AGENDA meetings... · 10.2/IA3 NEW LICENCE TO THE ROTARY CLUB OF KARRINYUP INC OVER PORTION OF LOT ... AGENDA OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF ... Stuart Jardine PSM Chief Executive Officer

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

5 DECEMBER 2017 - 4.00PM

AGENDA VOLUME 1 OF 2

Disclaimer

Members of the public should note that in any discussion regarding any planning or other application that any statement or intimation of approval made by any member or officer of the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the City. No action should be taken on any item discussed at a Council meeting prior to written advice on the resolution of the Council being received. Any plans or documents contained in this document may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to the reproduction.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

PRELIMINARIES 6

1. OFFICIAL OPENING 7

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 7

APOLOGIES 7

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE 7

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS 7

4. PETITIONS 8

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 8

5.1 RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE

PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE

8

5.1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BIRMINGHAM 8

5.1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - B JOHNSTON 9

5.1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S WHEELER 10

5.1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P ELLIS 12

5.1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - A HARDWICK 13

5.1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S MCDONALD 14

5.1.7 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P COLLINS 15

5.1.8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - B DAVIES 17

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 18

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 18

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 18

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER 18

9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 18

10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 19

AUDIT COMMITTEE - 13 NOVEMBER 2017 19

10.1/A1 TERMS OF REFERENCE - AUDIT COMMITTEE 19

10.1/A2 INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEW 24

10.1/A3 STEP (STIRLING TRANSFORMATIONAL ENTERPRISE

PROCUREMENT) PROGRAMME STATUS UPDATE

30

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

10.1/IA1 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 35

10.1/IA2 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - FLEET SERVICES 40

10.1/IA3 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT

MANAGEMENT

43

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 21 NOVEMBER 2017 46

10.2/A1 TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES

COMMITTEE

46

10.2/ED1 STEPHENSON AVENUE PROJECT - FUNDING FOR PLANNING AND

DESIGN WORK

51

10.2/ED2 OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON ADAIR

PARADE COOLBINIA

56

10.2/ED3 OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON

BRADFORD STREET COOLBINIA

65

10.2/PS1 PLASTIC BAG BAN LOCAL LAW 74

10.2/PS2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR KAREN CADDY - PROTECT

THE THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OF ROTTNEST

ISLAND CYPRESS PINE IN THE SOUTH TRIGG AREA

78

10.2/CC1 CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND FLAGSHIP APPLICATIONS

ROUND TWO 2017-2018

88

10.2/CS1 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION FUNCTION 2018 97

10.2/IA1 CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR INCORPORATION WITH

CROWN RESERVE 24736

101

10.2/IA2 CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR INCORPORATION WITH

CROWN RESERVE 39015

107

10.2/IA3 NEW LICENCE TO THE ROTARY CLUB OF KARRINYUP INC OVER

PORTION OF LOT 799, HOUSE NUMBER 25, CEDRIC STREET,

STIRLING

115

10.2/F1 SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS PAID FOR PERIOD 3 ENDING 30

SEPTEMBER 2017 AND PERIOD 4 ENDING 31 OCTOBER 2017

121

10.2/F2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH

ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2017 AND 31 OCTOBER 2017

138

10.2/GS1 USE OF THE RECEPTION HALL FOR 2018 CIVIC EVENTS 193

10.2/10.1 CLOSURE OF OUT OF SCHOOL CARE AND VACATION CARE

SERVICES

213

10.2/10.2 STRATEGIC DIRECTION - SCARBOROUGH (PSPI: 2016/02) 213

10.2/10.3 STRATEGIC DIRECTION - WESTMINSTER (PSPI: 2016/04) 214

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

10.2/10.4 PROPERTY STRATEGY PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

PROGRESS REPORT NOVEMBER 2017

214

10.2/10.5 QUARTERLY STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY'S PROPERTY

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30

SEPTEMBER 2017

214

AGENDA OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL - VOLUME 1 OF 2 5 DECEMBER 2017

6

NOTICE OF MEETING Dear Mayor and Councillors, I advise that an Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held in the City of Stirling Council Chamber, 25 Cedric Street, Stirling on Tuesday 5 December 2017 commencing at 4.00pm.

Stuart Jardine PSM Chief Executive Officer

VISION

Stirling: The City of Choice

MISSION

To serve the City’s diverse community through delivering efficient, responsive and sustainable services.

VALUES

The City of Stirling's core values are:

Integrity

Community Participation

Accountability

Respect

Environment

Diversity

PRELIMINARIES

1. Opening prayer:

"Almighty God we ask you to guide us in all our discussions to show goodness, honesty, understanding and wisdom in all that we undertake to do. May we respect each other's views at all times and we ask all of this in your name."

2. Councillors and visitors are requested to turn off mobile phones.

3. Councillors and staff are reminded to disclose any declarations of financial interests and interests affecting impartiality.

4. All Councillors are requested to activate their microphones when addressing the meeting.

5. Councillors and visitors are reminded that audio recording of the Council meeting proceedings is prohibited unless prior approval has been granted.


7

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Presiding Member to declare the Ordinary meeting of Council open.

2. ATTENDANCE, APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

APOLOGIES

Nil.

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTERESTS

Councillor David Boothman disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as he represents the City on the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel.

Councillor Giovanni Italiano disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as he represents the City on the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel.

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as one of the Civic Legal consultants was the Chief Executive Officer of a previous employer.

Councillor Adam Spagnolo disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.2/10.3 as he is the beneficiary of a trust that owns a nearby property.

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.3/DS1 as the company which is dealing with the item is known to her.

Councillor Giovanni Italiano disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.3/DS2 as a family member of the applicant is known to him.

Councillor Adam Spagnolo disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.3/DS2 as a family member of the applicant is known to him.

Councillor Giovanni Italiano disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.3/DS3 as the father in law of the applicant is known to him.

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.3/DS4 as her company provided a justification for the item on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.3/DS5 as her business partners have had dealings with the applicant of this development application.

Councillor David Lagan disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.3/DS6 as the business is leased to the operator by a close personal friend of his.

Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed a Financial Interest in Item 10.3/DS6 as her company is the applicant for the item.

Councillor Giovanni Italiano disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.3/CP1 as one of the owners is known to him.


8

4. PETITIONS

Nil.

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5.1 RESPONSES TO PREVIOUS QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TAKEN ON NOTICE

The responses to questions that were answered during Public Question Time at the previous Council meeting were published in the minutes of that meeting.

Only the responses to questions that were taken on notice at the previous Council meeting appear in the agenda below.

5.1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BIRMINGHAM

The following question submitted by Mr S Birmingham, 198A St Brigids Terrace, Doubleview, WA 6018 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017.

The following question relates to Item 11.1 on the agenda:-

Q1. “In relation to page 337 of the agenda, the officers’ report states that zero submissions in support of the proposal were received from owners within 100m of the site. Of the 33 submissions in support, please advise how many came from Doubleview; how many from elsewhere within the City of Stirling; and how many from outside of the City of Stirling?”

A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that while specific numbers would need to be provided in writing, the percentages of the support submissions are as follows - within the suburb of Doubleview it was 1.19%; outside Doubleview but within the City of Stirling it was 23.81%; and outside the City of Stirling it was 14.29%. The Mayor confirmed that the Director Planning and Development will provide a more detailed response in writing.

Additional Information

A1. Submissions

Received Within the suburb of

Doubleview

Outside of Doubleview but within the City

of Stirling

Outside of the City of

Stirling

SUPPORT 1 20 12

OBJECT 32 10 7

Other (Not stated / no

opinion / ‘conditional’)

2 0 0


9

5.1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - B JOHNSTON

The following questions submitted by Mr B Johnston, 216A Gildercliffe Street, Scarborough, WA 6019 were taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017.

The following questions relate to Item 11.1 on the agenda:-

Q2. “If the City has not reviewed them [public comments / submissions], why not? And can the City advise if any of the 33 public submissions that formed part of Agenda 179 in July stated that they were in favour of the development? How many were in favour of the development?”

A2. The Director Planning and Development advised that the question would be taken on

notice and a written response provided. He further advised that it was the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage that prepared the Responsible Authority Report, and the Director is aware that they did not specifically analyse the percentage of support and objection in relation to those submissions received.

Q3. “Can the City advise if any of the 63 public submissions that formed part of Agenda

163 in January were in favour of the development?” A3. The Director Planning and Development advised that the question would be taken on

notice and a written response provided.

Additional Information A2. The City’s role in the consultation process for the previous DAP applications for this

site was not to review the submissions, but to facilitate the advertising process and provide the submissions to the relevant Responsible Authorities for those applications.

All 33 submissions submitted as part of the consultation process for the DAP application for the Proposed Educational Establishment - International School of Western Australia (DA17/0902) were included as an attachment (Attachment 4) to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR). The RAR and associated attachments is publicly available on the DAPs website:- https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Metro-North-West-JDAP.asp

A3. All 63 submissions submitted as part of the consultation process for the DAP

application for the Replacement Educational Establishment - Doubleview Primary School (DA17/0902) were included as an attachment (Attachment 6) to the Department of Finance - Building Management and Works RAR. The RAR and associated attachments is publicly available on the DAPs website:- https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Metro-North-West-JDAP.asp

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Metro-North-West-JDAP.asp

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/Metro-North-West-JDAP.asp


10

5.1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S WHEELER

The following question submitted by Mr S Wheeler, 7/22 Pearl Parade, Scarborough, WA 6019 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017.

The following question relates to Item 10.1/DS1 on the agenda:-

Q1. “Some of my concerns from the Planning and Development Committee meeting held 7 November 2017 were regarding the officer's report, which I and others felt was missing some rather pertinent information. The removal of landscaping to the eastern boundary was not noted even though the approved landscaping helps somewhat in protecting the amenity of surrounding properties. The replacement of this landscaping with a pathway abutting the habitable outdoor areas of adjacent properties is another amenity concern that was not addressed. The plans submitted for approval were internally inconsistent - for example, a 1.2m high balustrade is depicted on plans, the schedule for which attests to a 1.6m high balustrade for the same item; that wasn’t mentioned in the report either. The justifications regarding Section 6.4.1 of the R-Codes (Visual Privacy) were entirely circular, essentially stating that they are deemed to comply if they meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. Whether the development meets the requirements of Section 6.4.1 with regards to visual privacy is debatable at best; it was not however scheduled for debate. The changing of a glass balustrade for a concrete wall is mentioned in passing with no reference to the completely different outcome with regard to amenity and the R-Codes that this will propose. Will the officer's report be considered for revision prior to the next Planning and Development meeting to reflect the legitimate concerns of those affected and give further and better particulars of the proposed amendments given that the committee will be making a quasi-judicial decision that affects the rights and amenity of others?”



Additional Information A1. The relevant landscaping provisions for this development are contained in Clause

6.3.2 of the R-Codes. In this provision, landscaping only relates to the landscaping of the street setback area and open car parking areas. The revised landscaping plan, particularly along the eastern boundary, is similar to the previously approved landscaping plans for the site. The provision of a walkway along the eastern boundary does not constitute a variation to Clause 6.3.1 – Landscaping of the Residential Design Codes, as the landscaping within the street setback area is considered to meet the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 6.3.1 of the R-Codes. The reduction of balustrade height along 'Level 1' as identified on the elevational drawing was identified by the City during the assessment of the application. To ensure compliance is achieved with the Deemed-to-Comply requirements of Clause 6.4.1 - Visual Privacy of the R-Codes, the City has recommended a condition of development approval to ensure permanent obscure screening is provided to 1.6m in height.


11

The screen wall is a concrete balustrade and wall to a height of 1m and 1.75m to the northern end of the development adjacent to House Number 172, Elliot Road, Scarborough. This is on the ground floor level along the eastern side of the building. This will not be visible from the adjoining lots as the wall elements are below the height of the dividing boundary fence, which is 1.8m high along the eastern side boundary and will not impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours. These walls will become a feature to the development as a backdrop to the ground floor path/walkway accessing the ground floor units 4 to 7. There is no requirement for an amendment to the officer’s report as a result of this question. Council has referred this application for consideration at the Council meeting to be held 5 December 2017.


12

5.1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P ELLIS

The following question submitted by Mr P Ellis, 7 Taxal Close, Carine WA 6020 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017. Q1. “How many City of Stirling employees receive the superannuation payments in excess

of 9.5% per annum?” A1. The Acting Director Corporate Services advised that the question would be taken on


Additional Information A1. The City currently has 427 employees who, through the “Voluntary Contributions

Superannuation Scheme”, receive additional superannuation - this is only where the employee has made additional contributions to superannuation from their fortnightly pay.


13

5.1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - A HARDWICK

The following question submitted by Mr A Hardwick, 104 Sydenham Road, Doubleview WA 6018 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017. Q1. “I represent Living Faith Community Church. We bought a block of land a year ago in

Balcatta and we are seeking to develop it. A resubmission of plans for an existing development application will miss the deadline for the December Council meeting. Is Council aware that we were not given the necessary procedures to meet the deadline?”



Additional Information A1. The development application was originally refused under delegation by the City’s

officers. The applicant has now chosen to apply for a review of the City’s decision with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The matter is currently a subject of a SAT hearing and the mediation process and orders have been issued. As such, certain elements of the matter remain confidential under the State Administrative Tribunal Act. It is therefore currently not possible to refer the matter to Council for consideration. If however, the SAT invites the City to reconsider an amended proposal, the matter could be brought to Council for a decision at that time.


14

5.1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S MCDONALD

The following question submitted by Mr S McDonald, 187 St Brigids Terrace, Scarborough WA 6019 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017. The following question relates to Item 11.1 on the agenda:- Q1. “Excluding the shared oval and courts, has the Education Department advised the City

why the area allocated on the site per student needs to be twice as big for the private students over the public students?”

A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that he is not aware of any advice in

relation to the area per student required. He further advised that the question would be taken on notice and a written response provided.

Additional Information A1. As per page 11 of the City’s Responsible Authority Report (RAR), there are no

planning provisions that prescribe a minimum recreational area per student, which means that this is not information that the City is required to request from the Applicant as part of the assessment process of this application.

The Applicant’s submission is contained within Attachment 5a of the City’s RAR and was provided on the City’s website as part of the public consultation process. Questions relating to the Department of Education should be directed to that Department (www.education.wa.edu.au or 92644111).

http://www.education.wa.edu.au/


15

5.1.7 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P COLLINS

The following question submitted by Mr P Collins, 15 Malba Crescent, Dianella WA 6059 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017. Q2. “As Inglewood, Menora and Mount Lawley are a Heritage Protection Area under our

scheme and also under the relevant state planning policy, we know that low impact telecommunications installations that are normally allowed as of right under federal legislation, such as small mobile phone towers, in fact in a Heritage Protection Area require consultation and approval. Could the City advise if the NBN Co. Ltd. is required to follow such procedure with NBN towers in the City's Heritage Protection Areas?”



Additional Information A2. The Mount Lawley Society has raised the Heritage Protection Area status of the

location and enquired about the need to treat this differently from other suburbs under the legislation. This has been raised with NBN Co and the potential need for approval(s) / consent from the City. NBN Co advised that:-

“nbn, as part of its fixed line rollout in Menora, will not be installing any form of ‘tower’ or ‘mobile phone’ infrastructure. The infrastructure that will be installed includes above ground housing (e.g. Node Cabinets / Pillars), underground housing (e.g. telecommunication pits) and underground facilities (e.g. telecommunications conduit and cabling).

A Heritage Protection Area, does not constitute an area of environmental significance under the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997. Therefore, nbn, as a carrier can undertake the installation of low-impact facilities (e.g. Node cabinet) using the powers (and exemptions) available under Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. If, for example, the Heritage Protection Area was listed in the State Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (examples include: West End, Fremantle or the Chinatown Conservation Area, Broome), then such an area would constitute an area of environmental significance under the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997, requiring a carrier to obtain any relevant approval(s) / consent prior to undertaking the installation activities.”

Whilst there are some places listed on the State Register of Heritage Places within the Heritage Protection Area, the Heritage Protection Area in its entirety is not covered. The places that would be covered are:-

Inglewood Police Quarters, 867 Beaufort Street, Inglewood;

Inglewood Police Station, 867 Beaufort Street, Inglewood;

Inglewood Police Station and Police Quarters (former), 867 Beaufort Street, Inglewood;


16

Beaucott Building, 654 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley;

Astor Theatre (Lyceum Theatre, State Theatre, Astor Cinema), 659 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley;

War Memorial, corner Clifton and Queens Crescent, Mount Lawley;

Chapel of St Michael and All Angels (Perth College), 31 Lawley Crescent, Mount Lawley;

Annesley (Annesley Nursing Home, Annesley Rest Home; Annesley Private Hospital) 49-51 Lawley Crescent, Mount Lawley;

Windsor Hall, 36 Queens Crescent, Mount Lawley;

Mount Lawley Tennis Club, Rookwood Street, Mount Lawley; and

Memorial Gardens and Recreation Reserve, Mount Lawley (Mount Lawley Bowling Club and War Memorial, Mount Lawley Tennis Club, Mount Lawley Croquet Club) Lot 6, Queens Crescent, Mount Lawley.


17

5.1.8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - B DAVIES

The following question submitted by Mr B Davies, 7 Thongsbridge Street, Menora WA 6050 was taken on notice at the Council Meeting held Tuesday 14 November 2017. Q1. “I am currently experiencing the installation of a 400-home NBN substation on the

verge outside my 90 year old property. Will Council please consider writing to residents personally and directly to inform them of the impending NBN substations being placed as soon as the proposed sites are identified by NBN Co and agreed to by the City? This is so that residents’ attention can possibly be objected and considered, around the loss of heritage, safety and unfair reduction of the amenity. Currently this does not happen and there is no advice at all.”



Additional Information A1. The National Broadband Network roll out is a Federal Government programme being

carried out by NBN Co and contractors, and it is their responsibility to inform residents on the impact of their works.

The City is consulted by NBN Co on proposed node locations when the plan is in draft format, to allow the City to provide advice about future works or current developments that will impact upon their roll out programme.

Contractors for NBN Co do write directly to residents who are impacted by the installation of nodes on the verge. The City has been advised by NBN Co that the lead time between the courtesy letter going out and the area being released for construction can vary, but is typically between two to three months. The City is not responsible for this consultation or these works. NBN Co has set design parameters dealing with the location of nodes that include issues such as health, safety, environment, heritage, location of existing infrastructure, and power supply. NBN Co do receive objections to node locations from residents and investigate the issues raised. A process is in place to enable residents to object and to review these complaints. The City has contacted NBN Co about the concerns raised by Mr Davies about the node location on his verge. NBN Co advised that they have been corresponding with Mr Davies on these matters, and have considered the issues raised; they confirmed that they will not change the node location. On the basis that notification is given by NBN Co’s contractor and a mechanism is in place for residents to raise any significant issues with the location of nodes or cabinets, it is not the City’s role to write to residents about the NBN rollout.


18

5.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil.

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 14 November 2017 be confirmed, and signed by the Presiding Member as a true and correct record of proceedings.

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER

Nil.

9. UNRESOLVED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Nil.


19

10. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES

AUDIT COMMITTEE - 13 NOVEMBER 2017

10.1/A1 TERMS OF REFERENCE - AUDIT COMMITTEE

Report Information

Location: Not Applicable

Applicant: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: Manager Governance and Strategy

Business Unit: Governance and Strategy

Ward: Not Applicable

Suburb: Not Applicable

Authority/Discretion

Definition

Advocacy when Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.

Executive the substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies. Review when Council reviews decisions made by Officers.

Quasi-Judicial when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (eg under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information Purposes

includes items provided to Council for information purposes only, that do not require a decision of Council (i.e. - for 'noting').

Moved Councillor Irwin, seconded Councillor Caddy

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL

That Council ADOPTS the Audit Committee Terms of Reference as per Attachment 1. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil.


20

Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the Audit Committee Terms of Reference as per Attachment 1.

Report Purpose

To adopt the Audit Committee Terms of Reference.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Audit Committee Terms of Reference Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

The Terms of Reference are to be reviewed in line with the appointment of Elected Members to the Committee following the Council election.

Comment

The Terms of Reference will provide guidance to officers in terms of what reports are eligible to be submitted to this particular Committee.

Consultation/Communication Implications

Nil.

Policy and Legislative Implications

Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 enables Council to establish a Committee.

Financial Implications

Nil.

Strategic Implications

Nil.


21

Sustainability Implications

The following tables outline the applicable sustainability issues for this proposal:-

ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

In line with the appointment of Councillors following the Council election, it is recommended that Council adopts the Terms of Reference for the Audit Committee.


22

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.1/A1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE - AUDIT COMMITTEE Attachment 1 - Audit Committee Terms of Reference


23


24

Councillor David Boothman disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as he represents the City on the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel. Councillor Giovanni Italiano disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as he represents the City on the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel. Councillor Bianca Sandri disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.1/A2 as one of the Civic Legal consultants was the Chief Executive Officer of a previous employer.

10.1/A2 INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEW

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Internal Auditor

Business Unit: Executive Services

Ward City Wide



Definition








25

Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Irwin 1. That Council RECEIVES the Independent Planning Review Report and the City’s

response. 2. That the following observations, contained within the Independent Planning Review

Report, be REPORTED to the Audit Committee until completed:-

a. Improve the planning consultation processes; b. Develop a policy and procedure for dealing with State Administrative Tribunal

applications; and c. Improve the record keeping procedures.

Moved Councillor Italiano, seconded Councillor Sandri That Clause 4.2(2) of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009 be SUSPENDED to allow Civic Legal to present to the Committee. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil. Discussion ensued. Moved Councillor Sandri, seconded Councillor Italiano That Clause 4.2(2) of the City of Stirling Meeting Procedures Local Law 2009 be REINSTATED. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (8/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Migdale, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil. Further discussion ensued.


26

Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Irwin


1. That Council RECEIVES the Independent Planning Review Report and the City’s response.

2. That the following observations, contained within the Independent Planning Review Report, be REPORTED to the Audit Committee until completed:-

a. Improve the planning consultation processes; b. Develop a policy and procedure for dealing with State Administrative

Tribunal applications; and c. Improve the record keeping procedures.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (8/0).

For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Migdale, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil.

Recommendation

1. That Council RECEIVES the Independent Planning Review Report and the City’s response.

2. That the following observations, contained within the Independent Planning Review Report, be REPORTED to the Audit Committee until completed:-

a. Improve the planning consultation processes; b. Develop a policy and procedure for dealing with State Administrative Tribunal

applications; and c. Improve the record keeping procedures.

Report Purpose

To inform Council on the outcome of the Independent Planning Review performed by Civic Legal and the City’s response.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Civic Legal Pty Ltd - Independent Planning Review Report and Annexures (circulated to Councillors under separate cover). (ECM Doc No: 8865505)*

Attachment 2 - The City’s response to Civic Legal Pty Ltd (circulated to Councillors under separate cover). (ECM Doc No: 8866671)*

Attachment 3 - McLeods Legal Advice (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover). (ECM Doc No: 8861560)

Attachment 4 - Resolve Group Legal Advice (circulated to Councillors under confidential separate cover). (ECM Doc No: 8861561)

(*Please note that Attachments 1 and 2 will be included at the end of the electronic version of the 5 December 2017 Council Agenda - Volume 1 of 2 on the City of Stirling website for members of the public.)

Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.


27

Background

Following the Special Meeting of Electors held 5 December 2016, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0217/005) at its meeting held 7 February 2017 as follows:-

“The Council RESOLVES to engage an independent professional planner to conduct a comprehensive review of a sample of not less than five Responsible Authority Reports including the development at 18 Ozone Parade, Trigg, Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine and 27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup to report back to Council by July 2017.”

At its meeting held 11 April 2017, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0417/005) as follows:-

1. “That the brief, Terms of Reference and process for the conduct of the proposed Independent Planning Review (“Review”) and the recommended reviewer BE SUBJECT to endorsement by Council prior to commencement of the process.

2. That the identity of the selected reviewer BE MADE public on appointment.

3. That Council APPOINT an independent legal firm with planning expertise on staff

or with extensive planning experience to carry out the review.” Subsequently, at its meeting held 9 May 2017, Council endorsed the Request for Quote and the process for the evaluation and selection of the review provider (Council Resolution Number 0517/020). It should be noted that a condition included within the Request for Quote was that the reviewer’s report, including management’s response, should be presented to the Audit Committee and following on from this that it be made public, unless subject to any legal restrictions. Evaluation of submissions was performed by the Executive Officer of the Planning Institute of Australia with the preferred supplier being Civic Legal Pty Ltd (‘Civic’). At its meeting held 4 July 2017 Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0717/027) as follows:-

"That Council ENDORSES the appointment of Civic Legal Pty Ltd as the provider for the Independent Planning Review."

Subsequently the review was performed by Civic during the period July 2017 to October 2017.

Comment

The purpose of the Review was to deliver the scope as per the Request for Quote, as follows:- 1. Entrance meeting with the City’s Planning Officers to discuss timing and the process

for obtaining access to the relevant documentation for review;


28

2. Perform the fieldwork which will include:-

a. Desktop review of a sample of five Responsible Authority Reports (“RAR”) including the development at 18 Ozone Parade, Trigg, Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine and 27 Prisk Street. The other two RAR’s will be randomly selected by the appointed contractor from a list of RAR’s dated since 1 January 2015, prior to commencement of the review.

The scope of the RAR process under review is from the point at which the initial application was received by the City through to submission of the final approved RAR to the Metro North-West JDAP. It should be noted that each of the three applications noted above went through a number of iterations;

b. Assessment of the process for formulating the five RARs against the statutory

planning framework and related requirements and compliance with relevant City policy and process documents. This will require examination of City records in hard format, within ECM the City’s records management system and the database Property CI; and

c. Determine whether the RARs and their recommendations as presented to the

JDAP are supported by the underlying work performed by the City. 3. Review community concerns raised at the Electors Special meeting held 5 December

2016 and subsequent Council meetings. This will be performed in line with the methodology developed. See point 6 below for further details;

4. Provide a written report detailing the scope, work performed, methodology/approach

taken and detailed findings and recommendations to Management. This report should include any identified non-compliance with regulation/legislation/policy and general process or reporting improvements;

5. Attend a meeting of the Audit Committee as required at the conclusion of the review to

factually validate the findings and recommendations of the final report. It should be noted that the report is intended to be made public in full or in part subject to any legal restrictions. Confirmation of assent is to be provided within the written submission; and

6. Seek input from a selection of people who have raised concerns with the City with

regard to the selected RARs. The process for selecting these people and receiving input should be outlined in the methodology developed.


The City received the report from Civic (refer to attachment 1) on 20 October 2017. At its meeting held 9 May 2017, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0517/020) to remove the opportunity for a close out meeting between Civic and the City prior to the Audit Committee. As such there has been no discussion between the City and Civic in relation to the findings within the report. However, there has been liaison with Civic Legal to anonymise the report prior to making the document publically available to protect the identity of members of the public and staff.


29


Nil.


The cost of the review was $145,000 excluding GST.


Nil.



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Independent Planning Review has been completed in line with Council’s resolution and appropriate management response has been provided.


30

10.1/A3 STEP (STIRLING TRANSFORMATIONAL ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT) PROGRAMME STATUS UPDATE

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Acting Director Corporate Services

Business Unit: Finance Services




Definition







Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Irwin


That Council NOTES the status update on the Stirling Transformational Enterprise Procurement (STEP) programme. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (8/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Migdale, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil.


31

Recommendation

That Council NOTES the status update on the Stirling Transformational Enterprise Procurement (STEP) programme.

Report Purpose

To provide Council with a status update on the Stirling Transformational Enterprise Procurement (STEP) programme.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Status update on the STEP Programme (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).

Attachment 2 - Major Benefits of STEP Programme (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).

Attachment 3 - Progress update against Ernst & Young Service and Organisational Review Final Report (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).


Nil.

Background

The Stirling Transformational Enterprise Procurement (STEP) programme has been developed to provide an opportunity for the City to transform its procurement activities into a strategic, value-added, customer focused and well governed function. The programme will deliver on a number of benefits to the City. These include improved efficiency and effectiveness, improved image of the City to the community, reduced costs and reduced risks.

Comment

The STEP programme framework shown at Table One was endorsed by the Executive Team at its meeting held 29 September 2015. The framework provides a high level view of the project areas to be undertaken as part of the programme.


32

Table One - STEP Programme Framework


33

The programme is a significant organisation-wide project which is being undertaken over three years requiring input from a number of stakeholders. Key achievements in the last six months

The main focus of the STEP programme team over the last six months has been on the following projects:- E-tendering

Continuing to train Business Units on the new system and processes; and

Participating in Supplier Development Program events arranged by the City's Economic Development team.

Spend Analysis

The programme team have selected Tableau as the tool to be used to publish spend analytic data across the City. This tool has been deployed to a small number of users, with a managed rollout to other users continuing. The spend data has been used to aggregate City contracts such as plant and equipment hire and landscape services. Account Management

A categorisation model has been implemented within the procurement team, building specialist knowledge within categories of spend. This categorisation determines the Procurement Officers Business Unit portfolio. Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) Process Review and Implementation

With the implementation of E-tendering and subsequent changes to process and documentation, the STEP programme team are undertaking a full review of the process of engaging with WALGA preferred suppliers to ensure consistency as far as practicable.


Key to the success of the STEP programme is regular communication and involvement with all stakeholders, both internal and external. With regards to internal stakeholders, the STEP programme team continue to engage with Councillors, the Executive Team and Business Unit Managers along with key employees in Business Units. With regards to external stakeholders, the team is engaged with other Local Governments both in Western Australia and interstate, WALGA, the Department of Local Government and Communities, WADE and LGIS.


Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995, and Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 are relevant.


34


Council adopted a budget of $368,900 in the 2017/2018 financial year to undertake the STEP programme. The current budget position is as follows:-

Item Annual Budget

Budget YTD

Spend YTD

Remaining Budget

Project and change management $259,900 $64,975 $69,300 $190,600

E-tendering system $9,000 $9,000 $5,000 $4,000

Contract Management $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000

eLearning module revision $15,000 $0 $0 $15,000

Legal fees $50,000 $3,000 $2,787 $47,213

Publishing tool for spent analytics $15,000 $3,750 $2,580 $12,420

$368,900 $102,350 $79,667 $289,233


Theme 6: Making It Happen

Objective 6.3: Prudent Financial Management



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Sustainable procurement is a key project across all stages of the STEP programme framework. Sustainable procurement will be embedded into procurement considerations across the City to generate positive social and environmental outcomes through procurement activities.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Sustainable procurement is a key project across all stages of the STEP programme framework. Sustainable procurement will be embedded into procurement considerations across the City to generate positive social and environmental outcomes through procurement activities.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Improving the efficiency of the City's procurement process will increase the number and type of businesses, including small to medium businesses, engaging with the City.

Conclusion

This report has been presented to provide Council with a status update on the STEP programme.


35

10.1/IA1 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT

Report Information








Definition







Moved Councillor Irwin, seconded Councillor Migdale


1. That Council RECEIVES the Internal Audit Activity Report.

2. That Council NOTES the current status of the Management Action Plans for past audits and reviews.

3. That Management Action Plan tasks that have not yet been fully completed REMAIN on this report until complete.

4. That Council NOTES the current status of the Internal Audit Plan.




36

Recommendation

1. That Council RECEIVES the Internal Audit Activity Report.

2. That Council NOTES the current status of the Management Action Plans for past audits and reviews.

3. That Management Action Plan tasks that have not yet been fully completed REMAIN on this report until complete.

4. That Council NOTES the current status of the Internal Audit Plan.

Report Purpose

This report updates Council on a range of internal audit issues.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Internal Audit Activity Report (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).

Attachment 2 – Internal Audit Management Action Plans (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).


Nil.

Background

Under its Terms of Reference, the Audit Committee assists Council in overseeing the City’s internal audit program.

Comment

The Internal Audit Activity Report table shown in Attachment 1 summarises the current status of the internal audit program.

Consulting

Regular meetings are held with the Senior Coordinator of Corporate Compliance and the Risk Management and Information Officer. This helps ensure coordination between the audit, compliance and risk management functions.

The Internal Auditor has also been involved with facilitation of the Independent Planning Review and review of the 2016/2017 Annual Report.

Tender Probity Checks

The Internal Auditor reviewed the results of 37 tender probity checks (numbers 276 - 312) conducted since the last Audit Committee meeting. There were no issues arising from these probity checks.

The tender probity checks are undertaken to check two main things:-

1. That the company stated on the tender submission is a registered company under ASIC and that the names of the directors that are stated on the tender submission align to ASIC records. Also any business names are registered as per the Australian Business Register (ABR).


37

2. That the names of the directors of the company and any shareholder names are identified and checked against the names of those City employees who were part of the evaluation panel.

The objective is to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between City employees who evaluate and recommend successful tenderers with the directors/shareholders of the company/business that is being awarded the tender. The process is co-ordinated by Procurement within Finance Services.

Annual Internal Audit Plan

The Internal Audit Activity Report within Attachment 1 summarises the current status of the 2016/2017 and the 2017/2018 Annual Internal Audit Plan as at 24 October 2017. Two internal audit reviews have been completed and one other review is nearing the reporting stage.

Misconduct, Corruption and Fraud Hotline

Since the August 2017 Audit Committee, no calls have been received through the Fraud Hotline.

Management Action Plan Updates

At the time of reporting to the August 2017 Audit Committee there were 21 action plans which were open. Since then 14 have been closed and 20 new action plans have been added, of which one was completed at the point of reporting to the August Audit Committee. These additions relate to the Environmental Health and Pools and the CIS Security internal audit reviews which were reported at the August 2017 Audit Committee.

As at 25 October 2017 there are 24 action plans which are open. Of these 13 are not yet due and 11 are overdue with three rated as high and eight rated medium. This compares to 17 overdue in August 2017.

*3 open actions have been aggregated into one action as they related to update of the same document. See attachment 2 for details of this action.

Audit Name Original Actions

Previously closed

Closed This

Quarter

Open Overdue Not Yet

Due

CCC Management Action Plan 37 35 0 2 2 0

Occupational Safety & Health* 11 6 1 4 4 0

Communications & Social Media 5 3 0 2 2 0

Recreation & Aquatic 10 8 2 0 0 0

Physical Security 14 9 4 1 1 0

Corporate Sustainability 4 1 0 3 1 2

CIS Security 2 0 2 0 0 0

Environmental Health & Pools 18 1 5 12 1 11

Total 101 63 14 24 11 13


38

The 11 overdue action plans are summarised on the following page and can be found in more detail within Attachment 2.


Nil.


Nil.


Nil.


Theme 6: Making It Happen Objective 6.2: Good Governance

Audit Name & Date of Review Area Rating

CCC Management Action Plan – 2012

Skills assessment Medium

CCC Management Action Plan – 2012

Improvement plan related to the above skills assessment

Medium

OSH - May 2016 Development of an OSH training plan High

OSH - May 2016 Performance of an OSH risk assessment

High

OSH - May 2016 Implementation of an OSH management plan

Medium

OSH - May 2016 Define health surveillance processes based upon risk assessment

Medium

Communications & Social Media – Nov 2016

Stakeholder management database and plan to be developed

Medium

Communications & Social Media – Nov 2016

Development of a stakeholder management process

Medium

Physical Security – Feb 2017 Process review of photo access card Medium

Corporate Sustainability – May 2017

Replacement Irrigation to avoid use of potable water

Medium

Environmental Health & Pools – August 2017

Review of the frequency of environmental inspections

High


39



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Internal Audit Activity Report updates Council on the City’s internal audit program.


40

10.1/IA2 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - FLEET SERVICES

Report Information








Definition







Moved Councillor Irwin, seconded Mr Linden


1. That Council RECEIVES the Fleet Services Internal Audit Report. 2. That ‘high’ and ‘medium’ rated observations BE LISTED on the Management

Action Plan for Audit Committee review until completed, and ‘low’ rated observations BE LISTED for review by the Executive Team until completion.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (8/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Irwin, Italiano, Lagan, Migdale, Perkov, Sandri and Mr Linden. Against: Nil.


41

Recommendation

1. That Council RECEIVES the Fleet Services Internal Audit Report.

2. That ‘high’ and ‘medium’ rated observations BE LISTED on the Management Action Plan for Audit Committee review until completed, and ‘low’ rated observations BE LISTED for review by the Executive Team until completion.

Report Purpose

To inform Council on the outcome of the Internal Audit Review of Fleet Services.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Fleet Services Internal Audit Report (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).


Nil.

