cover for web - Town of Cambridge · any other local authority in metropolitan Perth. Certainly...

Council MinutesCouncil Minutes27 27 AugustAugust 20022002

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\A Council Front.doc i

MEETING OF COUNCIL 27 AUGUST 2002

INDEX OF MINUTES 1. Declaration of Opening/Announcement of Visitors........................................................1 2. Record of Attendance/Apologies/Leave of Absence......................................................1 3. Questions from Elected Members of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given

(Without Discussion) .........................................................................................................1 4. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................2 5. Applications for Leave of Absence ..................................................................................9 6. Petitions/Deputations/Presentations ...............................................................................9 7. Confirmation of Minutes....................................................................................................9 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion....................................................... 9 9. Committee Reports............................................................................................................9 Technical Services Committee .........................................................................................9

TS02.69 Jubilee Crescent – Bus Route ....................................................................12 TS02.70 Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent – Traffic Management

Study...........................................................................................................23 TS02.71 Connolly Street – Traffic Calming ...............................................................35 TS02.72 Waste Removal Service – Policy Review ...................................................39 TS02.73 Perry Lakes Drive – Parkinq .......................................................................43 TS02.74 Railway Parade – Road Works...................................................................46 TS02.75 Howtree Place – Traffic Study ....................................................................51 TS02.76 Laneway Construction – Grantham Street (North of) Nanson Street

/Essex Street ..............................................................................................57 Corporate and Customer Services Committee ............................................................ 62

CCS02.92 Accounts for Payment.................................................................................64 CCS02.93 Investment Schedule ..................................................................................65 CCS02.94 Interim Annual Financial Statements ......................................................... 66 CCS02.95 Financial Statements Periodic Review ...................................................... 67 CCS02.96 Documents Sealed .................................................................................... 79 CCS02.97 Review of the Dog Act ............................................................................... 81 CCS02.98 Freedom of Information – Information Statement Update ......................... 92 CCS02.99 Alderbury Reserve Cricket Wicket Relocation ........................................... 95 CCS02.100 Garden Week – Infrastructure Requirements ............................................ 97 CCS02.101 Cambridge Scout Hall................................................................................ 101 CCS02.102 Plan of Principal Activities: 2002 – 2007.................................................... 108 CCS02.103 Revaluation of Non-Current Assets – Change in Accounting Policy ......... 111

COUNCIL 27 AUGUST 2002 ACTING MAYOR:.......................………………............

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\A Council Front.doc ii

Development and Environmental Services Committee.......................................... 118

DES02.96 Lot 16 (No. 14) Grasmere Avenue, City Beach – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling – Confirmation of Approval .......................................... 120

DES02.108 Lot 126 (No.8) Weelara Road, City Beach – Proposed Additions and Alterations....................................................................................... 121

DES02.109 Lot 401 (No. 15) Catesby Street, City Beach – Request for Retrospective Planning Approval for a Bedroom and Ensuite Addition.................................................................................................. 134

DES02.110 Lot 9 (No.434) Vincent Street West, West Leederville – Change of Use – Office/Warehouse to Light Industry (Birchalls Textile Dyers) ...... 137

DES02.111 Lot 5 (No. 52) Salvado Road, (Corner Harborne Street), Wembley – Mixed Residential (Four Grouped Dwellings) and Office (Medical Consultancy) Development.................................................................... 142

DES02.112 Lot 15 (No. 27) Fortview Road, Mount Claremont – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage................................................ 148

DES02.113 Lot 202 (No. 30) Bendigo Way, City Beach – Two Storey Residence.............................................................................................. 155

DES02.114 Lot 17 (No. 25) Skipton Way, City Beach – Proposed Two Storey Residence.............................................................................................. 161

DES02.115 Lot 648 (No. 43) Nanson Street, Wembley – Proposed Single Storey Dwelling...................................................................................... 164

DES02.116 Lot 11 (No. 35) Blencowe Street, West Leederville – Proposed Ancillary Accommodation and Single Garage ....................................... 171

DES02.117 Lot 1606 (No. 21) Callan Road, Floreat – Proposed Carport ................ 178 DES02.118 Lot 104 (No. 20) Caddy Avenue, West Leederville – Proposed

Patio....................................................................................................... 182 DES02.119 Lot 53 (No. 53) Woolwich Street, West Leederville – Proposed

Patio....................................................................................................... 184 DES02.120 Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 10 – Realignment of

Scheme Area Boundary – Wembley...................................................... 186 DES02.121 Proposed Pedestrian Accessway Closure – Portion of West

Leederville Primary School – Lot 0 on Plan 1514 Glen Street, West Leederville ............................................................................................. 190

DES02.122 Delegated Decisions and Notifications ................................................. 193 DES02.123 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority ....................... 195

10. Elected Members Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given .................. 197 11. Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies ................................. 197

12. Late Items .................................................................................................................... 197 12.1 Wembley Golf Complex – Pro Shop Lease ...................................................... 197 13. Confidential Items....................................................................................................... 200 14. Closure......................................................................................................................... 200

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\A Council Front.doc 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 27 AUGUST 2002. 1. PRAYER, DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS His Worship the Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Acting Chief

Executive Officer. The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm. 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Present:

Mayor Ross J Willcock JP Councillors: Graham Burkett Alan J Langer Corinne MacRae (from 6.08pm) Ken McAullay

Pauline O’Connor JP Hilary Pinerua

Kerry Smith Officers: Jason Buckley, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Ian Birch, Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services Neil Costello, Manager Policy and Administration

Apologies: Cr Marlene Anderton Leave of Absence: Nil

3. QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

Cr O’Connor submitted the following question: I refer to my notice of motion of 25 June 2002 – Stephenson Highway Reserve Review Removal of the Stephenson Highway Metropolitan Region Scheme Reservation through Bold Park and the Wembley Golf Complex. Has the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Hon Allanah MacTiernan MLA responded to the Town’s letter dated 9 July 2002? Response The Town received an acknowledgment of receipt of its letter from the Minister’s office on 17 July 2002. No further correspondence has been received.



4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mr Ranjan Ray, 46 Rosebery Street, Jolimont

Question 1 The Council has cited Henderson Oval as part of the 10% open space requirement for rezoning of Jersey Street development. How can it now justify converting part of the Oval as car park. Response The 10% open space requirement relates to the subdivision of the land east of Jersey Street, not the rezoning from ‘Commercial’ to ‘Residential’. This does not, of course, answer the question, however, it does illustrate some of the misunderstanding of the process that Council has followed. In response to the question itself, the car park will serve the recreational users of Henderson Park and is no different from the countless similar facilities located on all manner of Parks and Recreation spaces all over the city. The car park is to be located in an area of Henderson Park which has little use and does not require converting part of the Oval. In fact, the car park has been located where it is to ensure that all the recreational pursuits currently offered at Henderson Park can continue. If the implication in the letter is that Council is somehow reneging on its responsibilities for providing open space for the community, then it is particularly pertinent to make the following points:- • A quick look at a land use map for the Town of Cambridge will show the

extraordinary amount of green space within the Town. Indeed, the Town of Cambridge probably has more green space proportionate to its overall area than any other local authority in metropolitan Perth. Certainly this would be the case for the western suburbs.

• Soon after its establishment, the Town of Cambridge gifted to the community of Perth, 478 hectares of land for the formal establishment of Bold Park. It is particularly worth noting that a significant proportion of this land was zoned ‘Urban’. Further, the newly elected Council of the Town actually added areas to Bold Park over and above that which was originally put forward by the Commissioners for the Town.

• In the case of Lake Monger, Perry Lakes Reserve and the coast, Council expends significant funds each year in maintaining these areas, not only for its own residents but for the entire Perth community. The Town of Cambridge is very proud of having these facilities within its local authority boundaries and is investing considerable funds in improving these facilities for all those that use them.

• At a lower scale, Henderson Park is the traditional home of the Wembley Athletic Club, providing the opportunity for the community to follow their sporting pursuits (primarily, football, baseball and cricket). The new car park will provide a most convenient facility for these sports people and their supporters.

Question 2



Has the Council received approval from the Planning Commission for the construction of the car park in the Henderson Oval? Response The provision of this car park is actually a condition of subdivision approval imposed by the Planning Commission. Initial advice received by the Town was that this condition satisfied all needs for Planning Commission Approval. However, subsequent advice from the Commission indicated that a Development Application was required. This has been lodged with the Planning Commission. The Town has had no response to its application at this stage.

Question 3 When is the Council going to consult the local residents? Response It should be made clear that the Council has no requirement to undertake any consultation in constructing a car park on its reserves. Council is constantly developing and upgrading all of its reserves. This is part of our daily responsibilities. Consultation did take place with residents of Jolimont Terrace and in response to some of their concerns, alterations have been made to the car park design. In addition, of course, the planning for this car park was carried out in consultation with the users of Henderson Park, the Wembley Athletic Club. It should be noted, in relation to consultation, that the condition of subdivision approval requiring the provision of car parking on Henderson Park, was in response to issues raised by surrounding residents during the public consultation period for the rezoning of the (subdivision) land.

Question 4 Has the Council sought approval from the Environmental Protection Authority? Response There is no requirement to seek approval from the Environmental Protection Authority. Question 5 Has the Council carried out an Environmental Impact Study for the proposed car park?

Response If the question is about the water quality of Mabel Talbot Lake, then this carpark will have less impact than the existing car park adjacent to the Activ building or for that matter, if users of Henderson Park are consigned to finding parking on the surrounding streets. Both Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Park are developed for recreational purposes, albeit one for passive recreation and the other for active recreation. Within this context, there are no other environmental impacts to consider.



Question 6 Has the Council consulted the Subiaco Council and if so, has it received their concurrence? Response Council has consulted with the Subiaco Council where required and has generally kept them informed throughout the subdivision project. The City of Subiaco made a submission to the Council outlining a series of requests, however, having regard for the orderly and proper planning for the area and taking into account the effective and safe provision of parking for the users of Henderson Park, a number of these requests could not be met. Response Has the Council carried out an independent impact study of its proposed car park on the Mabel Talbot Lake?

Answer 7 This is covered in the answer to question 5. Question 8 Has the Council considered what the effect is going to be on the fauna on the surrounding area? Response Mabel Talbot and Henderson Parks are located within a long established inner urban area. They are surrounded by roads, existing car parks and housing. It is impossible to believe that the introduction of 1200 square metre car park within this context, could have any significant impact on the existing fauna in the area. Access between the two parks will remain.

(Questions 9 and 10 relate to the same matter so they have been grouped)

Question 9 Does the Council think that the water birds will like the plastic and McDonalds cartons that will be all over the car park?

Question 10

The Chief Executive Officer has called the Lake a drainage sump. Does that mean he can justify making a rubbish dump which it will be with the usual rubbish in the car park and its surrounds?



Response The suggestion that Council should not build car parks in order to avoid possible litter problems is quite extraordinary. Council provides, and will continue to provide, the usual litter bins and rubbish collection service for Henderson Park. The issue of packaging is a separate, much broader environmental issue and is one that must be addressed with the provider. Mr Dean Creed, 4 Lansdowne Street, Jolimont

You have voted in favour of developing a 48 car bay car park in the middle of Mabel Talbot car park. This car park will be within some 50 metres of a conservation listed wetland lake. How did this option outrank the three far less invasive options that I am sure the general public would consider more common sense solutions. These three options being:- Question 1 Of the 19 or so residential lots to be sold across the road, why is it that two lots can not be retained for parking to ensure Mabel Talbot parklands does not have to be divided by an unsightly car park. Response Perhaps it should firstly be stated that the car park is not to be in the middle of Mabel Talbot Park, but is located within the adjoining Henderson Park.

The lots to be created by the Town are 400 square metres each, that is, two lots would amount to 800 square metres. This would not be sufficient land to provide the required number of parking bays. It would more likely be 4 to 5 lots. The loss of return to the Town in this scenario would be something like $1.2 million. This money would be lost to the residents of the Town who will benefit from the sale of this land. Proceeds from the sale are to go towards the upgrading of the Wembley Town Centre and for paving and draining the many laneways that exist within Wembley and West Leederville. Apart from the financial considerations, the maintaining of a car park in this location would require the users of Henderson Park to continue to have to cross Jersey Street, which is a District Distributor Road. The proposed car park, which extends an existing car park outside the Henderson Park change rooms, is a much more convenient and safer option.

Question 2 Subiaco Council has come forward and essentially offered a 60 bay car park as a solution less than 200 metres away from where the development is to occur. This car park currently is very under utilised and lets be honest here, we are talking here about a 1 to 2 minute walk from this car park to the Oval. Response



The use of the car park referred to here has never been formally discussed with the City of Subiaco. In any event, the car park is somewhat remote from the park and normal motorists behaviour would suggest that park users would fill up street parking before resorting to the use of this car park. In addition, it is noted that this car park is surrounded by a number of residential properties and it might be expected that these residents would want to have some say in such a proposal. Question 3 Last but not least is an option to build a car park in the north west corner of the park itself. Surely it makes sense that if a car park ultimately has to be built and encroach upon Mabel Talbot Park it can be built upon the perimeter of the park so as not to divide the sacredness of the green space as well as being kept as far away from the conversation listed wetlands as possible. Response The provision of the car park in the north west corner of the park was considered as an option. Apart from its remoteness from the change rooms, the car park could not be accommodated without interfering with existing sporting activities on Henderson Park. In particular, the baseball field presently located in that corner would have had to be taken away. Aside from these considerations, there might be some debate from people in Salvado Road as to whether this particular part of the green space is any less “sacred” than the area chosen for the car park.

Summary: In deciding to locate the car park where it has, all possibilities were considered. The chosen location is an area well set back from surrounding streets. It currently has very little active use and the car park design enables the retention of most of the trees in the area. In addition, it is an extension to a car park that already exists in the area and having regard to all of these factors, the Council cannot accept that it will have any significant impact either aesthetically or functionally on the use of Mabel Talbot Park. Mr Murray Maybery, 3 Jolimont Terrace, Jolimont Question Would the Council please explain what formal steps it took to assess the environmental impact of the proposed extension of the Henderson Park Car park? Response As indicated in a response to earlier questions, Council is merely providing infrastructure to service a long standing active recreational area. Apart from the possible impact on the adjacent wetland, of which it is established that there is clearly none, there are no other environmental impacts to consider.



Mr Alex Metropolis, 2 Cardigan Terrace, Jolimont Question 1 In connection with the car park extension proposed in Henderson Park will the Council describe the consultation done with:- (a) The City of Subiaco as custodian of the wetland (Mabel Talbot Park). (b) Local residents immediately affected. (c) Other residents in Jolimont community likely to be affected prior to the plans

being submitted to the WA Planning Commission. Response The issue of consultation on this matter is covered in the responses to previous questions. Further, as indicated earlier, the provision of the car park was actually a condition imposed on the subdivision of the land on the eastern side of Jersey Street imposed by the WA Planning Commission. The Council had been led to believe at that time that it had followed all correct statutory procedures. Susan E Arthur, 18 Rosebery Street, Jolimont 6014

Question Will the Council scrap the plan for the car park extension on Henderson Park because of the impact upon the surrounding environment and the fact that there are alternative sites available. Response The Council has already made decisions to proceed with the development of the car park and I would at this point state that there is nothing on tonight’s agenda to consider this issue other than the questions and answers that have been raised. John Gow, 20 Kalari Drive, City Beach.

Question 1 Why is Council determined to push for Street modification and “calming” measures in the City Beach area. Is this an attempt to establish a Subiaco “village atmosphere”?

A Councillor, Alan Langer stated at the meeting of the 13/8/02 – “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it.” Rather than wasting money on such issues, why don’t you listen to the desire of the community and focus on (1) Underground Power. (2) Broadband.



Response Council’s position in relation to the traffic management plan for Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent will be established when Council considers Report TS02.70 later tonight. The Committee recommendation has been developed in recognition of comments raised at a public meeting held on 29 May 2002, comments presented to Council from a letterbox drop conducted during May 2002 and discussions held at Technical Services Committee Meetings held on 9 July 2002 and 13 August 2002. The issues relating to Undergrounding of power and Broadband availability are issues being considered by Council as separate initiatives. However, a brief summary is detailed below:- • The Town is very active in supporting the Underground Power initiative and has

developed a strategy for providing Underground Power to the whole Town. The City Beach area is the next priority area to be submitted under the State Underground Power Program.

• The provision of Broadband (ADSL) is a matter for the Telecommunication Carriers.

The Town is aware of the delay in providing Broadband to City Beach and has an article in the most recent Newsletter distributed with rates encouraging City Beach residents to register their interest directly with Telstra on the Internet or Phone.

Question 2 At the Committee meeting held on 13/8/02, Councillor Corinne Marie MacRae, with the assistance of notes provided by Councillor Kerry Smith seemed determined to push for changes to the City Beach street of Templetonia – in particular the intersection of Kingsland. The argument presented was that this intersection “was different to all the others on Templetonia”. Is this the basis for the arguments presented to date on the street alterations? We have already determined that there is no safety issue, we know it will be a costly issue and we also know that the implementation of proposed measures can be a convenience and safety issue. (ie. Kalinda, Brockway). Why are these changes being presented and kept on the Agenda.

Response The works proposed for the Kingsland Avenue/Templetonia Crescent intersection have merit in consideration by Council as the current design of access from Kingsland Avenue north into Templetonia Crescent can be achieved at speed because the intersection corner radius on this leg is far greater than it should be. Letters of complaint of speed have been received from the adjacent land owners expressing their concern of this situation. Kingsland Avenue is a Local Distributor Road and should be constructed as a terminating “T” junction. In designing this, the intersection will be similar to all other street intersections with Templetonia Crescent and Marapana Road. The implementation of a reconstruction on this intersection would be responsible by Council in proactively addressing a known site which encourages speed rather than control speed. The works are on the Council Agenda as Council believes the intersection works are in the best interests of all residents.



5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil 6. PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

A petition was submitted by Mr Lee Riseley, 50 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach containing 156 signatories requesting that “Council rejects the proposals contained in the report prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Traffic Management Study – Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent dated June 2002 and instead accepts in total the recommendations of the Technical Services Committee Meeting of 9 July 2002 (page 12a, Ref. TS02.64), as being recommendations that accurately reflect the views of the local community as previously provided to the Council by means of a community survey and ratepayers meeting. Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr McAullay That in accordance with Clause 2.26 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Committee. Carried

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Langer That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 23 July 2002 and the Special Meeting of Council held on 6 August 2002 be confirmed. Carried

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

2002 Heart Foundation Kellogg Local Government Awards I am pleased to advise that the Town of Cambridge has won the 2002 Heart Foundation Kellogg Local Government Award for the Cambridge Junior Triathlon. The Triathlon, an initiative of the Town, was conducted in April 2002, involving 176 Year 6 and Year 7 participants from local schools competing in boys, girls and mixed teams in a 150 metre swim, 4 kilometre cycle and a 2 kilometre run. The State Award in the category “Physical Activity Project”, recognises the professionalism and expertise of staff in the Town’s Community Development area in the organisation and conduct of the inaugural Cambridge Junior Triathlon. A plaque is to be awarded, together with a prize of $2,000.

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council.


\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\B TS.doc 10

TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Technical Services Committee Meeting held on 13 August 2002 was submitted as under: 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Technical Services Committee open at

6.00pm. 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Deputy Mayor Cr Marlene Anderton (Presiding Member) 6.00pm 8.30pm Cr Alan Langer 6.00pm 8.30pm Cr Pauline O’Connor, JP 6.00pm 7.44pm 7.46pm 8.30pm Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.00pm 8.06pm 8.07pm 8.30pm Observers: Mayor Willcock, JP 6.01pm 7.47pm 8.17pm 8.20pm Cr Graham Burkett, JP 6.12pm 7.32pm 8.07pm 8.30pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02pm 8.14pm Cr Kerry Smith 6.07pm 8.30pm Officers: Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Richard Watson, Manager Works and Engineering Ross Farlekas, Manager Parks and Landscape Jon Bell, Manager Construction and Operations Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.30pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil




Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent – Traffic A number of questions were asked with regard to the proposed traffic management works in Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent, City Beach (Item TS02.70) from the following residents:- Mr Neville Campbell, 10 Dodonia Gardens, City Beach. Mr Lee Riseley, 50 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. Mr John Gow, 20 Kilari Drive, City Beach. Mrs Shirley Ramsey, 30 Templetonia Crescent, City Beach. Mr Robert Mengler, 10 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. Mr Bruce Bell, 7 Templetonia Crescent, City Beach.

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

A petition was submitted by Mr Lee Riseley, 50 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach containing 156 signatories requesting that “Council rejects the proposals contained in the report prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Traffic Management Study - Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent dated June 2002 and instead accepts in total the recommendations of the Technical Services Committee Meeting of 9 July 2002 (page 12a, Ref. TS02.64), as being recommendations that accurately reflect the views of the local community as previously provided to the Council by means of a community survey and ratepayers meeting.”

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Technical Services Committee held on 9 July 2002 as contained in the July Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried 6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS Nil 7. REPORTS



TS02.69 JUBILEE CRESCENT – BUS ROUTE (File Reference: TES0334 : TES0039) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To notify Council of a letter/petition from a number of residents in Jubilee Crescent requesting that Council arrange for the re-siting of a bus route away from Jubilee Crescent. Further, to consider funding an option for relocating the bus route away from Jubilee Crescent. BACKGROUND: The letter/petition with 15 signatories from eight of the nine properties in Jubilee Crescent, was tabled at the Technical Services Committee meeting in June 2002. The petition is that:- “We the undersigned residents of Jubilee Crescent sincerely request that the Town of Cambridge implement the option of re-siting the terminus as a matter of urgency.” The terminus referred to is on the southern side of Oceanic Drive between Branksome Gardens and Challenger Parade. The petition recognises the discussions that have taken place with the Department of Transport for the reconsideration of the methods to alleviate the 71 buses a day that use Jubilee Crescent to turn round. The petition says that more recently, potential conflicts between afternoon school buses (using the terminus at City Beach on Oceanic Drive) and parents cars along Oceanic Drive highlight the need to review the terminus siting on Oceanic Drive between Branksome Gardens and Challenger Parade. Note the attachments. In March 2002, Council discussed the possibility of developing a new bus turn round route via the southern side of the carpark between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way, a bus terminus embayment on the eastern side of Challenger Parade, just north of Oceanic Drive, plus a revamping of the carpark between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way for a value of $88,000 (Item TS02.16). At this meeting Council decided:- “That the item relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be deferred until such time that the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan has been endorsed by Council.” The requirement for a Foreshore Development Plan was decided at the March 2002 meeting of Council (Item CCS02.31), which discussed options for use of the South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets/Changerooms. DETAILS: The extent of bus traffic along Jubilee Crescent is a combination of Transperth buses and school buses. There are 42 buses travelling eastward each day Monday to Friday in Jubilee Crescent and 52 buses travelling westward in Oceanic Drive west of Fred Burton Way. On Saturday, there are 31 buses travelling eastward in Jubilee Crescent and on Sunday there are 13 buses heading eastward in Jubilee Crescent. All these are Transperth buses. There are 6 regular school buses that stop in Oceanic Drive west of Fred Burton Way and one of these heads eastward along Jubilee Crescent each day.



The existing Transperth buses that use the Oceanic Drive/Challenger Parade/Jubilee Crescent/Branksome Gardens circuit are 81, 84, 85, 381 and 582. The 81 service is from Perth using Cambridge Street, Oceanic Drive, Branksome Gardens, with a terminus at Launceston Avenue. The 84 service commences from Perth, travels along Cambridge Street, The Boulevard, Templetonia Crescent, Kingsland Avenue, West Coast Highway, Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens. The 85 bus route travels along Cambridge Street, Oceanic Drive, Kalinda Avenue, The Boulevard, Templetonia Crescent, Kingsland Avenue, West Coast Highway, Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent, Branksome Gardens and Launceston Avenue. The two Transperth buses Nos. 381 and 582, travel along the coast road, namely West Coast Highway, Challenger Parade and further north along West Coast Highway. It is clear that the two buses of concern in Jubilee Crescent are Nos. 84 and 85. At the Technical Services Committee in March 2002, Members discussed re-routing the bus service 81 and 85, south along Challenger Parade in lieu of utilising Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens. Transperth’s comment on this option is that “this option would result in Branksome Gardens passengers returning from Perth, and also beach passengers wishing to travel towards Perth, being taken on a circuitous journey to the Launceston Avenue terminus. They would then be required to wait for the next bus to Perth to complete their journey. Typically, this waiting time would be in the vicinity of ten minutes.” The second option that was considered was to re-route the 84 and 85 bus from Oceanic Drive left into Branksome Gardens and proceed southwards in Branksome Gardens to the Launceston Avenue terminus. Transperth’s response is that “this option does not provide adequate access to the beach, particularly in comparison with the access offered to private car users.” Transperth is keen that alterations must be safe and not increase the trip time for passengers or increase the cost of operating the service without conveying some greater benefit to passengers. Further, unfortunately Transperth cannot support either of these two options as it is believed that they are detrimental to the bus service. Transperth has notified Council that one Jubilee Crescent household is in continual communication with Transperth requesting the withdrawal of the Transperth’s route 582 along Challenger Parade. This is a seasonal bus service which operates along Challenger Parade on weekends and public holidays only, during the six month summer period. In order to progress the list of options for consideration, another option is to relocate the bus terminus on the south side of Oceanic Drive between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade to the carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade on the northern side of Oceanic Drive. This would encourage the bus route to be westwards along Oceanic Drive, north along Fred Burton Way, west through the carpark, south along Challenger Parade and east along Oceanic Drive. The Transperth bus terminus could be in a bus terminus embayment on the eastern side of Challenger Parade, just north of Oceanic Drive and the school buses could utilise a section of the carpark.



The two options inside the carpark are at the southern end and at the northern end. The southern end was the subject of a report in March 2002 (Item TS02.16), when the cost was identified as being a total of $88,000, made up as follows:- • $18,000 for bus bay on Challenger Parade; • $ 55,000 for regrading the exit from the carpark; • $15,000 for carparking modifications. Since this report, more detailed specifications have been received from Transperth and include the requirements for the northern carpark turn-around. The turn-around at the northern end of the carpark will require access to be made from Fred Burton Way and the existing basketball court and goals be removed. The existing median island on the exit bus side of this driveway will need to be extended by 20 metres and a footpath placed on both sides of this section of the carpark to facilitate parallel parking on both sides. These pedestrian pick up points will require a link path to the Challenger Parade pedestrian crossing. The proposed Transperth bus terminus embayment on the eastern side of Challenger Parade, just north of Oceanic Drive, will require extending to accommodate two buses and the link paths be built to Oceanic Drive and the pedestrian crossing over Challenger Parade. The cross section through this northern carpark thoroughfare will become a 2.7 metre wide footpath, to accommodate the pedestrians on and off the bus, incorporating the existing median island trees and extending this island 20 metres eastward. The bus bay will be 3 metres wide, the access 3.5 metres wide in each direction and the parallel carpark on the northern side 2.5 metres wide with a 1.5 metre footpath. A plan of this design option will be tabled at Committee. The overall cost for this new development is:- • The provision of an entrance and exit off Fred Burton Way, plus the

amendment to the existing carpark and the relocation of the basketball goals. $40,000

• Bus embayment on the eastern side of Challenger Parade, just north of Oceanic Drive with link paths both to the north and the south. $35,000

The revised specifications provided by Transperth have lengthened the proposed new terminus bus bay on the design proposed in March 2002 (Item TS02.16) where a $88,000 total estimate for all works was provided. This estimate has now been revised to $105,000 and includes extra bus bay pavement and footpath infrastructure. The options for work may be:- 1. To accommodate the bus turning at the northern end of the carpark at a cost of

$40,000 and the school buses to utilise this site as their terminus. 2. Transperth to site its terminus on the northern side of Oceanic Drive between

Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way. At this site, the existing road pavement could be utilised, recognising the removal of the terminus on the southern side of Oceanic Drive opposite. The estimated cost to relocate the bus stop from the southern side to the northern side of Oceanic Drive is $5,000.



COMMENT: Transperth is of the opinion that the current arrangement for the bus terminus and the use of Jubilee Crescent is satisfactory. Students have ample room in Jubilee Park to transfer safely between buses, while the congestion caused by the small number of parents in cars picking up their children is significantly less than outside almost any school at finishing time in Perth. Further, Transperth has considered a Council request to contribute to the funding of the relocation of the terminus. Transperth believe that the current arrangements are adequate for the bus operation and no financial assistance is offered. Concern has been expressed at the possible precedent of contributing financially to works for the purpose of removing the bus from a street, which is perfectly suitable for bus operation. Transperth indicate that it has many demands for improvements to services, which cannot be met due to finite resources. Transperth’s preference is to contribute resources to improving services rather than altering what is for Transperth and its customers a perfectly adequate bus facility. The use of the basketball court off Fred Burton Way is limited. Preference may be given to relocating the basketball goals on this site southwards so that recreational use may be made of the backboards. It is evident that the relocation of the bus route is a clear objective of those residents in Jubilee Crescent. Further, the relocation of the bus route to the carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade north of Oceanic Drive is an option that will cost an estimated $40,000. This option will provide a pick up and drop off area for the eight school buses as required, plus parents carparking in Fred Burton Way/Challenger Parade carpark north end, plus a new bus terminus on the north side of Oceanic Drive between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way for Transperth Bus Service. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The recommended proposal will allow greater utilisation of the existing carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade, north of Oceanic Drive. Further, the residential street of Jubilee Crescent will become more quiet. The new site for the bus turnaround will provide a good service to the beach. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Should this bus route review receive Council support, consideration will need to be given in the 2002/2003 Budget to fund:- • The entrance and amendments to the carpark and footpaths for a cost of $40,000. • Relocate the bus stop at a cost of $5,000. • Construct new bus terminus and link paths on Challenger Parade $35,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil.



PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Discussions with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure have confirmed that Transperth is not prepared to contribute to the financial cost of the work, but would consider this proposal. Relocation of the buses from Jubilee Crescent has the support of residents in Jubilee Crescent. CONCLUSION: The letter/petition from residents in Jubilee Crescent received by the Technical Services Committee in May 2002, requesting that Jubilee Crescent be taken out of the bus route has resulted in consideration being given to the development of a school bus set down and pick up at the northern end of the carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade on the northern side of Oceanic Drive. Further, the terminus on the southern side of Oceanic Drive just west of Challenger Parade be relocated to the northern side of Oceanic Drive just west of Challenger Parade. The estimated cost of this work is $45,000. This work may be funded from the Council endowment funds and be included in the 2002/2003 Budget if supported by Council. The previous decisions of Council in March 2002 (Items TS02.16 and CCS02.31) were for the facility to be incorporated as part of a City Beach Foreshore Development Plan. This position is still supported and the issues raised within this report provide the design solutions for incorporation in that Study. Should Council wish to revoke its decision of 26 March 2002, and proceed with the construction works, the following recommendation has been developed. In accordance with Regulations 10(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion requires firstly a motion that this matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of Council. If the first motion is carried, the motion to revoke or change the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority. That: - (i) Council decision TS02.16 dated 26 March 2002, namely:-

“That the item relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be deferred until such time that the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan has been endorsed by Council”, be revoked by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) an amount of $40,000 be included in the 2002/2003 Budget for the upgrading of the

carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade on the northern side of Oceanic Drive to provide a through access for buses and standing room of 80 metres for school buses. Further, the bus stop/terminus on the southern side of Oceanic Drive just west of Challenger Parade be relocated to the northern side of Oceanic Drive between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way and an amount of $5,000 be included in the 2002/2003 Budget (Total Budget required $45,000);

(iii) the basketball hoops and court at the northern end of the carpark off Fred Burton

Drive be relocated on the bitumen south of the existing basketball court; (iv) the Administration proceeds with negotiations with Transperth to relocate the bus

route away from Jubilee Crescent and establish a ring road through the northern section of the carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade;



(v) the Administration proceed with the detailed design of the works in (ii), (iii) and (iv) above;

(vi) the cost associated with the works outlined above be funded from the Endowment

Lands Account. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That any relocation of the bus terminus currently located in Oceanic Drive at the intersection of Challenger Parade, including a revised access through the carpark linking Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade, be considered as part of the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan as decided at Council in March 2002 (Items TS02.16 and CCS02.31). Committee Meeting 9 July 2002 During discussion, Members requested additional information on:- • the current financial status of the Endowment Lands Account;

• the usage of the basketball/netball courts;

• the status of the City Beach Foreshore Plan. It was therefore agreed that this item be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 9 July 2002) The Technical Services Committee requested the following information to enable Council to determine this matter:- The current financial status of the Endowment Lands Account As at 23 July 2002, the ELA account balance is $4,560,000. This balance will be reduced to cater for carry forward budget items (eg library) and budget initiatives in 2002/03. As at 30 June 2003, a balance in excess of $ 2 million is forecast. The usage of the basketball/netball courts Council records show that these courts have not been used for several years, as the training and playing of games have been transferred to other venues. It has therefore been determined that there is no current requirement for the basketball backboards and they should both be removed and stored for use at alternative locations (eg at Winmarley Park, which is a project on the 2002/03 Draft Budget).



The status of the City Beach Foreshore Plan The Administration is currently preparing a brief of works on this issue. It is intended that a plan be prepared for community comment prior to the summer period. A report on the brief of works is expected to be presented to Council prior to the community comment phase. Further to the Technical Services Committee meeting held on 9 July 2002, the Administration has discussed the various design options with Transperth Bus Services (TBS) and has received written confirmation that TBS would support the Town’s design option by using the northern car park route in lieu of the southern car park route. TBS has also confirmed that it would support a new proposal which does not require alterations to the existing bus terminus located at the Oceanic Drive/Challenger Parade intersection. TBS would use existing facilities and turn right into Challenger Parade, then right into the car park (using the northern access), right into Fred Burton Drive, and left into Oceanic Drive. This would then remove all bus access from Jubilee Crescent. A copy of the advice is attached. In order to implement this proposal, Council would require a budget of $12,000 to complete the following works:- • provide a new vehicular access from the car park to Fred Burton Drive; • remove the existing basketball backboards; • reinstate pavement at the western end of the existing basketball court; • reline/mark the pavement area for parking to provide a 90o parking on the southern

side of the access leg and remove all parking on the northern side. This is required to ensure that buses will always be able to gain access through the car park.

This option is supported by the Administration as the best alternative in resolving the issues associated with the use of Jubilee Crescent by TBS. TBS’ only further comment on this option would be to consider an improvement to existing pedestrian facilities to connect existing terminus facilities to the beach facilities. This work, in line with the provision of facilities on the eastern side of Challenger Parade, can be included in the Coastal Foreshore Plan for consideration. Should Council wish to proceed along this path, the following recommendation would be appropriate:- That:- (i) Council decision TS01.16 dated 26 March 2002, namely:-

“That the item relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be deferred until such time that the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan has been endorsed by Council” be revoked by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) an amount of $12,000 be included in the 2002/03 budget for the upgrading of the

car park between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade to provide a through access for buses;



(iii) the basketball hoops and court at the northern end of the car park off Fred Burton Way be removed;

(iv) parking be amended in the car park to maintain 90o parking on the southern access

leg, and to remove all parking on the northern side access to ensure access is always available;

(v) the Administration proceed with the detailed design of the works in (ii), (iii) and (iv)

above; (vi) the cost associated with the works outlined above be funded from the Endowment

Lands Account. Council Meeting 23 July 2002 The Mayor advised that should the Council wish to proceed with construction works as detailed in the further information and therefore revoke its decision of 26 March 2002 (TS02.16), Regulation 10(i) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires firstly a motion that the matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of the Council. If this motion is carried, the motion to revoke or change the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority. It was therefore decided that in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 10(i) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion relating to the revocation or changes to the previous decision of the Council dated 26 March 2002 relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be considered. Discussion ensued. Cr Smith suggested that the item should be referred back to the Technical Services Committee to enable Elected Members to consider the further information. It was therefore decided that the item relating to Jubilee Crescent Bus Route be referred back to the Technical Services Committee for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION REFERRED FROM JULY COUNCIL MEETING: That:- (i) Council decision TS01.16 dated 26 March 2002, namely:-

“That the item relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be deferred until such time that the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan has been endorsed by Council” be revoked by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) an amount of $12,000 be included in the 2002/03 budget for the upgrading of the

car park between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade to provide a through access for buses;

(iii) the basketball hoops and court at the northern end of the car park off Fred Burton

Way be removed;



(iv) parking be amended in the car park to maintain 90o parking on the southern access leg, and to remove all parking on the northern side access to ensure access is always available;

(v) the Administration proceed with the detailed design of the works in (ii), (iii) and

(iv) above;

(vi) the cost associated with the works outlined above be funded from the Endowment Lands Account

Committee Meeting 13 August 2002 During discussion, Members noted that the 2002/2003 Budget was adopted at the Special Council Meeting held on 6 August 2002, therefore the proposed works are unbudgeted. It was agreed that no parking signs should be installed at the northern side access of the carpark, linking Challenger Parade to Fred Burton Drive, to maintain this area available for buses. Also, Members agreed to support the inclusion within the Town’s Beach Foreshore Study of an improved solution for bus passengers wishing to access beach facilities as requested by Transperth. The Administration was requested to confirm the legal position of the Council should a bus be involved in an accident in the carpark, prior to the next meeting of Council to be held Tuesday 27 August 2002. Amendment 1 Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Langer That clause (vi) be deleted and clauses (ii) and (iv) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) an amount up to $12,000 for the upgrading of the carpark between Fred Burton Way

and Challenger Parade to provide a through access for buses through the northern end of the carpark, as detailed on Plan Number E130-02-02, be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 and be funded from the Endowment Lands Account;

(iv) parking be amended in the carpark to maintain 90o parking on the southern access

leg and all parking on the northern side access be removed to ensure access is always available, as detailed on Plan Number E130-02-02 as amended to incorporate “No Parking” restrictions along the whole of the northern access leg.

Amendment Carried Amendment 2 Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Langer That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vi) as part of the brief for the “City Beach Foreshore Development Plan” consideration

be given to including:-

(a) improving pedestrian facilities; between the bus stops and beach facilities, in the study area;



(b) reviewing the layout of the carpark between Challenger Parade and Fred

Burton Drive just north of Oceanic Drive with respect to bus access, the carpark bay layout and the netball courts.

