3.2 Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor ... · the CFP and LPP 3.3 and an opportunity for stakeholders to ask any questions regarding the proposals. A number of questions

CITY OF WANNEROO AGENDA OF ELECTED MEMBERS' BRIEFING SESSION 31 JANUARY, 2012 56

3.2 Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan

File Ref: 2069 – 11/110093 Responsible Officer: Director, Planning and Sustainability Disclosure of Interest: Nil Attachments: 3

Issue

To consider final adoption of the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (CFP).

Background

In November 2009, State Planning Policy 3.6: Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6) was gazetted to promote the efficient and effective provision of infrastructure required as a result of new urban growth and development. Historically, contributions have only been permitted to be sought for ‘hard’ infrastructure items such as roads and drainage. SPP 3.6 expanded the list of contribution items to include community facilities, which were defined as: “the structures and facilities which help communities and neighbourhoods to function effectively, including:

Sporting and recreational facilities;

Community centres;

Child care and after school centres;

Libraries and cultural facilities; and

Such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonably be requested, having regard to the objectives, scope and provision of this policy.”

A requirement of SPP 3.6 is that local governments must undertake the necessary strategic planning (in the form of a CFP) to determine the infrastructure and facilities required to service new developments before contributions are able to be levied through a Development Contribution Plan (DCP). In 2010, Administration prepared a CFP for the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks district structure plan areas that comprise the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor (NCGC). The CFP identified the required level of community facility provision and the proposed location and staging of these facilities within the NCGC in response to projected population growth. The CFP was considered by Council at its meeting of 21 September 2010 (Item PS01-09/10) where it was resolved: “That Council ADVERTISES the draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of: 1. Advertisements in the local paper for two consecutive weeks; 2. Display on the City’s website; and 3. Letters sent to and a workshop conducted with relevant stakeholders, as determined by

the Director Planning and Sustainability.”


Consultation

The CFP was advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks from 12 October 2010 to 22 November 2010 by way of:

Advertisements placed in the 'Wanneroo Times' and 'North Coast Times' Community Newspapers in the editions dated 12 and 19 October 2010;

Copies of the public notice and the draft documents publicly displayed at the City's Administration Building, Wanneroo Library, Girrawheen Library, Clarkson Library and Yanchep-Two Rocks Library;

Copies of the public notice and the draft documents displayed on the City’s website for the duration of the public comment period; and

Letters to key stakeholders advising of the draft documents along with an invitation to a stakeholder information session.

The CFP was advertised concurrently with Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions (LPP 3.3). The outcome of advertising for LPP 3.3 is dealt with in a separate report on this Council agenda. A stakeholder information session was held on 5 November 2010 to provide an overview of the CFP and LPP 3.3 and an opportunity for stakeholders to ask any questions regarding the proposals. A number of questions and issues were raised at this session that indicated stakeholders needed more time to prepare their submissions on both draft documents. Consequently the closure date for submissions was extended to 20 December 2010, resulting in a cumulative public comment period of 11 weeks. Between January and October 2011, Administration met with landowners on three separate occasions, primarily to discuss issues relating to the associated Development Contribution Plans (DCP), but also to discuss the CFP and its relationship to the DCP prior to the CFP being finalised.

Detail

A total of 13 submissions were received during the advertising period from planning consultants representing landowners and developers active in the NCGC and all submitters commented on both the CFP and LPP 3.3. A summary of submissions received, together with Administration’s responses and recommended modifications is included at Attachment 1, however, the key issues raised are outlined below: Inconsistencies with State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP 3.6) and other issues related to the long timeframe of the CFP. Submitters raised the long timeframe of the CFP (i.e. 50 years) as being inconsistent with SPP 3.6 and likely to create issues related to changing community needs over time. SPP 3.6 recommends a maximum operation period for DCPs of 5-10 years, but does not specifically say that community facility plans (on which the DCP is based) cannot apply to a longer period. Regardless of the timeframe being proposed for the DCPs, it is still considered appropriate and necessary to plan through to full build out of the NCGC to ensure that the City has a full understanding of future community facility requirements.


