MINUTES - City of Fremantle...Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 April 2016 Page 3 There are a lot of people who don’t agree with the Council disposing of assets, Queensgate,

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 April 2016, 6.00pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 6

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 6

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 6

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 6

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 7

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 7

TABLED DOCUMENTS 7

LATE ITEMS NOTED 7

COUNCIL ITEMS 7

C1604-4 2016 KINGS SQUARE EXTENSION REQUEST REPORT 7

COMMITTEE REPORTS 15

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 APRIL 2016 15

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION 15

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM 51

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 54

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 ADOPTION 64

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADOPTION 71

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 20 APRIL 2016 91

FPOL1604-6 2017/18 METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ROAD GROUP SUBMISSION 91

FPOL1604-7 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025 96

FPOL1604-8 AMENDMENT TO SG-38 PURCHASING POLICY 100

FPOL1604-9 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO EXCISE PORTION OF LAND FROM RESERVE 37088 - PERTH WATER TRANSPORT PTY LTD 104

FPOL1604-13 ADVERTISING OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR DIFFERENTIAL RATES 2016-2017 109

FPOL1604-14 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING 113

FPOL1604-15 INNOVATIVE HOUSING WORKING GROUP - APPROVAL OF PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT 117

FPOL1604-5 WEED MANAGEMENT SERVICES 121

FPOL1604-10 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 2016 129

FPOL1604-11 PUBLIC TOILET WORKING GROUP 139

FPOL1604-12 SOUTHERN METRO REGIONAL COUNCIL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW 148

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 156

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 156

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 156

COUNCIL ITEMS 156

C1604-1 INFORMATION REPORT APRIL 2016 156

C1604-2 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT-FEBRUARY 2016 158

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT 161

AUDIT COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2016 168

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 168

AC1604-1 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE (2 JONES STREET) 168

AC1604-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE OVAL LEASE 170

AC1604-3 INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT 171

CLOSURE OF MEETING 172

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

27 April 2016

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council

held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council on 27 April 2016 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.03 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Doug Thompson North Ward (arrived 6.08pm) Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward (arrived 6.49pm) Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jeff McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Philip St John Deputy Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery Ms Joanne Smith Parks Manager Mr Phillip Adams Manager Infrastructure and Projects Mr Samuel Bryce Manager City Assets Mr Tom Griffiths Manager Economic Development Mr Jason Cunningham Communications Coordinator Mr Paul Garbett Manager Strategic Projects


27 April 2016

Page 2

Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary There were approximately 50 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item C1604-4: Andrew Luibikiki Summary of question by Helen Cox in relation to item C1604-4

1. Can the Council explain whether the 2012 and the 2016 tendering process followed by Council for this project, is within the State Government guidelines?

Cr D Thompson arrived at 6.08 pm prior to consideration of public question time.

2. Can the Council explain the clauses or caveats within this contract that demonstrates the market value of the ratepayer assets that is protected throughout this process and how each Councillor in their own right exercised their duty when signing the original contract in 2012?

3. Also are you going to exercise your prejudicial duty tonight by not bringing this contract?

Summary of response from Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie

The Business Plan that was published in 2012 by the Council clearly sets out what the Council intends to do. There are 4 sites to be reconstructed/rebuilt . How is the City’s assets protected through that process by a whole range of processes cheques, including professional advice there was about 7 professional and legal experts advising the Council through the whole process which took 18months to conclude.


27 April 2016

Page 3

There are a lot of people who don’t agree with the Council disposing of assets, Queensgate, Spicer and the carpark to facilitate the development of a major civic precinct redevelopment. It’s a legitimate position to take and it’s not one that the City took in 2012 when it adopted the business plan. The City took the position quite legitimately, we are after a whole new redevelopment to try and revitalise a new City Centre that is the fundamental point of difference in the opinions of where people sit in this current conversation. The Local Government Act clearly sets out mechanisms for the Council to dispose of property, one of those is to go to an open tender, one of those is to go to auction, and the other is to go to business plan which goes through a range of processes including the advertising and evaluations within the business plan, it has to be current within six months with the business plan being adopted. Again the business plan and requirements are more onus than going to a market tender or going to an auction. They require a publication of that plan for six months and to be fair the business plan the Council put up in 2012 all 56 pages of it is the most comprehensive business plan I would suggest that any Local Government has ever put out on a sale of a property. For people to suggest the Council has not been open or transparent and forthcoming with information through that process are clearly misinformed. In terms of the valuation again it was very clearly laid out in the business plan most contentious of those was the Queensgate cinema. Queensgate cinema received a range of evaluations $15.9 million in 2010 when the property was fully tenanted including with a Hoyts cinema. I don’t know how many people are aware 60% of the floor plate of that building is in fact a cinema. The cinema floor plate sits on an angle, the only purpose you could use that for is an auditorium type function and unfortunately despite every effort of the Council to attract other cinema operators into that cinema no one wanted it. When we started to do some significant assessments about how that property what you needed to be refurbish far office accommodation, the valuation was actually less than demolishing then starting again. After a lot of soul searching through 2012 the Council decided for the greater benefit of the whole project and the whole civic centre, the whole revitalisation of Fremantle it was important to accept that valuation and it put it out very openly on the business plan. I again repeated that in 2015 responded to Mr Lee’s question in a full page advertisement in the local papers. I think I have addressed most of the questions and made a few more statements to the above. Summary of question and comment by Nic Gurr in relation to item C1604-4

Major property developers Gerard O’Brien of Silverleaf and Anthony van de Wielen of Empire Property met with the Fremantle Society Tuesday 26 April 2016 to back up Society concerns about the King’s Square Business Plan. They agree with the Fremantle society that:

a) We all want a new government department to come to Fremantle

b) The plan should have gone out for public tender

c) The council assets are being sold too cheaply


27 April 2016

Page 4

d) The financial assumptions of the plan are deeply flawed

e) There are not enough caveats in the plan to protect the ratepayers

f) The Business Plan should not be extended by Council on Wednesday 27 April 2016.

Summary of response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

Certainly I have spoken to Mr O’Brien and he was quite clear that list does not represent the views of conversation. I am sure he has made a statement to the press indicating that while he would have liked to have gone out to public tender, he was quite upfront with us and he would have liked to have purchased the property, he was always upfront about that and the other points he made, he was quite clear that this was not discussed at the meeting and he certainly did not endorse the comments put out by Mr Dowson. The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1604-16: Kevin Broughton Summary of question and comment by Suzanne John in relation to item C1604-4

I would like to thank Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie for the explanation on Kings Square which went far further than I have heard before.

1. Could you please tell us the figures on how you come to these figures on what these buildings are worth to be sold for and why?

Summary of response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

In terms of the evaluations and how we get to those numbers we use professional valuers CBRE with the initial valuation and that was updated when free property more recently. In both of those valuations were quite close and hadn’t changed much over the period of time and that is the basis of which we then dispose of the properties. As you say ratepayer value there and they do need to be disposed at market rate. They have been disposed at market evaluation. Summary of questioncomment by Mariam Blair in relation to item C1604-4

Could you please explain to me how you got a $4 million dollar of positive result from the project as against Martin Lee and Craig Ross who came up with a negative of $30 million dollars? I urge you not to extend the contract tonight please go back and reconsider your approach to this topic and please directly answer the questions that are being asked. Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Director City Business

I can only speak on how the City arrived at its $4 million dollar net present value figure. I am not privy to the figures Mr Lee used to calculate his minus $30 million. Council put together what we call a cash flow analysis over a 20 year horizon. Cash flow analysis looks at the income we receive from the sale of the properties, the income gone from those properties and new income picked up. Some of the expenditures required maintaining the property, the expenditure required to pay debt paid over time and then


27 April 2016

Page 5

assess against with time value of money over that 20 year period. We looked at CPI rates around the 3.5% the value of debt, the cost of borrowing money at that time which was 4% and Council took on 1.5% additional risk factor to take into consideration into any anormalities that were not provided. We looked into the cost of the city to move out of this building and rent another premise for a couple of years whilst we were rebuilding this building and we looked at the rate revenue that will be generated from the new buildings that we build. Basically, we analyse that in a cash flow over 20 years and brought that back into a current year value by discounting it with a 5.5% discount factor. That is basically how it was done, there were some assumptions made on how some of those figures were arrived but when all those figures taking into calculation over the 20 year period and the debts repaid and we start to move into positive cash flows it comes out after 20 years with a positive of $4 million dollars cash flow and that is how it was calculated. Summary of question and comment by John Troy in relation to item C1604-4

I refer to the amended documents and that resolution calls for a consideration extending the sunset date with Sirona Capital. I actually would suggest to the Council they do not extend the sunset date at all. The reason why I say this until today that company has not delivered what in fact they have undertaken to deliver in the past. The stands that have been put forward and referred to under the new Kings Square development is we put down $50 million dollar’s worth of the Council assets into this project. In return we are supposed to get $97 million dollar asset in 20 years time, it would be valued that in 20 years time. Summary of response from Mayor, Brad Pettitt

I must say I do like parts of this building including this chamber and we grappled with whether it could be refurbed and there was a lot of numbers of the cost of refurb and cost of replacement and that was certainly part of our thinking. Summary of response from Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie

Mr Troy, I just to correct a couple of things, one you have said it was $50 million dollars worth of assets I have already said that is incorrect it is $29.5 million dollars proven by an evaluation by CBRE. Second thing you said project would never eventuate but we will lose our assets. Can I make it clear to the audience that cannot happen. The contract is structured in a way and the business plan is structured in a way and the only time the Council releases it’s assets when it’s fully evidential that the project will occur on a whole range of things including demonstration of the financial commitments that are available through the debt and equity funding. The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item PC1604-16: Wendy Alpen The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item C1604-4:


27 April 2016

Page 6

Matt McNeilly

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

At 6.45 pm Cr D Coggin declared a financial interest in item number AC1603-4 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 6.45 pm Cr D Thompson declared a impartiality interest in item number AC1603-4. Cr D Thompson advised he is on the board of WALGA who have an interest in LGIS who are referred to in the report. Cr D Thompson was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr J Strachan and Cr D Thompson attended the WALGA Zone Meeting which a presentation from the Disability Services was provided to them. A pamphlet from the Disability Services was also tabled at the meeting.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 23 March 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 7

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Mayor, Brad Pettitt acknowledged and thanked Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie for all his long standing contributions as a Chief Executive Officer as he formally retires and this was his last attendance at The Ordinary Meeting of Council.