Background

At its meeting held 17 May 2016 the Fleet Services Internal Audit Review was included as part of the 2016/2017 Internal Audit Plan approved by Council (Council Resolution Number 0516/035) as follows:-

"1. That Council ENDORSES the Strategic Internal Audit Plan for 2016 – 2019.

2. That Council ENDORSES the Annual Internal Audit Plan for 2016/2017."

The review was performed by the Internal Auditor. It was conducted in accordance with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Standards for Professional Practice Internal Auditing.

Comment

The objective of this internal audit was to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the City’s processes around Fleet Services.

Three medium risk findings were identified and are documented in the attached Internal Audit Report.


Nil.


Nil.


42


Nil.





ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Fleet Services Internal Audit Report has been completed in accordance with the Strategic Audit Plan. Three medium risk findings were identified and are documented in the attached Internal Audit Report.


43

10.1/IA3 INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Report Information








Definition







Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Migdale


1. That Council RECEIVES the Procurement and Contract Management Internal Audit Report.

2. That ‘high’ and ‘medium’ rated observations BE LISTED on the Management Action Plan for Audit Committee review until completed, and ‘low’ rated observations BE LISTED for review by the Executive Team until completion.




44

Recommendation

1. That Council RECEIVES the Procurement and Contract Management Internal Audit Report.

2. That ‘high’ and ‘medium’ rated observations BE LISTED on the Management Action

Plan for Audit Committee review until completed, and ‘low’ rated observations BE LISTED for review by the Executive Team until completion.

Report Purpose

To inform Council on the outcome of the Internal Audit Review of Procurement and Contract Management.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Procurement and Contract Management Internal Audit Report (previously circulated to Councillors under separate confidential cover).


Nil.

Background

At its meeting held 17 May 2016 the Procurement and Contract Management Internal Audit Review was included as part of the 2016/2017 Internal Audit Plan approved by Council (Council Resolution Number 0516/035) as follows:-

"1. That Council ENDORSES the Strategic Internal Audit Plan for 2016 – 2019. 2. That Council ENDORSES the Annual Internal Audit Plan for 2016/2017."

The review was performed by Deloitte and overseen by the Internal Auditor. It was conducted in accordance with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ Standards for Professional Practice Internal Auditing.

Comment

The objective of this internal audit was to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the City’s processes around Procurement and Contract Management.

Two medium risk findings were identified and are documented in the attached Internal Audit Report.


Nil.


45


Nil.


Nil.





ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Procurement and Contract Management Internal Audit Report has been completed in accordance with the Strategic Audit Plan. Two medium risk findings were identified and are documented in the attached Internal Audit Report.


46

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 21 NOVEMBER 2017

10.2/A1 TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Report Information








Definition







Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Spagnolo


That Council ADOPTS the amended Community and Resources Committee Terms of Reference as per Attachment 1. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


47

Recommendation

That Council ADOPTS the amended Community and Resources Committee Terms of Reference as per Attachment 1.

Report Purpose

To adopt the amended Terms of Reference for the Community and Resources Committee.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Community and Resources Terms of Reference Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

The terms of reference are to be reviewed in line with the appointment of Elected Members following the Council election.

Comment

The amended Terms of Reference will provide guidance to officers in terms of what reports are eligible to be submitted to this particular Committee. The Terms of Reference have been amended to capture reports that would have previously been submitted to the disbanded Strategic Property Committee.


Nil.


Section 5.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 enables Council to establish a Committee.


Nil.


The Strategic Community Plan sets out an ambitious and achievable vision for the development of the City over the next 10 years and beyond. The Community and Resources Committee will be responsible for considering and implementing various projects.


48



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

In line with the appointment of Elected Members following the Council election it is recommended that Council adopt the amended Terms of Reference for the Community and Resources Committee.


49

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/A1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE Attachment 1 - Community and Resources Committee Terms of Reference


50


51

10.2/ED1 STEPHENSON AVENUE PROJECT - FUNDING FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN WORK

Report Information

Location: Stephenson Avenue


Reporting Officer: Manager Engineering Design

Business Unit: Engineering Design

Ward: Doubleview / Osborne

Suburb: Innaloo / Osborne Park


Definition







Moved Councillor Spagnolo, seconded Councillor Proud


That $150,000 be REALLOCATED from Cost Centre A0120 to Cost Centre A0156-A-3321 (2017/2018 Engineering Design-Administration: Consultancy) for contribution towards the planning and design component of the Stephenson Avenue project. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


52

Recommendation

That $150,000 be REALLOCATED from Cost Centre A0120 to Cost Centre A0156-A-3321 (2017/2018 Engineering Design-Administration: Consultancy) for contribution towards the planning and design component of the Stephenson Avenue project. NB: ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED AT COUNCIL

Report Purpose

To seek Council endorsement of funding for planning and design work for the Stephenson Avenue project.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Location Plan Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

On 7 September 2017, the Minister for Transport, Planning and Lands, Hon. Rita Saffioti MLA, announced that a contribution of $60 million has been included in the State Government's 2017-2018 Budget to extend Stephenson Avenue north of Scarborough Beach Road to Mitchell Freeway and Cedric Street. The funding was a key election commitment, and will go towards creating a strategic 1km link between the growing Stirling City Centre precinct and the Mitchell Freeway. At least 30,000 people are employed within the Stirling City Centre, Osborne Park and the neighbouring Herdsman-Glendalough area, making it one of the biggest business precincts outside the Perth central business district. Currently Stephenson Avenue stops at Scarborough Beach Road, meaning motorists need to take circuitous routes to reach the Freeway creating traffic congestion. The Stephenson Avenue extension will connect key activity hubs in the area, including Westfield Innaloo Shopping Centre, the Osborne Park industrial area, the Herdsman Business Precinct and Stirling City Centre.

Comment

A meeting was held in late September 2017 between the Minister for Transport’s Office and the City of Stirling to discuss the progression of the Stephenson Avenue project. The matter of the City of Stirling contributing funding to the planning and design component of the project was raised, and the Minister indicated there should be a cost sharing arrangement (50/50 contribution) from the City towards the planning and design component.


53

A Technical Working Group has been established for this project, with membership from the City of Stirling, the Department of Transport, Main Roads WA, the Public Transport Authority, the Department of Planning and external design consultants. The purpose of the Working Group is for each agency to provide relevant input that will allow the development of a 15% design of Stephenson Avenue between Scarborough Beach Road and Cedric Street, including the Freeway interchange. Completion of the 15% design will then allow a detailed cost estimate to be prepared, which will determine the amount of additional funding that would need to be sourced (from the Federal Government) to ensure the project can be completed. Given the significant contribution made by the State Government towards the project and the priority placed on the project by the City, it is reasonable to expect that the City would make a funding contribution towards the planning and design component of the project.


Nil.


Nil.


The planning and design component of the Stephenson Avenue project is estimated to cost in the order of $300,000. Accordingly, funding of $150,000 is required as the City’s contribution towards the project. As the scope is reasonably well defined, funding in excess of this estimate should not be necessary. Thus it is reasonable to cap the contribution to $150,000. The required funding of $150,000 has been identified from Cost Centre A0120 and can therefore be reallocated as a Consultancy budget under Cost Centre A0156 Engineering Design-Administration and Natural Account 3321 Consultancy.


Theme 4: Accessible and Connected City Objective 4.3: Safer Roads The project will satisfy the following strategic initiatives: (1) Manage the road network to meet the growing demand, and (2) Manage traffic to improve safety and amenity. Theme 5: Prosperous City Objective 5.1: Great Place to Work, Invest and Do Business

The project will satisfy the following strategic initiatives: (1) Promote the City as a place to work, invest and do business, (2) Use the City’s planning powers to encourage investment and employment, and (3) Progress Major Projects.


54



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Vegetation impact Appropriate studies and measures will be followed during the construction process to ensure any impacts on the environment and surrounding vegetation are minimised.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Transport and access The Stephenson Avenue project will eliminate the circuitous routes to and from the Mitchell Freeway that currently result in significant congestion in this area.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The Stephenson Avenue project will connect key business sectors in the area, including Westfield Innaloo Shopping Centre, the Osborne Park industrial area, the Herdsman Business Precinct and Stirling City Centre.

Conclusion

The State Government is making a significant contribution towards the Stephenson Avenue project, and given the priority placed on the project by the City, it is reasonable to expect that the City would make a funding contribution towards the planning and design component of the project. It is recommended that a maximum funding of $150,000 be re-allocated from Cost Centre A0120 to Cost Centre A0156-A-3321 (2017/2018 Engineering Design-Administration Consultancy) for contribution towards the planning and design component of the project.


55

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/ED1 - STEPHENSON AVENUE PROJECT – FUNDING FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN WORK Attachment 1 – Location Plan


56

10.2/ED2 OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON ADAIR PARADE COOLBINIA

Report Information

Location: Adair Parade




Ward: Lawley

Suburb: Coolbinia


Definition







Moved Councillor Migdale, seconded Councillor Spagnolo

That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Adair Parade, Coolbinia, as shown in attachment 2, consisting of the following:-

a. Change in priority at the intersection with Lanark Street; and

b. Narrowing of the roadway and construction of formalised parallel parking embayments on the northern side of the road between Lanark Street and Ardross Crescent (to replace the unauthorised right angle parking across the footpath).

Reason for change

Committee forms the opinion that the community is not in support of the original recommendation and that by staging the approach of traffic calming measures, officers can

reassess the need for a raised plateau or roundabout once the first two stages are installed.


57

Amendment Moved Councillor Caddy, seconder Councillor Sandri That condition 'a' be REWORDED as follows:-

a. Change in priority at the intersection with Lanark Street, including the construction of raised traffic splitter islands on the two Adair Parade approaches;

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (6/1) and formed part of the substantive motion. For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri and Sargent. Against: Councillor Spagnolo. Moved Councillor Migdale, seconded Councillor Spagnolo That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Adair Parade, Coolbinia, as shown in attachment 2, consisting of the following:- a. Change in priority at the intersection with Lanark Street, including the construction of

raised traffic splitter islands the two Adair Parade approaches; and b. Narrowing of the roadway and construction of formalised parallel parking embayments

on the northern side of the road between Lanark Street and Ardross Crescent (to replace the unauthorised right angle parking across the footpath).

Discussion ensued. It was suggested that an additional condition be added as follows:- "c. That a report be PRESENTED to the Community and Resources Committee in 24

months." With the agreement of the mover and seconder, the recommendation was reworded as follows:-


58

Moved Councillor Migdale, seconded Councillor Spagnolo


That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Adair Parade, Coolbinia, as shown in attachment 2, consisting of the following:- a. Change in priority at the intersection with Lanark Street, including the

construction of raised traffic splitter islands the two Adair Parade approaches; b. Narrowing of the roadway and construction of formalised parallel parking

embayments on the northern side of the road between Lanark Street and Ardross Crescent (to replace the unauthorised right angle parking across the footpath); and

c. That a report be PRESENTED to the Community and Resources Committee in 24

months. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (6/1). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Councillor Proud.

Recommendation

That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Adair Parade, Coolbinia, as per attachment 2.

Report Purpose

To respond to a petition received by the City indicating objections to the proposed traffic management scheme for Adair Parade, and provide Council with sufficient information to enable a decision regarding future actions for these projects.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Location Plan Attachment 2 – Proposed Traffic Management Scheme for Adair Parade Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

Adair Parade is a Local Access road in Coolbinia, extending between Walcott Street and Tweed Crescent, as shown in Attachment 1. This road is governed by the default 50km/h speed limit for built-up residential areas, and consists primarily of residential properties on both sides of the road.


59

Residents have previously expressed concerns to the City regarding traffic and road safety issues along Adair Parade. These concerns relate to excessive vehicle speeds, the volume of non-local through traffic and hoon driver behaviour along this road. An assessment of Adair Parade was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Traffic Management Warrants Policy, as per the standard process for Local Access and Local Distributor roads. A review of traffic survey data indicated an average weekday traffic volume of 1,860 vehicles per day and an 85th percentile travel speed of up to 59km/h (recorded for the midblock section between Ardross Crescent and Elstree Avenue). When taking into consideration all factors, including the number of crashes (seven crashes in five years), this road scored sufficiently high enough to warrant consideration of traffic calming. The road was listed on the City’s Forward Plans and subsequently progressed to the detailed design stage. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 17 October 2017, former Councillor Rod Willox tabled the following petition containing 278 verified signatures:-

"We, the undersigned, having viewed the plans produced by the City of Stirling City Council for proposed alterations to traffic management on Adair Parade Coolbinia, without consultation with surrounding with surrounding area, residents wish to lodge with the Council our objection to those plans and request that no work shall commence until such time as an enquiry takes place including resident input to determine whether or not any alterations are necessary. Should that enquiry determine that improvements in safety and traffic speed management need to be made, then resident's concerns regarding the diverting of vehicles from Adair Parade into connecting streets are of primary importance when deciding what action should be taken. We have concerns regarding the diversion of traffic into streets adjacent to the parks and reserves where children play.”

Comment

The proposed traffic management scheme for Adair Parade consists of the following elements, as showed in Attachment 2:-

Installation of a raised speed plateau between Walcott Street and Lanark Street;

Change in priority at the intersection with Lanark Street, including the construction of raised traffic splitter islands on the two Adair Parade approaches;

Narrowing of the roadway and construction of formalised parallel parking embayments on the northern side of the road between Lanark Street and Ardross Crescent (to replace the unauthorised right angle parking across the footpath); and

Construction of a roundabout at the intersection with Elstree Avenue. In order to reinforce the change in priority at Lanark Street, minor road widening is required to allow the construction of raised traffic median islands (with brick paved infill). These traffic islands will allow signage to be installed within the median (thus improving the visibility of signage to approaching motorists) and will also reduce the incidence of corner cutting, as vehicles would be forced to remain on the correct side of the road when turning in and out of these roads. The current parking restrictions on Adair Parade are not proposed to be modified.


60

Concerns have been raised by the Mount Lawley Society, particularly in relation to the raised speed plateau at the Walcott Street end, as they consider that this is not an appropriate treatment for this road and is not befitting of a heritage protection area. However, the plateau provides an entry statement into this precinct, and is similar to treatments on side roads on the southern side of Walcott Street in North Perth (including Elma Street, Bedford Street, Hunter Street, Cleveden Street, Paddington Street, Redfern Street and Blake Street). The City considers that the speed plateau on Adair Parade would assist to maintain the broad ambience of the area by setting a clear expectation to motorists entering the precinct that this is a local road, with treatments that encourage lower travel speeds. It would also ensure that vehicles approaching the Walcott Street intersection slow down appropriately, as this intersection has been the subject of numerous concerns due to the frequency of right angle crashes. The City will ensure that the proposed speed plateau will be constructed in contrasting red asphalt to maintain a heritage feel. The City will also modify the scheme so that the kerb build-outs between Lanark Street and Ardross Crescent will be landscaped to match the existing verge area, rather than having concrete or brick paved infill, as was previously proposed. The roundabout at Elstree Avenue will consist of heritage-red brick paved splitter islands, and will incorporate landscaping within the central circulating island to improve the amenity when compared with the current wide-open black asphalt. The roundabout can be constructed largely within the existing roadway, and there is minimal road widening and no service relocations required. Hence the cost of the roundabout at this location would be significantly less than a standard roundabout, yet it will provide a significant benefit in terms of regulating speeds and vehicle movements. Concerns were raised in the petition regarding the potential redistribution of traffic from Adair Parade to adjacent roads. For this reason, the petition considers the consultation for this project should have extended to the wider area of Coolbinia. The proposed treatments for Adair Parade are not expected to result in any significant distribution of traffic to adjacent roads, and have been designed simply to address the issues of speeding and crashes along this road. The possibility of redistribution to adjacent local roads is also reduced by the fact that many intersections along Walcott Street have already had modifications to restrict the number of right turn movements in and out of the side roads. In regard to wider consultation, the desire by surrounding residents to have input into traffic management treatments in their area is commendable. However, the City considers that the views of those residents that are most directly affected by a proposal should be the determining factor in whether a treatment proceeds or not. Indeed, where wider consultation has previously been undertaken (for more significant modifications on higher order roads), the City has received criticism from local residents, who are disappointed that non-affected residents are provided an equal vote for their road. For this reason, the City considers that the current method of consulting with directly affected residents only is the most appropriate method of consultation.


Consultation for this project has already been undertaken in accordance with long established practices employed by the Engineering Design Business Unit. A draft consultation letter and concept plan was sent to the Lawley Ward Councillors on 15 March 2016 to request initial feedback and comments on the proposed traffic management scheme. Following a two-week consultation period, the City did not receive any comments or objections, and proceeded to the public consultation.


61

A final consultation letter and concept plan was sent to 145 owners and occupants of Adair Parade, between Walcott Street and Holmfirth Crescent, on 30 March 2016. The consultation period was open for three weeks. Direct mail outs to affected owners and occupants has been utilised for many years, and has been found to be an effective way to determine the views of those residents that are most affected by a proposal. At the end of the consultation period, a total of 31 valid responses had been received. This represents a response rate of 22%, which is in keeping with many consultations undertaken for this type of project. Out of the 31 responses, 81% (or 25 responses) supported the proposal, while 19% (or six responses) were opposed. Given the majority of responses were supportive, a follow-up letter was sent to all respondents on 16 May 2016 to confirm that the City would be proceeding with the construction during the 2017/2018 financial year, subject to final approval of funding by Council through the normal budgeting process. The objections to the proposal were primarily due to the perceived impacts on on-street parking, and the proposed change in priority at Lanark Street. Other responses requested consideration of additional measures, including the extension of the median at Walcott Street (to prevent right turns in and out), changes in priority at other intersections, and additional raised speed plateaus at intervals along the road. The petition that was submitted in opposition to the proposed treatment contained 278 signatures from 168 unique properties. The signatories were primarily from residents of Elstree Avenue, Lanark Street, Ardross Crescent, Clyde Road, Graham Road, Dumbarton Crescent, Koorda Street and McPherson Street. Further analysis indicated that the petition was signed by 12 residents (of Adair Parade, Elstree Avenue, Carnarvon Crescent and Tweed Crescent) who were included in the City’s consultation. Of those 12 residents that signed the petition, eight provided a response to the City’s consultation to indicate their support for the treatments, while the remaining four did not provide any response to the City’s consultation.


Council’s Traffic Management Warrants Policy provides the basis for a rational and orderly approach in determining whether or not action should be taken to introduce a traffic management treatment for a particular road within a localised catchment. The Policy takes into account a number of factors to assess the need for traffic management treatments, including traffic volumes, travel speeds, crash statistics, proportion of heavy (commercial) vehicles, proximity to vulnerable road users (school children, aged care) and proximity to major trip generators. An assessment of Adair Parade under this Policy indicated a score of 55 points, indicating that this road is a high priority for traffic management treatments.


An amount of $270,000 is listed in the current Annual Budget for the construction of traffic management treatments on Adair Parade.


62


Theme 4: Accessible and Connected City Objective 4.3: Safer Roads The installation of traffic management treatments assists in providing a safer road environment for all road users, by reducing travels speeds and reducing the risk of crashes.



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Health, wellbeing and safety The installation of traffic management treatments will facilitate improvements in community safety by reducing speeds and reducing the frequency and severity of crashes.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure The installation of traffic management treatments may provide economic benefits in terms of reduced crash costs.

Conclusion

The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit has undergone extensive investigation in determining a suitable traffic management treatment for Adair Parade, and has already undertaken valid consultation with directly affected residents to determine the views of the community. The consultation determined that there is majority support for the proposed traffic management scheme, and the City should proceed on this basis.


63

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/ED2 - OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON ADAIR PARADE, COOLBINIA

Attachment 1 – Location Plan


64

Attachment 2 – Proposed Traffic Management Scheme


65

10.2/ED3 OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON BRADFORD STREET COOLBINIA

Report Information

Location: Bradford Street




Ward: Lawley

Suburb: Coolbinia


Definition







Moved Councillor Migdale, seconded Councillor Sandri

That Council PROCEEDS with a modified version of the proposed traffic management measures on Bradford Street, Coolbinia, as shown in attachment 2, consisting of the following:-

a. Construction of an oval slow point (adjacent to House Number 125, Bradford Street, Coolbinia and Coolbinia Reserve); and

b. Construction of a second oval slow point or a similar treatment (at a site to be advised).

The motion was put and declared LOST (3/4).

For: Councillors Migdale, Sandri and Spagnolo. Against: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Proud and Sargent.

Reason for change

Committee forms the opinion that the oval slow points will create the desired traffic calming whilst fitting in with the area's heritage. Officers will then be able to reassess the need for the other traffic elements 24 months in the future.


66

During the debate, Councillor Karen Caddy foreshadowed the following motion. Moved Councillor Caddy, seconder Councillor Proud


That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Bradford Street, Coolbinia, as per attachment 2. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (4/3). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Proud and Sargent. Against: Councillors Migdale, Sandri and Spagnolo.

Recommendation

That Council PROCEEDS with the proposed traffic management measures on Bradford Street, Coolbinia, as per attachment 2.

Report Purpose

To respond to a petition received by the City indicating objections to the proposed traffic management scheme for Bradford Street, and provide Council with sufficient information to enable a decision regarding future actions for these projects.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Location Plan Attachment 2 – Proposed Traffic Management Scheme for Bradford Street Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

Bradford Street is a Local Distributor road in Coolbinia, extending between Latrobe Street and Alexander Drive, as shown in Attachment 1. This road is governed by the default 50km/h speed limit for built-up residential areas (with 40km/h during school zone times), and consists primarily of residential properties, together with the Coolbinia Primary School, the Sir David Brand School and Coolbinia Reserve along the northern side. Residents have previously expressed concerns to the City regarding traffic and road safety issues along Bradford Street. These concerns relate to excessive vehicle speeds and hoon driver behaviour along this road.


67

An assessment of Bradford Street was undertaken in accordance with Council’s Traffic Management Warrants Policy, as per the standard process for Local Access and Local Distributor roads. A review of traffic survey data for Bradford Street indicated an average weekday traffic volume of 3,250 vehicles per day and an 85th percentile travel speed of up to 63km/h. When taking into consideration all factors, including the number of crashes (11 reported midblock and intersection crashes in five years), the proximity to two schools and a reserve, this road scored sufficiently highly to warrant consideration of traffic calming. The road was listed on the City’s Forward Plans and subsequently progressed to the detailed design stage. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 17 October 2017, former Councillor Rod Willox tabled the following petition containing eight verified signatures:-

"We, the undersigned, do respectfully request that the proposed traffic calming measures proposed in Bradford Street, Coolbinia and Menora involving speed humps and concrete chicanes be deferred in consideration for alternative treatments more befitting of the two garden suburbs. That Council defer and measure for Bradford Street until it has conducted wider consultation in the two suburbs and is satisfied that any proposed measure will not divert traffic from Bradford Street onto other local roads in the area. Bradford Street is a local distributor road under the Main Roads function hierarchy. The purpose of local distributor roads is to discourage traffic on local internal roads. The petitioners believe the proposed traffic calming measures will have an opposite effect."

Comment

The proposed traffic management scheme for Bradford Street consists of the following elements, as showed in Attachment 2:-

Construction of an oval slow point (adjacent House Number 125 and Coolbinia Reserve);

Installation of one speed cushion (south-east of Armadale Crescent);

Installation of one speed cushion (south-east of Carnarvon Crescent);

Construction of a Modified-T intersection treatment at the intersection of Bradford Street and Rothsay Crescent north; and

Construction of a Modified-T intersection treatment at the intersection of Bradford Street and Rothsay Crescent south.

The proposed treatments have been designed and located to enable the same movements in and out of properties at the existing crossovers. Blister islands are used to affect a change in the vehicle travel path, thereby slowing vehicles via deflection of traffic movements and assist in moderating travel speeds. This treatment will enhance the look of the street as well as encourage traffic to slow. The speed cushions are made from recycled rubber and are designed to reduce the travel speed of vehicles. The speed cushions also have minimal impact on cyclists, buses and emergency service vehicles.


68

Modified-T intersections are used to affect a change in the vehicle travel path, thereby slowing vehicles via deflection of traffic movements. They act in a similar manner to chicanes and slow points in moderating travel speeds, but at a three-way intersection. The raised splitter island on Rothsay Crescent (north) will help to channelize the movement of vehicles and force motorists to remain on the correct side of the road. It will also assist pedestrians to cross the road in two stages. The ‘left turn entry only’ traffic movement onto Rothsay Crescent (south) will remain unchanged.

Similar traffic management schemes have been installed along a number of other roads in the City, and have proven effective in reducing travel speeds along these roads.

Concerns have been raised by the Mount Lawley Society, particularly in relation to the speed cushions near Armadale Crescent and Carnarvon Crescent, as they consider that these are not appropriate treatments for this road and are not befitting of a heritage protection area. However, the speed cushions are considered an essential component of the scheme, as they have been specifically located to reduce the downhill travel speed of vehicles approaching the schools and the reserve.

The chicanes at the Bradford Street intersections with Rothsay Crescent north and Rothsay Crescent south will contain narrow brick paved median islands (with heritage-red brick paved infill), with kerb build-outs that will be landscaped rather than concrete or brick paved infill. These treatments are also seen as an essential component of the scheme to break the uninterrupted length of Bradford Street between Tweed Crescent/Glick Road and Alexander Drive.

Concerns were raised in the petition regarding the potential redistribution of traffic from Bradford Street to adjacent roads. For this reason, the petition considers the consultation for this project should have extended to the wider area of Coolbinia.

The proposed treatments for Bradford Street are not expected to result in any significant distribution of traffic to adjacent roads, as they have been designed primarily to address high vehicle speeds. Bradford Street is a Local Distributor road and provides the most direct connection between Latrobe Street and Alexander Drive, and there are no adjacent parallel roads that provide the same connectivity. As such, the probability of vehicles being distributed to adjacent roads is very low.

In regard to wider consultation, the desire by surrounding residents to have input into traffic management treatments in their area is commendable. However, the City considers that the views of those residents that are most directly affected by a proposal should be the determining factor in whether a treatment proceeds or not. Indeed, where wider consultation has previously been undertaken (for more significant modifications on higher order roads), the City has received criticism from local residents, who are disappointed that non-affected residents are provided an equal vote for their road. For this reason, the City considers that the current method of consulting with directly affected residents only is the most appropriate method of consultation.


Consultation for this project has already been undertaken in accordance with long established practices employed by the Engineering Design Business Unit. A draft consultation letter and concept plan was sent to the Lawley Ward Councillors on 7 September 2016 to request initial feedback and comments on the proposed traffic management scheme. Following a two-week consultation period, the City did not receive any comments or objections, and proceeded to the public consultation.


69

A final consultation letter and concept plan was sent to 114 owners and occupants of Bradford Street, between Latrobe Street and Alexander Drive, on 19 September 2016. The consultation period was open for three weeks. Direct mail outs to affected owners and occupants has been utilised for many years, and has been found to be an effective way to determine the views of those residents that are most affected by a proposal.

At the end of the consultation period, a total of 35 valid responses had been received. This represents a response rate of 31%, which is in keeping with many consultations undertaken for this type of project. Out of the 35 responses, 77% (or 27 responses) supported the proposal, while 23% (or eight responses) were opposed. Given the majority of responses were supportive, a follow-up letter was sent to all respondents on 2 November 2016 to confirm that the City would be proceeding with the construction during the 2017/2018 financial year, subject to final approval of funding by Council through the normal budgeting process.

Only one of the eight objections to the proposal listed the speed cushions as a reason for their objection however this was counter-balanced by two supporting responses suggesting that additional speed cushions were required.

The petition that was submitted in opposition to the proposed treatment contained 40 signatures (of which eight were verified) from 27 unique properties. The signatories were primarily from residents of Meenaar Crescent, Wordsworth Avenue, Hartwell Street and Marradong Street, with other signatories from Carnarvon Crescent, Virgil Avenue, Armadale Crescent, Bourke Street, Elstree Avenue, Graham Road and Lanark Street. It is uncertain why residents of these particular roads would object to the proposed treatment, as there is not expected to be any adverse impact on traffic flows or travel speeds along these roads.


Council’s Traffic Management Warrants Policy provides the basis for a rational and orderly approach in determining whether or not action should be taken to introduce a traffic management treatment for a particular road within a localised catchment. The Policy takes into account a number of factors to assess the need for traffic management treatments, including traffic volumes, travel speeds, crash statistics, proportion of heavy (commercial) vehicles, proximity to vulnerable road users (school children, aged care) and proximity to major trip generators.

An assessment of Bradford Street under this Policy indicated a score of 106 points, indicating that this road is a high priority for traffic management treatments.


An amount of $260,000 is listed in the current Annual Budget for the construction of traffic management treatments on Bradford Street.


Theme 4: Accessible and Connected City

Objective 4.3: Safer Roads

The installation of traffic management treatments assists in providing a safer road environment for all road users, by reducing travels speeds and reducing the risk of crashes.


70



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Health, wellbeing and safety The installation of traffic management treatments will facilitate improvements in community safety by reducing speeds and reducing the frequency and severity of crashes.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Transport and infrastructure The installation of traffic management treatments may provide economic benefits in terms of reduced crash costs.

Conclusion

The City’s Engineering Design Business Unit has undergone extensive investigation in determining a suitable traffic management treatment for Bradford Street, and has already undertaken valid consultation with directly affected residents to determine the views of the community. The consultation determined that there is majority support for the proposed traffic management scheme, and the City should proceed on this basis.


71

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/ED3 - OBJECTIONS TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON BRADFORD STREET, COOLBINIA

Attachment 1 – Location Plan


72

Attachment 2 – Proposed Traffic Management Scheme


73


74

10.2/PS1 PLASTIC BAG BAN LOCAL LAW

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Manager Parks and Sustainability

Business Unit: Parks and Sustainability

Ward: City Wide

Suburb: City Wide


Definition







Moved Councillor Sargent, seconded Councillor Proud


That the City DOES NOT introduce a local law to ban lightweight single-use plastic bags within the City of Stirling. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


75

Recommendation

That the City DOES NOT introduce a local law to ban lightweight single-use plastic bags within the City of Stirling.

Report Purpose

To advise Council that the State Government has announced it will ban lightweight single-use plastic bags from 1 July 2018 which means that a local law banning plastic bags would not be required.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

In late 2016, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) distributed a discussion paper on plastic bags and requested that Local Governments provide a written response. The City developed a response letter noting that the City supported WALGA in its efforts to advocate for a State-wide ban and/or levy in Western Australia. The City also noted that if the State Government did not initiate a plastic bag ban, then the City would join with WALGA and other Councils in a Local Government-wide approach, to introduce local laws regulating the consumption of single use plastic bags. At its meeting held 11 April 2017, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0417/015) as follows:- "1. That Council ENDORSES the submission letter to the Western Australian Local

Government Association as contained in Attachment 1.

2. That a report be PRESENTED to a future Community and Resources Committee to introduce a local law to reduce plastic bag use within the City of Stirling."

Comment

On 12 September 2017, the Western Australian State Government announced, in a media release, that “lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags will be banned in Western Australia from 1 July 2018”. The state-wide ban would bring Western Australia into line with South Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory which already have plastic bag bans in place.


76

The media release also noted that “WA's plastic bag ban has garnered widespread support across the local government sector in recent months and among major retailers which are some of the biggest suppliers of plastic shopping bags”. As a State-wide plastic bag ban is being planned by the State Government, the City would not need to investigate mechanisms to introduce a local law that would ban plastic bags. This is a good outcome as the main successful examples, nationally and internationally of plastic bag regulation occur at a State or Federal level. A State-wide approach ensures consistent regulation for consumers and retailers across local government boundaries.


Nil.


Nil.


Nil.


Theme 2: Sustainable Environment Objective 2.1: Clean and Waste Wise City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Pollution A State-wide plastic bag ban would assist to reduce environmental pollution problems that can have harmful effects on aquatic and terrestrial animals.

Vegetation impact A State-wide plastic bag ban would reduce litter effects on parks and reserves.

Waste generation A State-wide plastic bag ban would assist to reduce waste going to landfill, and would assist waste to decompose faster.


77

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity A State-wide plastic bag ban would assist to reduce the persistence of litter in parks and reserves.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Western Australian State Government has announced that “lightweight single-use plastic shopping bags will be banned in Western Australia from 1 July 2018”. A State-wide approach to banning plastic bags ensures consistent regulation for consumers and retailers across local government boundaries as the main successful examples of plastic bag regulation occur at a State or Federal level. The introduction of a State-wide plastic bag ban means that the City does not need to introduce a local law that would ban plastic bags in Stirling.


78

10.2/PS2 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR KAREN CADDY - PROTECT THE THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OF ROTTNEST ISLAND CYPRESS PINE IN THE SOUTH TRIGG AREA

This item was REFERRED to the Community and Resources Committee meeting to be held 5 September 2017 at the Council meeting held 23 August 2017 to allow discussions to be held with the relevant stakeholder groups. At its meeting held 12 September 2017 Council REFERRED the item to the Community and Resources Committee meeting to be held 21 November 2017 as Council forms the opinion that the intent of the Councillor Election Caretaker Policy, which is not in play right now but will be in a couple of days, is that major policy decisions (like this one) that are irrevocable, and that have significant impact on the City of Stirling and the community, are made under duress from the community. A suggested alternative recommendation has been included at the end of the report.

Councillor Karen Caddy submitted the following Notice of Motion prior to the Council meeting held 22 August 2017:- "That the CITY TAKES the following steps to protect the Threatened Ecological Community of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) in the South Trigg area:- a. Renew our efforts to pursue the amalgamation of the road reserve north of

Scarborough Beach with South Trigg Beach Class A Reserve, in line with the Council resolution of 1 May 2012;

b. Identify any threats and disturbances that may be affecting the Threatened Ecological

Community and determine the appropriate conservation actions required; and c. Include an addendum in the Trigg Bushland Reserve Management Plan to recognise

the Threatened Ecological Community and incorporate the required conservation actions."

Background Information/Reason for Motion (provided by Councillor Karen Caddy) “The Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) is listed as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) species in Western Australia with the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) based on previous discoveries. A population in the South Trigg area was discovered last year by the WA Wildflower Society who subsequently submitted an application for its registration as a TEC to the Species and Communities Branch of DPaW. This needs to be recognised and protected within our reserve management plan. A previous application by the City to the Department of Planning for amalgamation of the road reserve north of Scarborough Beach into the Class A Reserve was deferred upon establishment of the MRA Scarborough Redevelopment Scheme Area and consideration of a northern extension road. Now that this road extension has been ruled out by the Planning Minister, it is appropriate that we renew our efforts to protect this area and this TEC.”


79

Report Information

Location: South Trigg area


Reporting Officer: Acting Manager Parks and Sustainability

Business Unit: Parks and Sustainability

Ward: Coastal

Suburb: Trigg


Definition




Quasi-Judicial when Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.




80

Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Sandri


That the following steps BE ADOPTED to protect the Threatened Ecological Community of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) in the South Trigg area:-

1. Re-initiating the road reserve closure application previously submitted to the Minister for Planning, Lands and Heritage to proceed with Councils resolution arising from its meeting held 1 May 2012 (Council resolution number 0512/006).

2. Identify any threats and disturbances that may be affecting the Threatened Ecological Community and determine the appropriate conservation actions required; and

3. Include an addendum in the Trigg Bushland Reserve Management Plan (2015) to recognise the Threatened Ecological Community and incorporate the required conservation actions.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (5/2). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Sandri and Spagnolo. Against: Councillors Proud and Sargent. Reason for Alternative Recommendation The intent of Recommendation 1 of this report is for the City to re-initiate Council’s Resolution from 1 May 2012 which was to close and amalgamate the road reserve area with the adjoining Class A Reserve (South Trigg Beach Reserve). The suggested alternative recommendation reflects the intent regarding the road closure and amalgamation as agreed with the reference group.

Notice of Motion Recommendation (suggested alternative recommendation, page 84 refers)


1. Renew efforts to pursue the amalgamation of the surplus road reserve north of Scarborough Beach with South Trigg Beach Class A Reserve in line with Council resolution of 1 May 2012;



Report Purpose

To give due recognition of a Threatened Ecological Community of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) recently discovered in the South Trigg area and afford it all required conservation measures to ensure its protection into the future.


81

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Map showing location of the surplus road reserve north of Scarborough Beach in relation to the South Trigg Beach Class-A Reserve.