Although the long timeframe of the draft CFP may present challenges in terms of accurately predicting growth patterns and community needs (particularly beyond 2031), regular review of the CFP in accordance with the review framework proposed for the final DCP will ensure that the CFP will continue to represent the City’s vision for future community facility provision. The CFP will therefore effectively serve as a viable blueprint for the future rollout and ongoing review of the DCP. The CFP only proposes facilities once the full population threshold has been reached. Submitters felt that the methodology used to determine the timeframes for delivery of facilities does not allow the early provision of facilities to stimulate development or anchor community development. The draft CFP does not propose the early provision of community facilities, instead relying on certain population thresholds to be reached to trigger the need for facilities to be provided. The stakeholder comment is therefore valid. Accordingly, where it is determined by the City that it is beneficial and affordable to bring facilities on early, it is proposed that this be addressed through the operation of the corresponding DCP, with the CFP to remain as a blueprint for subsequent DCP reviews and preparation (acknowledging that the CFP will itself also be subject to regular reviews). This will ensure that the recommendations of the CFP are consistently based on sound rationale and planning methodology, with the DCP accommodating more immediate needs based on developer staging and intentions that are not reflected in the CFP. Some aspects of the facility planning methodology are questioned (i.e. use of standards), and the need for some facilities is not quantified (i.e. Indoor Recreation/Aquatic Centre in Alkimos). The draft CFP clearly outlines the methodology used to determine facility requirements and this is consistent with industry practice. Although it has been raised as an issue in some submissions, it has been thoroughly reviewed and subsequently supported by others. The issue of some facilities not being quantified relates to the identification of regional facilities whose catchments cover both DSP areas. The need for these facilities was determined by looking at the NCGC as a whole rather than each DSP area in isolation and this approach identified additional facilities to those identified by stakeholders in their planning for their specific DSP area. The scope of the facilities proposed in the CFP is not clear. It is acknowledged that the role, scale and function of facilities proposed in the draft CFP required greater definition. The scope of the facilities identified in the draft CFP has been subsequently developed as part of the preparation of a cost estimate for the implementation of the CFP. Administration’s work on this issue is outlined later in this report. Detailed Comments A number of detailed comments were received requesting minor changes to the CFP to better reflect developer intentions and proposed staging. These detailed comments are outlined in Attachment 1. As these proposed changes do not alter the intent or principles of the CFP, Administration generally accepts these comments and is proposing to amend the CFP accordingly. Overall, the majority of respondents acknowledged the contents of the CFP and commended the City for attempting to determine the future facility needs of the NCGC.


Comment

The draft CFP is the culmination of a significant body of work planning for the future community facility requirements for the NCGC. It was intentionally drafted as a high level document – addressing district and corridor-wide facilities only – to determine facility requirements through to build out of the corridor in 50 years time and to form a crucial element in the preparation of a DCP for the NCGC. Overall, the comments received during advertising generally support the approach taken by the City to determine an appropriate range of facilities for inclusion in the DCP. However, there are some changes proposed to the CFP as a result of feedback received during advertising and other work subsequently undertaken on the detailed models for each of the facility types and associated cost estimates. All of the proposed changes to the draft CFP are shown as tracked changes in Attachment 2 and discussed below. Community Facility Models In order to provide more clarity on the scope of proposed community facilities, and to provide a sound basis for the preparation of cost estimates for the DCP, consultant quantity surveyors were appointed in March 2011 to work with the City to prepare detailed models for each of the facilities listed in the draft CFP. These models represent the standard requirements for each facility and are essentially a high level concept plan without any visual representation. The models identify the following elements in order to determine the relevant building and lot footprints required for each facility:

The required rooms and spaces and their associated floor areas;

Internal circulation areas;

External circulation areas;

Landscaping areas; and

Carparking areas. As the exact context and location of each facility is yet to be determined, each of the facility models that have been developed represent multipurpose facilities that can adapt to any specific use that may reflect the specific demographics of the future community in which they will be located. Detailed design processes at a later stage will identify any specific design responses that need to be incorporated into the facility. These models are proposed to be incorporated into the final CFP and have been included at Appendix 17 of the proposed revised CFP (included at Attachment 3). Recommended Modifications to the CFP Recommended changes to the CFP as a result of advertising are outlined in Attachment 1. However, as a result of preparing the facility models outlined above, it became clear that some additional changes to the CFP were required. These proposed changes are outlined below: Removal of Performing Arts Centres The proposed provision of performing arts centres in the CFP is based primarily on the standards of provision outlined in the report. However, during subsequent investigation into appropriate facility examples on which to prepare a model and determine a cost estimate, it was determined that such facilities should be removed from the CFP for the following reasons:


There were no consistent models on which their provision may be based, and those that were available did not fit into any particular hierarchy;

Both regional and district level facilities are not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government;

District level facilities are provided already by the Department of Education. Should community access be required, this could be negotiated outside of the CFP/DCP arrangement, with any funding necessary to facilitate community use considered as part of the annual budget process.

Should Council wish to pursue the development of performing arts centres in the future, it is envisaged that the City would play more of a lobbying, facilitating and supporting role rather than that of a direct project and facility manager. It is therefore considered more appropriate that this be addressed through a strategic approach outside of the CFP. Removal of Art Gallery & Exhibition Centres The draft CFP proposed the provision of a regional Art Gallery and Exhibition Centre within the Yanchep City Centre. Further, it proposed a number of district galleries within multipurpose community centres. As a result of public advertising and subsequent investigation into appropriate facility examples on which to prepare a model and determine a cost estimate, it is proposed to delete specific art galleries and exhibition centres from the CFP for the following reasons:

The provision of purpose built art galleries at a regional level is not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government. Their provision may be considered as part of the university proposed in Yanchep or by some other means. To this effect, similar to Performing Arts Centres, it is envisaged that the City would play more of a lobbying and facilitation role than that of a direct project and facility manager.

The specific listing of art galleries at district level caused confusion within stakeholders as to whether they were specific facilities or not, and how their provision needed to be considered as part of a cost sharing arrangement. Given that such facilities at district level were only proposed to form part of a greater multipurpose community centre, it is not considered necessary to list them as specific items in the CFP.