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Nil

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1604-4 2016 KINGS SQUARE EXTENSION REQUEST REPORT

ECM Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 April 2016 Previous Item: C1211-1, C1211-2, C1302-1, PSC1302-27, SGS1408-

17, C1505-1 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Jackson McDonald - Legal Advice (Confidential)

Sirona Capital – Letter of Request for Extension Previous Council Items

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City’s Economic Development Strategy adopted in 2010 identified the Kings Square precinct as a priority area for redevelopment, noting that the City owned significant property holdings in the precinct. With Myer not renewing its lease with the private owners of the Myer building (Sirona Capital) and Hoyts indicating to the City it would not renew its lease of the Queensgate Centre, early planning commenced to find solutions to this situation. Collaboration between the Myer building owners and the City led to a MOU being signed in 2011 that would provide an exclusivity period for Sirona to develop a proposal for a whole of precinct redevelopment. After 18 months of ideas exploration and due diligence assessments, the City developed a comprehensive business plan that was advertised for public


27 April 2016

Page 8

comment in late 2012 which, following consideration of feedback on that business plan, was adopted by Council in February 2013. The business plan provided the details for an integrated project that would see the sale and redevelopment of council owned properties and the Myer building in the Kings Square Precinct for the purposes of commercial office and retail accommodation. The total floor area of the proposed developments is circa 30,000 square metres of commercial office space and 12,000 square metres of retail space providing a significant boost to the number of workers in Fremantle and meeting the Council’s economic development objectives for the revitalisation of the city. As this project is a fully integrated precinct project, the plan also requires the redevelopment of the City’s library, visitors centre, and civic and administration centre. The total project value is estimated at $220 million. Following the adoption of the business plan, the City entered into a formal contract (Project Development Deed or PDD) with Sirona which was formally signed on 10 May 2013. The period of the PDD was, after a formal extension in 2015, for three years expiring on 9 May 2016. During the last three years, as detailed in the information report in 2015 advising of the granting of a 12 month extension to the contract until 2016, Sirona has demonstrated it has met the majority of requirements of the contract including achieving development approvals, paying its deposits to the City, and investing considerable funds into efforts to obtain a major tenant that would allow the project to proceed. Unconditional finance approval is the last pre-condition requirement prior to settlement and would likely only come with a major tenant pre-commitment. Rightly or wrongly, the major tenant being sought has been a state government agency. This is because in 2012 the state government announced a policy of decentralisation for state government agencies out of the Perth CBD, where rents were very high, to strategic metropolitan centres. In 2013, the government further announced that the Department of Housing would relocate from East Perth to Fremantle. Unfortunately the process for that to occur has moved much more slowly than had been hoped, however that process is now in its final stages and an announcement on the preferred site for that relocation is expected around August this year. Kings Square is one of two sites being considered by government. Sirona has formally written to the City requesting a short extension to the contract to allow the state government to complete its government accommodation tender process. If the Kings Square submission by Sirona is successful with government, the government office requirement will underpin this project and the project could commence as early as first quarter 2017. The Council has received legal advice on this matter which confirms it is open to the Council to grant an extension without the need for advertising a further business plan. Officers recommend that council agree to an extension of the contract to allow the government accommodation process to be completed, not only for the direct benefit of the Kings Square project, but for the strategic benefit of Fremantle generally.


27 April 2016

Page 9

BACKGROUND

Rather than repeat the full background to this large and complex project, copies of earlier reports to council are included in the attachments. Those reports provide information that was presented to council at the time of adoption of the business plan, the acceptance of Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) as architects for the City’s building, and the granting of a twelve month extension to Sirona in May 2015.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The key strategic issue for council to consider in relation to the request for extension to the contract is the impact this decision could have on the government’s commitment to relocating the Department of Housing to Fremantle. The expected number of office workers in this relocation is around 1,500 with a further 500+ to be employed in the retail side of the development. This adds a very significant economic boost to Fremantle and if it can be achieved will be the result of a very strong commitment and effort by the City and Sirona over the last three years. Council committed to the Kings Square project in 2013 as a major catalyst development project in a tired part of the city. There has been a collective lobbying effort to have the government commit to Fremantle as a major strategic metropolitan centre ever since 2010 when the first Economic Development Strategy was adopted by Council. That effort has got us to a point where the government is only a couple of months away from finishing its processes and announcing the preferred proponent and location for a government office. Therefore, the key risk to be considered/question to be asked is – what is the outcome if we don’t grant an extension and the project falls over? We are at a point in the government process where submissions have been lodged and are currently being assessed by government. If an extension is not granted, there is a risk that the project falls over, the Sirona RFP for Kings Square is withdrawn and the government is no longer left with a competitive process – there is only one bidder to negotiate with. This creates the real possibility of the government stepping back from its commitment to proceed with the relocation. Add to this the implied message that the Council will be sending the government (and the development sector) – despite all of our lobbying for this to occur over the past 3 years, we’ve changed our minds and now we don’t want Kings Square redeveloped in the way that it was envisaged. In addition to the potential damage to the City’s reputation with the state government, there is also a reputational risk of damage with the federal government. The City has applied for a grant under the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF) of $10 million for this project. That funding application, if successful, provides for the public realm works within the precinct as well as support funding for the Library and Visitors Centre. This is the third time officers have submitted a funding application to the federal government under the NSRF scheme and feedback from the second round suggests that our application in round 2 was very close to being successful. Advice on how to improve


27 April 2016

Page 10

the application, which has been incorporated into the round 3 application, gives officers a degree of optimism that the City could be successful this time. It was expected that announcements in relation to NSRF would be made in June, although the likely announcement of federal elections in July may delay the timing of any announcement. Nonetheless, officers are optimistic that this project will have a strong chance of being funded as it is the type of project NSRF will fund and the quality of our application is extremely high. To withdraw the application for funding now could have a negative impact on future funding applications with the federal government.

COMMENT

In addition to the broader strategic issues identified above, consideration needs to be given to the Kings Square project itself. The attached reports detail the considerations that have been given to this project to date. What the previous reports do not address is the state government decentralisation policy for government office accommodation. This is critical at this time as the desire to have the state government underpin the Kings Square development has been a major factor in planning for more than three years. It was in 2012 that the state government first announced its strategy to reduce its public service accommodation costs through decentralisation of government agencies to strategic metropolitan centres. In 2013 it announced that, among a couple of other relocations, the Department of Housing would be relocated from East Perth to Fremantle. It was stated at the time that the government would require between 15,000 and 20,000 square metres of “A” grade office space. No such space was available in Fremantle so the government undertook a “market testing” exercise to ascertain where in Fremantle it could relocate an agency. There were three property owners that submitted an interest at that time, including Sirona’s interest in Kings Square. Unfortunately for the Kings Square project and for Fremantle’s revitalisation efforts more generally, at about that time the Perth office market started a downward spiral in rental prices as the mining boom came to an end, causing an oversupply of commercial office space in the Perth CBD. That oversupply sits at around 20% capacity today and has been a major contributing factor to the time taken for government to work through the process to facilitate the announced relocation of the Department of Housing to Fremantle. Both the City and Sirona have maintained lobbying pressure on the state government over this time to honour its announcement, achieved through numerous meetings with relevant Ministers, Chiefs of Staff, and Directors General. A number of meetings have also been held with the Premier, who has continued to offer his support for the relocation to Fremantle. Finally, in mid-2015 the government called for formal expressions of interest (EOI) for the supply of up to 30,000 square metres of office space in Fremantle. It is understood only two EOI’s were submitted and in March 2016, the government invited both of those to submit more detailed “Request for Proposals (RFP)” for 20,000 square metres of office space. The RFP closed on 11 April.


27 April 2016

Page 11

Indications are that a final recommendation will be made to Cabinet mid-year with an expected announcement on the successful bidder to be known by August or September 2016. An extension of 6 months would allow this RFP process to be finalised and it be known whether the Kings Square precinct is the selected location for the government office relocation. It is also recommended that a further 6 month extension be approved, subject to the CEO being satisfied that Kings Square is known to be the selected location. The further 6 months allows detailed negotiations of the essential terms of lease to be concluded between Sirona and government. Once the essential terms are agreed the project can actually commence.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

Other factors to consider are the financial implications of the time change in the value of money in this project. The contract is for the sale of three council owned properties at an agreed sale price. That sale price is based on 2012 valuations totalling $29.55 million. In order to assess the change in property values over the past three years officers sought a formal valuation update. That valuation advice has the properties valued at a total of $27.2 million – a reduction of $2.25 million. This is clearly an advantage to the City since the sale price is fixed under the contract. It should also be noted that the cost of capital has decreased since the business plan was advertised in 2012. The business plan proposed that the City use loan funding for the capital shortfall for the project. Loan borrowing rates have decreased since then and the outlook is for a potential further decrease in the short term rates with medium term (5 years) rates remaining at about today’s levels. The economic downturn provides a further benefit in that construction costs have decreased significantly in the past three years. State government has reported savings on budget estimates for large projects in the order of 30%. It is expected this lower cost environment will be sustained at least in the short term which provides an opportunity for the City’s buildings to be constructed at lower cost. Since the adoption of the business plan an opportunity to secure federal government funding ($10 million) to contribute to the project has also presented through the National Stronger Regions Assistance Program. The City has provided a funding application seeking funding for the public realm areas of the project including library, visitors centre, and open spaces. If this is secured the benefit to the City is enormous. A negative outcome from the time taken to secure a tenant is that the City has commenced the process of concluding tenancy agreements with tenants located in the Queensgate Centre. Over the three years since the agreement was signed this has seen the decline of approximately $800,000 per annum in rental income plus the costs associated with carrying vacancies where outgoings cannot be claimed from tenants.