Attachment 2 - Approved road closure plan. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

The Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) is already listed as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) species with the Department of Biodiversity, Environment and Attractions (DBEA – previously known as the Department of Parks and Wildlife, or DPaW) from previous discoveries in Western Australia. A new population was discovered in the South Trigg area last year by the WA Wildflower Society and subsequently submitted for registration as a TEC to the Species and Communities Branch of DBEA. Confirmation has since been received from DBEA of the registration of this new population as a TEC. This population now needs the City’s official recognition and establishment of protection and conservation measures to ensure its survival into the future.

Comment

The City's conservation officers were made aware of this stand of Rottnest Island Cypress Pines during the development of the Trigg Bushland Management Plan in 2015. However as there was conjecture at that stage among local botanists as to whether this stand is naturally occurring or planted given its location (abnormally west of the normal line of other Rottnest Island Cypress Pines growing in Trigg Bushland Reserve), a decision to include it in the Trigg Bushland Management Plan was deferred pending the outcome of the botanical debate. Geologically, South Trigg Beach Reserve is an extension of Trigg Bushland Reserve and displays the typical successional pattern of coastal vegetation types across the terrain from coast to upland. The occurrence of the Rottnest Island Cypress Pine colony in the South Trigg area is therefore considered not unnatural. Two of the trees within the colony have been estimated to be at least 100 years old. The presence of several seedlings indicates that the colony is healthy and regenerating. This newly registered TEC is on land currently classed as road reserve and lies adjacent to South Trigg Beach Reserve which is a Class-A reserve and forms part of Bush Forever Site 308 with Trigg Bushland Reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. A previous application by the City to the then Department of Planning for amalgamation of the road reserve with South Trigg Beach Reserve was deferred upon establishment of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority’s (MRA) Scarborough Redevelopment Scheme Area and pending an outcome of the northern extension road as part of that development. Considering that the northern extension road is no longer proceeding, it is recommended that renewed efforts be made to pursue the amalgamation of the surplus road reserve with South Trigg Beach Reserve.


82

In the meanwhile, the City will proceed to undertake the following:-

Ground-truth the TEC area to define its precise geographical location;

Identify any threats and disturbances that may be affecting the Threatened Ecological Community;

Determine the appropriate conservation actions required to protect from further threats and disturbances, rehabilitate areas that need restoration and put in place an on-going monitoring and maintenance programme;

Estimate the cost of all proposed actions for immediate implementation and/or submission for funding allocation as part of Council’s annual budgetary process.

Proposed conservation actions may include fencing to limit or redirect public access, signage as appropriate, weed eradication, erosion control, animal pest control and treatment for insect pests and diseases if prevalent. Critical aspects of conservation will be undertaken within the current financial year leaving remaining aspects for funding allocation under subsequent budgetary programmes. As the land containing the TEC is on road reserve and still not under City jurisdiction, concurrence of Main Roads Western Australia will be obtained before implementation of any on-site action. The most appropriate mechanism for the City to officially recognise this new TEC is to include an addendum to the current Trigg Bushland Reserve Management Plan because the Plan covers South Trigg Beach Reserve as an extension of the same coastal vegetation complex and as both reserves comprise Bush Forever Site 308. It is envisaged that the addendum would incorporate all on-site surveys of the TEC area and the conservation actions prescribed for its protection and on-going management. The addendum will also note any regulation governing the protection and conservation of TECs as per recent DBEA advice. This pertains particularly to strict conditions prohibiting the supply of information on the location of the TEC to third parties. DBEA’s concern is that such publicity may risk vegetation damage to the area through vandalism, fires etc.


As the land containing the TEC is on road reserve and still not under City jurisdiction, concurrence of Main Roads Western Australia will be obtained before implementation of on-site actions.


Confirmation has been received from the Species and Communities Branch of DBEA of the registration of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) in the South Trigg area as a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC). The City is thereby compelled to abide by any regulation governing the protection and conservation of TECs as per DBEA advice.


Critical aspects of conservation will be undertaken within the current financial year leaving remaining aspects for funding allocation under subsequent budgetary programmes.


83


Theme 2: Sustainable Environment

Objective 2.4: Flourishing Wildlife and Natural Habitat



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Vegetation impact A condition assessment of the Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) in the South Trigg area will be undertaken to determine threats and disturbances that may be affecting the TEC and to determine appropriate protection and conservation measures to ensure its continued survival.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil

Conclusion

Discovery and registration of the colony of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine (Callitris preissii) as a TEC in the South Trigg area demonstrates the diversity of vegetation complexes and floristic communities within the City of Stirling. Two of the trees within the colony have been estimated to be at least 100 years old. The presence of several seedlings indicates that the colony is healthy and regenerating.

The fact that this colony is classed as threatened emphasises its uniqueness and rarity in this part of the metropolitan region. Hence the need to ensure its protection by the elimination of threats and disturbances that may be affecting the colony and implementation of an appropriate restorative programme.

Amalgamation of the surplus road reserve upon which the TEC is located within the South Trigg Beach Class-A Reserve will afford certainty of tenure under the City’s jurisdiction and control.

The proposed mechanism for the City to officially recognise this new TEC is to include an addendum to the current Trigg Bushland Reserve Management Plan because the Plan covers South Trigg Beach Reserve as an extension of the same coastal vegetation complex and as both reserves comprise Bush Forever Site 308.


84

Additional Information - 5 September 2017

The City met with the stakeholder reference group (‘Beach not Bitumen’) on Tuesday 29 August 2017 regarding the protection of the Ecological Community of Rottnest Island Cypress Pine in the South Trigg Area and the road reserve closure considered by Council at its meeting held 1 May 2012.

The road closure area was considered by Council at its meeting held 1 May 2012; Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0512/006) as follows:-

‘That Council PROCEEDS with the full closure of The Esplanade road reserve north of Reserve Street, Scarborough subject to:-

a. obtaining consent from the Department of Planning;

b. following obtaining consent as outlined in (a) above, that State Lands Services at the Department of Regional Development and Lands be requested to close the road reserve from the west boundaries of Lot 24, House Number 1, Reserve Street, Lot 91, House Number 171, West Coast Highway, Lot 21, House Number 169, West Coast Highway, Lot 502, House Number 161, West Coast Highway and Lot 22, House Number 159 West Coast Highway, Scarborough; and

c. the resultant land be amalgamated with Lot 21, West Coast Highway, Trigg (Reserve 46248).’

The intent of Recommendation 1 of this report was discussed and clarified with the reference group pertaining to the road reserve closure area (attachment 2) and its amalgamation with the adjoining Class A Reserve (South Trigg Beach Reserve).

Suggested Alternative Recommendation


1. Re-initiating the road reserve closure application previously submitted to the Minister for Planning, Lands and Heritage to proceed with Councils resolution arising from its meeting held 1 May 2012 (Council resolution number 0512/006).



Reason for Alternative Recommendation

The intent of Recommendation 1 of this report is for the City to re-initiate Council’s Resolution from 1 May 2012 which was to close and amalgamate the road reserve area with the adjoining Class A Reserve (South Trigg Beach Reserve). The suggested alternative recommendation reflects the intent regarding the road closure and amalgamation as agreed with the reference group.


85

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/PS2 - STANDARD NOTICE OF MOTION - DIRECTION ACTION PROETECT THE THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OF ROTTNEST ISLAND CYPRESS PIN IN THE SOUTH TRIGG AREA

Attachment 1 - Map showing location of the surplus road reserve north of Scarborough Beach in relation to the South Trigg Beach Class-A Reserve


86


87

Attachment 2 - Approved road closure plan


88

10.2/CC1 CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND FLAGSHIP APPLICATIONS ROUND TWO 2017-2018

Report Information

Location: City Wide

Applicant: Customer and Communications

Reporting Officer: Manager Customer and Communications

Business Unit: Customer and Communications

Ward: City Wide



Definition







Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Sargent


1. That Council APPROVES the recommended funding amounts for the Cultural Development Fund Flagship Applications Round Two in the 2017/2018 Financial Year as follows:-

a. Rotary Carine Community Fair $15,000; and

b. Mirrabooka NAIDOC Event $11,000.

Total amount to be funded: $26,000.

2. That $139,950 be LISTED for consideration at the 2017/2018 Budget Review process.


For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


89

Recommendation

1. That Council APPROVES the recommended funding amounts for the Cultural Development Fund Flagship Applications Round Two in the 2017/2018 Financial Year as follows:-

a. Rotary Carine Community Fair $15,000; and

b. Mirrabooka NAIDOC Event $11,000.

Total amount to be funded: $26,000.

2. That $139,950 be LISTED for consideration at the 2017/2018 Budget Review process.

Report Purpose

The City’s Cultural Development Fund Policy states that applications for Level 1 Flagship Events should be submitted to Council for its consideration. This report details the eligible Cultural Development Fund Level 1 Flagship Funding Applications (Round Two) over $10,001 received for the 2017/2018 financial year and makes recommendations to Council for the amount to be funded for each event.

This is the second and final Level 1 Flagship funding round for 2017/2018. The next Level 1 Flagship funding round will be Round 1 for the 2018/2019 financial year and will be submitted to Council in July/August 2018.

The report also flags options for an increase in funding to be made available to the Cultural Development Fund to continue support of Level 2/3 events and projects until the end of the financial year by supporting an increase to the budget via the Budget Review Process.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Nil.


1. Cultural Development Fund Policy (ECM Doc No: 8918750).

2. Cultural Development Fund Procedure and Guidelines (ECM Doc No: 8918751).

3. Cultural Development Fund Assessment Form (ECM Doc No: 8918749).

4. Cultural Development Fund Applications as follows:-

a. Rotary Carine Community Fair (ECM Doc No: 8854770); and

b. Mirrabooka NAIDOC Event (ECM Doc No: 8918592).

Background

The City of Stirling’s Cultural Development Fund supports the planning and development of sustainable and safe events that foster culture and the arts, as well as contributes to community capacity building; community health and wellbeing; and the development of community spirit. The Cultural Development Fund supports a diverse range of cultural events and projects dispersed throughout the year and across all of the City of Stirling wards.


90

In May 2017 Council adopted a revised Cultural Development Policy. Funding is now categorised across three funding levels: Level 1 Flagship Events/Projects ($10,001 - $20,000), Level 2 Community Events/Projects ($5,001 - $10,000) and Level 3 Small Events/Projects (up to $5,000). The revisions also allowed for two funding rounds each year for Flagship Funding Applications. This report details Level 1 Flagship Round Two applications. Level 1 Flagship funding is intended for large scale events and projects that appeal to a wide cross section of the community and contribute to long term culture and arts development, and/or deliver social and/or economic value to the community.

In Round One, Level 1 Flagship Fund Applications for the 2017/2018 financial year, a total of seven events were funded for the total amount of $150,500. In Round Two, there have been two applications submitted with a recommendation of $26,000 to be granted.

Comment

For Round Two, Level 1 Flagship Funding for the 2017/2018 financial year the City of Stirling has received two eligible applications.

Each application has been assessed by the Cultural Development Fund Assessment Panel, which includes the following members:-

Senior Coordinator Stakeholder Engagement;

Coordinator Arts and Activation;

Project Officer Arts and Events; and

Acting Project Officer Arts and Events.

The applications have been assessed as per the Cultural Development Fund Assessment Criteria, which assesses the event eligibility and objective overall, and the following funding criteria:-

Accessibility: Events should be open and accessible to the community and should not focus on a particular interest group or cultural group. They should be free or low cost and where possible utilise venues that promote access and inclusion principles. Events and projects should have a sound strategy to inform the community of the event.

Budget and Value for Money: Projects should represent value for money and have a clear, balanced budget with all aspects of the event/project taken into account.

Experience and Planning: Past experience in successful event/project organisation by the group and organising committee should be demonstrated.

Financial Need and Contribution: Cultural Development Funding is not intended to cover the majority cost of an event or project but aims to contribute to its delivery. Generally we will not fund more than 40% of an event budget. Applicants should provide funding towards the event/project and secure other sources of funding/sponsorship where possible.

Community Benefit and Support: Applications should outline how the event/project aligns with the Cultural Development Fund objectives. What is the likelihood the event or project will deliver the benefits described and meet its intended aims?

Acknowledgment of Grant Funding: Applications should detail how the grant recipient intends to acknowledge the City’s contribution to funding.

Due to Cultural Development Fund budget restrictions, it is recommended that each event be funded at the recommended amount to enable the Cultural Development Fund to continue to support a wide range of events and activities across the City. A summary of each event and comment is below.


91

Application Details Event: Rotary Carine Community Fair Date: 18 March 2018 Venue: Carine Open Space Applicant: Rotary Club of Hillarys Ward: Hamersley

Event Description

The Rotary Carine Community Fair is an annual event to raise money for local organisations and charities as well as provide a great family fun day for the community. Featuring free live entertainment, stalls selling a variety of goods and services, a sideshow alley, food and drinks, the Fair, now in its 30th year, presents an opportunity for the community to connect and also give back to those in need.

Aim of Event To raise funds for organisations in need and create great fellowship amongst the community.

Officer Comment

Accessibility: Entrance to the event is free and activities and food are low cost Disabled toilets are provided and there is some pathway access for people with wheelchairs. The group have a sound marketing strategy and have created a new website this year.

Budget and Value for Money: The event budget is very reasonable for an event of this size.

Experience and Planning: This is the 30th year of the event. The event is well planned and organised. The organisers always complete their Event Application in a timely manner and to a high standard.

Financial Need and Contribution: The organisers have expressed a desire to provide some additional facilities and services to the event such as staging requirements, additional shaded areas and food vendors, therefore have requested more funds, however these additions would not require significant additional funding and these items have not been detailed in the event budget. It is recommended that any additional funding required be sought from other sources to ensure the future financial sustainability of the event.

Community Benefit and Support: The Rotary Carine Community Fair is a traditional community fair that creates opportunities for small business and community groups to connect with each other and engages interest across a variety of ages. It is the only event of its kind in the area. It is well organised and resourced and has support from the local community including FESA, WA Police, Carine Senior High School, the Perth Wildcats, Girl Guides, IGA Carine and Peard Real Estate. Some of the organisations benefiting in the past include The Northern Suburbs Stroke Support Group, Motor Neurone Disease Assoc., The Red Cross, Leukaemia Foundation, Stirling Women’s Refuge, Microscopes for primary schools and more.


92

Acknowledgement of Grant Funding: The event organisers acknowledge the City’s support as per the Guidelines and welcome representatives from Council to attend on the day. They also provide an opportunity for the City to promote our services by hosting our own Information Marquee.

Recommended Funding Justification: The previously granted amount of $15,000 has been adequate for the event, which is supported by previous grant Acquittals. There are no significant changes to the event or budget this year that would require significant additional funding, therefore the recommended funding will be suitable for the current event and budget. To encourage the future financial sustainability of the event it is also recommended that additional funding and support be sought from other sources rather than increasing funding from The City. The City must also continue to be financially responsible in regards to the Cultural Development Fund and maintain funding for other eligible events/projects.

Expected Numbers

Event Budget

Requested Funding

Recommended Funding

12,000 $45, 300

$20,000 $15,000

44% of budget 33% of budget

Previous Years

Funding

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

$15,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000


93

Event: Mirrabooka NAIDOC Event Applicant: Mirrabooka NAIDOC Committee Date: 2 July 2018 Venue: Herb Graham Reserve Ward: Balga Ward

Event Description

The Mirrabooka NAIDOC event is presented to allow the Aboriginal and wider community to come together and celebrate and respect Aboriginal culture, art and history in a fun, family oriented event. The event will feature activities for children, boomerang throwing, sand painting, face painting, pony rides, arts and craft activities, live band performances and guest appearances from leading AFL and WAFL clubs, and Netball and Soccer clubs. Giveaways and show-bags will be available. All food is provided free of charge.

Aim of Event

Mirrabooka NAIDOC aims to:-

- Celebrate NAIDOC with the local and wider community; - Promote respect and understanding for Aboriginal culture, art and history;

and - Advocate social inclusion, tolerance and understanding.

Officer Comment

Accessibility: This event is free to attend, as are all activities and food presented on the day. It is open to all community members. Being held on a Monday somewhat restricts the audience, however many people will take the day off work to attend. The event is held at a City facility with wheelchair access to most area, disabled toilets and many service providers providing experiences suitable to a variety of abilities.

Budget and Value for Money: The event represents great value for money and is a testament to the organisers who manage to pool their resources together to coordinate the event.

Experience and Planning: The event has been held for six years now and organisers are able to capitalize on this experience. The Committee is headed up by the City of Stirling officers who always manage to get their applications in on time and to a satisfactory level.

Financial Need and Contribution: The Mirrabooka NAIDOC Event is included in the City’s Reconciliation Action Plan and is organised by a dedicated Committee who contribute in-kind services towards the event. The City of Stirling contributes significantly to this event in many ways, providing financial as well as in-kind support, primarily through staff time from Community Services and Herb Graham Recreation Centre. The City also supports the event through provision of event insurance, venue hire and more.


94

Community Benefit and Support: The City of Stirling and service providers within the area, including Northside Wadjak Aboriginal Community Association and Sudbury House, have strived to provide a welcome and engaging environment within the Mirrabooka Aboriginal community. They work closely with many local community groups and service providers and it is truly a community driven and run event. NAIDOC is also an important component of the Reconciliation Action Plan. Support is currently being sought from The Square Mirrabooka, NAIDOC Perth, the WA Housing Authority, Dept. of Human Services, WA Police, WA Dept. of Children Services. Edmund Rice Centre, The Smith Family and the Road Safety Commission.

Acknowledgment of Grant Funding: The event provides a great opportunity for the City to engage with the local Mirrabooka community. Organisers acknowledge the City’s support as per the Guidelines and welcome representatives from Council to attend on the day. We also have many staff running aspects of the event and contributing to its success.

Recommended Funding Justification: The City already provides a significant amount of in-kind support by way of staff/volunteers, venue hire and insurance therefore the overall contribution from the City must be considered in the interest of fairness to all applicants. The increased 2017 funding enabled additional marketing and entertainment which did see a slight increase in attendees from 1,700 (2016) to 2,300 (2017), however a slightly reduced budget shouldn’t effect these outcomes and is financially responsible in regards to the Cultural Development Fund and maintaining funding for other eligible events/projects. There are also no proposed changes to the event or budget this year, therefore the recommended funding will be suitable for their current event and budget and is an increase from last year’s recommended funding of $6,000.

Expected Numbers

Event Budget

Requested Funding

Recommended Funding

2,500 $27,930 $19,000 $11,000

68% of budget 40% of budget

Previous Years

Funding

2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

$13,000 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000


The Fund Assessment Panel has assessed each event as per the Cultural Development Fund Policy.


This report has been submitted to Council in accordance with the Cultural Development Fund Policy.


95


The City has received a similar number of Cultural Development Fund applications as in previous years; however applicants have been applying for greater amounts of funding. This can be attributed to the additional funding amounts available in the revised Cultural Development Fund Policy in addition to other funding sources somewhat diminishing. The City had budgeted $170,000 for the Cultural Development Fund for 2017/2018, prior to the new Policy being adopted. The total allocated budget is currently at $210,450, with a large proportion of this being for Level 1 Flagship Events in Round 1. The second round of Cultural Development Fund Flagship Funding will increase this figure to $236,450 if recommended funding is granted. Officers have also forecast additional funding of approximately $73,000 would be required to support Level 2/3 events and projects which have not yet been funded for the remainder of the financial year. Unless further funds are allocated through the budget review process, Officers recommend no further applications for funding through the Cultural Development Fund be accepted in the 2017/2018 Financial Year.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods Objective 1.1: A Strong Sense of Place Objective 1.6: Active and Vibrant City Theme 3: Engaged Communities Objective 3.1: Inclusive and Harmonious City Theme 5: Prosperous City Objective 5.2: Destination City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.


96

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community engagement The Cultural Development Fund aims to provide not-for-profit community organisations with access to funding and in-kind support to assist them in coordinating events and projects within the City of Stirling for the benefit of residents and the wider community.

Cultural and heritage value The Cultural Development Fund provides community groups the opportunity to hold events and maintain cultural activities within the City which may not have been possible without the City's support.

Health, wellbeing and safety The Cultural Development Fund assists not-for-profit groups and organisations to run events and cultural activities within our local community for City of Stirling residents. These in turn provide opportunities for people to engage with each other, supporting mental health outcomes and creating s sense of well-being and belonging within our community. Utilising public spaces reduces anti-social behaviour and encourages ownership of spaces, increasing public safety and perceptions of safety.

Community services The Cultural Development Fund increases the range and number of Large Scale Events, Community Events and Cultural Development Projects available within the City for residents and the wider community.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Dvlpmt of key business sectors The Cultural Development supports Event Organisers to operate within the City which provide an economic benefit to local businesses and increase the number of visitors to the City, in line with the Economic and Tourism Development Strategy.

Business innovation The Cultural Development Fund supports not-for-profit organisations who seek to build on strategic alliances and place-making strategies such as the Beaufort Street Activity Corridor and the MRA Scarborough Redevelopment Project.

Conclusion

The Cultural Development Fund enables the City of Stirling to support a wide range of events and projects across the City, providing not-for-profit community organisations with access to funding and in-kind support to assist them in coordinating events and projects for the benefit of residents and the community.

By endorsing the recommended funding allocations and providing additional funding for the Cultural Development Fund, the City guarantees a diverse range of high quality events that will have wide appeal across the community and positively contribute to an active and vibrant community.


97

10.2/CS1 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION FUNCTION 2018

Report Information

Location: City Wide


Reporting Officer: Manager Community Services

Business Unit: Community Services

Ward: City Wide



Definition







Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Sargent


That Council ENDORSES holding a volunteer recognition function at the City of Stirling Administration Building outdoor forecourt and reception hall on Wednesday 21 March 2018. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


98

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES holding a volunteer recognition function at the City of Stirling Administration Building outdoor forecourt and reception hall on Wednesday 21 March 2018.

Report Purpose

To seek Council approval to host a Volunteer Recognition function on Wednesday 21 March 2018 at the City of Stirling Administration Building Outdoor Forecourt.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

Since 2001 the City has hosted between four and six volunteer recognition functions for the 550 volunteers and a guest who are directly registered with the City’s Volunteer Services. Following feedback from volunteers and Councillors, the City hosted the inaugural Volunteer Garden Party on behalf of the Mayor and Councillors to thank volunteers for their service to the City of Stirling community in the Stirling Civic Gardens in March 2017. This event was hosted in a different style than the previous volunteer dinners. The Community Services Business Unit received overwhelming positive feedback regarding the event and volunteers thoroughly enjoyed the different style and opportunity to socialise together as a large cohort. Following the event surveys were sent to all volunteers and Councillors. There were several suggestions on improvements that could be made for future events. These included considering ease of access to and from the function, inclusion of a coffee van and provision of more traditional types of foods such as roasts and fish and chip options. The Stirling Civic Gardens was problematic in that the area was a main access route for cyclists particularly due to the roadworks that were occurring at this time. For people who had mobility issues, the distance from the car park to the gardens was too far and crossing the road in heavy traffic required assistance from traffic management. The food trucks received positive feedback however many senior volunteers requested the inclusion of more traditional Australian food as well as the option to try different foods.

Comment

The purpose of the Volunteer Recognition function is for the Mayor and Councillors to formally thank volunteers for their time and efforts supporting City residents.


99

Taking into consideration the positive feedback and suggestions for improvement, it is proposed to hold a single event for all volunteers (plus guests) at the Administration Building Outdoor Forecourt and Reception Hall which will enable better access and toilet facilities for the more senior volunteers. The theme of the evening is proposed to be ‘Australiana’ and will incorporate a range of activities and entertainment using this theme. A buffet style meal that matches the theme will be provided. The proposed date is Wednesday 21 March 2018 from 4.30pm to 7.00pm.


Nil.


Nil.


The City has an approved budget $60,000 in Cost Centre A0213 to host this event. It is anticipated that this event will cost significantly less as there will be savings due to the change of venue.


Theme 3: Engaged Communities Objective 3.2: Active Participation and Volunteering



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community services Volunteering provides social benefit to the volunteer and provides the opportunity for people receiving services to have an improved quality of life and to remain living in the City.


100

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The Volunteer Recognition Function has been a successful way for Council to thank volunteers for their contribution to support City programs and services, but most importantly, to thank them for supporting residents of the City. There has been a lot of positive feedback on the 2017 Volunteer Recognition event therefore officers are seeking Council’s endorsement to hold a similar event at the City of Stirling administration building outdoor forecourt and reception hall on Wednesday 21 March 2018.


101

10.2/IA1 CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR INCORPORATION WITH CROWN RESERVE 24736

Report Information

Location: Road Reserve, abutting House Number 217, Sixth Avenue and House Number 222, Central Avenue, Inglewood

Applicant: City of Stirling

Reporting Officer: Director Infrastructure

Business Unit: Infrastructure Administration

Ward: Inglewood

Suburb: Inglewood


Definition







Moved Councillor Caddy, seconded Councillor Migdale


1. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of a 326m² portion of road reserve located between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:-

a. the closure area being created as a standalone lot; and

b. the newly created lot be included into the Management Order for Crown Reserve 24736 granted to the City of Stirling for the purpose of 'Parking and Gardens'.


102

2. That the Minister for Lands be REQUESTED to close the 326m² portion of road

reserve between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.

Recommendation

1. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of a 326m² portion of road reserve located between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:-


b. the newly created lot be included into the Management Order for Crown Reserve 24736 granted to the City of Stirling for the purpose of 'Parking and Gardens'.


reserve between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.

Report Purpose

To seek Council's consent to request the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) to close a separate portion of road reserve between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue, Inglewood and create it as Lot 502 on Deposited Plan 72142 (as shown in Attachment 2). The resultant land from the road closures would be created as standalone lots and included into the Management Order for Crown Reserve 24736.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 217, Sixth Avenue and House Number 222, Central Avenue, Inglewood.

Attachment 2 - Deposited Plan 27142 showing future Lot 502. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

At its meeting held 7 May 2013, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0513/011) to dedicate portions of a number of Rights of Way which were required for the City's road network.


103

At the time of this resolution, lots were privately owned Rights of Way (ROW). The City submitted the request to the DPLH to undertake the required ROW dedications and create them as new roads.

In 2014, DPLH advised the City that it had inadvertently dedicated portions of these ROW which were not included in the City’s request. A 326m² portion of road reserve between Sixth Avenue and Central Avenue Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1) is one of the inadvertently dedicated roads.

DPLH acknowledged the error and advised the City that to resolve this matter DPLH would merge the inadvertently dedicated ROW (road) into the adjoining Crown Reserve 24736.

Comment

In 2017, DPLH have since advised that they are unable to legally close this portion of unconstructed dedicated road without the City first obtaining Council approval and undertaking the relevant advertising in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Following advice from DPLH the City has undertaken a review of its position relating to the inadvertently dedicated ROW. The City considered the following options:-

Option 1 - Leaving the inadvertently dedicated ROW as roads (current status)

This would not involve DPLH rectifying the dedication error and having the land retained as its current legal status (road reserve). Road Reserve is owned by the State of Western Australia and managed by the City for the purpose of ‘Road’. The City would be required to level, seal and kerb the road reserve at its own cost.

It has been determined that there is no value to the City or Community in this portion remaining as road reserve. The City does not want this section to remain as dedicated road, as there is no intent to utilise this portion as road in the future.

Option 2 - Undertaking a road closure process and having the resultant land included within Crown Reserve 24736

This would involve the City assisting DPLH in rectifying the dedication error by obtaining Council’s approval and undertaking the required advertising to close this portion of road reserve, meeting legislative requirements.

DPLH would then close the portion of road reserve and create it as standalone lot (Lot 502 on Deposited Plan 72142 (as shown in Attachment 2) for inclusion into Crown Reserve 24736.

Crown Reserve 24736 is owned by the State of Western Australia and managed by the City of Stirling for the purpose of ‘Parking and Gardens’ and comprises of Lot 16020 on Plan 186603, House Number 2, Hamer Parade, Inglewood.

The proposal to close and include the resultant land from the road closure into Crown Reserve 24736 is considered the more suitable outcome for the following reasons:-

Having the resultant land included into the adjoining Crown Reserve better represents the current visual aesthetics and use of the land;

Provides continued use of the land by the community; and

Represents the City’s original intentions for the road network.


104


Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires that the City advertise the proposed road reserve closure by local public notice for a period of not less than 35 days.


A local government may request that the Minister for Lands close a road following receipt of a supported application in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.


The City will cover the cost of the advertising, survey, lodgement and administration of the proposed road closures which is expected to amount to $1,000.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods Objective 1.3: Beautiful Streetscapes and open Spaces



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

Following recommendation from the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage it is proposed that Council approve the closure of the inadvertently dedicated portion of road abutting House Number 217, Sixth Avenue and House Number 222, Central Avenue, Inglewood and incorporate this land within the City's existing Management Order for Crown Reserve 24736.


105

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/IA1 - CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH CROWN RESERVE 24736 Attachment 1 - Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 217, Sixth Avenue and House Number 222, Central Avenue, Inglewood


106

Attachment 2 - Deposited Plan 27142 showing future Lot 502


107

10.2/IA2 CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR INCORPORATION WITH CROWN RESERVE 39015

Report Information

Location: Road Reserve, abutting House Number 86 and 86a, Dundas Road, Inglewood and House Number 241 and 241a, Ninth Avenue, Inglewood

Applicant: City of Stirling



Ward: Inglewood

Suburb: Inglewood


Definition







Moved Councillor Spagnolo, seconded Councillor Proud


1. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of a 248m² portion of road reserve located between Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:-


b. the newly created lot be included into the Management Order for Crown Reserve 39015 granted to the City of Stirling for the purpose of 'Park'.


108


reserve between Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.

3. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of the 206m² portion of road

reserve located between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 2) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:-

a. The closure area being created as a standalone lot; and


4. That the Minister for Land be REQUESTED to close a 206m² portion of road

reserve between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.

Recommendation

1. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of a 248m² portion of road reserve located between Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:-




reserve between Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.

3. That Council APPROVES advertising of the closure of the 206m² portion of road

reserve located between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 2) in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:- a. The closure area being created as a standalone lot; and


4. That the Minister for Land be REQUESTED to close a 206m² portion of road

reserve between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood subject to no objections being received during the advertising period.


109

Report Purpose

To seek Council's consent to request the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) to close two separate portions of road reserve between:-

Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood and create it as Lot 500 on Deposited Plan 72142; and

Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood and create it as Lot 501 on Deposited Plan 72142 (as shown in Attachment 3).

The resultant land from the road closures would be created as standalone lots and included into the Management Order for Crown Reserve 39015.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 86 and 86a, Dundas Road, Inglewood.

Attachment 2 - Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 241 and 241a, Ninth

Avenue, Inglewood. Attachment 3 - Deposited Plan 27142 showing future Lot 500 and Lot 501. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

At its meeting held 7 May 2013, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0513/011) to dedicate portions of a number of Rights of Way which were required for the City's road network. At the time of this resolution, lots were privately owned Rights of Way (ROW). The City submitted the request to the DPLH to undertake the required ROW dedications and create them as new roads. In 2014, DPLH advised the City that it had inadvertently dedicated portions of these ROW which were not included in the City’s request and are defined as follows:-

a 248m² portion of road reserve between Dundas Road and Tenth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 1).

a 206m² portion of road reserve located between Ninth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Inglewood (as shown in Attachment 2).

DPLH acknowledged the error and advised the City that to resolve this matter DPLH would merge the inadvertently dedicated ROW (roads) into the adjoining Crown Reserve 39015.


110

Comment

In 2017, DPLH have since advised that they are unable to legally close these portions of unconstructed dedicated road without the City first obtaining Council approval and undertaking the relevant advertising in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Following advice from DPLH the City has undertaken a review of its position relating to the inadvertently dedicated ROW. The City considered the following options:- Option 1 - Leaving the inadvertently dedicated ROW as roads (current status) This would not involve DPLH rectifying the dedication error and having the land retained as its current legal status (road reserve). Road Reserve is owned by the State of Western Australia and managed by the City for the purpose of ‘Road’. The City would be required to level, seal and kerb the road reserve at its own cost. It has been determined that there is no value to the City or Community in these two portions remaining as road reserve. The City does not want these sections to remain as dedicated roads as there is, no intent to utilise them as road in the future. Option 2 - Undertaking a road closure process and having the resultant land included within Crown Reserve 39015 This would involve the City assisting DPLH in rectifying the dedication error by obtaining Council approval and undertaking the required advertising to close these portions of road reserve, meeting legislative requirements. DPLH would then close these portions of road reserve and create them as standalone lots (Lot 500 and Lot 501 on Deposited Plan 72142 as shown in Attachment 3) for inclusion into Crown Reserve 30915. Crown Reserve 39015 is owned by the State of Western Australia and managed by the City of Stirling for the purpose of ‘Park’ and comprises of Lots 10621 to 10623 on Plan 186602 being House Number 4, Hamer Parade, Inglewood. The proposal to close and include the resultant land from these road closures into Crown Reserve 39015 is considered the more suitable outcome for the following reasons:-

Having the resultant land included into the adjoining Crown Reserve better represents the current visual aesthetics and use of the land;

Provides continued use of the land by the community; and

Represents the City’s original intentions for the road network.


Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires that the City advertise the proposed road reserve closure by local public notice for a period of not less than 35 days.


111


A local government may request that the Minister for Lands close a road following receipt of a supported application in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997.


The City will cover the cost of the advertising, survey, lodgement and administration of the proposed road closures which is expected to amount to $2,000.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods Objective 1.3: Beautiful Streetscapes and open Spaces



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil

Conclusion

Following recommendation from the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage it is proposed that Council approve the closure of the inadvertently dedicated portions of roads abutting House Number 86 and 86a, Dundas Road, Inglewood and House Number 241 and 241a, Ninth Avenue, Inglewood and incorporate these lots with the City's existing Management Order over Crown Reserve 39015.


112

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/IA2 - CLOSURE OF ROAD RESERVE FOR AMALGAMATION WITH CROWN RESERVE 39015 Attachment 1 - Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 86 and 86a Dundas Road, Inglewood


113

Attachment 2 - Locality Plan of road closure abutting House Number 241 and 241a Ninth Avenue, Inglewood


114

Attachment 3 - Deposited Plan 27142, showing proposed new Lot creations


115

10.2/IA3 NEW LICENCE TO THE ROTARY CLUB OF KARRINYUP INC OVER PORTION OF LOT 799, HOUSE NUMBER 25, CEDRIC STREET, STIRLING

Report Information

Location: Portion of Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling

Applicant: Rotary Club of Karrinyup



Ward: Osborne

Suburb: Stirling


Definition








116

Moved Councillor Proud, seconded Councillor Caddy


1. That Council APPROVES a new licence over portion of Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling to the Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc, with the following essential terms:-

a. A term of three years commencing 11 March 2018 to operate every Sunday

between the hours of 6.30am and 12.30pm with trading hours between 7.30am and 11.30am;

b. Licence Fee at the commencement of the licence be set at $300 plus GST per annum; and

c. Use of the premises to be in line with the conditions imposed under

Development Approval DA14/3188. 2. That AUTHORITY be given to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and

affix the Common Seal to the necessary documentation to effect the licence. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.

Recommendation

1. That Council APPROVES a new licence over portion of Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling to the Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc, with the following essential terms:-

a. A term of three years commencing 11 March 2018 to operate every Sunday

between the hours of 6.30am and 12.30pm with trading hours between 7.30am and 11.30am;

b. Licence Fee at the commencement of the licence be set at $300 plus GST per annum; and

c. Use of the premises to be in line with the conditions imposed under Development Approval DA14/3188.

2. That AUTHORITY be given to the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix

the Common Seal to the necessary documentation to effect the licence.

Report Purpose

To seek Council approval to enter into a new licence with the Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc operating as the ‘Stirling Farmers Market’ (Stirling Farmers Market) over portion of Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling (City of Stirling Carpark) for a term of three years commencing on 11 March 2018.


117

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 – Site Plan of Stirling Farmers Market Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

The Stirling Farmers Market currently utilises the City of Stirling Carpark to operate a Farmers Market comprising of vendors selling seasonal produce, home crafts and other artisan products. Following a successful trial period of the Stirling Farmers Market, an initial licence was granted in March 2012 and a subsequent three year extension period was entered into in March 2015. The Stirling Farmers Market licence is now up for review and has an expiry of 10 March 2018. The Stirling Farmers Market has written to the City of Stirling requesting a new licence over the City of Stirling Carpark for a further three year term commencing 11 March 2018.