Despite the above, there may still be a need for gallery space, which as the draft CFP stated - “should be incorporated into a library or community centre to create a cultural hub”. Provision of such space is therefore proposed to be linked to regional libraries in the final CFP. Relationship to DCPs The CFP is intended to be used as a blueprint for the ongoing operation and review of the DCPs for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks. However, not all the facilities included in the CFP will be subject to contributions through the DCPs. In particular, regional facilities are included in the CFP because they are needed, and the role of the CFP is to identify future community facility requirements based on projected and actual population growth. However, they are excluded from the DCPs because they are proposed to be funded through a different mechanism outside of a Scheme-enforced cost sharing arrangement.


Cost Estimates The facility models were used to prepare cost estimates for each of the facilities, and these estimates in turn informed the preparation of a DCP, which outline how the costs to deliver the facilities would be shared between developing landowners. Full details of these cost estimates are included in a separate report to Council relating to the DCP, however of relevance to the CFP is the proposal to cost the facilities to achieve a 6-star green star rating, which will require significant enhancements to a base building scope. This cost allowance is considered appropriate and will ensure that future facilities managed by the City are delivered in a way that would minimise ongoing operational costs and the impact of those facilities on the environment. The proposed revised CFP, included at Attachment 3 incorporating the changes outlined above and in the Summary of Submissions, is now presented to Council for final adoption.

Statutory Compliance

The preparation of a Community Facility Plan is a necessary prerequisite to the preparation and finalisation of a Development Contribution Plan in accordance with SPP 3.6.

Strategic Implications

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

“2 Social

2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options”

2.2 Improve the City’s identity and community well-being through arts, culture, leisure and recreation

3 Economic

3.3 Provision of timely and coordinated regional infrastructure.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Endorsement of the Community Facility Plan does not in itself commit the City to delivering all of the facilities proposed therein. However, the eventual gazettal of DCPs for the area will commit and legally oblige Council to delivering the facilities that are to be funded through the DCPs at the point in time when they are proposed, regardless of whether sufficient funds have been collected from developers to do so.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority


Recommendation

That Council:

1. NOTES the summary of submissions received in respect of the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to and recommendations on those submissions, as included at Attachment 1;

2. ADOPTS the final Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan as included at Attachment 3; and

3. INFORMS those persons who made a submission on the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan of Council’s decision in respect of that Plan.

Attachments: 1. Summary of Submissions - Draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan 11/109628 Minuted 2. Attachment 2 - NCGC CFP w/ Tracked Changes 11/128440 3. Attachment 3 - NCGC CFP - Final 11/128446 Minuted


3.2 – Attachment 1

Draft NCGC – Community Facilities Plan (CFP) SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS ISSUE SUBMITTER RESPONSE RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION

Can infrastructure can be predicted, requested and contributed for 50 years ahead?

1 It is considered inequitable for developers to contribute to facilities that are 10, 15, 30 years away from being delivered. Early developers are disadvantaged as they lose marketing benefit from these facilities. Early residents are unable to access facilities that they have contributed to, and lose capital appreciation if they sell their properties before the facilities are developed.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd; Capricorn Village Joint Village; Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Delfin Lend Lease; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

This issue relates to the operation of the Development Contribution Plan (DCP).

None.

2 Due to demographic changes over a 50 year period the need for a particular facility may alter or may diminish. Therefore resulting in problems trying to forecast facility provision that far into the future.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd; Capricorn Village Joint Venture; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & Others

It is acknowledged that the accuracy and relevance of the plan decreases the further it looks ahead, however it is considered appropriate to plan for a 50 year horizon in order to gain an understanding of the likely infrastructure requirements of future communities. This is a review and implementation issue and it is also possible that the need may increase for a certain type of facility. It is evident that there is a need for ongoing review based on the most accurate data available at the time.

None.

3 Considered necessary to identify a flexible process within the DCP for when community need can be met

Stockland This issue relates to the operation of the Development Contribution Plan.

None.



ISSUE SUBMITTER RESPONSE RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION

through ways that differ from that outlined in the community facilities plan.

4 The long timeframe of the CFP is not consistent with the 5-10 year horizon specified in SPP 3.6.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & Others; Urban Development Institute of Australia

SPP3.6 recommends a 5-10 year timeframe for the operation of Development Contribution Plans, however there is no restriction on the timeframes of Community Facility Plans. This issue will therefore be addressed as part of the Development Contribution Plan, with the CFP acting as a blueprint for the progressive rollout of consecutive contribution plans over the lifetime of urban development in the NCGC.

None.

Impacting on housing affordability

5 Additional infrastructure proposed by the Draft Community Facilities Plan will reduce housing affordability. The provision of regional and district community infrastructure should be in line with the Yanchep Two Rocks DSP in order to reduce uncertainty and risk.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd

The ‘additional infrastructure’ referred to primarily results from the City considering the future growth corridor population as a whole, rather than as two separate DSP areas, with the combined population justifying the inclusion of some additional facilities. Although costs are a key risk, there will be a significant demand for facilities throughout the growth corridor. Grants and other funding sources will be sought to offset costs. Administration has been working closely with landowners on the preparation of the DCP to reduce costs where possible.