27 April 2016

Page 12

While the benefits of the delay are neutralised by the loss of rental income from the Queensgate Centre as tenancies have been vacated, the financial situation in relation to the original business plan have not changed significantly. Of course, if the federal funding application is successful the project finances are significantly strengthened in comparison to the business plan. Legal

Confidential legal advice is attached that concludes that it is open to the Council to agree to an extension of the contract, essentially because the terms and conditions of the contract have not varied. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

The request for extension by Sirona is made on the basis that the government accommodation RFP process has closed and it is expected that it will be announced around August or September whether the Sirona RFP for Kings Square was successful. The assessment of the impacts of time on the value of the contract to the City shows no significant variation to the value that was advertised in the business plan in late 2012. Given that the final decision of government will be known in the coming months, the potential strategic implications to Fremantle more generally from not granting this short extension, and there is no significant variation to the contract, it is recommended that council grant the extension periods requested.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. That Council approve an extension to the sunset dates set out in the Project

Development Deed for the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment under the following terms and conditions:

a) for a period of six months from 9 May 2016 to 9 November 2016; and


27 April 2016

Page 13

b) with the authority of the Chief Executive Officer, for a further 6 months to 9

May 2017, on the express condition that it be known to the City that Sirona has been successful in securing a state government commitment to accommodate an agency or agencies to the Kings Square development that allows Sirona to satisfy all pre-conditions for purchase.

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to replace part (b) with the following wording: b) Council will consider extending the sunset date for a further 6 months to 9

May 2017, on the express condition that it be known to the City that Sirona has been successful in securing a State Government commitment to accommodate an agency or agencies (or equivalent anchor tenant) to the Kings Square development that allows Sirona to satisfy all pre-conditions for purchase.

SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 10/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Simon Naber

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Given the community interest in this item it would be prudent for Council to be seen as the decision maker, rather than delegate that decision. It also removes any confusion with delegation, should the State government not commit to Kings Square, but Sirona secures another anchor tenant that is consistent with the pre-conditions.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. That Council approve an extension to the sunset dates set out in the Project

Development Deed for the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment under the following terms and conditions:


27 April 2016

Page 14

a) for a period of six months from 9 May 2016 to 9 November 2016; and

b) Council will consider extending the sunset date for a further 6 months to

9 May 2017, on the express condition that it be known to the City that Sirona has been successful in securing a State Government commitment to accommodate an agency or agencies (or equivalent anchor tenant) to the Kings Square development that allows Sirona to satisfy all pre-conditions for purchase.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 11/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 15

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 6 APRIL 2016

PC1604-16 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 65 - ADDITIONAL DENSITY AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHITE GUM VALLEY/BEACONSFIELD LOCAL CENTRE - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/072 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PC 6 April 2016; Council 27 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: SPC1506-3 (24 June 2015)

SPC1505-2 (27 May 2015) SPC1503-1 (25 March 2015) SPC1409-03 (24 September 2014) PSC1403-47 (26 March 2014) PC1614 (27 January 2016)

Attachments: Report to Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016 (PC1614) Advertised proposed modified scheme amendment provisions Schedule of submissions on modification

Figure 1. Originally advertised amendment area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65, and to


27 April 2016

Page 16

recommend that Council adopt the amendment with further modification to address issues raised in the submissions. Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. The amendment proposed inserting two new sub areas into Schedule 12 for the White Gum Valley/Beaconsfield Local Centre and surrounding Residential area. The new sub areas contained an area A and area B. Each area proposed additional density (up to R80/R100) and height requirements (four to five storey) where specific criteria could be met. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The modifications were advertised for public comment for 21 days as per the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were taken for an additional two weeks after this. The City received 47 submissions during the public consultation period for the modification to the amendment. Concerns raised in the submissions related to building height, vehicle traffic and parking, heritage and existing character of the area and the boundary of the proposed amendment areas A and B. Several submissions additionally suggested alternatives and further modifications. Officers have taken the alternatives suggested in the submissions into consideration and recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer to the Residential zone for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. BACKGROUND

In 2014 the City undertook investigations regarding its ability to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along South Street, one of the City’s key public transport routes connecting a number of employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. At its Ordinary Meeting 26 March 2014 (refer to Council item PSC1403-47 for full background) Council adopted an initiative to amend LPS4 to provide for higher density development along South Street. Three locations along South Street were identified as being suitable for more intensive mixed-use redevelopment (refer to SPC1409-03 24 September 2014 for background).


27 April 2016

Page 17

Figure 2. Proposed planning scheme amendment areas No. 64, 65 and 66

Council initiated proposed scheme amendment No. 65 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) for public consultation in June 2015. Following the consultation period during late August to October 2015 and extended into November, Council considered the amendment and resolved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016, to significantly modify the proposed amendment as a result of submissions received during this time. The previous report presented to Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1614) is contained within this report as Attachment 1. DETAIL Proposed amendment The subject area of the proposed amendment - Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley local centre - is zoned Local Centre and Residential. These areas have a current height limit of up to two storeys and a low housing density (R20, R20/25 and R30). The advertised Scheme amendment proposed:

Retaining the existing zoning (Local Centre and Residential), densities (R20, R25/25 and R30) and height requirements as ‘base’ development standards;

A minimum height of two storeys along South Street in area A to ensure redevelopment of the commercial hub is consistent with its purpose and location as a key transit route into the city; and

Individual development controls for the Local Centre zone (Area A) and Residential zone (Area B) to allow for redevelopment through additional residential density and building height (as per below).

AREA A: In the Local Centre zone denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area A (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R100) with a maximum building height of 12 metres (external wall height) and 15 metres (top of pitched roof) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls relate to building height, street setbacks, vehicle access, activated ground floor frontages and minimum open space requirements.


27 April 2016

Page 18

AREA B: In the Residential zoned area denoted in the Scheme amendment as Area B (refer to figure 1) a higher density (R80) and additional height (see below) was proposed where specific development controls could be met. The proposed specific development controls include a minimum site area of 1 000 sqm (most likely to be achieved through amalgamation of existing lots) and coordinated access points to minimise individual access points by vehicles to South Street. Building height proposed in Area B:

12 metre external wall height and 15 metre pitched roof height in the areas directly bordering Area A

9 metre external wall height and 12 metre roof ridge height within 15 metres from the boundary of Area B and residential zoned properties outside of Area B

6 metre wall height and 9 metre roof height within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B. This is the same height limit as already applies to the existing adjoining residential properties in the area.

Modified amendment At its ordinary meeting Council resolved to modify the amendment based on the submissions received to include six additional properties into the White Gum valley amendment area. The six properties are 20-26 Taylor Street and 242-246 South Street, White Gum Valley or the Childcare centre and adjoining single house lots, as shown on figure 3 below.

Figure 3. Advertised amendment area and modifications to include properties into amendment area

A full description of the advertised proposed modified amendment is included in Attachment 2 of this report. CONSULTATION

Community consultation was undertaken from 22 August 2015 to 12 October 2015 with the consultation period subsequently extended to 16 November 2015 to allow for further consultation – 87 days in total. Following Council’s resolution to advertise the modification the modification was advertised for 21 days from 6 to 27 February 2016 as the Planning and Development


27 April 2016

Page 19

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015). Submissions were additionally taken for two weeks after this time. The advertising on the modification consisted of:

Public advertising notice in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 6 February 2016;

An information package including a frequently asked questions, Scheme amendment report, and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website;

Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation period;

Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to various service agencies, government organisations and landowners and tenants within at least 100m the amendment area.

Additionally an officer, upon invitation from councillors and residents, meet with residents of Taylor, Stoke and Yalgoo Streets to answer any planning related questions. Officers also presented on the amendment at the White Gum Valley precinct meeting Tuesday 1 March 2016. Summary of Submissions Advertised proposed amendment The City received 33 submissions on the previously advertised proposed amendment. Nine agencies and 24 owner/occupiers in the White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield areas made submissions on the amendment. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 10

Support 7

Neutral - no objection/no comment 4

Neutral - comment 12

Total 33

Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

The Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley Local Centre hasn't seen changes for a long time. The changes are adequate and will go a long way to ensuring the ongoing viability of the Beaconsfield local centre. The proposed injection of higher density will encourage greater development, which will ultimately lead to more business, more shops and more people shopping in and around this specific area.

Approve changes as proposed with potentially greater density increases in the area A to R120 or R160 if feasible.

Two submissions proposed extending amendment area B.

Consider the types of uses in the area to create a sense of community. Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

The proposed height limit will result in buildings up to 5 storeys in height. This is inconsistent with local character/amenity;


27 April 2016

Page 20

Higher density development will increase traffic and result in more congestion and parking issues on adjacent streets;

The validity of the 1000sqm site area requirement in area B and the ability to amalgamate with the neighbouring property was questioned.