Amendment Carried FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 August 2002) During Committee discussion on this report, a request was made in regard to the legal position should accidents happen when using the carpark access road to link Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Drive. It is the Administration’s understanding that no extra liability would be placed upon the Town if the works were constructed and designed to accepted road traffic standards. In order to clarify this position, contact has been made with Transperth who have confirmed that they do not anticipate any liability problems with this proposal. A copy of the Transperth response is circulated for information. Council Meeting 27 August 2002 During discussion, Cr Langer requested that it be noted that the interim solution proposed for consideration was the initiative of Cr Pinerua. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) Council decision TS01.16 dated 26 March 2002, namely:-

“That the item relating to the development of a bus terminus and car park between Challenger Parade and Fred Burton Way in City Beach be deferred until such time that the City Beach Foreshore Development Plan has been endorsed by Council” be revoked by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) an amount up to $12,000 for the upgrading of the carpark between Fred Burton Way and Challenger Parade to provide a through access for buses through the northern end of the carpark, as detailed on Plan Number E130-02-02, be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 and be funded from the Endowment Lands Account;

(iii) the basketball hoops and court at the northern end of the carpark off Fred

Burton Way be removed as amended to incorporate “No Parking” restrictions to the whole northern access leg;

(iv) parking be amended in the car park to maintain 90o parking on the southern

access leg, all parking on the northern side access be removed to ensure access is always available as detailed on Plan Number E130-02-02;

(v) the Administration proceed with the detailed design of the works in (ii), (iii)

and (iv) above;



(vi) as part of the brief for the “City Beach Foreshore Development Plan” consideration be given to including:-

(a) improving pedestrian facilities; between the bus stops and beach

facilities, in the study area; (b) reviewing the layout of the carpark between Challenger Parade and Fred

Burton Drive just north of Oceanic Drive with respect to bus access, the carpark bay layout and the netball courts.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY



TS02.70 MARAPANA ROAD/TEMPLETONIA CRESCENT – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STUDY (File Reference: TES0186 / TES0261) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To establish an implementation plan of work from the options that were discussed through the public consultation program and the Consultant report, for the traffic management of Marapana Road from Oceanic Drive to Templetonia Crescent and Templetonia Crescent from Marapana Road to The Boulevard. BACKGROUND: The adopted budget for 2001/02 included an allocation of $20,000 to complete a traffic management plan for the Marapana/Templetonia road link. The Draft Budget for 2002/2003 has an allocation of $30,000 for Stage 1 road works in the study section of Marapana Road and Templetonia Crescent. The initial development plan was presented to Council in March 2002 (Item TS02.17), where it was decided:- “That:- (i) the proposed development of Marapana Road from Oceanic Drive to Templetonia

Crescent and Templetonia Crescent to The Boulevard be endorsed for presentation to the community and for public comment;

(ii) the community be notified of the proposed public meeting to discuss the proposals

through the local ‘Post’ newspaper and via letterbox drop to the residents and ratepayers bounded by Kalinda Drive, The Boulevard, West Coast Highway and Oceanic Drive, including Oceanic Gardens Retirement Village and City Beach Primary School;

(iii) on completion of the public comment period, a further report be presented to

Council.” On 17 and 24 May 2002, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper. On 21 and 22 May 2002, a letterbox drop was carried out. On 29 May 2002, a public presentation and discussion meeting was held with approximately 30 members of the community at the Council offices. The community consultation and comment period went from 17 May 2002 until 12 June 2002. Consultants Connell Wagner Pty Ltd have completed their report recognising technical issues and the community comments. Their report is tabled and excerpts are included within the report attachments. DETAILS: The objective of the study was to determine the priority given by the community to the requirements along the through traffic route between Oceanic Drive and The Boulevard via Marapana Road and Templetonia Crescent. Statistically, the traffic volume was below 2,300 vehicles per day, the accident frequency at all intersections was a maximum of three over five years and 85% of the traffic was recorded as travelling less than 40kph and 66kph depending on location.



The plans prepared showed a number of treatments possible for the development of the road. These treatments included:- • Centre line marking. • Introduction of median islands. • Modified intersections. • Provision of pedestrian crossing points. • Provision of parking embayments adjacent to the school and community centre. • Traffic speed modification. As part of the public comment period, a community meeting was held. Approximately 30 people attended the meeting held on Wednesday, 29 May 2002. It was clear that the community written comments reflected the mood of the public meeting. There were 62 community comment forms returned. Four of these were from the north/ south section of Marapana Road and 13 from Templetonia Crescent. There was 1,100 letterbox drops delivered to the precinct. A summary of community comments are included in the attachments to this report. The major issues raised by the community were:- • The cost of works. • The need to accommodate cyclists. • The need to improve signage. • The need for kerbside parking. • The desire not to introduce obstacles into the road pavement. • The need for pedestrian facilities. • Issues with respect to motorists’ sight distance. • The need to ensure that signs do not become obstacles and issues for conflict. • The desire to improve the streetscape. • The desire for traffic calming. • The desire to guide traffic safely along the through roads and through intersections. The Consultant’s report set out to accommodate and recognise all the issues raised by the community. A number of the issues raised by the community would be resolved with the introduction of the median island as proposed in the Connell Wagner report. However, the community had strong objections to this work as they were of the opinion that it was not required and the expense could be used elsewhere (preferably on underground power). Other objections were that kerbside parking and conflict with cyclists would be an issue. The issue of speed through the precinct was discussed by the community. The community comments were that the speed had reduced little since the introduction of the 50kph and traffic counts which would include a speed assessment could be taken to verify this. The priority projects as seen by the community comments were:- • Templetonia Crescent/Marapana Road intersection. • Marapana Road/Oceanic Drive intersection. • The City Beach Primary School parking. • The Templetonia Crescent/The Boulevard intersection. • The Templetonia Crescent/Kingsland Avenue intersection.



The frequency of traffic accidents at any one of these intersections is not large. In the five years of the test period, there were:- • Three accidents at Oceanic Drive/Marapana Road intersection. • Two traffic accidents at The Boulevard/Templetonia Crescent intersection. • Five other accidents in Marapana Road between Oceanic Drive and Templetonia

Crescent. • One other accident in Templetonia Crescent. Consideration may be given to identifying the following works listed in priority order are:-

Location Proposed Works Issues Resolved

Oceanic Drive/ Marapana Road Intersection

Relocate bus shelter and remove or prune tree as required.

Improved sight distance for traffic exiting Marapana Road to turn right or left into Oceanic Drive

Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent

Roundabout • Traffic calming • Clear identification of

priority traffic • Improved streetscape.

City Beach Primary School

Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:- • Parking embayment

along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs

along Kalinda Drive and Patonga Road

• Pedestrian nibs on Marapana Road at Patonga Road, Adina Road and Meelah Road.

• Parking • Pedestrian safety.

The Boulevard/ Templetonia Crescent Intersection

Place a median island in The Boulevard both east and west of Templetonia Crescent

• Assist pedestrians to cross The Boulevard

• Guide traffic through the wide pavement at this intersection.

• Reduce the possibility of traffic cutting the corner and entering The Boulevard or Templetonia Crescent at increased speed

Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent

To provide a standard 90o

T-Junction. Realign the kerb at the north western corner.

• Reduce the width of Kingsland Avenue for pedestrian crossing.

• Improve traffic safety in and out of existing crossovers.

• Reduce traffic speed through the intersection.



COMMENT: From the Consultant’s report and community comment, it is clear that the community did not wish to proceed as far as the Consultant’s report indicated with respect to the development of median islands through this Local Distributor route. The recommended works in this report do coincide with that included in the Consultant’s report and the community priorities as reflected in their comments. The priority of the proposed works within the precinct are as identified in the recommendation to this report. The priority of these works within the Town will receive further consideration in association with budget allocations of funds. It is clear at this stage that priority could be given to the work at the intersection of Marapana Road and Oceanic Drive when viewed on a whole of the Town budget allocation project. The cost of this work would be approximately $5,000. The administrative complexities in implementing this proposal may take some time to finalise as it will require negotiations with adjacent property owners and Transperth. Some of the works associated with the improvement of the kerbside parking in Kalari Drive and Patonga Road may be accommodated within the Council kerbside parking budget. However, the provision of footpaths to accommodate kerbside parking in Kalari Drive will require budget allocations when this work is shown to be required. The exit from Kalari Drive and the Civic Centre, both into Templetonia Crescent has restricted sight distance, but is not seen as being dangerous, recognising the width of pavement and speed environment. The introduction of a marked centre line between Marapana Road and Kingsland Avenue in Templetonia Crescent would assist drivers travelling through this section of road and make them aware of their requirement for increased caution. A similar centre line through the S-bend in Templetonia Crescent from The Boulevard to Gunnee Road in Templetonia Crescent would also assist. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: It is recognised that the strategic direction of this project is to provide:- • Clear direction for safe movement of traffic through this north/south Local Distributor

traffic route. • Assist with creating a residential access road environment where the traffic speed is

more conducive to the 50kph without introducing enforcement measures. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: When the designs for the recommended works are complete, a budget estimated cost can be prepared. At present, it is clear that an approximate $5,000 budget allocation could be made for the relocation of the bus stop in Oceanic Drive on the western side of Marapana Road. The kerbside parking signs and road centre lines can be funded from the Council road maintenance budget when the administrative procedures are completed with the State Government departments. The Draft Budget for 2002/03 has an allocation of $30,000 to commence Stage 1 works.



POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This proposal is in keeping with Council’s policy to involve the community in the development of traffic plans. Further, to provide a road infrastructure so that it is environmentally friendly and in harmony with the adjacent land use and community requests. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Council has had requests to improve the safety of this Local Distributor route via Marapana Road and Templetonia Crescent. As part of the development of these works, an extensive public consultation period has taken place and the recommendations are as a result of the community comments and Consultant’s technical study. CONCLUSION: This report is the next sequential step for the development of a safe road network through the precinct bounded by The Boulevard, Oceanic Drive, Kalinda Drive and West Coast Highway. The objective of the recommendations is to allow free flow of traffic and improve safety at specific sites in conjunction with technical requirements and community comment. Further to Council consideration of this report, it is proposed to proceed with:- • The administrative work that is required for the implementation of the Council

decision. • The design and statutory approvals for the work involving intersection amendments. • The development of budget estimates to complete construction and to identify a

source of funding. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the report dated June 2002, prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd – “Traffic

Management Study Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent” be received; (ii) design and administrative process proceed for the following works:-

Location Proposed Works

Oceanic Drive/ Marapana Road Intersection Relocate bus shelter and remove or prune tree as required.

Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent Roundabout City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary

School:- • Parking embayment along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive

and Patonga Road Pedestrian nibs on Marapana Road at Patonga Road, Adina Road and Meelah Road.

The Boulevard/ Templetonia Crescent Intersection

Place a median island in The Boulevard both east and west of Templetonia Crescent

Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent To provide a standard 90o T-Junction by realigning the north western corner kerbline.



(iii) consideration be given to the allocation of $5,000 for the relocation of the bus stop on the northern side of Oceanic Drive just west of Marapana Road with funds to be from the current Draft Budget allocation of $30,000;

(iv) funds be sought from the Ministry of Education for the development of parking

embayments and pedestrian crossing points in Marapana Road between Patonga Road and Templetonia Crescent;

(v) a road centre line be painted in Templetonia Crescent between Marapana Road and

Kingsland Avenue and again in Templetonia Crescent between The Boulevard and Gunnee Road.

Committee Meeting 9 July 2002 During discussion, Members noted that the community did not want Council to proceed with the proposed works and it was therefore suggested that a revised works program based on community comment received at the public meeting be progressed. Amendment Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Langer That clause (ii) of the motion be amended as follows:- (ii) design and administrative process proceed for the following works:-



Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent White line and signage.

City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:- • Parking embayment along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive and

Patonga Road Pedestrian nibs on Marapana Road at Patonga Road, Adina Road and Meelah Road.

Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent White line and signage.

Discussion ensued. Members agreed that the adjacent residents be consulted on the proposed works for the intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 23 July 2002.

Amendment Carried



FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 9 July 2002) During discussion at the Technical Services Committee meeting on 9 July 2002, Members requested that consultation with residents living adjacent to the proposed works at the intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent, be completed prior to Council meeting. The consultation has taken place in relation to the proposal to provide a standard 90o T-junction by re-aligning the north-west corner of Kingsland Avenue. It is noted that the Committee amended the proposed works to ‘white line and signage treatment’ only. Discussions with the owners of 2 Kingsland Avenue and 38 Templetonia Crescent have highlighted that they support the proposal to re-align the kerbing at the intersection, accepting responsibility for the care of the larger verge area. The attached plan provides a design concept to increase safety at the intersection. It is noted that the requirement for ‘give way’ signage will require further review by Main Roads Western Australia. The extra verge area will be treated with lawn adjacent to No. 2 Kingsland Avenue and low ground shrubs adjacent to No. 38 Templetonia Crescent. It was noted during discussion that these two residents had previously approached the Town in June 2002, requesting this design option. A copy of that correspondence is attached. It is recommended that the proposed works at the Templetonia Crescent/Kingsland Avenue intersection be designed as a kerbline relocation in order to achieve a terminating T-junction intersection, similar to all adjacent intersections with Templetonia Avenue, as this will achieve an increase in safety for the benefit of all drivers and the adjacent residents. Council Meeting 23 July 2002 During discussion, Cr Langer referred to the additional information circulated and suggested that the item be referred back to the Technical Services Committee for further consideration. It was therefore decided that the item relating to Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent Traffic Management Study be referred back to the Technical Services Committee for further consideration. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REFERRED FROM JULY COUNCIL MEETING: That:- (i) the report dated June 2002, prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd – “Traffic




Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent White line and signage.

City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:-



• Parking embayment along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive and


Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent White line and signage.

(iii) consideration be given to the allocation of $5,000 for the relocation of the bus stop

on the northern side of Oceanic Drive just west of Marapana Road with funds to be from the current Draft Budget allocation of $30,000;




Kingsland Avenue and again in Templetonia Crescent between The Boulevard and Gunnee Road.

Committee Meeting 13 August 2002 During discussion, Members agreed that the proposed works at Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent should comprise the repainting of the existing intersection pavement markings and no works be undertaken at the intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent. Also, it was suggested that the Acting Commissioner of Main Roads WA be approached to consider the trial of painted 50 kph road markings in Templetonia Crescent. The Administration was requested to obtain costings for the provision of a standard 90o T-junction inclusive of re-kerbing at the Kingsland Avenue/Templetonia Crescent intersection prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 27 August 2002. Amendment Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Langer That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) the report dated June 2002, prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd – “Traffic




Marapana Road/ Templetonia Crescent Repaint existing intersection pavement markings

City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:- • Parking embayment along Marapana Road



• Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive and Patonga Road

Pedestrian nibs on Marapana Road at Patonga Road, Adina Road and Meelah Road.

(iii) an amount of $5,000 for the relocation of the bus stop on the northern side of

Oceanic Drive just west of Marapana Road be funded from the 2002/2003 Budget allocation of $30,000;




Kingsland Avenue and again in Templetonia Crescent between The Boulevard and Gunnee Road;

(vi) the Acting Commissioner of Main Roads WA be requested to consider the trial of a

50 kph painted road markings in Templetonia Crescent, City Beach. Carried FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 August 2002) During Committee discussion on this item, the Administration was requested to advise on costs associated with the realignment of the Kingsland Avenue/Templetonia Crescent intersection. A budget of $14,000 would be required to complete the following works:-

• Realign the kerbing adjacent to Nos. 2 and 38. • Realign footpaths and pram ramps. • Signs and lines to Main Roads WA approvals. • Grass treatments adjacent to No. 2 Kingsland Avenue. • Ground cover treatments adjacent to No. 38 Templetonia Crescent. This $14,000 work item can be funded from the current budget allocation of $30,000 for Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent. Prior to the Committee discussion at the meeting, in Public Question Time, a petition containing 156 signatures was tabled and this has been circulated to all Elected Members. The petition requested:- “We the undersigned, being ratepayers/residents of City Beach*, strongly recommend to the Council that they reject the proposals contained in the report prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, “Traffic Management Study - Marapana Road/Templetonia Crescent” dated June 2002, and instead accept in total the recommendations of the Technical Services Committee Meeting of 9th July 2002 (page 12a, ref TS02.64), a copy of which is attached, as being recommendations that accurately reflect the views of the local community as previously provided to the Council by means of a community survey and ratepayers meeting. (* being residents and ratepayers of the area bounded by Kalinda Drive, The Boulevard, West Coast Highway and Oceanic Drive (including Ocean Gardens Retirement Village and City Beach Primary School).”



During Committee discussions, comment was made on the proposal to conduct a trial of painting 50 kph pavement markings in lieu of erection of signage in order to reinforce the designated speed on Marapana Road and Templetonia Crescent. Research on this proposal with Main Roads WA has identified this is not a current practice conducted by Main Roads WA, but a trial on four sites within the Melville City Council is to be conducted shortly. The proposal is to paint 50 kph on pavements only within the painted median section of existing pavements. The trials are listed for assessment as follows:- • Marcus Avenue, Booragoon. • Winthrop Drive, Winthrop. • Bullcreek Drive, Bullcreek. • Parry Avenue, Bateman. It is noted the current trial locations all must have a median pavement if the trial is to be conducted. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the report dated June 2002, prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd – “Traffic



Oceanic Drive/ Marapana Road Intersection

Relocate bus shelter and remove or prune tree as required.


City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:- • Parking embayment along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive

and Patonga Road Pedestrian nibs on Marapana Road at Patonga Road, Adina Road and Meelah Road.



(iv) funds be sought from the Ministry of Education for the development of

parking embayments and pedestrian crossing points in Marapana Road between Patonga Road and Templetonia Crescent;

(v) a road centre line be painted in Templetonia Crescent between Marapana

Road and Kingsland Avenue and again in Templetonia Crescent between The Boulevard and Gunnee Road;



(vi) the Acting Commissioner of Main Roads WA be requested to consider the trial of 50 kph painted road markings in Templetonia Crescent, City Beach.

During discussion, Cr Smith queried if the City of Melville trial could be applied to Templetonia Crescent to assist in reducing traffic speed. Amendment 1 Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr Burkett That clause (vi) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (vi) the Acting Commissioner of Main Roads WA and, if necessary, the Minister for

Planning and Infrastructure, be requested to:

(a) place 50 kph signage along relevant sections of Templetonia Crescent, City Beach;

(b) reconsider the trial of 50 kph painted road markings in the same area

following the completion of the Melville City Council trial.

Amendment 1 carried Discussion ensued. Cr MacRae said that a number of residents had been expressing concern regarding traffic speed and intersection treatments for the past two years. Amendment 2 Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Smith That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) the intersection of Kingsland Avenue and Templetonia Crescent be modified

to accommodate a standard T-junction design as detailed in the supporting documentation.

Amendment 2 was then put and lost Members requested that the vote of all those present be recorded:- For: Crs MacRae and Smith Against: Mayor Willcock, Crs Burkett, Langer, McAullay, O’Connor and Pinerua The amended motion was then put and carried



The motion, as carried, is as follows:- That:- (i) the report dated June 2002, prepared by Connell Wagner Pty Ltd – “Traffic





City Beach Primary School Further discussions with the City Beach Primary School:- • Parking embayment along Marapana Road • Kerbside parking signs along Kalari Drive and







Kingsland Avenue and again in Templetonia Crescent between The Boulevard and Gunnee Road;

(vi) the Acting Commissioner of Main Roads WA and, if necessary, the Minister for

Planning and Infrastructure, be requested to:

(a) place 50 kph signage along relevant sections of Templetonia Crescent, City Beach;

(b) reconsider the trial of 50 kph painted road markings in the same area following

the completion of the Melville City Council trial.



TS02.71 CONNOLLY STREET – TRAFFIC CALMING (File Reference: TES0107) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider the letter/petition from residents on Connolly Street concerning traffic calming. The petition was tabled at the Council Meeting held on 26 June 2002 and has been referred by Council to Technical Services for consideration. BACKGROUND: In June 2002, a letter/petition was received from residents in Connolly Street and tabled at the Council Meeting held on 25 June 2002. The Council has referred the letter to the Technical Services Committee for consideration. The letter/petition requested that the Town of Cambridge consider the following traffic calming measures to ensure the safety of residents:- • “Reduce access from Connolly St to the through road at St John of God Hospital via

a solid island in Cambridge St across the Connolly St entrance

• Installation of one vehicle wide sections in Connolly St between Ruislip St and Woolwich St and then again between Woolwich St and Barrett St

• Installation of speed humps similar to Gregory St along the length of Connolly St

• Installation of any other traffic calming tools the council considers effective.” There were 12 signatures attached to the letter. There are approximately 40 properties in Connolly Street. A copy of the letter is included in the attachments to this report. DETAILS: It is clear that these residents in Connolly Street are concerned at the speed of vehicles travelling in Connolly Street. They indicate that the speed of vehicles is most evident between 7.30am and 9.30am and then again between 4.30pm and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. The letter indicates that the majority of the traffic in the morning appears to be using Connolly Street as a short cut to:- • Deliver children to West Leederville Primary School. • Gain quicker access to Cambridge Street by detouring from Harborne Street to

Cambridge Street via St Vincent’s Avenue or Ruislip Street and Connolly Street. • The return trip in the evening from Cambridge Street to Lake Monger Drive via

Connolly Street, Ruislip Street and St Vincent’s Avenue. Traffic count statistics for Connolly Street currently available are as follows:- February 2000 85th Percentile Speed

Northbound 506 vpd 54 kph Southbound 428 vpd 64 kph Total 934 vpd



June 2001 85th Percentile Speed

Northbound 479 vpd 63 kph Southbound 386 vpd 58 kph Total 865 vpd

It is clear from this data that the traffic volume is well within that anticipated for a Local Access road. The speed may be high recognising the 50kph legal limit in Local Access roads. It is highlighted, the 50kph speed limit on Local Access roads has been introduced by the State Government last year, but is not enforced or adhered to in many areas to date by the travelling public. The traffic volume in Connolly Street does indicate that the volume of district through traffic is minimal. The average of the north and south eighty fifth percentile traffic speed for 2000 and 2001 is 60kph. It is recognised that the Draft Budget for 2002/2003 includes an item for the traffic calming in St Vincent’s Avenue ($20,000 – Traffic Plateaux Devices). If this work proceeds, it may have an impact on the traffic on the through route between Lake Monger Drive and Cambridge Street via St Vincent’s Avenue and Connolly Street. The requirement for further works can be assessed on completion of the St Vincent’s Avenue work. COMMENT: The letter/petition from the residents in Connolly Street has been responded to by the Administration. A copy of this response has been included in the attachments to this report. This was prepared prior to the tabling of the petition at Council on 25 June 2002. The Traffic Police have been notified of the speeding traffic through Connolly Street and requested to take the appropriate action at the designated times of the day. It is considered that this action should be taken in the first instance so that the offending drivers can be dealt with appropriately. The Traffic Police have agreed to “pay attention to this area” as part of their regular patrols. The attachment includes a copy of correspondence from the WA Police in this regard. Council will continue to monitor the traffic volume and speed in Connolly Street with a view to considering traffic calming devices in the future, recognising the level of funds available. It is recognised that if the section of Connolly Street is heavily traffic calmed, the specific issues may be transferred to the adjacent streets, namely, Gregory Street and Joseph Street. It is noted traffic calming works have been completed in McCourt Street between Ruislip Street and Cambridge Street in 2000/2001. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This recommendation is in accordance with the Council policy of monitoring traffic through the Town and carrying out road works in accordance with the greatest requirement first. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Nil.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications of monitoring the traffic will be absorbed within the Council road maintenance budget. The financial implications of carrying out traffic calming in Connolly Street as requested in the letter and on other Local Access roads, as required for uniformity, would be beyond the Council’s financial resources currently available and this is an area of Strategic Planning requiring attention. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This report has arisen because of the public request. CONCLUSION: The request for traffic calming in Connolly Street, as requested by the street residents, has been considered. The traffic speed may best be managed by requesting the Police monitor this section of road. The recorded traffic volume and speed in Connolly Street is appropriate for a Local Access road. When further monitoring shows that specific devices are required, then they may be considered further by Council. A public consultation program for the development of these traffic devices would involve the residential precinct as work in one street as requested may move the traffic to the adjacent street. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the report concerning the Connolly Street letter/petition requesting traffic

management devices to calm the traffic in Connolly Street be received; (ii) the traffic speed in Connolly Street, between Ruislip Street and Cambridge Street,

West Leederville be monitored and the appropriate action be taken by the Police. Committee Meeting 13 August 2002 During discussion, Members noted that further to the petition, Mrs Veller, 42 Connolly Street wished to establish that the adjacent streets being Gregory Street and McCourt Street have traffic calming plateaux installed and Joseph Street is calmed by way of a “Stop” sign at the Woolwich Street intersection. On this basis, Mrs Veller states that treatments as they have been proposed are warranted in Connolly Street to reduce speed and discourage traffic. Also, correspondence has been received from Dr Edmond Chau of 44B Connolly Street requesting that Council addresses the increased traffic flow in Connolly Street, as well as the perceived traffic speed in excess of 50 kph. Members considered that the Connolly Street/Cambridge Street intersection requires investigation and concern was expressed regarding the impact of parking and traffic from St John of God Hospital on Connolly Street. It was agreed that the residents of Connolly Street be advised of the Council’s decision.



Amendment That further clauses be added to the Motion as follows:- (iii) a further report be submitted to Council on the intersection of Cambridge Street/

Connolly Street and the impact of parking and traffic from St John of God Hospital on Connolly Street, West Leederville;

(iv) the residents of Connolly Street be advised accordingly. Carried. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the report concerning the Connolly Street letter/petition requesting traffic

management devices to calm the traffic in Connolly Street be received; (ii) the traffic speed in Connolly Street, between Ruislip Street and Cambridge

Street, West Leederville be monitored and the appropriate action be taken by the Police;

(iii) a further report be submitted to Council on the intersection of Cambridge

Street/ Connolly Street and the impact of parking and traffic from St John of God Hospital on Connolly Street, West Leederville;

(iv) the residents of Connolly Street be advised of the Council’s decision. Carried



TS02.72 WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE – POLICY REVIEW (File Reference: TEN0047 : ENS0089) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review the “waste removal service” policies for residential properties, commercial/business premises and special cleanup. BACKGROUND: In June 2000, Council approved three policies namely:- • 4.3.1 – Waste Removal Service – Residential Properties. • 4.3.2 – Waste Removal Service – Commercial/Business Premises. • 4.3.3 – Waste Removal Service – Special Clean Up. In April 2001, (Item TS01.37), Council resolved to amend the waste collection service in accordance with tenders received for the new contract. The new service commenced in June 2001. In April 2001, Council decided:- “That:- (i) the planning for the introduction of the new Council Waste and Recyclables

Collection Service be targeted for the first two weeks in June 2001 or as close to this time as is practical;

(ii) residents be allowed to retain the 3 x 50 litre recycling crates currently issued,

should they wish to; (iii) the 50 litre crates that are surplus to Council’s requirements be disposed of at a cost

of $5 per crate including GST; (iv) an education and information program be put in place for the introduction of the new

Waste Collection system in accordance with the Council Budget; (v) the distribution of bins be in accordance with the following guidelines:-

General and Green Waste

Recyclables Paper and Mixed

1. Residential 1 x 240 litre bin 1 x 120 litre bin

2. Multi Residential – (2-4 Strata Units) 1 x 240 litre bin per each 2 Strata

Units

1 x 240 litre bin per property

3. Multi Residential – (2-4 Not Strata) 1 x 240 litre bin 1 x 240 litre bin per property

4. Multi Residential – (5+, Strata) 1 x 240 litre bin

for 2 Strata Units

2 x 240 litre bins per property

5. Residential – (5+, Not Strata) 4 x 240 litre bins

4 x 240 litre bins

6. Commercial – (Strata) and Business 1 x 240 litre bin per Strata Unit




7. Commercial – (Not Strata) and

Business 1 x 240 litre bins

per Property


8. Schools, Government Offices and Churches

1 x 240 litre bin Nil

(vi) where residents require an additional capacity for disposal of recycling material, the

120 litre bin can be replaced with a 240 litre bin with yellow lid which can be purchased a cost of $60 (once off) including GST;

(vii) where an additional 240 litre general waste/green bin is requested, they can be

provided at the cost of $132 inclusive of GST per bin per annum, in accordance with the currently adopted scheduled of fees and charges that are reviewed on an annual basis by Council.”

It is clear that there was a significant change to the waste collection service in June 2001. The policy was due for review in September 2002. This report brings up to date the “waste removal service” policy in line with the current contract. In association with the introduction of the new service in June 2001, it became apparent that there was a need to review the number of bins issued to 2 to 4 multi residential strata units. This review has also been incorporated into this report and the proposed policy. DETAILS: In May 1996, Council’s waste collection contractors commenced a five year contract which collected domestic and commercial rubbish, green waste and recycling materials. The standard domestic service incorporated:- • 1 x 240 litre bin collected fortnightly for green waste. • 1 x 120 litre bin collected weekly for general waste. • 3 x 50 litre crates collected weekly for recycling materials. The multi residential and commercial properties utilised 240 litre bins for general waste, green waste and recycling materials. The system introduced for domestic waste in June 2001, in accordance with the April 2001 Council decision, incorporated:- • 1 x 240 litre bin collected weekly for general waste and green waste. • 1 x 120 litre bin collected fortnightly for recyclable materials. This current contract was granted for a three year period with an option for an extension for one year, plus one year. The term of the contract was set to provide flexibility recognising the potential developments that may be introduced during the next five years. In particular the secondary treatment plant may be developed by the Mindarie Regional Council. The new policies 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, reflect the changes that have been introduced above.



During the transition from the previous contract to the current contract in June 2001, it was evident that there was a need to review the minimum number of bins allocated to 2, 3 and 4 strata residential units because they:- • Often had no common ground for shared bins because of the site layout. • There is no common bins compound. • The bins are placed on the verge for collection by each unit occupier. • The rates for each strata unit were above the minimum rate. • Occupiers requested individual rubbish bins. COMMENT: The “waste removal service” policies are due for review in September 2002 and it is appropriate that the review reflect the new waste contract as introduced in June 2001 in accordance with the Council resolution of April 2001. Associated with this review it is proposed that there be an adjustment of the minimum number of bins allocated to two to four strata units in recognition of the requests, the current design of many of the units and the extent of rates contributed by these strata units. Council’s Administration in conjunction with Cleanaway have been developing an asset register of all bins. The asset register will record the number of bins at each property. A practice of bin placement can then be introduced for future developments. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This report is aimed to update the current policy to conform to current practice. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed budget for 2002/2003 is based on this new policy and the current waste collection contract. It is anticipated that the variation in bins allocated to strata units 2, 3 and 4, will have minimal impact on the total budget. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC CONSULTATION: The waste management system collection system is under the control of the Town and the tender let by Council. CONCLUSION: The proposed policy amendments to the “waste removal service” policies are in accordance with the Council’s new contract and current practice.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That the following policies:-

• Waste Removal Service – Residential Properties – 4.3.1; • Waste Removal Service – Commercial Business Premises – 4.3.2; • Waste Removal Service – Special Clean Up – 4.3.3;

as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be amended. Carried



TS02.73 PERRY LAKES DRIVE – PARKING (File Reference: PKG0006 PURPOSE OF REPORT: To give consideration for the establishment of a parking area on the eastern side road shoulder of Perry Lakes Drive adjacent to the Perry Lakes Skateboard track. BACKGROUND: In April 2001, the Perry Lakes Skateboard track construction was completed. During the last twelve months, many users of the facility and parents have picked up and dropped off their children on the Perry Lakes Drive road shoulder opposite the Skateboard track. This activity has led to a deterioration of the road shoulder over a length of approximately 60 metres adjacent to the track and it is appropriate works be completed to resolve this problem. Perry Lakes Reserve is well used by recreational cyclists and walkers. Council has received requests to provide dual use path facilities linking Oceanic Drive and Underwood Avenue via Perry Lakes Drive. The Perry Lakes Management Plan also raises this issue. The development of the road shoulder parking will need to recognise the option for location of a dual use path in future. DETAILS: It is proposed that the road shoulder be bitumen sealed to accommodate parallel parking adjacent to the skateboard track. The length of parking identified from site usage is to be 55 metres with a 5 metre taper at both ends. The width of parking is to be 3.7 metres. A plan showing this detail is included in the attachments to this report. The overall length of the shoulder parking is in accordance with the length of the road shoulder that has been damaged by cars pulling off and going back onto the through road. This length will accommodate eight cars. The location of the shoulder parking is such that parents can sit in the car and view activities at the skateboard track. There is a gap between the existing trees that would provide good visibility of the track activities. There is adequate space between the existing through road and the pine log bollards to provide road shoulder parking and permit passengers to open their car door without encroaching into the Perry Lakes Drive through traffic or damaging the pine log bollards. There is approximately 5½ metres between the existing pine log bollards and the existing trees in Perry Lakes Reserve that would be adequate for the development of future dual use path to accommodate both the cyclists and pedestrians. There is a further 2½ metres between this row of trees and the skateboard track for ease of access to the track. An alternative location for the dual use path may be on the eastern side of the skateboard track so that cyclists and pedestrians will be in the morning sun away from the tree shade and damp grass. This alternative location for the path will be in the afternoon and evening shade and can be lined up with the existing sealed road/path around the western side of the northern lake.



The estimated cost for establishing the bitumen road shoulder parking is $12,000. Funds for this work have not been included within the adopted 2002/2003 Budget and unless approved as an unbudgeted expenditure from the Municipal Funds, the only available funding source would be from the Endowment Lands Funds. This project would qualify for these funds as it is both within the defined area and is a community facility. COMMENT: The skateboard track has been operating for 15 months and it has shown that road shoulder parking along Perry Lakes Drive adjacent to the skateboard track is frequently demanded. The road shoulder will need reinforcing and require extensive maintenance in the near future because of this continued use and the deterioration of the edge of the Perry Lakes Drive bitumen at this location. The proposed parallel parking on the road shoulder on the eastern side of Perry Lakes Drive for a length of 60 metres adjacent to the skateboard track can be accommodated and there are options for the development of a dual use path in the future. This proposal was discussed a the Perry Lakes Working Group Meeting held on 25 July 2002 where it was agreed a report be presented to Technical Services Committee and the improvement should be low key. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This project conforms to the Strategic Direction for the management of the maintenance of Council’s roads and the development of the Perry Lakes Reserve. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This recommendation is in accordance with Council’s policy to provide facilities as required for the development of the Council Reserves and the benefit of the community. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated cost of the position of a 55 metre long parallel parking road shoulder is $12,000. These funds may be allocated from the Endowment Lands Funds, or will require approval from Municipal Reserves as an unbudgeted expenditure. This project conforms to the requirements for this reserve in that the site is in the land endowment area and the project will benefit the community. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has not been canvassed in the wider public. It does accommodate future developments as requested by the community in as much as there is adequate space for the location of a dual use path when required. CONCLUSION: This recommendation is brought before Council to provide a parallel parking embayment on the eastern side of Perry Lakes Drive adjacent to the skateboard track because:- • The existing shoulder along this section of Perry Lakes Drive does require

maintenance. • There is a requirement to establish shoulder parking adjacent to the skateboard

track.



The actual location of the cycle/walk path linking Oceanic Drive with Underwood Avenue can be accommodated when this road shoulder parking is complete. The path may be between the bollards and the skateboard track or on the eastern side of the skateboard track and this decision will be made in future after consultation with the Perry Lakes Management Plan and Working Group. The option for the development of a parallel parking bay on the eastern shoulder of Perry Lakes Drive adjacent to the skateboard track was raised at the July 2002 Perry Lakes Working Group meeting. The benefit of the project was recognised and approval was only practical when full details as tabled in this report were presented. Committee Meeting 13 August 2002 During discussion, the Administration was requested to arrange a site visit to Rosalie Park to inspect the BG paving blocks and to obtain costings and information on maintenance requirements prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 27 August 2002. Cr Anderton requested that she be recorded as voting against the motion. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 13 August 2002) During Committee discussion on this item, the Administration was requested to advise costs associated with construction using “concrete blocks”. CSR Humes provide a product known as BG Blocks and this product can be viewed as an installed pavement at the following sites:- • Rosalie Park – access off Onslow Road. Verge area adjacent access road and

rugby field.

• Roberts Road – access to Mueller Pard which caters for Subiaco Oval Football parking. East of Subiaco Oval.

Costs associated with the 220m2 of pavement as detailed in the report attachment would rise to $22,000 from $12,000 if construction was to be completed using BG blocks in lieu of a conventional Hotmix finished pavement. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the parallel parking on the eastern side road shoulder of Perry Lakes Drive

adjacent to the skateboard track, as included in the plan attached to this report, be approved for construction at a cost of $12,000;

(ii) an amount of $12,000 for the work in (i) above be authorised by an

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 and funded from the Endowment Lands Account.

During discussion, Members noted the additional cost of approximately $10,000 to purchase the “block pave” product. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY



TS02.74 RAILWAY PARADE – ROAD WORKS (File Reference: TES0038 : TES0091) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To give consideration to the community comments and to define the works program for the upgrading of Railway Parade from Blencowe Street to Kerr Street in West Leederville. BACKGROUND: In March 2002 (Item TS02.15), Council discussed the criteria for the upgrading of Railway Parade and decided:- “That: - (i) the report discussing the development of Railway Parade from Haydn Bunton Drive

to Loftus Street and the plans as tabled (Drawing No. 340 02 01, 3 sheets) be adopted for community comment and construction;

(ii) the parking bays on the southern side of Railway Parade between Blencowe Street

and Hamilton Street be approved for construction and funds totalling $50,000 be reallocated from the current adopted budgeted project for Stage 2 verge improvements on Railway Parade (Job No. C734-002);

(iii) the remaining works associated with the plans tabled at Committee for the

upgrading of Railway Parade be considered in future budget submissions; (iv) the deferred works associated with Stage 2 verge improvements on Railway Parade

at a cost of $50,000 be included in the Draft 2002/03 Budget.” The public comment period was conducted between 12 July 2002 to 29 July 2002. A display was held in the Council’s Administration Office foyer and was advertised on two consecutive weeks in the Post Newspaper. The community comments are included in the attachments to this report. An information pack with plans and a comment form was distributed to all the residents and businesses along the northern side of Railway Parade from Blencowe Street to Kerr Street as part of the public community comment phase. It is recognised that during the past five years there have been four recorded accidents at the intersection of Kimberley Street and Railway Parade and six reported accidents at the corner of Northwood Street and Railway Parade. The setting sun had caused concern for westbound traffic in Railway Parade at Northwood Street and is a key factor in the accident statistics. The proposed road works will provide a one lane of traffic in each direction, kerbside parking on the northern side of Railway Parade and embayed parking on the southern side of Railway Parade. The median island through the centre of Railway Parade will provide both pedestrian/cyclist refuge and a consistent alignment for traffic to follow on the through road safely.