None.




6 Uncertainty in infrastructure development will result in reduced housing affordability due to the high level of risk

Urban Development Institute of Australia

It is unsure what is meant by “uncertainty in infrastructure development”. The CFP clearly outlines what infrastructure is required and by when – reflecting the scale of population growth expected in the NCGC. Comments in relation to housing affordability and high risk have been addressed through considerable consultation and discussion with stakeholders in relation to the inclusion (or otherwise) of the proposed facilities in the DCP. Stakeholders will have further opportunities to have input into the DCP process should it be approved for public advertising.

None.

7 In its current format the DCP will impact on housing affordability due to the lack of appropriate mechanisms for collecting subsidies.

Delfin Lend Lease See response to Issue 6. None.

Population Estimates / Demographics

8 Applying an assumed dwelling occupancy rate of 2.6 persons per dwelling (ppd) could result in the City being liable in terms of refunding developers contributions that are not required, due to differences between what infrastructure is projected to be provided and by when and what in reality could occur.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The rationale behind the population projections used in the report are clearly outlined and have been supported by many of the submissions received during advertising. It will still be necessary to monitor and review actual progress against projected growth. As the City is also taking on risk in administering the proposed DCPs, it is in the City’s best interests to ensure that an appropriate review and implementation framework is put in place.

None.




9 A continual review and adjustment of current and forecast figures is required to ensure the CFP is relevant (monitor 2.6 pph)

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

See response to issue 8. None.

10 Clarification between Section 2.3 of CFP and Section 2.5, Point or issue 3. In relation to 2.3 “The population demographics are not considered to have a considerable impact on the provision of community facilities at a district or regional level” and 2.5 issue 3 “The communities being planned for currently don’t exist and there is a need to understand their likely makeup in order to determine their infrastructure requirements”


Noted. The conflict will be removed. In section 2.5, replace the third dot point with the following text: “The communities being planned for do not currently exist and there is a need to understand the impacts of future growth (through population projections) on future infrastructure requirements;”

11 Currently the projections are justified by the high population estimates, however if these estimates don’t eventuate then the rationale behind their inclusion could and should be challenged. This further emphasises the need for a flexible plan.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

See response to Issue 8 None.

12 The population projections differ from what has been produced by Directions 2031 and WA Tomorrow, impacting on proposed facility provision. Flexibility needs to be built into the CFP to respond to what is ultimately delivered.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited

Based on information available to the City, the projections in Directions 2031 and WA tomorrow are considered to be fairly conservative. The City has used the population projections from the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plans which are considered to be more closely linked to the intentions of the developers and goals of development in the NCGC. Further, the District Structure Plans have been endorsed by both the City of Wanneroo and the Western Australian Planning

None.




Commission.

13 No evidence of consultation with stakeholders or community for Yanchep - Two Rocks region. Consultation should occur to direct the next 10 years of planning for Yanchep – Two Rocks.


The City is aware of the facility requirements of the existing communities in the growth corridor and these have been incorporated into the CFP and are already being addressed in the City’s financial planning. Existing communities are unable to provide detailed comment on the requirements of future communities and therefore direct consultation has not been undertaken with these groups. However, the CFP was publicly advertised and available for anyone to provide comment on.

None.

Validity of Provision standards

14 Standards used are generally comparable to those used in the industry, but some are too high, reflecting a trend by local governments to provide less community infrastructure in recent years.


The standards used as a basis for determining preliminary facility requirements are considered to be appropriate for the NCGC. A review of the standards comparison provided by the submitter revealed them to be relatively consistent with the other examples provided.

None.

15 To make standards more robust the CFP should provide generic concept designs for the proposed facilities that include: - A comprehensive definition of the facility; - Key design components; - Floor space areas; - Finish and build quality; - Relevant examples; and - Cost estimates.


See response to Issue 19. None.

16 Question the use of a 10km + radius Delfin Lend Lease The 10km+ radius used for regional None.




to determine the demand catchment.

facilities reflects the larger scale nature of these types of facilities and the fact that they will generally be accessed by car or public transport from a greater distance than facilities provided at a local level. In reality, it is likely that these facilities will be accessed from distances greater than 10km, however as a means of determining primary catchment it is considered appropriate.

17 It is argued that within the NCGC there is insufficient net developable area to achieve the population thresholds of a number of proposed regional facilities. It is considered more effective and beneficial to develop a greater number of district level facilities that can be expanded to a regional standard as need requires.

Delfin Lend Lease The proposed provision of regional facilities is primarily based on provision thresholds that were reviewed and tested against existing provision. It is acknowledged that in some cases there were insufficient examples against which to test provision and therefore a threshold that was considered to represent the ideal catchment for that facility was used. Regardless, it will be critical that a robust review and implementation framework be built into the final DCP that addresses the issue of data variance from that used as a basis for facility proposals.

None.