Comment

The City has undertaken a review of the new licence request from Stirling Farmers Market and is supportive of the proposal. The current and ongoing use of the premises is provided under the existing Development Approval issued for the site (DA14/3188). As there is a valid development approval, the City has no objection to this use continuing provided it remains in accordance with this approval and its associated conditions. The Stirling Farmers Market has developed a good working relationship with the City and the Community. City officers regularly attend the premises to conduct food safety inspections which overall have been compliant. Where minor non-compliances have been observed, they have been quickly rectified when brought to the attention of the organisers. The Stirling Farmers Market currently supports approximately 93 approved seasonal market food vendors. The current certificates of approval for these vendors will expire on 10 March 2018 and as such updated certificates of approval will be required, subject to approval of this new licence. Overall, the City is of the view that the Stirling Farmers Market has operated to a satisfactory standard and considers a new licence for a term of three years to be a suitable proposal.


118

The following terms have been negotiated between the City and the Stirling Farmers Market:-

Licensee Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc (trading as Stirling Farmers Market)

The Premises Portion of Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling, as referenced on the plans in Attachment 1

Term Three years commencing on 11 March 2018

Hours of Operation Sunday between the hours of 7.30am and 11.30am only.

Hours for access to set up and clean up

Sunday between the hours of 6.30am and 12.30pm only.

Break Clause Any time after the first 12 month period of the licence either party may give to the other three months’ notice in writing terminating this licence.

Licence Purpose To operate and promote the “Stirling Farmers Market”.

Annual Commencing Licence Fee

$300 plus GST

Licensee Payments All outgoings including, but not limited to: water consumption, gas, electricity, telephone and internet charges.

Licensee Maintenance Responsibilities

Maintain and ensure that the Premises is returned to a clean and orderly state following the each weekly market. Provide and remove portable ablution facilities, umbrellas and all temporary installations after each weekly market.

Special Conditions 1. That umbrellas and fixing of anchorages are approved to the City’s satisfaction regarding location (as certified by a structural engineer) to cope with weather conditions.

2. Site access for stall holders is to occur via Cedric Street, Stirling to minimise disturbances to nearby residential properties.

3. All food stall operators to submit an application form to sell food at an event to the City for approval prior to the commencement of sale of goods.

4. All food stall operators to comply with the Food Act 2008 and FSANZ Food Safety Standards to the satisfaction of the City.

5. All power cables and electrical appliances to be tested and tagged within the previous six months to the satisfaction of the City with new installations to be certified by a licensed electrician.

The above essential terms are in line with the conditions under the current licence with the exception of the Licence Fee which will be increased to $300 plus GST from nil.


119


In accordance with Section 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, the new licence is exempt from statutory advertising.


Nil.


The Club will be responsible for all associated costs in relation to the preparation of the new licence documentation which is expected to amount to $500.


Theme 1: Liveable City and Thriving Neighbourhoods

Objective 1.6: Active and Vibrant City



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Amenity The Stirling Farmers Market is run by the Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc. The weekly market provides both an active community event space as well as providing local growers and business direct access to the community. The markets also support community stalls for charities and community groups.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

Following the City's review of the Rotary Club of Karrinyup Inc’s request to continue operation of the Stirling Farmers Market, it is considered appropriate for the City to grant a new licence over Lot 799, House Number 25, Cedric Street, Stirling which would have the following benefits:-

The Stirling Farmers Market provides community amenity serving as a community meeting space which mutually benefits the local community as well as its vendors.

The Stirling Farmers Market supports local and Western Australian growers/producers as well as charities and community stall holders.


120

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/IA3 - NEW LICENCE TO THE ROTARY CLUB OF KARRINYUP INC OVER PORTION OF LOT 799, HOUSE NUMBER 25, CEDRIC STREET, STIRLING.

Attachment 1 - Site Plan of Stirling Farmers Market


121

10.2/F1 SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS PAID FOR PERIOD 3 ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2017 AND PERIOD 4 ENDING 31 OCTOBER 2017

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Acting Manager Finance





Definition







Moved Councillor Sargent, seconded Councillor Proud


1. That the schedule of cheques drawn and payments made for Period 3, 1 September - 30 September 2017 amounting to:-

Municipal Fund $75,401,514.25 Trust - Reserve 2,726,629.54 TOTAL $78,128,143.79

be RECEIVED.


122

2. That the schedule of cheques drawn and payments made for Period 4, 1 October

- 31 October 2017 amounting to:-

Municipal Fund $29,654,996.11 Trust 60,000.00 Reserve -

___________ TOTAL $29,714,996.11

be RECEIVED. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.

Recommendation

1. That the schedule of cheques drawn and payments made for Period 3, 1 September - 30 September 2017 amounting to:-

Municipal Fund $75,401,514.25 Trust - Reserve 2,726,629.54 TOTAL $78,128,143.79

be RECEIVED.

2. That the schedule of cheques drawn and payments made for Period 4, 1 October - 31

October 2017 amounting to:-

Municipal Fund $29,654,996.11 Trust 60,000.00 Reserve -

___________ TOTAL $29,714,996.11

be RECEIVED.

Report Purpose

To inform the Council of funds disbursed for the period 1 September to 30 September 2017 and the period 1 October - 31 October 2017.


123

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Schedule of cheques raised on the Municipal and Trust Funds. Attachment 2 - F1 Payment Listing* (ECM Doc No: 8811400 and 8869671). (*Please note these documents can be viewed in the electronic version of this agenda on the City of Stirling website).


Nil.

Background

Nil.

Comment

The reported schedules are submitted in accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


Nil.


Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be prepared each month and presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared.


Nil.


Theme 6: Making It Happen Objective 6.3: Prudent Financial Management



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.


124

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

The schedule of cheques drawn and payments made during the reporting period be presented.


125

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/F1 - SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS PAID FOR PERIOD 3 ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2017 AND PERIOD 4 ENDING 31 OCTOBER 2017 Attachment 1 - Schedule of cheques raised on the Municipal and Trust Funds


126


127


128


129


130


131


132


133


134


135


136


137


138

10.2/F2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2017 AND 31 OCTOBER 2017

Report Information



Reporting Officer: Acting Manager Finance





Definition







Moved Councillor Sargent, seconded Councillor Caddy


That the monthly Statement of Financial Activity and other relevant Financial Reports for the months ending 30 September and 31 October 2017 be RECEIVED. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


139

Recommendation

That the monthly Statement of Financial Activity and other relevant Financial Reports for the months ending 30 September and 31 October 2017 be RECEIVED.

Report Purpose

To apprise Council of the financial position of the City at 31 October 2017 in compliance with the provisions of Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Coloured copies of the following attachments have been distributed to Councillors under separate cover. (ECM Doc No: 8910512)

Attachment 1 - Monthly Financial Reports for September and October 2017.

A Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement;

A Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - by Directorate;

A Statement of Financial Position;

Current Assets less Restricted Assets;

A Statement of Cash Flows;

A Statement of Capital Transactions - Summary;

Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit;

An Investment Summary;

An Investment Report; and

A Statement of Financial Performance of City Services.


Nil.

Background

The City's Financial Reports are produced in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended.

Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires that local governments produce a monthly statement of financial activity and such other supporting information as is considered relevant by the local government. The City of Stirling (the City) produces a number of reports to assist in the understanding of its operations and financial position.

The City's financial reporting framework provides Council, management and employees with a broad overview of the City Wide financial position. The format for the financial report is in two parts:-

1. A financial summary comprising a Statement of Financial Activity and an explanation of the composition of net current assets, less committed assets and restricted assets plus an explanation of each material variance in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 34; and

2. A package of other relevant financial reports.


140

Comment

To comply with the requirements of Regulation 34, a Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement is attached. A summary of this statement follows. Comments are required for variances that are more than 10% of budget and $50,000.

Part 1 Monthly Statement of Financial Activity for period ending 31 October 2017

It should be noted that this statement only includes transactions as they relate to the Municipal Fund and it removes the non-cash items to allow an assessment of the City's dependency on rate levies. A summary of this statement follows:-

YTD Actual $'000

YTD Budget $'000

Budget $'000

Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure Net Operating Non-Operating Activities Capital Expenditure Net Surplus/(Deficit) from Operating and Non- Operating Activities Non Cash Transactions Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of Assets Depreciation on assets Loss on Revaluation of Assets Acquired Assets Movement in Non-Current Liabilities Funded From Proceeds from disposal of assets Transferred to/from Town Planning Schemes Transferred to/from Accumulated Funds Opening Funds Closing Funds Comparison to Rate Setting Statement

53,160

(66,275)

(13,115)

1,946

(25,500)

(36,669)

206 13,901

- -

(117)

2,396 (44)

12,704

26,368

152,673

133,928

53,995

(66,203)

(12,208)

2,249

(45,795)

(55,754)

170 9,781

- - -

958 (13)

5,928

34,626

129,856

134,161

87,766

(219,007)

(131,241)

9,295

(91,738)

(213,683)

(2,274) 28,969

- - -

5,691 792

11,326

34,626

-

134,554


141

An explanation of major variances between YTD Actual and YTD Budget for the period ending 31 October 2017 is as follows:-

Operating Revenues 1. Grants and Subsidies

This revenue item has a negative variance of 13% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to lower than anticipated grant funding for General Purpose Grant than forecast in the budget. 2. Contributions, Reimbursements and Donations

This revenue item has a positive variance of 143% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to insurance recovered being higher than forecast in budget. 3. Interest

This revenue item has a negative variance of 18% of YTD Budget. This is the result of funds invested to October, along with investment rates, being lower than forecast in budget. 4. Registration, License & Permits

This revenue item has a negative variance of 15% of YTD Budget. This is the result of lower revenue from development application fees and building licences compared to budget.

5. Fees & Charges

This revenue item has a negative variance of 13% of YTD Budget. This can be attributed to lower than anticipated income for Day Centres, Home Support Services and Learn to Swim programmes as compared to the budget. 6. Other

This revenue item has a negative variance of 13% of YTD Budget. This can mainly be attributed to revenue from Balcatta Recycling Centre being lower than forecast in budget. Operating Expense 7. Material and Contracts Other Works

This expenditure item has a positive variance of 12% of YTD Budget. This is mainly attributed to lower than expected costs in the areas of tipping fees, office furniture purchases and external contractors as compared to budget. 8. Depreciation

This expenditure item has a negative variance of 42% of YTD Budget. When budget was set infrastructure had not been re-valued for fair value, depreciation in budget was based on costs prior to revaluation of infrastructure assets.


142

9. Insurance

This expenditure item has a negative variance of 71% of YTD Budget. This is the result of the second instalments for Public Liability and Property insurance being paid in October whilst budget had them in future periods. This is a phasing issue only.

10. Other

This expenditure item has a positive variance of 26% of YTD Budget. This can be attributed to lower amounts being expended on donations and sponsorship than forecast in budget. Non - Operating Activity 11. Grants & Subsidies

This revenue item has a negative variance of 45% of YTD Budget. This is the result of the grants funds received from Departments of Main Roads being less than forecast in budget.

12. Equity Share of Investment

This revenue is a non-cash adjustment and is the recognition of the City’s equity share of sales by Tamala Park Regional Council.

13. Profit or Loss on Disposal of Assets and Proceeds from Disposal of Assets

Loss on disposal of assets is mainly the result of disposal of some fleet items at a loss in September and October. 14. Capital Expenditure

See separate report for details on variances in capital expenditure “A Statement of Capital Transactions – Detail by Business Unit”. 15. Transfers to and from Accumulated Funds/Reserve

The variance of YTD Budget is mainly due to the timing of reserve transfers for the Scarborough Redevelopment project.


143

Regulation 34 also requires an explanation of the composition of the Net Current Assets less committed assets and restricted assets. The following table provides this information: -

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and Cash Equivalent

Receivables

Prepayments

Stock on Hand

Total Current Assets

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables and Provisions

Total Current Liabilities

$’000

194,091

59,810

-

6,279

______

260,180

41,653

______

41,653

NET CURRENT ASSETS 218,527

Less Committed Assets

Less Restricted Assets

68,932

Net Current Assets adjusted for Committed and Restricted Assets 149,595

Part 2 Other Relevant Financial Reports Other supporting information considered relevant to this financial report is attached. The report comprises:-

A Statement of Financial Activity in the form of a Rate Setting Statement;

A Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - City Wide;

An Operating Statement by Nature - by Directorate;

A Statement of Financial Position;

Current Assets less Restricted Assets;

A Statement of Cash Flows;

A Statement of Capital Transactions - Summary;

A Statement of Capital Transactions - Detail by Business Unit;

An Investment Summary;

An Investment Report; and

A Statement of Financial Performance of City Services.


144

The following table summarises the City's operations as reported by the Operating Statement by Nature. These are more traditional accrual-based Operating Statements consolidating all Council operations except Trust Fund transactions. They contain both cash and non-cash (e.g. depreciation) transactions.

YTD

Actual

$'000

YTD

Budget

$'000

Budget

$'000

Operating Activity

Revenue

Expenditures

Change in Net Assets

Resulting from Operations

Non-Operating Activity

Total Non-Operating Activity

Net Result

Capital

187,088

(66,275)

120,812

1,946

122,759

(24,936)

188,157

(66,203)

121,954

2,249

124,202

(45,795)

222,319

(219,007)

3,313

9,295

12,608

(97,873)


Nil.


Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 as amended requires all local governments to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the revenue and expenditure for the month in question. Financial Management Regulation 34 also requires this statement to be accompanied by:-

a. An explanation of the composition of the net current assets, less committed assets and restricted assets.

b. An explanation of material variances; and

c. Such supporting information that is relevant to the Local Government.


Nil.


Theme 6: Making It Happen Objective 6.3: Prudent Financial Management


145



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

This report demonstrates responsible financial management in line with the City's strategic priorities to ensure that the City remains in a solid financial position.

Conclusion

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires local governments to prepare each month a Statement of Financial Activity, reporting on revenue and expenditure for the month in question. The statement is also to be accompanied by:-

a. An explanation of the composition of the net current assets, less committed assets and restricted assets;

b. An explanation of material variances; and

c. Such supporting information that is relevant to the Local Government. The monthly statement of Financial Activity and other unaudited relevant finance reports for 31 October 2017 with an explanation of year to date material variances are submitted for review.


146

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/F2 - MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE MONTH ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER AND 31 OCTOBER 2017

Attachment 1 - Monthly Financial Reports for September and October 2017


147


148


149


150


151


152


153


154


155


156


157


158


159


160


161


162


163


164


165


166


167


168


169


170


171


172


173


174


175


176


177


178


179


180


181


182


183


184


185


186


187


188


189


190


191


192


193

10.2/GS1 USE OF THE RECEPTION HALL FOR 2018 CIVIC EVENTS

Report Information





Ward: City Wide



Definition







Moved Councillor Sandri, seconded Councillor Sargent


That Council APPROVES the use of the Reception Hall by the City to host identified annual Civic functions during 2018 as contained in attachment 1. The motion was put and declared CARRIED (7/0). For: Councillors Caddy, Guilfoyle, Migdale, Proud, Sandri, Sargent and Spagnolo. Against: Nil.


194

Recommendation

That Council APPROVES the use of the Reception Hall by the City to host identified annual Civic functions during 2018 as contained in attachment 1.

Report Purpose

To seek Council approval regarding the use of the Reception Hall to host identified annual Civic functions in 2018. Approval for the use of the Reception Hall will enable the events to be planned and scheduled in advance for the Mayor, Councillors, Chief Executive Officer, Civic and Hospitality employees and officers involved in coordinating the functions.

Relevant Documents

Attachments

Attachment - Proposed Civic Functions Calendar 2018. Available for viewing at the meeting

Nil.

Background

The City of Stirling has historically held Civic functions to:-

Encourage club officials and members to keep abreast of future challenges, trends and innovations through interactive information sessions;

Recognise contributions made by members of the community, including volunteers;

Provide incentives to ratepayers who pay their rates in full by the qualifying date; and

Conduct regular citizenship ceremonies, processing up to 110 recipients at each ceremony.

These functions are held in the City of Stirling Reception Hall, and these events are highly regarded by the community and Council. City officers are seeking approval of the scheduled dates, as listed below, to enable appropriate planning for the events and adequate notification and participation for Councillors.

Comment

Detailed below are the identified annual Civic events, including a brief outline of the function and the proposed dates.


195

Citizenship Ceremonies

The City receives requests to host citizenship ceremonies for approximately 2,500 of its residents each year. Regular formal ceremonies are held in the City’s Reception Hall, processing up to 110 recipients at each ceremony (Council Resolution Number 1110/026). Members of Federal and State Parliament and Councillors are invited to attend each ceremony. Details Proposed Dates:-

Friday 26 January (Australia Day) at 9.30am

Wednesday 7 February

Wednesday 28 February

Wednesday 7 March

Wednesday 14 March

Wednesday 28 March

Wednesday 4 April

Wednesday 18 April

Wednesday 2 May

Wednesday 16 May

Wednesday 4 July

Wednesday 25 July

Wednesday 1 August

Wednesday 8 August

Wednesday 22 August

Wednesday 12 September

Wednesday 26 September

Wednesday 10 October

Wednesday 24 October

Wednesday 7 November

Wednesday 14 November

Time: 6.00pm to 9.00pm (for ceremonies commencing at 6.30pm)

Type of Function: Ceremony followed by finger food for guests

Attendance: 110 recipients and invited guests including Councillors


196

Living Green Community Sustainability Awards

The inaugural Living Green Community Sustainability Awards was held on 23 June 2015 at the Tuart Hill Community Centre to recognise and celebrate the sustainability actions taken by individuals, schools, community groups and businesses in the Stirling community with an aim to promote their achievements to inspire others. The Living Green Community Sustainability Awards programme was proposed as a biennial event and after a detailed post-event evaluation it was recommended the location be changed to the City of Stirling Reception Hall in line with similar annual Civic functions and events. Details Proposed Date: Wednesday 9 May

Time: 6.00pm to 8.30pm

Type of Function: Seated cocktail

Attendance: Approximately 80 guests including Councillors, Nominees and City of Stirling Officers

Heritage Awards

At its meeting held 18 February 2003, Council endorsed the proposal for the inaugural Heritage Awards Programme (Item Number 11.1/PL4). The purpose of the programme is to increase the awareness of the City’s heritage and to recognise the contributions made by individuals, community groups, businesses and government bodies to the conservation of our local heritage. The Heritage Awards programme was proposed as a biennial event with five series conducted to date. The next Heritage Awards series will be held in 2018 with a presentation ceremony proposed to be held in May 2018. Details Proposed date: Wednesday 30 May


Type of Function: Seated cocktail

Attendance: Approximately 100 invited guests including Councillors, Architects, Builders, City of Stirling Community Members and Officers


197

Mayoral Business Breakfast

The Mayoral Business Breakfast is a function to inform the local business community of City projects that have relevance to them, and to provide a networking opportunity for local businesses with Council. This breakfast will be used to launch any significant business strategies that impact on the local business community. Details Proposed date: Wednesday 6 June

Time: 7.00am to 9.30am

Type of Function: Networking event, including breakfast

Attendance: Approximately 130 invited guests including Councillors

Justice of the Peace Annual Dinner

The Royal Association of Justices of Western Australia (Inc.) Stirling Branch have for many years held their annual dinner, as part of their monthly meetings, in the City of Stirling Reception Hall. The Stirling Branch provides a voluntary JP service to the City of Stirling. At its meeting held 3 March 2009, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0309/005) that the City provides catering for the annual dinner, at no cost to the Royal Association of Justices of Western Australia (Inc.) Stirling Branch, in lieu of being invited to a volunteer dinner. Details Proposed date: Wednesday 13 June


Type of Function: Award presentations, including a formal dinner

Attendance: Approximately 100 guests including Councillors

Osborne Park Agricultural Society’s Trophy Presentation Evening

The Osborne Park Agricultural Society has for many years held its annual Trophy Presentation Evening in the City of Stirling Reception Hall. At its meeting held 6 April 2010, Council resolved (Council Resolution Number 0410/004) that the City provide catering for the annual event at no cost to the Osborne Park Agricultural Society, and for the event to be included in the annual Civic Functions Calendar. Details Proposed date: Wednesday 20 June


Type of Function: Award presentations, including a formal dinner

Attendance: Approximately 120 guests including Councillors


198

Employee Stirling Star of the Year

The first annual “Stirling Stars” event took place in November 2008, following Council Resolution Number 0908/064. Employees with 25 years of service and over (in five year increments) and nominees for the Stirling Star of the Year award are invited to join the Mayor, Councillors, Executive Team and Business Unit Managers at the event to celebrate and receive their awards. Details Proposed date: Thursday 6 September


Type of Function: Award presentations, including lunch

Attendance: Approximately 100 invited guests, including Councillors

Rates Incentive Prize Draw

Since 1982 the City has held the Rates Incentive function (Council Resolution Number 1110/026). The function consists of a rates prize draw which is open to all ratepayers who pay their rates in full by the qualifying date. As an added incentive, the City is also working with local businesses to offer a number of prizes. Details

Proposed date: Wednesday 3 October


Type of Function: Prize Draw, including cocktail function

Attendance: Approximately 80 invited guests including Councillors and Sponsors


199

Art Award and Exhibition

The City’s biennial Art Award and Exhibition is a notable event in the local and artistic community and is part of the City’s Calendar of Events. Council endorsed to continue the Art Award and Exhibition as a large scale event in February 2010 (Council Resolution Number 0210/044). The City of Stirling will be holding its 14th biennial Art Award and Exhibition in 2019. The biennial acquisitive award, aims to encourage local emerging artists and foster excellence in the arts. It allows the City of Stirling to directly contribute to the cultural life of its community and encourages the community to be active participants in the arts. The next Awards Night and Exhibition is proposed to be held in October 2019 with funds allocated in the 2018/2019 budget.

Details Award Night Proposed date: October 2019 (TBC)


Type of Function: Cocktail function

Attendance: Approximately 300 invited guests including Councillors

Details Art Exhibition Proposed dates: October 2019 (TBC)

Time: 10.00am to 4.00pm

Type of Function: Art exhibition


The functions include a broad cross section of people including clients, volunteers, Local and Federal Members, Councillors, City of Stirling members of the community and employees.


The proposed schedule complies with the City’s Civic Facilities Policy.


Funding to hold the proposed functions to 30 June 2018 are included in the approved 2017/2018 budget. Proposed functions after 1 July 2018 will be included in the 2018/2019 budget.


200


Theme 3: Engaged Communities Objective 3.3: Two Way Dialogue



ENVIRONMENTAL

Issue Comment

Nil.

SOCIAL

Issue Comment

Community engagement Provides an opportunity to improve the coordination of civic events and services within the City and for Councillors to engage with members of the local community in an informal setting.

ECONOMIC

Issue Comment

Nil.

Conclusion

It is anticipated that advance notice will assist with planning, promoting and coordinating the civic functions and events. It is therefore requested that Council approves the use of the reception hall to conduct the proposed functions identified in this report.


201

ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 10.2/GS1 - USE OF THE RECEPTION HALL FOR 2018 CIVIC EVENTS

Attachment 1 - Proposed Civic Functions Calendar 2018


202


203


204


205


206


207


208


209


210


211


212


213

10.2/10.1 CLOSURE OF OUT OF SCHOOL CARE AND VACATION CARE SERVICES

Confidentiality

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-

(a) a matter affecting an employee or employees

10.2/10.2 STRATEGIC DIRECTION - SCARBOROUGH (PSPI: 2016/02)

Confidentiality This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal - (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person;


214

Councillor Adam Spagnolo disclosed an Impartial Interest in Item 10.2/10.3 as he is the beneficiary of a trust that owns a nearby property.

10.2/10.3 STRATEGIC DIRECTION - WESTMINSTER (PSPI: 2016/04)

Confidentiality This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-


10.2/10.4 PROPERTY STRATEGY PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS REPORT NOVEMBER 2017

Confidentiality

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-


10.2/10.5 QUARTERLY STATEMENTS FOR THE CITY'S PROPERTY INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 30 SEPTEMBER 2017

Confidentiality

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:-


ATTACHMENTS

________________________________________________________

Item 10.1/A1 INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEW

Attachment 1 – Civic Legal Pty Ltd – Independent

Planning Review Report and Annexures (ECM Doc No: 8865505)

Attachment 2 - The City’s response to Civic Legal

Pty Ltd (ECM Doc No: 8866671)

http://sharepoint/sites/Marketing and Communication/Logos/City of Stirling Logos/logo_vert_539pcCorpBlue_VIEWING_ONLY.jpg

1889901_1

CITY OF STIRLING INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEW

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3

Terms Used ........................................................................................................................... 3

Overview of Review Process ................................................................................................. 3

Background – Development Assessment Panels .............................................................. 4

Planning law and policies .................................................................................................. 5

The DAP Regulations ..................................................................................................... 5

Other legislation versions ............................................................................................... 6

Policies and Procedures ................................................................................................ 6

Roles of Local Governments and Governance .................................................................. 6

PRIMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 7

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 11

General ............................................................................................................................ 11

Records and evidence examined .................................................................................... 13

Community Interviews ..................................................................................................... 13

Exclusions from scope ..................................................................................................... 14

Thresholds ....................................................................................................................... 15

Meetings with City Officers .............................................................................................. 16

Officer Roles .................................................................................................................... 16

FINDINGS ON RARs .......................................................................................................... 17

18 Ozone Parade, Trigg (DAP/14/00507) ........................................................................ 17

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 18

Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine ................................................................................................. 30

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 31

27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup ................................................................................................ 33

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 34

402 Karrinyup Road, Gwelup ........................................................................................... 41

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 42

812 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley.................................................................................. 42

Findings ....................................................................................................................... 43

General ............................................................................................................................ 43

Delegations .................................................................................................................. 43

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 2

Obligations to Report to DAP on Amended Applications .............................................. 44

Advertising ................................................................................................................... 44

Amendments and Re-advertising ................................................................................. 45

Customer Service Charter / Community Engagement ................................................. 46

Officer Workloads ......................................................................................................... 47

Access to Documents / Plans ...................................................................................... 48

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 49

DISCLAIMER ...................................................................................................................... 50

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 3

INTRODUCTION

This Report is prepared pursuant to the RFQ dated 23 May 2017 and our submission in response to that RFQ, dated 9 June 2017 and the agreement signed on 27 July 2017.

The RFQ sought an “independent professional planner to conduct a comprehensive review of a sample of not less than five Responsible Authority Reports including the development at 18 Ozone Parade, Trigg, Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine and 27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup to report back to Council”.

Through an electronic randomisation process, the two further addresses selected for review are:

1. 402 Karrinyup Road, Gwelup (lodgement date 2 April 2015); and

2. 812 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley (lodgement date 9 March 2015).

The two additional addresses are in respect of development applications dated close to the start of the review period (commencing 1 January 2015) but their selection has broadened the suburb spread.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has largely complied with the relevant planning law and policies (except as stated in this Report). The community concerns raised in relation to the three key RARs appear to have arisen primarily out of a failure to effectively communicate with community members about the role of the City during DAP application processes and in the preparation of the RAR by the City. The Civic Legal Team has also made recommendations in relation to transparency and record-keeping.

A summary of the concerns raised by the community members and our summary findings are contained in Annexure A to this Report.

Terms Used

In this Report, the following terms are used:

1. “Civic Legal Team”, which refers to the lawyers Anthony Quahe, Glenn Scott and MadeleineRyan as well as the town planner Paul Bashall and local government governance specialistFrancesca Lefante who conducted the planning review the subject of this Report;

2. "planning department", which is a shorthand reference to that section of the City responsiblefor planning approvals and the preparation of the RARs required under the DAP processes;

3. “RAR”, which refers to Responsible Authority Reports issued by local governments toDevelopment Assessment Panels during the course of processing planning applications (asset out in further detail in this Report); and

4. “RFQ” which refers to the Request for Quote issued by the City of Stirling on 23 May 2017.

Other terms are defined in this Report.

Overview of Review Process

1. This Report covers our review of:

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 4

a. five sample RARs, an assessment of the process for formulating the five RARS anddetermining whether the RARs and their recommendations as presented to the relevantDAP are supported by the underlying work performed by the City (RFQ, [2(c)]); and

b. the community concerns raised at Council meetings, interviews of those communitymembers who have raised concerns with the selected RARS, and identifies non-compliance with legal requirements or policy and otherwise recommends improvementsto the City’s processes or reporting protocols in response to the kinds of concerns raised(RFQ, [3]-[6]).

2. The role of the Civic Legal Team is that of an independent reviewer. In this regard, our Teamis not in a solicitor-client relationship with the City nor has it advised any applicant to the Cityfor planning approval. Further, none of the Civic Legal Team has been employed by the Citynor had a close relationship with a councillor of the City or any employee of the planningdepartment of the City nor had any involvement in any capacity with the Metro North-WestJoint Development Assessment Panel in activities relating to the City.

Background – Development Assessment Panels

3. Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) were introduced by the State Government in 2011to manage the determination of larger-scale development applications.

4. Although two councillors from an affected local government attend and vote at DAP meetings,a DAP is not controlled by or accountable to the local government.

5. DAPs were established and are governed by Part 11A of the Planning and Development Act2005 (WA) (the Act). DAPs determine prescribed development approval applications thateither must be determined by a DAP 1 (Mandatory DAP applications) or that may bedetermined by a DAP if the applicant elects to have the DAP do so 2 (Optional DAPapplications).

6. The Mandatory DAP applications and Optional DAP applications are prescribed in regulations4A, 5 and 6 of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations2011 (WA) (the DAP Regulations). Any DAP application within a district for which a DAP hasbeen established must be determined by the DAP as if the DAP were the relevant responsibleauthority for that area and cannot be determined by the local government itself.3

7. The monetary limit for DAP applications changed from 1 May 2015. In the earlier version, anOptional DAP application was to have an estimated cost of more than $3 million but less than$7 million, while a Mandatory DAP application was for developments over $7 million. In thelater version, an Optional DAP application was to have an estimated cost of more than $2million but less than $10 million, while a Mandatory DAP application was for developmentsover $10 million.

8. In this Report, all DAP applications reviewed were Mandatory DAP applications except for theOzone Parade development. The DAP process is the same for both Mandatory and OptionalDAP applications.

9. Under reg 12 of the DAP Regulations, a responsible authority (in this case, the localgovernment) must give the presiding member of the DAP a report on the application in an

1 under s.171A(2)(a) of the Act. 2 under s.171A(2)(ba) of the Act 3 reg 8 of the DAP Regulations.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 5

approved form (reg12(2)) and within a certain timeframe (regs 12(3)-(4)) (being a responsible authority report, or RAR). The RAR must provide sufficient information to enable the DAP to determine the application, including the local government’s recommendations, advices received by the local government from statutory or public authorities and any other information the local government considers to be relevant (reg 12(5)).

10. The DAP retains the discretion for the DAP application and may act contrary to the localgovernment’s recommendations (reg 12(6)).

11. The DAP may even determine the DAP application if the local government fails to submit anRAR (reg 12(7)).

12. DAP determinations are reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) (reg 18).

13. The RAR must be completed and submitted by the local government within a set period oftime. The current timeframe is within 48 days if no advertising is required and 78 days ifadvertising is required. During the period of the five RARs the subject of this Report, thetimeframe was within 50 days if no advertising is required and 80 days if advertising isrequired (reg 12).

14. This RAR process and the DAP approval process is a streamlined process that is mandatedby State Government regulations, rather than the City’s own policies or by-laws.

Planning law and policies

15. Various Acts, regulations, policies and procedures apply to the City's conduct of DAPapplications. The primary examples of these documents are explained briefly below. For easeof reference, these documents are referred to generally in this Report as "planning law andpolicies", even though some documents within this group may not strictly be a 'law' or a'policy'.

The DAP Regulations

16. The 1 August 2013 to 30 April 2015 version of the DAP Regulations applied to all RARs,except for Silica Road.

17. It can be inferred that that version of the DAP Regulations applied throughout the RARprocess for each of those RARs, notwithstanding that some of the RAR processes continuedinto the next version of those regulations (1 May 2015 to 15 December 2016 version). If itcould not be inferred, the changes were substantively minor between the two versions.4 Theseprovisions are unlikely to affect any conclusions the Civic Legal Team has reached elsewherein this Report.

18. The 1 May 2015 to 15 December 2016 version of the DAP Regulations applies to the SilicaRoad RAR.

4 These provisions introduced an increase in the monetary thresholds at reg 5-6 and the "stop the clock" process provisions in reg 11A, 11(1)(d), 11(2), 12(4A), 16(2A) and 16(2B).

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 6

Other legislation versions

19. The Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA) (the Town Planning Regulations) (18 November2013 to 24 August 2015 version) applied during all of the RARs, except for Silica Road.

20. By the time of the Silica Road DAP application, these regulations had been repealed andreplaced by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA)(the LPS Regulations) (8 December 2015 to 30 June 2016 version).

21. Where required, the Civic Legal Team has considered whether alternate versions applied ofvarious other primary or subsidiary legislation such as the Planning and Development Act2005 (WA) (the Act) and Local Planning Schemes (LPS).

Policies and Procedures

22. The City has a number of Local Planning Policies that have been adopted by the Councilunder the LPS or the Act. Some of these are referenced throughout the Report and in theRARs prepared by the City. A Local Planning Policy (LPP) is not part of the LPS and is notbinding. However, a decision-maker is required to have “due regard” to the provisions andobjectives of the LPP when reviewing an application for planning approval.5 The thresholdapplied for “due regard” is outlined below at paragraph 89.a.

23. In the case of DAP applications, the City is not the decision-maker, so even if it made anerror in failing to have “due regard” to an item, the actual responsibility to have “due regard” toan item is that of the DAP. For the purpose of this Report, the Civic Legal Team has treatedthe City as having a persisting obligation to have “due regard” to the required matters.

24. The City also has a number of internal written procedure, process and policy documents suchas the Customer Service Charter, the Planning Consultation Procedure (PCP) and the writtendelegations made from time to time by the City or the Council to officers.

Roles of Local Governments and Governance

25. The Civic Legal Team has reviewed the City’s processes through the lens of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 (WA) (the Local Government Act). The Local Government Act broadlyprovides for the processes and functioning of local governments and at s.1.3(2) states that theAct is intended to result in:

(a) better decision-making by local governments; and (b) greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments; and (c) greater accountability of local governments to their communities; and (d) more efficient and effective local government.

26. The Civic Legal Team has used the purposes of the Local Government Act as informing thepurposes of the City. The scope of the RFQ requires the Civic Legal Team to form a view asto whether the internal policies and procedures of the City could be improved even if they arecompliant with the relevant planning law and policies.

[see overleaf]

5 Clause 67, Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) of the LPS Regulations; see also regarding Structure Plans (cl. 27), Activity Centre Plans (cl. 43), Local Development Plans (cl. 51, 56).

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 7

PRIMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Improve the City’s Customer Service Charter and Planning Consultation Procedure to ensure community members receive clear information about their role, and the City’s role, during the DAP application process

27. The majority of community members interviewed by the Civic Legal Team believed that theCity had failed to follow planning law and policies when processing applications, undertakingcommunity consultation or making ultimate recommendations to DAP. In many cases, ourfindings were that the City had not been in error, but that the community members were notproperly aware of the planning law and policies that applied and that the communication fromthe City was not adequate to make them more properly aware.

28. By its nature, the DAP process excludes active participation by the community. The City’s roleis primarily to provide a report with recommendations to the DAP and the DAP exercises itsbroad discretion as it sees fit.

29. However, community members did not appear to understand the role of the communityconsultation process or the time constraints on the City. In many ways, the City was restrictedby a highly regimented process, but those restrictions do not appear to have been effectivelydisclosed to the public.

30. The Civic Legal Team recommends that the City re-assess its Customer Service Charter andPlanning Consultation Procedure and the implementation of those documents within theplanning department. A number of the community concerns may have been resolved byclearer or more meaningful communication on the purpose of the consultation process and thelimits on that process and on the City's discretion in planning matters.

31. This recommendation includes the City preparing more specific, explanatory correspondencefor community members (particularly in the first stage and particularly regarding the roles,scope and limitations on community consultation and the City’s limited role in the DAPapplication process). This would include an explanation as to how community members wereselected and under what provisions of the planning law and policies and on what specificmatters submissions are sought from those community members.

32. The LPS at Clause 9.4.4 provides for a form of advertisement.6 The advertisement usedneeds to be more expansive to guide the community members as to what issue comments arebeing sought on. The advertisement letter in the Silica Road development was animprovement on the advertisement letters sent in earlier DAP applications (for reasons set outat paragraphs 203 to 205 below), but further improvement would advance the cause of bettercommunication between the City and its community members.

33. Annexure B to this Report is a flowchart identifying two types of applications and the differentadvertising pathways. The community members interviewed by the Civic Legal Teamappeared to conflate the two and specifically queried why the City would choose particularadjoining owners for one application, but advertise within 100m for other applications. Thisflowchart, or a simplified version, may assist in explaining to community members the stepstaken.

