Local Law should it continue to operate while un-registered.

 

The City has received numerous enquiries relating to how the facility will be managed including an inquiry from a Councillor on behalf of constituents. These enquiries related to stocking densities and what approvals were required to operate. Stocking densities are controlled in the relevant codes of practice and are covered by the proposed conditions of approval, while welfare issues come under the jurisdiction of the RSPCA. Therefore these enquiries are not necessarily relevant to the approval process. 

 

Administration is supportive of recommending a Certificate of Registration.

Statutory Compliance

Health Act 1911

 

187.   Consent necessary for establishing offensive trade

      (1)     After the commencement of this Act, it shall not be lawful to establish any offensive trade, unless with the consent, in writing, of the local government.

 

191.   Offensive trades to be registered

      (1)     Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) no person shall carry on an offensive trade within a district unless the house or premises in or upon which such trade is carried on, whether established before or after the commencement of this Act, is registered annually at the office of the local government during the first week in July in every year.

 

192.   Local government may refuse to register or to renew registration

      (1)     The local government may refuse to register or to renew the registration of any house or premises used for an offensive trade unless constructed and maintained in accordance with its local laws.

 

 

City of Wanneroo Health Local Law 1999

 

8.4 Registration of premises

 

An application for the registration of premises pursuant to section 191 of the Act shall be:

               (a) submitted on the approved form;

               (b) accompanied by the fee prescribed in the Offensive Trade (Fees) Regulations

                   1976; and

               (c) lodged with the local government.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “3     Economic

3.2    Support business and initiatives”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

A statutory fee of $285 is listed in the City's Fees and Charges and is payable annually.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the Application to Establish an Offensive Trade – Egg Production at Lot 15 (275) Carabooda Road Carabooda; and

 

2.       ISSUES a Certificate of Registration renewable each financial year subject to the payment of the prescribed registration fee as required by the City's Health Local Law 1999, and compliance with the following conditions:

 

a)      Facility to comply with the Environmental Code of Practice for Poultry Farms and the Code of Practice For Poultry except in respect to the existing separation distances;

 

b)      Water systems for cooling and drinking are to be maintained in good working order at all times and not wet poultry litter;

 

c)      Rain and stormwater is to be prevented from entering the chicken sheds;

 

d)      All amenity complaints are to be reported to the City as soon as they are received;

 

e)      Rodent bait stations to be provided to the facility at a frequency appropriate to control rodents and re-baited on a regular basis;

 

f)       Manure is to be removed from chicken sheds on a regular basis and removed from the property.  In caged systems, manure should be removed from belt-cleaned sheds on a weekly basis and in conventional caged systems two or three times per year;

 

g)      Where litter/manure is required to be stored temporarily, it is to be contained in a weather-proof compound on a hard-stand area until it can be removed from the farm. Should stored manure become a nuisance to neighbouring properties it is to be removed as directed by the City;

 

h)      Manure is to be removed to a facility licensed to accept raw poultry manure or other sites allowed under the Health (Poultry Manure) Regulations 2001;

 

i)       Wash-down water to be directed to a sump or depression and managed in a way that prevents the production of odours and breeding of flies;

 

j)       Dead birds are to be removed from the property on a regular basis to an approved licensed facility.  If birds are not picked up on a daily basis they are to be stored in a coolroom until removed from site;

 

k)      Broken or unwanted eggs are to be stored in bins able to be sealed against flies and vermin and removed from site to an approved licensed facility before becoming offensive;

 

l)        The owner/operator is to ensure that the presence of flies in and around the facility is minimised through the use of fly eradication methods. Appropriate equipment and chemicals shall be located at the facility at all times in order to take such action;

 

m)     Facility is to be managed in such a way so as to minimise dust generation and contain odours within the lot boundaries and away from odour sensitive premises;

 

n)      Property is to be kept clean and tidy and all rubbish is to be removed from the property to a licensed facility; 

o)      Facility must comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; and

p)      The number of chickens capable of being housed in the current chicken sheds on the property is limited to the stocking densities stipulated in the Code of Practice for Poultry.

Footnote

 

This is an offensive trade approval only. Responsibility to comply with planning, building and engineering requirements remains with the Applicant. All other applications for approval or licences shall be submitted as required to the City.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.

Aerial View of Carabooda Egg Farm

13/65187

  

 

	Disclaimer or other text here		Thursday, 9 May 2013
			Scale = 1:3197

 

 

Other Matters

File Ref:                                              112V03 – 13/62746

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil         

 

Issue

To consider the appointment of a Deputy Delegate to the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) for its Special Council Meeting to be held on 20 June 2013, due to the absence of Delegate Cr Laura Gray.

 

Background

At the special meeting of Council held on 26 October 2011 Council appointed Cr Gray and
Cr Newton as delegates for the City of Wanneroo to the MRC. 

 

It should be noted that the MRC does not recognise Deputies under its constitution agreement.  Therefore if a delegate is unable to attend a meeting and wishes to have another elected member attend in their place, it is necessary for the matter to be presented to Council in order for a deputy delegate to be appointed.

Detail

Cr Gray has advised that she will not be able to attend the scheduled MRC Special Council meeting to be held on 20 June 2013 at the Town of Victoria Park.  As a result, this report seeks Council to appoint a delegate to the MRC for the meeting held on Thursday 20 June 2013 only, after which Cr Gray will resume her position as a City of Wanneroo delegate to the MRC.

 

It is important that the City of Wanneroo has full representation at this meeting given that the MRC is adopting its 2013/2014 budget and its Community and Corporate Plan at this meeting.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

Nil

Statutory Compliance

Under the Local Government Act 1995:

Part 5 – Administration

Division 2 – Council meetings, committees and their meetings and electors’ meetings Section 5.10

 

“(1) A committee is to have as its members-

(a)  Persons appointed* by the local government to be members of the committee…”

*Absolute Majority required.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.5    Reduce the City’s carbon footprint”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council by ABSOLUTE MAJORITY appoint Cr ______________ as a delegate for the City of Wanneroo to the Mindarie Regional Council for the Mindarie Regional Special Council meeting to be held on Thursday 20 June 2013, after which Cr Gray will resume her role as a City of Wanneroo delegate.

 

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   

 

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Maintenance

File Ref:                                              8697 – 13/43519

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider petition, PT02-03/13, requesting the removal of a large River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) from the Regent Drive verge adjacent to 9 Towerhill Road, Alexander Heights.

 

Background

Council, at its meeting on 5 March 2013, received a petition PT02-03/13, signed by 10 residents of Towerhill Road and Regent Drive, seeking the removal of a River Red Gum verge tree.  The petition reads:

 

"WE, the undersigned, all being residents of the City of Wanneroo do formally request Council's consideration on removal of the tree located at: the corner of Towerhill Road and Regent Drive in Alexander Heights (outside number 9 Towerhill Road)."

 

The City has been working with the resident of 9 Towerhill Road in managing the verge tree since 2005.  At the request of the resident the City has carried out pruning for property line clearance on three occasions, repaired paving and installed a root barrier, and on the last occasion in July 2012, carried out an additional property line clearance.  On this occasion, the resident requested, in June 2012, for the tree be removed due to ongoing issues with leaf litter in roof gutters and valleys.  At that time Administration advised that the City does not remove trees due to leaf litter.

Detail

The City has acted promptly in responding to requests for tree pruning in 2005, 2008 and 2009.  On all occasions the resident cited leaf litter in the house gutters as the reason for requesting pruning. In January 2012, Administration received a request to investigate and repair paving damage due to verge tree roots.  The resident clearly stated at that time, that the tree should not be pruned or removed.  The City did carry out paving repairs and installed a root barrier. However, in June 2012 Administration received a request from the resident to remove the tree due to damaged roof gutters from leaf litter.