18 Should utilise more information from other growth councils and use established councils as a reality check to ensure provision is adequately met.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

Noted. Provision standards were obtained from other growth councils and comparisons made when selecting the preferred standard for use in the report. A comparison of facility provision was made against the Cities of Joondalup and Stirling to determine suitability of the standards, with the CFP adjusted accordingly where considered necessary.

None.




Specification and Costing of facilities

19 Further information on the type, design and finish of facilities is required. It is recommended that ‘case study’ examples are given to provide guidance to developers and inform cost assumptions. (Landcorp request facility specifications)

Stockland; Landcorp; Woodsome Management

Since the time of public advertising, a comprehensive facility modelling and costing exercise has been completed as part of the preparation of the DCP. This clearly outlines the scope of each facility proposed and provides a basis for determining costs. This facility modelling should be included (as a new Appendix 17) in the CFP.

Add “Appendix 17 – Community Facility Models” to the Community Facilities Plan.

20 No definition is provided on ‘Beach Activity Nodes’ or ‘coastal node facilities’. Specifications are required so developers have a clear understanding of what is proposed to be contributed towards.

Stockland; Capricorn Village Joint Village; Woodsome Management


21 Land, operational and maintenance requirement costs have not been included. Seek clarification as to whether these items will be factored into the normal budgeting process of council once the facilities have been provided.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

SPP 3.6 does not enable ongoing facility costs to be paid for via a DCP. As such, local governments will be responsible for budgeting for the annual operation of such facilities, as is already the case. See response to Issue 19.

None.




22 Provide costing with estimated inflation applied and other factors. Landcorp would like a detailed costing estimate

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Landcorp; Woodsome Management; Delfin Lend Lease; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others


Future development and process of CFP

23 Believe that the CFP is a good starting point however the next phase of the document needs to be complete in order to properly inform the DCP, this includes; - A review of relevant research and studies - An analysis of population growth and a demographic profile - An audit on existing community facilities - A review of facility provision standards - Comparative analysis, a review of community infrastructure in similar communities - Consultation with stakeholders and community organisations to determine existing and future facility requirements - Consider community sporting and recreation funding and other state government funding into any forecast cost estimate.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited

It is uncertain what is intended by this comment. The stages listed by the respondent have all been completed as part of the CFP process and the consideration of funding sources, which will be incorporated into work on the final DCP.

None.




24 Believe that due to the constant changing environment and its impact on the CFP that the plan should predict infrastructure no further than 20 years to ensure accuracy. The plan would then be reviewed prior to the 20 years expiring

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others,

This is more a DCP issue than a CFP issue. See response to Issue 4

None.

25 Will the CFP be reviewed on a constant basis (likely every 5 years with capital expenditure budget) and annual monitoring of funds

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Delfin Lend Lease; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

A review and implementation framework will be incorporated into the final DCP.

None.

26 The provision of facilities and their associated costs need to be continually reviewed. This evaluation process needs to be included in report.

Woodsome Management See response to Issue 25. None.

27 Methodology used to determine community facility requirements considered to need a lot of work. It is unclear how some previously uncontemplated facilities are now considered necessary.

Stockland Methodology utilised in the CFP is consistent with that utilised by other local governments and industry consultants. As mentioned in the CFP, it is not considered appropriate or feasible to undertake a full and comprehensive needs analysis involving review and assessment of existing facility capacity; survey and consultation with

None.




community groups and households; and subsequent determination of provision gaps and implications, when the vast majority of the subject area is presently undeveloped.

Specific Staging, Location or Provision differentiation

28 The District Public Open Space proposed for the Yanchep Strategic Centre should be renamed as “Local Active Open Space Area 8ha” within the CFP in recognition of it forming part of the 10% POS provision in the Yanchep City Structure Plan.


It is now proposed that the land for the Yanchep District Open Space be acquired by the City of Wanneroo, with the associated costs reimbursed by funds collected through the proposed Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan. Regardless, the Public Open Space proposed in the CFP at this location is considered to play a district function in terms of its scale, location relative to the city centre and future relationship to the university, regardless of whether the land component is provided as part of 10% POS allocation or acquired separately by the City. It is therefore not proposed to be renamed.

None.

29 Seek clarification as to why a district aquatic centre co-located with the university and recreation centre within the Yanchep Strategic Centre, has not been included even though it was identified in the YBJV Community Facilities Needs Assessment. They will explore the location of the centre in further detail during the LSP phase.


The City’s original preference for aquatic facilities in terms of maximising physical catchment was to locate the aquatic centre further north, more central to the Yanchep Two Rocks catchment, with an additional aquatic centre in Alkimos addressing the southern catchment. However it is acknowledged that this approach is fundamentally different to that originally planned in the DSPs and will result in additional cost. Further it

Delete the Regional Indoor Recreation Centre from the Yanchep City Centre and replace it with a Regional Indoor Recreation / Aquatic Centre. Delete the Regional Indoor Recreation / Aquatic Centre from the Alkimos Regional Centre and the Two Rocks Regional Centre and replace them with a Regional Indoor Recreation Centre in the same location. Delete the District Indoor Recreation




is acknowledged that a single aquatic centre for the NCGC may better match the preferred catchment for such a facility. It is therefore proposed to consolidate the provision of indoor aquatic centres through a single regional facility in the Yanchep City Centre, and reassess the provision of district level indoor recreation centres as a result of the proposed removal of the aquatic component from the regional recreation centres proposed in Alkimos and Two Rocks.