6 Clause 9.4.4 refers to "Schedule 7" as the form of advertisement, but the form of advertisement appears to be Schedule 6 to the LPS. If the Council resolves to amend the LPS as to advertisement (including but not limited to the form of advertisement in Schedule 6), the cross-reference in Clause 9.4.4 should also be corrected.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 8

34. Community members who complain that they were not within the consultation perimeter for acertain application would also benefit from receiving a response to their complaint with a mapindicating the 100m line around the property, or in cases where the R-Codes apply, a briefexplanation of why the City excluded that community member’s property so that they couldidentify why their property may have been excluded.

35. Although this may increase the work burden for the City’s planning officers, there is a distinctadvantage in informing community members early to prevent community concerns about theprocess escalating and then consuming the resources of the City in having to respond tothose concerns later. An appearance of certainty without explanation can convey animpression of disregard for community members, particularly where the DAP process andplanning law and policies limits both the City’s and community members' influence overevents.

36. Similarly, consultation should occur by email wherever possible (in addition to the postalprocesses mandated in planning law and policies). The Civic Legal Team recommends thatthe City implement a method for obtaining email addresses and consent to use those emailaddresses for improved communication and that the email addresses be assigned to the mailmerge facilities for properties within the City.

B. Develop a policy and procedure to deal with SAT applications and the amount of information relayed to community members during the course of SAT applications

37. One of the DAP applications under consideration, the Prisk Street DAP application, wasinitially rejected by the DAP. The applicant then applied to the SAT (where the DAP was therespondent) to have that decision reviewed. The matter proceeded through SAT for a numberof months until it was referred to the City for a second RAR and shortly thereafter approved byDAP. This process is dealt with in further detail at paragraphs 221 to 242 below.

38. The lack of transparency in this process concerned community members who believed thatinformation was being withheld to the advantage of the applicant in a controversialdevelopment.

39. In reality, the SAT proceedings were outside of the City’s control and, not being a party tothose proceedings, the City has little power to exercise control to make the process moreconsultative. However, the Civic Legal Team recommends the City consider adopting thefollowing processes:

a. when an applicant commences an application in the SAT to review a DAP decision, theCity issue a short fact sheet (of one page or less) to community members who haveobjected to or otherwise participated in discussions with the City about the DAPapplication. Such a fact sheet would inform those community members about thereferral to SAT, explain the SAT process and the City’s involvement in that process, andinclude a warning that many SAT matters proceed to mediation during which thecommunity will likely not be actively consulted or have a sufficient opportunity toconsider the application; and

b. the City prepare a DAP SAT matters procedure that is disclosed to the DAP at the timeof commencement of a SAT matter, describing the City’s preference that the DAP (asthe respondent to the SAT application) seek orders that:

I. the City be authorised to inform the community members referred to in subparagraph (a) above of any orders made in mediation;

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 9

II. the parties consent to any amended plans provided to the City to be madeavailable on the website for a period of 21 days before the DAP meeting at whichthe DAP application will be reconsidered; and

III. any timeline agreed at mediation include a period of 14 days after the preparationof the RAR before the DAP meeting at which the DAP application will bereconsidered.

40. While the DAP or the SAT may not be receptive to these requests, the actions of the City inactively seeking liberty to be more transparent will assist the City in its difficult role withcommunity members in these applications.

C. No Recommendation: Application of planning law and policies

41. The Civic Legal Team did not identify any systemic errors in the drafting of the policies andprocedures relied upon by the City and has formed the view that the City has largely compliedwith the planning law and policies subject of this Report.

42. The City maintains a professional planning team, a majority of whom possess a tertiaryqualification or required experience from a relevant field as assessed by the Planning Instituteof Australia.

43. The City’s officers have applied planning policies and legislation accurately and responsivelyto comply with changes in the legislation. For the most part, the City’s application ofdiscretion7 allocated to it by the legislation, policies and so on do not appear to be manifestlyunreasonable.

44. The Civic Legal Team commends the City for the internal business unit referral process forDAP applications as it appears the City has developed an efficient system for consulting withvarious departments within a short period of time.

45. We have made one adverse finding about the application of laws surrounding buildingpermits, which is set out in detail below in relation to the Ozone Parade development.

D. Prepare and implement an altered procedure on record-keeping in the planning department

46. The City’s records on its ECM system (being the primary method for record-keeping) weregenerally reliable. This system contained most written correspondence.

47. The City transitioned from keeping hard copy folders in addition to electronic records in thelast two years. The Civic Legal Team makes no general observations in relation to the hardcopy files, aside from noting that these files also did not appear to have clear trails of phonecalls or meetings.

48. However, the Civic Legal Team has made the following observations:

7 We note for these purposes that the ultimate discretionary power in DAP applications lies with DAP itself. Accordingly, the exercise of discretion referred to in this report is in relation to such issues as (1) if a particular aspect of a development is not strictly compliant, the extent of the non-compliance and its effect on neighbouring properties (which the City officers describe as a “judgment call” or an “exercise of professional judgment” rather than a discretion per se) and (2) the ultimate recommendation made to DAP.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 10

a. the ECM system appeared to exclude multiple copies of emails where the emails werethreaded. For example, A may write an email to B and B would respond in the samethread. The first email would not appear in the system, whereas the thread containingboth A and B’s emails would be retained. This is a potentially inefficient system for anumber of reasons, including that B has the ability to alter A’s initial email where theemails are threaded. Lack of clarity in these types of records can create unnecessarydifficulty for the City (and third parties) if it is involved in litigation or, as in this case, isthe subject of an independent review;

b. some documentation (such as in relation to building permit applications and buildingpermits) were not filed on ECM with the same material as the DAP application material.This made it difficult to determine if records were incomplete or merely filed separately;

c. the City had a method of keeping records of queries or concerns raised by communitymembers that was implemented inconsistently in its PropertyCI system. PropertyCI wasused for any notes that officers may have made on interactions with communitymembers or owners about a particular property (such as a noise complaint about dogsbarking). However, this made the ECM records difficult to review as there was nomemorandum recording the telephone conversation or any interaction not directlyrecorded in ECM as written correspondence. This can make such activity difficult totrack when dealing with the complaints of community members, litigation or anindependent review. In the Prisk Street example, we found it difficult to track informationthat passed to the City from the DAP as to the status of the SAT matter. Everyinteraction between the City and third parties should be recorded in at least the ECMsystem in a brief memorandum;

d. when the City’s records were extracted from ECM, the ECM software strippedattachments from various email documents. This increased the burden on the CivicLegal Team in that we had to identify essential documents to be individually requestedand also had to assess the need to arrange a convenient time for all concerned for theCivic Legal Team to visit to the City to review material (without the benefit of direct, easyand immediate access by the Civic Legal Team). While the software issue increased theburden in reviewing the City’s records, it does not decrease our confidence in theultimate findings made;8 and

e. the City did not adopt a practice of keeping copies of all correspondence to individualcommunity members as part of the consultation process. The City has a current practiceof saving a template letter on file and attaching to that template a list or map ofcommunity members to whom that template letter was sent. This appears to be anartefact of the prior practice of keeping hardcopy files. As the City now has electronicfiles, there does not appear to be a reason for the City not to generate and keepelectronic copies of those letters when sent.

49. The Civic Legal Team recommends that the City adopt procedures to deal with the aboveissues.

8 In the officers' response, the officers recorded that the Civic Legal Team had been invited from early in the review process to attend the City's offices to review the ECM system. While the review included consideration of the ECM / PropertyCI system, the Civic Legal Team informed the City at the introductory meeting on 7 July 2017 that primary access to CI (rather than extracts from the records) would be highly inefficient and would limit the ability to examine large amounts of information in an independent environment.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 11

E. Ensure DAP application plans are made available on the website

50. A number of community members reported that they were unable to access plans submittedduring the DAP application process, except by attending the City’s offices in person duringbusiness hours. A number of community members were asked by the City to attend in personand others were asked to submit an FOI application (although it is not clear whether this onlyoccurred both during the DAP application process or afterward). Our recommendation is thatany plans filed be made available on the website.

51. We are informed by the Director Planning and Development and Manager Approvals that thispractice has now been adopted.

52. To the extent that the City has ongoing concerns about copyright, the Civic Legal Teamrecommends that the City include on its application forms a provision for consent for theplans, and any amended plans, to be posted on its website.

53. Community members also expressed concerns that after DAP meetings the plans were notavailable on the City’s website and an FOI application was necessary to access approvedplans. We understand that the DAP plans are available on the DAP website afterdeterminations have been made. Our recommendation is that the City’s website contain abrief explanation of this fact and provide a link to the relevant part of the DAP website. Thiswill reduce the number of queries and FOI applications and may help to resolve communitymembers’ concerns about transparency.

METHODOLOGY

General

54. Civic Legal was appointed at the ordinary Council meeting of 4 July 2017. The Civic LegalTeam had an introductory meeting with the City’s Internal Auditor, on 7 July 2017.

55. Although there have been emails exchanged between the City and the Civic Legal Team, themajority of these emails were requests for information and responses, advance notice of thetopics on which City officers would be questioned in officer interviews, or conferral about thedeadlines to be applied on the receipt of our Report. We also sent one letter inviting commentand received a response during the week commencing 16 October 2017 concerning thebuilding permit issue for the Ozone Parade development.

56. Prior to our entrance meeting with the City, the Civic Legal Team held two team meetings andundertook some searches of public documents relating to the City with respect to the threeRARs that had been identified in advance.

57. The Civic Legal Team had its entrance meeting with the Internal Auditor, DirectorPlanning and Development and Manager Approvals on 27 July 2017. This meeting signifiedthe formal commencement of our engagement and the Civic Legal Team signed a statementof independence. The Civic Legal Team asked the City if any change of process hadoccurred since the three RARs had been approved. The City responded by answering thatabout two years ago, an electronic workflow system and a Development Control Unit (DCU)process was implemented. As part of the DCU process, officers from different disciplines(typically planning and engineering) meet to discuss an application to assist with thepreparation of the RAR.

58. The Civic Legal Team requested that the City provide access to:

a. all documents relating to the three RARs;

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 12

b. electronic copies of all documents, such as management guidelines, delegationregisters, memoranda, policies, directives and all such similar documents touching onthe City’s processes for assessing a development and preparing an RAR;

c. a list of all development applications processed by the City since January 2015, toenable the selection of two additional RARs required by our scope of engagement; and

d. a list of names and addresses of community members who had voiced concern over theplanning processes of the City, with particular reference to the three RARs and theElectors’ Special Meeting on 5 December 2016.

59. The Civic Legal Team was given access to extracted versions of the City’s files relating to thethree specified RARs after close of business on 8 August 2017. The Civic Legal Teamselected the two additional RARs by an electronic randomised process and requested theappropriate files for those additional RARs on 10 August 2017. Those further documents wereprovided on 14 August 2017.

60. The initial batch of documents was extracted from the City’s document management systems,meaning that the documents were not in the exact form or order as held on the City’s systems.A review of most, but not all, processes was possible from this material.

61. Once it became clear that the volume of documents was such that more resources wererequired, the Civic Legal Team was expanded by the addition of another lawyer,Ms Madeleine Ryan, at no additional cost to the City.

62. The Civic Legal Team was provided with a list of community members who had raisedconcerns with the City during the Electors’ Special Meeting held on 5 December 2016, andsubsequent meetings. The Civic Legal Team reviewed the Minutes to identify thosecommunity members’ concerns.

63. Prior to commencing the desktop review, the Civic Legal Team:

a. viewed the Council minutes and agendas relevant to the selected three RARs;

b. sent a representative (Mr Bashall) to attend at the three selected sites;

c. obtained aerial photographs of the sites both before and after the development;

d. perused the documents recording the processes, procedures, manuals, guidelines andother internal documents provided by the City; and

e. prepared checklists of information and chronologies of events for guidance on themanagement of the individual RARs.

64. Shortly after the commencement of the desktop review process, the Civic Legal Team metwith various community members (set out below under Community Interviews).

65. Throughout the review period, the Civic Legal Team prepared weekly or bi-weekly statusreports to manage and document its progress through what was a challenging mass ofmaterial and held twice-weekly team meetings to discuss preliminary findings and ensure thatour self-imposed timeframes were met.

66. Following on from the desktop review and the community consultation process, the CivicLegal Team again reviewed the material in light of the concerns raised. Some communitymembers’ concerns did not address specific RARs and in a number of cases were presented

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 13

by representatives or proxies. The material was condensed into a table format so that findings could be recorded.

67. From this material, the Civic Legal Team prepared questions and topics to be raised with theCity’s officers about the process and provided approximately three days’ notice to the City’sofficers of the topics to be covered. There was a short delay (of a couple of weeks) inscheduling these meetings due to the need to align schedules.

Records and evidence examined

68. On 10 August 2017, the Civic Legal Team commenced its desktop review of the documentsprovided by the City, being their electronic records management system and database.

69. In late September 2017, the Civic Legal Team completed the desktop review process to theextent of the documentation the Civic Legal Team had available to it. The Civic Legal Teamalso requested additional documents, including records to explain a perceived gap indocumentation in one RAR and records of further communication, such as telephonememoranda.

70. The Civic Legal Team attended the City’s offices on 5 October 2017 to review the City’s ECMand PropertyCI databases and access the files relevant to the RARs. The CoordinatorPlanning Approvals assisted the Civic Legal Team with navigating the City’s ECM andPropertyCI databases. This process clarified the Civic Legal Team’s understanding of howthe City maintains their records of all documents relevant to the RAR process. Thisprocess also identified the documents from the one RAR which had originally beenidentified as missing from those records provided to the Civic Legal Team.

71. ECM is the main document management system used by the City. This is where all staticdocuments and emails are recorded. PropertyCI is a secondary records system and storesproperty-specific records searchable by application or land information, template letters andthe like. The City officers informed the Civic Legal Team that one of the main issues withthese databases is that there is no automatic integration between the two systems.

72. The legislative review focused on the following legislation and subsidiary legislation:

a. Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA);b. Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (WA);c. Town Planning Regulations 1967 (WA) and then the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (WA);d. Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), both the 2013 and the 2015 versions; ande. the City of Stirling’s Local Planning Scheme No. 3 (LPS).

73. The internal review component also considered the application of the City’s procedures andprocesses at various times.

Community Interviews

74. On 15 August 2017, a letter was sent to 24 identified community members inviting them toattend an interview at Civic Legal’s offices. These interviews were intended to clarify thespecific issues that community members had with the way the City processed thedevelopment applications and prepared the subject RARs. These invitations were sent byregistered post (as a means to ensure that the review would not be subject to the sameconcerns expressed by community members about the City’s correspondence not beingreceived during the RAR process).

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 14

75. The Internal Auditor offered to provide our email and telephone contact details to thecommunity members who had not responded to our invitation.

76. Of the 24 invited, 15 community members attended an interview between 23 August 2017 and6 September 2017. One community member declined to attend an interview, and eightcommunity members did not respond to our invitation. The interviewees primarily attendedduring the last week allowed for interviews.

77. Each interview was conducted by three members of the Civic Legal Team, being theprofessional town planner and two lawyers.

78. The Civic Legal Team created a process whereby, prior to each interview, a table wasprepared which contained a verbatim account of each community member’s concerns, asraised during the Electors’ Special Meeting, subsequent Council meetings, and any otherconcerns or objections raised with the City by email or letter.

79. Each community member’s concerns were then projected onto the monitor in the meetingroom during their interview. Any notes taken during the interview by the Civic Legal Teamwere also projected simultaneously onto the screen to ensure that each community memberwas satisfied that their concerns were correctly identified and understood.

80. Two telephone interviews were held, conducted by one Civic Legal team member. The sameprocess was followed regarding collating the community member’s concerns.

81. A summary of the concerns raised by the community members and our summary findings arecontained in Annexure A.

82. A number of community members said in substance that their concerns were resolved aftertheir concern was discussed in detail with them. Some of them stated that some of theirconcerns had been resolved in their contact with the City, but others said in substance thatsome or all of their particular concerns were resolved after discussions with the Civic LegalTeam. Those concerns included their complaints which were based on the belief that theactions of the City contravened a policy, procedure, good practice or a legal requirement.

Exclusions from scope

83. Our review of this matter involved a rolling consideration of what matters did, and whatmatters did not, fall within the scope of material to be reviewed.

84. The City’s RFQ did not require that we review all of the processes of the City or that weinvestigate the conduct of City personnel or the overall quality of office management. Forexample, if a community member had a concern about a particular officer’s approach to anissue arising with regard to a particular RAR, the issue itself would form the scope of the CivicLegal inquiry rather than the propriety of the particular officer’s conduct generally.

85. The RFQ also did not require that we expand upon the community consultation element byinterviewing any community members who raised objections about the two additional RARsselected. The community consultation brief appears at paragraphs 3 and 6 of page 3 andparagraph 2 of page 5 of the RFQ. In the consultation provisions, the City asks for the CivicLegal Team to:

a. “review community concerns raised at the Electors special meeting …” (paragraph 3 ofpage 3);

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 15

b. “seek input from a selection of people who have raised concerns with the City withregard to the selected RARs …” (paragraph 6 of page 3). This was taken by the CivicLegal Team to be direct consultation with the same groups raising concerns atparagraph 3; and

c. “… provide a detailed methodology on how community concerns raised at the ElectorsSpecial meeting held 5 December 2016 and subsequent Council meetings are to beaddressed” (paragraph 2 of page 5).

86. When reading these paragraphs together, we interpreted our brief to extend to dealing withconcerns raised by community members at the Electors’ Special Meeting and the concernsraised by those same community members at subsequent Council meetings, rather than theconcerns of all community members who objected to a development during the course of eachRAR process the subject of this Report. However, the ambit of the brief was not so wide as todeal with each and every concern raised by a community member on every topic after theElectors’ Special Meeting.

87. We therefore saw the community consultation aspect of our brief as containing the followinginclusions and exclusions:

a. reviewing the concerns raised at the Electors’ Special Meeting even to the extent thatthey do not appear to directly relate to the RARs in question (see for example TG’scomments at 5.9 of the Electors’ Special Meeting minutes, which relates to subdivisionand JF’s comments at 5.8 which relates to dividing fences); but

b. not seeking input from those who were involved in the two additional RARs or applicantsto RARs, except insofar as they were raised at the Electors’ Special Meeting orsubsequent Council meetings.

88. In some cases, we have not investigated an issue due to the proportionality of the issue andthe spirit of the review. For example, we may not have readily been able to identify whetherthe City passed on to the DAP a fee paid for a DAP application, but this was seen asextraneous to any of the purposes of the review and the issue was not investigated further.

Thresholds

89. We applied the following finding thresholds to the RAR review, namely that:

a. “due regard” is to be interpreted as implying something greater than “mere regard”,imposing an obligation on the decision-maker to consider that document or planninginstrument when deciding on an application to which the particular planning instrumentrelates9. The term “due regard” has also been interpreted in law as implying that thedecision-maker has an obligation to give “proper, genuine and realistic consideration”.10

Director Planning and Development informed us his understanding is that “dueregard” requires “serious and genuine consideration”, which we consider to befunctionally equivalent to the test set out in the 2016 Supreme Court case;

b. where the officer holds a discretion, the Civic Legal Team did not seek to contradict thedecision made applying that discretion unless the decision appeared to be manifestlyunreasonable. The primary purpose of this review was to determine whether the

9 Tah Land Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2009] WASC 196. 10 City of South Perth v ALH Group Property Holdings Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 141.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 16

officer(s) committed a procedural breach, not whether the City should be exercising its permitted discretions in a particular way; and

c. political decisions are, by their nature, excluded from this process review. However, tothe extent that the act may be defined also as the exercise of a discretion under relevantplanning frameworks, then the discretion is treated in the same way as in item b. above.

Meetings with City Officers

90. On 5 October 2017, three members from the Civic Legal Team, comprising the professionaltown planner and two lawyers, attended the City’s offices to review the City’s databases ECMand PropertyCI and interview the City’s officers.

91. The Civic Legal Team held a group interview with the Internal Auditor, Director Planningand Development, Manager Approvals and Coordinator Planning Approvals.

92. The Internal Auditor did not participate in a significant way in the questions or answersgiven. This meeting was initially scheduled as individual meetings. The format was altered atthe request of the Internal Auditor, but only after the Civic Legal Team had ruled out fromserious consideration any allegations of misconduct by any person selected for the groupinterview and decided that there were no disadvantages to a group interview.

93. The interview lasted approximately two and a half hours, during which the Civic Legal Teamasked a series of prepared questions covering topics including delegated authorities andgovernance, community consultation and interaction, document storage and access,identifying noncompliance and amendments, and questions specific to each of the threeidentified RARs.

94. The group interview format was informative and assisted the Civic Legal Team in answeringquestions that had been raised during the initial investigative stages of the review. The officerswere helpful and comprehensive in the information provided.

95. The broad findings from these officer interviews are described in this Report.

Officer Roles

96. In relation to DAP applications, the Director Planning and Development considers all draftRARs and approves these documents before they are submitted to the DAP and is involvedfrom time to time in the process where other officers refer particular issues to him.

97. In relation to DAP applications, the Manager Approvals coordinates resources to preparethe RAR and monitors staff to ensure that they have the requisite skills, training andknowledge to be able to assess and report on development applications and are doing socorrectly. Once an RAR has been drafted by the relevant officer(s), the ManagerApprovals reviews the RAR before it is submitted to the Director Planning andDevelopment for approval.

98. The Coordinator Planning Approvals often reviews the RARs before they are provided to theManager and Director for their consideration and approval.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 17

FINDINGS ON RARs

18 Ozone Parade, Trigg (DAP/14/00507)

99. Lot 81, 18 Ozone Parade, Trigg (Ozone Parade) is one of the three RARs selected by theCity for specific review.

100. Ozone Parade is zoned “Urban” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and “Residential” R40 in the City’s LPS. The land falls within an area covered by clause 5.3 of the LPS whereby multiple dwellings shall be subjected to the R40 site area per grouped dwellings of Table 1 of the R-Codes. The R-Codes allow for developments that adhere to the other site requirements of Table 4, pertaining to open space, setbacks and building height.

101. On 11 March 2014, the applicant on behalf of the landowners submitted their original

102. On 14 March 2014, the City provided the DAP Secretariat with a copy of the application.

103. The City received amended plans on 2 May 2014, which were forwarded to the DAP Secretariat on 12 May 2014.

104. The City sent out community consultation letters on 14 May 2014, inviting comments on the proposal within 21 days of the letter and imposing a deadline of 5.00 pm on 28 May 2014. This is in accordance with Part 4.2.1 of the R-Codes, which provides that “the due date by which any comments are to be lodged with the decision maker, being at least fourteen (14) days after posting of the notification …” The typographical error referring to 21 days may have caused some confusion, but the dates provided by the City are compliant with the provisions of the R-Codes. The copy of the letter on file was accompanied by a map which indicated a selected group of adjoining owners to which advertisement letters were to be sent.

105. On 20 May 2014, a City Officer informed other City officers that a resident brought to her attention that a mistake was made in not providing one owner with a copy of the community consultation letter. The Officer rectified this issue on the same day by sending that community member a copy of the letter via email.

106. The first RAR prepared by the Director Planning and Development was dated 11 July

107. An amended application was submitted on 2 April 2015. Further amended plans were submitted on 29 May and 19 June 2015 following requests from the City on 7 May and 16 May 2015. The further changes were not re-advertised.

108. The Form 2 RAR was prepared by the Director Planning and Development on 4 August2015. The officer recommendation was that the DAP resolve to approve the DAP application for the proposed “minor amendments” to the previously approved application. These amendments included a change in the floor level of the car park, a new level being added below the car park to accommodate a gym and a change in the effect on the right of way. The “building footprint” was said to be modified and there were further modifications to the stores, bicycle parking, visitor bays and landscaping.

2014. On 24 July 2014, the DAP resolved to approve the DAP application subject to 24 conditions.

application and a DAP Form 1 to the City to develop 20 multiple dwellings at Ozone Parade comprising five one-bedroom units and 15 two-bedroom units. This application also included a communal swimming pool and 45 undercover car parking bays for residents and five visitor bays in front of the residential parking bays. This was an Optional DAP application, as the estimated cost for the development was $5 million.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 18

The responsible officer noted in the RAR that the proposed changes to the development did not require consultation with adjoining owners or with other agencies.

109. On 17 August 2015, the DAP resolved to approve the amended DAP application, removing five of the original 24 conditions. Three conditions were amended and two conditions wereadded.

110. The City received further amended plans on 4 May 2016. The Director Planning and Development prepared a further Form 2 RAR dated 28 June 2016. On 11 July 2016, the DAP resolved to approve the amended DAP application, removing three conditions and amending two conditions. The requirement for substantial commencement to occur within two years of planning approval was not amended, meaning that substantial commencement needed to be commenced by 24 July 2016 for the planning approval to remain valid.

Findings

Advertising

111. As a residential development, the advertising of this application was subject to the provisions of the 2013 R-Codes, and not the City’s LPS or PCP (explained below at paragraph 283 and following).

Choice of recipients

112. Part 4 of the R-Codes details the consultation requirements for residential developments. Applications that are “deemed to comply” with the R-Codes do not require advertising to adjoining owners and occupiers (part 4.1.1). This would mean that the development met all requirements specified in the R-Codes, such as height restrictions and set-backs.

113. However, when the application does not comply with those requirements, the local government is given discretion to advertise to adjoining owners and occupiers under Part 4.1.2 if there is “a possible impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and occupiers”.

114. If the decision-maker is satisfied that the proposed development will not adversely affect or impact the adjoining residential property or street, there is no obligation on the decision-maker to seek input from adjoining owners and occupiers, unless specifically required by the LPS or any relevant LPP (part 4.1.3).11

115. The chain of correspondence for community consultation was not particularly clear. The file copy of the advertisement letter had a map (indicating five properties had been consulted) and a second copy of the map (indicating nine properties had been consulted). Based on information from the community members and City officers, it appears that the additional properties were sent advertisement letters after they raised issues about not being consulted.

116. The first application was advertised to three of the seven strata owners at 22 Pearl Parade, whose units were most impacted by the proposed development at 18 Ozone Parade. This decision to advertise to only three of the seven owners was at the discretion of the responsible officer, in accordance with part 4.1.2 of the R-Codes.

117. As Part 9.4 of the City’s LPS and PCP did not apply, there was no requirement for the City to advertise to all residents within a 100 metre radius of the proposed development.

11 Although the City is not a “decision-maker”, the obligation to advertise remains with the City (pursuant to reg. 9(b) of the DAP Regulations).

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 19

118. The City applied these procedures correctly. There is no reason to indicate that this development should have been treated as abnormal or require further advertising than that mandated by the R-Codes. The one error in not providing an advertising letter to a community member was resolved quickly.

119. The Civic Legal Team has not identified any general non-compliance with the advertising requirements. It was reasonable for the City to conclude that only those lots directly level with the bulk of the Ozone Parade development (within the head strata lot) would be affected by it.

120. However, the City may wish to adopt an expanded process whereby all lots within a strata lot receive a letter advertising the development even if only one component of the strata plan is adjacent to the development site. In this case, the common property (the driveway) was the component adjacent to the development site. This expanded process would address the perception among the community that the advertising process was arbitrary or incomplete. (The City’s records suggest that it ultimately adopted this approach with Ozone Parade after the other unit owners / occupiers made complaints.)

Content of advertisement letter

121. The community members raising their concerns about the Ozone Parade development identified the same advertising issues and lack of clarity in the role and responsibilities of the City common to the main three RARs the subject of this Report.

122. The letter is not clear about the issues to be the subject of community consultation. This issue is expanded upon at paragraph 143 below onward.

Re-advertising

123. Some community members raised concerns that the City did not readvertise the application when it was amended “from being a three storey to a four storey development”.

124. During the officer interviews, the officers said that the calculation of height for the purposes of the R-Codes height limit was performed pursuant to the City’s Policy Manual 2.6 Residential Building Heights. The City calculates height from natural ground level using the average of each of the four corners of the development. The height of the building from excavated ground level is not calculated.

125. Provided the development is within any excavation / ground level restrictions, an applicant is within their rights to excavate further into the ground to enable them to construct a building with more stories than would otherwise be permitted above natural ground level. This was the effect of the changes to the Ozone Parade application. The overall development (including height) was in similar terms to the development initially proposed and on which comment was sought.

126. The requirement to advertise in the R-Codes is limited to those adjoining owners who may be affected (as set out above under Advertising). The City noted that the ‘height’ was not changed and that the assessment under the R-Codes was in relation to effect on amenity (which had already been the subject of consultation with the application for a building of the same ‘height’ and that objections had already been noted on the issue of ‘height’). The City consequently formed the view that further advertisement was not necessary.

127. The Civic Legal Team’s view is that the City complied with all legislative and procedural requirements in not re-advertising for Ozone Parade.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 20

No consideration of Amendment No. 32

128. Amendment No. 32 was initiated by the City in July 2012. This proposal underwent a series of modifications and discussions until the Minister for Planning approved the amendment with significant modifications. This Amendment was gazetted on 20 October 2015.

129. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 16 September 2014, the City resolved under Council Resolution 0914/037 that “Amendment No. 32 be adopted in a modified form to prohibit Multiple Dwellings on residential zoned lots coded R40 and below”.12 At this meeting, the Council also resolved that it was “inappropriate to give significant weight to Amendment No. 32 to refuse development applications for Multiple Dwellings until such time as the Amendment is gazetted.”13

130. Amendment No. 32 came into effect on midday on 20 October 2015. The modification included that:

where land with a residential density code of R40 is located outside the area of walkable catchment of 800 metres around an activity centre, specialised centre or railway station on a high frequency rail route … the development of multiple dwellings on the land shall be subject to the average site area per grouped dwelling … and shall not be subject to any maximum plot ratio requirements specified by the Residential Design Codes.”

131. When interviewed by the Civic Legal Team, some community members said that they remained concerned and that they believed Amendment No. 32 would have limited the number of units in the development to eight (instead of 20). By our calculations, Amendment No. 32 would actually have limited the site to ten units rather than eight. However, given that the resolution passing Amendment No. 32 also required that it not be implemented until gazetted, the City’s approach was reasonable.

Easement issue

132. In the first RAR for Ozone Parade, the City identified the right of way easement which benefited Lot 3 of 20 Ozone Parade, Trigg, and Lot 333, house numbers 1/22 – 7/22 Pearl Parade, Scarborough. The RAR noted that the City had reviewed aerial photographs from 2005 and conducted a site inspection. The application at the time included a proposed retaining wall and excavation within the easement area.

133. The City observed in the RAR at pp.17-18 that any planning approval would be issued only under the Act and that it would be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any other necessary consent or approval as the proposal included retaining and excavation within the right of carriageway. In our view, this observation of the City was correct.

134. The Civic Legal Team was also informed by Manager Approvals and the Director Planning and Development that the easement issue was discussed at the DAP meeting, and the

application was ultimately given conditional approval by DAP.

135. This approach by the City was correct. There is no obligation on the City to act to protect the private rights of persons who has an easement, lease, licence or sale contract in relation to

12 p.115 of the Minutes. 13 p.115 of the Minutes.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 21

land. The City had no power to recommend refusal of the DAP application on the basis of the easement.

Access to plans, including FOI process

136. A number of community members raised concerns that they were not permitted access to the plans during or after the DAP process. In our interviews with the officers, they clarified that the plans were available at the City’s offices, but were otherwise unavailable.

137. The Civic Legal Team has since been informed by the City that the process has now changed, and that all plans the subject of a DAP application are posted on the City’s website. This is required by the deemed provisions in the LPS Regulations (which are deemed to be part of every Local Planning Scheme). This requirement applies to Ozone Parade even though other aspects of the development must be assessed under the R-Codes. We recommend that the City also use this process for when plans are amended, if it is not already doing so.

138. The Civic Legal Team refers to Recommendation E above at paragraphs 50 onward.

Former Employee

139. Some community members expressed concern that a previous City employee, was involved in the DAP application submitted for this site. They were employed at the City between 1996 and 2008. They left the City before Manager Approvals or the Director Planning and Development commenced employment with the City. The former employee's association with the City accordingly ended around six years prior to the development application being submitted.

140. It is not unknown for a former local government employee to act as a consultant to parties dealing with local government authorities.

141. The Director Planning and Devleopment indicated to the Civic Legal Team that the preparation of RARs is a transparent process, and any conflicts of interest are to be declared (as is the usual process with these matters).

142. The Civic Legal Team considers that on the material available to it, there is no basis to criticise the City with respect to the former employee's involvement in the DAP application for this site.

Community consultation

143. The City did not clearly explain to community members how a development application for the site had to be managed, and specifically the two different advertising requirements. The letter sent by the City in relation to Ozone Parade on 14 May 2014 read:

An application has been received for the abovementioned development. The proposal is briefly described as follows:

• The application proposes 20 multiple dwellings.• The overall height of the development is four storeys which includes a

basement level car park; and• The basement level provides 48 car bays.

As an affected owner, you are invited to comment on this proposal within 21 days from the date of this letter. Comments are due on or before 5.00pm, Friday 28 May 2014. Should no written comments be received within the time period, the City may

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 22

determine the application without your response. Comments can be made to the City via email or mail via the details provided below.

[…]

A copy of the proposal will be available for viewing at the City's offices between the hours of 8.30am and 5.00pm, Monday to Friday with the exception of Public Holidays.

144. Pursuant to the R-Codes, the City was seeking comment on particular design principles, but this is not made clear in the letter itself. It is also not made clear how the owner was selected. It is also not correct that the City would determine any application. The letter also contains a typographical error, requesting comments within 21 days but setting a deadline within 14 days. The deadline itself was compliant with the R-Codes requirement of 14 days.

145. To avoid confusion in the future, the Civic Legal Team recommends informing community members of the different advertising pathways for different developments (see paragraphs 27 onward above of this Report), how the owner was selected, the issues on which comment is sought and the City and the DAP's role in the process.14

146. A further example of how the City's communications with the public were not as clear as they could have been is to be found in an email from a City officer to a community member dated 25 June 2014, an extract of which follows:

I write to you in regard to your email which was received by the City on 20 June 2014 relating to the above matter.

Please find below an extract from the Residential Design Codes of WA.

In accordance with the above clause 4.1.2, the City is not required to consult with yourself as you are not an adjoining owner.

Please note that in accordance with the Macquarie Dictionary, adjoin means “to be in contact with or next to."

As such, the City cannot provide you with an opportunity to view a copy of the proposed plans.

147. On this occasion, it appears one particular community member had a reasonable basis to conclude that he was an adjoining owner, given that he resided in a strata lot which formed part of a lot that adjoined the property. The reason the community member's property seemed to have been excluded from advertisement was both that the strata lot itself did not adjoin the property and that the City had concluded he was unlikely to be affected. The City should have been aware of this issue and explained it clearly to the community member whose concerns may have been resolved if that reasoning had been made clear. 14 It is worth noting that the City's website as to DAP Applications currently provides a very vague explanation of this issue and does not explain that the City is required to prepare an RAR or the effect of that document: Effective 1 July 2011, under the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) regulations, each DAP will determine development applications that meet set type and value thresholds as if it were the responsible authority under the relevant planning instrument, such as the local planning scheme or region planning scheme.

A development assessment panel (DAP) is an independent decision-making body which determines certain development applications in the place of the original decision maker, being the local government authority and/or the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). DAPs are comprised of independent technical experts and elected local government representatives.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 23

Commencement of works without authority

148. A complaint was made to the City by one community member by email on the morning of 9 May 2016. The community member suggested that earthworks had been commenced without a building permit on 8 May 2016.

149. Community members appeared to be particularly concerned about this because it was toward the end of the DAP approval period (expiring 24 July 2016).15 A DAP approval will expire within the period of two years commencing on the date on which the determination is made unless “substantial commencement” of the works subject of the approval are commenced within the relevant period.

150. A Building Permit is required in order to commence building work (Building Act 2011 (WA), s.9). “Building work” is defined in s.3 as:

(a) the construction, erection, assembly or placement of a building or an incidental structure; or

(b) the renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a building or an incidental structure; or

(c) the assembly, reassembly or securing of a relocated building or a relocated incidental structure; or

(d) the changing of ground levels of land for the purposes of work of a kind mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) to an extent that could adversely affect land beyond its boundaries; or

(e) site work on any land for the purposes of, or required because of, work of a kind mentioned in — (i) paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d); or (ii) paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of demolition work; or (iii) other prescribed work.