 

Administration subsequently met with the resident on site to discuss the issues and the resident presented a damage report from a roofing company in support of the request to remove the tree.  The resident was unable to provide information about the regularity of roof gutter cleaning being undertaken at the property.  In response, the City advised that it was unable to remove the tree based on leaf litter and offered to carry out another property line clearance, which the resident accepted. These works were undertaken in July 2012.

 

Following the receipt of the petition, Administration engaged an arboricultural consultant to prepare a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment, including a report on the health of the tree, its structure and an indication of the amenity value of the tree.

The arboricultural consultant's report was received by the City on 11 March 2013, with a copy of this report placed in the Elected Members Reading Room for reference. The report provided the following advice and recommendations:

 

"......that this mature Eucalyptus camaldulensis var camaldulensis was found to be in good health and displaying good structural condition, and in conjunction with the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment (QTRA) outcome of 1/600,000 there is no sound arboricultural justification to remove the tree or implement limb reduction pruning at this time."

 

Furthermore, the Helliwell tree valuation for the amenity value of the tree placed its value at $21,717.72.  The arboricultural consultant recommended that the City monitor the tree annually to ensure the level of risk remains acceptable.

Consultation

Liaison over a period of time with the resident of the property located immediately adjacent to the tree has been undertaken, with an arboricultural consultant subsequently engaged to investigate and provide a report on the tree.

Comment

The City responded to the petition by engaging an arboricultural consultant to investigate and prepare a report with recommendations. The report advised that the tree is structurally sound and noted that damage to persons or property is considered to be very low risk.  The tree has been assessed to have considerable amenity value.

It is accepted practice across local governments nationally that trees on public land not be removed due to leaf litter, whether this impacts on public or private property  As demonstrated, the City can and does provide assistance in reducing leaf litter within private property by carrying out tree pruning adjacent to the property boundary.

 

The past 12 months have been particularly difficult with regard to leaf litter, especially from Eucalyptus trees.  Over the past six years Perth has recorded its three driest years on record.  A Eucalyptus tree's response to dry periods is to shed leaves to conserve water.  It is also noted that whether the tree is located on public land or within private property, leaf drop in various volumes will occur predominately during the summer months as a natural response to drying conditions at the time.

 

It is commonly accepted property maintenance practice to clean out roof gutters twice per year – just before summer and again just before winter.  The resident has not provided any evidence to clarify whether cleaning of roof gutters has occurred and given this advice it is considered quite likely that leaf litter has been allowed to build up over a longer period of time and as consequence, the prime cause of the damage now claimed.

 

There are many trees located within close proximity to this property within both public and private property and that depending on the wind direction, leaf drop from these trees will have varying degrees of impact on surrounding properties.

 

In summary, Administration recommends that the petition is not supported.  However, it is noted that should Council support the request made, then this would set a significant precedent in relation to any future requests to remove trees on public property (ie: trees located on the road verge and parks) due to leaf drop into private property.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment”

 

1.1.1  Improve local biodiversity protection"

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost of the aboricultural consultant's report of $662 has been met from the Parks Maintenance Operating Budget allocations.

 

The estimated cost to remove the tree on the Regent Drive verge adjacent to 9 Towerhill Road, Alexander Heights, is in the order of $3,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT PT02-03/13 for the removal of a River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) located on the Regent Drive verge adjacent to 9 Towerhill Road, Alexander Heights;

 

2.       NOTES that Administration will undertake annual monitoring of the River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) located on the Regent Drive verge adjacent to 9 Towerhill Road, Alexander Heights, and will at the request of the resident carry out ongoing property line clearance pruning; and

 

3.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council's decision.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Infrastructure Projects

File Ref:                                              6445 – 13/64748

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider additional State Black Spot grant funding and associated amendments to the approved 2012/2013 Capital Works Program.

 

Background

The City was granted a total of $366,667 in State Black Spot funding for the Caporn Street/Franklin Road intersection spread over the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years to construct an intersection median on Caporn Street and a left turn auxiliary lane on Franklin Road. The balance of the project budget of $183,333 was sourced from Municipal funds giving an overall project budget of $550,000 (PR-2233).

 

This project has experienced some delays in part due to the need to acquire land on the south-west corner of the intersection, but primarily due to the length of time taken for Western Power to provide a detailed design and quotation to relocate/underground its existing overhead power infrastructure at the intersection and install new street lights.

Detail

In addressing the project cost and given this project has had State Black Spot funding approval of $550,000 allocated since 2011/2012. It is noted that costs have increased along with the addition of further costs over and above that originally allowed for relating to the relocation/undergrounding of Western Power services.

 

In review of the project estimate it is advised that the revised overall estimate is $640,000, with the extra $90,000 over and above the funding approval of $550,000 already allocated covering increases to standard construction rates since 2011/2012 and a significant increase in the budget allocation that was originally allowed for the Western Power service relocation/undergrounding works needing to be undertaken to accommodate road works proposed.

 

The $90,000 increase therefore impacts funding on the basis of two thirds ($60,000) from State Government and one third ($30,000) City of Wanneroo funding.  Approval for an additional $60,000 in State Black Spot funding has been granted through Main Roads WA.

 

The following action/works have been completed to date:

·        Detailed design plans and estimate completed.

·        Land has been acquired at the City of Wanneroo's cost at the intersection, with fencing installed on the new property boundary line to accommodate the road widening.

·        A Detailed Design Road Safety Audit has been completed.

·        A large partially above ground Water Corporation manhole that provides access to the 1,200mm and 915mm diameter steel water mains that was identified in the Road Safety Audit as a risk to motorists at the intersection has been lowered in preparation for the intersection upgrade.

·        Western Power, after a process taking nearly 12 months, has provided a detailed design cost to relocate/underground its existing plant and equipment and install new street lights at the intersection to accommodate the upgrade. The balance payable for these Western Power works was $343,784 with payment required within 30 days of issue of the quotation. Given this time constraint and to ensure that the Western Power works are scheduled for construction, Administration has issued the works order and works are now in progress on site.

This Black Spot project is critical to the efficient operation of the City's road network and needs to be completed as soon as practically possible given traffic volumes have increased significantly through this intersection following construction of Hartman Drive from Gnangara Road to Hepburn Avenue in the south, the opening of Ocean Reef Road and upgrade works to Pinjar Road to the north.  Once the new realigned dual carriageway section of Lenore Road links into Ocean Reef Road and Hartman Drive as a signalised four-way intersection, it is envisaged that traffic volumes will again increase significantly.

Consultation

Nil

Statutory Compliance

This budget variation is in compliance with Part 6 – Financial Management of Local Government Act and Part 2 – General Financial Management of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Project No PR-2233 – Caporn Street/Franklin Road State Black Spot project has an approved budget of $550,000.  Following receipt of Western Power's quotation of $343,784 and overall review of the project budget a shortfall in funding of $90,000 was identified.  Main Roads WA has approved an additional two thirds ($60,000) from State Government, with the remaining one third ($30,000) to be provided by the City and can be accommodated by reallocating unexpended funds from other projects as outlined below:

 

·        PR-2044 Wesco Road, Nowergup – Reconstruction of road pavement. Project completed with savings of $17,532

·        PR-2373 Lagoon Drive and Brazier Road, Yanchep - Project design and cost estimate completed with predicted savings in excess of the additional $12,468 required.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS from Main Roads WA an additional $60,000 in State Black Spot funding to undertake the upgrade works at the intersection of Caporn Street and Franklin Road (PR-2233); and

2.       NOTES the following budget variation to fund the upgrade works at the intersection of Caporn Street and Franklin Road (PR-2233).