Heritage listed property or property with heritage value could be an issue for redevelopment.

Modified proposed amendment The City received 47 submissions on the modifications to the Scheme amendment. One submission included 20 signatures. Three submissions were from agencies/government departments and the remainder (44 submissions) were from owners or occupiers of properties in White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield. Position and number of submissions -

Position Number

Object 39

Support 4

Neutral - no objection/no comment 2

Neutral - comment 2

Total 47

The submissions on the modifications raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round. Additional comments have been summarised below. Summarised comments from submissions in support of the amendment:

Paired with light rail it would be fantastic.

Support for the creation of a higher density activity node.

Area A should be allowed to go to at least 6 storeys and R120 density. Summarised comments from submissions that object to the amendment:

Some objectors generally support higher density development on South Street to improve amenity and ambience of the area.

Some submissions do not support any development in the area and suggest alternative locations within the City of Fremantle.

Most objections solely or additionally do not support R80/high density and 4/5 storey height in area B. The reasons presented for the objections included:

The streets/streetscapes in area B are considered established/ character/historical/heritage and inappropriate for higher density development.

The streets in area B have ongoing traffic and pedestrian safety issues due to existing conditions which are expected to worsen through high density development.

The existing and mature trees in the area and heritage, listed and non-listed, houses should be retained.

The expected higher density development type is low quality and would attract low socio-economic groups.

Some submissions questioned the 10m setback to South Street imposed through the Primary Regional Road reservation.


27 April 2016

Page 21

Several submissions suggested alternatives to the proposed scheme amendment. The alternatives included:

Local structure/development plan process

Hero sites

R40 in Area B

Delete area B from amendment Attachment 3 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response. PLANNING COMMENT

The purpose of advertising modifications to an amendment is to gain public comment on the modifications. Few submissions directly addressed the modifications. Instead the submissions received raised similar issues to those addressed in the first submission round and brought up additional issues and alternatives for Council to consider. The subjects discussed in the report presented to Council 27 January 2016 (refer to attachment 1 - PC1614) included the following:

Height

Maximum building heights

Setback of development

Boundary change to area B

Housing Authority: Proposal to extend area B to the west

Planning Solutions: Proposal to extend area B the east

Six various land owners: Proposal to extend area B down Fifth Avenue

Boundary of area A and B

Validity of development in area B

Traffic movements and vehicle parking

Heritage

Minor wording change The modifications to the amendment submission period received more submissions than the first full and extended submission period. New subjects and alternative suggestions were put forward in the submissions received. These suggestions and as well as subjects not fully explored in the first round of submissions have been reviewed and in light of the additional submission comments officers propose further amendments to the Scheme amendment. These matters are discussed below. Heritage Within the Scheme amendment area nine properties are on the City’s heritage list (2 Fifth Avenue, 1, 3, 4 and 6 Central Avenue and 199, 201, 205 and 211 South Street – refer to properties shaded in figure 4 below). The area is not within a heritage area and there are no heritage listed properties in Elizabeth, Stokes or Taylor Street. Inherit (the State Heritage Office’s public record of heritage properties), however, does contain non-statutory notes on the following properties within the Scheme amendment area: 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 Stokes Street, 208, 213 and 221 South Street, 7 Central Avenue and 10 Fifth Avenue.


27 April 2016

Page 22

Figure 4. Heritage listed places in proposed amendment area

A heritage listing is not intended to exclude a property from redevelopment. Accordingly for this reason heritage listed properties were not excluded from the amendment area. Notwithstanding, officers acknowledge that redevelopment would need to be more carefully considered to ensure new development is in keeping with the heritage significance of the place and, comparatively to a vacant site, redevelopment could be considered more constrained. Previously to the gazettal of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations 2015) all applications for the demolition of a primary building/structure on any property within the City of Fremantle, regardless of heritage listing, required planning approval. Applications for demolition were than assessed under clause 5.15 demolition of buildings and structures of LPS4. Clause 5.15, introduced into the Scheme through Scheme amendment No. 26 (gazetted 12 March 2010), provides criteria based on the cultural heritage significance of the place to determine planning applications for demolition. Clause 5.15 of LPS4 is provided below: Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

(a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and

(b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality in which it is located.

The Regulations 2015 introduced deemed provisions that permit demolition of buildings/structures without the need to gain planning approval where the place is not heritage listed and not within a heritage area. The City still receives any application for demolition on a heritage listed property or in a heritage area and assesses the application on the criteria of clause 5.15 of LPS4. However, buildings that are not on the heritage list or in a heritage area can be demolished without this assessment or planning approval needed as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions.


27 April 2016

Page 23

As Scheme amendment No. 65 is not within a heritage area demolition of structures or buildings on non-heritage listed properties is permitted as per the Regulations 2015 deemed provisions. The feedback given to officers verbally and in the submissions from owners/occupiers of non-heritage listed property in Elizabeth, Taylor and Stokes Street, White Gum Valley and Central Avenue, Beaconsfield is that the historic nature of houses and other structures in these streets and their streetscapes are considered of value to residents. There is a concern that providing these properties with additional development potential could result in these buildings and structures being demolished without further heritage assessment or planning approval. The general feedback from these areas is a preference for no redevelopment if this results in an increased opportunity for potential heritage buildings to be demolished and streetscapes to change. The City will be looking into these areas for the review of the City of Fremantle Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and the Heritage List under LPS4 to provide greater heritage protection. The priority areas as set by Council at their Ordinary Meeting of Council on 27 January 2016 (PC1616) are as follows -

Parts of the suburb of Beaconsfield not included in the South Fremantle Heritage Area (generally the area east of Mather Road and the South Fremantle High school).

The whole suburb of White Gum Valley.

Parts of the suburb of Fremantle east of Hampton Road, Ord Street and James Street

Depending on funding allocated and resources obtained to review these areas the timings for these heritage review projects are between one and three years. Owners are encouraged to put in their own applications and provide information to the City on their properties to be considered as part of the review(s). Primary Regional reserve on South Street Setback of buildings The Primary Regional Road Reservation of South Street is applicable to the Scheme amendment area. This means that 10m into the front of every property fronting South Street in the Scheme amendment area has the Primary Regional Road Reservation over it (Refer to the red reservation in figure 1). Any development applications received along this proportion of South Street requires referral to Main Roads for comment. If Main Roads provide an objection to a development application than the Western Australian Planning Commission becomes the decision making authority on the application. In the past Main Roads have allowed some types of temporary structures in the road reservation, however in recent years Main Roads have not permitted any development within the reservation apart from vehicle access and parking. Accordingly the amendment proposes a minimum 10m and maximum 12m street setback to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback, to align with the reservation. Several submissions referred to the road reservation and the need for greater certainty on what can be achieved in this area and when any upgrades would happen. As part of the Scheme amendments proposed along the South Street transit corridor the City has met with Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport to discuss the Metropolitan


27 April 2016

Page 24

Region Scheme Primary Regional Road Reservation along South Street between Hilton and Beaconsfield / White Gum Valley. Both Main Roads WA and Department of Transport have not been able to provide any timeframes for upgrades or modifications to the existing road configuration and both agencies do not support relinquishing control of the MRS road reserve to the City of Fremantle, or the development of built form which would compromise the future utilisation of the MRS road reserve. Officers therefore consider there are no grounds to change the setback. On a positive note Main Roads WA and the Department of Transport appear to have a positive response to a joint State and Local Government approach to interim treatments within the road reservation, including potential improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the provision of public art and alfresco dining areas to enhance the public and private realm. Engagement with these agencies on the design guidelines for the area (see discussion below on area of amendment) will be valuable. Conversely, the Department of Planning have consistently advised officers that they would ‘not support any development within the South Street Primary Regional Road Reservation’. Alternatives to the amendment The proposed amendment would by the very nature of the proposal (i.e. increased density and height) change the existing streetscape, open space on private land and character of proposed areas A and B. During the public comment period the City received a large proportion of submissions from landowners and occupiers in or directly abutting area B. These submissions objected to the amendment largely for reasons around the existing character of the place and the desire to protect this character in area B. Several submissions proposed alternatives to the amendment. These alternatives are discussed below. Local Structure/Development plan Several submissions suggested the proposed amendment process be changed to a local structure/development plan process similar to the former Kim Beazley School Site. The submissions suggest this process would include further community input, better community buy in and coordinate development of the area better. Officers consider a local structure plan process to not be an appropriate planning mechanism for redevelopment of the amendment area due to changes in the planning regulations and the structure plan process. The Regulations 2015 Since the former Kim Beazley school site structure plan was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 24 September 2014 the Regulations 2015 have come into effect and structure/development plan content and process has changed. The Regulations 2015 have downgraded the status of structure and development plans from documents of similar status to the Scheme to documents of similar status to a local planning policy; decision-makers are to have ‘due regard’ to the structure/development plan when assessing development applications in these areas, but the provisions in a structure plan are not binding.

Additionally what structure and development plans are to contain under the Regulations 2015 has been reduced. Structure plans now provide the basis of zoning and density for


27 April 2016

Page 25

areas only. Structure plans no longer provide comment on design outcomes or provide mechanisms to achieve better planning outcomes. A local development plan is additionally required to provide detail however, “is not to be used purely as a means to vary the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-codes” (Framework for local development plans, WAPC, August 2015).