151. In their correspondence with the community member, the City’s officers said that:

the earthworks works on site do not in the City’s view fall within the above matters under item (d) or (e) above as there is no adverse affect on land bound its boundaries. [sic]

152. In our interviews with the officers, the Civic Legal Team was told by the officers that they determined that the developer did not require a building permit for the earthworks and said that they had concluded that it “will” not have an adverse effect on surrounding properties.16 In any event, for the reasons set out below, whether the appropriate word was “will” or “could” is immaterial to our key point about the definition of “building work” for the purposes of our finding in this section.

153. In both their correspondence with the community member and their discussion with the Civic Legal Team, the City said that the earthworks did not come within paragraphs (d) or (e) of the meaning of "building work".

15 The term of development approval is outlined at clause 71(a)(i) of the deemed provisions in the 2015 Regulations, and at clause 10.5.1(a) of the LPS. 16 Note: In a written response to the Civic Legal Team dated 19 October 2017, the City’s officers have since denied using this language in our meeting and that their actual position is that it is an assessment of “could”. In relation to the letter to community member, the City’s officers have now said that “The approach you have adopted ignores the context in which the email was sent. That is, to a complainant explaining the City’s position. It was not sent in a context where the City’s explanation needed the legal precision that you are suggesting.”

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 24

154. The Building Act defines the term “adversely affect land” to include:

a. reduce the stability or bearing capacity of the land or a building or structure on the land;or

b. damage, or reduce the structural adequacy of, a building or structure on the land; or

c. the changing of the natural site drainage in a way that reduces the effectiveness of thedrainage of the land or existing future buildings or structures on the land.

155. The test at paragraph (d) of the definition of “building work” was not in terms of “will adversely affect” or “has an adverse effect” but “could adversely affect”. The City’s correspondence to the community member initially suggested that it applied the first phrasing, which is a more permissive approach than provided for in the Building Act.

156. We have seen no material in our review that supports the City's conclusion that subparagraph (e) did not apply to the earthworks. The language of the subparagraph is plain. There is also no language in these provisions of the Building Act which suggests that a building permit is required only if the site works might adversely affect neighbouring land.

157. The volume of the earthworks performed is presently contentious, noting that:

a. one community member estimated that 8000m3 of soil was removed from theproperty, with between 20 to 40 trucks full of soil leaving the property each day for aperiod of two to three months. These calculations are not supported by anydocumentation, but we have no specific reason to dispute these estimates. Even withsome margin for error, the estimates suggest a very substantial volume of earthworks;and

b. there are photographs produced by two individual community members showing theamount of earthworks as at 9 May 2016 and 12 May 2016. These are reproducedbelow.

Community Member 1 - 9 May 2016

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 25

Community Member 2 - 12 May 2016

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 26

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 27

158. For the avoidance of doubt, we have relied upon the report of some earthworks taking place and the photographs, rather than the more specific allegation of cubic meterage.

159. During the officer interviews, the Manager Approvals informed the Civic Legal Team that, on the same day as the community member's complaint, two city officers (including the Coordinator Building Approvals) attended the site to investigate the earthworks that had been reported.

160. We have since been provided (in correspondence from the City dated 19 October 2017) with The Coordinator Building Approvals notes', which were recorded in an email to the Manager Approvals and Director Planning and Development. The Coordinator Building Approvals said he was satisfied that:

there was no works completed that contributed to adverse effect. The works being completed to date:

1. remove excessive sand or stock pile following demolition2. Excavate a portion of the land and provide road base that has no adverse effect tothe adjoining properties but assists in the future development access arrangements.

161. The City officers also said in interview that an application for a building permit was being processed through the system when the complaint was lodged. This application was filed on 21 April 2016 (according to the records provided to us).

162. The building permit was granted on 13 May 2016 for stage 1 of the works, including further excavation and pouring of concrete and the building of retaining walls. This is based on information from the City's officers. We have sighted a copy of the building permit (provided under cover of letter dated 19 October 2017). This building permit provides for “Forward Works – Comprising: Site works, retaining walls, footings and slab on ground, in-ground services”.

163. Having reviewed the photographs, our view is that:

a. changing of ground levels was taking place; and

b. site works were taking place.

164. Without a building permit, changing of ground levels is prohibited if it could adversely affect land beyond its boundaries. Presumably, minor landscaping work would be the kind of work that carried no risk, or at least a relatively a low risk of affecting adjoining land when compared to earthworks intended to level steeply sloping land. It would have been beyond the scope of this Report to have obtained an expert report on whether the extent of the changing of ground levels could have adversely affected the adjoining land. However, while it appears to have been reasonable to conclude that the works being performed would not risk an adverse effect on neighbouring properties, the material produced is inconclusive.

165. We observe that the Coordinator Building Approvals' notes record his conclusion (he uses the words “no adverse effect on adjoining properties’’) but omits to record any facts or reasoning

leading him to that conclusion. It would have been preferable to all parties concerned if he had done so because his judgment was ultimately central to this issue.

166. The Director Planning and Development has informed us that his view is that “changing ground levels”: is excluded from the term “site works”. He also considers that:

Changing ground levels cannot be a site work under paragraph (e) of the ‘building work’ definition. This is clear from paragraph (e)(i) which says that a site work is done for the purpose of, or required because of, work of a kind mentioned in, relevantly, paragraph (d). In short, site work is done for the purpose of, or required because of, a

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 28

change in ground levels. A change in ground levels is, therefore, not itself a site work.17

167. The Civic Legal Team does not disagree with the proposition that changing ground levels is not, of itself a site work, subject to the comments below. In our view, the effect of s.3 and s.9 of the Building Act can be summarised as follows: building work is not to be undertaken without a building permit in respect of:

a. the construction etc. of any building;

b. the renovation etc. of any building;

c. the assembly etc. of any relocated building; and

d. the changing of ground levels with respect to any of the above where such work wouldadversely affect neighbouring land.

168. The provision goes on to then extend the definition of “building work” to include “site work” “for the purposes of, or required because of” the above-mentioned four categories of work. It therefore contemplates that site work can be done in preparation for work that comprises (a) constructing a building or (d) the changing of ground levels on the site.

169. On the information provided by the City (both in the interview and in documentary records in mid to late October 2017), the earthworks performed from 8 May 2016 onward were to ready the site so that the next stages of work could be performed. The next stages of work were the installation of retaining walls around the perimeter of the site (by excavating at the edges and inserting the retaining wall by a form of insertion into the surrounding earth) and the complete excavation of the land to construct the buildings. For this reason, the earthworks were at the very least preparatory for changing ground levels (if not also preparatory for the construction of the building itself), falling within (e)(i) of the definition of “building work”.

170. Unfortunately this analysis (even if it were to be in layman’s terms and not with legal precision) did not inform the City’s correspondence with the community member. The City then proceeded on an incorrect legal basis, namely that none of the work in preparing the site for the work of changing ground levels could constitute “site works” within the meaning of the provision.

171. In this analysis, we have given consideration to the SAT decision in Genovese and Building

Services Board [2012] WASAT 244, in which Members Carey, Affleck and Machell considered a builder’s interpretation of ‘building work’ in the Building Act:

In support of his claim for time spent in supervising the subdivisions, Mr Genovese invokes parts (d) and (e) of the Building Act definition of 'building work' changing ground levels of land for the purposes of work described in other parts of the definition, and site work for the purposes of, or required because of, work described in those parts or part (d) (or two parts of the definition of 'demolition work'). However, his argument relies upon an ability to import the intentions of a putative purchaser of the vacant blocks into a consideration of whether the definition applies. In our opinion, the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in the definition in its various parts and, in particular, parts (d) and (e), confines 'building work' to work carried out on a cognate project. It does not extend, for example, to

17 Director Planning and Development's letter dated 19 October 2017.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 29

changing ground levels or site work with the intention of preparing the site in a saleable and well presented condition.

[emphasis added]

172. In this case, Ozone Parade was clearly a cognate project.

173. We therefore find that the City was in error by not treating the excavation work as being in breach of the Building Act and in adopting the position that, in any event, the later grant of a building permit would cure any prior non-compliance (see paragraph 175 onward of this Report).

174. Put into perspective, these breaches did not cause the project to proceed where the DAP approval would otherwise have expired. The non-compliant work only caused the applicant to be advantaged by one week at most. The building permit was granted almost 10 weeks prior to the expiry of the DAP approval.

Retrospective approvals

175. During the officer interviews, the Manager Approvals also said to the Civic Legal Team that “retrospective approvals” can be granted for a building, so that the lack

of a building permit can be later remedied. The Manager Approvals also said thatwhen a permit application is already in the City system, it can be treated ashaving been granted earlier if works commence in the interim. The Civic LegalTeam became concerned that the City seemed to hold to the view that it waspossible to grant retrospective permits or approvals.

176. Since the interview, the Director Planning and Development has informed us18 that the Manager Approvals was intending to refer to retrospective building approvals, not permits, and that the City understands that permits cannot operate retrospectively.

177. Our review of the law suggests that an approval after the fact does not cure an earlier non-compliance. Put another way, a building may be given approval after having been built without the requisite approval, but that grant of approval does not cure the non-compliant nature of the work done before the grant was made.

178. The grant of approval to a development after building work has commenced (including without a building permit) does not mean that a penalty should not be levied against the builder for commencing work without a permit.19

179. The decision in the Supreme Court of WA case of Bright Image Dental Pty Ltd v City of Gosnells [2017] WASC 229 (as to planning approvals for an existing development) is authority for the proposition that if an earlier non-compliance were resolved by the grant of approval, such grant would undermine the legislative policy in favour of complying with requirements of planning schemes before commencing a development, such as safety and maintenance of orderly and proper planning (at [88]-[89]). The effect of approvals after the fact is to:

permit the development to be brought into compliance … but it also provides a means by which an owner or developer can cease continuing to commit an offence … [and] provides an alternative to the removal or demolition of any structure. (at [90])

18 In his letter dated 19 October 2017. 19 see Caruso v Shire of Augusta-Margaret River [2016] WASC 379.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 30

Timing of permit and application

180. The processing of the building permit application also appears to indicate another possible error by the City. The building permit application is dated 21 April 2016. Under s.23(2)(a) of the Building Act and regulation 20(2) of the Building Regulations, a permit application must be decided within 10 working days. This period can be extended by up to 21 days if information or documentation is missing (s.18(1)). The records initially provided were unclear as to the extension of time being granted, but the City has informed us that an extension of time was granted in that period.

Substantial commencement concluded

181. One concern that was raised by a community member in relation to this development was whether “substantial commencement” had occurred by the 24 July 2016 deadline. The community member suggested that the City’s position on what “substantial commencement” meant had changed over time. It is unclear whether the community member’s recollection of the information he was given was accurate, but it supports our general conclusion that community members have been confused by their interactions with the City, as described above.

182. We have reviewed legal advice obtained by the City in relation to the term “substantial commencement” prior to the expiry of the 24 July 2016 deadline. The City has not waived privilege over that advice (which our team would not have recommended in any event). Nonetheless, the Civic Legal Team has concluded that:

a. substantial commencement had more than likely occurred by 24 July 2016; and

b. the City acted prudently in concluding that substantial commencement had occurred andthat the development should be permitted to proceed.

Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine

183. Lot 6 Silica Road, Carine (Silica Road) is one of the three RARs selected by the City for specific review.

184. Silica Road is zoned “Urban” under the MRS and “Development” in the City’s LPS.20 The DAP application was preceded by the Carine Vision Local Structure Plan (CVLSP) adopted in May 2012 and a Detailed Area Plan (now known as a Local Development Plan or LDP) submitted by the applicant in 2014. The Detailed Area Plan was approved by Council in November 2014.

185. On 20 April 2016, the applicant on behalf of the landowner submitted its original application and a DAP Form 1 to the City to develop a nursing home comprising 149 beds, an internal restaurant, external amenities and recreational areas for residents, and parking bays for both staff (55 bays)

and visitors (11 bays).

186. On 21 April 2016, the City provided the DAP Secretariat with a copy of the DAP application.

20 Given the zoning, this property could be developed at a higher density than the surrounding R20 areas.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 31

187. On 27 April 2016, the City invoked the “stop the clock” provision in regulation 12(4A) of the DAP Regulations, as the applicant had not provided all of the relevant material to assess the DAP application.

188. On 6 May 2016, the DAP advised the City that the clock had been started again.

189. On 19 May 2016, the City sent advertisement letters to community members within a 100 metre radius of the development to comment on the proposal within 21 days of the date of the letter.

190. The first RAR prepared by the Director Planning and Development was dated 14 July 2016. The first D: AP meeting was held on 1 August 2016 and the DAP resolved to:

defer … for one month to allow the applicant to re-examine the configuration of the car parks and service areas to facilitate a better outcome in regards to the retention of the mature trees on Silica Road.

191. The Director Planning and Development prepared a further RAR dated 1 September 2016. The second DAP meeting was held on 7 September 2016, during which the DAP resolved to approve the application subject to 25 conditions and one advice note.

Findings

192. In summary, the Civic Legal Team concluded that Silica Road had been assessed properly and in compliance with the relevant legislative and procedural requirements.

Sufficient consideration of Carine Vision Local Structure Plan (CVLSP)

193. A number of community members contended that the City failed to have sufficient regard to the CVLSP when preparing the RAR for Silica Road, particularly in failing to allow for tree retention and appropriate width setbacks. The CVLSP was a broad vision document setting out the forward plans for a relatively small area which included the Silica Road site.

194. The community members are correct that the DAP application for Silica Road ultimately deviated from the CVLSP. However, prior to the filing of the application and after the passage of the CVLSP, the City passed a Detailed Area Plan (now LDP) which passes through Council in a similar way to a CVLSP but relates to more detailed plans for a smaller, specific area. In this case, the Silica Road site was the subject of the LDP.

195. The City has informed us that it advertised the LDP in accordance with the usual requirements, but it is in our view outside of the scope of this review to probe further into the advertising practices for changes of policy within the City and the passage of policy items through Council. We observe that the community participated heavily in the creation of the CVLSP but, on the information we received from officers, the LDP did not receive the same level of interest from community members.

196. In general terms, the LDP permitted the Silica Road development or a development close in scale to that development. As the more specific and therefore dominant document, the LDP did not require the same scale of setbacks as the CVLSP. The community members may therefore have missed their best opportunity to object to the proposal, which would have been at the time the LDP was being formulated.

197. The LDP was the most specific document which governed the requirements for the site before the application was made. Accordingly, if the City appropriately applied the LDP, then the City

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 32

acted correctly in making its recommendations to DAP. The requirement in this case was to have “due regard” to the specifications in the LDP.21

198. In our interviews with the City officers, the officers expressed the same view about the role of the CVLSP and LDP for Silica Road.

199. The answers given during our interview with the City officers and the comments by the City’s officers in the RAR itself suggest to us that proper, genuine and realistic consideration was given to the requirements in the LDP and the DAP application was not a significant departure from those requirements (even though there were some differences). The City’s approach in the RAR was in compliance with the planning law and policies.

200. In making these comments, it must be emphasised that the DAP retained the primary discretion in relation to approval or refusal of a DAP application. Moreover, the City’s position is constrained by the requirements of the planning legislative framework itself and the City is not in a position to disregard the LDP when making its recommendations in the RAR.

201. It should also be noted that the CVLSP included a specification of bed numbers (which is an unusual item to be recorded in a LSP). The LDP was silent as to bed numbers. The subsequent DAP application provided for 149 beds. As referred to above, the City was only obliged to have “due regard” to the CVLSP. Further, the specification of number of beds in the CVLSP is contained in the words “in the order of 120 beds, together with the necessary support services and facilities.” In the RAR for this development, the issue of beds is dealt with in detail at page 13 and the City notes that it is satisfied with the level of compliance particularly given that “the bulk and scale of the structure is only 28% of that permitted, will enhance public parkland through landscaping & planting and is an intergenerational facility.” The Civic Legal Team is satisfied that the consideration given to the number of beds meets the test for “due regard” and that the City acted appropriately in relation to this issue.

Advertising

202. As the land was zoned “Development”, the R-Codes did not apply.

203. The City was accordingly required to follow the advertising requirements in clause 9.4 of the LPS and their PCP. The City officers informed the Civic Legal Team that they advertised the proposed development to all residents within a 100 metre radius. Our review of the City's records suggests that this is accurate (noting our reservations about the method of recording the sending of that correspondence, set out above).

204. The letter in this matter was a distinct improvement upon the letters sent in other matters, including the following:

a. availability of the plans at the City's offices and on the website;

b. a better description of the proposal; and

c. a narrative that made the City's role clearer:

Please note that Council is not responsible for the determination of this application.Instead, it will be determined by the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment

21 Part 10.2(f) of the LPS requires that, when considering an application for planning approval, the Council have due regard to a Detailed Area Plan or guidelines adopted by the Council under the Scheme.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 33

Panel (JDAP). The JDAP meeting will be open to the public and if you make a submission on this application the City will advise you in writing once the meeting is scheduled. "

205. However, the Civic Legal Team consider that the level of disclosure of the process was still relatively limited. The letter still included the comment that "Should no written response be received within the time period, the City may process the application without your response." This does not explain what the City's role in processing the application was (i.e. preparing an RAR), the identification of affected properties22, the DAP system generally, the planning law and policies relevant or the matter of what constitutes “due regard”. An additional page of information dealing with this issue may have assisted the community's understanding of this process (see recommendation A at paragraph 27 onward above).

27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup

206. Lot 26, 27 Prisk Street, Karrinyup (Prisk Street) is one of the three RARs selected by the City for specific review.

207. Prisk Street is zoned “Urban” under the MRS and “Private Institution” in the City’s LPS, and falls within an area covered by clause 4.2.10 of the LPS.23 Any development within this zone must also comply with the City’s Local Planning Policy No 4.5 (LPP 4.5), which was adopted in May 2011. There were no changes in LPP 4.5 prior to the first DAP application or the first RAR. However, the first RAR was appealed and LPP 4.5 was altered between the commencement of the appeal and the second RAR.

208. On 21 April 2015, the applicant, on behalf of the landowners, submitted their original

209. On 28 April 2015, the City provided the DAP Secretariat with a copy of the application.

210. On 25 May 2015, the City wrote to the applicant requesting further information.

211. On 9 July 2015, the first RAR prepared by the Director Planning and Development

212. The applicant then appealed to SAT and the SAT ultimately referred the matter back to DAP for reconsideration.

213. After the SAT processes, the Prisk Street development was approved on 22 March 2016.

22 This letter incorrectly refers to the relevant properties as "adjoining", when they were identified by the 100m radius. 23 23 Given the zoning, this property could be developed at a higher density than the surrounding R20 areas.

application to the City to demolish part of the Chrystal Halliday Village, being the 60 bed building and two respite care units, and build a four storey nursing home. This was a Mandatory DAP application, as the estimated cost for the development was $25 million.

was dated 9 July 2015, which recommended that the DAP refuse the application. The application was refused by the DAP on 23 July 2015.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 34

Findings

Advertising

214. As a Private Institution, this development was to be advertised in accordance with the City’s PCP. This was assessed as a standard development application, under the definitions in the City’s PCP, meaning that the City was required to provide 21 days’ notice to all residents within a 100 metre radius.

215. On 30 April 2015, the City wrote to the applicant asking that they arrange a suitable sign to be erected, which is clearly readable from the street, advising residents of the development. The City requested notification, and photographic proof, that this had been complied with. The applicant provided confirmation on 6 May 2015.

216. Letters were sent out to residents on 26 May 2015 asking for comments to be submitted by 16 June 2015. The City keeps a record of the template letter that was sent out, and a list of all community members who were to be notified. This advertising letter advised residents that the proposal involved variations to the LPS, LPP and R-Codes. An image of the letter is produced below.

Advertisement Letter – Prisk Street

[continued overleaf]

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 35

217. Although the City complied with the requirement to advertise the DAP application under the PCP and the LPS, the City did not:

a. explain clearly what the variations specified mean;b. explain what the "required" or "proposed" columns are intended to refer to;c. make plans available on the website rather than only at the City's offices;d. explain the role of the DAP and state: "Should no written comments be received by the

deadline, the City could determine the application without your response."

218. In the circumstances, community members could reasonably have mistaken their role in the consultation process, on what issues their comments were being sought and the level of decision-making power on the City's part.

219. While this approach was compliant with the planning law and policies, as set out in Recommendation A (at paragraphs 27 onward), the Civic Legal Team recommends that the City adopt a revised approach to advertising that reduces the likelihood of misunderstanding within the community.

220. Some community members reported in their interviews with the Civic Legal Team that they were concerned that they became aware of the DAP application only when they saw the sign at the development site, and did not receive a letter notifying them of the development application. This is likely correct, as letters were sent after the signage was posted. However, the advertising process was nonetheless compliant with the planning law and policies.

Finding on allegation of preferential treatment (including in relation to heights)

221. A number of community members raised the specific concern that Prisk Street had received preferential treatment as it had been approved despite the height and bulk of the development and the initial refusal of the application. The ultimate approval of this application occurred at around the same time as a change to LPP 4.5. Various community members were concerned that these changes had been timed to occur at the same time to enable a development to be approved that would otherwise have been rejected.

222. At first sight, these concerns appeared to be warranted given the timings in question. Consequently, the Civic Legal Team took additional steps to examine and re-examine the

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 36

documentation surrounding this development. We wanted to test the material to determine whether there was any evidence that preferential treatment had been given.

223. The chain of events in this matter was difficult to determine from the City's records (as there were only partial records of phone calls and SAT orders). From the surrounding material and our interviews with community members and City officers, the Civic Legal Team identified the following approximate timeline of events:

a. The first application was refused by DAP on 23 July 2015;

b. The applicant filed an SAT application (283/2015) (the SAT matter) in August 2015,seeking to overturn the refusal;

c. The City advertised an amended policy (Local Planning Policy 4.5 – Private InstitutionDesign Guidelines) (LPP 4.5) on 14 August 2015;

d. The first listing for the SAT matter was scheduled for 19 August 2015;

e. At the first listing for the SAT matter, the parties immediately agreed to mediation, ratherthan any other programming orders;

f. The proposed changes to LPP 4.5 were again advertised on 18 September 2015;

g. The first mediation occurred on 25 September 2015. Mediations are confidential and,generally speaking, participants are not permitted under the rules of the SAT to informothers of the specific discussions that occurred at the mediation. However, the City'sofficers informed the Civic Legal Team that community members attended the firstmediation;

h. As a result of the mediation, it appears that the SAT ordered (presumably with theconsent of DAP and the applicant) that:

i. the applicant prepare amended plans;

ii. the amended plans to be submitted to the City by no later than 29 October 2015;and

iii. once the RAR had been completed, the amended plans were to be published onthe DAP website for the public’s consideration.

i. The amended plans were not submitted to the City by 29 October 2015. The delay islater said by the City in the 5 December 2016 Electors’ Special Meeting not to detractfrom the need to consider the amended plans.

j. A second mediation conference was held on 2 November 2015. At this mediation,orders were made for the exchange of documents between DAP and the applicant andthe mediation was adjourned to 27 November 2015.

k. The amended plans were submitted to the City on 19 November 2015. The plans werewithheld from the public until at least the RAR below was issued;

l. On 27 November 2015, the third mediation either occurred or was adjourned;

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 37

m. A further DAP meeting was scheduled for 22 December 2015. This ultimately did notoccur, or the DAP application was not considered on that day;

n. On 8 January 2016, a directions hearing either occurred or was adjourned;

o. During the above steps, the City received additional material in relation to thedevelopment which was confidential under the mediation rules of the SAT. We havereviewed this material and do not believe it materially affected the RAR ultimatelyproduced to DAP;

p. On 2 March 2016, the Senior Planning Officer responded to community memberssaying that he had received confidential plans under the mediation process and, inresponse to a query, responded by saying that the LPP permitted a four storeydevelopment. The Senior Planning Officer said that he expected the RAR to beavailable five days prior to the meeting which he understood was planned for 24March 2016. The Senior Planning Officer was on leave during this period but wasactive and consultative in updating community members;

q. On 9 March 2016, the City received the final plans being relied upon. There was nomechanism under the legislative requirements, or under the SAT orders requiring re-advertisement;

r. On 10 March 2016, the Senior Planning Officer emailed one of the more activecommunity members requesting better contact details for some of the concernedcommunity members. The community member offered to perform a letter drop andfollowed up on 14 March 2016. It is not immediately clear if this letter drop occurredfrom the City’s records, but there was no specific obligation on the City to do so;

s. The proposed changes to LPP 4.5 were approved by Council on 15 March 2016;

t. On 16 March 2016:

i. the City recommended approval of the amended plans in a further RAR, whichmade specific reference to LPP 4.5 as amended; and

ii. the City informed community members through the active community member byemail about the new DAP meeting date of 22 March 2016;

u. The correspondence around this time is unclear as to whether the plans wereimmediately advertised on the website at the time of the RAR. At best, communitymembers would have seen plans for six days that the City had seen for four months;

v. The Senior Planning Officer notified community members of the RAR by email on 17 March2016; and

w. On 22 March 2016, DAP approved the amended application.

224. It is important to note that the City was not a party to the SAT matter, but could attend on the invitation of the parties to the SAT matter. This is a practice adopted by the SAT in ensuring that a local government is informed of progress on such applications.

225. In the DAP process, and any subsequent SAT matters, the City only acts as an intermediary in assessing the plans according to the relevant planning law and policies and does not make the final decision. It is common for local government staff to be in attendance at SAT conferences as they are often better placed to respond to queries raised by SAT members.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 38

226. In the context of the SAT matter, the DAP was responsible for negotiating all orders made for amended plans, extensions of time and the DAP meeting at which the matter was to be referred. The City may inform the DAP and the applicant of its preferences, but these may be disregarded by the DAP, the applicant or the SAT itself.

227. Notwithstanding this limited involvement, the City's records about the SAT process were insufficient. It can be inferred that the City received occasional updates about this process but these do not appear to have been logged in the primary document management system (ECM).

228. In light of the above chronology, the community members’ concerns are only valid if LPP 4.5 genuinely changed the position from a development that could not be approved to one that could be approved.

229. Based on our review, the Civic Legal Team does not consider that the changes in LPP 4.5 had any material effect on the outcome of the RAR if the LPP had been applied correctly on both occasions. Indeed, the alterations to LPP 4.5 appear to clarify changes in that:

a. in the first version, LPP 4.5 read: “development shall be restricted to two (2) storeysabove natural ground level adjacent to lot or street boundaries and a maximum of four(4) storeys above natural ground level on the remainder of the site”; and

b. in the second version, LPP 4.5 read: “development shall be restricted to two (2) storeys(6.0 metres wall height) above natural ground level within 10 metres of any residentiallot or street boundaries in areas coded R50 or below and a maximum of four (4) storeys(12.0 metres wall height) above natural ground level on the remainder of the site”.

230. In the Civic Legal Team’s experience, the three metre to one storey conversion is a standard conversion in planning practice in Australia. The text added to LPP 4.5 does not change the meaning of the existing text.24

231. A copy of LPP 4.5 with a Microsoft Word compare to identify the changes made is attached and marked Annexure C.

232. The first RAR for this matter dated 9 July 2015 recommended the refusal of the application on the grounds that the development would have an adverse effect on the amenity of surrounding properties and was unsympathetic to the scale and bulk of surrounding properties. Moreover, the City noted that no Detailed Area Plan (now LDP) (required by Clause 5.12 of the City’s LPS) had been submitted and the excessive height and scale was incompatible with its setting (Clause 10.2 of the City’s LPS). The City was only to have "due regard" to these provisions.

233. The applicant sent correspondence to the DAP addressing these various concerns as part of the mediation process. Neither the Civic Legal Team nor the City can waive the mediation privilege that attaches to these documents as a result of the SAT processes. The SAT is not in a clear position to exercise that power either. Ultimately, our view is that the applicant did make substantial comment in respect of those issues.

234. In the RAR dated 16 March 2016, the City addresses the changes in the development. Indeed, this second RAR goes on to state at pp.8-9 that:

24 Further, the surrounding land is all either R20 or R30, so the introduction of an R50 or below limit to the surrounding properties does not affect the application of LPP4.5 here.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 39

The development has two street boundaries, Prisk Street and Gladman Way. • 4 Storeys is proposed and permitted however it is the overall building height of 13.1m

above average natural ground level in-lieu of 12.0m that is non-compliant; • The eastern wing facing Prisk Street which is four storeys in height exceeds the

maximum two storeys permitted as it is within the 10.0m setback area; • The western wing facing Gladman Way which is four storeys in height exceeds the

maximum two storey height limit as it is located within the 10.0m setback area.

[emphasis added]

235. In this circumstance, it is difficult to contemplate a scenario where the change in LPP 4.5 is said to have actually contributed to an approval. The City has appropriately and accurately identified the non-compliance. The City also however stated that “It should be noted the proposed development complies with the current policy with regard to building height, however does not meet the prescribed heights in the amended policy” (p.8).

236. While the Civic Legal Team’s interpretation of the original LPP 4.5 is that it likely had the same application as amended LPP 4.5, the Civic Legal Team’s view is that the amended LPP 4.5 is clearer and the application is more clearly non-compliant than on the first RAR.

237. The City goes on to note that, given the non-compliance, “these variations are therefore required to be assessed against the policy objectives” (p.8) and that certain application and advertising requirements have to be met, including planning reports on the items at issue (such as overshadowing and wind impact) (p.9). Although the applicant had denied that the application required such reporting (not being within the current restrictions of LPP 4.5), the applicant did address these matters in its report.

238. It is unclear whether the wind impact issue was adequately addressed in the application. LPP 4.5 raised wind impact as an issue to be considered in this application. The officer in his email to a community member dated 25 May 2015 said that, relying on his own aeronautic background, he did not believe anything further than the wind impact commentary in the application would be needed. In the Civic Legal Team’s experience, it is not uncommon for wind impact studies to be performed by applicants. There is no wind impact study on file and no substantive commentary in the RAR, including in the second version of the RAR. There is some room for suggesting that the City may therefore have fallen into procedural error in processing the application. However, the Civic Legal Team has been unable to reach a firm conclusion on this issue but observes that it is not entirely satisfactory that the personal aeronautical experience of an officer should be the basis for deciding to dispense with the need for a wind impact study.

239. In this context, the City was only required to have “due regard” to the planning policy (see the note at clause 2.3.2 of the LPS). The meaning of that phrase has been dealt with elsewhere, and the comprehensive way in which building height was considered suggests to us that the City did in fact have due regard to this issue.

240. LPP 4.5 at p.3 states that any variations should be considered according to the objectives of the Policy. The Objectives are set out at pp.14-15 and require the planning officer with relevant delegated authority to consider those objectives against the various aspects of the development and determine whether those objectives are still met despite the excessive height. The planning officer is then required to exercise his discretion to exercise judgment on those aspects. There is a discretionary element in this rule and therefore the test for the Civic Legal Team is whether this view was ‘manifestly unreasonable’. In this case, the Civic Legal Team is unable to find that the exercise of discretion was manifestly unreasonable and therefore concludes that the approach taken was acceptable.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 40

241. The Civic Legal Team makes the recommendations as to transparency in the SAT process above at paragraph 39. The Civic Legal Team otherwise makes no adverse findings by reason of the above.

242. The Civic Legal Team has identified that a primary reason for the community members’ concerns is that the community expected that R20 requirements would be applied to the property notwithstanding its independent zoning. The confusion surrounding this issue is reasonable. However, we make no further recommendations aside from our general recommendations as to the level of explanation given during the community consultation process.

Bushfire Risk Assessment

243. A number of community members raised a concern that the Prisk Street development was not subjected to a Bushfire Risk Assessment prior to approval. The Bushfire Risk Assessment process was mandated in State Planning Policy (SPP) 3.7 – Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. SPP 3.7 was released by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in December 2015.

244. At the time the DAP application was lodged with the City and the first RAR was prepared, this SPP did not apply. The WAPC prepares SPPs and is not required to give advance notice to local governments. It is reasonable to assume that the City was not aware these provisions would apply until the SPP was released or only a short time beforehand.

245. A number of community members asserted that the City was obliged to have "due regard" to the Bushfire Risk Assessment requirements as they were being "seriously considered". This appears to be a reference to Clause 67(b) of the LPS Regulations (Deemed Provisions) (which are included in all LPSs) and requires the decision-maker is to have due regard to:

any proposed local planning scheme or amendment … that has been advertised … or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving.

[emphasis added]

246. However, this is a misapplication of Clause 67(b). The proper provision is Clause 67(c) which requires "due regard" to be given to "any approved State planning policy". Here, there is no requirement for due regard to be given to a State planning policy that is being "seriously considered". Nonetheless, it is worth noting Clause 67(zb) provides for "due regard" to be given to "any other planning consideration the local government considers appropriate".

247. In any event, the WAPC had granted "a 4-month grace period for stakeholders to adjust to the new legislative changes. The WAPC grace period ends on the 7th of April 2016."25 In these circumstances, the WAPC had specifically provided that the Bushfire Risk Assessment Requirements were not to be applied until 8 April 2016 onward. The City received a further bulletin on 8 April 2016 confirming that the requirements had come into effect.

25 This bulletin was quoted for us in writing by the City’s officers, but it does not appear a copy was provided.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 41

248. In these circumstances, it was not necessary to have "due regard" to those provisions as the WAPC had directed against using them. Accordingly, the lack of reference to those requirements in the RAR does not indicate any failing on the part of the City.

Conduct of DAP meeting

249. In community member interviews, a number of community members complained that, at the DAP meeting, the Chair (who is not an officer or councillor in the City) had said that there were a number of three storey developments near the Prisk Street development. The community members claimed that this statement was not true and that the City's councillors had failed to correct the Chair on this issue.

250. In the Civic Legal Team’s view, there is no procedural failing in the Councillors declining, or deciding not to, correct the factual record at a DAP meeting. The Councillors are elected officers and, outside of the realms of misconduct, there is no specific obligation on which the Civic Legal Team could conclude that they had failed to act appropriately.

251. Similarly, a complaint made that one Council member at the DAP meeting voted against the development and the other for the development is not a process matter for review by the Civic Legal Team.

252. A number of community members were also concerned about the lack of a right of reply in DAP. The processes of DAP and whether they should be more consultative is a policy issue for the State Government (in drafting legislation and regulations relevant to DAP processes). Such processes are beyond the scope of this Report.

402 Karrinyup Road, Gwelup

253. Lot 233, 402 Karrinyup Road, Gwelup (Karrinyup Road) is one of the two additional developments selected by our randomised process.

254. Karrinyup Road is zoned “Residential” R20 in the City’s LPS.

255. On 2 April 2015, the applicant submitted their amended application and a DAP Form 2 to the City to develop an Aged Care Facility, Low Care Suites and Church Building. This Form 2 application related to amendments to the development initially approved at the DAP meeting on 12 December 2013.

256. This was a Mandatory DAP application, as the estimated cost for the development was $42 million.

257. It is not clear from the City’s records when it provided the DAP Secretariat with a copy of the application. However, it is unlikely to result in any material findings, so this issue was not pursued further.

258. Community consultation letters were sent out on 7 May 2015, inviting comments on the proposal within 21 days of the letter and imposing a deadline of 28 May 2015.

259. The first RAR was prepared by the Director Planning and Development on 18 June 2015. On 25 June 2015 the DAP resolved to approve the application subject to one amended condition.260. On 2 July 2015, the DAP informed the applicant that the amended application had been

approved.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 42

Findings

261. The City sent a letter to community members on 7 May 2015. The method of record-keeping in the City appears to comprise the copy of the letter sent to one community member, together with a map indicating the properties selected for advertising. This appears to comply with the 100m requirement for advertising. However, the Civic Legal Team refers to its Recommendation D as to record-keeping at paragraph 46 onward above. The consultation letter again refers to the need to view the proposal at the City's offices. The Civic Legal Team refers to its Recommendation E as to availability of plans and proposals at paragraphs 50 onward above.

262. Unlike letters sent for other developments, this letter did not suggest that the City had a decision-making role in the Karrinyup Road application. However, the City and community members would have been in a better position to meaningfully engage in that process if the further explanation recommended at paragraphs 46 onward above had been given.

263. The Civic Legal Team has identified no areas of concern for this particular development.

812 Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley

264. We note that this DAP application is dated 9 March 2014, but from the contextual documents, we have now concluded that it was made on 9 March 2015.

265. 812 (Lot 90) Beaufort St, Mount Lawley (Beaufort Street) is zoned “Urban” under the MRS and “Service Station” in the City’s LPS.