INCOME

Cost Code	Overall Budget	Additional Budget	Revised Overall Budget
W138690-8942-501	$366,667	$60,000	$426,667

EXPENDITURE

Project No	From	To	Description
PR-2044	$17,532		Wesco Road
PR-2373	$12,468		Lagoon Drive/Brazier Road
PR-2233		$30,000	Caporn Street &  Franklin Road (State Black Spot Project)

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil  

 

Tenders

File Ref:                                              6589 – 13/65590

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider Tender No 01305 for the Supply and Installation of Lighting for Baseball Fields and Footpaths adjacent to Hepburn Avenue and Hartman Drive at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Redevelopment (Stage 6A).

 

Background

Stage 6A works at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex involve the installation of new lighting for playing fields and footpaths, infield irrigation and the realignment of the baseball/softball fields.  The latter includes the supply of new turf, soft and hard landscaping, and the upgrading of baseball/softball fencing. 

Upgrade of the existing path network and provision of new connections within the general vicinity of the baseball/softball fields is also included and will go near to finalising the recreational pathway network within and around the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex.

City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2793-101-0 shows the general layout and extent of works – refer Attachment 1.

As part of Stage 6A works provision of floodlighting to the two pitches/fields is required, ie: one pitch/field allocated to baseball and the other to softball.  The tender for the supply and installation of the floodlighting and associated cabling, etc., was progressed on the basis of illumination being provided at 250lux for the pitch area and 150lux for the field area.  This scope of work was developed in consultation with the two clubs that utilise this facility, namely the Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club (Baseball Club) and the Vikings Softball Club; during the development phase of the design in November 2012 and prior to preparation of tender documentation.

Detail

Tender No. 01305 was advertised on Saturday 26 January 2013 and closed in the City's offices at 3pm on Tuesday, 26 February 2013.

Essential details of the proposed contract are outlined below:

Contract Type	Lump Sum
Contract Duration	10 weeks + 1 year Defects Liability Period
Commencement Date	April 2013
Expiry Date	August 2013
Extension Permitted	No
Rise And Fall Included	Fixed price/No extension.

 

Tender submissions were received from the following companies:

 

·        Future Power WA Pty Ltd

·        Gillmore Electrical Services Pty Ltd

·        Hender Lee Electrical & Instrumentation Contractors Pty Ltd

·        Nilsen WA Pty Ltd

·        SMB Electrical Services

·        Stiles Electrical   

 

Following completion of the tender evaluation, Baseball WA made contact with Administration about an upgrade in lighting standard, with a meeting subsequently held on 12 March 2013.  At this meeting Baseball WA sought an increase in illumination levels of the floodlighting as proposed and was advised that the City's level of provision would remain at the proposed 250/150lux.  Further, Administration advised that costs associated with increased illumination above the City's level of provision would be need to be funded in full by the Baseball Club and that any change in specification at this point in time would impact on the project timeframe.  The advice provided at the meeting reflected previous advice provided to Baseball WA on the 20 November 2012, advising that the City's level of provision would remain at the 250/150lux illumination level, consistent with AS2560, that is; club match or training for small ball sports and that any costs associated with an upgrade in illumination levels would need to be borne by the benefiting clubs.  Baseball WA was also informed that electrical design and tender documentation was nearing completion at that time.

 

Administration subsequently met with representatives of the Baseball Club on 22 March 2013 to discuss the way forward in relation to floodlighting installation.  This meeting was arranged by Administration as a consequence of correspondence received from Baseball WA dated 16 March 2013 (Attachment 2) where it was requested that the City reconsider the specification of the proposed floodlighting installation for the baseball pitch/field only, with an increase in illumination levels from the 250/150lux floodlighting facility proposed to either a 700/500lux or 1000/700lux facility.  This would then bring the baseball pitch/field up to Minor League A and Rookie and Minor League AA and AAA standards as per USA Major League Baseball guidelines.

 

It is noted that the lighting illumination levels for the softball pitch/field will remain at the proposed levels of 250/150lux.

 

In relation to the cost implications resulting from the proposed increase in lighting levels for the baseball pitch/field, the Baseball Club has been advised, via the correspondence from Administration dated 11 April 2013, that the estimated cost difference for the full implementation of the proposed increased illumination levels is approximately $197,000, with this based on a 750/500lux configuration as per AS2560 for small ball sports (ie: an increase of 50lux for the high illumination level over and above that promoted in the USA guidelines as referred to by Baseball WA).  The estimated cost increase for the "future proofing" of the installation to allow it to accommodate an increase in illumination levels at a future point in time is approximately $95,255.  A full cost estimate that reflects both options was attached to the correspondence in support of this advice.  Furthermore, the Baseball Club was also advised that an Electrical Consultant would need to be engaged by Administration to review the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure to accommodate the increased lighting levels requested for the baseball pitch/field.  It was noted that the costs over and above the 250/150lux illumination standard supported by Administration, along with the costs of the Electrical Consultant undertaking the power supply review and costs that may arise for any upgrading work that may need to be undertaken would need to be funded in full by the Baseball Club.

 

Future operating and maintenance costs in support of a 750/500lux facility for the baseball pitch/field is expected to incur an additional 85% in cost over and above that expected for a 250/150lux facility – this additional costs would be recovered from the user(s) of the facility as per usual protocol followed for such facilities.

 

As a consequence to the above, the Baseball Club has been requested to provide formal advice in relation to its intentions whilst Administration prepared its Request For Quotation to undertake the investigations for review of the existing power supply and infrastructure capacity required to meet the requested increase in illumination levels. It is noted at this time that the balance of works associated with Stage 6A will continue where it is practical to do so.  Furthermore, timeframe in relation to the delivery of the project is not able to be provided at this time until the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure is completed.  Once this direction is determined, a new design/installation implementation program would only then be able to be developed by Administration.

Consultation

Administration has been involved in extensive consultation with the Baseball and Softball Clubs along with Baseball WA both in the development phase of the design (ie: during the last quarter of  2012) and subsequent to tender closing.

Comment

As to the current position in relation to the tender process, it is envisaged that the floodlighting project will need to be re-tendered based on one of the following scenarios:

1.       Full installation of a 750/500lux configuration for the baseball pitch/field and 250/150lux configuration for the softball pitch/field;

2.       "Future Proofing" for the baseball pitch/field installation to allow for the future upgrade to the proposed 750/500lux illumination level requested and installation of the 250/150lux configuration for the softball pitch/field;

3.       Installation of the existing 250/150lux configuration for both the baseball and softball pitches/fields.

Formal advice in this regard was sought from the Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club in relation to its intentions. 

 

The upgrade from 250/150lux to 750/500lux illumination levels as requested by Baseball WA and supported by the Baseball Club required the appointment of a consultant to review the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure to accommodate the requested increase in lighting illumination levels and potentially, significant amendments to the existing technical specification and electrical design.  However, the floodlighting project will not be able to be progressed beyond preliminary investigations in relation to the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure until formal advice is received from the Club as to which option they wish to pursue. Additional community consultation may also need to be undertaken due to the significant increase of in the proposed illumination levels.

 

Subsequent to Administration's correspondence of 11 April 2013, Baseball WA wrote to Administration on 23 April 2013 advising of their desire to pursue the upgrade of the floodlighting to the 750/500 lux level. This advice however, was qualified on the basis of entering into a joint funding arrangement with the City of Wanneroo to fund the project difference. As a result, Administration wrote to Baseball WA on 2 May 2013 requesting an unqualified commitment, that being confirmation of funding of the project difference without a City of Wanneroo contribution.