DETAILS: There were eight submissions from the community. All residents who made comments on the proposal either have businesses or live in the section of Railway Parade where the proposed road works are to be implemented. It is clear that residents are conscious of the need for kerbside parking and improved sight distance when exiting from side roads, rights of way and crossovers. These two issues are in conflict. Recognising the community comment, it is proposed to retain the kerbside parking in its existing position where practical. It was proposed to introduce kerbside parking embayments in Northwood Street and Kimberley Street with the introduction of corner nibs and extended footpaths. This would reduce the distance for pedestrians to walk when crossing the side roads. These were not favoured by the community and it is proposed that these be removed from the original design plans. The community comment suggested that the kerbside nibs on the northern side of Railway Parade just east of Northwood Street be removed. It is proposed that these be kept to ensure that the holding line for the southbound traffic in Northwood Street permits the motorist to have the best possible sight distance prior to entering Railway Parade. Further, the removal of the pedestrian crossing nib on the north side of Railway Parade would disadvantage pedestrians crossing Railway Parade at this point. The removal of the corner nib would not increase kerbside parking and the removal of the pedestrian nib would disadvantage pedestrians crossing Railway Parade to access the railway station. The community comments requested that consideration be given to increasing the width of the median islands and removing the median island in Northwood Street. Their rationale was that median islands reduce kerbside parking in the side streets. It is proposed that the median islands in both Kimberley Street and Northwood Street be retained to assist pedestrians crossing the side streets. With the removal of the nib on the western side of Northwood Street, the median island can be moved westward to ensure that no parking bays are lost in Northwood Street. With the nibs removed in Kimberley Street, it is proposed that the Kimberley Street median be widened to 2 metres to provide additional refuge for pedestrians. This will ensure that there are no lost kerbside parking space in Kimberley Street or Northwood Street and the maximum protection is given to the pedestrians. The median islands in Railway Parade have been set at 1.5 metres. It is desirable that the median island be 1.8 to 2.0 metres in width, however, without relocating the kerb and trees, this is not practical. It is proposed that the breaks in the median island for pedestrian crossing be widened to 2.5 metres to accommodate pram and bicycles with safety. There is a concern that the traffic in Railway Parade is travelling in excess of 60 kph. Traffic counts recorded during the last three years show that eighty five percent of the traffic is travelling below 62 kph. Recordings at some sites show that the traffic is travelling below 60 kph. It is considered that this speed zoning is adequate for this road, recognising it is a clear link road between Loftus Street and Haydn Bunton Drive/Salvado Road and the traffic volume and adjacent land use. The narrow through pavement is approximately 3.5 metres, plus the extent of traffic and kerbside parking will ensure that the practical speed through this road will be maintained at the 60 to 62 kph eighty fifth percentile limit.



In the future, if a roundabout is developed at Kimberley Street and Railway Parade, it is clear that the traffic speed will be significantly reduced at this site. A design incorporating a roundabout will be tabled at Committee (Drawing No. E304-02-04). This was included within the community comment as an option for future planning and to demonstrate how it can be included within the traffic management plan in the future. It is recognised from the community comments that a drainage issue on the south side kerb in Railway Parade opposite Northwood Street is a concern. The issue with this drain is that it is the direct access to the Water Corporation outlet system to the Subiaco main drain and the exit rate of flow of their drain is limited. Council have for many years continually monitored this system, ensuring that this drain is well maintained to provide the maximum outlet flow. Consideration can be given within these road works to providing additional soakage pits in the area, however, recognising the high water table, the success of this will be limited. It is recognized that the treescape on the south side of Railway Parade west of Kerr Street was delayed to enable these road works to proceed. Once the road works are complete, the landscaping of south verge can proceed. It is proposed that there will be some trees planted in the median islands associated with this road work. These will both enhance the visibility of the streetscape, as well as provide shade to shield the motorists’ vision from the setting sun. There will be approximately six trees planted in the medians as part of this project. The roundabout option at the intersection of Kimberley Street and Railway Parade did get support from the community. They view this option as a benefit in calming the traffic along Railway Parade. This program can be developed once land is acquired from the railway reserve. This land acquisition may take some time and could be a project to be considered within the next five years. The removal of the nibs in Kimberley Street at this stage is in part a recognition of this future roundabout development. The request for a solid median to prevent right turn in and out of driveways between Kimberley Street and Kerr Street is recognised as a good traffic option when the roundabout is established. That is, residents traveling westward along Railway Parade either from Perth or from the Hamilton Street Bridge can use the Kimberley Street roundabout to carry out a U-turn and head eastward to access the northern properties or travel towards the City. Traffic leaving the properties and wishing to travel westward would turn left into Railway Parade, then left into Kerr Street and left into Cambridge Street. The pedestrian light pole on the northern side of Railway Parade adjacent to the Secondhand Book Shop is required to be removed as part of the proposed works. There is one palm tree on the south side of Railway Parade that will require moving approximately one metre southwards to enable the bus bay to be established on the south side of Railway Parade just east of Northwood Street. This bus bay is adjacent to the railway station. There has been a request to provide a metre wide footpath along the south side of Railway Parade between Haydn Bunton Drive and the Northwood Street railway station. It is practical to lay this in part, but not throughout the whole section because of the treescape. There is an advantage in placing this path adjacent to parking to enable passengers to move to a safe road crossing. This will be given consideration in association with future footpath works.



It is recognised that in May 2002 (TS02.40), Council decided that there be a footpath link on the south side of Railway Parade from the new extended railway platform opposite Kimberley Street to the existing paths at Kimberley Street, Kerr Street and Hamilton Street. The Council funds for the establishment of this path have been included in the budget for 2002/2003 as a carried forward project. This path is being established with the assistance of Westrail and their Contractors. COMMENT: The community comment for this project is generally encouraging, however, it is clear that the community concerns are:- • The maximum extent of kerbside parking is required for the commercial and

residential properties.

• Kerbside parking should be restricted in appropriate locations to ensure that there is adequate sight distance when exiting the side roads, rights of way and private properties onto Railway Parade.

• Traffic speed in Railway Parade is considered to be excessive.

• Footpath improvements are welcomed.

• Improved alignment of the through road along Railway Parade at the intersection of Northwood Street will increase road safety.

• The option for the provision of a roundabout at Railway Parade/Kimberley Street intersection is favoured.

To assist with the development of the road, it is proposed that minor adjustments to the plans circulated be made to the median islands to widen them where practical and to remove the kerbside nibs in Northwood Street and Kimberley Street. The existing nibs in Railway Parade just east of Northwood Street be retained to assist with the management of the intersection and maintain the pedestrian crossing. The 2002/2003 Budget has an allocation of $77,500 for this work and it is anticipated that the work can be completed within this budget allocation. Resurfacing of pavements will be considered within the budget for 2003/2004. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The strategic direction for the development of Railway Parade is the single lane in each direction with a 3.5 metre carriageway and a 1.5 metre median. Kerbside parking be provided where practical and be installed in a parking bay on the southern side of Railway Parade. Street landscape be a key element with a view to shielding Railway Reserve from the residential precinct. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This report is in accordance with Council policy to improve the amenity and safety within the road network. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: It is recognised that the upgrading of Railway Parade will be carried out in stages due to the limited budget funds available. Stage 1 will be from Blencowe Street to Kerr Street and will be funded from the $77,500 allocated in the Budget for 2002/2003.



PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Public consultation is included in this report. CONCLUSION: Recognising the number of accidents along Railway Parade at both Kimberley Street and Northwood Street, it is proposed that the strategic direction as set out in the Council report TS02.15 March 2002 and this report, be implemented in from Blencowe Street to Kerr Street in 2002/2003. The works will be carried out in accordance with Drawing Number E304-02-01 Sheet 1,2 and 3, as amended and tabled. Modifications to these plans will include the removal of the nibs on the north west corner of Northwood Street and Railway Parade and the removal of the nibs in Kimberley Street just north of Railway Parade. Adjustments to the median island will be made to provide the maximum width and to minimise the extent of disruption to kerbside parking. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the works associated with traffic management on Railway Parade between

Blencowe Street and Kerr Street, and on the intersections between, as detailed on the tabled plans E304-02-01, Sheets 1,2 and 3, be approved for construction with the following amendments being made:-

• removal of the pavement nib in Northwood Street on the western side; • removal of the pavement nibs in Kimberley Street on both sides of the

pavement; • median islands being adjusted to accommodate kerbside parking

resultant from the items above; (ii) works associated with landscaping the south side of Railway Parade between

Kerr Street and Haydn Bunton Drive, which were deferred in 2001/2002, be listed for budget consideration in 2003/2004.

Carried



TS02.75 HOWTREE PLACE – TRAFFIC STUDY (File Reference: TES0247 : TES0367) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To present to Council the community comments received during the public consultation period for the proposed works on Howtree Place between Oceanic Drive and The Boulevard in Floreat. To establish the staging of the proposed works to be carried out for the upgrading of Howtree Place. BACKGROUND: In April 2002 (TS02.30) and February 2000 (TS00.05), Council reports have discussed a range of concepts for the development of Howtree Place. At the meeting in April 2002, it was decided:- “That the proposed conceptual design for Howtree Place, Floreat, as illustrated on Plan Number E168-02-01 be approved for detailed design and costing and public consultation.” The design of Howtree Place has encompassed the following objectives:- • To improve the footpath on both sides of Howtree Place. • Provide improved pedestrian crossing points over Howtree Place. • Improve the right turn traffic movements from Howtree Place into the southern

Floreat Forum carpark. • Improve the right turn traffic movement from Howtree Place into Chandler Avenue. • Calm traffic by narrowing Howtree Place to a single 3.5 metre wide lane in each

direction, with provision for embayed parallel parking. • Improve the aesthetic appearance of Howtree Place through the use of improved

landscaping on the footpaths and new landscaping in the new median. The traffic volume in Howtree Place north of Chandler Avenue as recorded in 2001 was approximately 11,000 vehicles per day. The number of recorded accidents over the five year period at the intersection of Howtree Place and Chandler Avenue was four. The plan of the proposed works was displayed in the Council Administration Office Foyer for 3 weeks from 15 June to the 5 July 2002. The display was advertised in the Post Newspaper on the 15 and 22 June 2002. Discussions have been held with representatives from the school and Floreat Forum Shopping Centre Management. One written submission was also received. DETAILS: The proposed development includes a median island in Howtree Place which will provide right turn pockets for cars to access the shopping centre southern carpark and Chandler Avenue. Further, the median island will give an opportunity for there to be a tree planting program in the median to enhance the streetscape. The median islands do provide safe refuge for pedestrians crossing the roads. The proposed four pedestrian crossing points are:-



1. In Howtree Place just north of the shopping centre carpark access; 2. In Howtree Place at a point just south of Chandler Avenue; 3. In Howtree Place at the guarded school patrol crossing just north of Chandler

Avenue linking the shopping centre pedestrian access and the school pedestrian gate;

4. In Chandler Avenue just west of Howtree Place. As a consequence of the design, kerbside parking has been reduced along Howtree Place. Priority has been given to accommodating pedestrians and traffic flexibility. The median island in Howtree Place was considered a priority to facilitate right turn lanes into the shoppers carpark and Chandler Avenue. It is recognised that the shopping centre, sports reserve and school, all generate pedestrian traffic. Therefore pedestrian crossings over Howtree Place and the provision of footpath space were seen as priority. There will be a reduction of four carparking spaces on the western side of Howtree Place south of Chandler Avenue to accommodate the pedestrian crossing over Howtree Place and the right turn pocket in the median from Howtree Place into the shoppers carpark. There will be a reduction of five bays from the western side of Howtree Place north of Chandler Avenue to accommodate the right turn pocket in the median for traffic from Howtree Place into Chandler Avenue. It is recognised that this will remove the school “pick up” and “set down” parking, however, provide the school parents with an option to safely turn right into Chandler Avenue to access the Floreat Reserve carpark. There will be a removal of ten kerbside parking spaces along the eastern side of Howtree Place south over Chandler Avenue to accommodate the median island pedestrian crossings and truck loading crossovers. It is recognised that the 3.5 metre wide through traffic lane is too narrow to accommodate through traffic, plus the cyclists. Some commuter cyclists may ride in the lane as a vehicle, however, alternative routes are provided for cyclists in the adjacent streets. The Boulevard dual use path is recognised as an east/west continuity link for access to Ulster Road dual use path which links southwards to Oceanic Drive, Arbordale Street, Alderbury Street and Brookdale Street City to Sea Greenway. The alternative path for cyclists east of Howtree Place is to use Linden Gardens, Orrel Avenue, Hornsey Road and Sunnyside Road to Salvado Road and Brookdale Street City to Sea Greenway cycle path. It is clear that during “off peak” times of the week, Howtree Place and Brookdale Street can accommodate cyclists because of the reduced traffic volume on the road. The cycle lobby group are keen that all roads accommodate cyclists. It is with regret that this is not practical in a 20 metre road reserve with the demands on the space available. Recognising the adjacent land use, priority in this section of road is given to traffic and pedestrians. This is in keeping with the accommodation of cyclist routes on other roads within the neighbourhood. The right turn median pocket in Howtree Place for traffic to turn into Chandler Avenue is considered desirable to assist the circulation of local traffic and access to the Primary School. It is recognised that as a result of the revamping of the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre, the shoppers carpark will not be as accessible to the school “pick up”, “drop off”, routine as was the previous layout. Recognising the new Floreat Shopping Centre layout, it is considered preferable to encourage all children to be picked up and dropped off in the Floreat Reserve Carpark off Chandler Avenue. Therefore, safe convenient access to this facility is essential.



It is proposed that a bus bay be established on the eastern side of Howtree Place just north of the School Children Pedestrian Crossing. This bus bay will establish room within the road pavement to facilitate the right turn pocket and assist the pedestrian visibility when crossing at the Howtree Place school crossing site just north of Chandler Avenue. The bus bay on the western side of Howtree Place will be moved northwards and be accommodated within the road pavement. This bus bay will be an extension of the current kerbside parking. The Floreat Forum Developers will establish a consistent quality concrete footpath on the eastern side of Howtree Place as this is part of the development as existing pathways are being damaged during construction. It is proposed that Council replaces the footpath on the western side of Howtree Place when the trees that are damaging the current footpath are removed (Ficus hillii). The footpath on the western side of Howtree Place adjacent to the Primary School is proposed to be full verge width from the kerb to boundary line. This will provide adequate space for pedestrians, those accessing the public telephone box and the bus stop. It is recognised that with the relocation of the pedestrian access to the Floreat Forum and the relocation of the school pedestrian crossing and the encouragement for the use of the school pedestrian gate off Howtree Place, there will be additional pedestrian traffic on the western side of Howtree Place north of Chandler Avenue. There are pedestrian gates to the Reabold Tennis Club and Bowling Green off Howtree Place. These are seldom used despite the presence of kerbside parking adjacent to these gates on the western side of Howtree Place. The development and maintenance of this footpath adjacent to these gates may encourage the use of these accesses. It is considered that an improvement to the Howtree Place streetscape is desirable. The existing trees on the western side of Howtree Place are damaging the roadside kerb and footpath. The trees on the eastern side of Howtree Place are in poor condition due to the extensive hours of shade from the shop not encouraging this tree species to flourish. These will be removed by the Floreat Forum Developer when constructing the new footpath pavement. It is proposed that the new footpath will accommodate new tree species on both the eastern and western of Howtree Place. Species will be carefully chosen to ensure compatibility with the environment and Council’s Draft Treescape Plan. Further, it is proposed that there will be approximately twelve trees in the median island. The estimated cost for the upgrading of Howtree Place and the Chandler Avenue intersection is planned to be shared between the Shopping Centre Developers and the Town. The Shopping Centre Developers will establish the eastern footpath and new kerbline, plus relocate a temporary median island for the school pedestrian crossing. The estimated cost of this work is $65,000. The Town will develop the footpath on the western side of Howtree Place, the median island through Howtree Place, the Howtree Place/Chandler Avenue intersection, plus establish a treescape. The estimated cost of this work is $200,000. As a re-seal of Howtree Place is currently required, the resurfacing can be carried out, with the red hotmix seal median, at a cost of $70,000 in future Council budgets. It is clear that this is an extensive project and the availability of funds will demand that the project will be carried out in stages:- • Stage 1 will be carried out by Bovis Lend Lease who will establish the new footpath

and kerbline on the eastern side of Howtree Place and relocate the guarded school pedestrian crossing median. Adjustment to kerbside parking will then follow.



• Stage 2 will be the establishment of the western footpath and new kerbline and the intersection works at Howtree Place and Chandler Avenue. The median island, including the right turn pockets at the southern carpark access and the new treescape will finalise this stage of the project.

• Stage 3 will include the resurfacing of the road and will include the red hotmix median linkages.

• Stage 4 will involve improvements to existing street lighting. Council may give consideration to funding Stage 2 and 3 with the assistance of Federal and State Government Grants or it will be considered for project consideration in future Council budgets. COMMENT: The development of Howtree Place has been considered during the last three years. The development of the Floreat Forum has been a catalyst in developing the overall plan and the works will commence on the eastern side of Howtree Place. The footpath on the western side of Howtree Place is in urgent need of upgrading due to the extensive damage caused by the tree roots. Council has previously considered the tree removal as part of the overall Town’s tree management plan. Extensive consultation has been carried out with Bovis Lend Lease for further development of Howtree Place. The works that they have agreed to carry out are those that can be expected within the planning approval. Additional works have been agreed with a view to enhancing their development and providing pedestrian safety. They have had consultation with the Floreat Primary School with respect to the relocation of the pedestrian crossing and kerbside parking. It is anticipated that street lighting will also require to be upgraded in Howtree Place. This additional project will cost approximately $100,000. This is not a priority at this stage as the lighting is adequate and will be improved when the trees on the western side of Howtree Place are removed. Further, the overhead high voltage power lines will remain in place beyond any future underground power program as they are distribution transmission lines. The high voltage power line poles are used for mounting the street lights. The key element in this report is to establish the overall plan so that the staged development can take place with a contribution from Bovis Lend Lease and road improvement grants prior to Council allocating further funds. It is anticipated that this project will be given budget consideration in 2003/2004. The staged development proposed will be co-ordinated to Plan E168.02.02 as tabled if endorsed by Council. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This plan is in accordance with the strategic direction of Council to provide facilities for the community that are both environmentally friendly and part of an overall plan. It is recognised that the strategic direction for this project is also important and that this recommendation will provide the necessary direction for each stage of the project.



POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This proposal is in keeping with the Council policy to involve the community in the development of traffic plans. Further, to provide road infrastructure so that it is environmentally friendly, in harmony with the adjacent land use, safe and provides pedestrian facilities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Stage 1 of the project will largely be funded by Bovis Lend Lease and works are expected to be completed by December 2002. Council’s contribution for the planting of trees on the eastern side of Howtree Place in conjunction with the new footpath on the eastern side of Howtree Place has been budgeted in the 2002/2003 Budget at $11,000. Consideration may be given to applying for a Road Rehabilitation Grant for Stage 2 of this project. The accommodation of pedestrian crossings, right turn movements and buses will assist with this grant application. Modifications may be made to accommodate the grant points priority and if this is the case Council may need to contribute additional funds beyond the one third grant contribution to accommodate footpaths. Street lighting is not considered essential at this stage and can be considered at a future date and in comparison with other Town lighting requirements. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This report includes the public consultation as advertised in two consecutive Post Newspapers. The public consultation period was from the 15 June 2002 to the 15 July 2002. This was the three weeks prior to the school holidays. In discussions with the School Principal, it is clear that the Parents and Citizens Association may have additional comments. These will be forwarded to Councillors as they become available. Specific comment was requested from the management of the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre and all issues are included within the tabled plans. CONCLUSION: This report for the upgrading of the Howtree Place has been written as a follow up to the two previous reports, namely, February 2000 (TS00.05) and April 2002 (TS02.29). Consultation with the adjacent property owners representatives and a three week public comment period has provided input in finalising the recommendations. It is clear that it will be necessary to stage the project and that the first stage will be carried out as part of the Floreat Forum development plan. Further, the stages will require that each stage “stand alone” and be co-ordinated so that each step will be part of the management plan. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the proposed works as included on Plan Number E168-02-02 be approved for

a staged development and construction;



(ii) the kerbside parking along Howtree Place from Oceanic Drive to The

Boulevard be developed in accordance with each stage of the development of Howtree Place when required by that development in accordance with the Plan Number E168-02-02 as tabled;

(iii) the Administration proceeds to apply for road funding grants from

Government organisations and consideration be made when preparing Draft Budgets for 2003/2004 to incorporate completion of the project works.

Carried



TS02.76 LANEWAY CONSTRUCTION – GRANTHAM STREET (NORTH OF) NANSON STREET/ESSEX STREET (File Reference: TES0158) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To seek Council approval to construct a portion of laneway causing access and maintenance difficulties to the Town and laneway users. BACKGROUND: At the Special Council meeting held on Tuesday 7 August 2002, the requirement to construct a portion of laneway north of Grantham Street, between Nanson Street and Essex Street was raised and the Administration was requested to report to Technical Services Committee on the issue. Construction of laneways as a Town initiative has previously been the subject of Report TS01.53 (June 2001), where a Rights of Way (Laneway) Management Plan was adopted by the Town to be used as a basis for future budget consideration. DETAILS: The laneway requiring construction is north of Grantham Street and adjacent to commercial properties in Nanson Street. The laneway also services the rear carpark of a Doctor Surgery located at the corner of Grantham Street and Essex Street. The laneway access has a steep fall from the Grantham Street kerbline which causes extensive erosion scour to the accessway. It is expected complete pavement construction, inclusive of drainage is required to correct the situation, as routine maintenance of the general pavement after rains is only a temporary repair between rain events. Ideally, construction for approximately 30 metres is required which covers at least two blocks and finishes where ground levels are flat and erosion potential is minimal. The standard of treatment is expected to match the works completed on the south side of Grantham Street last year and opposite this proposal. It is estimated the works will cost $10,000. COMMENT: Whilst the works are not on the adopted budget for 2002/2003, and they are not on the management program developed in June 2001 (TS01.53), the works are considered to be worthy of construction and conform to the parameters listed within the Council Policy Number 4.2.22 – Rights of Way Development. Criteria for assessment in Policy 4.2.22 include:- • Flooding problems. • Sandy surface. • Significant daily usage. • Property access. It is responsible for Council to improve the existing surface in order to encourage the rear parking for the adjacent commercial businesses and as the laneway abuts an existing carpark servicing a Doctor Surgery.



POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Town’s Policy Number 4.2.22 is relevant and has requirements that are met by this proposal. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The Town’s Strategic Plan incorporates the following goals which are relevant to this issue:- • To ensure that the Town’s assets perform in accordance with the appropriate

recognised, acceptable standards for the safety and benefit of the community.

• To improve the Town’s natural and built assets in consultation with the community, in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The adopted budget for 2002/2003 does not have any allowance for this laneway construction. Laneways funded within the adopted budget have all been funded from the Area Reserve Account. The adopted budget does have an allowance of $25,000 as a Non Capital Works Item to commence improvements to laneways which were acquired from the Catholic Church in July 2000. The adopted budget does allow for the development of land at the intersection of Jersey Street and Salvado Road and a construction contract was awarded by Council on 7 August 2002 for this project. The proceeds from the sale of these 19 lots has been identified as a source of funding for laneways within the business plan prepared for that development and it is appropriate for this new project to also be funded from the Area Reserve Account. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil PUBLIC CONSULTATION: The requirements for the improvements have been raised by an adjacent business operator and users of the laneway through a Councillor and the Administration. CONCLUSION: Whilst Council does have a Rights of Way (Laneway) Management Program (TS01.53 June 2001) and a Council Policy Number 4.2.22 to guide development of laneways constructed within the Town, circumstances can occur where extra projects are identified for early construction. The laneway north of Grantham Street, between Essex Street and Nanson Street has been identified as an example where maintenance works will not resolve a drainage scour to the existing pavement surface. A requirement exists to construct the first 30 metres and install drainage in order to resolve the ongoing problem. The added importance in construction of this laneway is to provide a safe pavement surface to encourage rear parking to a commercial area.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Pinerua That:- (i) the construction and drainage of approximately 30 metres of laneway north of

Grantham Street between Nanson Street and Essex Street be approved at a budget cost of $10,000;

(ii) an amount of $10,000 for the works in (i) above be authorised by an

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, to be funded from the Area Improvement Reserve Account.




8. REPORTS FROM DELEGATES: COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS

8.1 Lake Monger Working Group

Nothing further to report.

8.2 Perry Lakes Working Group


8.3 Mindarie Regional Council

Mayor Willcock reported that he has been receiving letters of protest from residents of the City of Wanneroo regarding Mindarie Regional Council’s preferred site for the proposed secondary waste treatment plant. The next meeting is to be held at the City of Wanneroo on Thursday 29 August 2002.

8.4 Wembley Golf Complex Advisory Committee


9. GENERAL BUSINESS

9.1 Holy Spirit Primary School

Cr Smith asked if a report is to be submitted to Council in response to the letter tabled at the Special Council Meeting on 6 August 2002 in relation to parking in Brompton Road at the Holy Spirit Primary School. Executive Manager Technical Services advised that a report will be submitted to a future meeting.

9.2 Bus Seat at Cambridge Street/Kimberley Street

Cr Smith stated that a resident has expressed appreciation for the bus seat located at the intersection of Cambridge Street and Kimberley Street.

9.3 Travelsmart

Cr Anderton requested information on the progress of the provision of data from Travelsmart. Executive Manager Technical Services advised that the matter is progressing and a summary of changes in travel patterns will be provided following receipt of data from Transport.



9.4 West Coast Highway

Cr Anderton expressed concern that remedial works were required to the pedestrian access facilities being installed, particularly to the bus stop on the western side between Marapana Road and Oceanic Drive by Main Roads WA on the West Coast Highway. Executive Manager Technical Services advised that the issues will be investigated.

9.5 City Beach Boardwalk

Cr Anderton requested that rubbish bins be placed on the upgraded boardwalk at the access points from the beach.

9.6 Challenger Parade Street Lighting

Cr Anderton requested that a report be submitted on the adequacy and safety of existing rusty street lighting poles along Challenger Parade, City Beach.

9.7 City Beach Playground

Cr Anderton requested that a report be submitted on the progress of the playground at City Beach and progress of the Brief for the Coastal Development Plan. Executive Manager Technical Services advised that the Coastal Plan is being progressed through the Development and Environmental Services Committee.

9.8 Pathway linking Floreat and City Beaches

Cr Anderton requested that a report be prepared on the progress a pathway linking Floreat and City Beaches. The path is to be located on the western side of Challenger Parade.

10. CLOSURE There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for

their attendance and declared the meeting of the Technical Services Committee closed at 8.30pm.


\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\C CCS.doc 62

CORPORATE AND CUSTOMER SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee Meeting held on 19 August 2002 was submitted as under: 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee open at 6.01pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of

Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Hilary Pinerua (Presiding Member) 6.01pm 6.40pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.01pm 6.40pm Cr Ken McAullay 6.01pm 6.40pm Observers: Mayor Ross Willcock JP 6.10pm 6.26pm 6.28pm 6.40pm

Officers: Jason Buckley, Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Financial and Business Services Cam Robbins, Manager Community Development Jan Minchin, Manager Customer Services David MacPherson, Property and Business Development Officer John Bown, Team Leader Ranger Services Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 6.40pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Smith – Leave of Absence


Nil.



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil. 5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr McAullay, seconded by Cr MacRae That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee held on 15 July 2002 as contained in the July 2002 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Nil.

7. REPORTS



CCS02.92 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT (File Reference: FIN0049) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To confirm the payment of accounts to pay for expenses incurred by the Town to fund its operation. DETAILS: Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Payments in accordance with Policy 2.3.4 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and Plan of Principal Activities providing for the payment of accounts. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts as detailed below be confirmed and the list of payments, as laid on the table, be included in the Minutes of the Council:- Cheque No.

Date Details Amount

Municipal

401177 12/07/02 Advance Recoup V36729-V36848 $ 451,341.96 401178 17/07/02 Advance Recoup Wages Transfer (12/07/02) $ 157,589.49 401179 17/07/02 Advance Recoup Taxation Dept (12/07/02) $ 62,991.95 401180 19/07/02 Advance Recoup V36849 – V36924 $ 493,743.07 401181 26/07/02 Investment St George Bank $ 370,000.00 401182 26/07/02 Advance Recoup V36925 – V370001 $ 599,893.64 401183 1/08/02 Advance Recoup Taxation Dept (26/07/02) $ 57,476.25 401184 1/08/02 Advance Recoup Wages Transfer (26/07/02) $ 170,636.07 401185 2/08/02 Advance Recoup V37002 – V37102 $ 242,179.99 401186 9/08/02 Advance Recoup V37103 – V37160 $ 153,664.37 401187 12/08/02 Advance Recoup V37161 – V37244 $ 164,255.67 $2,923.772.46

Carried



CCS02.93 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE (File Reference: FIN0038) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date for the period ended 31 July 2002. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Council Policy identifies an approved list of investment bodies. Not more than 25% of available funds is to be placed with any one institution. The current investment portfolio complies with this policy. In addition, the policy requires an investment report to be submitted to the Council each month. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Interest is accrued in the financial statements for the month and upon the maturity of each investment is then compounded unless the funds are required for Council purposes. The Investment Schedule as circulated provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:- Budget

2001/2002 Actual as at

31/07/02 (ytd)

%

General $260,000 $5,523 2.1% Reserves $162,000 $13,004 8.0% Endowment Lands $145,000 $23,592 16.3% TOTAL $567,000 $42,119 7.4%

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan or Plan of Principal Activities outlining the requirements for the investment of Council funds. However, the management of these surplus funds is consistent with the Town’s Mission for the “efficient, accountable and quality management of public assets and infrastructure.” COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That the Investment Schedule as at 31 July 2002, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be received Carried



CCS02.94 INTERIM ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (File Reference: FIN0026) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To receive the Interim Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2002. BACKGROUND: The Interim Annual Financial Statements for the period ended 30 June 2002, have been prepared and have been circulated with the Notice Paper. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That the Interim Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2002 be received. Carried



CCS02.95 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - PERIODIC REVIEW (File Reference:FIN0026) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review the Town’s financial performance and assess budget variations following the completion of the quarter and year ended 30 June 2002. BACKGROUND: The Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require Council to identify any significant variations to income and expenditure and project the effect of that variation to the end of the financial year on a regular basis. This ensures that both Council and management are able to identify problems and can therefore act upon them in a timely manner. The interim June 2002 financial statements have been produced. The purpose of this report is to comment on those variances that have occurred for the period ended 30 June 2002 from the annual budgets set for that period. DETAILS: • Statement of Financial Position (Page 1.1)

The “Statement of Financial Position” as at 30 June 2002 shows the Town has a solid financial base with a net current asset position or working capital of $9.1 million, a decrease of $3.2 million from $12.3 million working capital at 31 March 2002. The decrease can be attributed to a: • withdrawal of $0.4 million of investments; • a decrease in receivables of $2 million, of which $0.8 million is a decrease in

rate debtors. • an increase of creditors $0.5 million due to capital works programmes which

have been completed and invoiced at year end. Investments have not decreased significantly during the last quarter of the financial year as one would expect with capital works programmes being carried out and completed. This was due to an offset against cash outflows with an influx of revenue proceeds from both South City Beach land sales in Truro Place and the disposal of the 26 Yanagin Crescent property. Total equity or net worth of the Town as at 30 June 2002 is $131.4 million, being an accumulated operation surplus of $63.6 million, cash reserves of $3.7 million, Endowment Land Account funds of $4.4 million and asset revaluation reserve of $59.7 million. This represents a decrease of $1.5 million on March’s equity position of $132.9 million.



• Rate Setting Statement (Page 2.2)

Local Governments are required to produce a balanced budget, which in addition to the income and expenditure included in the operating statement, takes into account capital expenditure and income, monies transferred to and from reserves and any funds carried forward from the previous financial year. It excludes non-cash items such as depreciation which are added back. The statement is therefore an overview of sources of cash generated and the application of those funds in meeting both operational and non - operational commitments and providing for transfers to reserves in meeting future expenditure outlays. The Council budgets for a “nil” position or balanced budget position at year end, the intention being to raise sufficient funds to meet annual expected costs. As at 30 June 2002, the Town had a surplus of $1,235,163 against an annual budgeted position of $0. This is a decrease from the March quarter surplus of $5,023,896 as expected with cash outflows to meet operational and capital commitments. This surplus represents savings in expenditure, revenue collected in excess of budget of $620,363 and funds yet to be spent of $614,800 on uncompleted capital programs which have been carried forward into the 2002/2003 financial year. As can be seen from the above graph, Council’s actual surplus at year end has exceeded the budget indicating that expenditure cash outflows have been contained within budget constraints set.

• Operating Statement (Page 3.1)

The graph below shows the Council’s operational performance against budget.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Mill

ions

Sep Dec Mar JuneQuarter Ended

Cash Surplus

BudgetActual

-202468

Mill

ions

Sept Dec Mar June

Quarter Ended

Net Operating Profit (Before Abnormals)

BudgetActual



The net operating result for the financial year as at 30 June 2002, is a loss of $63,866 against a budgeted year loss of $913,400 showing that Council is managing operations within budget set. The total revenue of $21,606,711 raised at June 2002 is 99.9% of the amended annual budget of $21,621,700. All programs are over or close to budget for revenue with the exception of Education and Welfare (89.0%), due to Joan Watters Out of School Care and Joan Watters Occasional Care no longer being operational, and Other Property and Services (94.7%) due to the profit on disposal of Yanagin Crescent being below budget. Total expenditure at June 2002 is $21,670,577 which is 96.2% of the amended annual budget of $22,535,100, with all areas being under budget with the exception of Economic Services (108.5%) due to building control expenditure being over budget.

• Overview by Program

The actual expenditure for the 30 June 2002 financial year has been compared to the amended annual budget 2001/2002 and the actual expenditure incurred for the 30 June 2001 financial year. It is noted that the Transport program, for the purpose of providing an accurate comparison, does not include the financial expenditure of the underground power project. From the graph below, it can be seen that the expenditure across all programs is below budget with the exception of governance which is slightly above budget. This can be attributed to some timing differences in expenditure. The actuals for each financial year compare very favourably indicating that operating expenditure is remaining either constant or decreasing. Furthermore, taking this into account these amounts also being in line with or below annual budget at 30 June, shows that the total expenditure for each program is being well managed in a responsible and financially prudent manner.

Financial Position at June 2002

01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,000

Genera

l Purp

ose

Govern

ance

Law, O

rder

Health

Educa

tion &

Welf

are

Commun

ity Amen

ities

Recrea

tion &

Cult

ure

Transp

ort

Econo

mic Serv

ices

Other P

ropert

y

Actual 2001Amended BudgetActual 2002



• Capital Works Programs

The actual expenditure for the Capital Works Programs for the major infrastructure asset classes as at the end of the 2002 financial year are below budget. This is both due to a number of projects coming in below budget and other projects not being completed, hence the amount of $614,800 representing carried forward works from surplus funds, reserves, Endowment Lands Account and loans monies not spent for the 2002/2003 financial year.

• Aged Debtors Report 60 Days and Over

The total amount of non rates debtors outstanding for more than 60 days beyond the due date of payment is $15,598 and a report detailing the debtors and the respective amounts outstanding with appropriate explanations where relevant is attached.

• Budget Variances and Reallocations

Detailed explanations have been provided by staff responsible for the income or expenditure where variations from the year to date budget set were considered to be significant, that is $10,000 or more. The officer concerned was requested to consider whether the variance was due to an underlying cause which was ongoing or just a one off occurrence. It is not the intention to provide explanation in this report for variances of a lesser value but a list of those variances exceeding $5,000 is attached.

Capital Expenditure at June

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Parks &Reserves

Roads &Lanes

Footpaths

Capital Type

Dol

lars

Budget 2002 Actual June 2002



1. General Purpose Funding

General Financing - Investment Earnings Endowment Lands (Page 3.15)

Budget Set: $200,000 Actual: $162,835 Variance: $ 37,165 The shortfall in earnings achieved to date can be attributed to several factors. Low interest rates were experienced throughout the financial year, 4.4% on average. The Endowment Lands Account currently has funds of $4.4 million due to an influx of sale proceeds from the sale of Truro Place land and Yanagin Crecent, City Beach. These proceeds were only received during the last quarter of the financial year giving little opportunity to generate investment earnings. The original budget was set based on earnings expected to be derived from asset land sales earlier throughout the financial year, which did not eventuate.

2. General Purpose Funding General Financing – Investment Earnings General (Page 3.15)

Budget Set: $250,000 Actual: $227,041 Variance: $ 22,959

The shortfall in interest earnings on general investments was partly due to low interest rates being experienced throughout the financial year. However, the main adverse impact on interest earnings was the need to fund the underground power project for West Leederville/North Wembley out of general funds. Approximately $1.77 million in underground power rates was received from property owners throughout the year whilst $2.86 million was paid to Western Power, leaving over $1 million to be funded from general cashflow reducing the amount of funds available for investment. The interest shortfall will easily be recouped in future years with interest on underground power instalments being 7.5% and interest rates in the market place predicted to rise.

3. Governance Governance Management – Vehicle Operating Expenses (Page 3.18)

Budget Set: $12,500 Actual: $22,588 Variance: $10,088 The over expenditure was due to payment of insurance excesses on a number of insurance claims made during the year amounting to $1,500. Also, the Town during the last quarter of the financial year entered into a lease agreement for an executive vehicle and payments totalling $4,000 were made. These items were not originally budgeted, attributing to the over expenditure. Furthermore, it was apparent that the budget was insufficient compared to the normal actual vehicle operating costs being incurred. This has now been addressed in the budget set for the financial year ended 30 June 2003.



4. Welfare

Cambridge Senior Services – Veterans Affairs Operational Subsidy Income (Page 3.43)

Budget Set: $ 26,500 Actual: $ 11,548 Variance: $ 14,952 The DVA program is in its first year of operation and unlike HACC, which pays a lump sum in quarterly payments, DVA pay for the services provided. Also, DVA clients are referred to the Cambridge Senior Services by a third party and accordingly CCS is unable to actively seek new clients. As a result of less than expected referrals, the hours of service are lower than anticipated and therefore the rate of subsidy is lower. The cost centre results indicate there has been no impact on the surplus as reduced expenditure offset the lower amount of income received.

5. Community Amenities Waste Management – General/Green Waste (Page 3.50)

Budget Set: $390,000 Actual: $438,382 Variance: $ 48,382 General waste and green waste are now combined and collected weekly in a 240 litre bin whereas previously green waste was collected separately in a 240 litre bin fortnightly and green waste in a 120 litre bin weekly. In calculating the cost of this new waste management system, the budgeted number of bin collections was under estimated. A bin register is being established and when complete will enable an assessment to be made of the previous green waste and general waste bins now being used and required for general waste. The over expenditure has been offset within the Waste Management budget.

6. Community Amenities Waste Management – Bin Repair/Replacement (Page 3.50)

Budget Set: $35,000 Actual: $74,025 Variance: $39,025 A number of residents have paid for the exchange of 120 litre to 240 litre bins for recycling. This has therefore increased both income and expenditure. Additional income from bin exchanges amounts to some $17,000. The remaining variance of $7,000 is a result of additional repairs having been required due to the ageing asset of 240 litre bins.



7. Community Amenities

Waste Management – Revenue Distribution Mindarie Regional Council (Page 3.50)

Budget Set: $50,000 Actual: $29,219 Variance: $20,781 The Town is a member of the Mindarie Regional Council, along with a number of other Councils. Each year any surplus monies from operations are distributed back to each member Council depending on a number of factors such as the proportion of equity held. At a Mindarie Regional Council meeting held in February 2002, it was decided that with respect to development of a Secondary Waste Treatment Facility, funds for capital requirements could be raised by the retention of surpluses. This was later endorsed at a June Regional Council meeting. Therefore any further distributions, if any, will be minimal and explains the variance for this financial year.