Structure plan process requirements The process to undertake a structure plan is lengthy and requires landowner buy-in to be successful. The area would first need to be rezoned to ‘development zone’ through a Scheme amendment to the City’s LPS4. Following rezoning all current zoning and density requirements would effectively be deleted and any more than minor development would not be allowed. Landowners would then need to coordinate the development of a structure plan and local development plan for the area. The structure plan process is a similar process to a scheme amendment process in that it requires a public comment period, Council consideration and the WAPC as the determining body. This whole Scheme amendment and Structure plan process would likely take at least 18 months to complete. Overall the comments in the submissions do not appear to support undertaking a comprehensive and co-ordinated landowner/occupier process for comprehensive redevelopment of the area as outlined above. Officers consider this planning mechanism better suited to sites with few landowners or greenfield sites and do not support this alternative approach for the amendment area. Suburb wide plan Some of the submissions received questioned the specific area of the amendment, being on South Street and over the suburbs of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley. These submissions suggested as an alternative to the amendment that local area wide plans for Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley be completed. While officers understand the desire for the local qualities to be included in the amendment, officers consider this approach contrary to the intent and purpose of the amendment. The purpose of Scheme amendment No. 65 and associated amendments along South Street was to encourage higher density mixed use and residential redevelopment along the City’s key transit corridor connecting the employment and service areas between Fremantle and Murdoch. Officers consider the amendment purpose still relevant and advise against expanding the Scheme amendment process for amendment No. 65 to become a community plan. Alternatively, a local area wide planning review will be completed as part of the larger planning strategy and Scheme review (the subject of a report Council in the near future) planned for late 2016/2017. In the interim Council could consider drafting design guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area. A design guidelines approach has been adopted by Council for the Scheme amendment No. 64 – Hilton Local Centre area. Including the Scheme amendment No. 65 area into the work being carried out on the design guidelines for Scheme amendment No. 64 would provide a coordinated approach to higher density development along the transit corridor for South Street, help enhance the amenity and character of the area and be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment. Density decrease


27 April 2016

Page 26

Many submissions mentioned height and density as key points of objection to the amendment. One submission suggested considering an R40 density coding, instead of R80, in area B to allow for redevelopment of the area without height above two storey, clearer building setback provisions and retention of the existing streetscape and buildings. The submission provided: This option allows for some redevelopment in the currently zoned R20/25/30 areas of Zone B, supporting extra dwellings on larger properties or through the amalgamation of rear gardens to form the required block size. The submission acknowledged that the downside of the proposal would be the loss of open space and trees which are valued by residents in this area. Council could consider decreasing the density in area B from R80 to R40 or R60. This option would address concerns raised in the submissions by reducing the height of new development to 2-3 storeys and the density/ number of potential new dwellings in the area. Both options would allow every lot in area B to develop at least one additional dwelling (minimum lot size required to consider subdivision: R40 440 sqm; R60 300 sqm) and overall would be in keeping with the purpose of the amendment – to increase density along South Street. The option however, would still present an opportunity for redevelopment though demolition and would likely change the existing streetscape in these areas. Submissions received on the amendment appear to not support this outcome. Accordingly officers do not recommend this option in area B. Hero sites One submission suggested the idea of ‘hero sites’. Hero sites have the potential for comprehensive development, as they are large sites in the ownership of one landowner. The submission suggests the sites on the western corner of Yalgoo and South Street and the eastern corner of Fifth Ave and South Street would meet these criteria. Officers further identified other multiple lots fronting South Street that are owned by one landowner (refer to figure 5). Officers support this idea and have used it to inform the alternative recommendation presented below.


27 April 2016

Page 27

Figure 5. Proposed area A and B multiple lots in the ownership of one landowner Retain area A and delete area B (Officer’s Recommendation) In general there is support in the submissions for increased mixed commercial and residential development along South Street. There is little to no support for comprehensive development in area B. Alternatively several submissions proposed zone B be removed from consideration in the amendment area. Excerpt from submissions:

“Removal of Zone B allows for the historical, environmental, and social context of White Gum Valley streets to be preserved, while also retaining the intent of the Planning Scheme Amendment to allow nodes of higher density with mixed commercial and residential along South Street.”

“I feel that South Street could meet the challenge of greater density with minimal damage to the local community if redevelopment was restricted to the already zoned mix of residential and non-residential uses along its edges. By intensifying these strips each side of South Street some consistency of built form could be achieved. Planning guidelines could recognise and possibly outline long term strategies for light rail and other innovative public transport systems.”

Officers consider there is scope to remove parts of area B and still achieve the purpose of the amendment i.e. encouraging higher density mixed use development along the transit corridor. Area A comprises of properties that are already zoned local centre and can provide for a mix of commercial and residential uses. Many of the property owners in this area own more than one lot side-by-side (refer to figure 5 above), meaning larger development sites and the opportunity for comprehensive redevelopment where a minimum lot size is met (e.g. >1000 sqm). The childcare


27 April 2016

Page 28

Accordingly, in light of the views expressed in the submissions, officers propose including those properties in the local centre zone and comprising the childcare centre along South Street into the amendment area only and applying the area B height ‘buffer’ to these sites. This alternative approach would still achieve Council’s desire to ignite redevelopment of the transit corridor and would also address concerns raised in submissions.

Figure 6. New proposed modified amendment (Officer’s recommendation)

Area A/sub area 5.3.1 requirements Officers propose including all of the local centre properties, excluding 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (discussion on this below), into the Scheme amendment and allocating additional development requirements to the sub areas for White Gum Valley (sub area 6.3.1 - Area A) and Beaconsfield (sub area 5.3.1) (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the following modified planning requirements for sub areas 6.3.1 - Area A and sub area 5.3.1:

Retain proposed R100 density coding and other specific criteria as previously proposed for area A;

Reduce the height of development to 10 metre external wall height on development sites 1000 sqm and under where specific criteria are met. This would allow for the development of a three storey building with a 4m wall height (specific requirement) on the ground floor for commercial uses;

Allow for additional height i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm and other specific criteria are met;

Apply the area B height buffer in area A in all instances where additional development requirements are being sought, i.e. development is to be reduced to two storey in height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone.

Many of the commercial property owners in Area A/the local centre zone own more than one lot meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The incentive to achieve this is additional height requirements (i.e. from three


27 April 2016

Page 29

storey to four storey height requirements) for development sites over 1000 sqm. A height buffer would be applicable to all development on the site to address the interface between the local centre and the adjoining residential zone i.e. two storey development within five metres of the adjoining low density residential zone. To further address the interface single storey boundary wall requirements are recommended. This requirement would ensure two storey boundary walls, as currently permitted under the R80 and R100 provisions of the R-codes, are prohibited from the area A and the Residential zone interface. The single storey boundary wall requirement would also ensure that development on this interface is similar to development that could happen on R20-R30 density coded properties. Officers propose deleting the property 230 South Street, White Gum Valley (Hey Joe Retro) from area A of the amendment area. This lot is an anomaly in the local centre zone in that it does not adjoin other local centre zoned lots and adjoins residential zoned land. Additionally the lot is small, approximately 369 sqm in size, and has a shallow lot depth (30m). These factors combined with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback requirement and the application of the height buffer to the two sides adjoining the residential zone, restrict development of this site to no more than what can currently be achieved under the R60 density coding requirements (where mixed use development is proposed) and two storey height limit of the Scheme. Accordingly, 230 South Street, White Gum Valley would gain no benefit from being in the amendment area and has not been included into area A of the amendment. Similarly, the smaller (approximately 440 sqm) commercial zoned properties of 226, 228 and 230 South Street, White Gum Valley have shallow lot depths (30m) also. Development up to four storey will be difficult to provide for on these smaller lots, especially with the 10m Primary Regional Road setback and application of the height buffer. Three storey (one more than they can do now) development may be possible, especially if lots are amalgamated. These lots have been retained in the amendment in the hope that the amendment provisions provide incentive to create a larger development area through lot amalgamation. The R100 density coding has been retained. The differences between the density codes R80 and R100 of the R-codes are the plot ratio requirements. R80 has a plot ratio of 1.0 and R100 has a plot ratio of 1.25. All other requirements under the R-codes are the same i.e. parking, setbacks, visual privacy etc. Additional to this the Scheme amendment prescribes the height (10-13 metre wall height), height buffer and street setbacks to South Street (10m). Ultimately development yield will be more restricted by other factors (i.e. building height and setback requirements) than by the density coding. Keeping the density coding at R100 provides more flexibility for development on site. Area B requirements Officers propose properties 20-26 (Lots 3 and 66) Taylor Street and 242-246 (Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35) South Street, White Gum Valley (an established Childcare centre and adjoining single house) be retained in the amendment as sub area 6.3.1 - Area B (refer to figure 6). Officers propose the remainder of proposed area B be deleted from the Scheme amendment. Officers propose the following planning requirements for the reduced area B:

Retain proposed R80 density coding;


27 April 2016

Page 30

Retain the height buffer as previously proposed in area B i.e. development reduced to two storey height within 5 metres of adjoining residential properties;

Retain the height requirement of the R-codes for R80 development i.e. 12 metre wall height, 13m top of external wall, 15m top of pitched roof, where the development site compromises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm; and

Require additional development criteria for any boundary walls to be no more than 3.5m in height (single storey) and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary on any boundary adjoining the Residential zone outside of area B.

The six lots included in area B of White Gum Valley are in the ownership of one landowner meaning lot amalgamation to provide a sufficient development site area could be achieved. The impact of comprehensive development on the site and the existing residential zone would be mitigated by the height buffer and single storey boundary wall requirements at the Area B and residential zone interface. Being that the site is zoned residential any development on the lots would have to be of a residential nature. Council previously considered the sites for inclusion into the amendment at the 27 January Ordinary Meeting of Council. A number of attributes on which to consider properties in the South Street transport corridor were used for consideration of inclusion of the sites. These considerations are still applicable. The table below summarises these considerations and specifies how the additional lots address these elements.