 

At a follow up meeting held between Administration and Baseball WA on 9 May 2013, Baseball WA confirmed their commitment to the increased specification, however advised that they needed more time to develop a funding model as requested by Administration. Administration is currently assisting Baseball WA with this, focussing on the funding of the "future proofing" option identified above.

 

Due to significant changes to the scope of works that would be necessary for the requested upgrade, it is not possible to continue with Tender No 01305 and Administration recommends to Council that it does not accept any tender for Tender No.01305. This tender will be readvertised after a thorough review of the proposed implications of the requested change in illumination levels for the baseball pitch/field has been determined.

Statutory Compliance

All tender submissions for Tender No. 01305 are to be declined in accordance with the Local Government Act and Local Government (Function and General) Regulations 1996, Clause 18.(5).

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment”

 

2        Social

2.2     Improve the City’s identity and community wellbeing through arts, culture,     leisure and recreation."

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Currently the costs for the upgrade of the baseball pitch/field from illumination levels of 250/150lux to 750/500lux is in the order of $200k to $250k, with the overall financial implications of the decision not to award tender only able to be determined once the investigations in relation to the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure have been determined.

 

It is noted that costs directly linked to the request for increased illumination of the baseball pitch/field over and above the City's standard level of provision of 250/150lux is to be fully funded by the Baseball WA and the Baseball Club.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       DOES NOT ACCEPT any tender for Tender No. 01305 - Supply and Installation of Lighting of Baseball Fields and Footpaths at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Stage 6A and advises the tenderers accordingly;

 

2.       NOTES that Administration has received formal advice from Baseball WA and the Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club that they wish to advance the 750lux/500lux floodlighting configuration for the baseball pitch/field at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and accepts full responsibility for all costs over and above the standard 250lux/150lux floodlighting configuration by the City of Wanneroo inclusive of costs associated with:

 

a)      The appointment of an electrical consultant commissioned to review the impact (if any) on the capacity of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure to accommodate the additional power demand; and

 

b)      The cost for the upgrade of the existing power supply and associated infrastructure to accommodate the additional power demand as per recommendation(s) arising from the electrical consultant's review as per (a) above.

 

3.       RECALLS tenders for the supply and installation of lighting of baseball fields and footpaths at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex 6A based on an agreed illumination standard with Baseball WA and Wanneroo Giants Baseball Club.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	layout and extent of works	13/36657
2View.	Baseball WA letter	13/50550

  

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic Management

File Ref:                                              3120V02 – 12/147184

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To consider a review of the default open speed limit on the City’s rural roads in accordance with the ‘Safe Speed’ cornerstone of the State’s Towards Zero road safety strategy.

 

Background

Many of the City’s rural roads have historically carried low traffic volumes and consequently operate under the State default speed limit of 110km/h.  As the City continues to undergo significant land use change traffic volumes have increased in the developed areas and in some cases are impacting on adjoining rural areas.

 

In considering a review of the speed limit for these roads it is appropriate to do so in accordance with the ‘Safe Speeds’ cornerstone of the State’s Towards Zero road safety strategy.

 

The State Road Safety Strategy - Towards Zero is based upon a Safe Systems approach which aims to improve road safety through four cornerstones: Safe Road Use; Safe Roads and Roadsides; Safe Speeds; and Safe Vehicles.

 

The 'Safe Speed' cornerstone endeavours to:

 

·        ensure speed limits suit the purpose and nature of the road;

·        educates road users on safe travel speeds; and

·        develop effective speed enforcement strategies.

Detail

The City frequently receives complaints from rural residents of speeding.  Among those complaints are those from residents of special rural subdivisions who have the mistaken belief that special rural subdivisions are located within a ‘built-up area’ and therefore should operate under a speed limit of 50km/h.

 

Considering the amount of redevelopment and growth that has occurred throughout the City in the last 10 years, this report addresses speed limits on the City’s rural roads in general rather than attempting to answer each complaint individually.

 

In follow up, Administration undertook a desktop review of all rural roads within the City's jurisdiction to identify roads that have undergone significant functional change and may now require a speed limit review to enhance road safety for all road users.  The main criteria used is to identify roads that do not have a posted speed limit and operate under the State default speed limit of 110km/h but;

a)      Excluding roads defined as a ‘built-up area’ in the Road Traffic Code 2000

b)      Excluding roads that are less then 500m in length

c)      Excluding roads that do not have sufficient traffic to warrant speed zoning.

The definition of a ‘built-up area' is in two parts: the first relating to street lighting and the second to built structures.  Both require that street lighting and built structures extend for a minimum of 500m and be spaced at no more than 100m apart.  However, only the street lighting clause has the additional condition of “if the road is shorter than 500m, for the whole road”.  Consequently, street lighting is the primary determinant of a 'built-up area', not built structures.  Any street, regardless of its length and having streetlights no greater than 100m apart is a 'built-up area'.  However, regardless of the density of structures, if a road or road section is less than 500m in length it is not a 'built-up area'.

 

In an urban area it is relatively easy for a driver to understand that they are in a 'built-up area' and therefore the 50kph speed limit applies, with only higher order roads having a posted speed limit that allows for higher speeds.  In rural areas, it is harder for drivers to recognise areas that may meet the definition of a 'built-up area'.  Higher order roads are often speed zoned for safety reasons at speeds lower than the State default speed limit applying to lower order roads.  This at times causes confusion for road users and residents alike.

 

While the City could install additional street lighting to meet the requirements of a 'built-up area' it is doubtful that drivers would recognise the difference or modify their driving behaviour.  Main Roads WA's policy is not to speed sign roads that meet the definition of 'built-up area' and consequently upgrading the street lighting would result in little change in driver behaviour.  Alternatively, if the City seeks a speed review and if agreed to by Main Roads WA, it will likely result in a posted speed limit greater than 50km/h.

 

Main Roads WA’s Policy and Application Guidelines for Speed Zoning states that “the primary determination of the speed limit for a particular length of road shall be by road function”.

 

The results of the review identified numerous roads in the four main areas of East Wanneroo, Carabooda, Nowergup and Two Rocks that met the criteria as well as two additional roads outside of these areas.  It is considered that the roads identified in the four main areas are best to be speed zoned on an area basis to take into account the predictability and homogeneity of the road network.

 

The roads that meet the above criteria were further investigated to evaluate appropriate speeds for each of the roads.  The investigation included traffic counts and 85th percentile speed (the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling) and road function.   In some instances the five year crash history of the roads were also considered which are discussed later in the report.  A summary of the investigation for each road is detailed below.

 

 

NB: "vpd = "vehicles per day"

Consultation

No consultation was carried out in preparing this report.

Comment

It is not practical or necessary for all roads to have a posted speed limit.  The majority of roads within the State operate under one of the two default speed limits defined in the Road Traffic Code 2000: a state wide speed limit of 110km/h; and a 'built-up area' speed limit of 50km/h.

 

A 'built-up area' is defined as:

"the territory contiguous to and including any road —

a)      on which there is provision for street lighting at intervals of not over 100m for a distance of at least 500m or, if the road is shorter than 500m, for the whole road; or

b)      which is built up with structures devoted to business, industry or dwelling houses at intervals of less than 100m for a distance of 500m or more."

 

Regardless of any speed limit, drivers are always required to drive in accordance with the road environment prevailing.  Environmental factors such as rain, wind, time of day and angle of the sun combined with the vehicle design and class and the driver ability will all affect what is considered to be a safe speed, for that driver, in that vehicle, at that time.

 

When considered necessary, speed zoning can be accomplished by setting of a posted speed limit for a specific road or road section, or by setting an Area Speed Limit, with the latter applying to all the roads within the defined area.  The resultant speed limit(s) as posted then assists police in controlling driver behaviour and most importantly, informs drivers as to the appropriate speed at which they may travel.