8. Community Amenities

Town Planning – Legal Expenses (Page 3.51)

Budget Set: $ 4,000 Actual: $21,294 Variance: $17,294 This item has been over expended due to excessive unanticipated expenses. Primarily, the expenses have been generated by three appeals lodged with the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal against planning decisions of the Council. The appeals relate to the redevelopment of the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre, alterations and additions at 23 Catesby Street, City Beach and alterations and additions at 19 Kinkuna Way, City Beach. Other expenses have been in relation to legal advice sought as part of day to day matters arising in planning services.

9. Recreation and Culture Bold Park Aquatic Centre – Concessional Admissions Revenue (Page 3.54)

Budget Set: $76,000 Actual: $51,266 Variance: $24,734 Due to the popularity of the Multi Pass Tickets, the revenue has shifted from Concessional Admissions to Multiple Admissions, which can be reflected in an increase of $24,000 in multiple admissions.



10. Recreation and Culture

Bold Park Aquatic Centre – Utility Charges (Page 3.55)

Budget Set: $75,000 Actual: $91,866 Variance: $16,866 It was difficult to budget accurately for water and power consumption at the Aquatic Centre with the implementation of new plant room, filtration system and associated facilities which could account for the increased power consumption. Utility consumption will be closely monitored next year.

11. Recreation and Culture Sportsground Maintenance – Alderbury Street Reserve (Page 3.60)

Budget Set: $107,400 Actual: $126,424 Variance: $ 19,024 Unforeseen works encountered with the new automatic reticulation system has required additional work to familiarise staff and fine tune the system. Additional work associated with the aging cricket wicket and extra mowing of the ground at the request of the Hockey Club, have been implemented. These works were seen as necessary to providing a turf surface which is safe for players. The skateboard facility required additional turfing and other maintenance work such as watering and fertilising, mainly due to wear and tear through use. This is a new facility and will take a couple of seasons to stabilise the surrounds to the area. The variation of $19,024 has been offset against savings within the parks program operating budget.

12. Recreation and Culture Sportsground Maintenance – Floreat Oval (Page 3.60)

Budget Set: $ 91,200 Actual: $104,882 Variance: $ 13,682 Unforeseen seasonal works. The match wicket required unplanned works due to disease problems encountered with the turf. Additionally, unplanned works were required to be undertaken on the practice wicket to ensure an appropriate surface was provided to players for safety and health reasons. The variation of $13,682 has been offset against savings within the parks operating budget.


Parks Ground Maintenance – Perry Lakes Park (Page 3.62)

Budget Set: $ 91,200 Actual: $104,058 Variance: $ 12,858 The installation of automatic reticulation has resulted in increased mowing in areas that previously were manually irrigated. The application of water has now been adjusted to ensure growth is at manageable levels. Additionally, the budget for 2001/2002 was reduced to $91,200 from $120,000 in 2000/2001. This was due to



labour savings expected with the installation of automatic irrigation. This reduction was too great and the budget for 2001/2002 was insufficient to maintain the reserve to the appropriate quality and safety standard. As an outcome, the operating budget for 2002/2003 has been increased. The variation of $12,858 will be offset against savings within the parks and landscape operating budget.

14. Recreation and Culture Management– Concept Plan/Property Leasing (Page 3.65)

Budget Set: $ 25,000 Actual: $ 40,931 Variance: $ 15,931 The preparation of the lease documents for both the tavern operations and golf shop/course controller operations at the Wembley Golf Course Complex had to be quite detailed as these operations form a crucial part of the Town’s major business venue. As such, a significant amount of input was required from consultants to the project, DTZ Australia, and legal consultants Corrs Chambers Westgarth to ensure that the whole process was carried out to the highest professional standards. Due to the enormous profile the Wembley Golf Course Complex enjoys in the market place, a significant amount of interest was generated when the submission of tenders was advertised. This led to further costs in DTZ Australia dealing with numerous enquiries from prospective tenderers and sending out the required documentation.

15. Recreation and Culture Golf Course Operations– Overheads-Salaries (Page 3.66)

Budget Set: $83,800 Actual: $94,594 Variance: $10,794 The salaries expenditure for the golf course overheads cost centre has exceeded budget due to the termination of the golf course supervisor in May 2002. The amount of termination pay in lieu of notice was in excess of $8,000 which accounts for the majority of the variation. The balance can be attributed to overtime.


Wembley Golf Complex – Mowing (Page 3.65)

Budget Set: $351,500 Actual: $390,257 Variance: $ 38,757 The Australian Golf League Public Course Championships were held for the first time at the Wembley Golf Complex and works associated with this were not budgeted. The booking for this event occurred after the budget had been adopted. The staging of this tournament meant that the quality of the Tuart Course had to be increased to the same standard as the Cambridge Cup. Specific mowing to control Paramatta weed has been charged against this budget allocation. This weed was a major problem to golfers this year and as an outcome Council has allocated additional funds next financial year to control this weed. The additional funds of $38,757 required can be offset by savings in the other maintenance expense areas and the overall course operations program.




Wembley Golf Complex – Turf Management (Page 3.65)

Budget Set: $ 74,000 Actual: $ 88,290 Variance: $ 14,290 Turfing of fairways to replace dead cool season grasses has been required to be undertaken more frequently than expected to maintain the required standard. Council has recognised the need to continue the replacement of this grass and has allocated a specific budget amount next financial year. The additional funds of $14,290 required can be offset by savings in the other maintenance expense areas and the overall course operations program.

18. Transport

Road Reserves – The Boulevard (Page 3.76)

Budget Set: $30,400 Actual: $46,604 Variance: $16,204 Additional landscaping works have been undertaken. This has involved the purchase and planting of trees, shrubs and ground cover. Other works such as mulching, weeding and reticulation maintenance were all increased to maintain this high profile area to an appropriate standard to meet Council and community expectations. The variation of $16,204 has been offset against savings within the parks roads reserves operations budget.

19. Economic Services Building Control – Consultants Fees (Page 3.80)

Budget Set: $17,000 Actual: $44,593 Variance: $27,593 The original budget was an estimate for a peer review of the Floreat Forum Redevelopment structural engineering plans and specifications. The construction process adopted by Bovis Lend Lease whereby plans are developed on an ongoing basis rather than fully prepared prior to submission, has meant a significant increase in the amount of time spent by consultants in having to re assess plans. In addition, it was necessary to engage a Fire Safety Engineering Consultant to review and report on the Fire Safety aspects of the Floreat Forum Re-development project in which the Town has no expertise. Recent ongoing meetings to resolve fire safety issues with Bovis Lend Lease have further extended the expenditure on this item. These additional consulting costs have resulted in a significant over expenditure for which no recovery is available as Building Application fees are fixed. However, Bovis have agreed to reimburse the Town's costs of $12,505 for the fire safety consultant. This will reduce budget over expenditure to $15,088.



20. Other Property and Services

Works and Engineering – Plant Operation Costs Repairs (Page 3.82)

Budget Set: $16,000 Actual: $28,869 Variance: $12,869 The Town's backhoe was due for replacement last financial year. However, the cost of replacement was significantly higher than was anticipated and budgeted funds set aside were insufficient. It was decided therefore to retain the backhoe at this time. This year some $7,500 of repairs have had to be incurred on the backhoe for it to remain operational, which accounts for the significant variance to date. Other repairs on the Town's street sweeper account for most of the remaining over expenditure to date. The street sweeper is currently being replaced. The over expenditure was offset by a reduction of $29,000 in plant maintenance costs.

21. Other Property and Services Public Works On Costs Parks Outside Workers Sick Pay (Page 3.83) Budget Set: $14,000 Actual: $26,101 Variance: $12,101 The amount of sick leave exceeded budget due to a number of factors. Firstly the outside employees were paid their sick leave incentive bonus totalling $2,600 as per the Enterprise Bargaining Scheme adopted by Council. Secondly, the budget for sick leave was set at five sick days per employee. The number of sick days actually taken per employee exceeded this.

22. Infrastructure Parks and Reserves Floreat Beach Overhead Wires (Page 4.10)

Budget Set: $ 85,000 Actual: $101,069 Variance: $ 16,069 Western Power costs were greater than anticipated. Also additional works were undertaken in that electrical conduits for stage two of these works were placed prior to the asphalt overlay of carparks. This additional expenditure was offset by savings of $16,000 in the capital works Floreat Beach Park – Resurface Carpark.

23. Infrastructure Parks and Reserves Frinton Ave Tennis Courts-Resurface Courts (Page 4.11)

Budget Set: $36,000 Actual: $50,750 Variance: $14,750 This project was originally planned for in the 2000/2001 financial year. Insufficient funds were carried forward into the 2001/2002 financial year resulting in the budget allocated being too low. However, savings achieved with the Frinton Ave Tennis Courts Lighting Upgrade of $10,000 have offset this over expenditure to a large extent.



24. Infrastructure Parks and Reserves

Golf Course – Upgrade “Tees” Program (Page 4.11)

Budget Set: $76,000 Actual: $90,006 Variance: $14,006 This capital works project budget was amended by $17,000 during the financial year as the upgrade program was amended and surplus funds transferred to golf course managers office improvements. Extensive wear and tear to the Tee on the west side of the driving range occurred which needed to be addressed. Additionally, there were problems associated with water run off from an adjacent path on to the above Tee creating water logging problems. These problems were required to be attended to urgently as the area had become unsafe to golfers. Works associated with addressing the above problems were over and above normal maintenance works as the area required a complete upgrade. Some of the over expenditure has been offset by savings of $2,500 on the Golf Course – ‘Upgrade Greens’ program.

CONCLUSION: The main variations from budget to date, those exceeding $10,000 have been identified, including both expenditure and income of which there have only been a few instances. This report has only highlighted the adverse variances but there are also many favourable variances, which have occurred to date which have exceeded budgets set and which offset these adverse variances. Budgets are normally prepared and finalised at the commencement of the financial year and therefore are based on information, trends and assumptions current at that time. However, circumstances and events can and do change as the financial year progresses and variances are to be expected. Therefore, a consolidated overview of the Town’s performance against total budget set needs to be taken which at the end of the June quarter indicates the Town has a healthy surplus of $1,235,163, of which $620,363 has been transferred to reserves, against an annual amended budget of ($57,000). The balance of $614,800 represents carried forward capital works. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 June 2002 be received and the variances to the budget be noted.

Carried



CCS02.96 DOCUMENTS SEALED (File Reference: ADM0039) PURPOSE OF REPORT: There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents. It is considered desirable, however, to provide the Council with relevant information relating to documents sealed. DETAILS: The following documents have been sealed with the Common Seal of the Town:-

Date Document Details No.

16 July 2002 Title: Deed between Town of Cambridge and St John of God Health Care Inc Purpose: Council designated the parking area situated at 175 Cambridge Street, as a parking station pursuant to the parking Local Law.

2 copies

24 July 2002 Title: Restrictive Covenant between Town of Cambridge and Mark Andrew Congerton and Shanxi Taihua Decoration Australia Purpose: The Owner has made an application for planning approval to the construction upon the Land of three aged persons dwellings at 45 Coldstream Street, West Leederville. The Plan has been approved subject to: ‘at least one permanent occupant of each dwelling must be an Aged Person or Dependent Person.’

3 copies

31 July 2002 Title: Deed between PES Pty Ltd and Sheral Gladys Wright and Town of Cambridge Purpose: Transfer of car park licence (Lot 3) from PES Pty Ltd to Sheral Gladys Wright (316 The Boulevard, City Beach - The Boulevard Shopping Centre).

4 copies

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil.



STRAGEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and the Plan of Principal Activities in relation to the sealing of Council documents. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as set out in the schedule attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper. Carried



CCS02.97 REVIEW OF THE DOG ACT (File Reference LEG0016) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council that the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development has released the Review of the Dog Act 1976 Issues Paper for public comment and to consider the issues and provide comment to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development. BACKGROUND: An Issues Paper highlighting dog management issues has been released for public comment over a 10 week consultation period and is attached to and forms part of this report. This forms part of the review of the Dog Act 1976. The release of the Issues Paper for discussion is the first step in a review process that will span over six months. During the consultation period, the public will be able to consider, and comment on, current legislation relating to dogs. The Issues Paper has been drafted to assist individuals, local governments and other organisations in making their submissions. Feedback obtained will be used to draft a Preliminary Review Paper that will be circulated to all individuals and organisations that have made a submission. The Department of Local Government and Regional Development will then consider final responses and make recommendations for any legislative changes. The Issues Paper has been drafted on the basis of information and experience that has accrued over the life of the Dog Act 1976. This includes a wide range of comments, submissions and other feedback that has been received. The Paper also builds upon earlier work including amendments dealing with particular issues such as those relating to dangerous dogs. A reference group involving key government and community organisations, including representatives from the Western Australian Local Government Association, the Local Government Managers Australia and WA Rangers Association, was involved in providing critical feedback on the drafting of the Issues Paper. Workshops specifically involving interest groups including local government Councillors, senior management and authorised officers actively engaged in the administration and enforcement of the Dog Act 1976, are being organised to help resolve some of the issues. In addition, a number of public forums will be held to provide the community with an opportunity to have its say. Administration staff have been registered to attend workshops that will be conducted by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development in August 2002. DETAILS: An internal Workshop was held involving the Team Leader Ranger Services, the three Rangers and Manager Customer Services to make comment on the relevant sections in the Issues Paper. Listed below are the comments and feedback sections of the Issues Paper with the Town’s comments in bold/italics to the questions that the Rangers would like to be put forward in a submission for discussion in this Review. The Town’s submission making comments to the relevant sections is attached.



To enable easy reference, the numbering below is consistent with the Issues Paper, attached to and forming part of this report.

3.1.2.1 Interpretations

Should the definition of “premises” be extended to include boats, caravans, vehicles and sheds? Should any other types of property be included? The Town of Cambridge agreed that the definition of "premises" should be extended to include the above as some people with dogs may occupy or live in these alternate forms of accommodation.

3.1.2.3 Dogs to be registered

Should an authorised person be given the power to seize a dog if it has not been registered? Yes - once the dog is seized, it must then be registered. Should the registration requirements be changed to recognise the current veterinary practice of not sterilising dogs until they are at least six months old? If so, how should these registration requirements be changed? Yes - this would alleviate costs associated with administration as at present dogs must be registered at three months. It would also alleviate refunding monies and enable dog owners to pay a lower registration fee for a sterilised dog. Should provision be made for dogs to be registered over the internet? If so, what difficulties, if any, would be envisaged? The application form is a legal document and must be signed by the applicant. If there was a way in which it could be done legally, we would support this option. Should guard dogs be separately registered?

No - as it would be very hard to prove if it was a guard dog. If registration was more for guard dogs, people would register them as being a family pet and pay the cheaper price.

3.1.2.4 Special provisions for guide dogs

Should the provisions that allow visually impaired persons to use guide dogs be expanded to include people with other disabilities without first having to obtain the Minister’s approval? No it is felt that this decision should remain with the Minister.



3.2.2.1 Application of Powers Outside District

Should a general provision be provided which enables an authorised person to enforce the Act in an area that is not within a district but which adjoins that person’s district? At present if a dog in your district commits an offence and crosses into another local authority district while being pursued by an authorised officer you are able to follow it. It should be recognised in the Dog Act that this can occur by mutual agreement with other local authorities.

3.2.2.2 Joint Jurisdictions

Should an authorised person, where there is no agreement between local governments, be able to both pursue and investigate an incident where the dog moves into a neighbouring local government district? This is already provided for in the Act. Should an authorised person be able to pursue and investigate an incident in any district that is not necessarily a neighbouring district? No.

3.2.2.3 Entry of premises

Should an authorised person or police officer be able to enter any premises for the purpose of seizing an unregistered dog? Yes as per comments above. Should an authorised person or police officer be able to enter any premises for the purpose of seizing or rescuing an abandoned, sick or injured dog? Yes as per comments above. Are there any other situations in which an authorised person or police officer should have the right of entry (with or without a warrant) to undertake some action involving a dog ie seizing a dog which is causing a nuisance by barking? Yes - If the welfare of the dog was in danger as it is protection for the animal.

3.3.2.1 Register to be maintained

Should a central authority be established to undertake the registration of all dogs in Western Australia? No - the Town gains revenue from registration of dogs. Should a single database be established for the storing and manipulation of all information relating to dog registrations in Western Australia?



No - this would be an added expense to all local authorities due to a variety of systems used at present. If a dog is picked up and is registered with another local authority, there is no problem establishing the name and address of the owner with the system that is now in place ie the Ranger contacts the local authority, gives the registration number and the relevant details are given. What limitations, if any, should be placed on non authorised persons gaining access to dog registers? People should only have access to their own details. We have had instances where undesirable people have been able to gain access to this information and misused this information for potentially illegal purposes and threatening the safety of people recorded on the register. What information should not be publicly available? All personal information. Should general public access to dog registers be denied and should any specific inquiry be dealt with under freedom of information legislation? Yes - enquiries should be dealt with under the FOI legislation.

3.3.2.2 Registration periods and fees

Should registrations be for a twelve-month (or three-year) period as from the date of registration? Three year tags become damaged and very hard to read. It would be desirable to have twelve month registrations only. Should registration fees be set by local governments for the express purpose of encouraging good dog management practices? We would support this to stay as it is as per the Act. Should registration fees continue to be set by regulations but provide for the encouragement of good dog management practices (eg owners pay concessional registration fee where they and/or their dog pass an accredited course)? No. Do registration fees adequately cover the cost of registering a dog?

Yes, they cover the cost of registration, however not the cost of animal control. These fees have not been increased for a number of years. Fees should be indexed each year perhaps in line with movements in the CPI.



3.3.2.3 Registration procedure

Does the meaning of “effective confinement” need to be further defined so as to remove any ambiguity? If so, how should it be defined? This is sufficiently covered in our Local Law.

3.3.2.4 Registration tags Should all dogs be required to be implanted with microchips? No, at this stage. Should microchips replace tags or should they be used in association with each other? It is felt that microchipping needs to be progressed further. The advantage of having tags is that the dog is required to wear a collar and this helps in handling the animal and being able to view the dog without the need to restrain the animal.

3.4.2.1 Limitation as to numbers Should the Dog Act 1976 be amended to allow local governments to delegate certain powers? Yes, as it would alleviate the need for the Council to be involved in these decisions. Who should have a right of appeal where a decision regarding the keeping of a dog above the prescribed limit is made by a local government? The decision made by the local authority should be final. Should the Act provide for residents in the locality to be advised of an application that has been made to keep more than the prescribed number of dogs and informed that they may make a submission on the proposal? Yes, residents should be advised of applications that are made in their locality and informed that they may make a submission to the proposal.

3.5.2.1 Power to seize dogs Should an unregistered dog be able to be seized from any premises? Should this be able to be done without a warrant? Yes as per the comments in the issue paper. Should abandoned, sick or injured dogs be able to be seized or rescued from premises by an authorised person or police officer? Should this be able to be done without a warrant? Yes as per the comments in the issue paper.



Should an authorised person or police officer be able to seize a dog, that is believed to have been involved in an attack, from premises without a court order or warrant even though they have not been in pursuit of the animal? Yes as per the comments in the issue paper. Are there any other circumstances in which an authorised person or police officer should be able to seize a dog without a court order or warrant? Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has been used to commit other offences or mistreated i.e. dog fighting.

3.5.2.2 Collars and registration tags Should provision be made for allowing a name and/or address to be left off collars? It may be more appropriate to have the dogs name and a relevant phone number to alleviate anxiety that has been experienced by some people in the past.

3.5.2.3 Control of dogs in certain public places Should the Act, while providing for tethering in a public place, specify the circumstances and conditions under which tethering can occur? Yes. Should tethering be banned in public places such as at the entrance to shops or other businesses? Yes, including public buildings. What other dog control provisions should be provided for in public places? Dogs should not be held on leads when owners are on any wheeled appliance eg bike, skateboard, roller blades as they are not able to be in full control of the animal at all times.

3.5.2.4 Dog attacks Are the defences in the Act in relation to dog attacks adequate? Should other defences be included? Dogs should be confined to a secure part of the property to allow safe public access to the front door. Should a dog attack on wildlife be included in the Act as an offence? Yes. Should any defences be removed? No.



3.5.2.5 Nuisance dogs eg injurious or dangerous to health, nuisance barking etc How should the definition of a barking nuisance be defined to make the provisions more effective in dealing with these types of complaints? The definition of "habitual" needs to be clearly defined in the Act. What type of evidence should be required for successful action to be taken against the owner of a dog that is being a nuisance by barking? It is felt that this is adequately covered. Should a complaint of one person be sufficient to enable a local government to take action against an owner of a dog that is being a nuisance by barking? No as there is often conflict with neighbours. Should a local government be required to monitor the frequency and intensity of noise created by a dog that is suspected of creating a nuisance by barking? That is, should this type of noise be dealt with in much the same way as other noise that might be created by sound systems or machinery? Yes, it should be monitored for frequency. What would be the best way to separate vindictive complaints from genuine nuisance dog barking complaints? As is set out in the Act currently (3 complaints). Is there a role for a code of practice in dealing with a barking nuisance? If so, how would this assist and what would it contain? Yes a provision should be made in the Act to ensure that it is consistent for all local authorities. What other amendments could be made to the legislation relating to nuisance barking to make it more effective? It is suggested that power to be given to the local authority to enable the nuisance dogs to be seized and the owner be made to attend animal behaviour courses with the animal until such time as a certificate is obtained. If the owner does not abide by these conditions and the nuisance continues, then the dog's registration will be cancelled and the dog must be removed from the premises, whether voluntarily by the owner or by the Council.

3.6.2.2 Name and address to be supplied Should a person who is alleged to have committed an offence against the Act be required to give their driver’s licence details or date of birth to an authorised person? Yes, drivers licence details would be an advantage as there have been cases where false names and addresses are given. Date of birth should be mandatory especially when Councils use Fines Enforcement Registry.



3.6.2.3 Modified penalties (infringement notices)

Should modified penalties be able to be applied to dog attack offences? Yes, this would alleviate the need of prosecution when dealing with minor dog attacks. A range of fees could be set for first, second offences etc. Where a conviction is made by a court should the judge or magistrate be required to at least apply a penalty equivalent to the modified penalty which applies to the same offence? Yes, minimum penalties should be set under the Dog Act for each offence.

3.7.2.2 Causing harm to dogs Should modified penalties apply to a person who willfully causes harm to a dog? Yes. Should a dog's registration be revoked if the owner is found to have willfully caused it harm? Yes. Should the Act provide for a person who has been convicted of being cruel to a dog be banned from owning or keeping a dog for some specified period? Yes. Should this provision be extended to include a person who causes harm to a dog through mismanagement or irresponsible behaviour? Yes.

3.8.2.1 General provisions relating to local laws Should the $2000 ceiling that applies to modified penalties be raised to provide a wider range of options in dealing with offences under local laws? This should be consistent and raised to $5,000 in line with the Local Government Act. Should the Act provide for fees and charges to be set by resolution of Council? Yes, this would then help to set fees in line with Council’s expenses without relying on the State Government to amend the Dog Act. Should the Act specify the types and number of dogs that may be kept in different sized housing? Yes.



3.8.2.2 Local law making powers

Should the requirements of the Act be tightened so that places, or classes of places, are adequately specified in local laws? Yes, this is provided in our Local Law.

3.9.2.1 Regulations as to certain kinds of dog

How should the restricted breed dogs be identified? This area needs further discussion which should take place at the workshops. In the United Kingdom and USA, this legislation has been withdrawn as it was unmanageable. Needs further research. Should the restricted breed regulations be continued as is or modified in any way? Needs further discussion, it is felt that the dangerous dog legislation that is in place at present should be used.

3.10.2.1 Licensing the dog owner Should dog owners rather than their dogs be licensed? Should stay as it is with a provision to stop people being registered owners if they have committed previous offences. Should incentives, such as dog registration fee concessions, be introduced to encourage dog owners to undertake dog training and other activities designed to produce better dog management practices? No. What types of incentives, if any, should be provided to encourage good dog management practices? It has been suggested by staff that incentives (pens, caps, leashes, free dog registration for 12 months) could be given to dog owners seen to be "doing the right thing" ie exercising their dogs on leads and carrying with then pooch pouches.

3.10.2.2 Minimum requirements for dogs Should minimum housing and exercise requirements be provided for in the Act? Housing - yes, exercise requirements – No. Should minimum standards be set for the construction and operation of dog pounds? Yes.



3.10.2.3 Rewarding dog owners for their dog’s good behaviour Should a system be provided which rewards dog owners where their dog has been continuously well behaved? This should be a decision of each local authority.

3.10.2.4 Dingoes How should dingoes and dingo crosses be controlled in Western Australia? This should be left as is with State Government. Should individuals be allowed to keep dingoes or dingo crosses? No - who and how would you determine the breed of the dog? Should provisions for keeping dingoes and dingo crosses be included in the Dog Act 1976? No.

3.10.2.5 Other Are there any other matters or issues which have not been discussed in this Paper which you feel should be considered? If so, please provide details. Penalties maximum and modified need increasing - tier system for offences. Authorised persons on animal control duties should be authorised under the Dog Act to carry adequate equipment to protect themselves (extendable batons or pepper spray).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: To develop and implement a co-ordinated program of services through community consultation. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That the report relating to the Review of the Dog Act 1976 be received and comments in this report be forwarded to the Dog Act 1976 Review Coordinating Officer, Department of Local Government and Regional Development.



Committee Meeting 19 August 2002 During discussion, Members agreed that should a dog be tethered in a public place then it must be wearing a muzzle or in the control of a responsible person. Amendment Moved by Cr McAullay, seconded by Cr MacRae That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) the report relating to the Review of the Dog Act 1976 be received; (ii) the comments in this report be forwarded to the Dog Act 1976 Review Co-

ordinating Officer, Department of Local Government and Regional Development subject to the inclusion in clause 3.5.2.3 that should dogs be tethered in a public place then they must be wearing a muzzle or in the control of a responsible person.

Carried COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That:- (i) the report relating to the Review of the Dog Act 1976 be received; (ii) the comments in this report be forwarded to the Dog Act 1976 Review Co-

ordinating Officer, Department of Local Government and Regional Development subject to the inclusion in clause 3.5.2.3 that should dogs be tethered in a public place then they must be wearing a muzzle or in the control of a responsible person.

Carried



CCS02.98 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION - INFORMATION STATEMENT UPDATE (File Reference FOI 0007) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council of the changes made to revise the Freedom of Information Statement for 2002. BACKGROUND: The Western Australian Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1992 provides for public access to documents, and enables the public to ensure that personal information in documents is accurate, complete, up to date and not misleading. The objects of the Act are to:- (i) enable the public to participate more effectively in governing the State; and (ii) make the persons and bodies that are responsible for State and Local Government

more accountable to the public. The Act also states that it is:- (i) creating a general right of access to State and Local Government documents; (ii) providing means to ensure that personal information held by State and Local

Governments is accurate, complete, up to date and not misleading; and (iii) requiring that certain documents concerning State and Local Government

operations be made available to the public. DETAILS: Section 96 of the Freedom of Information Act refers to the requirement for agencies to publish and keep up to date an information statement about the agency. The Information Statement should contain:- (a) a statement of the structure and functions of the agency; (b) a description of the ways in which the functions (including in particular, the decision-

making functions) of the agency affect members of the public; (c) a description of any arrangements that exist to enable members of the public to

participate in the formulation of the agency's policy and the performance of the agency's functions;

(d) a description of the kinds of documents that are usually held by the agency

including:-

(i) which kinds of documents can be inspected at the agency under a written law other than this Act (whether or not inspection is subject to a fee or charge);

(ii) which kinds of documents can be purchased; and



(iii) which kinds of documents can be obtained free of charge; (e) a description of the agency's arrangements for giving members of the public access

to documents mentioned in paragraph (d) (i), (ii) or (iii) including details of library facilities of the agency that are available for use by members of the public;

(f) a description of the agency's procedures for giving members of the public access to

the document of the agency including:-

(i) the designation of the officer or officers to whom initial inquiries as to access to documents can be made; and

(ii) the address or addresses at which access applications can be lodged, (g) a description of the agency's procedures for amending personal information in the

documents of the agency including:-

(i) the designation of the officer or officers to whom initial inquiries as to amendment of personal information can be made; and

(ii) the addresses at which applications for amendment of personal information can be lodged.

Information Statements and internal manuals of the agency are to be made available for inspection and purchase by members of the public. The Council is able to delete any exempt matter from the public copies. This year, minor changes have been made to update the following information:- Town of Cambridge - Administrative Information (i) Cr Marlene Anderton replaces Cr Pauline O'Connor as Deputy Mayor (iii) Former Crs Ian William Steele and David George Berry deleted (iv) Cr Pauline O'Connor, Cr Kenneth James McAullay and Cr Hilary Pinerua inserted

under Councillors. Section 1.5 - Resources Employed Information updated to reflect the 2002/2003 budget and staff employed by the Town. Appendix 3 Updated organisational charts. The Council's Information Statement, as adopted in April 1996 and reviewed in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 has again been revised to ensure the currency of the content. A copy of the statement has been circulated to Members for consideration prior to its submission to the Information Commissioner. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Minimum expenditure incurred in processing applications, researching and copying information for applicants.



STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS: This Freedom of Information Statement conforms to the strategic direction of the Town to promote communication with the people of the Town of Cambridge and the wider community and encourage their participation in Council activities. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay

That the revised Information Statement for the Town of Cambridge, reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the WA Freedom of Information Act 1992, be approved for submission to the Information Commissioner.

Carried



CCS02.99 ALDERBURY RESERVE CRICKET WICKET RELOCATION (File Reference: RES1090/RES0055) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council of the processes involved in installing a new turf cricket wicket block in a new location at Alderbury Reserve. BACKGROUND: The Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club was successful with its 2002/2003 Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) application to the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) for the installation of a new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve. The total cost of the cricket wicket block is in the vicinity of $20,000, with the Club receiving $6,666 from DSR, $10,000 from the Town and the Club contributing the balance, $3,334. The Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club has requested that the new cricket wicket block be installed at a position closer to the Alderbury Reserve change room and clubroom facilities, approximately 30 metres from its present location. DETAILS: The Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club has requested that the new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve be located closer to the change rooms. Such a location would be beneficial to players and spectators. The club has also requested the use of the existing wicket block whilst the new one is being constructed. This request can be accommodated within the 2002/2003 financial year. Although this new location would suit the needs of the Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club the other user of this facility (during the off season) – YMCA Coastal Hockey Club may be affected, particularly in relation to the respective layout of their playing fields. Accordingly, a meeting was arranged with representatives of both clubs to discuss possible problems if the cricket wicket was to be relocated. Following this meeting, a number of alternative locations were discussed. Both Clubs have agreed on a new location for the new cricket wicket block which will cater for the needs of their respective playing members and spectators. The new location is 30 metres closer than the present location of the cricket wicket block to the clubroom facility. A 30 metres separation between the two wicket blocks is necessary to ensure no damage is caused to the new wicket block whilst the club is playing on the old block. This location, however, would require the removal of one tree. The particular tree has previously shed large limbs, on one occasion injuring a cricket spectator. An arboricultural assessment has been undertaken in relation to this tree. The consultant revealed that the tree should be removed. The tree leans excessively out of vertical in a northerly direction and has previously dropped a limb injuring a cricket spectator, rendering future major limb failure imminent and proposing a major risk to future spectators. Regardless of the new location of the cricket wicket block at Alderbury



Reserve, based on the consultant’s assessment, the tree should be removed. A copy of the arboriculturalist’s report has been included as an attachment.

In addition, the assessment and removal of the tree is consistent with the Tree Management objectives and implementation program of the Perry Lakes Reserve Management Plan, which is aimed at ensuring public safety by conducting remedial works focused on priority zones. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost to install the new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve is approximately $20,000. Funds to complete the works are being provided by the Department of Sport and Recreation, the Town and the Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The relocation and installation of a new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve supports one of the main goals for Environment, Urban Planning and Infrastructure, namely: “To effectively manage public open space to meet the needs of the community.” SUMMARY: The Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club was successful with its 2002/2003 CSRFF application to the Department of Sport and Recreation for the installation of a new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve. The Town and the Club will also contribute to costs with the new cricket wicket block. Rather than installing the new wicket in its present location, the Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club has requested that it be installed closer to the change rooms and Pavilion. This would be of benefit to players and spectators. As any relocation of the wicket would possibly interfere with the other major users of the facility, being YMCA Coastal Hockey Club, a meeting was arranged with all parties to identify a suitable location. It was generally agreed that the wicket can be relocated to a site that is approximately 30 metres closer than its present location, however, one tree would need to be removed. The tree has been identified as a risk due to its northerly lie and constant limb drop and from a risk management point of view should be removed immediately, irrespective of the location of the new wicket. This is consistent with the Perry Lakes Reserve Environmental Management Plan. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That the new cricket wicket block at Alderbury Reserve be constructed at the new location agreed with the Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club and the YMCA Coastal Hockey Club. Carried



CCS02.100 GARDEN WEEK – INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS (File Reference: RES0091) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To seek Council’s support for the future conduct of the Nursery Industry Association of Western Australia’s annual Garden Week event at the Perry Lakes Reserve. BACKGROUND: The Nursery Industry Association (NIA) of Western Australia is the coordinating organisation for Garden Week, a showpiece gardening exhibition that returned to the Town and specifically, the Perry Lakes Reserve during the month of April 2002 over a six day period. Garden Week is seen as the ideal vehicle to showcase to the public of Perth new trends in gardening, horticulture and allied industries. Approximately 100 exhibitors book sites to display their products or services and the public are then invited to view the exhibition over a six day period. The NIA has written to the Town requesting a number of processes be introduced to assist in the future conduct of Garden Week at the Perry Lakes Reserve. These include reticulation, sewerage, electricity and paving. Refer to Attachment 1 for the copy of correspondence received from NIA. DETAILS: Garden Week, an event organised by the NIA, returned to its home at the Perry Lakes Reserve during April 2002. This event was previously held at Perry Lakes Reserve for over 20 years, however, was held at other locations outside the Town during 1999, 2000 and 2001. The 2002 Garden Week event was very successful with the NIA and the Town receiving many positive comments in relation to the return of the event to the Perry Lakes Reserve. The Town received a venue hire fee of $15,000 from the NIA and also $6,000 worth of contra sponsorship. In addition, a $5,000 bond was also introduced as a reassurance for any possible damage to the Reserve. The NIA has written to the Town requesting the event remain at the Perry Lakes Reserve long term, however, a number of issues would need to be resolved to ensure this long term relationship. These include: 1. Reticulation 2. Sewerage – Toilets 3. Paving – Gate 2 4. Electricity



1. Reticulation

The specific area in which the event is held at the Perry Lakes Reserve is not reticulated and it would be beneficial from an appearance and event management perspective for this to occur. Reticulation of the Perry Lakes Reserve has been introduced in accordance with the Perry Lakes Environmental Management Plan and the particular area in which Garden Week is conducted has been included in the recently adopted 2002/2003 Budget. It is envisaged that these works will be completed prior to the conduct of Garden Week 2003. The end result of the reticulation works will be an improved turf quality, which will greatly assist exhibitors, spectators and other general, all year-round reserve users.

2. Sewerage – Toilets

Due to the number of people attending the event during the six day period, it appears the sewerage line is constantly becoming blocked from people using the public toilets and a number of portable facilities. However, following close examination by the Administration, the problem is only a minor one and can be easily rectified at minimal cost and can be met within the Town’s maintenance budget.

3. Paving – Gate 2 (along Underwood Avenue)

There are three entry gates for the public to gain access during Garden Week. Two entry gates have previously been paved by the NIA and it is requested that the other entry gate also be paved at no cost to the Town. This request is supported and it is believed the work would also protect the adjacent turf around the gate.

4. Electricity

The insufficient source of power for the conduct of the Garden Week event is a major problem to both the NIA and the various exhibitors. There are numerous times before and during the event when the lack of power causes a number of disruptions to exhibitors and the general public. In the past, extra generators have been hired to cope with the additional power requirements, however it still does not resolve the problem. Following discussion with Western Power and a reputable electrical contractor, the long term solution to the power source problem is to increase the phase power from three outlets to six outlets. The cost for this work is approximately $70,000, with the NIA willing to contribute 50% of these costs over a two to three-year period. In the 2002/2003 Budget, there are allowances for an additional irrigation bore to be installed as part of Stage Two automatic irrigation system for the Perry Lakes Reserve and additional barbecues. It has been identified that these, combined with other proposed future additional capital items as outlined in the Perry Lakes Environmental Management Plan, would place pressure on the existing power supply and the eventual upgrade to the power supply is seen as a necessity.



However, no specific allowance has been made for this upgrade to the power supply at the Perry Lakes Reserve. Accordingly, this capital item would need to be included in the forthcoming 2003/2004 Budget and specified in the Perry Lakes Environmental Management Plan. If Council was to accept a 50% contribution by the NIA towards the upgrade to the power supply at the Perry Lakes Reserve, a formalised contract should be initiated between both parties. Once a contract has been introduced, an appropriate amount could be included in 2003/2004 Budget for consideration.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil, although reference has been made to the Perry Lakes Environmental Management Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: An amount of approximately $35,000 would need to be included in the 2003/2004 Budget to facilitate the upgrade in power at the Perry Lakes Reserve. The NIA would also contribute approximately $35,000 towards costs. STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS: The upgrade of electrical power at the Perry Lakes Reserve and specifically a 50% contribution to these costs by the Nursery Industries Association of Western Australia supports one of the goals of Economic Development within the Town’s Strategic Plan, namely:

“To defray some of the Town’s expenditure on facilities, particularly regional, by assessing opportunities for cost recovery to reduce cost to ratepayers.”

SUMMARY: The NIA of Western Australia, following the conduct of a very successful 2002 Garden Week at the Perry Lakes Reserve, has written to Council requesting a number of issues to be resolved before the conduct of future Garden Week events. These include reticulation, sewerage and additional paving which all can be accommodated within the 2002/2003 Budget. However, a problem exists in relation to the lack of power supply at the Perry Lakes Reserve during the Garden Week event, and this will be further complicated by further proposed capital works as identified within the Perry Lakes Environmental Management Plan. The cost to upgrade the electrical supply is approximately $70,000 and the NIA of Western Australia is willing to contribute 50% towards these costs over a two to three-year period. No budget allocation for these works monies has been included in the 2002/2003 Budget. If the Town is to proceed with this proposal a formalised contract should be developed between the Town and the NIA for the future conduct of Garden Week and issues such as monetary contributions towards an upgrade to the electrical supply at the Perry Lakes Reserve should be clearly outlined.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise a contract between the

Town of Cambridge and the Nursery Industries Association (NIA) of Western Australia for the future conduct of Garden Week at the Perry Lakes Reserve based on the details in this report;

(ii) subject to successful negotiations above an amount of $35,000 be considered

for inclusion in the 2003/2004 Budget representing 50% of the cost for upgrading the power supply at Perry Lakes Reserve.

Carried



CCS02.101 CAMBRIDGE SCOUT HALL (File Reference: PRO0499) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider a request from the Cambridge Scout Group for Council to fully fund the construction of a new scout hall at Alderbury Reserve/Perry Lakes. BACKGROUND: Council considered a report at its meeting held on 22 August 2000 and decided as follows; That a report be submitted to Council for further consideration on the basis of:- (i) Council providing a suitable site at Perry Lakes for a Cambridge Scout facility; (ii) the Administration and the Cambridge Scout Group meet to discuss the funding

and/or possible application for grants to cover construction costs and funding availability from the Scout Association of Australia (WA Branch).