Centre proposed for the Two Rocks Regional Centre. Delete the District Indoor Recreation Centre proposed at East Alkimos. Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

30 Seek further clarification as to why a District Indoor Recreation Centre is located at South Yanchep, since it was not originally thought to be necessary, especially with the overlapping catchment of the Regional Indoor recreation centre at the Strategic centre.


The district indoor recreation centre was included as a result of existing development at South Yanchep and proposed development in the Yanchep district centre and further east along the southern side of Yanchep Beach Road requiring access to a district facility that can service their needs outside of a large scale regional facility within the regional centre. Yanchep Beach Road was considered to be a major physical barrier to delineate catchments and studies completed as part of LSPs for these areas are clear that whilst individual developments are not large enough to justify a community facility on their own, when combined with neighbouring communities, there may be sufficient justification for such a facility. This would therefore be best located within the centre to maximise accessibility.

Delete the District Indoor Recreation Centre originally proposed for the South Yanchep District Centre. Amend all maps and tables accordingly.




It is acknowledged however that this does fall within the catchment of the regional facility and that in the interest of minimising costs it is appropriate to remove the district facility proposed at South Yanchep.

31 Provision of shared use facilities within YBJV land holdings will need to be closely linked with any future “heads of agreement” between the City, university, providers and state government.


Noted None.

32 Seeking a statement that co-located facilities will to be based on the development of other infrastructure eg. Rail, university and their implementation may affect the staging of some co located facilities


Noted, acknowledging that this is a more detailed planning issue.

After the fourth paragraph of section 5.1 on page 23 of the CFP, add the following text: “Due to the nature of co-located facilities, their ultimate staging will be dependent on the development of other infrastructure such as schools, universities and rail.”

33 Exact locations of facilities should be determined by the LSP / consultation with landholders and not be fixed by the staged planning of the CFP.


Agreed. The CFP shows only indicative locations that are to be refined at a more detailed level of planning.

None.

34 Regional Library in Stage 4 is supported, with the preferred outcome being shared-use with the university


Noted None.

35 Regional Performing Arts Centre in Stage 5 is supported, co-located with the university


Noted None.

36 Regional Art Gallery proposed in Stage 8 was not included in the YBJV

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint

Noted None.




Community Needs Analysis, but is supported.

Venture

37 Support the extension of the rail to Yanchep City by 2011-2016 and the accepted alignment north of the Yanchep City Centre.


Noted, however the inclusion of major rail and road infrastructure (as originally shown in the City’s NCGC Infrastructure Staging Strategy) was for the purposes of context only and is not proposed to form part of the DCP.

None.

38 Support the double rail extension in Stage 10


Noted. See response to Issue 37. None.

39 Lots 201 and 202 Breakwater Drive are shown as urban however they are rural-residential development and will be developed by 2016-2021.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

Noted. No zone classifications were intended to be shown in the CFP maps, only progressive urban development.

None.

40 The location of the SLSC at Yanchep needs to be updated to reflect current thinking that it will remain at the Yanchep lagoon.

Capricorn Village Joint Village

Agreed. Delete the Regional Beach Coastal Node Facilities and Surf Life Saving Australia Club from the Capricorn Coastal Node and replace with District Beach Coastal Node Facilities Delete the District Beach Coastal Node Facilities from the Yanchep Lagoon and replace with Regional Beach Coastal Node Facilities and Surf Life Saving Australia Club. Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

41 Suggest that the Capricorn Coastal Node be reclassified as a district beach, with the future location of the marina further north to become a regional beach.


Agreed in principle. The future classification of the Marina will be clarified through the City’s Draft Coastal Management Plan.

None.




42 Oversupply of District Indoor Recreation Centre’s in Alkimos – Eglinton or a mistake on Figure 7, 8 or 9 of the document. The Alkimos – Eglinton Draft DCP only accounts for 1, while the CFP has 2.

Woodsome Management The additional District Indoor Recreation Centre was proposed as a result of the NCGC population being considered as a whole rather than as separate DSP areas. It is acknowledged that this is a duplication of the Regional Indoor Recreation Centre proposed in the adjacent regional centre.

See proposed change in response to Issue 29. Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

43 An additional regional indoor recreation facility is proposed (in conjunction with an aquatic facility) that has never before been required or discussed. It is not equitable that district landowners should be the only financial contributors to such facilities just because of location. Regional facilities should be excluded unless a mechanism is included that facilitates funding from the wider catchment.

Woodsome Management The additional regional indoor recreation & aquatic centre is proposed as a result of the NCGC population being considered as a whole rather than as separate DSP areas.

See proposed change as a result of Issue 29

44 The ‘Mary Lindsay Homestead’ should be classified as an existing facility and further utilised as a district level art gallery


The Mary Lindsay Homestead was left out of the CFP as its future use is still being investigated by the City. Its nature as a heritage facility is not considered consistent with the community facilities listed in the plan.