 

The majority of roads under consideration are local distributor roads which have historically operated in a rural environment with low traffic volumes for which the default speed limit of 110km/h is appropriate.  As development has occurred and traffic volumes have increased the road environment has changed with the default open speed limit of 110km/h now inappropriate for the environment and traffic counts indicating a lower speed environment.

 

As a general rule, motorists will drive in accordance with the speed environment of the road and not necessarily in accordance with its posted speed.  The predictability and homogeneity of the road network should be considered in the speed zoning process.  Roads with a similar road environment should be speed zoned the same to provide a predictable environment for road users.  Roads within the City that have already been speed zoned that exhibit similar characteristics are therefore used as a model.

 

Consideration also needs to be given to the safety implications associated with speed zoning.  The majority of conflicts on the roads under consideration will be frontal collision between vehicles.  As there are few intersections along the road sections under investigation, there should be less side-on impacts.  The 'safe speed' cornerstone recognises that under a safe systems approach that 70km/h is considered as being the highest survivable speed for a front on collision and 50km/h for a right angle collision.  These safe system speeds also need to be considered in the speed zoning process.

East Wanneroo Area (Attachment 1)

This area is bounded by Ocean Reef Road to the south, Lenore Road to the west, Trichet Road to the north and Badgerup Road to the east.  Roads that currently operate under the default State speed limit of 110kph include Benmuni Road, Ashby Street, Jambanis Road, Nicholas Road, Bebich Road, Shillington Way and Stafford Way.  This area is being impacted upon by the urbanisation of Hocking and Pearsall.

 

Ashby Street, Jambanis Road, Bebich Drive, Shillington Way and Stafford Way are all equipped with streetlights located on power distribution poles.  However, in each case, there are locations where the streetlights are spaced at intervals exceeding 100m which means the streets do not meet the definition of a 'built-up area'.  The low traffic volumes on these roads would not justify a posted speed limit for each road. 

 

Administration considers that the setting of an Area Speed Limit would be appropriate in applying a speed limit to all roads in this area.

Carabooda Area (Attachment 2)

This area is bounded by Wanneroo Road to the west, Old Yanchep Road to the east and north and Karoborup Road to the south.  Roads that currently operate under the default State speed limit of 110kph include Carabooda Road, Emerald Drive, Jade Loop, Bailey Road and Safari Place.

 

Carabooda Road, Carabooda

Carabooda Road is 3.26 km in length and runs primarily east-west between Karoborup Road and Cutler Road providing direct access for adjoining properties.  It has been constructed as a two lane single carriageway with a 7m wide sealed road.  Carabooda Road terminates at Karoborup Road and Cutler Road with an uncontrolled T-intersection.

 

Traffic data for Carabooda Road west of Cutler Road in February 2012 records an Average Weekday Traffic (AWT) volume of 462vpd travelling at an 85^th percentile speed of 70km/h. The 5 year crash data, for the period between 2008 and 2012, records one fatality.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate and that a speed zone review of this road be undertaken with the view of preventing further fatalities.

 

Bailey Road and Safari Place, Carabooda

Benara Nurseries relocated one of its operations from Vincent Road, Sinagra, to Safari Place in 2008.  The nursery not only has a large number of staff but attracts a large number of customers.

 

Traffic data recorded for Bailey Road in June 2009 recorded an AWT volume of 687vpd with a 85^th percentile speed of 63km/h.  The 5 year crash data between 2008 and 2012 for Bailey Road recorded 1 Property Damage Only (PDO) crash.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate and the setting of an Area Speed Limit would be appropriate in applying a speed limit to all roads in this area.

 

Emerald Drive and Jade Loop, Carabooda

Emerald Drive and Jade Loop provide property access to a special rural subdivision.

 

Traffic data for January 2011 recorded an AWT of 212vpd with a 85^th percentile speed of 69km/h. 

 

The low traffic volumes on many of these roads would not justify a posted speed limit for each individual road.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate and the setting of an Area Speed Limit would be appropriate in applying a speed limit to all roads in this area.

Nowergup Area (Attachment 3)

This area is bounded by Wanneroo Road to the west, Old Yanchep Road to the north-east; and Wattle Avenue to the south.  Roads that currently operate under the default State speed limit of 110kph include Nowergup Road, Wesco Road and Gibbs Road.

 

The road network in the Nowergup area has undergone significant change in traffic demand. This is as a result of the development of a number of industries (mainly extractive industries) in the area servicing the growth experienced within the City.

 

Nowergup Road and Wesco Road, Nowergup

Nowergup Road runs east-west between Wanneroo Road and Gibbs Road, east of Gibbs Road the road becomes Wesco Road which terminates at Old Yanchep Road.  There are five limestone quarries operating off Wesco Road and consequently a high number of truck movements use Wesco Road and Nowergup Road.

 

Traffic data for Nowergup Road in August 2012 recorded an AWT volume of 676vpd, with 40% attributed to commercial vehicles and an 85^th percentile speed for the road of 86kph. Additionally, available traffic data for the eastern end of Nowergup Road, east of Gibbs Road, in August 2012 recorded an AWT volume of 645vpd, with 44% attributed to commercial vehicles and an 85^th percentile speed for the road of 88km/h.  Available traffic data for Wesco Road in November 2012 recorded an AWT volume of 159vpd, 22% attributed to commercial vehicles and an 85^th percentile speed for the road of 97km/h.

 

Crash data for Nowergup Road recorded one casualty and two PDO crashes over the 5-year period from 2008 to 2012.  Crash data for Wesco Road between Gibbs Road and Hopkins Road recorded two PDO crashes over the same period.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate and that a speed zone review of these roads be undertaken.

 

Gibbs Road, Nowergup

Gibbs Road runs north-south between Wanneroo Road and Karoborup Road providing direct access for adjoining properties.  Gibbs Road is constructed as a single carriageway, the majority of which has a 7m wide seal road.  It is 5km in length, with a number of crossovers located along its length with uncontrolled T-intersections located at the start and end of the road.  Gibbs Road is divided into two sections by Wesco Road.

 

Traffic data for the northern end of Gibbs Road recorded south of Karoborup Road in March 2011 records an AWT volume of 125vpd with an 85^th percentile speed of 82km/h. Additionally, traffic data for the southern end of Gibbs Road, east of Wanneroo Road, in March 2011 recorded an AWT volume of 468vpd with an 85^th percentile speed of 71km/h.

 

The 5 year crash data from 2008 to 2012 for Gibbs Road (north) recorded one PDO crash while crash data for Gibbs Road (south) over the same period records two PDO crashes.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate and that a speed zone review of this road be undertaken.

Two Rocks Area (Attachment 4)

'The Breakwater' special rural subdivision is located south of Breakwater Drive, Two Rocks. Residents of Oregano Drive have approached the City complaining of speeding under the belief that the subdivision is a ‘built-up area’.  The area is actually defined as "Special Rural".

 

A similar special rural subdivision on the northern side of Two Rocks Road is controlled by a 60km/h Area Speed Limit.  Administration considers that the same Area Speed Limit should apply to 'The Breakwater' subdivision.

Eglinton Area (Attachment 5)

Pipidinny Road, Eglinton

Pipidinny Road historically provided access from Wanneroo Road to Eglinton Beach.  With the extension of Marmion Avenue to Yanchep, Pipidinny Road now provides the only connection between Marmion Avenue and Wanneroo Road between Hester Avenue and Yanchep Beach Road.  In accordance with the Yanchep/Two Rocks District Structure Plan, parts of Pipidinny Road will be upgraded to a District Distributor Road and will ultimately be connected to the future extension of the Mitchell Freeway.