DETAILS: In accordance with Council’s decision, the Administration has met with the Cambridge Scout Group to further investigate issues (i) and (ii) above. Site The refurbishment of the existing scout hall on The Boulevard is not a viable alternative. Council has decided to redevelop this site for residential purposes and dispose of the lots to raise revenue to fund the development of the Floreat Sporting Precinct with the remaining revenue being placed into the Endowment Lands Account. Site suitability was discussed and investigated with the Cambridge Scout Group and it was determined that the preferred site for construction of a new scout facility was at Alderbury Reserve/Perry Lakes, on the southern side of the toilet/changeroom facilities and adjacent to the existing car park. A copy of a plan illustrating the preferred site is attached. The determining factor for this site was that all services, including water, sewerage electricity, gas and telephone were readily accessible. The fact that the services were close reduced the cost of the project significantly. An alternate site close to Perry Lakes Drive was not as attractive because of the added costs associated with the provision of services to that site. The Administration, in consultation with the Scout Group, prepared a building brief and specification for architects to quote on. In accordance with Council policy, three quotes were arranged and Viewbank Constructions were appointed to prepare a concept for Council’s endorsement. Attached is a copy of the preliminary plans for the Scouts/Girl Guide facility at Alderbury Reserve/Perry Lakes.



In January 2001, Viewbank Constructions estimated that it would cost approximately $298,000 to construct the Scouting/Guide facility on the preferred site. The original cost estimates provided by the Cambridge Scout Group to construct a facility required for their use was $400,000. Funding In 1999, the Administration assisted the Cambridge Scout Group with the preparation of their application for Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Funds (CSRFF) through the Ministry of Sport and Recreation. Council, at its meeting held on 26 October 1999, supported the application and gave it a high priority rating. If successful, the funds would have been made available for the project in the 2000/01 financial year. Unfortunately, the application was not successful and the Cambridge Scout Group was forced to explore other alternatives to secure funding. In past meetings held with all parties, the Girl Guides Association has advised that they do not have any available funds to contribute to this project. The Cambridge Scout Group approached the Scouting Association of WA to secure finance and was informed that funds would only be loaned on the basis that it receives full repayment from the group plus interest at 5.7%. The Cambridge Scouting Association does not have the financial capacity to repay a loan of this amount. The Chief Executive Officer of the Scouting Association of WA met with officers from the Town in mid 2001 and advised that the Association was considering disposing of its headquarters in West Perth and may have funds available to contribute to this project. The funds would only be made available if the Board approved of the disposal of the main building and if the Association could also relocate their administration to this new facility. This would assist the Cambridge Scouting Group with their funding requirements. A letter was received on 5 July 2002 from the Chief Executive Officer, Scouting Association of WA advising that the Association had reconsidered its situation and was not interested in pursuing these arrangements in the immediate future. In the past two budgets, the Town has allocated an amount of $133,000 as its contribution towards this project in accordance with Council’s decision on 23 March 1999 to allocate this amount towards a Scout facility. Once again this amount was carried forward in the 2002/03 budget in anticipation that the project may commence. The funds have been allocated from the Endowment Lands Account. Discussions with the Cambridge Scout Group and the Scouting Association of WA have not progressed as neither group has the necessary funds to contribute to the balance of the funds required for project.

Scout Submission On 27 May 2002, the Chairperson of the Cambridge Scout Association wrote to His Worship the Mayor and forwarded a joint submission from the Group and the City Beach Guides for the replacement of the current City Beach Scouts and Guides hall. A copy of the submission is attached to the report. The submission outlines all of the issues that have been provided to Council in previous reports. The Cambridge Scout Group and City Beach Guides presently have a combined membership of 90 children and believe that with new facilities that figure may increase that to 120.



The Group has approximately $15,000 that would be allocated to assist to fit out the new facility. In addition, the Group has a Parent Committee that can provide services via experienced and suitably qualified volunteer involvement such as: • Project Management of the entire works including coordinating and design and

tender process and supervise construction. • Structural and electrical design. • Site works (ie earthworks and plumbing). This in kind support has an estimated value of $25,000, giving a total Group contribution of approximately $40,000. It should be noted that the plan included in the submission received is an old design of what was originally proposed by the Group in initial consultation with Council. As advised earlier in this report, the Town in conjunction with the Cambridge Scouting Group, had previously agreed in January 2001 on the design that was put forward by Viewbank Constructions, estimated to cost approximately $298,000 to construct. No doubt this price would have increased since January 2001. It is therefore suggested that a more realistic construction cost would be a 10% increase to approximately $330,000. The type of construction that the Group proposed is a tilt up slab building, which is very common in today’s building construction. Consultants advised that this market is very competitive and the Town would achieve the best price by tendering on a design and construct basis. If the Town proposes to build this facility, an in-kind donation of $25,000 from the Groups will not be included in the groups contribution. The Group has advised that they do not have the funds or ability to raise a loan to contribute the remaining $200,000 for the construction of a new facility. In discussions that the Administration has held with the Scouting Association of WA, the Association has advised that they are reluctant to put large amounts of capital into buildings that are not located on land owned by the Scouting Association as there is no return on their investment. In their submission, the Cambridge Scouting Association and City Beach Girl Guides are requesting that Council fully fund a new facility at Alderbury Reserve. The Cambridge Scouts and City Beach Guides have outlined in their submission some very important reasons why Council should approve funding for the construction of a new facility. These are outlined as follows; • The Scouts and Girl Guides have had a long history and strong presence in the

Town over a lengthy period of time. Originally with the Wembley and City Beach Scouts and Guides and now with the Cambridge Scout Group and City Beach Girl Guides.

• Both halls were originally built by the Scouting Association and used extensively by both Scouts and Guides.

• The Cambridge Scout Group is the only scout group with facilities in the Town of Cambridge and caters for up to 50 children varying in age from 6 to 16 years.

• The City Beach Girl Guides is the only guides group in the Town of Cambridge and caters for up to 40 girls varying in age from 7 to 15 years.

• If the Town does not replace the building there will be no Scouting facilities within the Town of Cambridge. The closest Scout and Guides groups are located in Draper Street within the City of Nedlands and Dover Street Wembley Downs in the City of Stirling.



• Council has decided to subdivide and dispose of land along The Boulevard to raise revenue to fund the development of the Floreat Sporting Precinct. The City Beach Scout Hall is located on this site and will need to be demolished so that the subdivision may proceed. The last valuation received by Council in March 2001 estimated that a single residential lot on this site would realise approximately $350,000. The whole subdivision would comprise of approximately 45 lots.

Subdivision of existing scout site The Administration is liaising with the WA Planning Commission to have this site rezoned to urban under the Metropolitan Regional Planning Scheme. It is anticipated that the rezoning will be approved this year. On confirmation of the rezoning, the Town will need to amend its Town Planning Scheme. Following due process, this could take six months to complete. If Council decides to develop the land for disposal, it could take approximately two years before it is available for sale to the market. The processes involved to get to market are complex and would entail calling tenders for consultants (Planners, Engineers, Surveyors, Earthworks and Real Estate Agents etc). If Council decides to construct a new facility for the Scouts and Guides, the building would most likely need to be completed within this two year period. It should be noted that the Town has not since its inception considered allocating this amount of funds ($330,000) towards a project that would benefit such a small community group (90 members). When considering the merits of the Scouts and Guides request, Council should also consider that it might be setting a precedent in which other clubs with similar financial problems may expect the same assistance. The Town is in the process of developing a Leasing Policy. A number of reports have been presented to the Corporate and Customer Services Committee giving details of a pricing policy under which all Sporting Clubs and Community Groups including the Scouts and Guides would be required to pay rent for the use of their facilities. The Policy is based on determining an equitable arrangement with all groups for payment of rent. At this time, the policy is not endorsed by Council but will be put forward in the near future for consideration. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Council has already committed $133,000 toward this project representing 41.5% of the estimated cost ($330,000), to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account. If the request from the Cambridge Scout Group and City Beach Guides for a new facility at Perry Lakes (Alderbury Reserve) is supported, a further amount of $200,000 is needed to be allocated for the construction of the facility. Another consideration is the subdivision and development of the City Beach Bowling Club site and immediate surrounds for residential housing. It is anticipated that the revenue raised could amount to approximately $15.5 million. Portion of these funds will be used to fund the development of the Floreat Sporting Precinct ($4.55 million). The remaining funds ($10.95 million) will be placed in the Endowment Lands Account and used on capital projects within the Endowment Lands area.



It is recommended that the additional $200,000 needed to construct the Scout/Guide facility be also funded from the Endowment Lands Account. In return for building the facility, it is proposed that the Scouts be requested to enter into a 10 year lease and pay a rental fee in accordance with the Town’s Leasing Policy, which is yet to be adopted by Council. The lessee should be responsible for all internal maintenance of the facility and paying all outgoings (insurance, rates and taxes etc). STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The Town has considered a draft strategy for Sport and Recreation. Under Section 4 – Trends in Sport and Recreation of that Strategy, the report comments in 4.7 – Summary as follows:- Economic “the proposed construction of a Scout facility for 70 Scouts is contrary to this outcome (economic viability) and would not meet the aim of shared facilities and economic sustainability”. This strategy has not been adopted by the Town and has been referred to the Administration to undertake further consultation with community groups. The Town is committed to redeveloping the land on The Boulevard where the City Beach Scout hall is located, to raise revenue to fund capital projects in the Town. To obtain the best return on this land, the Scout and Guide Hall will require demolition. As advised, if the Town does not fund the construction of a new facility there will be no Scout or Guide facility in the Town of Cambridge. SUMMARY: The Town has applied to the WA Planning Commission and is awaiting approval for the rezoning of a parcel of freehold land of The Boulevard. Located on this land is the City Beach Bowling Club and City Beach Scout/Guides Hall. Council has approved the redevelopment of the sale of the land for residential housing. It is anticipated that, if fully redeveloped, the site could realise approximately $15.5 million of which $4.55 million will be used to fund the development of the Floreat Sporting precinct. The remaining $10.95 million will be allocated to the Endowment Lands Account and used to fund other capital projects within the Endowment Lands area. The Cambridge Scout Group (formerly City Beach Scouts and Wembley Scout Group) and City Beach Girl Guides funded the building of the City Beach hall in 1972. The hall is still used extensively by the groups and today the combined membership is approximately 90 children from a variety of age groups. Council decided in 1999 to assist the Scouts and Guides to relocate by providing a site at Alderbury Reserve/Perry Lakes and a contribution of $133,000 towards the construction of a new facility. The facility that the Groups require is estimated to cost approximately $330,000. The Girl Guides have advised that they have no available funds to contribute. The Scout Association of WA has confirmed that they only contribute funds into buildings where the Association owns the land. The Cambridge Scouting Group does not have the financial capacity to borrow or support repayments for a loan amounting to $200,000. If



the Town does not provide funding for this project, there will be no Scout or Guides groups located in the municipality It is therefore recommended that Council fully funds the construction of a new Scout/Guide facility at Alderbury Reserve/Perry Lakes. The Scouts and Guides will continue to have a presence and provide opportunities for families within the Town of Cambridge. This offer is made subject to the Town receiving WA Planning Commission approval to the redevelopment of the site and the availability of funds from the Endowment Lands Account. On a positive note, the Town can proceed with plans to redevelop the City Beach Bowling Club and Scout Hall sites, knowing that all groups will have been successfully relocated to new facilities. The additional $200,000 needed to proceed with the construction be funded from the Endowment Lands Account. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That:- (i) the construction of a new Scouting/Girl Guide facility at Alderbury Reserve

adjacent to the car park on the southern side of the toilet/change room at an estimated cost of $330,000 be fully funded by the Town;

(ii) the offer to fund the construction of the new facility is subject to the

following;

(a) the Town receiving WA Planning Commission approval to amend the Metropolitan Regional Scheme zoning of the existing Scout Hall site from recreation to urban;

(b) the Scout Association of WA entering into a 10 year lease for use of the

facility and paying a rent to be determined in accordance with the Leasing Policy and in addition to the rental the tenant pay for all internal maintenance and outgoings;

(iii) an amount of $330,000 be allocated in the 2003/04 budget to be funded from

the Endowment Lands Account so that the project may proceed; (iv) the concept plan prepared by Viewbank Constructions as the preferred

design for the building be endorsed; (v) tenders be invited in mid 2003 subject to (ii) above from suitably qualified

building contractors to construct a Scouting/ Guide facility; (vi) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 to accept a tender for the construction of a Scouting/Guide facility up to an amount of $350,000.



Amendment Moved by Cr Smith, seconded by Cr O’Connor That clause (i) of the motion be amended by the addition of the following words:- “in doing so the Council notes that the Town is unable to accept the in-kind contributions of the Associations.” Amendment carried The amended motion was then put and carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY The motion, as carried, is as follows:- (i) the construction of a new Scouting/Girl Guide facility at Alderbury Reserve adjacent

to the car park on the southern side of the toilet/change room at an estimated cost of $330,000 be fully funded by the Town;

(ii) the offer to fund the construction of the new facility is subject to the following;

(a) the Town receiving WA Planning Commission approval to amend the Metropolitan Regional Scheme zoning of the existing Scout Hall site from recreation to urban;

(b) the Scout Association of WA entering into a 10 year lease for use of the

facility and paying a rent to be determined in accordance with the Leasing Policy and in addition to the rental the tenant pay for all internal maintenance and outgoings;

(iii) an amount of $330,000 be allocated in the 2003/04 budget to be funded from the

Endowment Lands Account so that the project may proceed; (iv) the concept plan prepared by Viewbank Constructions as the preferred design for

the building be endorsed; (v) tenders be invited in mid 2003 subject to (ii) above from suitably qualified building

contractors to construct a Scouting/ Guide facility; (vi) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in

accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 to accept a tender for the construction of a Scouting/Guide facility up to an amount of $350,000.



CCS02.102 PLAN OF PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES: 2002 - 2007 (File Reference: ADM0115) PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: To consider and adopt the Plan of Principal Activities for the period 2002 to 2007. BACKGROUND: Section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each Council to prepare a Plan of Principal Activities for the next four or more financial years. The Plan requires a review once in every year and the reviewed Plan must be advertised for a six-week public comment period prior to adoption. The Plan was advertised in the Post Newspaper on 29 June 2002 calling for public submissions by Monday 12 August 2002. Copies of the plan were available at the Council Office, Wembley Community Centre, Bold Park Aquatic Centre and Cambridge Library (from 15 July 2002) for public viewing. At the conclusion of the advertising period no submissions have been received. The Local Government Act includes the following provisions in relation to the Plan of Principal Activities:- Section 5.52 Definition of Principal Activity In this Division – “principal activity” includes:- (a) a major capital works project to be undertaken by the local government; (b) a major service to be provided by the local government; (c) a program for the replacement of the local government’s major assets; (d) major land transactions and major trading undertakings within the meaning of

Section 3.59: and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. Section 5.56 Planning Principal Activity (1) Each financial year, a local government is to prepare a Plan for the next four or

more financial years. (2) the Plan is to contain details of:-

(a) the principal activities that are proposed to be commenced or to be

continued in each financial year affected by the Plan; (b) the objectives of each principal activity;



(c) the estimated cost of, and proposed means of funding, each principal activity;

(d) how the local government proposes to assess its performance in relation to

each principal activity; (e) the estimated income and expenditure for each financial year affected by

the Plan; and (f) such other matters as may be prescribed.

Section 5.57 Notice of Proposed Plans for Principal Activities (1) after preparing a Plan under Section 5.56, the local government is to:-

(a) give local public notice in accordance with subsection (2); and (b) make available for public inspection, copies of the proposed plan at the

local government offices and at each local government library in the district. (2) The local public notice is to contain:-

(a) notification that a Plan for the local government’s principal activities for the next four or more years has been prepared;

(b) details of where and when the Plan may be inspected; and (c) an invitation for submissions in relation to the Plan to be made by members

of the public within 42 days of the day on which local public notice was first given.

Section 5.58 Acceptance of Plans for Principal Activities

The local government is to consider any submissions received in relation to a Plan prepared under Section 5.56 and may accept the Plan with or without modification. DETAILS: The review of last year’s Plan of Principal Activities has resulted in the number of principal activities being reduced from 25 to 22. The reduction is due to the finalisation of three major projects in 2001/2002. These items were:- • Automation of Irrigation • Library and Community Amenities Development • Sale of Truro Place Land The Plan of Principal Activities now contains 22 items with 12 being specific projects and the remaining 10 being programs undertaken by Council on an annual basis.



The 22 principal activities are detailed below:- Programs 1. Road Asset Management 2. Sanitation 3. Parks, Reserves and Sports grounds 4. Ocean Beaches 5. Public Halls and Theatres 6. Wembley Golf Complex 7. Swimming Facilities 8. Library Services 9. Youth and Aged Services 10. Ranger Services 11. Development and Environmental Services 12. Plant and Equipment Replacement Projects 13. Lake Monger Improvement 14. Underground Power 15. Wembley Town Centre Improvements 16. Coastal Improvements 17. Bold Park Aquatic Centre Development 18. Sale of Jersey Street/Salvado Road land 19. Development of Perry Lakes Stadium Site and Associated Sporting Facilties 20. Floreat Sporting Precinct 21. Sale of The Boulevard/Kalinda Drive land 22. Perry Lakes Reserve Improvement POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Plan of Principal Activities guides the Town in formulating financial strategies for the next five years. The Plan will have a direct impact on the 2002/2003 Budget and will influence budget decisions for future financial periods. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The Plan of Principal Activities provides a link from the Town’s Strategic Plan to the provision of funds in the annual budget to undertake strategies included in the Strategic Plan. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That the Plan of Principal Activities for the period 2002 – 2007 attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper be adopted. Carried



CCS02.103 REVALUATION OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS – CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY (File Reference: POL0010) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To amend the Significant Accounting Policy to include provision for the Town to adopt the cost basis for recording its non-current assets in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards Board AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” BACKGROUND: Accounting standard AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” was issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board in December 1999. The standard requires local governments to measure each class of non-current assets using either the cost basis or the fair value basis. If the Council elects to use the fair value basis, revaluations must be made with sufficient regularity to ensure that the carrying value of each asset in the class does not differ from its fair value at year end. The standard suggests that where movements in asset values are minimal, a revaluation every three years may suffice otherwise more regular valuations may be required. Once the fair value method is adopted, there is limited opportunity (if any) to revert back to cost basis. The difficulty is not only obtaining expertise that can reliably measure the fair value of the Council’s non-current assets but also at a reasonable cost to the Town to perform the valuations. Furthermore, it may be also difficult to determine when a movement in asset values has occurred and to what magnitude in order to determine whether or not a revaluation should or should not take place. To overcome such obstacles, the standard has allowed a transitional period for Councils to revert back to the cost method where a Council is currently using the fair value method. This transitional period concludes for the reporting period ending 30 June 2002. DETAILS: Requirement to Recognise Infrastructure Assets The Approved Accounting Standard AAS27 “Financial Reporting by Local Governments” which came into effect on 1 July 1993, outlines the criteria for recognition of assets. Paragraph 33 of the standard states that an asset of local government shall be recognised in the statement of financial position when, and only when: (a) it is probable that the future economic benefits embodied in the asset will

eventuate; and (b) the asset possesses a cost or other value that can be measured reliably. The statement goes on to say that the purpose of recognising and appropriately classifying assets within the statement of financial position is to inform users of the amount and types of future economic benefits deployed by the local government to meet community needs. This asset detail together with other information provided within the statement of financial position is useful for assessing the local government’s ability to continue to provide goods and services, whether resources provided to the local government by ratepayers and government agencies are being deployed and maintained



in the manner intended, and the level of resources that may be needed to be provided to the local government in the future so that it may continue to provide goods and services. Furthermore paragraph 35 of the standard requires local governments to recognise all assets, including those that yield their economic benefits over long periods of time in the statement of financial position. The standard makes it clear that the reference to all assets includes the recognition of infrastructure assets and gives examples such as roads, drainage, bridges, monuments etc. The Town has a significant amount of infrastructure assets. A glance at last year’s annual financial statements for 30 June 2001 shows infrastructure assets at a valuation of $130 million out of a total asset value of $190 million which represents 68% of the total value. Infrastructure assets therefore make a significant impact on the Town’s financial position and it is therefore important to determine how these assets are to be recognised in the Town’s financial records that are at cost or at valuation. Accounting standard AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” recently issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board addresses this issue and is discussed in some detail in the following paragraph. Revaluation of Infrastructure Assets The accounting standard AAS27 brought in the requirement to record infrastructure assets and accounting standard ASRB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets’ adds to this requirement further by stating that these assets must be brought to account at either: (a) cost basis; or (b) the fair value basis. Cost is normally the purchase price of the asset and fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged (ie sold) between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm length transaction. Paragraph 5 of the standard goes on to say that the whole class of non-current assets to which the asset belongs must be valued or revalued on the same basis. Class meaning assets of similar nature or function in the Town’s operations. For example, the Town’s roads are a class of infrastructure asset, and therefore all roads must be shown at either cost or fair value, there cannot be a mixture of both. Fair Value – the issues Frequency If the Town chooses the fair value basis then the frequency of revaluations will depend on the changes in the fair value of those assets within that class of assets. Some non-current assets may experience large and frequent movements in their fair value therefore requiring the Town to carry out a new valuation exercise every year. Where these changes are minimal or immaterial, a revaluation every three years may be sufficient. This raises a number of issues such as: • The difficulty in determining when a movement in asset values has occurred and to

what magnitude in order to determine whether or not a revaluation should or should not take place.

• Who is charged with the responsibility of monitoring each class of non-current assets to determine such movements



• Coordination of revaluations of non-current assets within the Town to achieve maximum benefit of these revaluation exercises at a minimum cost.

Expertise As the accounting standard indicates, a revaluation exercise may be required at worst annually or at best every three years. The Town as discussed previously has some $130 million of infrastructure assets. The effort involved in carrying out a revaluation exercise would be substantial in both time and cost. The expertise would not exist in-house and a consulting firm specialising in revaluations with respect to each class of infrastructure asset would need to be consulted. Even then, there is no guarantee that valuations would be consistent from year to year as each valuer may employ a different method of valuation, different parameters and some degree of subjectivity may be involved in the valuation exercise. Reliability As mentioned previously, AAS 27, paragraph 33 states that values other than the purchase costs can be taken into consideration if it can be measured reliably. Currently, there are no software packages in the market place that Council is aware of that have been specifically designed to meet the requirements of the Australian Accounting Standards with respect to infrastructure asset valuation. There are, however, software packages available such as “ROMAN”, which stands for Roads Management software, primarily designed for aiding engineers in compiling asset replacement programs that can provide a valuation for roads. These programs such as ROMAN, have had problems in the methodology applied in valuing road assets. For example, some problems encountered have been:- • Roads valued as country roads for replacement value rather than metropolitan

roads due to the number of dwellings abutting the road and therefore leading to incorrect valuation criteria being applied by the software. This had led to the Town’s roads in such instances being undervalued.

• Software Upgrades, becoming more sophisticated and therefore applying different

criteria in determining road valuations compared to the last software version. More specifically, the latest ROMAN version to hand can calculate roads based on either age or condition. Depending on what option is chosen, a different valuation will be achieved.

• The inability for ROMAN to account for road improvements such as roundabouts.

These are overwritten each time a new valuation of roads is carried out. It must be remembered that the primary purpose of this type of software was to act as a guide in formulating asset replacement programs and not to comply with accounting standards. It was already in existence before the infrastructure asset recognition requirement was introduced in July 1997.



Financial Impact The problem is that as Council’s infrastructure assets are of such magnitude, a variation in valuation determination from one financial year to the next has a significant impact on Council’s financial statements. This can be illustrated by the following graphs. As can be seen, valuations in the past two financials years have fluctuated significantly which has not only had an impact on asset values but also on depreciation expenditure. This makes it difficult for Council to plan for asset replacement and to raise sufficient rates revenue for asset replacement.

Infrastructure Valuation

406080

100120140

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 99/00 00/01Financial Year

Dolla

rs (M

illio

ns)

Infrastructure Written Down Value

40

60

80

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 99/00 00/01Financial Year

Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

Infrastructure Depreciation

0

1

2

3

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 99/00 00/01Financial Year

Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)



Depreciation Impact on Operations

-4-3-2-10123

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 99/00 00/01

Financial Year

Dol

lars

(Mill

ions

)

Profit/(Loss) from Operations Depreciation

To regain some consistency from year to year, which will enable the Town to minimise the impact of infrastructure valuation fluctuations and consequently depreciation expense fluctuations from distorting the overall financial performance of the Town’s operations, it is proposed to revert to the cost method of asset valuation. Option to Revert to Cost Method Accounting Standard AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” has transitional provisions available to Councils to allow them to revert back to the cost basis for recording all non current assets for the financial year ended 30 June 2002. If this course of action is chosen then Councils are required to revert to a cost basis at the commencement of the reporting period, that is 1 July 2001 in accordance with paragraph 8.7 of the standard. The easiest way for a Council to revert to the cost basis is to deem the carrying amount of the non-current assets comprising the class at 1 July 2001 to be their cost. This should be done via a decision of Council. Should this option not be taken for the financial year ended 30 June 2002, then limited (if any) opportunity will exist to revert to cost basis in future years. Councils are always able to move to a fair value basis in future financial years should they choose to do so after having an opportunity to consider all the positives and negatives. Perhaps this could be considered when products or services become available in the future within the market place which can reliably measure values of infrastructure assets within a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost. It should be noted that once a Council has elected to use the fair value method for a class of assets, there is limited (if any) opportunity for it to revert back to cost basis. Decision to Revert to Cost Basis The Administration has had a number of discussions with the Town’s auditors, (Barrett and Partners), who have recommended that Council revert to the cost basis for all its non-current assets. This is in line with what a number of other auditing firms are also recommending to their local government clients. The following policy needs to be inserted within Council’s significant accounting policies:



Change in Accounting Policy The Council on 1 July 2001 elected to revert to the cost basis for measuring land and buildings and infrastructure that was carried at a revalued amount at the immediately preceding reporting date by deeming the carrying amount of the non-current assets comprising the class to be their cost. This action complies with the requirements on first application of Accounting Standard AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets”. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications at this time, however, if Council was not to proceed with reverting back to the cost basis for its land and buildings and infrastructure assets, then an asset revaluation program would need to be implemented which would involve the appointment of a Valuer to undertake regular valuations. Due to the scope of work involved and significant amount of assets the Town has, this could be an expensive exercise and quotes would need to be sought. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Policy number 2.3.5 – Significant Accounting Policies, to be amended to include the change in accounting policy regarding the revaluation of non-current assets as outlined above. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: To ensure the Town’s assets perform in accordance with appropriate recognised acceptable standards for the benefit of the community. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr McAullay That:- (i) the cost basis for measuring land and buildings and infrastructure assets be

adopted effective from 1 July 2001; (ii) Policy Number 2.3.5 – Significant Accounting Policies, clause 3.2 ‘Valuation

of Non-Current Assets’ second paragraph be replaced with the following wording:- “The Council on 1 July 2001 elected to revert to the cost basis for measuring land and buildings and infrastructure that was carried at a revalued amount at the immediately preceding reporting date by deeming the carrying amount of the non-current assets comprising the class to be their cost. This action complies with the requirements on first application of Accounting Standard AASB 1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets”.

Carried




8.1 Safer WA Western Suburbs Committee Nothing further to report.

9. GENERAL BUSINESS 9.1 Football Parking in Wembley and West Leederville Cr MacRae expressed concern with regard to football parking in Wembley

and West Leederville in particular the large amount of football parking north of Cambridge Street, illegal parking in residential streets and parking in laneways.

It was suggested that consideration be given to undertaking a review of

parking, prior to next football season. 10. CLOSURE There being no further business, the presiding member thanked those present for

their attendance and declared the meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee closed at 6.40pm.


\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\D DES.doc 118

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Development and Environmental Services Committee Meeting held on 20 August 2002 was submitted as under: 1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

Resolved that Cr MacRae be elected Presiding Member of the August Development and Environmental Services Committee Meeting.

2. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee open at 6.01pm.

3. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02pm 7.05pm Cr Graham Burkett, JP 6.02pm 7.05pm Cr Ken McAullay 6.02pm 7.05pm Cr Hilary Pinerua (Deputy) 6.02pm 7.05pm Observers: Mayor Ross Willcock, JP 6.02pm 6.53pm 6.55pm 7.05pm Officers: Ian Birch, Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services Pas Bracone, Manager Planning Services Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.05pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Cr Anderton - Apology


Nil



5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS Deputations: Item DES02.108 - Fiona Hogg, Architect Item DES02.112 - Karen Nagappa, Neighbour

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Burkett seconded by Cr McAullay That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee held on 16 July 2002 as contained in the July Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried

7. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Nil

8. REPORTS



DES02.96 LOT 106 (NO. 14) GRASMERE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED TWO-STOREY DWELLING – CONFIRMATION OF APPROVAL (File Reference: PRO 0731) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To confirm an approval for an application for building approval referred back from the previous Council meeting held on 23 July 2002. BACKGROUND: BA/DA Reference: 257BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Andrew and Virginia Kerrich APPLICANT: Webb and Brown-Neaves ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No. 1: Residential R12.5 COMMENT: Further to the memorandum distributed to the Mayor and Councillors on Tuesday 6 August 2002 regarding the application for a two-storey dwelling at Lot 106 (No. 14) Grasmere Avenue, the application has been approved under delegated authority, subject to the conditions as outlined in the memorandum. Elected members voted 8 to 1 in favour of the recommendation to approve the application. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That the approval for the application for a two-storey dwelling submitted by Webb and Brown-Neaves at Lot 106 (No. 14) Grasmere Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the amended site plan, upper storey floor plan and elevations dated 1 July 2002, and the lower storey floor plan dated 13 May 2002, be confirmed. Carried



DES02.108 LOT 126 (NO. 8) WEELARA ROAD, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS (File Reference: PRO 1555) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA Reference: 329BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Drue O’Donoghue APPLICANT: Troppo Architects WA Pty Ltd ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No. 1: Residential R20 POLICY: Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Residential Planning Codes (R Codes) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Provided Primary street setback (dwelling) (Clause 5.3.5 of RDGs and Clause 20 (1) (a) of TPS No. 1)

7.5 metres minimum 5.8 metres (upper floor bedroom 1 balcony) 2.6 metres (elevated terrace)

Primary street setback (garage) (Clause 5.3.5 of RDGs)

7.5 metres minimum 2.6 metres

Privacy separation distance (Clause 11.3.4 of RDGs)

6.0 metres minimum if balcony is unscreened 6.0 metres if terrace is unscreened

1.9 metres (upper floor bedroom 1 balcony to east side boundary) Nil (elevated terrace to west side boundary)

Ground floor side setback (west) (R Codes)

3.0 metres (for deck and masonry retaining wall)

Nil

Upper floor side setback (east) (R Codes)

5.0 metres (if balcony is unscreened) 2.2 metres (if balcony is screened)

1.5 metres – 1.9 metres



Retaining wall height (Clause 9.3 of RDGs)

0.5 metres maximum on property boundary

1.2 metres to 2.29 metres on west side boundary

0.75 maximum within 3.0 metres of street alignment

1st step on front boundary – maximum 1.0 metre high 2nd step 3 metres from front boundary – maximum 0.85 metres high

DETAILS: Lot area: 799 square metres Open space: 66 percent Approval is sought for additions and alterations to the existing two-storey dwelling at Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach. The proposal includes:- • Relocating the existing garage from adjacent to east side boundary and 7.6 metres

from the front boundary, to the west side boundary, 2.6 metres from the front boundary;

• Constructing a terrace with shade sail above the new garage; • In the location of the previous garage, constructing a new entry for the dwelling and

internal staircase to the upper storey, and installing landscaping, a pond and steps up to the new entry;

• Modifying the existing upper storey games room and external staircase to create a

new main bedroom with ensuite and WIR, an internal staircase and a front balcony; • Installing new highlight windows along the east side of the dwelling; • Removing the existing pillars, terrace structure and landscaping in the front setback

area and installing a new pool, spa, and pond, landscaping, and masonry retaining walls that will be cement rendered;

• Re-roofing the dwelling from tiles to colorbond light grey and altering the pitch of the

roof from a hipped and gabled roof to a curved skillion roof; and • Cement rendering the existing masonry external walls. Currently situated on the subject site is a brick and tile dwelling with a terraced garden in the front setback area. The site slopes up over two metres from the front (north) boundary to the rear (south) boundary. The adjoining property to the east (No. 10 Weelara Road) contains a two-storey dwelling and the adjoining property to the west (No. 6 Weelara Road) is vacant. No. 6 Weelara Road forms part of the same lot as No. 4 Weelara Road which contains a two-storey dwelling. There is an area of open space adjacent to the rear of the site.



The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the primary street setback provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Guidelines, the privacy and retaining wall height provisions of the Residential Design Guidelines, and the side setback requirements of the Residential Planning Codes. Neighbour’s Comment Due to the proposed variations to the side setback requirements and the privacy provisions, comments were sought from both adjoining owners of No. 10 Weelara Road (east) and No. 6 Weelara Road (west). The following comment was received from the owners of No. 6 Weelara Road:- “We hereby object to the proposed additions and alterations of the above lot on the basis that:- (a) it would not conform with the amendment which appeared in the Government

Gazette on Friday 12 April 2002 and the Western Australian Newspaper on Wednesday 17 April 2002; and

(b) it would adversely affect the northern section of our block.” The amendment referred to in point (a) relates to Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 6 that modified Clause 20 (1)(a) of the Scheme Text to require a minimum primary street boundary setback of 7.5 metres in the R20 coded areas of City Beach. The subject site is zoned ‘Residential R20’ and is subject to this amendment. The adjoining owner at No. 10 Weelara Road viewed the plans and offered no objection to the proposed development. Applicant’s Grounds For Request When revised plans (which included further information on retaining walls, levels, and privacy issues for the proposed development) were submitted to Council on 9 July 2002, the applicant attached a letter which is summarised below:- • Comment regarding setbacks to upper floor area and balcony is noted and further

to this the revised elevations indicate a slatted timber privacy screen to the eastern end of the balcony structure. This balcony projection is provided to make the room appear a little larger and give a sense of connection to the view out to the north west. The size of the balcony may be reduced to conform with front setback requirements.

• With regards to the deck located to the west boundary it should be noted that it is

proposed that the carport area provided below the deck area will be required to be excavated to accommodate the vehicles and a retaining wall will be provided to support the adjacent property’s existing ground levels. As a result the height of the deck above the adjoining site would be a maximum of 2.2 metres above the adjoining lot.

• It is proposed that the boundary wall would be a rendered masonry wall finishing

nominally 1.0 metre in height above the proposed deck level. The wall above the deck could however be treated as a timber privacy screen or similar to reduce the impact of the wall to the adjoining property.



• An area of planting 1.5 metres in width may be provided to this boundary to ensure

the privacy to the adjoining property is retained and enhanced. • The proposed alterations and additions have been designed to maximise the

northern aspect and hence solar access of the main internal and external living areas as well as taking advantage of existing views. Due regard to neighbouring properties solar access and privacy requirements has also been a key consideration for this project.

COMMENT: Primary street setback – upper storey bedroom 1 balcony and garage with terrace above The new garage with terrace above is proposed to have a minimum primary street setback of 2.6 metres and the new upper storey balcony to bedroom 1 is proposed to have a minimum primary street setback of 5.8 metres. Under Clause 5.3.5 of the Residential Design Guidelines and Clause 20 (1) (a) of the Town Planning Scheme, the required setback for both the garage/terrace and bedroom 1 balcony is 7.5 metres, without provision for averaging. Variations to the Compliance Standards relating to street setbacks may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria are met:- (a) The setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the

street; (b) The reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of

development in the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and

(c) Visual separation is maintained between buildings and adjoining properties. The lot is an irregular shape in that it is located at a bend in the road. The primary street boundary, rather than following a straight line between the side boundary extremities, angles outwards from both sides. The existing location of the dwelling and the irregular primary street boundary line contribute towards the reduced setback, although it should be noted that the current development on site complies with the primary street setback requirement. Upper storey bedroom 1 balcony In terms of the encroachment of the upper storey bedroom 1 balcony, there is an area of 6.72 metres projecting a maximum of 1.7 metres forward of the primary street setback. It is noted that Clause 5.3.3 of the Residential Design Guidelines allows architectural features such as verandahs to project up to 2 metres into the primary setback, provided that it is no more than 60 percent of the width of the building. The section of the dwelling that projects forward is only 5.6 metres in width (31 percent) as opposed to the total width of the building which is 18 metres. Although this clause relates only to verandahs and the like, it demonstrates that minor encroachments into the primary street setback can be accommodated. Whilst the applicant has stated that the balcony could be reduced in size to comply with the primary street setback requirement, this is considered to be



unnecessary as the proposed encroachment is relatively minor and should not adversely impact on the streetscape. Garage with terrace above Currently, two covered car bays are provided on the east side of the property, underneath the existing games room. This garage has a primary street setback of 7.6 metres. With the proposed additions and alterations, the area now used for car parking will be enclosed and a new entry to the dwelling and internal staircase to the upper storey will be constructed. The existing driveway will be retained, providing an uncovered single car bay adjacent to the new steps leading to the dwelling’s new entry. The proposed double garage will be located on the west side of the property, between the dwelling and the west side boundary. Given the existing topography of the lot which slopes up from the street, the roof of the proposed garage will be at the same height as the ground floor of the existing dwelling, and therefore a high masonry boundary/retaining wall will be required on the west side boundary. Above the proposed garage, a large terrace with shade sail is proposed that will have the same floor level as the dwelling. In total, 29.7 square metres of the garage and the same area of the terrace above will encroach into the primary street setback. At a distance of 2.6 metres from the primary street, the structure will have a height of approximately 3.5 metres from the floor of the garage to the top of the terrace balustrade and 4.7 metres to the top of the shade sail pole. This encroachment would be incompatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street and therefore adversely impact the pattern of development in the street. Most properties in the surrounding area have a consistent street setback of at least 6.0 metres (prior to the gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Amendment No. 6, the required front setback was 6.0 metres) and there is an emphasis on landscaped front gardens and verges. Many of the dwellings are elevated above the road and are characterised by stepped retaining walls with planting in the street setback area. The purpose of Amendment No. 6, which increased the primary street setback of buildings in the R20 coded areas in City Beach from 6.0 metres to 7.5 metres, was to maintain the generous well landscaped street setback areas of City Beach. The City’s Precinct statement for the future of City Beach states that:-

“While recognising the inevitability of larger, taller houses, the prime objective for the future of City Beach is the retention of its spaciousness and streetscapes which are dominated by trees rather than buildings. Generous, uncluttered well-treed street setback areas, as free as possible of structures, are a high priority throughout the Precinct.”

In view of the above comments, and the adjoining neighbour’s objection to the structure, the proposed encroachment of the garage with terrace above cannot be supported. It will result in the bulk of the dwelling being brought forward to within 2.6 metres of the front boundary, 4.9 metres closer than the required primary street setback, and may set an undesirable precedent for potential development of the adjoining vacant lot as well as for development in City Beach in general.