None.

45 The provision of Performing Arts Centres seems to be relatively high particularly in Yanchep – Two Rocks. Needs further justification with relevant evidence of similar levels of provision elsewhere in the City.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd and others, Capricorn village Joint Venture.

The proposed provision of performing arts centres is based primarily on the standards of provision as outlined in the report. However during subsequent investigation into appropriate facility models and management responsibilities for performing arts centres it was determined that it may be more appropriate to remove them from the

With the exception of “Section 3 - Facility Provision Principles & Considerations”, remove all mention of Performing Arts Centres from the Community Facilities Plan.




CFP for the following reasons:

There are no consistent models on which their provision may be based.

Both regional and district level facilities are not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government

District level facilities are provided already by the department of education and community access could be negotiated outside of the CFP/DCP arrangement.

46 Potential under-provision of facilities in the Alkimos – Eglinton area due to the combination of the majority of regional facilities being located in Yanchep – Two Rocks and the Alkimos – Eglinton area being completed well before the Yanchep – Two Rocks region


A lack of facilities as an area develops is to be expected in a growing community, however there will also be local facilities available until higher order facilities come on line. The NCGC has been considered as a whole and facilities have been proposed accordingly, where they can best meet the needs of the community.

None.

47 On map 2011 – 2016 the map should indicate two shopping centres on Lots 204 and 102 where district facilities are planned


It is outside the scope of this plan to indicate actual development of shopping centres. Growth and development is shown indicatively through red shading on the plan and on the stage 1 map (2011-2016) is consistent with the intended development timeframe outlined in the comment.

None.

48 Map 2011 – 2016, District POS needs to be moved slightly South to be at the junction of the two “Other regional roads”


Agreed. On all “Facility Staging and Location Maps” included at Appendix 10 except Stage 0, relocate the District POS proposed for the Yanchep City Centre




further south closer to the junction of the two ‘other regional roads’.

49 Map 2012 – 2026, should display the “Stadium” within the Yanchep City Centre, even though the playing surface won’t be for community use the associated facilities will be.


As a private facility, the proposed Arena is not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the community facility plan.

None.

50 The maps should show the location of High Schools and their likely development timeline, even though it will only be accurate for the next 10 – 20 years.


The final map shows the DSP frameworks relative to the community facility proposals. This layer already shows the indicative location of high schools and their basis for determining facility locations and co-location opportunities. To introduce the timing of the high schools would add another layer of uncertainty and complexity to the plan. The delivery of those facilities that are proposed to be co-located with high schools will naturally be linked to the high school construction timeframe and as a result, subject to ongoing review.

None.

51 Map 2026 – 2031 displays the regional library in Yanchep City Centre, it is planned that this facility will be operational by 2016 – 2021 in its initial capacity


Noted. It is proposed to retain the regional library within Stage 4 (2027-2031) as this is when it is considered necessary as a result of population growth. Should it be delivered early, there is provision within development contribution plans for this to occur.

None.




52 Final map needs to be modified as follows: - Relocate the District Indoor Recreation Centre North from the Northern Town Centre to the secondary centre - Relocate the District Community Centre and Art Gallery from its identified location to the secondary centre - Within the Yanchep Strategic Metropolitan Centre, the regional indoor recreation centre should be co located with the proposed stadium. - An aquatic centre needs to be located with the Strategic metropolitan centre


The District Indoor Recreation Centre to which this comment refers is proposed to be deleted given its proximity to the proposed Regional Indoor Recreation Centre at the Two Rocks Regional Town Centre which, as a result of the change in approach to the provision of Aquatic Centres (see response to Issue 29) is no longer proposed to accommodate an aquatic centre. The relocation of the District Community Centre to the Two Rocks District Centre is supported. The co-location of the Regional Indoor Recreation & Aquatic Centre with the proposed stadium in the Yanchep City Centre is supported, but no change is considered necessary to the CFP. This detail can be addressed as part of detailed planning for the City centre.

Relocate the District Community Centre from North Two Rocks District Centre to the Two Rocks Regional Town Centre.

53 Question why District level Art Galleries have been included in the CFP, previously they have been excluded from the provision

Woodsome Management They were not intended to be stand alone facilities; rather just spaces within district community centres. To avoid confusion it is agreed that district art galleries be deleted from the CFP.

Delete all mention of District Art Gallery and Exhibition Centre from the Community Facilities Plan. Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

Continual review of CFP

54 Will the CFP be reviewed on a constant basis (likely every 5 years with capital expenditure budget) and annual monitoring of funds?

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Delfin Lend Lease; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

Yes, the facilities plan will be subject to regular review as part of the final DCP.

None.




55 The provision of facilities and their associated costs need to be continually reviewed. This evaluation process needs to be included in report

Woodsome Management Agreed. Detailed costing of the facilities plan has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the DCP. A framework for review will also be included as part of the DCP.

None.

Seek further clarity in relation to the distinction between ‘Local’ and ‘District’ facilities.