Matter Officers response Appropriate zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and LPS4

The lots are zoned Urban under the MRS and Residential under LPS4.

Large development area (+1000m2)

The six lots measure 2,637m2 and are owned by one land owner.

Alternative access roads to South Street

Future development of the six lots could take access from Taylor Street.

Development of an area that would have limited impact on surrounding low density residential dwellings.

One of the lots contains a single house. This lot adjoins a single house to the north. The remaining five lots contain a single house converted into a childcare centre and associated structures and outbuildings. The childcare centre adjoins five grouped dwellings on one parent lot. A height buffer (two storey for five metres and three storey for 15 metres from adjoining residential lots) and single storey boundary wall height requirements would apply.

Sufficient services in the area to support increased density.

The additional lots are considered to have the same services as those sites already included in the amendment area.

Identified heritage listing constraints which would encroach upon comprehensive development.

The lots are not heritage listed.

Regulations 2015 requirements The Regulations 2015 apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. Scheme amendment No. 65 is considered a ‘standard’


27 April 2016

Page 31

amendment, because it matches key characteristics described in the definition of a standard amendment in the new Regulations as follows:

Amendment provisions are consistent with the objectives in the scheme for the zoning applying to the area subject to the amendment;

Minimal impact on land outside the area the subject of the amendment;

Amendment does not have any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts.

Modifications were made to the standard scheme amendment and an additional public consultation period of 21 days, as required by the Regulations 2015, was undertaken. In light of the issues raised in the submissions received in the public consultation on the modification officers recommend additional modifications. The proposed changes to the modified amendment are considered to not be significant. Therefore officers consider further advertising of the amendment would not be required. The reason for this view is the changes do not provide for additional development requirements or an increased Scheme amendment area over and above what has been advertised on two separate occasions. Conversely the modified amendment comprises of a reduced amendment area when compared to the original and modified amendment and overall reduced height requirements. The modified amendment also responds to comments made in submissions. The City has followed the standard and modified amendment process requirements of the Regulations 2015 to date and requests the Minister determines the modified Scheme amendment as a standard amendment with no further public consultation required. CONCLUSION The purpose of this item is to report on the submissions received during the consultation period for the modifications made to Scheme amendment 65. In light of the submissions received during the public comment period on the modifications to the amendment officers recommend further modifications to the Scheme amendment. The further modifications propose including select properties fronting South Street into the amendment area only, a building height buffer for all development, a reduction in building height overall and additional specific criteria to meet when proposing development on these sites. It is therefore recommended that Scheme amendment 65 be adopted with further modifications and sent to the Minister of Planning for final determination. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council –

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3;


27 April 2016

Page 32

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) and 51(7) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with modifications to address issues raised in the submissions:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:

Zone (Within LPA Only) Maximum External Wall Height

Local Centre 5.5m (except within Sub Area 5.3.1)

b) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD

5.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

Sub Area 5.3.1

a) Within sub area 5.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub

Area 5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.

c) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building


27 April 2016

Page 33

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Criteria to be met in order for additional development standards to apply

Additional development standards

Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development

sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.

c) Vehicle parking shall only be

provided at the rear of buildings and / or below ground level.

d) For new development with frontage

to South St, a Traffic Impact Assessment is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be submitted in support of application for planning approval.

Other design requirements e) In the part of all new development

with frontage to South Street the ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath, and the first floor level must be at least 4 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

Density a) Residential density

code R100. Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:

A maximum external wall height of 10 metres and top of pitched roof height of 13 metres.

c) Where the development

site area comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm or more the following height requirements apply:

The height requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer d) Regardless of the

height requirement referred to above a height buffer shall apply to development as


27 April 2016

Page 34

f) The minimum street setback shall be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.

g) To prevent excessive breaks in

building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.

h) Open space can be reduced to 30%

where development respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

i) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with plantings and permeable surfaces.

j) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of the sub area to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in the sub area within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.


Note: Where the above criteria are not met, the height requirements in 5.1 of Local Planning Area 5 above apply.

c) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:



d) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY



27 April 2016

Page 35

Sub area 6.3.1


Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.


façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply



AREA A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions of

Table 1 – Zoning, residential land


code R100.


27 April 2016

Page 36

uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites

with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.







f) The minimum street setback shall

be 10 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, and the maximum street setback shall be 12 metres at the lot boundary to South Street, unless Main Roads has no objection to a reduced street setback.


building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street

Height b) Where the development







height requirement referred to above a height buffer in Area A shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area A within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of


27 April 2016

Page 37

is no more than 6 metres. h) Open space can be reduced to 30%





residential zoned property outside of Area A to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area A within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

AREA B a) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development sites


c) At least 10% of the site area to be

landscaped with planting and permeable surfaces.

d) Any wall on the boundary of a

residential zoned property outside of Area B to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

Note: While amalgamation and joint development of adjoining sites is expected to be the predominant means of providing alternative access to South Street as required in part B above, alternative mechanisms such as the creation of easements or rights-of-carriageway may also be considered.


code R80. Height b) The height

requirements shall be in accordance with the heights specified in Table 4 and part 6.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes for R80 coded land.

Height buffer c) A height buffer within

Area B shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area B within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.



27 April 2016

Page 38

pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area B within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.


3. That upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 65 Council will, in

conjunction with the work being undertaken for Scheme amendment No. 64, prepare a draft Design Guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area.

4. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

5. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to the Scheme

Amendment No. 65 as referred to in (2) above. 6. Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that pursuant to the

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the amendment hereby submitted is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ for the purpose of the Regulations.

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: a) Amend the wording ‘R80’ under Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield Sub

area 5.3.1 and Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley Sub area 6.3.1 Area A, height clause c) to be ‘R100’.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright


27 April 2016

Page 39

Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The additional development standard Residential density code for the site under a) density is referenced as R100. The R80 referenced under c) height is therefore inconsistent and incorrect. As the additional development standard for density is R100, the height should be R100 also. The height requirements of the Residential Design Codes for R80 and R100 are the same. This correction therefore does not change the height requirements of the amendment it would simply correct an error made in drafting. Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to replace Part 6 of the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

6. The amendment is standard under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reason(s):

any other amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

To provide clarification on the reason why the amendment is considered a standard amendment under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as per the definitions provided in Regulation 34, as required by Regulation 35(2) and in the form approved by the Commission Regulation 35(1) and Form 2A.


27 April 2016

Page 40

Cr I Waltham MOVED an amendment to remove Area B in its entirety from the Local Planning Sub-area 6.3.1 from the Committee and Officer's Recommendation as shown below: Sub area 6.3.1

AREA B a) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

b) Vehicle access to development sites


c) At least 10% of the site area to be


d) Any wall on the boundary of a




code R80. Height b) The height


Height buffer c) A height buffer within






27 April 2016

Page 41

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald LOST: 2/10

For Against

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION This lot is an anomaly in the local centre zone in that it does not adjoin other local centre zoned lots and adjoins residential zoned land to the west, north and east. It is an isolated site that has retained its inclusion in the Scheme Amendment largely because it is in the ownership of a single owner, which benefits the owner but not necessarily the amenity of surrounding residents. With the deletion of the remainder of Area B, this lone site could potentially result in a large scale commercial development at odds with its single residential neighbourhood. Given the traffic issues on that stretch of South St and the feeder roads, it makes sense to concentrate the local activity centre on one area (Area A) rather than two separate areas, with appropriate traffic calming/lights to connect the WGV/Beaconsfield activity centres, directly opposite each other. Cr D Coggin MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to remove 20 (lot 3) Taylor Street, White Gum Valley from the proposal Local Planning Sub – area 6.3.1. Area B. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham LOST: 5/7

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume


27 April 2016

Page 42

Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Simon Naber

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Removal of 20 Taylor Street will reduce the potential impact of any large scale commercial development in Area B on immediate neighbours on Taylor Street, while still leaving enough development potential for the owners on the adjacent lots fronting South Street. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and Attachment 3;

2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 50(3) and 51(7) of the Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 with modifications to address issues raised in the submissions:

a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development

Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by replacing Clause 5.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:




Requirements) Local Planning Area 5 – Beaconsfield by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 5 - BEACONSFIELD



27 April 2016

Page 43

Sub Area 5.3.1


Additional development standards b) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub

Area 5.3.1, clause 5.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 5 does not apply.


façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies.

d) Additional development standards shall be in accordance

with the criteria and standards set out in the table below:



Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions

of Table 1 – Zoning, residential land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of


code R100. Height b) Where the development

site area comprises of a


27 April 2016

Page 44

development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development

sites with frontage to South Street and an alternative public road shall only have vehicle access via the alternative public road. Vehicle access shall be designed to encourage coordination of access to adjoining properties.










building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.


minimum land parcel of less than 1,000 sqm the following height requirements apply:






height requirement referred to above a height buffer shall apply to development as follows -


A maximum external wall height of 9 metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in the


27 April 2016

Page 45





residential zoned property outside of the sub area to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

sub area within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of the sub area.


a) Amend Clause 12.12 Schedule 12 – Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by replacing Clause 6.1 Local Centre requirements with the following:




Requirements) Local Planning Area 6 – White Gum Valley by inserting the following:

LOCAL PLANNING AREA 6 – WHITE GUM VALLEY



27 April 2016

Page 46

Sub area 6.3.1

e) Within sub area 6.3.1, clause 5.2.5 does not apply; and

Additional development standards f) In applying Additional Development Standards within Sub Area

6.3.1 clause 6.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying general and specific height requirements’ of Local Planning Area 6 does not apply.

g) A minimum building height of 7 metres, including a building

façade on the South Street frontage which incorporates windows and doors at the ground floor and windows to the first floor level to create interest and a sense of activity within the building, applies within Area A.

h) Additional development standards shall be in accordance with

the criteria and standards set out in the table below:

Locations where additional development standards apply



AREA A Land use a) Notwithstanding the provisions

of Table 1 – Zoning, residential


code R100.