Privacy and side setbacks (east and west) East (upper storey bedroom 1 balcony) On the original plans submitted, the proposed upper storey balcony for bedroom 1 (which is classed as a ‘habitable room’ under the privacy guidelines of the Residential Design Guidelines) was unscreened, and therefore a variation was requested to the upper floor (east) side setback requirement of the Residential Planning Codes and the privacy separation distance of the Residential Design Guidelines. The minimum upper floor (east) side setback requirement for the dwelling was 5.0 metres and the privacy separation distance from the balcony to the (east) side boundary was 6.0 metres, 1.9 metres is proposed. Revised plans show a slatted timber privacy screen to the east edge of the balcony. With the addition of the screen, the proposed balcony complies with the privacy guidelines, however the side setback still does not comply with the Residential Planning Codes (2.2 metres required, 1.9 metres provided). The proposed balcony is not considered to present any significant privacy issues given that it will provide views over the front yard of the adjoining property which is readily in view from the street. In view of the above comments and as the affected neighbour has not lodged an objection to the balcony, it is recommended that the upper floor balcony in its proposed setback and configuration can be supported. West (elevated terrace above proposed garage) The proposed unscreened terrace (which is also classed as a ‘habitable room’ under the privacy guidelines of the Residential Design Guidelines) requires a 1.5 metre setback from the west side boundary and a 6.0 metre privacy separation distance to the west side boundary. With the addition of the masonry retaining wall, the required setback increases to 3.0 metres. The deck is proposed to be located on the west side boundary and has a nil side setback. The applicant has stated that the wall above the deck could be treated as a timber privacy screen or similar to reduce the impact of the wall on the adjoining property, and that a 1.5 metre wide area of planting could be provided to this boundary to ensure privacy to the adjoining property is retained and enhanced. The relevant Performance Criteria for exercise of a discretion in respect of privacy under the Residential Design Guidelines is as follows:- (a) active habitable spaces located and designed so that, without reasonable cause,

they do not overlook similar spaces at ground level of adjoining residential properties.

Given the size of the proposed terrace, its northern aspect and accessibility from the family room, it can be assumed that this area will be utilised as one of the main outdoor living spaces on the property. The Residential Design Guidelines state that these areas should be designed so that they do not overlook neighbouring properties. The Guidelines also state that because it is not possible to control or predict how a neighbouring site may be developed, privacy separation distances can only realistically be applied between the proposed development and the property boundary. Therefore, even though the neighbouring property is currently vacant, the proposal should still be assessed against the Guidelines.



With a nil side setback and no screening, the proposed terrace does not comply with the privacy guidelines. It is noted that the terrace will be located in the front setback area and therefore the views from the terrace will predominantly be into the front yard and side of the adjoining property, once it is developed. It is also noted that the dwelling has an existing verandah along the west side of the dwelling which is less than the required 6.0 metre separation distance from the side boundary. However, it is proposed to increase the size of this verandah to form a substantial area of useable outdoor living space. As it is elevated from the ground, screening of the terrace to a required height of 1.65 metres will result in a boundary wall with a maximum height of approximately 3.9 metres which is considered to be unacceptable. However, installing solid balustrading may reduce the level of overlooking from persons sitting on the terrace. Overall, it is considered that the non-compliance with the side setback requirement is a more significant issue than the non-compliance with the privacy guidelines as the terrace will overlook the front, more ‘public’ areas of the adjoining property. Building up to the side boundary will increase the bulk of the development and reduce visual separation between properties. The affected neighbour has objected to the development partly on the basis that it will adversely affect the northern section of their block, and therefore the nil side setback should not be supported. Retaining walls The maximum permitted height of a retaining wall on a property boundary is 0.5 metres. The proposed maximum height of the masonry retaining wall on the west side boundary is 2.29 metres at the front of the garage, lowering to 1.2 metres at the rear of the garage and at the front boundary, in order to support the existing natural ground level of the adjoining lot for the proposed garage structure. As stated above, the neighbour has raised concerns that the garage structure will adversely affect the northern section of their block. The height of the retaining wall on the boundary, whilst necessary to accommodate the proposed garage structure, serves to artificially raise the height of the development by 2.29 metres. The effect is similar to filling the lot to a level of 2.29 metres, which would generally not be supported, particularly for an outdoor living space such as a terrace. In addition, the maximum permitted height of a retaining wall within 3.0 metres of street alignment is 0.75 metres. Retaining is proposed in three levels in the front setback area, on the front boundary, 3 metres from the front boundary, and adjacent to the proposed pool (between 3.5 and 5 metres from the front boundary). On the front boundary, the maximum height of the retaining wall will be 1.0 metre (same as existing retaining wall). Three metres from the front boundary, the maximum height of the retaining wall will be 0.85 metres. Variations to the Compliance Standards relating to street setbacks may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criterion is met:- (a) where additional filling and retaining is required by the natural topography of the

land. It is considered that additional retaining is required by the natural topography of the land. Many properties in the surrounding area have dwellings that are considerably elevated from street level and require a substantial amount of retaining in the front setback area. It



is more appealing on the streetscape to allow incremental increases in retaining up to the dwelling, rather than the one wall that is 1.5 metres in height but further from the street. The proposed retaining walls are not significantly higher than the requirement, and therefore should not cause a detrimental impact on the streetscape. The walls will be cement rendered which will match the existing dwelling. A large area between the front boundary and pool will be available for landscaping to reduce the effect of the retaining walls. With regard to the above comments, the proposed retaining walls in front of the pool area could be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: The application displays an imaginative approach to the renovation and extension to an existing residence, however, the proposal contains certain variations to the Residential Planning Codes and Residential Design Guidelines that are excessive. The non-compliance with the primary street setback and side setback from the western boundary for the proposed garage with terrace above cannot be supported as it will be incompatible with the established line and pattern of building setbacks in the street and therefore adversely impact on the pattern of development in the street. In addition, the affected neighbour has objected to the structure. A redesign of the garage and terrace above is required that takes into consideration the primary street setback and the side setback requirements, and the concerns raised by the affected neighbour. The variations to the side setback from the eastern boundary and privacy requirements for the bedroom 1 balcony are considered acceptable and will not have a detrimental effect on the adjoining neighbour. In addition, the variation to the primary street setback for the balcony is only minor and therefore could be supported. Whilst the height of the retaining walls in the front setback area does not comply with the Guidelines, the height variation is acceptable due to the natural topography of the land. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application

submitted by Troppo Architects (WA) Pty Ltd for additions and alterations at Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach in its present form, for the following reasons:-

(a) non-compliance with Clause 20 (1) (a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1

primary street setback requirement;



(b) non-compliance with Residential Planning Codes side setback requirement on western boundary.

(ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans

incorporating the following modification:-

(a) a redesign of the proposed garage with terrace above that takes into consideration the primary street setback requirement and side setback requirement from the western boundary, to reduce the effect of the structure on the streetscape;

(iii) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY authorises the Chief Executive Officer to APPROVE the application for additions and alterations submitted by Troppo Architects (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the change referred to in (ii) above subject to the following condition:-

(a) the garage shall not be further enclosed. No solid doors of any kind may be

affixed to the garage. Committee Meeting 16 July 2002 During discussion, Members agreed that, due to the applicant submitting revised plans at tonight’s Committee Meeting, a further report be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 16 July 2002) At the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on Tuesday 16 July 2002, amended plans for the above proposal were submitted by the applicant. The amendments relate to the proposed garage with terrace above. The Committee requested that Council officers assess the amended plans and report to the Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday 23 July 2002. Amendments proposed are: • Increasing the minimum primary street setback of garage and terrace above from

2.6 metres to 3.5 metres. This has reduced the maximum height of the masonry retaining wall on the west side boundary for the proposed garage from 2.29 metres to 2.0 metres due to the slope of the lot.

• Maintaining the nil setback of the garage wall on the west side boundary but

increasing the setback of the terrace from nil to 1.5 metres on the west side boundary.

• Installing a 1.5 metre wide planter on the west side boundary wall between the wall

and the terrace to reduce the impact of the boundary wall on the adjoining neighbour. The base of the planter will site below the top of the wall.

• Installing obscure balustrading on the west side of the proposed terrace, to increase

privacy. This balustrading will be to a height of approximately 1.2 metres. Above the obscure balustrading, more permeable (eg. open timber) balustrading 0.6 metres high is proposed.



• Removing the shade sail that was proposed for the terrace.

The following compliance table for the proposed garage with terrace above compares the original plans to the amended plans:

Non-compliance Required Original Plans Amended Plans Primary street setback (Clause 5.3.5 of RDGs and Clause 20 (1) (a) of TPS No. 1)

7.5 metres minimum

2.6 to 3.4 metres

3.5 to 4.35 metres

Privacy separation distance (Clause 11.3.4 of RDGs)

6.0 metres if terrace is unscreened

Nil

1.5 metres

Ground floor side setback (west) (for masonry retaining wall)

1.5 metres

Nil (previously required 3.0 m as deck was directly above)

Nil

Ground floor side setback (west) (for terrace)

1.5 metres Nil 1.5 metres

As shown in the table above, the amended plans still do not comply with primary street setback or privacy requirements. The proposed terrace now complies with the side setback requirement, however the proposed masonry retaining wall on the side boundary does not comply with the side setback requirement. The applicant has endeavoured to reduce the impact of the side boundary wall and the terrace above on the adjoining neighbour, by:-

• increasing the primary street setback (whilst still retaining adequate space to park

two vehicles) and thus reducing the height of the wall on the boundary, • installing a planter to ‘soften’ the impact of the wall, • repositioning the terrace 1.5 metres from the side boundary, and • deleting the shade sail above the terrace.

Privacy has also increased as the balustrading is proposed to be obscure and further screening, although not solid, will be installed above this balustrading. Council officers have tried to contact the adjoining neighbour to the west who objected to the original plans, to advise of the amended plans and request their comments, however, at the time of writing, we have been unsuccessful. Overall, whilst it is noted that the variation to the front setback requirement is significant, given that location of the property along the street, the topography of the site, and the existing retaining and terracing in the front setback of properties in the surrounding area,



it is considered that the amendments can be supported. Furthermore, the proposed garage will be cut into the site and the garage and terrace above will not block views to the dwelling. With the addition of planting, the overall impact of the structure will be softened. Although the adjoining neighbour has not viewed the amended plans, when their lot is developed, it is not unlikely that they will propose a similar terracing and deck structure on the side of the property adjoining the subject site, to take advantage of views to the sea. This will reduce the impact of the boundary wall. It should be noted that the amended maximum height of the boundary wall will be 0.2 metres higher than an ordinary side boundary wall (2.0 metres as opposed to 1.8 metres).

It is therefore recommended that, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for additions and alterations submitted by Troppo Architects (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 9 July 2002 as amended on 17 July 2002 for the garage and terrace, subject to the following conditions: (i) the terrace balustrading facing the common boundary between No. 8 Weelara Road

and No. 6 Weelara Road shall incorporate solid and obscure balustrading to a minimum height of 900 millimetres, in accordance with Clause 11.3.3 of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines;

(i) the planter area as shown on the amended site plan dated 17 July 2002 shall be

appropriately landscaped and reticulated, and the landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. Details of the reticulation for this area are to be submitted with the application for a building licence.

Council Meeting 23 July 2002 During discussion, Members were advised that the Administration has contacted the adjoining neighbour who lodged an objection to the original proposal to advise that amended plans have been submitted. The adjoining neighbours have not had time to view the amended plans, however, have advised that their initial objection to the proposed development still stands. Members therefore suggested that the item be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee to enable the neighbours’ concerns to be clarified. It was agreed that that the item relating to Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 23 July 2002) In accordance with the above decision, a letter was sent to the adjoining owner requesting clarification of their concerns relating to the proposed development. In response, the owner offered the following comments:

“We object to the amended plan based on:-

(a) it does not conform with the amendment which appeared in the Government Gazette on 12 April 2002.



(b) One of the contributing factors to the value of land in City Beach is the view of the ocean and this would be affected by the proposal. It adversely affects the view to the north.

If a view is lost by a building or additions and such conform to the Town Planning Scheme then that is unfortunate but foreseeable and raises no claim for damages. However where a view is lost by a building or additions not conforming to the Town Planning Scheme, then such application should be rejected, if not, a claim for damages may arise.”

The adjoining lot is currently vacant and therefore assessing the impact of the proposed alterations on the adjoining lot is more difficult than if the adjoining lot was developed. However, Council officers undertook a site inspection of the adjoining property and found that views to the sea should not substantially change if the proposed garage and terrace was constructed. There are established verge trees and dwellings on the other side of Weelara Road and Poolya Road that would contribute more to blocking views to the north and north-west. If a two-storey dwelling was located on the adjoining property, any views to the sea from the upper floor would not be affected by the proposed intrusion into the front setback area. Overall, whilst it is noted that the variation to the front setback requirement is significant, given that location of the property along the street, the topography of the site, and the existing retaining and terracing in the front setback of properties in the surrounding area, it is considered that the amendments can be supported. Furthermore, the proposed garage will be cut into the site and the garage and terrace above will not block views to the dwelling and should not adversely impact on views from the adjoining property to the sea. With the addition of planting, the overall impact of the structure will be softened. The neighbour’s comments with respect to expectations for retaining views are acknowledged. In this instance, however, as outlined above, it is difficult to see how the variation proposed to the front setback of the adjoining dwelling will unduly inhibit access to views. In these circumstances, and having regard to the general planning considerations for the proposal, it is considered that the application can be supported. An absolute majority is required due to the variation to the primary street setback requirement of Town Planning Scheme No.1. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for additions and alterations submitted by Troppo Architects (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 126 (No. 8) Weelara Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 9 July 2002 as amended on 17 July 2002 for the garage and terrace, subject to the following conditions:- (j) the terrace balustrading facing the common boundary between No. 8 Weelara

Road and No. 6 Weelara Road shall incorporate solid and obscure balustrading to a minimum height of 900 millimetres, in accordance with Clause 11.3.3 of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines;



(ii) the planter area as shown on the amended site plan dated 17 July 2002 shall be appropriately landscaped and reticulated, and the landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council. Details of the landscaping and reticulation for this area are to be submitted for approval with the application for a building licence.

During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application as the amended plans still do not comply with primary street setback or privacy requirements. Lost



DES02.109 LOT 401 (NO. 15) CATESBY STREET, CITY BEACH – REQUEST FOR RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING APPROVAL FOR A BEDROOM AND ENSUITE ADDITION (File Reference: PRO 1523) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for retrospective planning approval. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 32DA.2002 LANDOWNER: Pamela Risinger APPLICANT: John and Pamela Risinger ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes Residential Design Guidelines COMPLIANCE: Permissible Discretion Required Proposed Rear setback (R Codes)

7.5 metres 4.6 metre (minimum and 7.5 metre average)

Note: The R Codes – Table 1 allows for averaging of the rear setback. DETAILS: Lot Area: 895 square metres Open Space: 62.5 per cent Retrospective planning approval is sought for a partially constructed bedroom and ensuite extension located at the rear of the dwelling at Lot 401 (No.15) Catesby Street, City Beach. The addition has been constructed in line with the existing side setback of the dwelling and is single storey. As such, the extension complies with the normal setback requirements and had an application for a building licence been submitted prior to the commencement of the works, it would reasonably be assumed that a licence would have been issued under delegated authority, without the requirement to refer the application to adjoining owners for comment. Applicant’s Grounds For Request The applicant advises that they did approach the Town prior to commencing the works to confirm the acceptability of the extension. A misunderstanding of the advice provided resulted in the works progressing without an application for a Building Licence being submitted. Once identified, all works were stopped pending the matter being able to be considered by Council.



Neighbour Consultation Whilst the matter was brought to the attention of Council by the adjoining neighbour, the application has not been referred to adjoining owners for comment. While the rear setback achieves a 7.5 metre average, as opposed to a 7.5 minimum, the element of the building within the rear setback area is single storey and is set back a minimum of 4.6 metres from the rear boundary. The extension is built on the same level and setback from the side (eastern) boundary as the balance of the existing dwelling and as such, is not considered to impart any detrimental affect on the amenity of adjoining properties.

Retrospective Planning Approval

The authority to issue retrospective planning approval is provided for within Town Planning Scheme No.1, clause 34. This clause states, in part, that a person may apply to Council for planning approval for a development that has not obtained approval prior to commencement. It is noted that by granting approval, the planning approval does not prevent Council taking action in respect to unauthorised development before the date on which Council resolved to grant planning approval. Any enforcement action is at the discretion of the Council.

SUMMARY:

In determining what course of action to pursue, the following matters should be considered:-

• If an application was presented seeking approval for a similar development, it is

likely that the application would be supported; • The illegal construction has been done in accordance with all setback and other

development control policies pertinent to single residential dwellings within the City Beach precinct;

• There is no suggestion that the extension impinges upon the amenity of adjoining properties; and

• The owner has advised that a genuine mistake was made in respect to commencing the extension without first obtaining a Building Licence.

Recommended Action

Council has several options in dealing with this application. One course of action is to refuse the application which would then open an avenue of appeal to either the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure or the Appeals Tribunal. If the decision to refuse the application was the chosen path, then a notice could be issued under the Local Government Act, requiring the illegal structure be removed. It is noted that on this matter there is a right of appeal to the Minister for Local Government. Alternatively, Council may choose to prosecute the applicant for an illegal structure. Another avenue is to issue a retrospective planning approval for the extension (bedroom and ensuite). A retrospective building licence, however, cannot be issued. Council may deal with this by providing an official notice that recognises the presence of the structure and while not formally approved, no further action will be taken.

When considering which option to pursue, it is acknowledged that the applicant had immediately ceased all building works and is agreeable to have the matter considered by Council rather than continuing to progress the construction. As outlined, there is no identifiable adverse affects on the amenity of adjoining properties.



In consideration of the above, it is recommended that Council APPROVES the application for retrospective planning approval, and that notice be issued from the Town recognising the presence of the structure and advising the owner that no further action will be pursued.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Should the Town require legal representation on this matter, then some allocation of costs will need to be provided. An allocation for legal costs has been provided for within the budget. CONCLUSION: The proposed alterations and extensions are relatively minor and are consistent with the Residential Planning codes and as such are acceptable from a planning perspective. Therefore, the request for retrospective approval is supported. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council retrospectively APPROVES the application submitted by Pamela and John Risinger for alterations and extensions (bedroom and ensuite) to the dwelling at Lot 401 (No.15) Catesby Street, City Beach, as shown on plans dated 17 July 2002, subject to the following condition:- (i) the applicant is to provide a letter of certification from a practicing structural

engineer that the works completed to date are structurally sound and comply with the relevant Australian Standards.

Footnote: The applicant be advised that:- 1. Council is not able to issue retrospective building licences. Accordingly, an

Official Notice from the Council will be issued confirming that Council recognises the presence of the structure on the site; that the Town’s records will record the existence of the unauthorised addition and that the Council will not take further action;

2. Council advises it is an offence to commence or carry out any development

without first having applied for and obtained the approval of the Council. Carried



DES02.110 LOT 9 (NO. 434) VINCENT STREET WEST, WEST LEEDERVILLE. CHANGE OF USE – OFFICE/WAREHOUSE TO LIGHT INDUSTRY (BIRCHALLS TEXTILE DYERS) (File Reference: PRO 0349) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for approval in terms of the Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Health Local Law 2001. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 28DA-2002 LANDOWNER: E.T Evans Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Birchalls Textile Dyers. ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No 1: Commercial Site History The subject property, currently vacant, has previously operated as an office/warehouse development POLICY: Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 Policy Manual. LOCAL LAW: Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2001, Clause 9.2. COMPLIANCE: Land use permissibility • Light Industry “AA”

The land use definition of “light industry” has been ascribed to the proposed use given the proposed nature of activities and services to be provided by the applicant. Light Industry is defined under Town Planning Scheme No.1 as; “means an Industry:- (a) in which the processes carried on, the machinery used, and the goods and

commodities carried to and from the premises, will not cause any injury to, or will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the emission of light, noise, electrical interference, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water or other waste products; and

(b) the establishment of which will not, or the conduct of which, does not impose an undue load on any existing or proposed service for the supply or provision of water, gas, electricity, sewerage facilities, or any other like services.

DETAILS: Planning and Health Local Law Approval is sought by Birchalls Textile Dyers to establish their operations in the premises at Lot 9 (No.434) Vincent Street West, West Leederville. The applicant is seeking to relocate from their previous property in Leederville following the sale of that property from which they had operated for some fifty years.



Birchalls operates exclusively as a clothing and textile dyer and is not engaged in dry cleaning. The subject property is zoned commercial under Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the proposed use is deemed as an “AA” use in this zone, requiring applicants to seek Council approval prior to establishing the use. The actual operations of Birchalls as clothing/textile dyers are quite benign in that they use water soluble dyes and pigment that is heated in vats of hot water. Birchalls does not use solvents in the process and does not discharge or emit offensive chemicals. Upon completion of the dying process, used water is disposed of into the sewer which is acceptable and approved by the Water Authority. Notwithstanding the above, such a business is classified as an “offensive trade” under the Health Act 1911 (Schedule 2). The Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2002, Clauses 9.2 and 9.3 require that the proposal be advertised in the newspaper for a prescribed period and submissions be invited on the proposal. The application is referred to Council for consideration in light of its classification as an offensive trade and two letters of objection received by the Town following the required advertising period. Applicant’s Grounds for Request The applicant has provided the following information in support of their application:- Operations • The business operates exclusively as a clothing and textile dyer and is not engaged

in dry cleaning. The business is an appropriate one in a commercial zone. • Opening hours will be that of normal business hours, Monday to Friday. • The subject property is well suited to the relocation Birchalls for the following

reasons; • The property is in the near vicinity of the present location of Birchalls and so will

continue (after 50 years) to provide service to the local community; • The property is located in an area classified as commercial under TPS No.1; • The property includes a former residence converted to offices offering suitable

commercial premises, toilet facilities, a large factory warehouse with approximately 280 metres square of floor space and enough parking facilities to accommodate between ten and twelve motor vehicles;

• The property is currently supplied with the required services and is connected to the deep sewer;

• The existing factory warehouse building offers sufficient floor space and volume to contain all plant, stock and operations within in it;

• The owner of the property is also the owner and resident of the adjoining residential property which in effect will provide a buffer between the site and residences to the east;

• The operations of Birchalls are quite standard with the use of water soluble dyes and pigment plus hot water. The process does not emit harmful or offensive chemicals. Water used through the process is able to be disposed of into the sewer, which is acceptable and approved by the Water Authority.

• In so far as environmental impacts of the operations are concerned, the Town of Vincent Health Services indicate that though while non conforming in its current location, Birchalls is not perceived as a nuisance by the local community and no complaints are noted on the file as to its impact on the environment.



• Birchalls operates during normal business hours and since all plant and equipment will also be contained within the factory warehouse, it can be anticipated that no disturbance would result from Birchalls presence and operations in Vincent Street West.

CONSULTATION The application has been formally advertised in accordance with its classification of an offensive trade under the Health Act and the Town’s Local Health Laws. Advertising has comprised a direct mail out to surrounding properties and also via an advertisement being placed in the public notice section of the West Australian Newspaper. Two submissions have been received in respect to the proposed development. The main issues being raised are over concerns that the activity will detract from the amenity of the surrounding developments and the area in general from the impacts of additional vehicle movements to and from the site and concerns as to whether the activity is an appropriate one in the location. Reference has been made to the Town of Vincent to confirm the standing of the operations presently located in Richmond Street, Leederville. Officers have confirmed the advice provided by the applicant in that the business has operated for many years without complaints being raised by surrounding residential landowners. COMMENT Land Use permissibility The activity of the applicants (industry – light) is deemed as “AA” within commercial zones under Town Planning Scheme No.1. The classification as an “AA” use ensures that issues such as the appropriateness of the activity and other issues such as adequacy of access and carparking can be addressed in an application for planning approval. In order to assess the appropriateness of the activity, a site inspection was undertaken by Council Planning and Environmental Health Officers to inspect the current operations. As detailed in the applicants submission, the dying process is described as being a reasonably benign process that consists of the fabrics being immersed in heated water, which are then drained and dried. The main equipment in the heating process is a gas operated boiler and drying is done through a combination of tumble and line drying. The site has been visited on two separate occasions and the dying process has been observed at different stages. It was observed that during these visits that there was only minimal odours associated with the dyes that could only be identified while standing next to the equipment being used. The only obvious emission was steam that rises from the vats in which the textiles are dyed. This steam is not released under pressure and does not form a “steam cloud”. Rather, the steam rises through a vent in the roof and then quickly dissipates upon contact with the outside air. As such, there were no obvious discharges from the operations. The large boiler that provides the hot water was not in use during the time of the visits, however, the applicant advises that the only emissions from this are from the gas burners (akin to a domestic gas heater) that are released through a flu extending through the roof.



From the above observations, it is considered that the activity would not create any offensive, noisy or excessive emissions that would unduly compromise the amenity of the surrounding properties. Any approval would be conditioned to ensure that the equipment installed conforms to the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulation 1997. In addressing the concerns over the effect that vehicular traffic would have on the area, it is highlighted that the area has a commercial zoning and has previously operated as a commercial premises. The required on site parking provision is provided. The site is in an established commercial district and is bounded on the western side by other commercial developments and the adjoining residential property to the east is owned and occupied by the same owner as the subject lot. Other residential properties are located at the rear (north) of the site. By virtue of the orientation of the lots and buildings, it is considered that the activity would not unreasonably impinge upon the amenity of those lots. As detailed by the applicant, the existing operations in Leederville are located within a residential area and the Town has confirmed with Officers from the Town of Vincent that there are no records noted on file that suggests the operations are or have been a nuisance to surrounding residents. As such, from a land use perspective, the proposed uses would be considered appropriate in the location. STRATEGIC DIRECTION Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the orderly and proper planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: With regard to the aforementioned matters, it is considered that the application can be recommended for approval. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and in accordance with Section 187 of the Health Act 1911 and clause 9.5 of the Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2001, the Council APPROVES the application submitted by Birchalls Textile Dyers for a change in use to the property at Lot 9 (No. 434) Vincent Street West, West Leederville, as shown on plans dated 19 June 2002 and detailed in the application dated 19 June 2002, subject to the following conditions:- (i) prior to the issue of a building licence, an acoustic consultant is to provide written

confirmation that the activities of the operation, the dryers, boiler units or any other equipment will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulation 1997;

(ii) the hours of operation are limited to Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.30pm;



(iii) all exhaust discharges to comply with relevant legislation and Australian Standards Footnote: The applicant be advised that an application for a Building Licence is required to be submitted for the fitout of the buildings prior to the occupation or installation of any equipment. Please contact Council’s Building Services for advice on any queries you may have on this matter. Committee Meeting 20 August 2002 During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application submitted by Birchalls Textile Dyers as it was considered that the nature of the use was not deemed compatible with the surrounding land use of the immediate area. The Administration’s recommendation was then voted upon and lost. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and matters required to be considered under this scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, Council REFUSES the application submitted by Birchalls Textile Dyers for a change in use to the property at Lot 9 (No. 434) Vincent Street West, West Leederville, as shown on plans dated 19 June 2002 and detailed in the application dated 19 June 2002 for the following reasons:- (i) the use is not in keeping with the surrounding office/commercial and

residential development; (ii) the processing involved with the use could potentially produce emissions by

way of noise and odours which would be prejudicial to the amenity of the surrounding uses.

Carried



DES02.111 LOT 5 (NO.52) SALVADO ROAD (CORNER HARBORNE STREET), WEMBLEY. MIXED RESIDENTIAL (FOUR GROUPED DWELLINGS) AND OFFICE (MEDICAL CONSULTANCY) DEVELOPMENT (File Reference: PRO 0520) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for planning approval, seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 33DA-2002 LANDOWNER: Polbrongary Nominees Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Peter D Webb and Associates ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential/Commercial POLICY: Town Planning Scheme No.1 Policy Manual Residential Planning Codes COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Residential/ Commercial Mix: The plot ratio of any building or part thereof used for non residential purposes cannot exceed 33% of the maximum allowable plot ratio of 0.5

Commercial: Max. permitted net floor area – 466 square metres (33%) Residential: Max permitted net floor area – 946.5 square metres

1336 square metres 587 square metres

Maximum Plot Ratio 0.5 or 1412.5 square metres of net floor area

0.68 or 1923 square metres

Site History

The site has a long history of use for mixed residential and office purposes. The existing building on the site has most recently operated as an independent secondary school. Council granted the change of use in July 2001. The school has subsequently vacated the building. The building will be demolished as part of this new proposal. Previously, a childcare centre had operated from the building between the years of 1970 and 2000, following conversion from a residential dwelling. Another building on the site, that has been demolished, had operated as a veterinary clinic between 1940 and 1999.



DETAILS: The application proposes a development of the site that encompasses a mixed residential and commercial development consisting of four, two storey town houses and a two storey office development for medical and other related uses on Lot 5 (No.52) Salvado Road (corner Harborne Street), Wembley. The development is to be configured so that the residential element is sited along the eastern boundary of the lot, between the proposed commercial element and adjacent to the residential units on the adjoining property. The commercial building will be generally orientated toward the western boundary of the lot and address both the primary street, being Salvado Road and the secondary street being Harborne Street. The commercial building is set back 4.0 metres from Harborne Street and 4.7 metres from Salvado Road. Extensive landscaping is proposed within these setback areas. A further landscape strip (2.0 metres wide) will be positioned along the length of the building and the driveway that leads to the units and the deck carpark at the rear. Two parking areas with a total of 50 bays are proposed to service the development. Twenty nine bays will be provided in an undercroft that is accessed from the right of way at the rear of the lot and has access to Harborne Street. A further twenty one bays are positioned on a deck over the undercroft and accessed from Salvado Road. The application proposes a variation to the permitted mix of residential and commercial floorspace and also seeks a variation to the overall plot ratio permitted on the site. COMMENT: Land Use permissibility. The proposed office (medical consultancy) and residential uses are classified as “AA” uses within residential/commercial zones under Town Planning Scheme No.1. The classification as an “AA” use ensures that issues such as the appropriateness of the activity and other issues such as adequacy of access and carparking can be addressed in an application for planning approval. The following comments are made in relation to the proposal and the appropriateness of the development in relation to the surrounding land uses. Location/Access/Surrounding land uses The subject property is located on the north east corner on the intersection of Harborne Street and Salvado Road, Wembley. Vehicular access to the site is from Salvado Road and via a laneway at the rear of the site. Good pedestrian linkages exist to the site from the main bus routes along Cambridge Street and from the nearby Fremantle – Perth rail line. Surrounding land uses include residential development to the west across Harborne Street and also to the east and north of the site. The residential area to the north of the site is separated by a right of way that runs in an east west direction between Salvado Road and Cambridge Street. Commercial activities being a self-storage facility and Home Base Wembley are situated on the southern side of Salvado Road. The site that abuts the subject lot is developed with a grouped residential unit complex.



The subject land and that to the east of the site is zoned Residential/Commercial, which provides opportunities for combined residential and commercial developments to occur. The land use table permits a range of residential and commercially orientated uses to be developed, however, commercial development cannot occur independently of residential development. In the context of the surrounding land uses and the prevailing zoning of the land, the development as proposed is considered to be an appropriate use of the site. Parking provision The parking requirement under current Scheme reflects the following:-

Office Required Proposed 1 bay for every 30 square metres of net floor area Minimum 3 bays for each tenancy

1336 square metres net floor area – 45 bays

50 bays

Residential Required Proposed Two bays per dwelling

2 bays per dwelling

2 bays per dwelling

Both the undercroft and decked parking areas are located on the northern (rear) boundary of the lot, adjacent to the laneway. Adequate buffers exist between the carpark and surrounding developments. The residential units to the north of the site also have their parking provided at the rear and the proposed town houses will screen the area to developments to the east. The topography of the lot has enabled the undercroft to be dug into the site on the eastern boundary but will be visible on the western boundary, adjacent to Harborne Street. Elements of the undercroft carpark visible from Harborne Street feature screened, open panels and the solid balustrading around the deck include sections of open railing. A 1.65 metre wide landscape strip is provided between the carpark and the lane and a 2.0 metre wide landscape strip runs between the carpark and Harborne Street. The proposed treatments are considered to maintain a high visual standard of development. The access points to the parking areas are appropriately located so as to minimise the impact on adjoining properties and whilst the surrounding Harborne and Salvado Road intersections are busy ones, the presence of traffic lights facilitates access and egress from the site. Planning Policy 4.1- Design of Non-residential Development: The above policy requires that non-residential development be designed having regard to the form and architecture of any adjacent development, and in any recognition of any natural environment attributes of the locality. The office component is a two storey development and a building of this scale is considered to be appropriate for the location. Being a corner lot, the building will be relatively isolated from the surrounding properties and therefore, will not impinge directly onto an adjoining lot. Other buildings of this scale are within proximity to the site, being the three storey residential unit complex to the north and also the Home Base complex located directly opposite.



The building has a total wall height of 7.75 metres to the top of the parapet and has incorporated design features that will result in a building that is appropriate for the prominent corner location. The landscape buffers between the building and the two street frontages should also serve to enhance the presentation of the development in the streetscape. The development overall has sought to work within the natural ground levels with the floor levels of both the residential and commercial components being set at or near the natural ground levels. Precinct Policy P5 - West Leederville: The applicable development standards for the subject lot note the following:- 1. Plot Ratio: The plot ratio of any building used for non residential purposes cannot

exceed 33 per cent of the maximum allowable plot ratio of 0.5; 2. Setbacks: The front setback distance from Salvado Road should not be less than

4.5 metres; 3. Orientation: That part of the development which is to be used for commercial

purposes should be orientated to Salvado Road; 4. Landscaping: The landscaped area to be provided should be substantially related

to the residential uses; and 5. Amenity: The residential use of the land will not be unduly affected by the non-

residential use. With the exception of the first standard, the application is considered to meet all the required development standards. In respect to the variation to the required mix of residential and commercial development and the overall plot ratio, the following points are raised. The proposal seeks a variation of 0.18 to the overall plot ratio which equates to 511 square metres of net floor area. The proposal also seeks to increase the commercial component of the development above the permitted net floor area (33 per cent or 466 square metre) to 1336 square metres. The Residential/Commercial zone in which the lot is located extends over those lots facing Salvado Road between Station and Harborne Streets. The existing developments in this area have generally been undertaken in accordance with the development standards. In this instance, the variation can be supported for the following reasons:- • Being a corner lot, the proposed development is not confined on either side and the

commercial building is able to be set well away from surrounding developments and therefore the additional building bulk is not so apparent;

• The subject site has an area of 2825 square metres, which allows the additional 511 square meters of floor space to be accommodated on the site while still providing sufficient compensating areas of open space around the buildings ;

• The residential element of the development is of a scale and location that will serve to screen the office building from the abutting residential development and is of a density that could reasonably be expected in the location;

• As a matter of comparison, a residential development that accords with the required 0.5 plot ratio would in all likelihood be laid out over a greater area of the site and would visually “fill” more of the lot with buildings than does the consolidation of the floor space into the one building with larger areas of surrounding open space.



Having regard to the above comments, it is recommended that proposed variations to the plot ratio and development mix can be supported. Residential Units: The relevant development standards for residential development on the site as set out in the Residential Design Guidelines and R Codes in terms of open space, courtyard provision, height, setbacks and architectural style have been complied with. All upper floor windows that face toward the common eastern boundary, are as a condition of approval, (with the applicants acknowledgement) to be appropriately screened/treated to ensure they comply with the privacy standards of the Design Guidelines. The subject land has a residential coding of R60 which permits the development of grouped dwellings with a minimum land area of 166.66 square metres. The proposed lots have an average area of 217 square metres. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: Having regard for the comments contained within this report, it is considered that the proposed development has been appropriately designed for the location and will not by virtue of the proposed variations, either detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining developments nor the locality generally. As such, it is recommended that Council exercises its discretion and approves the development. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 the Council APPROVES the application for a mixed residential and office development consisting of four two storey townhouses and an office development for medical and other related office uses as Lot 5 (No.52) Salvado Road (Corner Harborne Street) Wembley, submitted by Peter D Webb and Associates, as shown on the plans dated 18 July 2002, subject to the following condition:- (i) all upper floor windows of the proposed town houses that are within 6.0

metres to the eastern side boundary are to be suitably screened in accordance with Clause 11.2.8 – Privacy Screening of the Residential Design Guidelines.



Footnote: Should the applicant wish to proceed with the development, then an application for a building licence will be required to be submitted for approval. Plans will need to accord with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and meet all the requirements of the Health Act. To this end, plans will need to identify the location of a suitable bin enclosure for the commercial building and also make provision for an area for bin collection. Carried



DES02.112 LOT 15 (NO. 27) FORTVIEW ROAD, MT.CLAREMONT - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE (File Reference: PRO 1404) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 342BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Anne Marie Lilburne APPLICANT: John Royle - Architect. ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia Residential Design Guidelines COMPLIANCE:

Non compliances Required Proposed Building Height (RDG) Privacy (RDG) Upper floor – terrace (west facing) Lower level – terrace (north facing) Lower level - terrace (east facing)

6.5 metres from natural ground level to top of the roof 6.0 metres from a common boundary where not screened. 6.0 metres from a common boundary where not screened. 6.0 metres from a common boundary where not screened.

6.74 metres (measured above the floor level of 12.6) 5.0 metres measured at 90 degrees to the boundary. 2.3 metres measured at 90 degrees to the boundary. 3.8 metres measured at 90 degrees to the boundary.

DETAILS: Lot Area: 904 square metres Open Space: 65 per cent Approval is sought for the construction of a two storey, single residential dwelling at Lot 15 (No. 27) Fortview Road, Mt.Claremont. The proposed dwelling will provide the majority of the main living areas on the ground level while the upper floor level will incorporate the master bedroom, an ensuite, walk in robes and a separate study.



The upper level also incorporates two unroofed terraces, one orientated to the south of the bedroom facing toward the rear of the lot and the other opening towards the north and facing the street. The home also incorporates an undercroft garage and storage area. A feature of the design is the parapet style roof with the two terraces positioned at either end of the upper floor rooms and a cantilevered terrace that extends across the front of the dwelling on the ground floor level. A paved courtyard is also proposed at the rear of the dwelling, that has been designed as an area of active habitable space and incorporates a 3.0 metre high feature wall that defines the area. This wall is positioned between the courtyard and the pool and as such, does not impact on either of the adjoining properties. The block is located within the relatively new Fortview Road subdivision and is the third lot from the eastern end of the subdivision. The topography within the subdivision generally reflects the natural ground levels and as a consequence most lots have ground levels that are not uniformly consistent, either within the boundaries of the lot or with the levels of the adjoining properties. In this instance, the land rises up 2.5 metres from the level of the road to a point toward the centre of the lot. The lot then slopes away towards the rear (southern) boundary to a point in the south east corner, which is 1.5 metres lower than the highest point of the lot. The proposed dwelling takes advantage of this situation to incorporate an undercroft garage and storage area. The floor level is set at the centre point of the dwelling, equal to that of the natural ground level and is near the high point of the lot. Neighbour Consultation The original plans submitted have been referred to both adjoining landowners in respect to variations proposed in the original submission. Following the initial consultation, the applicant has provided amended plans that have addressed a number of these non compliances, so that the only outstanding non compliances are those relating to the height and privacy measures. The adjoining (western) neighbour has submitted an objection to the setback variation of the upper level terrace and has requested that this area be set back in accordance with the 6.0 metre requirement of the Residential Design Guidelines. The adjoining eastern neighbours have noted concerns to the variation in the height of the building, highlighting that the building had initially been proposed to be constructed to a level that is near to the maximum contour on the site. Concerns were expressed that by setting the building at this level, will not only result in a building that will detrimentally affect the amenity of their property and the street, but will also result in a building that requires a significant amount of retaining works around the site. These actions would be regarded as contrary to statements contained within the Residential Design Guidelines that allude to retaining, as much as possible, the sense of the original topography of the lot. Other factors raised as concerns included the potential overlooking from the elevated front terrace, rear courtyard and also the elevated front entry to the dwelling. Response to submissions As outlined, the applicant, following notification of these concerns, has undertaken to modify the plans in a number of areas to address the concerns raised.