 

Traffic volumes on Pipidinny Road have risen from 122vpd prior to the Marmion Avenue extension to 928vpd with an 85^th percentile speed of 99 kph in November 2012.  The 5 year crash data between 2008 and 2012 for Pipidinny Road recorded four casualty crashes and four PDO crashes.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is now inappropriate considering its change in function, increase in vehicle crashes and traffic volumes and that a speed zone review of this road be undertaken.

 

Banksia Grove Area (Attachment 5)

Greenvale Place, Banksia Grove – (formerly Pinjar Road) (Attachment 6)

Greenvale Place is a boundary road between urban Banksia Grove and rural Mariginiup.  It runs north from the Tumbleweed Drive/Mornington Drive/Coogee Road intersection ending in a cul-de-sac to the north near the Joondalup Drive/Old Yanchep Road/Neaves Road intersection.

 

The Mariginiup side of Greenvale Place is dominated by large equestrian properties while the Banksia Grove side is occupied by large lot properties that back onto Greenvale Place without direct property access.

 

Greenvale Place was formerly Pinjar Road and operated with a posted speed limit of 80km/h. However, with the realignment of Pinjar Road to its current roundabout connection with Joondalup Drive, the posted speed limit of 80km/h was removed leaving it to operate under the State default speed limit of 110km/h.

 

The connecting roads from the urban part of Banksia Grove (Tumbleweed Drive, Mornington Drive, Haven Fairway and Malachite Fairway) all operate under the default ‘built-up area’ speed limit of 50km/h while the Mariginiup intersecting roads of Lee Steere Drive and Coogee Drive operate with a posted speed limit of 60km/h.

 

Available traffic data for September 2012 recorded an AWT of 309vpd with an 85^th percentile speed of 81km/h.  The 5 year crash data between 2008 and 2012 for Greenvale Place recorded three PDO crashes.

 

Administration considers that the State default speed limit of 110km/h is inappropriate considering the speed limits applied to the intersecting and surrounding roads and that a speed zone review of this road be undertaken.

 

In summary, based on the evaluation above, Administration recommends the following speed zones for the following roads:

 

Road	Suburb	Traffic Count (vpd)	85th Percentile Speed  (kph)	Administration Recommended Speed Limit
East Wanneroo Area
Jambanis Road	Wanneroo	1,639	87	60kph
Benmuni Road	Wanneroo	680	72	60kph
Ashby Road	Wanneroo	435	91	60kph
Nicholas Road	Hocking	331	76	60kph
Bebich Road	Wanneroo	437	77	60kph
Shillington Way	Wanneroo	106	64	60kph
Stafford Way	Wanneroo	No Data Available	No Data Available	60kph
Carabooda Area
Carabooda Rd	Carabooda	462 124	70 76	70kph
Bailey Road	Carabooda	1,111	60	60kph
Safari Place	Carabooda	687	63	60kph
Emerald Drive	Carabooda	212	69	60kph
Jade Loop	Carabooda	No Data Available	No Data Available	60kph
Nowergup Area
Nowergup Road	Nowergup	676	86	70kph
Wesco Road - (Gibbs Road to Hopkins Road)	Nowergup	645 159	88 97	90kph
Gibbs Road	Nowergup	468 203	71 73	70kph
Two Rocks Area
Oregano Drive	Two Rocks	No Data Available	No Data Available	60kph
Cinnamon Meander	Two Rocks	No Data Available	No Data Available	60kph
Caraway Loop	Two Rocks	No Data Available	No Data Available	60kph
Other Roads
Pipidinny Road	Eglinton	928 930	99 80	80kph
Greenvale Place	Banksia Grove	309	81	60kph

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       REQUESTS Administration to formalise a request in writing to Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of the following roads with the intent of setting the corresponding Administration promoted posted speed limit;

 

East Wanneroo Area

- Jambanis Road, Wanneroo                          60km/h

- Benmuni Road, Wanneroo                           60km/h

- Ashby Road, Wanneroo                                60km/h

- Nicholas Road, Hocking                               60km/h

- Bebich Road, Wanneroo                               60km/h

- Shillington Way, Wanneroo                          60km/h

- Stafford Way, Wanneroo                               60km/h

Carabooda Area

- Carabooda Road, Carabooda                       70km/h

- Bailey Road, Carabooda                               60km/h

- Safari Place, Carabooda                               60km/h

- Emerald Drive, Carabooda                           60km/h

- Jade Loop, Carabooda                                  60km/h

Nowergup Area

- Nowergup Road, Nowergup                         70km/h

- Wesco Road, Nowergup

  between Gibbs Road and Hopkins Road    90km/h

- Gibbs Road, Nowergup                                70km/h

Two Rocks Area

- Oregano Drive, Two Rocks                          60km/h

- Cinnamon Meander, Two Rocks                  60km/h

- Caraway Loop, Two Rocks                          60km/h

Other Roads

- Pipidinny Road, Eglington                            80km/h

- Greenvale Place, Banksia Grove                 60km/h

 

 

2.       In consideration of the Administration promoted posted speed limits SEEKS Main Roads WA's support for Area Speed Limits for the roads incorporated in the following areas:

- East Wanneroo Area

- Carabooda Area, with the exclusion of Carabooda Road

- Two Rocks Area

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	East Wanneroo Speed Map	13/69267
2View.	Carabooda Speed map	13/69263
3View.	Nowergup Speed Map	13/69269
4View.	Two Rocks Area	13/69257
5View.	Pipidinny Road Speed Map	13/69260
6View.	Greenvale Speed Map	13/69261

  

File Ref:                                              5597 – 13/55666

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider extending the existing parking prohibitions on Fernhill Avenue, Carramar, to include house numbers 28, 30 and 32.

 

Background

The City has received requests from the residents of 28, 30 and 32 Fernhill Avenue, Carramar, to extend the existing parking prohibition on the northern side of Fernhill Avenue to Staunton Park.

Detail

Fernhill Avenue is affected by the parking demand associated with Carramar Primary School.  In response to ratepayer complaints, Council, at its meeting of 14 March 2006, resolved to apply parking prohibition to Fernhill Avenue, Houghton Drive and Millendon Street (Council Report IN02‑03/06 refers).  Refer to Attachment 1 for location plan.

 

The existing parking prohibitions on Fernhill Avenue extend up to the common boundary of 32 and 34 Fernhill Avenue with signage designated as "No Stopping Road or Nature Strip, 7:30-9:00AM, 2:30-4:00PM School Days".  Staunton Park is located 3 properties north of the existing parking prohibition limit.  The residents of 28 Fernhill Avenue have complained several times that Carramar Primary School parents have been parking on the road and nature strip of Fernhill Avenue close to their driveways and obstructing sight distance for exiting vehicles.  As a consequence, the residents of 28, 30 and 32 Fernhill Avenue have requested the City to extend the existing parking prohibitions to Staunton Park which will include their properties.

Consultation

The proposed extension of parking prohibition will affect the residents of 28, 30 and 32 Fernhill Avenue only.  The residents of the three affected properties have agreed in writing to the proposed parking prohibition extension.

Comment

Administration supports the extension of the parking prohibitions on Fernhill Avenue to include the properties of 28, 30 and 32 Fernhill Avenue.  The recommended parking prohibitions are as shown on City of Wanneroo Drawing No 2113-1-2, refer Attachment 2.

Statutory Compliance

The installation of parking prohibition signage will allow the enforcement of Part 4 Clause 38 of the City’s Parking and Facilities Local Law 2003 (as amended).