266. On 9 March 2015 the applicant on behalf of the landowners, submitted their original application . and a DAP Form 1 to the City to demolish the existing service station and build a new service station with a retail building, four fuel bowsers and eight refuelling bays, and fourteen car bays for customers and staff. This was an Optional DAP application, with the estimated cost being $3.5 million.

267. On 12 March 2015 the City provided the DAP Secretariat with a copy of the application.

268. Community consultation letters were sent out on 27 March 2015 advising that submissions were to be lodged with the City by 17 April 2015. This is in accordance with the 21 day advertising requirement in the City’s PCP.

269. The first RAR prepared by the Director Planning and Development was dated 3 June 2015 recommending that the DAP refuse the application because the location, orientation and built form and design did not satisfy the objectives of Part 6.1 of the LPP 3.1, did not satisfy the objectives of LPP 4.2, did not satisfy the requirements of LPP 6.5, 6.3 or 6.1.

270. On 16 June 2015, the DAP approved the Beaufort Street application, but with 27 conditions and 18 advice notices or 26 conditions and 18 advice notices.

271. On 16 July 2015, the applicant lodged an amendment to the Beaufort Street application, to remove and amend previous conditions of planning approval.

272. On 11 September 2015, the City prepared a Form 2 RAR. The City did not undertake further public consultation when preparing the Form 2 RAR.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 43

273. On 17 September 2015, the DAP approved the application adding one condition, amending four conditions, adding one advice note and marking the application as approved.

Findings

274. The advertising letter for this development was issued on 27 March 2015 under the PCP and LPS. Consultation was not limited to a specific design principle and accordingly a general letter was appropriate. However, the City again did not disclose how the consultation area was identified (100m radius) and suggested that "Should no written comments be received within the same period, the City may determine the application without your response." The City also indicated that the plans would only be available in person at the City's offices during business hours rather than available on the website. The difficulty with this approach to advertising is dealt with at Recommendation A at paragraphs 46 onward above.

275. On the City's file, the letter was accompanied by a map of properties which appears to cover all properties within 100m. It is inferred that the letter was sent to all properties. However, the Civic Legal Team refers to its Recommendation E as to availability of plans and proposals at paragraphs 50 onward above.

276. The Civic Legal Team has identified no other areas of concern for this particular development.

General

Delegations

277. We have reviewed the City’s delegations register and have found no reason to conclude that the delegated powers of various officers were exercised by any person without delegated authority to do so, or that the officers acted instead of the Council in circumstances where powers were non-delegable by the Council. In the current version of the delegations register the determination of particular applications remains with Council and the Council can request that certain applications be determined by it.26

278. When reviewing a DAP application, the officers use their professional judgment in assessing the application against the relevant planning controls, including the legislation, regulations, schemes, policies and development standards. All applications are assessed against objectives and design principles and the officers are responsible for ensuring that all planning considerations are adequately documented in the RAR for the DAP to make their determination. A reliable method of determining whether those without appropriate qualifications were participating in decisions is whether incorrect decisions were being frequently made. Notwithstanding some adverse or inconclusive findings above, we have received no indication that unqualified decision-makers were involved in the process in ways that they should not have been.

279. Some community members queried whether the Council was being deprived of its powers by a planning department acting in excess of its authority. There has been no indication of such conduct and, moreover, the consideration of the applications for the purpose of producing an RAR is not within a power that must be retained by the Council.

26 see Delegations Register as to Planning and Development Local Planning Scheme Regulations 2015 and Local Planning Scheme No. 3.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 44

280. Further, on the information provided by the City officers, the Council appears to be actively updated on this process. Within the first two weeks of receiving an application, all City councillors are provided with a memo and a link to the plans and details of the application. There is a set format for notifying councillors on their personal councillors’ portal. It is then up to the councillors to contact the planning staff if they wish to exercise their power to ‘call in’ the application so that it is managed more directly in consultation with elected members.

Obligations to Report to DAP on Amended Applications

281. Some community members have raised concerns that the City would not reject an amended application on the grounds that it is substantially different from the original application. During the officer interviews, the Manager Approvals noted that the City has an obligation to assess and prepare an RAR for all DAP applications, and cannot exercise discretion to reject a DAP application. This is correct, as the DAP Regulations stipulate that:

any DAP Application for approval of development within a district for which a DAP is established must be determined by the DAP as if the DAP were the responsible authority under the relevant planning instrument in relation to the DAP; and cannot be determined by the local government for the district or the Commission” (reg 8).

282. The planning laws and policies did not oblige the City to advertise amended DAP applications. However, where an amended DAP application appears to be significantly different from the original DAP application, the officers have informed us that they will generally advertise the amended application to the affected community members according to the R-Codes or PCP. The Civic Legal Team recommends formalising this procedure.

Advertising

283. The consultation procedure set out in the R-Codes applies to all residential developments. For any other developments, the City is required to follow its own PCP.

284. The R-Codes require that, where a decision-maker determines that a proposal is against one or more of the R-Codes design principles, or is satisfied that there will be a possible impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and occupiers, the decision-maker is to advertise the proposal to the relevant adjoining owners and occupiers for a period of not less than 14 days. The advertisement is confined to the design principle in question and the City is not required to seek comment on other aspects of the development.

285. The City’s PCP at Table 1 outlines the different types of applications, and the required means and duration of advertising. This Procedure is based on the LPS requirements and was adopted by Council. It is publicly available on the City’s website.

286. The City uses the Intra-Maps program to locate all the affected residents within the required radius.

287. The letters from the City to affected community members does not adequately advise the community member on the consultation procedure.

288. This appears to have caused significant confusion among community members, who are unaware of the different consultation requirements imposed by the R-Codes and the LPS. As above at paragraph 27, we have recommended that the City consider providing further information to community members at the time of advertising and upon any community member raising a concern that they have not received an advertisement that should have been sent to them.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 45

289. Although a number of community members were concerned that the DAP applications were not re-advertised once amended, the DAP processes do not generally allow for re-advertisement in the time allotted to complete an RAR.

290. Due to the time limits imposed by the DAP process, the City was required to prepare and submit to DAP an RAR (under the Regulations at the time) within 80 days of first receiving an application.

291. Prior to the introduction of the DAP, the City would usually wait until an applicant has submitted all relevant plans before it would be advertised for public comment.

292. In each of these circumstances, this generally leads to the situation where the plans the subject of the application are substantively amended before the DAP meeting, but after the plans have been advertised.

293. Due to these timeframes, we were informed by the City’s officers that they seek to advertise an application as soon as possible. Pursuant to the DAP Regulations, the City only has seven days upon receiving an incomplete application to “stop the clock” so the applicant can submit the necessary additional documents.

Amendments and Re-advertising

294. There is no specific provision for re-advertisement generally. This appears to be a result of the lack of transparency built into the DAP application system itself, as it leaves the door open to substantial changes during the DAP process after the plans have been advertised. The City does not have the specific power to ‘reject’ applications that it considers are non-compliant and a refusal that arose out of the City’s failure to prepare an RAR on amended plans could well lead to the same outcome (the City considering the amended plans without advertisement) if a DAP rejection which arose out of non-preparation of an RAR is referred to the SAT.

295. The officers also informed us in their interviews that where an application has been advertised, and community members have submitted their objections, the City does not readvertise the application because it is treated as if the objections have already been raised in relation to the amended application. For example, if plans were filed for a two storey development and one community member objected on the grounds that the building was too tall and blocked a view, then a re-submitted plan that was 50cm higher would likely raise the same concerns and comment would therefore not need to be re-sought by the City.

296. This appears to be a reasonable and practical approach by the City.

297. Moreover, the DAP is empowered to determine applications without the RAR27 and the City’s failure to produce an RAR would be more likely to lead to a less informed DAP decision (which would presumably frustrate community members even more than they appear to be about the current process).

298. The City should also consider requesting that the DAP defer consideration of a DAP application when substantial changes are made to plans, particularly late in the process, to permit further community consultation to occur. We are informed by the Manager Approvals that the City has previously requested this indulgence where the changes have been particularly substantial.

27 reg 12(7), DAP Regulations.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 46

299. Another alternative for the City may be ‘black-boxing’, where the City does not correspond with the applicant about non-compliances in the DAP application. The primary reason for changes in the plans for DAP applications appeared to be the applicant attempting to resolve a non-compliance that they had been made aware of by the City. If this practice of corresponding with the applicant were abandoned, it would likely mean that the City is not using good governance practices. It would also leave open the possibility that the City produces an RAR based on a highly non-compliant application rather than one with a limited number of non-compliances. Given that the DAP holds the ultimate discretion, it is more likely that a plan approved by DAP that has been properly amended in the course of consultation with the applicant will comply with the relevant planning policies than if the City had not engaged in that process. It is also possible that a failure by the City to properly engage in the process could be considered a breach of obligations as to good governance under the Local Government Act or to prepare meaningful RARs under the Act and give rise to reviewable decisions on its own part. We would not recommend black-boxing applications.

Customer Service Charter / Community Engagement

300. There have been numerous examples of community members being unaware of the different advertising requirements imposed by the R-Codes and the City’s PCP, which the City was aware of but failed to address. This is evident in the records of the Council Meeting held on 13 June 2017 and our observations on advertisement letters above.

301. As for the Prisk Street development, community members questioned how the City could in their Form 2 RAR recommend the approval of an application that was initially rejected, when in their view, the reasons for its initial refusal remained live. This concern was expressed by a community member to the Director Planning and Development on 15 April 2016. The City’s response to this query was that “the amended plans are clearly different to the original plans which were refused by the JDAP”. This query from concerned community members warranted a more detailed response from the City as to how the amended plans differed and were regarded as compliant.

302. The Director Planning and Development informed the Civic Legal Team that general correspondence received by the City is monitored on a regular basis. Any overdue correspondence is monitored every week and the City prepares a detailed list of outstanding correspondence.

303. The City also employs mystery shoppers on a monthly basis. Such a service reports on the officers’ correspondence, front counter service and the handling of telephone enquiries, as well as presentation and politeness.

304. Applicants for planning approval also receive an online survey to complete once the process has concluded.

305. An outstanding task list is monitored and managed by senior staff members, and the professional standards team within the City prepares on a monthly basis a list of accolades and complaints.

306. It is the view of the Civic Legal Team that this is a robust process, for which the City should be commended. However, while the City is attentive to customer service, response times and manner, the City did not appropriately deal with community members' concerns in the approvals process (or afterward). This arises out of a failure to provide sufficiently fulsome explanations to community members.

307. In our officer interview, we were informed by the City’s planning team that, in substance, “it is not our responsibility to educate the public”. In a narrow sense, having regard to the planning

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 47

legislation, that view is correct. However, given the purposes in the Local Government Act s.1.3, particularly:

(b) greater community participation in the decisions and affairs of local governments; and (c) greater accountability of local governments to their communities; and (d) more efficient and effective local government.

it is our view that this narrow interpretation of the City’s responsibility has created the groundswell of dissatisfaction amongst community members that has arisen. Indeed, the responsibility on the City is arguably on informing, rather than educating, and it is our view that the City has not met that criterion adequately when engaging with the public.

308. During the review process, the Civic Legal Team itself received responses from the City officers that seemed to contain echoes of the kind of tone and appearance of obfuscation (whether deliberate or not) that community members might have experienced. For example, in a written response provided to us by the officers on query topics we forwarded to the City ahead of our officer interview:

Topic: the City's procedures in dealing with responses to community concerns or objections during development approvals and timeframes for responses to community concerns, and how any timeframes on community members are planned around the RAR deadlines.

Officer comment: the DAP regulations currently require the Local Authority to provide a 7 day notification for the meeting. Prior to this change in the regulations, the City's practice has been to notify as soon as the City received the meeting notification (often notice periods of the meeting from the DAP's was short), however there was nothing compelling Local Authority's to do this.

309. In this example, the topic was broad and covered mostly the timeframes surrounding community concerns when raised. A specific answer was given on a slightly different topic (timeframes for notice of a DAP meeting). While the Civic Legal Team does not suggest that the officer was being obstructive in providing the answer, the effect of the answer was that the query was not answered. This answer would also have been improved if the relevant part of the regulations was given by the officer and that the City used the correct term (i.e. the City, or as it is described under the relevant regulations "the responsible authority")

310. The Civic Legal Team makes a similar observation in relation to an officer’s comment in the course of the review that the City’s letters are not required to have “legal precision”. However, given the context was that this concerned correspondence to a community member concerned about alleged breaches of legislation (see paragraph 307 above) , the strategy of not seeking legal precision on a legal issue does not seem to be consistent with the role of the City in providing good government for the district.

311. Our further comments, and recommendations, on advertising and community engagement are at paragraphs 46 above of this Report.

Officer Workloads

312. During the period that these RARs were being prepared, specifically in 2015, the City received an unusually high number of development applications. The City engaged additional contractors in an attempt to cope with this workload. However, City officers were still informing

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 48

concerned community members that due to limited resources they were unable to provide substantive responses.

313. On 25 and 27 May 2015, a contractor to the City, responded to a community member’s queries regarding the Prisk Street development with the following comments:

“my letters are going out tomorrow (for 21 days), again apologies, I’m getting bogged down with the volume of issues and stakeholders, of two such applications”.

“I’ll be putting the current plans on our website in the next couple of days. Due to tight timeframes in the process, I will have to ask you and other concerned residents to rely on these plans as if they are the final plans to base their comments on. Further to this, my resources are very limited, and I won’t be able to provide updates or ongoing meetings."

314. This issue was raised by the Civic Legal Team during the officer interviews. The officers informed the Civic Legal Team that their view was that workloads were high, but were manageable. The City also retained short-term qualified contractors to assist in the approvals workload during this period and introduce a new team model to deal with DAP and SAT matters specifically.

315. There is no indication that the City was not managing workloads correctly during this period. The City appeared to be monitoring, and responsive to, workloads generally. The Civic Legal Team makes no adverse findings about workloads.

Access to Documents / Plans

316. During the course of the majority of RARs reviewed, the City did not have a process for publishing all DAP applications on the City’s website. This creates substantial difficulties for community members who are unable to travel to the City’s offices, or did not receive a copy of the plans in the advertising process. Although the documents were not strictly required to be made available in this way, it would have assisted the City in maintaining good governance and satisfying community members’ queries by publishing such applications on its website. It would have also assisted the City in combatting any perception that it was acting on behalf of developers.

317. During our officer interviews, the Manager Approvals informed the Civic Legal Team in effect that he believed the City did not publish the applications on the website because of an unwritten policy of avoiding the risk of breaching copyright law. Our view is that it was reasonable for the City to be concerned about this risk, but that the City could have managed the risk in a way that would have allowed the plans and applications to be published on the website.

318. If the policy had remained unchanged, the Civic Legal Team would have considered the copyright issues raised by the City’s officers. The policy has now changed, as a result of the introduction of clause 64(5)(b) of the Deemed Provisions of the LPS Regulations which states that, where an application for development approval is advertised under clause 64, the local government may publish the application and accompanying material on the website of that local government. This rule was introduced by the time of the Silica Road application and was correctly applied at that time.

319. The City’s officers have informed the Civic Legal Team that all relevant applications and their accompanying material are now published online. This approach is reasonable and accounts for some of the perceived problems with the City’s advertising method.

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 49

320. A further improvement may be to increase the circle of advertising for properties that fall within the DAP process. However, the City would need to be certain that any procedure is clear, properly defined and otherwise within the parameters of the legislation. On balance, the Civic Legal Team has decided not to recommend that the circle of advertising be increased, but recommends that the City give consideration to whether that circle needs to be wider in future. The ultimate solution for this community concern may be a legislative change at State Government level, which is outside the scope of this Report.

Conduct of City meetings

321. A number of community members claimed that councillors and / or staff were dismissive during Council meetings and microphones were turned off to prevent community members from participating fully in such meetings. Management of Council meetings are a matter for the Mayor and, as stated elsewhere in this Report, is a topic that falls outside the scope of this Report. The Civic Legal Team is aware of no arguable misconduct in this respect.

322. Moreover, the Civic Legal Team is not able to adequately assess the meetings conducted as the Civic Legal Team was not present when they occurred.

323. Another community member suggested that the Mayor may have treated other Council members poorly. The Civic Legal Team has no evidence of this allegation, which was presented to us a conclusion rather than based on a series of incidents that may be investigated. The Civic Legal Team makes no findings or recommendation on that issue. Further investigation of this issue would be outside of the scope of this Report.

Deprivation of views / reduction of amenity

324. A number of community members expressed a concern that the views from their properties had been interrupted by developments. Community members do not have a general right to a view and the planning law and policies have been developed partly with that concern in mind. The fact that a person may lose a scenic view is not, in itself, a reason for an application to be rejected, unless planning law and polices prohibit the development from occurring.

CONCLUSION

325. The Civic Legal team undertook a comprehensive review of the matters the subject of this Report. Out of the numerous items that were the subject of specific reviews, we have made four key recommendations.

326. In those instances where the Civic Legal Team has made adverse findings, it was officer misunderstanding of planning law and policies, rather than deliberate attempt to circumvent them or mislead any stakeholders.

327. Overall, the City appears to have a well-qualified and experienced planning department, which operates in a professional and orderly manner, in compliance with the processes, procedures and policies applicable to planning matters as are understood by those officers.

328. We identified some areas where improvements of process could be made to the benefit of the City and the community that it serves. One key area is in relation to the way in which the City interacts with members of the community on development approvals. The matters that we reviewed could have been a great deal less controversial had the City been able to persuade those members of the community that it subscribed to the principle of good communication

Civic Legal

1889901_1 page 50

with the public in substance as well as in form. The perceptions of the community members, coupled with what the Civic Legal team discerned from the material, supports our view.

DISCLAIMER

329. This document, even if made public, is not intended as advice to the City, community members, land developers, contractors or other interested persons. Any person requiring advice on the law or the appropriate processes to follow in making DAP applications should seek independent legal or planning advice. Civic Legal does not take any responsibility for others relying on this Report as advice in relation to the RARs detailed herein or otherwise.

CIVIC LEGAL

1

ANNEXURE A

CIVIC LEGAL

INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEW

OF THE CITY OF STIRLING

20 OCTOBER 2017

TABLE OF COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND THE CIVIC LEGAL TEAM’S FINDINGS

Note: table compiled from community members verified by team as requiring consultation during review and further community members noted by the City of Stirling as having raised concerns.

Silica Road Concern / Objection Finding

1. The City gave inadequate consideration to the “Carine Vision” program inthe Local Structure Plan (CVLSP – 2012) (including inadequateconsideration of consistency with the surrounding area, tree retention andsetbacks).

The City’s Response (email to a community member 04/11/16): Conditions for approval required the applicant to submit a landscaping plan in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 6.6 – Landscaping and the Local Development Plan for Precinct B, Lot 6, to the specification and satisfaction of the City. The landscaping plan is to include the planting location of the 20 trees identified within the Silica Road setback area and road reserve, and the retention of the two Tuart trees within the Emerald Way setback area.

No adverse finding. As set out in the body of the Report, an LDP for this site was prepared and approved after the CVLSP and before the DAP Application. The decision-maker (DAP) was not bound by, but was required to have due regard to the terms of the CVLSP 2015 Regulations, Schedule 2, clause 27(1)) and LDP 2015 Regulations, Schedule 2, clause 56 (1)) (with the LDP being the primary relevant document The review supports due regard having been given to these materials by the City.

The level of community engagement in the LDP consultation process has not been the subject of investigation and we cannot make a finding about whether this consultation was sufficient. The hierarchy of the CVLSP and the LDP and the low threshold ‘due regard’ test in the legislation does allow the City to move away from a tree retention policy approach without a higher level of community engagement.

2. The community members were led to believe that trees would be left alongSilica Road.

See response to Item 1.

3. There was an inconsistency between the Detailed Area Plan Provision 6which required the Setback to be landscaped in accordance with theCVLSP and the requirement in the DAP that setbacks be a minimum of3m, average 4.5m (Standard Provision 7).

The City Response: “The initial LDP submitted by the applicant proposeda flat 3 metre setback…” but this was increased in consultation with theCity to bring the development into keeping with the neighbourhood.

No adverse finding. These provisions do not appear to be inconsistent. The specific effect is that the setbacks be a minimum of 4m and average of 4.5m and that they otherwise be landscaped in accordance with the CVLSP.

2

4. There was insufficient advertising targeting community members ‘within100m of the Aged Care Home’.

No adverse finding. The City’s records indicate that community members within a 100m radius of the development were contacted by mail on 19 May 2016. A total of 98 letters were sent out in that mail merge. The scope of advertising was as required by the law and policies.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt more comprehensive records retention for advertising letters.

5. The community members did not recall receiving initial communityconsultation letters, even though letters were said to have been sent totheir addresses.

No adverse finding. Receipt or non-receipt of letters by community members cannot be verified. However, the City’s records indicate that these community members were sent these letters. See response to Item 4.

6. The City did not address community concerns about the non-compliancewith the CVLSP, including that Standard Provision 7 as to the width ofsetbacks was introduced, and some alterations to the treatment of treeswere made after advertising.

No adverse finding. See Item 1 as to the CVLSP. Further, the DAP Application that were advertised differ from the approved plans following further correspondence between the applicant and the City. This is normal practice, as a developer amends their plans to be more compliant after being notified of non-compliance with the relevant law and policies.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt a more explanatory approach to community members.

7. The number of 120 bedrooms initially applicable to the site was alteredafter the DAP Application was advertised and increased to 149 bedrooms.

No adverse finding: The reasoning is dealt with in the Report. The review supports due regard having been given to the reference in the CVLSP to 120 beds.

8. Community members were concerned that the land was sold by the StateGovernment to the developer on the basis of land values in light of theCVLSP.

No adverse finding. There is no relationship between the State selling land and the City applying planning laws and policies.

9. The parking allocation was insufficient. No adverse finding. The parking allocation satisfied clause 5.2.2 of the City’s Parking and Access Policy Manual 6.7 in that there was reasonable allocation of reciprocal parking off-site.

10.

11. Community member had difficulty obtaining documents from the City. Recommendation: the Civic Legal Team recommends that the City adopt a website-based approach where all plans are available on the website. The City’s officers inform the Civic Legal Team that this approach has now been adopted, largely as a result of changes brought about by the 2015 Regulations.

Community member said that they did not receive the initial community consultation letter in 2014.

No adverse finding. The outer edge of the community member's property was 105.62m from the outer edge of the 29 Silica Road boundary (according to Google Maps). The City was not required to send a letter.

3

12. Community members do not recall seeing signage on the site advertisingthe development.

Inconclusive. The absence or presence of the sign cannot be verified after the fact, however in an email dated 17 August 2016, the City stated to the community member that signs were placed on the site boundary at Silica Road and one at the junction of Emerald Way and Silica Road.

13. The plans were not available to the public after DAP approval hadoccurred (June 2016) without an FOI application.

No adverse finding. Approved DAP plans are available on the DAP website. As these determinations are not issued by the City, they are not under a legal obligation to provide copies.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt a more explanatory approach to community members. In these cases, the inquirer should be guided to the DAP website with an explanation that the only other means of obtaining the documents from the City is an FOI application.

14. The balcony overlooking Silica Road was imposing and was not in keepingwith the area.

No adverse finding. Although the approved plan brings the balcony closer to Silica Road, the City formed a view that the change in balcony did not significantly alter the impact of the design on amenity. This view was formed within the reasonable discretion of the City.

15. One community member queried the width of the footpath along AlmadineDrive. Both the old and the new footpaths are 1m wide, which isinadequate. The City should have used this opportunity to implementwider footpaths.

No adverse finding. It is firstly noted that the Issue of footpaths is not a matter arising in the consideration of applications or preparation of RARs. There are no obvious procedural concerns with the footpath planning. The City provided a substantive response and appeared to have considered the issue.

16. The ground floor was built on a brick base 3-4 feet high that did not appearon the proposed plans.

No adverse finding: the brick base appeared in the original application.

17. Was not expecting the height of the walls (approximately 1m more thanexpected) and there was no indication that there would be massiveearthworks, infill and retaining walls.

No adverse finding: the heights were largely unchanged and the scope of earthworks, infill and retaining walls were similar.

18. There was inadequate consultation on the 2014 Detailed Area Plan, asCity officers did not refer to the issues that were previously raised by theCarine community members.

No adverse finding. While other community members raised concerns that the ultimate DAP Application was not in keeping with the CVLSP, only one community member raised a specific concern that the Detailed Area Plan / LDP was the subject of insufficient community consultation. The complaint was not clarified, notwithstanding that the community member was given multiple opportunities to be interviewed. The scope of community consultation for the LDP has not been investigated by the Civic Legal Team.

4

19. The City allowed an ‘encroachment’ into the setback area, which wasSetback was intended to protect trees, but the City allowed ‘encroachment’into setback area

No adverse finding. Due to the extremely steep sloping driveway to the development, and provide for easy access bin area, it was necessary to replace the street trees with two large (90 litre) street trees (New Caledonia Pine 'Hawaiian'). The approach taken was consistent with the planning law and policies.

# Prisk Street Concern / Objection Finding

1. The building ground level starts at gutter height (overall 16m high) and thewindows look into backyards and interfere with privacy. The building is notin keeping with the residential area.

No adverse finding. The building was not within height restrictions and the City gave detailed reasons that suggested the City gave due regard to the height requirements. The DAP decision approves a development that appears to be contrary to the objectives for LPP 4.5 Private Institution Design Guidelines – building height. The LPP allows a maximum height of 12m. The proposed plans show heights of at least 13.5m. LPP 4.5 refers to LPP 2.6 for building heights (although this policy relates to Residential development only). The recommendation to approve the DAP Application notwithstanding this non-compliance was within the discretion of the City in having ‘due regard’ to the requirements.

2. The setback from abutting lot boundaries and roads is insufficient (9.2m,where it should be 10m).

No adverse finding. LPP 4.5 requires a 10m setback from abutting lot boundaries and roads. Whilst the ground floor setback may be over 10m the first floor and above are less than 10m. As above, the recommendation to approve the DAP Application notwithstanding this non-compliance was within the discretion of the City in having ‘due regard’ to the requirements.

3. There is a reduction in property values due to the lack of privacy and thearea being busier.

No adverse finding. The reduction in value arising out of an approval does not give rise to any identifiable error by the City. It is also noted that whether or not approval is granted is determined by the DAP rather than the City.

4. One community member was not advised of the changes of zoning forScheme 3 which allowed a three storey development.

No adverse finding. The community member appears to be referring to the change in LPP 4.5 that occurred during the course of this development. This issue is dealt with in detail in the Report.

5. Reg.67 of the LPS Regulations are being ignored. The amenity of 28Gladman Way has been compromised by the planning officers in respectto that location.

No adverse finding. Regulation 67 provides for the broad range of planning laws, policies and matters that are to be taken into account when considering a DAP Application, to the extent that the City considers those matters to be relevant to the DAP Application. The planning review has not identified any general failure to have regard to the appropriate planning laws and policies.

5


6. One community member did not receive a letter advising her ofthe development. The development was only advertised by asign.

No adverse finding. The City’s records1 indicate that a consultation letter was sent. In the officer interviews, the City identified the process for sending community consultation letters (being the use of a mail merge approach and an independent mail contractor for issue of correspondence). No evidence was found which corroborated the suggestion that the letter was never sent.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt more comprehensive records retention for advertising letters.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt an additional advertising method by email to supplement the letters being sent to community members.

7. One community member did not receive a letter advising her of thedevelopment.

No adverse finding. The City’s records2 indicate that a consultation letter was sent to the community member. See above at [6] for Recommendations.

8. The deadlines for providing submissions were too short (the DAApplication was lodged on 21 April 2015, the sign was placed on the siteon 8 May 2015, and the City was to finalise the RAR by 29 May 2015).

No adverse finding. The advertising signs were in place on 6 May 2015, letters were dated 26 May 2015 and the submission period closed on 16 June 2015. These time lines are consistent with the tight DAP time allowances for preparing RARs. The City is unable to control the length of the RAR process (which is outlined in the Report).

9. Correspondence from the City to community members contained incorrectdates and years.

Finding: a number of documents were found to bear incorrect or confusing dates, but not more than would be expected from ordinary, occasional administrative error.

10. The first RAR was rejected due to its height, size, bulk and not suitingamenity; the second RAR, which was approved, was for the same sizebuilding, which was rotated 90 degrees and had only a slight designchange.

No adverse finding. The chain of events leading to the approval after the initial refusal is dealt with in detail in the Report.

11. The City did not consider the SPP 3.7 Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas,which was gazette on 7 December 2015, and did not perform a BushfireAttack Level (BAL) assessment due to the 4 month transitional period.

No adverse finding. Although the development was within the Bushfire Prone Area (see Figure 1 below), the City was not required to apply the bushfire risk assessment requirements to this property for the reasons set out in the Report.

12. Once community member made suggestions about how the developmentcould be improved, however these suggestions were not implemented bythe City (e.g. community members suggested having an open carpark,

No adverse finding. The City is not under a legal obligation to refer alternate designs to the Applicant. The City’s primary role is to assess DAP Applications for the preparation of an RAR and inform the Applicant of any

1 DA File Scan April to December 2015, p.95 of 219. 2 DA File Scan April to December 2015, p.95 of 219.

6

# Finding Prisk Street Concern / Objection

and keeping thesame number of bedrooms but making the

development only three storeys).

non-compliances that could be resolved prior to issuing the RAR.

13. One community member asked the City to consider wind impacts (as theheight of the development was expected to cause a wind tunnel effect).

The City’s Response 25/05/2015: The contractor said that they hadmet with the applicants who are willing to make changes and detailedquestions would be asked for the developer and the contractort wouldrequire a more public meeting once they had done so. The contractorrefers to “I’m getting bogged-down with the volume of issues andstakeholders, of two such applications.” Based on his aeronauticsbackground, he did not believe wind impact would be severe and, in anyevent, if they wished to raise a non-standard planning consideration, thewind impact concerns would need to be substantiated.

Inconclusive. LPP4.5 requires that if the building exceeds the height specified then the application “shall include justification which addresses the impact of the proposal having regard to matters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk, materials, scale and colour.” Strictly, the application did address the issue of wind impact (in summary form). LPP4.5 raised wind impact as an issue to be considered in this application and it is unclear whether he contractor’s reliance on his own aeronautics background was proper consideration. In the Civic Legal Team’s experience, wind studies have previously been commissioned in response to wind impact concerns. There is no wind impact study on file and no substantive commentary in the RAR, including in the second version of the RAR. In these circumstances, and as the Civic Legal Team does not have direct experience in wind impact assessment, this may be a procedural error by the City in processing the application.

14. The CEO of the applicant had promised on behalf of the auctionpurchasers that no development on the land would be built higher thantwo storeys (“many years ago”). This promise was ignored by thedeveloper.

No adverse finding. If the Applicant failed to comply with an agreement with the community members, that is a matter between the Applicant and the community members. The City is not required to enforce that agreement or understanding. In any event, LPP 4.5 provides for four storey developments (before and after it was modified).

15. One community member said they never received a structural plan forwhole lot.

No adverse finding. Having now performed the review, it is not clear what the community member was referring to. Other than the DAP Application plans that were advertised, there is no obligation for the City to provide additional detailed drawings to a resident.

16. The development does not contain any privacy screens. No adverse finding. Given that there was no requirement in the relevant planning policies or laws for a privacy screen to be installed in the development, no adverse finding can be drawn.

17. The signs advertising the development were not adequately displayed. No adverse finding. The signs were prepared and located in accordance with the City’s Planning Consultation Procedure which requires a minimum size sign of 5m2. The signs were located on Prisk Street and Gladman Way. The City has photos on file from this time.

18. There was a delay between filing the development application andadvertising the application to community members.

No adverse finding. The DAP Application was received on 21 April 2015, signs were installed on site on 6 May with advertising from 26 May to 16 June. The City had several issues regarding the DAP Application to consider with the Applicant. It appears that there was no unreasonable

7


delay on the part of the City.

19. The nature of the development gives rises to traffic, parking and roadsafety concerns.

No adverse finding. A detailed traffic statement was prepared by Shawmac Engineers on 20 April 2015, the parking provided exceeded the requirements of the City’s Parking and Access Policy Manual 6.7 and there were no changes to the roads in question.

20. The development of a four storey building in a residential area causesovershadowing.

No adverse finding. The Applicant’s architects produced an overshadowing test assessment as of 12 noon on 22 June, consistent with the requirements of the R-Codes. This creates a shadow that does not extend past the roadway (Gladman Way). The 9am sun path extends on 22 June extends into the land south of Gladman Way. However, this does not contravene the requirements of the R-Codes. The City was correct in treating this assessment as evidence of compliance with this requirement.

21. One community member was concerned about the pollution, noise andsmell which were partially related to the positioning of the air conditioningunits as proposed in the first plan.

No adverse finding. The amended plans showed the relocation of the air-conditioning units and kitchen further away from the community member's house. At the interview, the community member informed the Civic Legal Team that these concerns had largely been resolved by that relocation.

22. The community members were concerned that in May 2015, advertisingletters were only received by properties located within 100m of thedevelopment.

No adverse finding. The City’s Planning Consultation Procedure defines this type of development as a ‘standard development’. A standard development only requires consultation with community members within a 100m radius of the development site for a period of 21 days.

23. The community members were not informed by the City when the first DAPApplication was appealed to the SAT or when the second DAP Applicationwas made.

Finding: Due to a failure by the City to convey the role of the SAT processes, a number of community members had serious concerns about the process and whether the community was being wrongly deprived of the information.

Recommendation: The City reconsider its approach to SAT proceedings, in the manner set out in the Report.

Recommendation: As set out in the Report, the City should adopt a more explanatory approach to community members.

24. The plans ultimately approved by the DAP were not different to the first setof plans (i.e. bulk etc) or, if they were different, the City did not informcommunity members about the extent of these changes.

Finding: This perception appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the nature of the changes, partially exacerbated by a response at the Electors’ Special Meeting on 5 December 2016 that did not directly answer the query.

Due to the issues raised concerning potential impacts of noise and odour

8


from the utility areas of the development on nearby residents, the buildings were redesigned.

The community members were satisfied that the redesign appropriately addressed these issues, however the redesign significantly changed the footprint of the building to bring the development closer to both Prisk Street and Gladman Way (as identified in Figure 1 below).

Recommendation: The City reconsider its approach to SAT proceedings, in the manner set out in the Report.


25. The community members were not present at the SAT mediation. No adverse finding. Mediations are confidential and managed by the SAT. The DAP or the Applicant may invite additional parties with the consent of the SAT or the other party. In this case, the City has no control over who is invited to attend the mediation (even if the City itself receives an invitation). The Civic Legal Team does not recommend any policy permitting attendance at the Mediation as it is unlikely that the SAT or the parties would consent to the attendance by community members, nor that any attendance by community members would assist in resolving their concerns.


26. The SAT Application was withdrawn after the City prepared a second RARrecommending that the Development be approved.

No adverse finding. The mediation process is set out in detail in the Report. In summary, the SAT directed that the matter be reconsidered by the DAP which required the City to provide a further RAR based on amended plans. This is common, consistent with the SAT processes and is not prohibited by the relevant planning laws.

27. When preparing the RAR, the City did not consider that 98.5% ofcommunity members within 300m of the development site objected to theproposed Development.

No adverse finding. DAP Applications are not processed through a direct or indirect democratic process and are instead processed by the application of laws and policy. Those laws and policies are often decided by the relevant elected members at the local government or State level. While the application of the law or policies has flexibility which requires a planning officer to exercise professional judgment, the City does not have the ability to reject unpopular applications.

9


28. Community members were provided with less than 72 hours’ notice of theDAP meeting.

No adverse finding. Notification to community members was sent on 15 July 2015 for a 23 July 2015 meeting. The DAP Regulations at regulation 39 at the time only required that 5 days’ notice be published by the DAP and the local government. The City complied with this requirement.

29. At the DAP meeting, the Chair remarked that there are many three storeydevelopments near the Development and, in the community member'sview, mis-described the proposed plans as being a three storeydevelopment, when they were in fact a five storey development. Thisstatement was not corrected by the Councillors present.

No adverse finding. The Councillors present are not advocates or staffers, and he has no specific obligation to correct incorrect statements made during a DAP meeting. The Mayor’s primary role in the meeting is to consider the Application as a member of the DAP and vote at the meeting in accordance with his own view on the Application.

Comment: The City would have been assisted had community members had more awareness of the role of Councillors at a DAP meeting. However, this likely extends beyond the direct recommendation to improve communication with members of the public.

30. At the DAP meeting, one Councillor voted in favour of the developmentbeing approved and one voted against the development being approved.