The overall building height is to be reduced by lowering the finished floor level by 0.05 metres to 12.6 metres (originally 12.65 metres) and reducing the wall height resulting in an overall reduction by 0.26 metres. This brings the variation being requested to 0.24 metres in excess of the permitted 6.5 metres. Further, upper floor windows that generally face in a westerly direction from the master bedroom are to be screened with fixed external louvers so that these windows accord with the privacy/screening requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines. Concerns have also been noted over the potential overlooking that may be possible from the front entry to the dwelling. The front entry has been designed so that access is from the eastern side of the building. The concerns of the neighbour were that there would be potential overlooking issues from this area given the difference in levels between the two properties. Upon review of this matter, it is considered unlikely that any direct overlooking into the yard of the adjoining eastern property would occur in view of the following matters:- • The plans indicate that when standing at the paved entrance to the dwelling, the

dividing fence is to be 1.9 metres high. As such, there would be sufficient screening as persons approached the entry.

• The original plans reflected that the floor level inside the dwelling would be 0.150 metres higher than the paved level outside the entrance and therefore, the fence would have an effective height of 1.75 metres when viewed from inside the entry. The amended plans propose to lower the floor level by 0.05 metres so that the fence will now have an effective height from inside the dwelling of 1.8 metres which is considered adequate to ensure the appropriate levels of privacy.

• As a secondary consideration, it is likely that the eastern entry would not be the prime point of access to the dwelling. The undercroft garage has an internal set of stairs that lead up into the dwelling and it is reasonable to assume that this access would be utilised on a day to day basis as it provides a more direct and logical route for the residents of the dwelling.

The paved courtyard area at the rear of the dwelling, described above, initially had been designed in a manner where the area was to be retained and filled. This would have created significant overlooking and privacy issues into the rear yard of the adjoining eastern neighbours property, in addition to the impact that the retaining would have at the boundary in terms of scale and bulk. The amended plans submitted by the applicant have sought to address this by incorporating a 1.5 metre wide planter strip below the retaining wall and the boundary and including a 1.65 metre high privacy screen at the eastern edge of the terrace to alleviate overlooking concerns into the yard of the neighbour. As such, the amended plans are now compliant with the standards of the Residential Design Guidelines. The only other outstanding matters from the consultation process involve the height of the building and the upper level, north facing terrace. Both of these matters are discussed in more detail, later in the report.



COMMENT:

Building Height (RDG) The Residential Design Guidelines nominate an overall height limitation of 6.5 metres for parapet (flat) roof developments. The overall height measured to the top of the roof exceeds the permissible height allowed for developments of this style by 0.24 metres.

As such, the proposed variation is required to be assessed against the performance criteria of the Residential Design Guidelines relating to building height and bulk which allow for variations to be approved by the Council where: (a) buildings are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing

development within the locality, (b) where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied

and interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall.

The applicant seeks support for the variation, having regard for the following matters:-

• The two storey element is relatively small in relation to the area of building constructed on the ground floor. The upper floor comprises the master bedroom with associated ensuites and walk in robes. A study is also located on this level and the two unroofed terrace areas are positioned at either end of the building.

• The upper floor is not constructed over the walls of the ground floor, but rather, has been stepped in from the line of the lower level and as such, serves to reduce the scale of the upper floor element.

As discussed, the manner in which the upper floor has been stepped in from the line of the ground floor (and from the side boundaries) serves to reduce the bulk and scale, particularly from the two adjoining properties. A light well is to be constructed over a portion of the upper floor master bedroom which is to be constructed of opaque glass and aluminum framework. Given the light weight and minor nature of this feature, it has not been calculated in the overall height of the building. It is noted that while the Residential Design Guidelines nominate an overall height limitation of 6.5 metres for parapet (flat) roof developments, a development designed with a hipped roof may have a maximum overall height of 11.0 metres measured to the top of the ridge. This recognises that the bulk of a development is generally contained within the walls, with a (pitched) roof not having such an imposing presence on an elevation, seen either from the street or from adjoining lot. The design of the home is, however, considered to meet the necessary performance criteria to enable the variation to be supported. By setting the upper floor level back from the line of the ground floor (12.3 metres from the primary street boundary), the additional 0.24 metres of height will not be readily apparent in the streetscape. This will also serve to break up the elevation as will the proposed treatments to the lower ground floor. The ground floor terrace when viewed from the street, will be 1.65 metres higher than the natural ground level in the north west corner of the lot and 1.1 metres higher in the north east corner. When compared against the level at the front boundary of the lot, the finished floor level will appear as being 1.9 metres above the level of the road. As such, it is considered that the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and interesting façade.



Similarly, the configuration of the upper floor (being stepped in from the lower floor), when viewed from the side elevations, should mean that the overall impact of the building height is less apparent than if the walls were to be constructed in line with the lower floor. Having regard to the above comments, it is recommended that the variation of 0.24 metres in the overall building height can be supported in this instance. PRIVACY: Upper floor terrace –west facing The proposed terrace is set back 5.0 metres in lieu of the required 6.0 metres. The matter has been referred to the adjoining owners who have not supported the variation. The subject terrace opens from the master bedroom and is generally orientated towards the road, however, it does still face the western boundary of the lot. The adjoining lot is currently vacant and no plans have been submitted for approval. As such, it is difficult to ascertain if there would be any privacy issues arising from the proposed setback of the terrace area. The applicant, in support of the variation, has provided a cross section to establish the line of site that would be possible from the terrace area. The section demonstrates that the line of site will be obscured by the parapet roof and as such, will only permit views generally above the floor level of the second storey of any development that could reasonably be expected to be constructed on the lot. Further, the orientation of the lots means that any view will be to a buildings eastern elevation and it could be reasonably assumed that areas of active habitable spaces would not be located in this area. On the other hand, it is considered that the setback could readily be amended to comply with the required setback without unduly compromising the function of the area. The adjoining neighbour, as stated, has objected to the variation on the grounds that they wish as best possible to maintain the privacy for any future development on the lot. In the absence of a clear understanding of the impact that the terrace area may impart on the adjoining western property, it is recommended that the a condition be applied so that the terrace either be modified to provide a 6.0 metre setback from the boundary, or a planter box with a 1.0 metre dimension be permanently installed along the western edge of the terrace that would serve to increase the setback to 6.0 metres while enabling the balance in the façade to be maintained. Lower level – northern terrace: The elevated terrace at the front of the dwelling does overlook elements of the eastern neighbours front yard, however, it is positioned adjacent to the wall of a garage on the that adjoining lot and primarily overlooks the driveway. As such, the configuration and location of this terrace as submitted is considered acceptable in that it is overlooking an area that is readily visible from the street and does not look into an area that would constitute an area of active habitable space. Similarly, the terrace and a bedroom window also overlooks the front yard of the adjoining western property and is supported on the same basis.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Having regard to the comments within this report, it is considered that the application can be supported, only on the basis that aspects of the plans are modified to ensure that the resultant development does not unduly impinge on the amenity of the adjoining (western) property. It is considered that the plans can be readily modified without compromising the integrity of the design of the home. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council APPROVES the application submitted by John Royle – Architect for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft garage at Lot 15 (No. 27) Fortview Road, Mt Claremont, as shown on amended plans dated 24 July 2002 and 13 August 2002, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the finished floor level of the dwelling being reduced to 12.6 metres;

(ii) the paved courtyard at the rear of the dwelling is to have the retaining wall set back

1.5 metres from the common boundary, for a distance of 4.0 metres back from the rear boundary and the adjacent paved area be screened with a 1.65 metre high privacy screen in accordance with Clause 11.2.8 of the Residential Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer;

(iii) the upper floor northern most terrace is to be set back an additional 1.0 metre from the western boundary, or alternatively, amended plans be provided that include a permanently fixed planter bed with a minimum dimension of 1.0 metre, so that the accessible areas of the terrace are set back 6.0 metres from the western boundary of the lot. Modifications are to be shown on plans and are to be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer prior to the issue of a building licence;

(iv) the upper floor west facing bedroom windows are to be suitably screened for privacy in accordance with Clause 11.2.8 of the Residential Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

Committee Meeting 20 August 2002 During discussion, Members were not prepared to approve the application until the plans have been brought into compliance with the exception of the building height. The Administration’s recommendation was then voted upon and lost.



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in

its present form for the following reason:-

(a) non-compliance with the privacy requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines;

(ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable recommendation to amended plans incorporating the following modifications:-

(a) plans which show full compliance with Part II, Privacy of the Residential

Design Guidelines. This relates to the upper floor terrace (west facing), lower level terrace (north facing) and lower level terrace (east facing). In addition, correctly drawn plans of the rear paved courtyard area and associated retaining are to be provided, which also show appropriate screening which will protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbours to the east;

(iii) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town

Planning Scheme No. 1, Council by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application submitted by John Royle, Architect for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft garage at Lot 15 (No. 27) Fortview Road, Mount Claremont as shown on amended plans dated 24 July 2002 and 13 August 2002 subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Council Meeting 27 August 2002

Members were advised that the applicant has requested that this item be withdrawn from consideration. Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Pinerua That the item relating to Lot 15 (No. 27) Fortview Road, Mount Claremont be withdrawn from consideration. Carried



DES02.113 LOT 202 (NO.30) BENDIGO WAY CITY BEACH – TWO STOREY RESIDENCE (File Reference: PRO 0038) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 354BA-2002 LANDOWNER: S and D Carter APPLICANT: Grandwood Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban

Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5

COMPLIANCE:

Permissible Discretion Permitted as of Right Proposed Primary Street Setback 7.5 metres 6.5 metres Fencing within Primary Street Setback Area

80 percent solid above 0.75 metres above natural ground level

44 percent

Fencing within Secondary Street Setback Area

40 percent solid above 0.75 metres above natural ground level

31 percent

Wall height 6.5 metres to the top of eaves 6.67 metres Rear Setback 7.5 metres (average) 1.5 metres min Privacy 6.0 metres separation 5.4 metres

DETAILS: Lot Area: 923 square metres Open Space: 61.2 per cent Approval is sought for a two storey residence at Lot 202 (No.30) Bendigo Way, City Beach which is located on a right angle bend with two street frontages. The proposal will require the demolition of the existing house. The proposal consists of ground floor: garage/store, lounge, dining, games room, kitchen, meals, alfresco, family, laundry, study, toilet and guest bedroom/ensuite. The upper level comprises of: balcony, sitting, three bedrooms, bathroom/toilet and master bedroom with ensuite and retreat. The primary street setback variation of 6.5 metres is permitted under clause 5.3.1 of the Residential Design Guidelines – Where no laneway access is available, the primary street setback to a dwelling may be reduced by 1 metre where: (a) at least two covered car parking spaces are provided integral with the dwelling and do not project forward of it, or are located behind the dwelling obscured from view of the street.



As the Residential Design Guidelines provision has been satisfied, the variation does not require Council’s approval and is therefore not discussed further in this report. The proposed fence covers the entire secondary street elevation, the corner truncation, the primary street elevation and returns within the front setback along the driveway. The fence is predominantly solid with the exception of five open sections of wrought iron. The applicant seeks to vary the Town’s 80% primary street visual permeability clause and the 40% secondary street visual permeability clauses under the Residential Design Guidelines. The proposal involves a variation to the wall height in one section of the development on the northern elevation above the retreat room. The rear setback (to the north of the site) has a minimum setback of 1.5 metres. An average of 7.5 metres has been maintained. This is considered as a variation. The application has a variation to the Privacy provisions of the Residential Design Guidelines as Bedroom 1 (north elevation) is 5.4 metres from the side boundary measured horizontally. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. NEIGHBOURS COMMENT: The owners on the north side of the proposed development were contacted and given 14 days to comment on the proposed variations being:- (a) Rear setback; and (b) Privacy separation distance The following submission has been received. Neighbour (North) 19 July 2002: (a) Rear setback – “This proposal will seriously compromise the privacy of my residence. In addition the 2 large air conditioners adjacent to the new building will produce unbearable noises which will affect my whole family. Suggestion: maintain the 7.5 metre setback as required by the building by-law”



(b) Privacy separation – “Again if the distance of the window is reduced from 6 metres to 5.4 metres, it will encroach on my privacy and the activities in my backyard will be observed quite readily. Suggestion: maintain the minimum required distance of 6 metres”

COMMENT:

Fencing within the Primary and Secondary Street Setback Area

Clause 7.3.5 of the Residential Design Guidelines regarding fencing within the primary street setback area state that:- "A minimum of 80% of the area of any wall or fence within the primary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable." Only 44% of the primary street is visually permeable. Clause 7.3.6 of the Residential Design Guidelines regarding fencing within the secondary street setback area state that:- "A minimum of 40% of the area of any wall or fence within the secondary street setback area and more than 750 millimetres above natural ground level shall be visually permeable." Only 31% of the secondary street is visually permeable.

When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Design Guidelines, it is assessed under the Performance Criteria as follows; (a) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character and (b) Front fences necessary to ensure:

• visual privacy for a sole or main living areas • protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights

emanating from a public street.

In this case, the primary and secondary street fences do not satisfy the Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Guidelines for the following reasons:- • There are no other front fences in this section of the street. • Although there are some living areas facing the secondary street, the bulk of the

internal and external living areas are orientated towards the rear of the house on the east side.

• The traffic on the street is not likely to generate undue disturbance created by vehicle noise or headlight glare.

In view of the above comments, it is considered that the above performance criteria have not been met. It is therefore recommended that the fencing along the primary and secondary street boundary be modified to comply with the 80% and 40% visual permeability required under clause 7.3.5 and 7.3.6 of the Residential Design Guidelines.



The paneled style of the fence would lend itself to be modified in accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines. Wall height – top of eaves The natural ground level (NGL) for the development has been determined at 11.51. The finished floor level (FFL) of the ground floor is proposed to be 11.50. The land slopes from a contour of 9.5 at the street boundary to 11.6 in the north-east corner of the lot. The height of the top of eaves above the retreat room is 6.67 metres. The topography of the site has dictated this section of the building being over height. The overall height complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. Clause 12.4 – Performance Criteria under the Building Height and Bulk section of the Residential Design Guidelines states:- “Variations to the Compliance Standards may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria is met:- (a) buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of

their height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; (b) buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing

development within the locality; (c) where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied

and interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall.” As only one section above the retreat room is marginally over height to the top of the eaves, it is not likely to affect the streetscape or the amenity of the surrounding landowners. Rear setback Although the rear setback has a minimum of 1.5 metres, it does average 7.5 metres. The 1.5 metre setback is the closest point to the boundary for the ground floor games room. The minimum upper storey setback on this elevation is 5.4 metres. As the subject site is on a corner, the rear setback has been nominated by the applicant. The nominated rear setback could easily be regarded as a side setback in which case a setback of 1.5 metres would be in compliance with the R-Codes. It could be regarded as a side setback as the subject house has two street frontages and hence a traditional rear setback is difficult to define. The adjoining landowner has raised an objection to the rear setback variation. It is noted that the minimum setback to the common boundary from the objector’s house is 1.5 metres as well. This is due to the common boundary being regarded as a side setback from the perspective of the objector’s land. The rear setback is more important in a traditional lot layout where there is only one street frontage. Where the site is on a corner, the rear setback provisions could easily be treated as a side setback. The rear setback variation is not likely to adversely affect the adjoining landowner as the bulk of the proposed house is set back in excess of 5 metres. The rear setback variation



is further justified by the 1.5 metre setback the adjoining house maintains to the same boundary. The objector has also raised concerns relating to the location of air conditioner units. The plans show indicatively two air conditioner units at ground level approximately 2 metres from the north common boundary to the objector. The Residential Design Guidelines clause 11.3.2 states, “Pumps, air conditioners and other sources of mechanical noise shall:- (a) be located and acoustically screened so as to prevent excessive noise intrusion

onto neighbouring properties; and (b) comply with the relevant noise requirements of the Council.” The air conditioners regardless of location or type of unit could be made to comply with the noise requirements of the Council either by relocation or acoustic screening. The applicant should be made aware of the need to comply with the Council’s noise regulations. Although not part of this application, the plans do show a swimming pool and associated pumps/filters abutting the same boundary. As with the air conditioner units, the applicant should be made aware of the need to comply with the Council’s noise regulations. Privacy separation The corner window return on bedroom 1 does not comply with the privacy separation required under the Residential Design Guidelines. Clause 11.2.7 states in part, “An acceptable compromise distance, where intervening screening is not provided, would be in the order of 6 metres.” The bedroom 1 window already has a window (major opening) facing west. The corner return window (minor opening) facing north could be deleted or screened in accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines. The bedroom would still be afforded with a major opening and the privacy concerns raised by the adjoining landowner would be satisfied. CONCLUSION: It is considered that, based on merit, the rear setback and building wall height variation in this instance can be supported.

It is recommended that the front boundary fencing to the primary and secondary streets and the privacy separation distance variations should be addressed by amended plans demonstrating compliance.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council APPROVES the application submitted by Grandwood Homes for a two storey residence at Lot 202 (No.30) Bendigo Way,



City Beach as shown on plans dated 26 June 2002, subject to the following conditions:- (i) fencing along the primary and secondary street frontages shall be in

accordance with clauses 7.3.5 and 7.3.6 of the Residential Design Guidelines; (ii) bedroom 1 window north facing being either deleted or screened in

accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines. Footnote: The applicant be advised to liaise with Council’s Environment Health Officers prior to the lodgement of working drawings to discuss the location and type of air conditioning units and swimming pool motors to ensure compliance with noise regulations. Carried



DES02.114 LOT 17 (NO. 25) SKIPTON WAY, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED TWO STOREY RESIDENCE (File Reference PRO 1538) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 400BA-2002 LANDOWNER: G and J Peachey APPLICANT: Beaumonde Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Open Space Requirement under Residential Planning Codes

55 per cent 52 per cent

Delegated Authority: In addition to the above variation listed in the compliance table, the application involves a variation to the side setback requirements of the R Codes (being nil in lieu of 1.0 metre on the northern boundary - garage) and a variation to the retaining wall height (being 1.07 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres on the northern boundary).

Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominated officer). Further powers are delegated under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 to exercise discretion to vary residential setbacks, in accordance with Part 1.5 of the Residential Planning Codes (Delegation 8.1 Variations to Residential setbacks). These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation.

In this particular case, the above provisions are satisfied and therefore, the setback and retaining wall height variations do not require the Council’s approval. As such, they are not discussed further in this report.

DETAILS: Lot Area – 809 square metres Open Space – 52 per cent



Approval is sought to construct a two storey residence at Lot 17 (No.25) Skipton Way, City Beach. The home will require the demolition of the existing house. The new house will comprise of ground floor: double garage/store, living, dining, kitchen, family, play room, study, laundry, four bedrooms (one incorporating an ensuite), and a bathroom/toilet. The upper floor will have two balconies, a bedroom/ensuite, and a games room. The plan also incorporates the retention of a brick and iron outbuilding, which has an area of 31 square metres. The landowner has advised that this outbuilding will be converted to an outdoor alfresco area after the construction of the new house. Applicants grounds for request The applicant has provided the following comments:– There is a building on the drawings that is incorrectly depicted as a shed. This building is constructed of brick and iron on a concrete slab, has a glass sliding door, a hinged single door, and is carpeted. This building was originally constructed and used as a recreation room. It is currently used as a playroom and storage for sporting equipment. It is our intention to transform this building into an outdoor alfresco area after the construction of our home is complete. Our home backs onto Bent Street Park which we have direct access to, and we make much use of the park for recreation with our children and our neighbours, and hence why we were not concerned about having a large backyard. You mentioned to me that without this building our open space increases from 52% to 55.8%. the building is very valuable to us not only in dollar terms but in terms of its past, present and future use, and we respectfully request that you consider allowing us to retain it for outdoor recreational use. COMMENT: Open Space The site requires 55% open space while only 52% is proposed. The shortfall in open space amounts to 25 square metres. Support for the variation is primarily given on the basis that the retention of the outbuilding (to be used as an alfresco area) offsets the shortfall in the open space provision as it still contributes to usable outdoor space around the dwelling. If the alfresco area were included in open space calculations (as in the newly approved Residential Planning Codes), the application would comply. It is with regard to the above comments that the variation is supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil.



CONCLUSION: Although a shortfall in open space exists, the proposed alfresco area is a usable outdoor space. The proposed variations to the provisions of the Residential Planning Codes have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. Having regard to these matters, the application can be supported. As the proposal does not comply with the open space requirements of the Residential Planning Codes, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a two storey residence submitted by Beaumonde Homes at Lot 17 (No. 25) Skipton Way, City Beach as shown on plans dated 3 July 2002. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY



DES02.115 LOT 648 (NO. 43) NANSON STREET, WEMBLEY – PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY DWELLING (File Ref: PRO 1360) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for preliminary building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 361BA-2002 LANDOWNER: Anthony Low and Helen Woodford APPLICANT: Glenway Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of WA (R Codes) Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Open Space (R Codes)

50 percent 43 percent

Retaining walls (Clause 9.3 of RDGs)

Max 0.75 m high retaining and filling within 3.0 m of street alignment Max 0.5 m high retaining and filling on property boundary

Max 1.0 m high retaining and filling on front boundary Max 0.95 m high retaining and filling on south side boundary

Side setback (south) (R Codes)

1.0 m (garage) Nil – parapet wall (garage)

Rear setback (R Codes)

6.0 m (average) 1.06 m (average 4.61 m)

DETAILS: Lot Area 653 square metres Open Space 43 percent

Approval is sought to demolish an existing single storey dwelling and construct a new single storey dwelling at Lot 648 (No. 43) Nanson Street, Wembley. The proposed dwelling has four bedrooms, a lounge, family/dining/kitchen area that adjoins a patio on the north side of the dwelling, activity room, study, two bathrooms, laundry and a front verandah.



The design of the home incorporates a double garage positioned at the rear of the dwelling and accessible from the rear right-of-way (ROW). Applicant’s Grounds For Request The applicant submitted a letter with the application, explaining the request for the variation to the open space requirement. The main points are summarised below:- − One of the main decisions in regards to the design of the house was for a single

storey residence instead of the ‘ever too common’ overpowering double storey. This suited both the clients and the block as we felt that a double storey would severely impair the streetscape façade and could create overlooking problems. We were also concerned that a bulky two-storey house would overshadow the existing residence to the adjoining southern boundary.

− Basically the house and garage areas combined are well within the required site

coverage as indicated within the current R Codes. The aforementioned areas being a total of 313.06 square metres, which contributes 48.31 percent of the lot area. The verandah and patio outdoor living areas combined push the site coverage over to the previously indicated percentage.

− It should be noted that the verandah and patio areas are roofed and therefore

contribute towards site coverage, if they were of an open “pergola” type design they would not and the design would be in compliance with the site coverage stipulated.

− Personally I find the reasons for this to be quite restrictive as the Australian climate

calls for more substantial protection from the summer sun than a mere pergola could provide. The fact that a covered outdoor area should limit the design of a residence seems a little counterproductive to me.

− Lastly I would like to point out the definition clause of open space indicated in the draft

copy of the revised R Codes dated July 2001. It states open space includes:

“…areas beneath eaves overhangs, verandahs, patios or pergolas unenclosed on at least two sides,…”

While these revised R Codes are still in draft form, I have been told that they should be in place towards the end of the year. Since this publication supports our claims, I request that it should be considered as this makes our application comply.

In addition, in response to a letter sent by the Town outlining the proposed variations to the R Codes and the Town’s guidelines, the designer of the dwelling submitted the following information: − I have removed the parapet wall to the ensuite to alleviate the objections made by the

southern neighbour, however I feel that the rear parapet wall has a minor impact on the adjoining property and request that it be allowed. Please note that in most cases where the garage is positioned off the rear laneway, a parapet has been allowed. It should also be noted that the removal of the ensuite parapet and the redesign of that area reduces site coverage marginally and should be taken into consideration when calculating open space.

− I have reduced the twinside retaining wall to a maximum height of 500 mm therefore

complying with your conditions.



− The 950 mm high brick retaining wall to the front part of the southern boundary and the west (front) boundary is existing and it is only proposed that we replace it as it seems to be failing. I would like to point out that we are basically retaining all existing levels of retaining walls and the floor levels, as can be seen from the original survey provided.

− Rear setback: since no objection was made I presume this complies with your

guidelines.

− Open space: please find enclosed a landscape plan showing the proposed paving, lawn and planted areas. As can be seen there is a separate area for each part of the residence from a drying area, to kids play area, private courtyard and the front lawn area. We feel that there is more than sufficient landscaping area to create all the amenities required and still maintain a good degree of planting and vegetation.

− I would also like to point out that since the proposed garage is located to the rear of

the block, the front landscaping aspect will not suffer from the “all too common” and overpowering double garage and drive syndrome, allowing the owners to further utilise that open space provided.

Neighbour Consultation

The adjoining neighbour to the north (No. 45 Nanson Street) was contacted in relation to the rear setback variation, and the adjoining neighbour to the south (No. 41) Nanson Street was contacted in relation to the rear and side setback, and retaining wall variations. The adjoining neighbour to the north had no objection to the proposed development. The adjoining neighbour to the south submitted the following comments:- − I strongly oppose, therefore, I do not consent to any parapet walls on the property. − The retaining walls are far too high. I oppose any variation from the maximum

permissible height. Construction of these walls will cause extensive disruption and conflict with my paving and landscaping.

− The removal of the fence will:-

− Seriously compromise the safety of my children; − Allow my dog to get out of the property; and − As a consequence, unwanted people and animals will gain access into my

property.

− The reconstructed fence will be too high and hence will create too much shade during winter.

− Construction of the retaining walls will elevate the proposed new house to a

significantly higher level in respect to my house and consequently will create too much shade over my property and reduce my privacy to a level that any reasonable person would find untenable.

− I believe the close proximity of the proposed residence, due to the encroachment of

the boundary, will devalue my property, reduce my standard of living and, therefore, result in a loss of enjoyment of use.



COMMENT: Open Space The site requires 50 percent open space while only 43 percent is proposed. The shortfall in open space amounts to 44.66 square metres. The shortfall in open space is due to a covered patio area and front verandah being required to be included as built space. Support for the variation is primarily given on the basis that the covered patio and verandah areas offset the shortfall in the open space provision as these areas still contribute to usable outdoor space around the dwelling. If the covered outdoor areas were included in open space calculations (as is proposed in the review of the Residential Planning Codes), the application would comply (52 percent open space). Support can also be given on the basis that the home is to be single level and the additional 44.66 square metres of building on the ground level is likely to have a lesser affect on the amenity of adjoining properties than if this floorspace was constructed as an upper level. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan illustrating that the proposed areas of open space around the dwelling will create all the amenities required for the occupants of the dwelling (ie. a kids play area, clothes drying area, private courtyard and front lawn area) and still maintain a good degree of planting and vegetation. It is with regard to the above comments that the variation to the open space requirement is supported. Retaining Wall Height Clause 9.3.2 of the Residential Design Guidelines states that no retaining wall higher than 0.75 metres shall be constructed within 3.0 metres of the street alignment. The plans submitted show a 1.0 metre high retaining wall on the front property boundary. This wall is already existing and retains the front lawn area. The survey diagram submitted shows a 1.0 metre high brick retaining wall on the front boundary. The applicant proposes no change to the existing retaining wall on the front boundary. Whilst the landscaping plan indicates a possible 900 mm high permeable fence on the front boundary, the applicant is undecided on the final design of the front fence. A condition of approval can be included stating that all fencing in the front setback area shall comply with the Town’s guidelines.

Clause 9.3.3 of the Residential Design Guidelines states that the maximum height of retaining walls and filling of land on any property boundary is 0.5 metres. The plans submitted show a retaining wall with a maximum height of 0.95 metres on the south side property boundary. There is already a retaining wall and filling on this side boundary and the level of this retaining wall and filling is almost the same as what is proposed (level of the top of the existing wall is 24.69, and the level of the top of the proposed wall is 24.70). The neighbour to the south has expressed concerns relating to the height of the retaining wall on the south side boundary. Given that the proposed retaining wall and filling of the land is almost the same height as the existing retaining wall and filling on the south side boundary, and that the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling will be 0.24 metres lower than the finished floor level of the existing dwelling, the proposed retaining wall and fill along the front and side boundaries are considered acceptable. Furthermore, the existing retaining and filling levels seem reasonable and the level of the dwelling is



approximately mid-way between the lower level of the adjoining dwelling to the south and the higher level of the adjoining level of the adjoining dwelling to the north. Whilst it is acknowledged that the finished floor level of the adjoining property to the south is lower than the finished floor level of the existing and proposed dwelling on the subject site, this is due to the natural topography of the area. The block slopes down from the north side to the south side, and therefore some retaining and filling is required on the south side to create a more level block. Due to the difference in levels, any development will have some overshadowing impact on the adjoining property to the south. In terms of overlooking, this issue is further discussed below. As the proposed dwelling is single storey only, the overshadowing impact will be considerably less than if the proposed dwelling was double storey. Furthermore, the setback of the proposed dwelling from the south side boundary complies with the Residential Planning Codes and is not required to be set back further from the side boundary. Side Setback (south) Under the R Codes, the rear garage requires a setback of 1.0 metre from the south side boundary, whilst a setback of nil (parapet wall) is proposed. As stated previously, the adjoining neighbour to the south has objected to any parapet wall being located on the boundary. It is acknowledged that this wall will have some overshadowing impact on part of the adjoining property’s rear open space. However, it should be noted that this is part of the adjoining property’s main area of open space due to the existence of a large garage/store structure on the south side of the adjoining property, which takes up a substantial area of the backyard. It should also be noted that this garage has a high parapet wall on the common boundary between No. 41 and No. 39 Nanson Street and would have an overshadowing impact on the adjoining No. 39 Nanson Street, and is located in the rear setback area. At the boundary, the height of the proposed parapet wall will be 3.5 metres above a brick build-up of 0.35 metres, and the length of the wall will be 6.5 metres. The garage is located 1.06 metres from the rear ROW, as the width of the ROW is only 5.0 metres. The adjoining property’s dwelling is located over 10 metres from the proposed garage and therefore any overshadowing should not unduly affect the amenity of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling. The Town is supportive of vehicular access and parking off the ROW and it is not unreasonable to expect a garage in this location. A number of properties in the surrounding area, including the adjoining property to the south, have a garage with a parapet wall on the side boundary, and therefore the proposed side setback is supported. Rear setback The R Codes require a 6.0 metre (average) rear setback. The proposed garage will be 1.06 metres from the rear boundary. Under clause 1.5.8 (d) of the R Codes, where a lot adjoins a ROW, Council has the discretion to reduce the required setback by up to half of the width of the ROW (in this case, 2.5 metres). Therefore the only encroachment into the rear setback is less than half of the area of the garage and a small portion of bedroom 3. Currently, there is a fibro/iron garage that is located in a portion of the rear setback area. The adjoining neighbour to the north (No. 45 Nanson Street) had no objection to the proposed rear setback, and the submission from the adjoining neighbour to the south (No.



41 Nanson Street) did not identify a specific objection to the rear setback variation, however, had concerns about the proposed garage’s setback from the south side boundary. These concerns are discussed above. From a planning perspective, locating the garage at the rear of the property, accessible from the rear ROW, is preferable to locating the garage off Nanson Street. From the landscaping plan submitted, the applicants are proposing a lawn area with roses and shrubs and a garden path in the front setback area. This will allow views from the dwelling to the street and create a garden setting for the dwelling, which will enhance the streetscape more than having a double garage addressing the street. Privacy and removal of the (south) side fence As stated previously, the adjoining neighbour to the south has raised concerns relating to the removal of the south side fence, the construction of a higher fence, and invasion of privacy. The owner has advised that there are no plans to remove the side fence or construct a higher fence, except the parapet wall for the rear garage. The proposal is to replace the existing retaining wall (which is on their side of the fence) with a newer retaining wall which will be almost the same height the existing retaining wall, and the proposed twinside retaining wall which will have a maximum height of 0.5 metres will be installed on their side of the fence so there should be minimal disruption to the adjoining neighbour to the south. It is noted that the fence on the south side boundary is 1.5 metres high and constructed of fibro material. Due to the difference in natural ground level between the subject site and the adjoining property to the south, clear glazed windows from the existing dwelling on the subject site currently face directly into the adjoining property to the south and the dividing fence provides only minimal privacy between the two properties. The Town’s Fencing Local Law allows dividing fences to a maximum height of 2.0 metres, without requiring approval. A 2.0 metre high fence should not introduce any additional overshadowing than the proposed dwelling as it would be lower than the proposed dwelling, however, could provide additional privacy between the two properties. Therefore, an option available to increase privacy between the two properties is to increase the height of the fence. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Although a shortfall in open space exists, the covered patio and verandah areas are usable outdoor space and the open space provided will create all the amenities required for the occupants of the dwelling. Furthermore, the dwelling is proposed to be single level and is likely to have a lesser affect on the amenity of adjoining properties than a double storey development that complied with the open space requirement.



The proposed variations to the Residential Design Guidelines relating to retaining walls are considered acceptable as the proposal is basically retaining all existing levels of retaining walls and floor levels. In relation to the side and rear setback variations, the location of the garage in the rear corner of the block will cause very limited impact on neighbouring properties. From a streetscape perspective, vehicular access and parking off the ROW is preferable than locating a double garage off the street. As the proposal does not comply with the open space requirement of the Residential Planning Codes, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a single level dwelling submitted by Glenway Homes at Lot 648 (No. 43) Nanson Street, Wembley as shown on the amended site plan dated 2 August 2002, the floor plan dated 3 July 2002, as amended on 2 August 2002, and the elevations dated 3 July 2002 subject to the following condition:-

(i) any proposed fencing within the front setback area shall comply with the

Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines Clause 7.3 – Walls and Fences Facing the Street.




DES02.116 LOT 11 (NO. 35) BLENCOWE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION AND SINGLE GARAGE (File Ref: PRO 0756) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for planning approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 38DA-2002 LANDOWNER: Tony and Susan Goudas APPLICANT: Tony and Susan Goudas ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R60 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of WA (R Codes) Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Policy 3.2: Ancillary Accommodation (Policy Manual) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Open Space (R Codes)

50 percent 49.2 percent

Side setback (north) ( R Codes)

1.0 metre

Nil (parapet wall)

Side setback (south) (R Codes)

1.5 metres Nil (parapet wall)

Rear setback (R Codes) 4.0 metres (average) 0.5 metres (minimum) 3.7 metres (average)

Ancillary Accommodation Policy (Policy Manual)

Weather protected pedestrian connection between the existing dwelling and the additional unit

None proposed

A minimum of one car bay in addition to the bays required for the existing dwelling

None proposed



DELEGATED AUTHORITY: As shown in the table above, the application involves variations to the side setback requirements of the R Codes on both the north and south sides (nil in lieu of 1.0 metre and 1.5 metres respectively). The adjoining neighbour to the south (No. 33 Blencowe Street) has no objection to the proposed south side setback, however the adjoining neighbour to the north (No. 37 Blencowe Street) submitted comments in relation to the proposed north side setback which are further discussed below. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominated officer). Further powers are delegated under Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 to exercise discretion to vary residential setbacks, in accordance with Part 1.5 of the R Codes (Delegation 8.1: Variations to Residential Setbacks). These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation. In this particular case, the above provisions are satisfied for the south side setback and therefore, this setback variation does not require the Council’s approval. DETAILS: Lot Area: 325 square metres Open Space: 49.2 percent The property is part of a side by side subdivision that formed 2 lots, No. 33 and No. 35 Blencowe Street. These lots were developed together as an attached two dwelling, two storey development. Approval is sought to demolish an existing single storey garage located on the south side of the property at the rear, and construct a two storey ancillary accommodation on the south side of the property, and a single storey single garage on the north side of the property at the rear. The proposed ancillary accommodation will be attached to the garage, and the total structure will take up the full width of the block. The ancillary accommodation will contain a studio/bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom on the ground floor, and a store room is proposed on the upper mezzanine floor. The combined floor area of both floors is 67 square metres. A verandah is proposed on the ground floor, and both the ground floor and upper floor will have windows facing the dwelling and facing the ROW. The upper floor also has two small windows facing north. The single garage and ancillary accommodation have been designed to blend with the existing dwelling. The structure will have rendered brick walls and a zincalume gable roof with the same pitch as the dwelling, and the windows and door of the ancillary accommodation will match the dwelling. The ancillary accommodation will have a 0.5 metre setback from the rear boundary, and the garage will have a 1.0 metre setback from the rear boundary. The application requires a Council determination as the application proposes variations to the Town’s policy on ancillary accommodation and the R Codes open space requirement.



Applicant’s Grounds For Request In response to a letter sent by the Town outlining the variations to the R Codes and the Town’s guidelines that the application proposed, the applicant submitted a letter, the main points of which are summarised below. It should be noted that these comments were in relation to the original plans submitted, which proposed the two storey ancillary accommodation on the north side of the property at the rear, and no change to the existing single, single storey garage on the south side of the property:- − The building abuts the adjoining owner’s garage which is in fact built on the

common north boundary. Our extension will not impact on the adjoining owner. − The rear of the proposed building abuts a 6.0 metre wide right of way and is

situated directly opposite the rear neighbour’s substantial double garage which has been built on the rear boundary. Their aspect is similar to our proposal and we believe our extension will have no impact on the rear adjoining owner.

− The majority of owners of property in Blencowe Street have buildings on the rear

boundary. − The building is proposed in the long term to accommodate outdoor family

entertainment in conjunction with a future proposed pool. The bathroom and kitchen facilities will complement the use of this area to avoid family and guests having to enter the home.

− My mother-in-law passed away in October 2001. My father-in-law is frail and is

over 80 years of age. We are concerned about his health and well-being and have invited him to live with us. This area will be used by him in the interim period.

− We have no objection to enter into an agreement with council to ensure that the

building can only be used by immediate family. − In relation to car parking, the site cannot comfortably accommodate any additional

car bays without affecting the Blencowe Street streetscape. The car parking provided ie. for two car bays is sufficient for our needs. We are concerned that if forced to provide additional car parking, we would have to provide the same from Blencowe Street. That would entail demolition of the front fence and removal of landscaping which we believe enhances and forms part of the streetscape.