27 April 2016

Page 47

land uses will not be permitted in new buildings at the ground floor level with frontage to South Street, to ensure activation of development frontages to South Street.

Vehicle access b) Vehicle access to development sites











building frontages to South Street, the maximum aggregate width of spaces between or to the side of the building(s) on the lot at ground floor

Height b) Where the development







height requirement referred to above a height buffer in Area A shall apply to development as follows -

A maximum external wall height of 6 metres and top of pitched roof height of 9 metres for development in Area A within 5 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.



27 April 2016

Page 48

level on the frontage to South Street is no more than 6 metres.






residential zoned property outside of Area A to be no more than 3.5m in height and 3m on average with a maximum length of two thirds of the length of the boundary.

pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area A within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area A.

AREA B e) The development site comprises of a minimum land parcel of 1,000 sqm.

f) Vehicle access to development sites


g) At least 10% of the site area to be


h) Any wall on the boundary of a



Density d) Residential density

code R80. Height e) The height


Height buffer f) A height buffer within



A maximum external wall height of 9


27 April 2016

Page 49

metres and top of pitched roof height of 12 metres for development in Area B within 15 metres of residential zoned properties outside of Area B.


3. That upon final adoption of Scheme Amendment No. 65 Council will, in

conjunction with the work being undertaken for Scheme amendment No. 64, prepare a draft Design Guidelines for the Scheme amendment No. 65 area.

4. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

5. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to the Scheme

Amendment No. 65 as referred to in (2) above.

6. The amendment is standard under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the following reason(s):

any other amendment that is not a complex or basic amendment. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 50


27 April 2016

Page 51

Cr J Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PC1604-12 and PC1604-13. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against


The following item number PC1604-12 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PC1604-12 DESIGN ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC 1002-45 (17 and 24 February 2010), C1006-3 (June

2010) and PSC1201-9 (18 January 2012 PSC), PSC1205-69 (2 May 2012), C1205-3 (23 May 2012), PSC1403-60 (19 and 26 March 2014), C1405-2 (28 May 2014)

Attachments: Nil EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In February 2010 the Council decided to establish a Design Advisory Committee (DAC) in accordance with clause 11.8 of LPS4. Following adoption of the Terms of Reference at that time, nominations were received for membership of the Committee. Five expressions of interest were received and in June 2010 those 5 nominees were appointed members of DAC. Every two years nominations for new DAC members are called for. The last time members were appointed was in May 2014 where 5 members were appointed with 2 additional deputies.


27 April 2016

Page 52

Current membership terms expire in June 2016. In accordance with the terms of reference it is recommended that nominations for new DAC membership be sought through a public expression of interest process. BACKGROUND

On 28 May 2014 Council resolved: The following approach for the appointment of DAC members be endorsed:

1. That 5 members be appointed, with two additional deputy's 2. That the existing DAC Members who have re nominated be reappointed in the

interest of continuity 3. That the remaining 2 DAC members and an additional 2 deputy members be

appointed based on the merit of the applications and written references. Community

Expressions of Interests for DAC nominations will be sought for 14 days that will include advertisements in:

1. The Western Australian newspaper; 2. Australian Institute of Architects (WA) Chapter e-newsletter; and 3. The City web site.

PLANNING COMMENT

The Terms of Reference state that Committee members are appointed following a public process of expression of interest. Any replies to expressions of interest will be referred to Council. In addition to the specific technical skills and experience, selected members should enjoy considerable professional recognition and prestige. To demonstrate this each nomination should be accompanied by the names of a minimum of two professional referees and a curriculum vitae. These should be independent professional peers who can specifically attest in writing to the suitability of the candidate for membership the Committee. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic document: Strategic Plan 2010 – 15:

Improve physical presentation of the City’s streetscapes. Provide for population and economic growth by planning and promoting

development and renewal in designated precincts within the City. Protect and enhance our significant built and social heritage.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan


27 April 2016

Page 53

Expressions of interest be publicly sought for Design Advisory Committee membership for a period of 14 days and a further report be presented to Council following assessment of the expressions of interest.

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 54

The following item number PC1604-13 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PC1604-13 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY LPP 2.20 - DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES - APPROVAL FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

ECM Reference: 117/062 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Manager Strategic Planning & Coordinator Heritage Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 & PC1602-6 Attachments: Previous item PC1602-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the exercise of discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development standards for heritage reasons in the determination of development applications. Council considered a previous report on this matter on 24 February 2016 (item PC1602-6) and resolved to authorise officers to prepare a draft local planning policy based on a number of principles set out in that item. This report presents the full text of a draft policy based on those principles. It is recommended that Council approve the draft local planning policy for the purposes of public consultation. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy. BACKGROUND

On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations include a set of Deemed Provisions which are automatically ‘read into’ every local planning scheme in Western Australia. One provision of the Deemed Provisions – clause 12 – provides a discretionary power to a local government to vary any site or development standards in its scheme in order to facilitate the conservation of a place included on the heritage list or to preserve or enhance a heritage area. A report on the implementation of the Regulations (item PSC1511-9) was presented to Council on 25 November 2015. As part of its resolution relating to this item Council resolved that officers should prepare a draft local planning policy to provide guidance on the use of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in the assessment and determination of development applications. The purpose of the local planning policy would be to provide a degree of certainty, consistency and transparency to decision-makers, developers and


27 April 2016

Page 55

the community regarding the use of the discretionary power provided to the local government under the Deemed Provisions. A further report on this matter (item PC1602-6 – see Attachment 1) was presented to the Planning Committee and Council in February 2016. This report set out a number of suggested principles upon which the policy should be based for Council’s consideration and endorsement before officers prepared the full text of the draft policy. On 24 February 2016 Council resolved to authorise officers to complete the preparation of the draft policy based on the following principles:

1. Development applications seeking the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

3. The following criteria will be applied in assessing whether the relationship between

a development proposal and outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it were approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions:

There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

The spatial relationship including degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

4. The policy should clearly state that development applications involving potential

Scheme variations under clause 12 must include a written statement of justification provided by the applicant. The statement of justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and explain how it satisfies the ‘nexus’ (or relationship) test referred to in principle (1) above, including how it addresses the criteria listed in (3) above.


27 April 2016

Page 56

For further background information refer to previous item PC1602-6 in Attachment 1.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

As stated in the Background section of this report, with effect from 19 October 2015 the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) are read as constituting part of the current Local Planning Scheme. Clause 3 of the Deemed Provisions empowers a local government to prepare a local planning policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the Scheme area. The provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions are clearly such a matter, and therefore the preparation of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report is authorised by the provisions of Clause 3. Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions reads as follows:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary

the site or development requirements under this clause. CONSULTATION

Subject to approval by Council as a draft for consultation purposes, community consultation on the content of the local planning policy which is the subject of this report will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. In this case, given the subject matter of the policy, it is recommended that consultation should include targeted engagement with specific stakeholders who are likely to have an interest in the matter, such as the State Heritage Office and Heritage Council, development industry peak bodies such as the UDIA, and community heritage interest groups e.g. the Fremantle Society. Consultation with Precinct Groups would occur in any


27 April 2016

Page 57

event under the requirements of LPP 1.3 in addition to general advertising via the local press and the City’s community engagement webpage.

PLANNING COMMENT

The full wording of the draft local planning policy is set out in the Officer’s Recommendation below. It has been developed from the principles endorsed by Council on 24 February 2016, as reproduced in the Background section above. In accordance with those principles, the key elements of the draft policy are as follows:

There must be a clearly demonstrated physical ‘nexus’ (meaning a relationship or connection) between the heritage purposes referred to in clause 12 (i.e. facilitation of the built heritage conservation of a State registered place or a place on the City’s heritage list under the Scheme, or the enhancement or preservation of heritage values in a heritage area) and the aspect of the proposed development which requires variation of a Scheme requirement in order for approval of the development to be entertained.

The extent of the demonstrated relationship must be strong enough to justify approving the development.

Where an application proposes a form of development that requires the exercise of discretion under clause 12 in order to be approved, the responsibility rests with the applicant to provide a clear written justification for the variation, explaining the rationale for the design of the proposed development and how it would satisfy the ‘nexus’ test. The policy expresses this obligation on the applicant as a requirement to submit a ‘Statement of Justification’ as part of the application.

The Statement of Justification must include an explanation of how the proposal addresses the criteria the decision-making body will use in assessing the proposal – i.e. the dot points in principle 3 from Council’s previous resolution as reproduced in the Background section above.

The City may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification to enable a properly informed judgement of the merits of the application to be made.

CONCLUSION

The draft policy set out in the recommendation below is closely based on principles previously endorsed by Council in its resolution of 24 February 2016. The purpose of the policy is to provide suitable guidance to applicants and decision-makers (the City of Fremantle on the exercise of the discretionary power provided by clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, in a form which is relevant to the context of planning and heritage issues in the City of Fremantle, to support a consistent and transparent approach to decision-making. Council is recommended to approve the draft policy for public consultation in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures and Council’s own policy on public consultation on planning proposals. Following the consultation period a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions received and a decision on final adoption of the policy.


27 April 2016

Page 58


That Council approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage reasons for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20

DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed Provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in

this Scheme to –

(c) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the

heritage list; or

(d) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

(2) A variation under subclause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development

requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (c) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions for

advertising uses under clause 64; and (d) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to vary

the site or development requirements under this clause.