56 Page 10 in the CFP states that both local and district facilities can be ‘medium in scale’ and that ‘district facilities often resource local facilities. Request greater clarity between the two.


The report states that district level facilities are ‘medium scale facilities’ and that local facilities are ‘small to medium scale’. No further clarity is considered necessary.

None

57 Definitions and hierarchy are different to what has previously been discussed with Alkimos Eglinton and there are discrepancies between the City’s CFP and the AE DCP

Woodsome Management, Landcorp.

The CFP has been developed as an individual body of work, and while it has due regard to other relevant documents, it has considered facility requirements for the NCGC as a whole, which has not previously occurred. In doing so, the approach has been targeted specifically for a ‘whole of corridor’ approach and consequently there may be some differences to other documents prepared by individual developers, or groups of developers. These differences have been discussed with the Alkimos Eglinton Landowner group as part of the preparation of the DCP and no change is considered necessary to the CFP.

This will be addressed as part of a future review of the CFP as part of the finalisation of the DCP.

Need to enhance the link and clarity between the CFP and DCP

58 Seek clarification if the CFP is intended to be integrated into the

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint

The draft CFP was being advertised for the purpose of being finalised and

None.




DCP upon its release for community consultation, or whether the release of the CFP as Policy is an attempt by the City to commence advertising for the future DCP.

Venture endorsed by Council as a Community Facilities Plan for the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor. The review of the CFP following advertising has occurred concurrently with and has directly informed the preparation of a DCP for the NCGC as per the requirements of SPP 3.6.

59 CFP should form a component of the overall agreed DCP and should not be considered in isolation

Masterplan consultants – P & N Landreach Pty Ltd


60 A lack of clear and logical sequencing or hierarchy of documents associated with the draft CFP and DCP which links all of the various parts of the strategic planning and implementation for the corridor in a manner that allows a thorough understanding of the costs and implications of the plan. A single document is preferred.

Delfin Lend Lease The relationship between all the documents is clearly set out in SPP3.6.

None.

Timeline of delivering facilities

61 Developers need to know projected infrastructure timeline in order to commence promoting a facility within a specific timeframe. The City should commit to a specific timeframe, if the City doesn’t comply to the timeframe then the City would be required to debt fund any shortfall of funding against future development contribution commitments.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Delfin Lend Lease

This is an issue to be addressed in the final DCP.

None.

62 Staging strategy needs to be highly flexible while still achieving its goals.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others.

Agreed. The CFP is proposed to act as a blueprint for the future rollout of Development Contribution Plans. The CFP maps are staged in 5 year time periods, leaving significant flexibility for

None.




DCPs to bring forward or delay the delivery of facilities as considered appropriate. Future reviews of the CFP will provide additional flexibility to address changing priorities or development assumptions.

General Comments

63 It is recommended that the CFP be reviewed to determine which facilities need to be provided in advance of demonstrated need to assist with job creation to reach ESS targets.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others,

Any need to deliver facilities earlier than proposed in the CFP will be picked up through regular review of the CFP. Further, there will be flexibility in the DCP to provide facilities earlier than specified where supported by Council.

None.

64 Update nodal arrangements (name and ensure number is correct) of corridor to be in line with Yanchep / Two Rocks DSP and or SPP 4.2. Need for consistency

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

Noted. The report will be amended to ensure consistency.

In the table on page 21, the “Draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Centre Names” map in Appendix 4, the “Deleted Facilities” table in Appendix 9 and the “Facility Justification” table in Appendix 11, replace:

“Alkimos Regional Centre” with “Alkimos Secondary Centre”;

“South Yanchep District Centre” with “South Yanchep DSP Centre ‘C’”

“Yanchep Regional City Centre” with “Yanchep Strategic Metropolitan Centre”;

“Two Rocks District Centre” with “Yanchep DSP Centre ‘K’”;

“Two Rocks Regional Town Centre” with “Two Rocks North Secondary Centre”; and

“North Two Rocks District Centre” with “Yanchep DSP Centre ‘F’”.




65 CFP contains no section on implementation, governance or accountability

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited; Delfin Lend Lease

This detail will be included as part of the final DCP.

None.

66 Appendix 3 doesn’t include a column for the hierarchy (Regional, District and Local) and current age / condition of the included facilities.


Noted. A column will be added to Appendix 3 to clarify the catchment of existing facilities.

Add a new right hand column to the table in “Appendix 3: Existing Infrastructure in Northern Coastal Growth Corridor” entitled “Catchment”. Populate the new column, classifying each facility as either ‘Local’, ‘District’ or ‘Regional’ as relevant, depending on its catchment.

67 Additional research currently being undertaken by developers in terms of community development and infrastructure. The City needs to incorporate this research into its planning

Stockland; Urban Development Institute of Australia; Masterplan consultants – P & N Landreach Pty Ltd

Noted. This has since occurred through the detailed consultation and collaboration with developers, which has led to the finalisation of the CFP and draft DCPs.

None.





































































































































































































































































































































Documents

3.2 Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor ... · the CFP and LPP 3.3 and an opportunity for stakeholders to ask any questions regarding the proposals. A number of questions