− We ask council for a concession on the condition of a proposed weather protected

pedestrian connection between the existing dwelling and proposed building. The site is small and providing such protection will significantly impact our outdoor yard area and the use of same.

− We have lived in West Leederville for over 20 years. We treasure the suburb and

are conscious of the need to maintain the character of the area.

Neighbour’s Comment The application was referred to both side neighbours and neighbours at the rear in relation to the side and rear setback variations. The south side neighbour (No. 31 Blencowe Street) offered no objection to the two storey ancillary accommodation being located on the south side boundary (ie. have a nil setback), and the neighbours at the rear offered no comment.



The north side neighbour (No. 35 Blencowe Street) submitted an objection to the proposed development, however it should be noted that this objection was based on the original plans which proposed the two-storey ancillary accommodation on the north side boundary. The main points of the objection are summarised below:- − We are concerned about the proposed construction for a number of reasons: the

proposed structure would have zero setback from the boundary between our properties; this would not be of concern to us if the planned structure was single storey. However, the proposed structure is two-storeys, this would result in an imposing structure on our property boundary. Even though we have a garage near this boundary, it has a low roof pitch and the proposed structure would tower over our building and have a dominating profile.

− The east facing window planned for the upper storey of the proposed construction

would look directly into our outdoor garden entertaining area and into our living rooms at the rear of our house. The proposed use of this upper floor is uncertain and if this becomes a living area (rather than a storage area) then our privacy will be compromised.

− The building regulations to the rear, ground floor side and upper floor side setbacks

have been drafted into the Residential Planning Codes for valid reasons. Variations to the rear and side setback are in our opinion probably valid for single storey dwellings where there is limited land available on the residential plot. However, in the case of two storey dwellings, the setbacks are there to stop developments from becoming too imposing and aesthetically displeasing.

In response to the concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour to the north and following an on-site meeting with Council officers and the applicant, the plans were amended to the current plans that show the two-storey ancillary accommodation on the south side boundary, and the single-storey garage on the north side boundary. Whilst the setback of the single storey garage from the north side boundary still does not comply with the R Codes (nil in lieu of 1.0 metre), the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the single storey structure being located on this boundary. COMMENT: Open Space The minimum open space requirement within an R60 density coding is 50 percent, the development proposes 49.2 percent. This constitutes a shortfall of 2.5 square metres over the whole development. Support for the variation is primarily given on the basis that the variation is minor and that the covered verandah area in front of the ancillary accommodation which faces the private courtyard area offsets this shortfall in open space provision, as this structure still contributes to usable outdoor space around the dwelling. If this covered area is included in open space calculations (as is proposed in the revised Residential Design Codes), the application would comply (50.5 percent open space).



Side setback (north and south) and Building height The proposed structure requires a 1.5 metre setback from the south side boundary for the two storey ancillary accommodation, and a 1.0 metre setback from the north side boundary for the single storey garage. The proposed structure will take up the full width of the block, and therefore proposes a nil setback from both the south and north side boundaries. The adjoining neighbour to the south has no objection to the two storey structure being located on the boundary, and the adjoining neighbour to the north has no objection to the single storey structure being located on the boundary. On the south side boundary, the proposed ancillary accommodation will have a wall height of 4.5 metres, and a height to the top of the gable of 6.8 metres. The length of the upper floor along the side boundary will be 8.5 metres. The adjoining property to the south has a 6.6 metre long single storey garage, with a 1.95 metre setback from the rear ROW. Given its location on the south side boundary, the two storey structure will have an overshadowing impact on the backyard of the adjoining property, particularly in the afternoon. To help alleviate this impact, even though the adjoining neighbour has not objected to the structure, Council officers suggested lowering the ceiling height of the upper floor from 2.4 metres to 1.8 metres, which the applicant has done, and also modifying the pitch and design of the roof. In relation to the pitch and design of the roof, the applicant would prefer retaining the gable roof and pitch as it will match the existing dwelling. It should be noted that the applicant would prefer a ceiling height of 2.4 metres instead of 1.8 metres for the upper floor, and the adjoining neighbour to the south has no objection to this increased height. With a ceiling height of 2.4 metres, the total height of the structure is 7.4 metres. The introduction of a new two level building at the rear of the site results in the development of the lot being quite intensive. In these circumstances, and given that the application is seeking to build boundary to boundary, it is not unreasonable for Council to seek to limit, as much as possible, the overall height of the development. The upper floor is proposed to be used as a store, and therefore the reduced ceiling height of 1.8 metres will not contravene any health or building requirements. On the north side boundary, the proposed single storey garage will have a wall height of 2.7 metres, and a height to the top of the gable of 4.3 metres. The length of the garage along the side boundary will be 6.6 metres. The adjoining property to the north has a 7.0 metre long garage with a 0.5 metre setback from the rear ROW. As the garage will be on the north side boundary, there will be no overshadowing impact on the adjoining property to the north. Furthermore, it should be noted that the subject site is lower than the adjoining property to the north by approximately 0.5 metres, which should help to minimise the impact of the structure on the boundary. Overall, the proposed garage will be approximately 0.4 metres higher than the adjoining garage to the north. The adjoining neighbour to the north has expressed no objection to a single storey structure on the side boundary. Overall, there are many properties in the surrounding area that have garages facing the ROW with nil setbacks from the side boundaries. Furthermore, across the ROW from the subject site is a garage that has a similar height to the two storey ancillary accommodation. In light of these comments, and no objections from the neighbours, it is considered that the side setback variations can be supported.



Rear setback The R Codes require a 4.0 metre (average) rear setback for single dwellings in R60 zones. Under Clause 1.5.8 (d) of the R Codes, the required setback may be reduced by up to half of the width of the ROW. The proposed setback of 0.5 metres for the ancillary accommodation and 1.0 metre for the garage results in a rear setback average of 3.7 metres, a variation of 0.3 metres (average) from the required 4.0 metre (average). The proposed rear setback is considered acceptable as there is adequate area for vehicles to enter and exit the proposed garage and there are many properties in the surrounding area with garages facing the ROW with setbacks of between 1.95 metres and nil. Privacy The plans indicate that the upper mezzanine floor of the ancillary accommodation will be used as a store. With a reduced ceiling height of 1.8 metres, it would appear that this space could only be used as a store. A store is not considered to be an active habitable space, and therefore its windows that face north, east (towards the dwelling) and west (towards the ROW) are not required to be screened. Ancillary Accommodation Policy The two storey structure was assessed as ancillary accommodation as it is considered to be a relatively self-contained home, with a bedroom, and kitchen and bathroom facilities. The applicant has advised that it will be used his father-in-law in the short term, and then used as an extension to their outdoor entertaining area in the long term. The proposal does not comply with the following requirements of the Town’s ancillary accommodation policy:- − Weather protected pedestrian connection between the dwelling and ancillary

accommodation; and − One bay in addition to the bays required for the dwelling. Given that the lot is not large, the distance between the dwelling and the ancillary accommodation is only 8.0 metres. Provision of a weather protected connection would reduce the already small area of private open space located between the dwelling and ancillary accommodation. In addition, due to the small size of the lot, the provision of another car bay would result in substantial changes to the front setback area of the dwelling, which is currently extensively landscaped and provides a green setting for the dwelling. The applicant has advised that two car bays are sufficient for his family’s needs, and an extra car bay is not required. It is important to note that the ‘Acceptable Development’ requirements of the revised R Codes allows ancillary accommodation only on lots greater than 450 square metres in area, where there is a maximum plot ratio area of 60 square metres, and where one additional car space is provided. However, the ‘Performance Criteria’ allows ancillary accommodation that does not meet these requirements, where it does not compromise the amenity of adjoining properties.



It is considered that varying the Town’s policy requirements relating to providing a weather protected pedestrian connection and an additional car bays is acceptable and will not compromise the amenity of adjoining properties. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Although a shortfall in open space exists, this shortfall is relatively minor, and the covered verandah area can be considered as usable outdoor space. The proposed variations to the side and rear setback requirements are considered acceptable, as no objections from the neighbours have been received and the height of the upper floor of the ancillary accommodation has been reduced. In addition, the proposed variations to the Town’s policy on ancillary accommodation will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and therefore could be supported. As the proposal does not comply with the open space requirement of the Residential Planning Codes, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for ancillary accommodation and a single garage submitted by Tony and Susan Goudas at Lot 11 (No. 35) Blencowe Street, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 14 August 2002, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the ancillary accommodation dwelling unit shall not be occupied by any

person other than a member of the immediate family of the occupiers of the main dwelling at No. 35 Blencowe Street, West Leederville;

(ii) no subdivision of the property either under the Town Planning and

Development Act or the Strata Titles Act shall be permitted; and (iii) prior to the issue of a building licence for the development, a notification

shall be registered on the Certificate of Title of the land, so as to bring to the attention of potential purchasers the limitation on occupancy of the ancillary accommodation.




DES02.117 LOT 1606 (NO. 21) CALLAN ROAD, FLOREAT – PROPOSED CARPORT (File Reference: PRO 0315) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 392BA - 2002 LANDOWNER: Tyra and Anthony Williams APPLICANT: Tyra Williams ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Residential Planning Codes (R Codes) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Primary street setback (Clause 6.3.2 of RDGs)

3.0 metres 2.0 metres

Delegated Authority A variation to the side setback to the north (RHS) is also sought (between nil for a parapet wall and 1.8 metres in lieu of 1.0 metre). The adjoining neighbour has been contacted in this regard and has offered no comment on the nil setback for the carport, however offered comments relating to the proposed increase in height of the common boundary wall to form a parapet. These comments are further discussed below. Council's Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of the Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the CEO (or his nominated officer). Further powers are delegated under Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 to exercise discretion to vary residential setbacks, in accordance with Part 1.5 of the Residential Planning Codes (Delegation 8.1 Variations to Residential Setbacks). These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation. In this particular case, the above policy provisions are satisfied and therefore, the side setback variation to the north (RHS) does not require the Council’s approval. As such, this is not discussed further in this report.



DETAILS: Lot area: 769 square metres Open Space: 60 percent Approval is sought for the construction of a double carport attached to the existing single-storey dwelling at Lot 1606 (No. 21) Callan Road, Floreat. The proposed carport will be located in front of an existing single garage and will be accessed via an existing crossover from Callan Road. It will be located adjacent to the north (right) side of the property, two metres from the Callan Road property boundary. The carport will be 6.5 metres long, 6.0 metres wide and have a pier height of 2.4 metres. It will have a tiled roof with a pitch and weatherboard clad gable to match the roof of the dwelling. The plans submitted also propose to increase the height of the existing brick wall on the common boundary to the north to comply with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) requirements, as a portion of the carport will be located on or close to the side boundary. The applicant seeks to vary the Residential Design Guidelines provision relating to primary street setback. Neighbour Comment The application was referred to the adjoining neighbour to the north (right) side, for the side setback variation and the proposal to increase the height of the common boundary wall to form a parapet. Comments received were:- − Our house is a newly constructed residence which has a perimeter fence that is

rendered and painted. − It is our preference that the proposal for the wall be extended to the fence line with a

corbel to match (rendered) and the brickwork rendered and painted to match.

− We will also prefer the 600mm of brickwork be reduced to 5 courses (429mm) to match the existing height of the adjoining fenceline.

On the original plans submitted, the architect proposed to increase the height of a portion of the existing common side boundary wall by 600 mm to form a parapet and comply with the BCA. According to the Building Code, the boundary wall is only required to be increased in height to the underside of the carport’s gutter to comply (an increase of 343 mm). Increasing the height of the wall by 429 mm complies with the BCA. The applicant did not have an objection to increasing the overall height of the common boundary wall by 429 mm (or five courses), in accordance with the neighbour’s comments, therefore amended plans were submitted increasing the overall height of the common boundary wall by 429 mm. Negotiation on the finish of the wall (eg. rendering) should be undertaken between the two land owners, in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act, however the applicant has advised that she is willing to render the wall. An advice note to the applicant can be included in this regard.



COMMENT: Primary street setback The purpose of street setbacks is to ensure consistency of street setbacks within each precinct. In terms of development in street setback areas, the Residential Design Guidelines state that garages, carports and other development should not detract from the dominant elements of houses and landscape within the streetscape. Clause 6.3.2(b) states that the minimum setback from a primary street to a carport shall be 3.0 metres if the carport is attached to or less than 1.5 metres from the dwelling. The plans indicate that the carport will have a 2.0 metre setback from the Callan Road boundary. The position of the existing dwelling and a high solid brick screen wall around the front yard and a side gate prevents the proposal from complying with the primary street setback requirement and still achieving the required dimensions of two side by side car bays. Variations to the Compliance Standards relating to street setbacks may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria are met:-

(a) the street setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in

the street; (b) a reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of

development in the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and

(c) visual separation maintained between buildings and adjoining properties. The setback is considered to be compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street. There are several carports in Callan Road that are located within the front setback. It should be noted that due to the existence of the screen wall, which will be adjacent to the left side of the carport, and the existence of the dwelling, which will be at the rear of the carport, the carport will be effectively enclosed on two sides and therefore would be classified as a ‘garage’ under the guidelines. However, the proposal essentially involves roofing an existing area that is already partially enclosed, and the addition of the carport will not further enclose this area. Views to the dwelling from the street are already blocked by the existing high brick screen wall and the adjoining property has a high solid wall on its Callan Road boundary. In relation to the proposed increase in height of the common north (right) side boundary by 429 mm, this will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape as there is an existing high solid brick wall and landscaping that will block any views to this wall from the street.

Whilst the proposed setback is not compliant, the carport has been designed to match the existing dwelling in terms of roof pitch and gable lining. Furthermore, the carport will not further block views to the dwelling from the street.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: In determining the proposed development, it is considered that there are sufficient circumstances to support the reduced setback of the carport into the primary street setback area, given the existing built situation. The roof pitch and design of the carport will match the existing dwelling and there will be no further enclosure of the front setback area and so the structure is unlikely to adversely impact on the amenity and character of the existing streetscape. It is therefore recommended that the reduced primary street setback be supported. As the proposal does not does not comply with the primary street setback requirement of the Town Planning Scheme, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by Tyra Williams for a double carport at Lot 1606 (No. 21) Callan Road, Floreat as shown on the amended plans dated 12 August 2002 subject to the following condition:- (i) the carport shall remain entirely open at the front and right (northern) side.

No solid doors of any kind may be affixed to the carport. Footnote: The applicant is advised to liaise with the adjoining landowner in respect to proposed modifications to the existing common north side boundary, in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY



DES02.118 LOT 104 (NO. 20) CADDY AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED PATIO (File Reference PRO 1562) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 370BA-2002 LANDOWNER: H. Capolingua APPLICANT: Westral Outdoor Centre ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Open Space Requirement under Residential Planning Codes

50 per cent 44 per cent

DELEGATED AUTHORITY: In addition to the above variation listed in the compliance table, the application does involve a variation to the side setback requirements of the R Codes (being 0.8 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres on the southern boundary).

Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominated officer). Further powers are delegated under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 to exercise discretion to vary residential setbacks, in accordance with Part 1.5 of the Residential Planning Codes (Delegation 8.1 Variations to Residential setbacks). These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation.

In this particular case, the above provisions are satisfied and therefore, the setback variation does not require the Council’s approval. As such, it is not discussed further in this report.

DETAILS: Lot Area – 197 square metres Open Space – 44 per cent

Approval is sought to construct a patio at Lot 104 (No.20) Caddy Avenue, West Leederville. The patio is situated to the rear of the house and is not visible from the street. The curved roof of the patio will be covered with a polycarbonate material. The patio will occupy 13.5 square metres.



COMMENT: Open Space The site requires 50% open space while only 44% is proposed. The shortfall in open space amounts to 13 square metres. Support for the variation is primarily given on the basis that the patio area offsets the shortfall in the open space provision as it still contributes to usable outdoor space around the dwelling. If the covered patio was included in open space calculations (as in the newly approved Residential Planning Codes), the application would comply. It is with regard to the above comments that the variation is supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Although a shortfall in open space exists, the patio area is a usable outdoor space. The proposed variations to the provisions of the Residential Planning Codes have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. Having regard to these matters, the application can be supported. As the proposal does not comply with the open space requirements of the Residential Planning Codes, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a patio submitted by Westral Outdoor Centre at Lot 104 (No. 20) Caddy Avenue, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 9 July 2002. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY



DES02.119 LOT 53 (NO. 53) WOOLWICH STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED PATIO (File Reference PRO 1498) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1.

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 407BA-2002 LANDOWNER: P.E and A.W Wilkins APPLICANT: Westral Outdoor Centre ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40 POLICY: Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Open Space Requirement under Residential Planning Codes

50 per cent 36.2 per cent

DELEGATED AUTHORITY In addition to the above variation listed in the compliance table, the application does involve a minor variation to the side setback requirements of the R Codes (being 1.4 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres on the eastern boundary) Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer (or his nominated officer). Further powers are delegated under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1995 to exercise discretion to vary residential setbacks, in accordance with Part 1.5 of the Residential Planning Codes (Delegation 8.1 Variations to Residential setbacks). These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation. As the 100mm variation is considered minor the comments of the adjoining landowner have not been sought.

In this particular case, the above provisions are regarded as having been satisfied and therefore, the setback variation does not require the Council’s approval. As such, it is not discussed further in this report.

DETAILS: Lot Area – 263 square metres Open Space – 36.2 per cent

Approval is sought to construct a patio at Lot 53 (No.53) Woolwich Street, West Leederville. The patio is situated to the rear of the house and is not visible from the street. The pitched roof of the patio will be covered with a polycarbonate material. The patio will occupy 18 square metres.



COMMENT: Open Space The site requires 50% open space while only 36.2% is proposed. The shortfall in open space amounts to 36.3 square metres. The shortfall in open space is also affected by a verandah, which has an area of 23.5 square metres. Support for the variation is primarily given on the basis that the patio and verandah areas offset the shortfall in the open space provision as it still contributes to usable outdoor space around the dwelling. If the covered patio and verandah outdoor areas were included in open space calculations the application would comply. The newly approved Residential Planning Codes allow patios and verandah outdoor areas as part of open space to a maximum of 10% of site cover or 50 square metres whichever is the lesser. Hence, this application would be a variation to the new Codes as only 26.3 square metres (10% of site cover) could be used as a compensating area. With regard to the above comments, based on merit, the variation is still supported as it still provides usable open space. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Although a shortfall in open space exists, the patio area is a usable outdoor space. The proposed variations to the provisions of the Residential Planning Codes have minimal impact on the adjoining properties. Having regard to these matters, the application can be supported. As the proposal does not comply with the open space requirements of the Residential Planning Codes, Council requires an absolute majority decision to grant approval.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a patio submitted by Westral Outdoor Centre at Lot 53 (No. 53) Woolwich Street, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 19 July 2002.




DES02.120 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 10 – REALIGNMENT OF SCHEME AREA BOUNDARY – WEMBLEY (File Ref: PLA 0031) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To initiate an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to incorporate the small area of Glendalough that is now part of the Town of Cambridge into Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: At the Council meeting on 24 July 2001, Council considered a request to confirm previous support for a community initiative to seek a realignment of a portion of the local government boundary between the City of Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. Council resolved to support the proposed boundary realignment and, following approval from the state government, the area was transferred to the Town of Cambridge on 1 July 2002. It is anticipated that the suburb boundary will also be realigned by the end of August 2002, and the area will become part of the suburb of Wembley. Currently, the existing town planning provisions of the City of Stirling continue to apply to this area and the Town is administering the City of Stirling’s Town Planning Scheme and policy provisions for this area. In order to include the area into the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, a scheme amendment is required to amend the zoning map. In addition, amendments to the Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines are also required to incorporate the area into the Wembley Precinct. Location The area is bounded by Jon Sanders Drive to the north, Harborne Street to the east, Dodd Street to the south, and Herdsman Parade to the west. It contains a mix of low and medium density development, comprising 31 single dwellings, 8 duplexes, 8 townhouses/villas, and 10 units. The only non-residential use in the area is the Herdsman Neighbourhood Centre (child care), which is located on one half of a duplex. Lot sizes range from 721 square metres to 2136 square metres. COMMENT: Residential Density Under the City of Stirling Town Planning Scheme No. 2, the area is zoned ‘Low Density Residential’ with a density coding of R30. The density of the Wembley residential area to the south is R20, however, corner lots in this area may be developed with two dwellings in accordance with the R30 standards.



The Residential Planning Codes identify the following average and minimum lot sizes for the R20 and R30 densities:-

Coding Average Lot Size Minimum Lot Size R20 500 square metres 450 square metres R30 300 square metres 270 square metres

Given that the minimum lot size in the area is 721 square metres, with a density coding of R30, each lot has potential to be developed with at least two dwellings and a number of lots have already taken advantage of the R30 coding. By comparison, in the nearby North Wembley area, average lot sizes range from 645 square metres to 830 square metres. With a density coding of R20, the only lots with the potential to be developed with two dwellings are corner lots as the Town has a specific policy allowing the construction of two dwellings, in accordance with the R30 standards, on corner lots in Wembley. There is one large lot with an area of 1728 square metres facing Dodd Street which has already been developed with units. Owners of properties in the area have previously had an inherent ability to develop their lots and there is no rationale to down code the area to R20. There are already a number of duplexes and units in the area and further development in this area will not be inconsistent with the existing streetscape. The area is appropriate for a medium density coding given its proximity to shops, a primary school and public open space. It is proposed that the land remain zoned Residential R30. Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines The City of Stirling has a number of policies applicable to residential development, but no policies specific for this area. It is proposed to replace these policies with the Town’s own policies and guidelines, to ensure new development in the area is consistent with the Wembley Precinct. Having reviewed the Town’s Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs), it is appropriate to include the area into the Policy Manual’s Precinct P4 – Wembley map and the RDGs Sub Precinct P.4A – Wembley North map. This will be consistent with, and appropriate for, the area, and enable the relevant guidelines in the Policy Manual and RDGs relating to Wembley to be applied to the area. Additional text that describes the area is also required to be included in the RDGs Precinct Statement document. Clause 48 ‘Planning Policies’ of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 sets out the procedure that allows Council to create and amend planning policies. Proposed amendments to policies must be advertised for a period of not less than 21 days, through two advertisements in the local community newspaper, and letters to affected owners and occupiers and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Following the advertising period, the Council reviews the proposed amendments, based on any submissions received, and determines whether to adopt the amendments, with or without modification, or not to proceed with it. Council’s decision is then advertised in the local community newspaper and given to affected owners and occupiers. A copy of the amended policy is also forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information. Scheme Amendment Procedure Once Council resolves to adopt the initial proposal to incorporate the small area of Glendalough that is now part of the Town of Cambridge into Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the scheme amendment procedure is as follows:-



− The scheme amendment documentation is sent to the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) to determine if DEP assessment is required. (Note: consent to advertise is not required from the WAPC as the scheme

amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme and State Planning Policies, and is for a relevant planning purpose as set out in the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. However, in proceeding to advertise, the WAPC is notified of the proposed amendment.)

− The amendment is advertised for a period of 42 days, through an advertisement in

the local community newspaper and letters to affected owners and occupiers and service authorities.

− Council reviews the amendment and, based on any submissions received, and

determines whether to support the amendment, with or without modification, or not to proceed with it.

− A summary of any submissions received and Council’s recommendation on the

amendment is forwarded to the WAPC for their decision. It is the City of Stirling’s responsibility to delete the area from their Town Planning Scheme No. 2 through a scheme amendment. The City of Stirling is due to commence this process shortly. The City of Stirling’s scheme amendment and the Town’s scheme amendment should be undertaken at about the same time, so they can be assessed and considered together by the WAPC. Given that the scheme amendment procedure is similar to the procedure for amending the Town’s planning policies, it is considered appropriate to advertise both the scheme amendment and amendments to the Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines concurrently, whilst satisfying the requirements of each advertising procedure. If Council resolves to adopt the amendments to the Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines prior to the Minister granting approval to the scheme amendment, the adoption of the amendments to the Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines must be conditional on the scheme amendment being granted approval. CONCLUSION: Since the area of Glendalough bounded by Jon Sanders Drive, Harborne Street, Dodd Street and Herdsman Parade is now part of the Town of Cambridge, it is necessary to incorporate this area into Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Scheme’s Policy Manual and Residential Design Guidelines. It is proposed that the density remain at R30, as owners of properties in the area have previously had an inherent ability to develop their lots and further infill development in this area will not be inconsistent with the existing streetscape. The area is appropriate for a medium density coding given its proximity to shops, a primary school and public open space.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That:- (i) pursuant to Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as

amended), the Council resolves to prepare Amendment No. 10 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 by:-

(a) including the area bounded by Jon Sanders Drive, Harborne Street,

Dodd Street and Herdsman Parade within the Scheme Area and zoning this area ‘Residential R30’;

(b) amending the Scheme Map accordingly;

(ii) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.

1 Scheme Text Council adopts the following draft amendment to existing:-

(a) Town Planning Scheme Policy 7.4 – P.4 – Wembley by:-

− amending the Wembley Precinct map by including the area bounded by Jon Sanders Drive, Harborne Street, Dodd Street and Herdsman Parade;

(iii) Residential Design Guidelines Precinct Statements by:-

− amending the Wembley Precinct map by including the area bounded by

Jon Sanders Drive, Harborne Street, Dodd Street and Herdsman Parade into Sub-Precinct P4A – Wembley North; and

− Including additional text describing the area into Sub-Precinct P4A – Wembley North.

(iv) the scheme amendment and policy amendments be advertised concurrently. Carried



DES02.121 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY CLOSURE – PORTION OF WEST LEEDERVILLE PRIMARY SCHOOL - LOT 0 ON PLAN 1514 GLEN STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE (File Reference: PRO 0214) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider a proposal to close a pedestrian access way. BACKGROUND: LANDOWNER: The Crown (managed by Education Department of

Western Australia) APPLICANT: Education Department of Western Australia ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban

Town Planning Scheme No.1: Public Purpose (Primary School)

DETAILS: A request for closure of the pedestrian access way located adjacent to Glen Street was received by the Town on 31 May 2002. The access way is a designated pedestrian access way (PAW), owned by the ‘Crown’, under the care, control and management of the Education Department. The access way previously formed part of a larger PAW which has since been closed and the status changed. This PAW ran north-south and was located directly adjacent, and parallel, to Glen Street and joined up with a recently sealed laneway which is still in existence and runs east-west, joining Glen Street and Lesser Street, behind the lots that front Cambridge Street. The subject PAW is known as Lot 0 on Plan 1514 and is 10 metres long and 3.02 metres wide. It is zoned ‘Public Purpose (Primary School) and fronts onto Glen Street and forms part of the Glen Street verge (a location map is attached). Applicant’s Grounds for Request The Education Department of WA wishes to excise a small portion of the south side of the West Leederville Primary School Reserve and amalgamate it with the adjoining residential properties (No. 9 Lesser Street and No. 10 Glen Street). Prior to commencing proceedings to excise this land, the PAW, which forms part of this land, is required to be closed. The area proposed to be excised was previously used as a walkway linking Glen Street and Lesser Street, however, it is not a designated PAW. Following security and privacy concerns, access to this walkway was precluded by installing gates and planting ground cover. The area now effectively forms part of the landscaping of the adjoining two properties.



Pedestrian Access way Closure Procedure The closure of a pedestrian access way is made in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 52 Regulation 6 of the Land Administration Act (LAA) 1997. The process of closure is summarised as follows:- Following a request to close a street:- 1. The Council resolves to initiate closure. Abutting landowners are contacted for their

commitment to purchasing land.

Note: the abutting landowner is the Crown and therefore will not be required to be contacted for their commitment to purchasing the land. If the PAW is closed, it will become part of the school site.

2. A notice of the proposed closure is sent to surrounding landowners, service

authorities and the Western Australian Planning Commission. The proposal is advertised once in the local newspaper. A period of no less than 30 days is allowed to convey to the Council objections and/or comments relating to the proposed closure.

3. The Council re-considers the proposed closure based on any submissions received

and resolves to (a) proceed as initially proposed; (b) proceed with modified proposal or; (c) refuse to request the Minister to close the pedestrian access way.

4. Should the Council resolve to proceed with the proposal, the matter is then referred

to the Department of Land Administration for closure and disposal of land to proceed. If not disposed of to abutting owners, the remnant land would be created as Vacant Crown Land.

COMMENTS: In April 2002, the Department of Land Administration released a draft policy statement relating to the closure of pedestrian access ways and rights of way. This draft policy puts into practice those matters which would normally be considered. According to the draft policy statement, Council has the initial responsibility to determine whether an application to close a PAW should be progressed. This initial assessment should include consideration of: − the impact of closure of the access way on local pedestrian/cycle connectivity and

safe access to neighbourhood and district facilities (eg. schools, shops, public transport, parks etc),

− the length of alternative routes and their safety, extent of surveillance, amenity,

useability gradient and convenience of use, especially for the disabled and elderly, and

− the crime/social difficulties being experienced by adjoining landowners. Given the size and location of the PAW, the proposed closure of the PAW should not have a detrimental impact on local pedestrian/cycle connectivity and safe access to neighbourhood and district facilities.



Instead, it will allow for the excision of an area of land from the school that is currently fenced in with two adjoining residential properties. Excision will allow this land to be formally amalgamated with the adjoining residential properties and rezoned from ‘Public Purposes – Primary School’ to ‘Residential’. The owners of the adjoining residential properties have expressed an interest in acquiring this land, subject to negotiation with the Education Department.

CONCLUSION: Overall, it is recommended that Council initiate closure of the PAW, and commence consultation in accordance with the above procedure. It is also recommended that the applicant, the Education Department of WA, contributes $500.00 towards the administration and advertising costs associated with the PAW closure. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That:- (i) pursuant to Section 52 of the Land Administration Act 1997, closure

procedures for the pedestrian access way Lot 0 on Plan 1514 Glen Street, West Leederville be initiated;

(ii) at the conclusion of the advertising period, the proposal be referred back to

Council for consideration of any submissions received; (iii) the applicant will be required to meet the administration and advertising

costs associated with the pedestrian access way closure. This fee will be $500.00 and will be required to be paid prior to advertising the proposed pedestrian access way closure.

Carried



DES02.122 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS (File Reference: ADM0048) PURPOSE OF REPORT To report on matters that have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Planning Services. DELEGATED DECISIONS The following items (for the month of July 2002) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- • Shop - 440 Cambridge Street, Floreat; • Home occupation (Accountancy service) - 46 Yaltara Road, City Beach; • Front fence - 249 Jersey Street, Wembley; • Two lot subdivision - 35 Reserve Street, Wembley; • Office - 350 Cambridge Street, Wembley; • Front fence - 24 Evandale Street, Floreat; • Two grouped dwellings - 18 Keane Street, Wembley; • Two lot subdivision - 7 Reserve Street, Wembley; • Two lot subdivision - 9 Reserve Street, Wembley; NOTIFICATIONS The following items are notifications of appeals and decisions for Council’s information: Appeals received No appeals were lodged against a decision of the Council during July 2002. Appeal determinations No appeals were determined during July 2002. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Amendment No. 8 The Town of Cambridge at its meeting held on 21 August 2001, decided:- (i) pursuant to section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as

amended) the Council resolves to initiate an amendment (No. 8) to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to the Zoning Table to change the designation of the Office Use Class from “IP/AA(5) to “AA” in the Local Centre Zone;

(ii) as part of the amendment, footnote (5) at the end of the zoning table is to be

deleted and amended wording be inserted stating that the note was “deleted as part of Amendment No.8”;



(iii) all relevant sections in the Town Planning Scheme No.1 Policy Manual to be amended to conform with the scheme amendment.

The amendment was further considered by the Council at its meeting held on 18 December 2001, where it decided that:- (i) Amendment No. 8 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as initiated by the Council at its

meeting held on 21 August 2001 be adopted without modification; (ii) The WAPC be requested to consider the amendment and obtain the approval of the

Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Western Australian Planning Commission has advised the Town that the Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has granted final approval to the amendment. Details of the amendment were published in the Government Gazette on 30 July 2002. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That the report on delegated decisions and notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 31 July 2002, be received. Carried



DES02.123

BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (File Reference: ADM0048) PURPOSE OF THE REPORT: To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under delegated authority in July 2002 and for the current financial year. BACKGROUND: Listed hereunder are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of July 2002. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of licences issued on the same month of the previous year.

July 2001 July 2002 Building Licences 48 69 Sign Licences 0 1 Preliminary Building Licences

5 8

Demolition Licences 8 4 Value of Construction $4,465,193 $8,711,488

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Burkett That the Schedule of building licences approved under delegated authority for the month of July 2002, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried




9.1 Coastal Management Advisory Group

The Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services advised that a meeting was held today but he was unable to attend.

9.2 Western Suburbs District Planning Committee


10. GENERAL BUSINESS

10.1 Marlow Street, Wembley

Cr McAullay asked if Council had received any response to the refusal of the proposed car wash at Marlow Street, Wembley. The Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services advised that the applicant intends appealing Council’s decision.

10.2 Henderson Park Car Park

Cr MacRae requested information on the progress of Council’s proposal to increase parking at Henderson Park. The Executive Manager, Development and Services advised that a development application had been submitted to Western Australian Planning Commission today.

11. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee closed at 7.05pm.

COUNCIL 27 AUGUST 2002 ACTING MAYOR………………………………………………

\\cambadmin\admin\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\02 MINUTES\August 2002\E ITEM 10 ONWARDS.doc 197

10. ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil 11. REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES

Nil

12. LATE ITEMS

12.1

WEMBLEY GOLF COMPLEX – PRO SHOP LEASE (File References: PRO1119) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider a request from Divots Golf Services Pty Ltd for a rental reduction during the three month holding over period. BACKGROUND: Council at its meeting held on 26 February 2002 considered a report on the Pro Shop and Tavern/Restaurant/Kiosk leases at the Wembley Golf Complex. One of the decisions made by Council at that meeting is as follows; “to facilitate the calling of tenders, preparation of the Business Plan and Tender Documents the existing leases be held over for a three months in accordance with the terms of the leases until 30 September 2002”. In accordance with Council’s decision the respective tenants were offered additional three months holding over periods on their leases until 30 September 2002. Both tenants confirmed in writing of their acceptance to Council’s offer. Mr Breen’s unconditional letter of acceptance was received on 19 March 2002. DETAILS: A letter was received from Mr Breen, Director of Divots Golf Services on Monday 26 August 2002, a copy of that letter is enclosed as an attachment to the report. The lessee has requested the following; (1) that the Pro Shop rental for the month of September be set aside and; (2) that the payment of 1.5% of turnover for the extension period be set aside. The lessee has stated the reasons for requesting the reductions as being in his opinion the notice period following the determination of the leases (6 August 2002 to 30 September 2002) as unreasonably short. Mr Breen has stated that it has placed them at considerable financial disadvantage requiring them to liquidate plant and stock in excess of $650,000. He also states that he will sustain considerable loss from the resultant fire sale.



Mr Breen is also aware of Council’s decision to award the tavern proprietor a 50% rent reduction during the three month holding over period. This concession has resulted in a rent reduction of $19,188 to the Tavern Operator. Mr Breen advises that in the spirit of fair play Divots Golf Services should be afforded a similar courtesy and therefore has requested the abovementioned reduction.

The lessee further states in support of his request that during the holding over period he has maintained staff levels, stock levels and service standards above and beyond those required in the lease, in the best interests of the Town and its ratepayers. The Administration agrees that the level of client service during the holding over period has been excellent and is consistent with what was provided during the lease term. Divots Golf Services have been the lessees at the Pro Shop for the past 20 years and have and in that time built up an excellent rapport and association with the former City of Perth and in recent times, since 1994 with the Town of Cambridge. They have assisted the Town with many of the projects at the complex and provided valuable information that has enabled the Wembley Golf Course to remain as this State’s leading public golf course. The tendering process has been complex and difficult and has taken longer than first anticipated to select the successful tenderer. The Town would have liked to be in a position to have made a decision earlier but unfortunately this was not the case and has inadvertently placed the tenant in the position of having to dispose of a large amount of stock over a short period of time. It is therefore recommended that the Town agrees to the tenant’s request for the September rent to be set aside and that the payment of 1.5% of turnover of sales for the extension period not be charged.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Under the existing terms and conditions of the lease, which applies during the three month holding over period until 30 September 2002, the lessee is required to pay a monthly rent of $4,583. The Town also receives 1.5% of the gross receipts each year. It is estimated that the Town would receive approximately $23,000 per annum. The lessee has requested that the Town forego its 1.5% for the three month holding over period, which relates to 25% of gross sales per annum or $5,750. In total the lessee is requesting a reduction of approximately $10,333 in charges for the holding over period.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The Philosophy of the Town of Cambridge is set out in the Town’s Strategic Plan and clearly states that the Town will be a local government of significance in the metropolitan Perth, providing a quality living environment. The Wembley Golf Complex is the a major asset of the Town of Cambridge, which is utilised to promote income growth for the Town. It is considered Australia’s premier public golf course and has the largest number of rounds of golf played annually. The delivery of quality services will enable the Complex to maintain its high rating in the golfing industry.



The Town’s Mission Statement provides the following: To facilitate a delivery of services, which fosters a quality lifestyle and promotes; • friendliness, cleanliness, safety and good health • efficient, accountable and quality management of public assets and infrastructure. The Strategic Plan includes a goal “to defray some of the Town’s expenditure on facilities, particularly regional, by assessing opportunities for cost recovery to reduce costs to ratepayers”. Within this goal is a strategy to establish a business plan for each area that has potential sources of revenue. The leasing of Council owned premises to raise revenue is a means of reducing costs to ratepayers.

SUMMARY: The lessee has written to the Town requesting the following; (1) that the Pro Shop rental for the month of September be set aside and; (2) that the payment of 1.5% of turnover for the extension period be set aside. The tenants believe that they have been financially disadvantaged because of the lengthy period in which it took Council to award the tender. Subsequently, they have had to dispose of stock and equipment at a reduced rate. They are aware that the tavern proprietor has received a 50% reduction in rent during the holding over period and now request that in the spirit of fair play they be afforded the same courtesy. Divots Golf Services have been excellent tenants over the past 20 years and have assisted with the development and provision of professional services at the Wembley Golf Complex. Because of circumstances outside their control they believe that they were disadvantaged financially by having to sell their stock and equipment at a reduced price. The tendering process was lengthy and it has taken longer than first expected to select the tenderer. It is therefore recommended that Council approve not to charge rent for the month of September and payment of 1.5% of turnover for the three month holding over period. This amount is calculated at approximately $10,333.

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Burkett, seconded by Cr Langer That the request from Divots Golf Services for a reduction in rent during the holding over period of the lease be approved on the following basis. (i) the Pro Shop not be charged rental for the month of September 2002, and; (ii) the payment of 1.5% of turnover for the three month holding over period be

set aside. Carried



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Nil

14. CLOSURE

There being no further business, His Worship the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.14 pm.

cover for web - Town of Cambridge · any other local authority in metropolitan Perth. Certainly...

Documents

Transcript of cover for web - Town of Cambridge · any other local authority in metropolitan Perth. Certainly...