 

 

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The cost estimate to implement this parking prohibition plan is $100 and is able to be funded from PR-2404 - Parking Scheme Signage and Line Marking Upgrade Project, for which a total of $30,000 has been approved in the 2012/2013 Capital Works Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       APPROVES the removal of the “NO STOPPING ROAD OR NATURE STRIP 7:30‑9AM and 2:30-4PM SCHOOL DAYS” (R5-36(L)) sign from the common property boundary of 32 and 34 Fernhill Avenue, Carramar, as shown on Drawing 2113-1-2 (Attachment 2 refers);

2.       APPROVES the installation of a “NO STOPPING ROAD OR NATURE STRIP 7:30‑9AM and 2:30-4PM SCHOOL DAYS” (R5-36(B)) sign at the common property boundary of 32 and 34 Fernhill Avenue, Carramar, as shown on Drawing 2113-1-2 (Attachment 2 refers);

3.       APPROVES the installation of a “NO STOPPING ROAD OR NATURE STRIP 7:30‑9AM and 2:30-4PM SCHOOL DAYS” (R5-36(L)) sign at the common property boundary of 28 Fernhill Avenue and Staunton Park, Carramar, as shown on Drawing 2113-1-2 (Attachment 2 refers); and

4.       ADVISES the occupier and owner of 28, 30 and 32 Fernhill Avenue of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Location map of Fernhill Avenue, Carramar	13/55660
2View.	Fernhill Avenue, Carramar parking prohibitions extension drwaing 2113-1-2	13/55630	Minuted

  

File Ref:                                              3125 – 13/57846

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the findings and recommendations of a Road Safety Audit (RSA) conducted into the T-intersection of Anchorage Drive, Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista, Mindarie.

 

Background

In response to resident safety concerns following a vehicle crash, which occurred in January 2013 at the intersection of Anchorage Drive, Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista where a vehicle crashed into the garage of No.2 Rosslare Promenade, the City agreed to conduct a Road Safety Audit into the intersection to identify any road safety issues.

 

A location map of the subject site is shown as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 for an aerial view of the intersection.

Detail

Anchorage Drive, Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade are classified as Local Distributor roads under the City's functional road hierarchy.  Anchorage Drive runs north-south with a 10m wide pavement within a 32m road reserve in the vicinity of the intersection.  Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade run east-west with a 7.5m wide pavement within a 20m road reserve in the vicinity of the intersection.

 

Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista form the priority through roads with Anchorage Drive being the terminating leg of the T-intersection.  Median islands are provided on all three approaches to the intersection.  To allow for left turning movements to/from Anchorage Drive, Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista have been widened out at the intersection with a tapered approach/exit.

 

Topographically, a westbound downhill gradient exists along Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade with a flatter plateau provided through the intersection.

 

Anchorage Drive has a posted speed limit of 60km/h while Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade operate under the default 'built up area' speed limit of 50km/h.

 

Traffic surveys for the three roads reveal the following information:

 

Anchorage Drive

Date of Count – 13 February 2012 to 21 February 2012

AWT = 2,640 vpd

85%ile Speed = 68 km/hr

20 Km/h pace = 50-70 km/hr

 

Rosslare Promenade

Date of Count – 15 June 2011 to 24 June 2011

AWT = 2,339 vpd

85%ile Speed = 49 km/hr

20 Km/h pace = 32-52 km/hr

 

Fairport Vista

Date of Count – 25 November 2008 to 2 December 2008

AWT = 1,049 vpd

85%ile Speed = 59 km/hr

20 Km/h pace = 42-62 km/hr

 

A description of the terms used in presentation of the data provided above are listed below:-

AWT - Average Weekday Traffic measured in vehicles per day

vpd - vehicles per day

85%ile Speed - The speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling

20km/h pace - The 20km/h speed range in which the majority of vehicles are travelling

 

Available crash data for the 5-year period in 2008-2012 recorded two crashes at the intersection of Anchorage Drive, Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista.  One crash involved a single vehicle, at night, in wet conditions, making a left turn from Fairport Vista into Anchorage Drive and recorded as resulting in property damage only, with no injuries to road users.  The other crash was a Right-Thru crash which required medical support for the injured road user.

 

Opus International Consultants (PCA) Pty Ltd was commissioned in March 2013 to undertake an independent Road Safety Audit (RSA) of the intersection.

 

A road safety audit is a formalised procedure that can be applied to all phases of a road project development or to an existing road system.  The auditor(s) must be independent of the designer so that the design is viewed with “fresh eyes”.  The purpose of the report is not to rate the design, but rather to address any road safety concerns.

 

In reviewing the safety aspects of a road, the reporting procedure is not intended as a re-design process but to outline potential or pre-existing road safety issues and establish a basis upon which a design could produce an acceptable solution to the safety problem.  The recommendations may indicate the nature or direction of a solution, rather than specifying the details of how to solve the problem.

 

The objectives of a road safety audit are:

·        To review the design and background information and form conclusions about the safety performance and accident potential of the road;

·        To evaluate the road in terms of interaction with its surrounds and nearby roads, and to visualise potential impediments and conflicts for road users; and

·        To report on the conclusions drawn and to make recommendations regarding aspects which involve unnecessary or unreasonable hazards.

 

Please note that Council considered a report on speed zoning and pedestrian crossing along Anchorage Drive (Item IN08-12/12 refers), at its meeting on 11 December 2012, and resolved as follows:

 

"1.     ENDORSES the use of traffic treatments and landscaping to create a lower speed environment on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie, from Ocean Falls Boulevard to Rosslare Promenade with the intent of encouraging greater than 85% percentile compliance with the current posted speed limit of 60km/h;"

Consultation

No consultation was carried out in relation to the preparation of this report.

 

Comment

Refer to Attachment 3 for the findings and recommendations of the Road Safety Audit are incorporated in the Corrective Action Report (CAR), with responses to each CAR identified provided by Administration.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety”

Policy Implications

The Road Safety Audit has been conducted in accordance with the City’s Road Safety Audit Policy.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the findings and recommendations of the Road Safety Audit for the intersection of Anchorage Drive, Rosslare Promenade and Fairport Vista, Mindarie;

 

2.       ENDORSES Administration's comments and proposed actions to the Road Safety Audit findings and recommendations as detailed in Attachment 3;

 

3.       NOTES that Council has already endorsed the use of traffic treatments and landscaping to create a lower speed environment on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie, from Ocean Falls Boulevard to Rosslare Promenade with the intent of encouraging greater than 85% percentile compliance with the current posted speed limit of 60km/h (Item IN08-12/12 refers); and

 

4.       ADVISES the resident of No.2 Rosslare Promenade of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Location Map of the intersection of Anchorage Drive, Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie	13/57828
2View.	Aerial View of the intersection of Anchorage Drive, Fairport Vista and Rosslare Promenade, Mindarie	13/57829
3View.	Findings and Recommendations of RSA	13/60893	Minuted

  

 

File Ref:                                              3000 – 13/58298

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider a Transport Noise Assessment for Lukin Drive, Merriwa, carried out to ascertain the level of works required to mitigate traffic noise affecting the RAAFA Estate, Merriwa.

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 7 February 2012 considered petition PT03-09/11 requesting a sound barrier wall along the Lukin Drive boundary of the RAAFA Merriwa Estate and resolved as follows (IN08-02/12 refers):

"That Council LISTS an amount of $100,000 for consideration in the draft 2012/2013 Capital Works Program to construct a sound barrier wall along the Lukin Drive property boundary of the RAAFA Estate."

Detail

Lukin Drive is classified as a 'District Distributor A' road in City’s Functional Road Hierarchy.  Its function is to collect and distribute traffic for Merriwa, Ridgewood and Butler.  It is a controlled access road with no direct access by abutting properties and runs east-west between Marmion Avenue and Redington Drive and ultimately may link to the proposed Mitchell Freeway extension. Refer to Attachment 1 for location plan.