No adverse finding. A Councillor is an elected member and has discretion to vote as s/he sees fit at a DAP meeting.

31. The DAP meeting did not allow community members a right of reply. No adverse finding. The City does not control the processes of the DAP. This issue is dealt with further in the Report.

32. At an unspecified meeting, when community members asked questions,the questions were either not answered by the Council members ormicrophones were turned off. Some questions were answered bycorrespondence at a later date.

No adverse finding. This issue is dealt with further in the Report.

33. On 22 June 2016, the community member was advised bythe City that no further correspondence would be enteredinto.

No adverse finding. At this stage, the City had provided a number of responses to the community member. This statement was made in the context of a much longer item of correspondence with detailed answers to queries raised at this time.

34. The second RAR was finalized the day after amendments to LPP 4.5 wentinto effect.

No adverse finding. This event seems to be coincidental and the changes to LPP 4.5 did not appear to have a material effect on whether the DAP Application was approved. This is dealt with in detail in the Report.

# Ozone Parade Concern / Objection Finding

1. There was no community consultation in preparing the brief for this Reportprocess.

This complaint is out of scope, but it is noted that the Review was broadly drafted so that most, if not all, complaints already raised were the subject

10


of consideration.

2. Some community members did not receive notice of the development,including many community members within 100m of the proposeddevelopment.

No adverse finding. Being a residential development, advertising obligations are governed by the R-Codes, not the Planning Consultation Procedure. The R-Codes (Part 4) give the City the discretion to advertise if and only if the application presents (a) a proposal against one or more design principles of the R-Codes; and (b) a possible impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and occupiers. The City is not required to advertise to any person, but may choose to do so. Unlike other types of developments, there is no requirement for advertising within a certain geographical range.

3. Community members, including adjoining property owners, were informedabout the proposed development less than a fortnight before the DAPmeeting (as an adjoining owner at 22 Pearl Parade).

No adverse finding. See above item. The City was not under a legal obligation to advertise this development to the community member at Pearl Parade. Improvement recommendation: The City should consider advertising to the owners of all strata lots within a lot affected (including where common areas are affected) in order to avoid a perception of unequal treatment within the head lot.

4. The amendments to the DAP Application (including changes in height /number of storeys and changing the development from being two separatebuildings to one continuous structure) were not advertised to communitymembers.

No adverse finding. The City is not under a legal obligation to re-advertise DAP Applications where there are amendments to the plans. The changes to the plans as to height only affected the height from excavated level, not from ground level, and would not have increased the intrusion into the air space of the building. Community feedback from those who would be affected by the original height from ground level had already been sought. The City is also constrained by tight timeframes for the DAP process and often will not have sufficient time to seek, or take into account, further community responses.

The development was always two storeys above natural ground level. The R-Codes measures height for the purpose of setback and impact by height above natural ground level, as dealt with in the Report. The original proposal shows two storeys projecting above natural ground level, as do the final approved plans.

As for this development, in addition to there being no significant change in height above natural ground level, there is no change in the number of storeys being used by the development (even though the precise configuration of levels is different).

5. The Applicant made substantial changes to the approved plans, including No adverse finding. The Applicant was permitted to make changes to theplans. The City was still required to review those plans and produce an

11


the addition of a swimming pool. RAR to the DAP, notwithstanding the change. The City did consider the amended plans and produced an RAR referring to those amendments. The City had no discretion to reject the changes as dealt with in the Report. As to the alleged addition of the swimming pool, that pool was included in the first version of the DAP Application but moved to a location at the front of the premises by the approved plans.

6. One community member was concerned that community consultationshould be more extensive, and that community members have a right to

be heard and represented.

No adverse finding. The matters raised are a matter for the State Government in developing legislation surrounding the DAP regime. The quick process in which only a sample of community members are selected for advertisement and submissions is a result of a combination of the R-Codes and the expedited DAP process.

7. One community member was concerned about the inadequate evaluation ofparking issues and the standards being applied by the City.

No adverse finding. On-site parking provision, design of parking and vehicular access were all compliant with R-Codes deemed to comply requirements.

8. A fire escape was added to the development as a very late amendmentand was not re-advertised to community members.

No adverse finding. As set out in the Report re-advertising is not mandatory and the addition of a fire escape does not appear to be a sufficient difference to warrant any exceptional approach. In any event, the fire escape appears to have been added at the building approval stage, rather than the development approval stage (as a condition to comply with the BCA (Building Code of Australia). This chain of events suggests that the City and the DAP may have made an error in not requiring a fire escape when development approval was granted.

9. The City did not consider Amendment No. 32, which would have had theeffect of limiting the number of units from 20 units to 8 units.

No adverse finding. See under Ozone Parade in the Report.

10. One community member was concerned that there was insufficientparking and that the development would cause an increase in traffic,creating excessive noise and danger.

No adverse finding. The parking provided and vehicle access was consistent with clause 6.3 of the R-Codes.

11. Multiple Dwelling sites are meant to be close to high frequency publictransport (with bus services running every 15 minutes during weekdaypeak periods). There is only one bus-stop near this development, with busservices running every half-hour or every hour.

No adverse finding. The Scheme zoning and R-Codes designation, which permitted multiple dwellings, was already in place over the area when the DAP Application was lodged and the RAR prepared. Given that the property is already within an R40 area, proximity to public transport would not have affected whether multiple dwellings could be approved.

12. The City did not properly consider or respond to the risk of overshadowing. No adverse finding. Overshadowing was assessed at the DAPApplication lodgement stage and was correctly deemed to comply with the R-Codes requirements.

12


13. The development would interfere with views and the amenity of the area. No adverse finding. The City’s assessment considered all aspects of the DAP Application including the height, setbacks, overlooking, privacy, overshadowing etc and correctly deemed them to comply. The planning laws and policies do not protect views outside of these requirements.

14. The easement in the adjoining Pearl Parade property should have beenconsidered and the City or DAP should have rejected the application untilthe easement issue had been resolved.

No adverse finding. The easement is a private right and outside of the responsibility of the City. This issue is dealt with in further detail in the Report.

15. Community members were denied access to plans until the plans had been approved. A request by adjoining owners to access the plans was only granted on the basis that the community members attended the City’s offices to view them. One community member could only access redacted copies of the plans after making an FOI request.

Recommendation: the Civic Legal Team recommends that the City adopt a website-based approach where all plans are available on the website. The City’s officers informed the Civic Legal Team that that approach has now been adopted, largely as a result of changes brought about by the 2015 Regulations.

16. One community member was concerned that the plans may not havebeen within the earthworks restrictions in the R-Codes and that theproposed retaining walls, which were to be approximately 6m belownatural ground levels, would have a significant adverse effect onsurrounding properties.

No adverse finding. R-Codes C6.1-6.3 impose limits on excavation/fill for developments to be ‘deemed to comply’. However, 6.3.6 provides for the factors to be considered when a DAP Application is made where excavation/fill is not deemed to comply. The City has correctly applied 6.3.6 in the RAR.

17. The plans were inconsistent with the R-Codes (R30 or greater) specificallyrelating to building height (5.1.6, P6), outdoor living areas (5.3.1, P1), siteplanning and design (Objectives), building up to boundaries (P3.2), visualprivacy (5.4.1), building size (6.1.1) and site works (6.3.6).

No adverse finding. The site was designated R40 and the R-Codes were applied appropriately.

18. The development provided for a building with excessive height. No adverse finding. The R-Codes were applied appropriately.

19. The City did not adequately address privacy in its deliberations in theplanning process.

No adverse finding. The City considered the application of R-Codes 6.4.1 and recommended the condition requiring screening as under C1.1(ii). This was the correct approach.

20. A senior planning officer until approximately 2010 and was involved with anunsuccessful application at this development site. He was later involvedwith the application for this DAP Application.

No adverse finding. This issue is dealt with in the Report. The former employee's employment period is also specified in the Report.

21. The City would not show community members plans once they had beenapproved.

No adverse finding. Approved DAP plans are available on the DAP website. As these determinations are not issued by the City they are not under a legal obligation to provide copies.

Recommendation: as set out in the Report, the City should adopt a more explanatory approach to community members. In these cases, the inquirer

13


should be guided to the DAP website with an explanation that the only other means of obtaining the documents from the City is an FOI application.

22. One community member was concerned that although the setback of 15mwas reasonable, the setback from neighbouring properties was only 1.5m,which blocked the views for some community members.

See above. The City’s assessment considered all aspects of the DAP Application including the height, setbacks, overlooking, privacy, overshadowing etc and correctly deemed them to comply.

23. The bin collection area was inconsistent with the amenity of the area. No adverse finding. The R-Codes 6.4.6 deal with the requirements for bin storage areas. The RAR concluded that the plans did not comply with the R-Codes and recommended the imposition of a condition in any approval that the bin storage area be screened in accordance with the City’s Bin Storage Areas Policy Manual 6.3. This was the correct approach. The DAP ultimately imposed that condition on the development approval.

24. Community members were concerned that 8000m3 of dirt was beingremoved from the development site (with between 20-40 trucks being usedeach day for a period of 2-3 months) before a building permit had beengranted (for the purpose of constituting ‘substantial commencement’ so theDAP approval did not expire). The City advised these community membersthat the Applicant was “moving soil around the site”.

Adverse finding. The Civic Legal Team has concluded that a building permit was likely required for the commencement of earthworks / siteworks. However, the failure only persisted for a short period of around four days, rather than the extended period speculated by community members. This is dealt with in detail in the Report.

25. At the time of the development, the rules had required that substantialcommencement (for DAP expiration) had to be “slab on ground” but thisrequirement changed around this time to reflect money spent, includingmoney spent on planning.

No adverse finding. The City treated “substantial commencement” appropriately in determining whether the DAP Approval had expired or not. This is dealt with in detail in the Report.


26. One community member had ongoing concerns about whether thedevelopment would be completed (circa 2017).

Outside of scope. The continuing feasibility of the development or commitment by the Applicant to the project is outside of the scope of the Report.

# General Concern / Objection Finding

1. The inability for community members to access plans generally, except bymaking an FOI request; and when plans are produced, they are generallyprovided in A4 size (unreadable)

Recommendation: the Civic Legal Team recommends that the City adopt a website-based approach where all plans are available on the website. The City’s officers inform the Civic Legal Team that this approach has now been adopted, largely as a result of changes brought about by the 2015 Regulations.

Recommendation: the City should make links available on its website to

14


approved versions of plans on the DAP website.

Recommendation: The city’s response in this instance indicates again the lack of reasonable explanation given to community members as approved plans are generally available on the DAP website and community members could have been informed of this.

2. One community member was concerned that if there is a drop inproperty values due to the development approval, there should be aproportionate drop in rates.

Outside of scope. Rating values are determined by the Valuer-General based on gross rental value. The City does not have the power to reconsider the value of land. To the extent that the gross rental value should be re-assessed, that is not a matter for this Report.

3. One community member expressed general concerns about thedifference between the plans that were submitted to the City and theoverall development work being completed.

Outside of scope. The Report does not include a general building compliance review.

To the extent that the community member is intending to refer to changes in particular developments during the DAP Application process, this is dealt with in the Report

4. Some community members want to feel like they have a property rightwhich extends beyond the boundary of their block and includes the notionof pride in their own neighbourhood.

Outside of scope. Property rights do not extend outside of the property, save in specific circumstances. Loss of a view or lost value due to changing nature of developments in an area is not in itself interference with property rights. To the extent that community members wish to expand those rights, that is outside the scope of this Report.

5. In relation to the Charles Riley Memorial Reserve, One community memberwas concerned about the conduct of the advertisement process.

Outside of scope. This concern was raised in community member interviews and was outside of the scope of the Report.

6. Community members were concerned that the Council did not pass amotion of no confidence against the CEO and that the CEO may beintending to use this Report to remove the Director Planning anddevelopment from the City.

No adverse finding. The Council was not under any substantive obligation to pass a motion of no confidence against the CEO. The Council has discretion in the employment of the CEO. Investigating the reasons for briefing the Civic Legal Team are outside the scope of this Report.

7. One community member was concerned that the Council’s agendas (whichare sometimes 600 pages) are not presented in a searchable format, whichmakes it difficult to locate specific material.

No adverse finding. The community member did not identify a particular date for the unsearchable minutes, but the Civic Legal Team performed a search of the minutes of 26 September 2017. Those minutes were appropriately in a searchable form.

8. One community member was concerned that during Council meetings,community members can ask three questions but are not permitted apreamble. When community members try to give a preamble, the Mayorwill cut them off unless they raise a specific question.

No adverse finding. The Mayor has broad discretion as to the running of Council meetings.

9. Once community member was concerned about the Mayor’s treatment of Outside of scope. This review did not incorporate investigating general

15

# Finding General Concern / Objection

Councillors at Council meetings, particularly those Councillors who

supported community members.

allegations of Council meeting protocols or Councillor conduct.

10. One community member was concerned that during Council meetings,the City will often postpone the answer of a question and foreshadow awritten response.

No adverse finding. This is an appropriate approach and consistent with our recommendation in the Report that the City ensure that its response to community members are sufficiently detailed as to explain the relevant circumstances.

11. One community member was concerned about the use of City fundsgenerally, the retention of trees generally and in specific locations and theprotection of trees during construction.

Outside of scope. The community member appears to be requesting that a certain policy position be adopted by the City. The recommendation of general City policies is outside the scope of this Report.

12. The City has been promising more trees on the eastern end of EwingStreet for eight years.

Outside of scope. The community member appears to have identified a political promise which he recalls being made and does not believe has been fulfilled. This appears to be outside the scope of this Report.

13. One community member was concerned that the City may have givendelegated authority to officers to prepare RARs and that the Councillor call-in process proceeded from the assumption that the Council would not beinvolved.

No adverse finding. The processes utilized by the City in considering DAP Applications and preparing RARs involves senior management and there is no indication that there is any consistent method of inappropriate sub-delegation of responsibilities. The City is empowered to delegate responsibilities in the DAP process to officers and has done so validly. In any event, DAP Applications are approved or refused by the DAP, not the City itself. The ultimate decision-maker is still empowered to make the full decision and is not disempowered by the City’s internal delegations.

14. The City does not have a Design Review Committee, headed by a seniorplanner and including architects, which was proposed as good practice bythe State Government.

No adverse finding. The City is not required to comply with general preferences expressed by the State Government. It is noted that the Director Planning and Development is a qualified architect.

15. The RARs prepared by the City are poorly formatted. No adverse finding. The formatting of the RARs is set in the DAP Regulations. The presentation of information in that format was clear and accessible for the Civic Legal Team.

16. The DAP process imposes different rules for developers and communitymembers.

No adverse finding. The community member is correct that the DAP process provides a different framework within which higher cost developments are processed through a streamlined, independent approval mechanism. The DAP Application process and monetary limits are dealt with in the Report. The appropriateness of the DAP process is a matter for the State Government.

17. Q1: "My home is zoned R20 which is single residential, three home blocksdown on the corner of Williamstown Road and Sydenham Road, they havesubdivided a 720m² block into two blocks. I thought you had to be 900m² tohave a duplex put on it. I rang here, Stirling and they said even if the

No adverse finding. The community member's land is zoned Residential R20 meaning that his property may be subdivided into a minimum average lot size 450m2

under the R-Codes. However, the land opposite the community member's property has been subdivided into 2 lots of about 360m2 each,

16


Council knocks back an application to put a duplex on it, it can go to DAP and they can overrule you. Is that correct?"

despite being the same R20 designation. The WAPC is responsible for subdivisions, not the City. There can be no adverse finding against the City.

18. Various concerns raised on 7 and 21 February 2017 and 7 March 2017;various concerns raised on 7 February 2017, 7 March 2017 and 21March 2017, 11 April 2017, 23 May 2017, 13 June 2017, 4 July 2017, 8August 2017, 22 August 2017.

Outside of scope. These matters did not arise from the Special Electors’ Meeting. The scope determination on these issues is dealt with in general terms in the Report.

17

FIGURE 1 – Prisk Street Development footprint over time and Bushfire Risk Area

e.g. Ozone Parade.Governed by the

R-Codes

DAP APPLICATION RECEIVED BY

THE CITY

Sorted by development type

Residential Development Other

NoteNote

e.g. Silica Road, Prisk Street, Karrinyup Road,

Beaufort St.Governed by the LPS

and PCP

Does it fit within the 'deemed to comply' provisions in the

R-Codes?

Yes

Advertising not required.

(Part 4.1.1, R-Codes).

No

Is it against one or more R-Codes 'design principles'?

No Yes

Will it have a possible impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and

occupiers?

YesNo

The DAP Application MAY be advertised to adjoining owners and occupiers to provide comments on the

design principles within 14 days (Parts 4.1.2 - 4.1.5, R-Codes).

Does it fall within one of the categories of LPS clause

9.4.1 or 9.4.2?

Yes No

Advertising not required (not the

subject of this Report)

Is it a 'standard' development?

Is it another type of development? (Not the subject of this Report)

Note

Defined in the City's Planning

Consultation Procedure

The DAP Application is to be advertised to all residents within 100m, allowing them 21 days to

respond. Advertising is to be by way of a letter, a sign is to be erected on the development site, and it is to be

published in the local newspaper and on the City's website

CIVIC LEGALINDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEWOF THE CITY OF STIRLING20 OCTOBER 2017

ADVERTISING FLOWCHART

ANNEXURE B

Policy Manual

Policy Manual – Section 4 – Private Institution Design Guidelines

City of Stirling Local Planning Scheme No. 3

4.5 - 1

Deleted: <object><object>


4.5 PRIVATE INSTITUTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

Introduction

Where this Policy is inconsistent with the provisions of a specific Policy or Guidelines applying to a particular site or area (e.g. Inglewood Town Centre Design Guidelines), the provisions of that specific Policy or Guidelines shall prevail.

Objectives

• To ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties;• To encourage development that is sympathetic to the scale and bulk of surrounding properties;• To ensure that the efficiency of the local transport network is not encumbered by development;• To support the provision of viable and high quality retirement and aged care developments;

and• To ensure that development is well integrated with the surrounding community.

Applications Subject of this Policy

This Policy applies to all developments within the Private Institution zone.

Acceptable Development Provisions

Land Uses All applications for development shall be accompanied by a Local Development Plan for the site, as per Clause 5.12 of Local Planning Scheme No.3, with the exception of: • Single storey proposals;• Additions to existing buildings less than 10% of the subject lot area; and• Family Day Care and Rural Pursuit.

Note: The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 require the agreement of the Western Australian Planning Commission for the preparation of a Local Development Plan.

Built Form Orientation

The portion of the development fronting the street shall be orientated towards the street (e.g. entrances, windows and balconies facing the street) to soften the ‘institutional’ feel of developments and achieve greater consistency with surrounding developments.

Figure 1: Appropriate articulation of building orientated towards the street, with windows, balconies and an easily identifiable entrance

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: Detailed Area

Deleted: Clause 5.12 of Local Planning Scheme No. 3, with the exception of:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶¶

¶¶

<object>

ezi�

FreeText

ANNEXURE C�

ezi

FreeText

CIVIC LEGALINDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEWOF THE CITY OF STIRLING20 OCTOBER 2017�

Policy Manual



4.5 - 2



Building Height

• Development shall be restricted to two (2) storeys (6.0 metres wall height) above naturalground level within 10 metres of any residential lot or street boundaries in areas coded R50 orbelow and a maximum of four (4) storeys (12.0 metres wall height) above natural ground levelon the remainder of the site;

• Where buildings over two (2) storeys above natural ground level are proposed, an applicationshall include justification which addresses the impact of the proposal having regard to matters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk, materials, scale and colour;

• Where buildings over 6.0 metres in height are proposed:a) An application requiring the approval of the Council under Clause 8.1 of the Scheme

shall include information which addresses the impact of the proposal having regard tomatters such as amenity, overshadowing, wind impacts and building design, siting, bulk,scale and colour.

b) Before the determination of an application requiring the approval of the Council underClause 8.1 of the Scheme, the Council shall cause the provision of Clause 9.4(advertising for public comment) of the Scheme to be invoked in respect of the application.

Note: The calculation of building heights shall be in accordance with Local Planning Policy 2.6Residential Building Heights.

Setbacks

Front

Subject to the following, front setbacks shall be 6.0 metres: • Where adjacent sites have a lesser front setback, the setback requirement may match that

of the adjacent site.

Side and Rear

• Where adjacent to residential properties all side and rear setbacks of all development shall becalculated in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of WA;

• Where adjoining non residential uses, setbacks of all development shall match those ofadjacent and/or adjoining lots; and

• Where adjacent and/or adjoining Public Open Space, the applicant shall demonstrate adequatepassive surveillance of and pedestrian access to Public Open Space.

On-Site Open Space and Amenities

• Retirement complex developments shall address landscaping, the provision of on-siteamenities such as recreational and entertainment areas for residents and visitors, and facilities such as meeting rooms and club houses within required Local Development Plans.

Streetscape Relationship Uses

New uses shall not cause a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding lots in terms of traffic and parking impacts, noise, dust, vibration, odour and the like.

Deleted: ¶<object>

Deleted:

Deleted: adjacent to

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: greater or

Deleted: shall

Deleted:

Deleted: W.A

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: such as meeting rooms and club houses within required Detailed Area Plans.¶

¶

Deleted: <object>

Policy Manual

Policy Manual – Section 4 – Private Institution Design Guidelines 4.5 - 3



Levels

• The levels of sites shall generally match the levels of adjoining sites; and• No more than 500mm of fill shall be permitted unless acceptable justification is provided.

Fencing

• Fencing shall be in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Streetscapes local planningpolicy and shall be compatible with that of surrounding properties; and

• Fencing abutting Public Open Space reserves shall promote passive surveillance from the site to the reserve.

Access & Parking Parking

• Parking bays for cars and other vehicles shall be provided for in accordance with the City’sParking Policy.

• Applicants for retirement complex developments shall liaise with the City on the provision oflong-term storage of recreational vehicles such as caravans and campervans in required Local Development Plans to the satisfaction of the City; and

• Service and delivery vehicle loading areas shall be located away from dwellings and out ofview of the street.

Traffic Management Plan

As required by the City’s Parking Policy, applications for developments shall be accompanied by a Brief Transport Statement, or by a Full Transport Statement, as the case may be.

Note: for full details on submission requirements please refer to the Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments from Department of Planning.

Emergency Vehicle and Service Access

Applicants are required to demonstrate sufficient access and manoeuvring space for emergency vehicles (such as ambulances and fire engines) and service vehicles (delivery and pickup).

Other Considerations Sustainability Design Standards

In order to optimise the sustainability of buildings, applicants are required to provide the following features in new buildings:

• Low flow triple dripper or coarse sprays and timer connection; and• High efficiency lighting.

Variations

Variations to this policy will be assessed against the objectives of this Policy.

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: ¶

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: Detailed Area

Deleted:

Deleted: ¶

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: <object>



4.5 - 4


OFFICE USE ONLY:

Local Planning Scheme No.3 – Local Planning Policy History: Action Resolution Number Effective Date

Modified 0511/010 24 May 2011

Modified 0316/038 26 Apr 2016

Deleted: ¶

¶¶City.,Stirling¶Ciry-JCW7¶¶

Deleted: Manual¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ...

Deleted: ¶<object><object>Reviewed I Modified¶Adopted¶

Column Break

3 May 2011¶Column Break

Deleted: Section Break (Next Page)

<object>¶<object>¶

¶¶

Policy Manual

The City’s Response to The Independent Planning Review Report

October 2017

The City’s Response to The Independent Planning Review Report – October 2017

Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................. 1

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1

Detailed Response ........................................................................................................ 2

Recommendation A ...................................................................................................... 2

Recommendation B ...................................................................................................... 3

Recommendation C ...................................................................................................... 4

Recommendation D ...................................................................................................... 7

Recommendation E .................................................................................................... 10


Page | 1

Purpose of this Document

The purpose of this document is to provide a clear response to the recommendations and findings of Civic Legal Pty Ltd’s report arising from the Independent Planning Review (‘Review”).

The response is comprised of two elements:

1. General comments; and

2. Detailed response to specific findings and recommendations.

Executive Summary

The City of Stirling welcomes Civic Legal’s report and appreciates the thorough nature of its review. Overall, the Independent Planning Review provides assurance that that the City is operating in accordance with the statutory planning framework and related requirements associated with Responsible Authority Reports. The findings within the Review are relatively minor in nature and relate to improvements to existing internal processes.

The City of Stirling takes the findings seriously and will establish a process to address these within a Management Action Plan which will be submitted to the Audit Committee. The City is aware of the need to continuously improve our communication with the community and will focus on these specific areas for improvement.

As per the process outlined by Council, there has been no opportunity for the City of Stirling to hold an exit meeting with Civic Legal to discuss the draft report and to resolve some minor inaccuracies within the Review report. These are listed in the points below, however the City does not believe that these are of a serious enough nature as to alter any of the findings or the outcomes of the report:

1. Paragraph 62 is slightly incorrect. The list referred to in this paragraph included all community members that had raised relevant questions at Community Question time during the period 1/1/16 to 20/7/17, including the Electors’ Special Meeting.

2. At Paragraph 139 Civic Legal enquired and were provided with the dates when the former employee was employed at the City. Civic Legal did not however enquire in respect to employment dates for the Director of Planning and Development who has been employed at the City since 2005. The Director has had no personal association with the former employee since his employment with the City concluded in 2008, six years before to the development application being submitted.

3. Paragraph 159 is incorrect. Civic Legal were advised that one officer performed the inspection on 9 May 2016. The report appears to confuse a later inspection in July 2016 performed by two officers, which related to the question of substantial commencement at the Ozone Parade development.

4. At Paragraph 223 (sub-paragraph u) Civic Legal identifies that the City had seen these plans for four months, when at sub-paragraph q it is clear final plans were not submitted by the applicant until 9 March 2016 and the application was then determined by the JDAP at their meeting on 22 March 2016.


Page | 2

Detailed Response

Recommendation A

Improve the City’s Customer Service Charter and Planning Consultation Procedure to ensure community members receive clear information about their role, and the City’s role, during the DAP application process.

Overall Management comment

Recommendation Accepted

The City has made significant improvements in consultation correspondence since 2014 (as evidenced in paragraph 204), similarly the Council’s Planning Consultation Procedure was updated and adopted by Council in December 2015. However further improvements will be undertaken to address Recommendation A and presented to Council for adoption. This will provide for improvement to the Planning Consultation Procedure and to the explanatory information contained in letters for advertising of all development applications. A detailed information sheet relating to Planning Consultation will be developed (and provided with all letters as part of the consultation process) to significantly improve community information. In preparing these improvements the Development Services Business Unit will seek input from Customer and Communications Business Unit and the Professional Standards team to ensure the City’s development consultation processes and communications are consistent with the corporate customer service approach.

Additionally, the City aims to introduce online planning submissions. This will also enable the City to capture email addresses and aid in communication with submitters. The Development Services Business Unit will work with Corporate Information Services on the implementation of this functionality by May 2018.

The expansion of consultation for R-Code applications in relation to common property on strata lots (paragraph 120) is inconsistent R-Code consultation provisions and is therefore not supported.

Paragraphs 27 -36, 120, 145, 205, 219, 275, 282, 287, 288, 300, 307-310 also refer to this recommendation and have been considered within the management comment above.

Action: Review and improve the Planning Consultation Procedure (to be presented to Council for adoption). Improvements will also be made to the City’s standard letters to ensure clarity regarding the consultation process. A detailed Planning Consultation Information Sheet will be developed and the implementation of online submission functionality will be prioritised.

Owner: Manager Development Services

Date for completion: March 2018, May 2018 for online submissions functionality


Page | 3

Recommendation B

Develop a policy and procedure to deal with SAT applications and the amount of information relayed to community members during the course of SAT applications.


Recommendation Accepted

The City’s existing State Administrative Tribunal Management Practice will be reviewed and updated to address Recommendation B. Additionally an information sheet will be developed to inform the community regarding SAT processes (as detailed in paragraph 39) – the information sheet will cover SAT applications where the JDAP is the respondent (the City is not a party to these proceedings) and SAT matters where the City is the respondent.

Paragraphs 37-40 and 221-242 also refer to this recommendation and have been considered within the management comment above.

Action: Update and enhance the existing State Administrative Tribunal Management Practice to deal with SAT applications to which the JDAP is the respondent. Prepare a new information sheet to inform the community regarding SAT processes addressing the two circumstances where the JDAP is the respondent (JDAP applications) and where the City is the respondent.


Date for completion: March 2018


Page | 4

Recommendation C

No Recommendation: Application of planning law and policies.


It is encouraging that the Independent Planning Review found no systemic errors in the draft of the policies and procedures relied upon by the City and the review formed the view the City has largely complied with the planning law and policies. This is a positive outcome given that this was the primary focus of the Independent Planning Review.

It is also noted that the Independent Planning Review made only one adverse finding with respect to a Building Act matter. This related to the Ozone Parade development (Paragraph 45). Further comments on this finding are provided below.

One matter was raised relating to the assessment of wind impact associated with the Prisk Street development resulted in an inconclusive finding (Annexure A, page 6, number 13). The City agrees with the finding and advises the preferred method of assessment of a potential wind impact as referenced in Local Planning Policy 4.5 would have been to require a submission from the applicant addressing this matter which then would be assessed by an appropriately qualified consultant engaged by the City.

Action: Nil

Owner: Nil

Date for completion: Nil

Civic Legal Report Paragraph Reference

Civic Legal Report Wording Management Comment

Commencement of works without authority

45 We have made one adverse finding about the application of laws surrounding building permits, which is set out in detail below in relation to the Ozone Parade development.

The finding is contrary to confidential legal advice obtained by the City prior to commencement of the Independent Planning Review and also following completion of the Review. The City has also sought and obtained an independent peer review


Page | 5



from a qualified private Building Surveyor Practitioner. This has concluded the works being undertaken did not constitute building work requiring a building permit under the Building Act (WA) 2011.

It is noted that arriving at this finding the Independent Planning Reviewers:

1. Believed ‘it would have been beyond the scope of this Report to obtain an expert report on whether the extent of the changing of the ground levels could have adversely affected the adjoining land (Paragraph 164);

2. Believed that while it was reasonable to conclude that the works being performed would not risk an adverse effect on neighbouring properties, the material produced is inconclusive (Paragraph 164);

3. Observed that the City’s qualified building surveyor’s notes record his conclusion (he uses the words ‘no adverse effect on adjoining properties) but omits to record any facts or reasoning leading him to that conclusion. It would have been preferable to all parties concerned if he had done so because his judgement is ultimately central to this issue (Paragraph 165). In this regard, the City will ensure that improvements are made to future documentation. This will be considered as part of the review of record keeping in Recommendation D.

In respect to points 3 above, it is noted the Reviewers did not speak with or interview the City’s qualified building surveyor who undertook the inspection on 9 May 2016 to obtain these


Page | 6



views. This is unfortunate given the Reviewer’s assessment that the City’s qualified building surveyor’s judgement was ultimately central to this issue (Paragraph 165).

Having examined the rationale and finding, the City maintains the activities being performed at the site on 9 May 2016 were not building work as defined in the Building Act (WA) 2011 and a building permit was not required at that point in time.

Despite the significant difference of opinion in this finding, the City agrees that this matter had no practical bearing on achievement of substantial commencement of the development at Ozone Parade in July 2016.

Paragraphs 148-182 generally refer to this recommendation and have been considered within the management comment above, where not specifically included.


Page | 7

Recommendation D

Prepare and implement an altered procedure on record-keeping in the planning department.


Recommendation accepted

The Development Services Business Unit (planning department) records management procedures operate in accordance with the City’s overall Record Keeping Management Practice and Record Keeping Plan. A review will be undertaken of records management procedures within the business unit and it will focus on the areas identified in the Independent Planning Review.

Action: Review of records management procedures in the Development Services Business Unit identified in the Independent Planning Review at paragraph 48. Prepare and implement updated record-keeping procedures as a result of the Review.


Date for completion: May 2018



48 The Civic Legal Team has made the following observations: a. the ECM system appeared to exclude multiple copies of

emails where the emails were threaded. For example, A may write an email to B and B would respond in the same thread. The first email would not appear in the system, whereas the thread containing both A and B’s emails would be retained. This is a potentially inefficient system for a number of reasons, including that B has the ability to alter A’s initial email where the emails are threaded. Lack of clarity in these types of records can create unnecessary difficulty for the City (and third parties) if it is involved in litigation or, as in this case, is the subject of an independent

a) Email threads are an acceptable form of record under the State Records Act 2000.


Page | 8



review;

b. some documentation (such as in relation to building permit applications and building permits) were not filed on ECM with the same material as the DAP application material. This made it difficult to determine if records were incomplete or merely filed separately;

c. the City had a method of keeping records of queries or concerns raised by community members that was implemented inconsistently in its PropertyCI system. PropertyCI was used for any notes that officers may have made on interactions with community members or owners about a particular property (such as a noise complaint about dogs barking). However, this made the ECM records difficult to review as there was no memorandum recording the telephone conversation or any interaction not directly recorded in ECM as written correspondence. This can make such activity difficult to track when dealing with the complaints of community members, litigation or an independent review. In the Prisk Street example, we found it difficult to track information that passed to the City from the DAP as to the status of the SAT matter. Every interaction between the City and third parties should be recorded in at least the ECM system in a brief memorandum;

d. when the City’s records were extracted from ECM, the ECM software stripped attachments from various email documents. This increased the burden on the Civic Legal Team in that we had to identify essential documents to be

b) With regards to Paragraph 48 b) - it is appropriate that development applications and building permits are recorded separately as they relate to separate application processes performed under different legislation. A further review will examine indexing to determine if any further improvements can be made.

c) This will be considered within the review of record keeping within the Development Services Business Unit.

d) With regards to Paragraph 48 d), at the entrance meeting for the Review on 27 July 2017, it was suggested by the City to Civic Legal that they should have direct access to systems to perform the Review. Civic Legal instead requested all information be provided to them remotely, which the City


Page | 9



individually requested and also had to assess the need to arrange a convenient time for all concerned for the Civic Legal Team to visit to the City to review material (without the benefit of direct, easy and immediate access by the Civic Legal Team). While the software issue increased the

burden in reviewing the City’s records, it does not decrease our confidence in the ultimate findings made;8 and

e. the City did not adopt a practice of keeping copies of all correspondence to individual community members as part of the consultation process. The City has a current practice of saving a template letter on file and attaching to that template a list or map of community members to whom that template letter was sent. This appears to be an artefact of the prior practice of keeping hardcopy files. As the City now has electronic files, there does not appear to be a reason for the City not to generate and keep electronic copies of those letters when sent.

agreed to. The invitation to access systems was not taken up by Civic Legal until the 5 October 2017.

e) This will be considered within the review of record keeping within the Development Services Business Unit.

Paragraphs 46-50 refer to this recommendation and have been considered within the management comment above, where not specifically included.


Page | 10

Recommendation E

Ensure DAP application plans are made available on the website.


Completed

The introduction of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provided the ability for the City to display copies of development applications (including the plans) on the City’s website where advertising is required. This practice has been implemented by the City since the introduction of the Regulations in October 2015 and occurs for DAP applications and also for development applications which are determined by the City (where advertising is required). This was reflected in comments relating to advertising of the Silica Road application made at Paragraph 318. Since the inception of DAPs, JDAP agendas and minutes have been displayed on the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage website and also the City’s website. These documents provide access to the plans and the decision made by the JDAP in relation to the development application regardless of whether or not the application has been advertised.

Action: Nil

Owner: Nil

Date for completion: Completed



52 To the extent that the City has ongoing concerns about copyright, the Civic Legal Team recommends that the City include on its application forms a provision for consent for the plans, and any amended plans, to be posted on its website.

The City has no ongoing concerns regarding this matter as this has been addressed with the introduction of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. It is also reassuring that the State Government has recently announced it will be reviewing its approach, including DAPs, with a view to becoming more responsive to customers and removing red tape.


Page | 11



53 Community members also expressed concerns that after DAP meetings the plans were not available on the City’s website and an FOI application was necessary to access approved plans. We understand that the DAP plans are available on the DAP website after determinations have been made. Our recommendation is that the City’s website contain a brief explanation of this fact and provide a link to the relevant part of the DAP website. This will reduce the number of queries and FOI applications and may help to resolve community members’ concerns about transparency.

DAP agendas and minutes (which include the plans) are available on the City’s website and on the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage website.

In addition paragraphs 50, 51, 137, 261, 316- 320 also refer to this recommendation and have been considered within the management comment above, where not specifically covered.