 

Lukin Drive, between Marmion Avenue and Baltimore Parade, is constructed as a two lane single carriageway, with the remainder as a 2-lane divided carriageway.  Ultimately, dependant on traffic volumes in order to justify construction, it will become a 4-lane dual carriageway, with the second carriageway to be located to the south of the existing carriageway.

 

Since its construction Lukin Drive has operated under the default ‘built-up area’ speed limit of 50kph.  However Council, at its meeting on 21 August 2012, considered a report (Item No IN06-08/12) seeking a review of the speed limit on Lukin Drive and resolved as follows:

"That Council REQUESTS Main Roads WA to undertake a speed zone review of Lukin Drive, Butler along its entire length."

 

That review has resulted in Main Roads WA installing a posted speed limit of 60km/h on Lukin Drive.

 

In order to determine the design requirements of the sound wall, ie. length, height and material, Administration commissioned Herring Storer Acoustics to undertake a Transport Noise Assessment for Lukin Drive in accordance with State Planning Policy 5.4 "Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations In Land Use Planning" (SPP5.4).  It was developed in 2009 by the Western Australian Planning Commission and does not apply retrospectively to developments prior to 2009.  SPP5.4 provides guidance on measures to minimise the adverse impacts of transport noise on surrounding noise sensitive land uses.

 

While SPP5.4 is not applicable to Lukin Drive, it is the only guideline available that provides an objective set of measures for transport noise assessment. 

 

 

It seeks to reduce noise impacts without placing unreasonable restrictions on noise-sensitive development or adding unduly to the cost of transport infrastructure.  The objectives of the Policy are to:

·        Protect people from unreasonable levels of transport noise by establishing a standardised set of criteria to be used in the assessment of proposals;

·        Protect major transport corridors and freight operations from incompatible urban encroachment;

·        Encourage best practice design and construction standards for new development proposals and new or redevelopment transport infrastructure proposals;

·        Facilitate the development and operation of an efficient freight network; and

·        Facilitate the strategic co-location of freight handling facilities.

 

With regard to road traffic noise, SPP5.4 applies only to major roads, which are defined as one of the following:

·        State roads and national highways;

·        Urban primary distributors, as described on the metropolitan functional road hierarchy network;

·        Other urban roads carrying more than 20,000 vehicles per day;

·        Other rural primary distributors carrying more than 5,000 vehicles per day; and

·        Primary freight roads in the Perth metropolitan region, southwest region or statewide.

 

Lukin Drive has less than 5,000 vehicles per day and does not meet any of the definitions of a major road listed above.

 

Under SPP5.4 the outdoor noise criteria for a new development is given below:

 

Time of day	Noise Target	Noise Limit
Day (6 am–10 pm)	*LAeq(Day) = 55dB(A)	LAeq(Day) = 60dB(A)
Night (10 pm–6 am)	LAeq(Night) = 50dB(A)	LAeq(Night) = 55dB(A)

                   *LAeq = equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level [dB]

 

For a residential buildings, acceptable indoor noise levels are L_Aeq(Day) of 40 db(A) in living and working areas and L_Aeq(Night) of 35 db(A) in bedrooms.

 

For the Lukin Drive Transport Noise Assessment, one noise data logger was located external to Merriwa RAAFA Estate on Lukin Drive, near the back fence, and the other was located in the courtyard of a residence but external to the building.

 

Location	Measured Current Noise Levels 50km/hr		Future Noise Levels for 60km/hr Speed limit
	LAeq(Day)	LAeq(Night)	LAeq(Day)	LAeq(Night)
Residential Boundary (Outside)	46	41	47	42
Inside Residential Boundary (Court Yard)	42	35	43	36

 

A copy of Herring Storer Acoustic's Transport Noise Assessment Report, April 2013, is available in the Elected Members Reading Room.

 

Consultation

No consultation has been carried out prior to preparing this report.

Comment

The Transport Noise Assessment Report for Lukin Drive states the current external night noise level of 35db(A) meets the acceptable indoor noise level for a bedroom at night under SPP5.4 and concludes:

"Based on the future calculated noise levels for the increase in speed from 50km/hr to 60km/hr, noise received at these premises complies with the SPP5.4 “Noise Targets”.  Additionally, current lots which are backing onto Lukin Drive generally have a rear fence at a height of 1.8m which would be adequate for future traffic speed changes.

 

With the inclusion of the proposed speed changes, compliance is still achieved with the WAPC Planning Policy 5.4."

 

While the Transport Noise Assessment does not justify the installation of sound barrier wall on Lukin Drive, Administration acknowledges that there is strong tyre mark evidence of hooning at the intersection of Lukin Drive and Bradman Drive which is supported by traffic count data obtained on Lukin Drive, east of Marmion Avenue:

 

Traffic Data

AWT                    4859vpd

85%ile speed       67km/h

Max Speed                   125km/h

20km/h Pace       49--69km/h

% in Pace            76.4%

% of traffic driving between 50 Km/hr and 60 Km/hr – 40.3%

% of traffic driving between 60 Km/hr and 70 Km/hr – 35.7%

% of traffic driving between 70 Km/hr and 80 Km/hr – 7.1%

% of traffic driving over 80 Km/hr – 1.0%

 

Definitions:

AWT                    Average Weekday Traffic

vpd                       vehicles per day

85%ile speed       the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles are travelling.

20km/h Pace       the 20km/h speed range in which the majority of vehicles are travelling

% in Pace            percentage of total vehicles travelling within the 20km/h Pace range

 

Considering the outcome of the Transport Noise Assessment, Administration considers that the noise issues being experienced by residents of the Merriwa RAAFA Estate are best dealt with by traffic treatments at the intersection of Lukin Drive and Bradman Drive to control hooning rather than a sound barrier wall. Administration proposes that the Lukin Drive/Bradman Drive be channelised similar to the intersection at Lukin Drive/Baltimore Parade (Attachment 2 refers).

 

The proposed channelisation improvements can be accommodated within the existing pavement width and will also be of benefit in controlling school traffic attracted to the three adjacent schools.

 

 

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “4     Governance

4.4    Maintain long-term financial stability”

Policy Implications

The City has received a number of requests in the past 12 months for noise attenuation walls and it is considered timely that a draft Noise Attenuation Policy be prepared for consideration by Council.

Financial Implications

There are currently no funds allocated in the draft 10 Year Traffic Treatments Program for the proposed channelization improvements to the Lukin Drive/Bradman Drive intersection which is estimated to cost $100,000.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the findings and conclusion of the Herring Storer Acoustic's Transport Noise Assessment Report, April 2013;

2.       DOES NOT PROCEED with the construction of a sound barrier wall along the Lukin Drive property boundary of the RAAFA Estate in Merriwa;

3.       APPROVES the channelization improvements to the  Lukin Drive/ Bradman Drive intersection, Butler, similar to those already in existence at the intersection of Lukin Drive and Baltimore Parade, Merriwa (Attachment 2 refers);

4.       LISTS for consideration in the City of Wanneroo draft 10-Year Capital Works Program (Traffic Treatments) a sum of $100,000 for channelization improvements to the Lukin Drive/ Bradman Drive intersection, Butler;

5.       NOTES that a draft Noise Attenuation Policy will be prepared for consideration by Council by December 2013; and

6.       ADVISES management of the RAAFA Estate in Merriwa of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachments:

1View.	Lukin Drive, Merriwa - Location Map	11/128397
2View.	Aerial View of intersection of  Lukin Drive and Baltimore Parade, Merriwa	13/58292	Minuted