27 April 2016

Page 59

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage purposes stated in clause 12(1). POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, would require the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions must include information which clearly demonstrates a physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the relationship) between the elements of the proposed development which require the variation and a heritage outcome which either (a) facilitates the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or (b) enhances or preserves heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in the form of a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it satisfies the relationship (or ‘nexus’) test referred to in (1) above, including how it addresses the following criteria:

There must be a net benefit to the public interest and the contribution the development makes to the public realm, e.g. streetscape, from the heritage outcome achieved through the variation.

The extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) should be the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcomes in question.

The variation should be proportionate to the heritage values and level of significance of the place/area. The Statement of Significance associated with the listing of the heritage place/area will be the basis of considering the proportionality of the relationship between the proposed development and its effect on heritage values.

There must be a demonstrable spatial relationship including a degree of proximity between the heritage ‘asset’ being conserved or enhanced and the development involving the variation.

The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant information in support of the written statement. The Statement of Justification should describe the significance of the affected heritage asset(s), including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail in the statement should be proportionate to the assets’ importance, and as a minimum the relevant statement of heritage significance should have been consulted.


27 April 2016

Page 60

The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage purposes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

3. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

4. The criteria set out in (2)i to (2)iv above will be applied by the decision-making

authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

5. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of the

exercise of discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval or require other measures, e.g. a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The details of the condition or agreement will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.

Cr J Strachan MOVED the following amended Officers Recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council approve the following draft Local Planning Policy 2.20 – Discretion to vary Local Planning Scheme site or development requirements for heritage reasons for the purposes of advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 4 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.20 DISCRETION TO VARY LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME SITE OR DEVELOPMENT

REQUIREMENTS FOR HERITAGE PURPOSES

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND


27 April 2016

Page 61

Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the deemed provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations (Deemed Provisions) are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme). Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions states:

(1) The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to – (a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the register

of Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or entered in the heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area. (2) A variation under sub-clause (1) may be unconditional or subject to any

conditions the local government considers appropriate.

(3) If the local government is of the opinion that the variation of site or development requirements is likely to affect any owners or occupiers in the general locality of the place or the heritage area the local government must – (a) consult the affected parties by following one or more of the provisions

for advertising uses under clause 64; and (b) have regard to any views expressed prior to making its determination to

vary the site or development requirements under this clause. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on the submission, assessment and determination of applications for development approval in cases where the decision-making authority may consider exercising its discretionary power under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Regulations to vary any site or development requirement specified in the Scheme in order to achieve one or more the heritage outcomes stated in clause 12(1)(a) or (b). POLICY

1. Any development application which, in order to be approved, requires the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions to vary any Scheme site or development requirement must include information which clearly demonstrates that an outcome of the proposed variation(s) will be to either:

a. facilitate the built heritage conservation of a heritage listed place; or b. enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area.

2. The information referred to in (1) above must be provided by the applicant in

the form of a written Statement of Justification. The Statement of Justification must provide a clear rationale for the design approach adopted for the proposed development which requires the variation, and also explain how it achieves one of the outcomes referred to in (1).

3. The Statement of Justification should address the following issues: a. the physical relationship (including the nature and extent of the

relationship) between the elements of the proposed development


27 April 2016

Page 62

which require the variation and one of the heritage outcomes referred to in (1);

b. whether and, if so, how the heritage outcomes achieved through the variations make a contribution to the public realm (e.g. streetscape);

c. whether the extent of the variation (e.g. additional building height) is the minimum necessary to achieve the heritage outcome;

d. the proportionality between the nature and extent of the variation sought and the heritage values and level of the heritage significance of the place or area;

e. the spatial relationship (including degree of proximity) between the place or heritage area (as the case may be) and the development in respect of which a variation is sought. The Statement of Justification may also address other issues which the applicant wishes the decision maker to consider.

4. The Statement of Justification may include drawings, photographs or other relevant information in support of the written statement. The local government may request the applicant to provide additional information prior to determination of the application if it does not consider sufficient information has been provided in the initial Statement of Justification submitted with the application to enable the decision-making authority to make a properly informed judgement regarding whether the proposed development will enable one or both of the heritage outcomes specified in clause 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Deemed Provisions to be achieved.

5. Development applications which seek to justify variations to Scheme site or

development requirements solely on the basis that financial benefit derived from the development will be used to fund heritage works will not be supported.

6. The matters set out in 3(a) to (3)(e) above will be considered by the decision-

making authority in assessing whether the relationship between a development proposal and the outcomes for a heritage place or area that would result from the proposed development, if it was approved, justify the exercise of discretion to vary any Scheme site or development requirement under the provisions of clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions.

7. When an application for development approval is granted on the basis of

the exercise of discretion to vary Scheme site or development requirements under clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions, the decision-making authority may impose conditions on the approval. Such conditions may include a requirement for a legal agreement between the local government and the owner of the land to which the approval relates, to ensure that the heritage outcome associated with the approved development is achieved when the development is undertaken. The requirements of any condition will depend upon the nature of the development the subject of the approval granted, and its relationship with the heritage outcome associated with the development.

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan


27 April 2016

Page 63

CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 64

PC1604-14 SCHEME AMENDMENT 69 BASIC SCHEME AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE SMALL SECONDARY DWELLINGS BY REMOVING SUNSET CLAUSE FROM LPS4 ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1010-201 – PSC 20 October 2010

PSC1101-12 – Council 25 January 2011 PSC1102-41 – Council 23 February 2011 PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

Attachments: PSC1107-136 - Council 27 July 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In late 2011, Small Secondary Dwellings were introduced into the Scheme as a planning response to the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population. Due to the Small Secondary Dwellings concept being a radical approach at the time precautionary measures were built into the Scheme Amendment whereby the Small Secondary provisions would cease to have effect five years from the date of gazettal. These provisions were designed to minimise risks and any concerns of the Western Australian Planning Commission on endorsing the amendment and ensure that the City would have the opportunity to reassess the provisions, if necessary prior to the five year time limit. This report recommends the deletion of the two Clauses within the Scheme relating to the time limit of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions prior to the provisions ceasing effect in their entirety. In order to ensure that the City retains the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions an approval from the Minister for Planning will need to be provided before 6 December 2016. Under the new Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) the timeframes for making an amendment to the Scheme are now prescribed which gives an indicative time on when an approval may be granted by the Minister. No modifications to the Scheme provisions for Small Secondary Dwellings are recommended as part of this report as a basic amendment is recommended (a simple text amendment with no consultation required) to ensure that the provisions relating to the five year time limit are deleted.


27 April 2016

Page 65

BACKGROUND

In early 2011, the City of Fremantle saw an opportunity in the planning system to more effectively enable the provision of small and more affordable housing types within established urban areas. This came as a response to lower levels of housing affordability, declining household sizes and City of Fremantle and state government strategic imperatives to provide for Perth’s future population.

The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were introduced to LPS4 on 6 December 2011 as part of Scheme amendment 46 (attachment 1) which was intended to assist as a planning mechanism that could allow for landowners with an existing Single House on a lot to potentially build an additional dwelling which would not be required to be rented by members of that family.

The planning system at the time of the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings provision however did not allow for members outside of the family occupying the main dwelling to live in an ancillary dwelling on site. This created a significant gap in housing typologies for small scale housing options. This formed one of the fundamental principles behind the introduction of Small Secondary Dwellings which would essentially eliminate the requirement for the occupants of the additional dwelling to be a family member. The Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were considered to be radical at the time due to the deviation from the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and that the provisions were at the time untested within Western Australia. The untested nature of the provisions was the basis behind incorporating the ‘sunset’ Clause which limited the duration

of the provisions effect under the Scheme to 5 years. This would allow for the provisions to be reviewed if necessary after the 5 year duration to ensure the City and the Commission remained to be satisfied with the provisions. In 2012 a review of the R-Codes introduced a similar approach to the Small Secondary Dwellings whereby the occupants of a Dwelling could be unrelated to the residents occupying the main dwelling on site. More recently, the changes to the Regulations that took effect in late 2015 have also provided additional opportunity for Ancillary Dwelling developments with provisions now allowing for certain exemptions from the need to obtain planning approval. Notwithstanding the changes to the R-Codes and the Regulations, differences remain between the ancillary dwelling provisions and the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions which provide a suite of options for residents and landowners within Fremantle. The receptiveness by Local Governments, the State Government, landowners and occupiers of Small Secondary Dwellings and Ancillary Dwellings has irrefutably increased since 2011. Notwithstanding the changes to the ancillary dwelling provisions of the R-Codes and the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, the increased awareness that the Small Secondary Dwellings has bought to Fremantle has continued to encourage residents and landowners to consider these alternative housing options. The success of Small Secondary Dwellings was also recognised by the Planning Institute of Australia by being awarded the Planning Ministers Award and Best Planning Ideas Large Projects 2012 and Planner of the Year 2012 by the Local Government Planners Association.


27 April 2016

Page 66

PLANNING COMMENT

Current Planning Framework Since the introduction of the Small Secondary Dwellings to the Scheme in 2011 there have been modifications to the R-Codes and most recently to the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, which have significantly influenced ancillary dwellings. The changes to the R-Codes in 2012 removed the provision relating to who can occupy an ancillary dwelling while the changes to the deemed provisions now outlines certain development which is exempt from the need to obtain planning approval. While these changes have a significant impact on the advantage of ancillary dwellings it is considered that Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide an alternative response to diverse housing options within Fremantle. Changes to the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Codes Many of the principles adopted as part of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions were a response to the limitations experienced with the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and the impact this was having on the accessibility to alternative housing options. The most significant deviations from the R-Codes included the ability for independent occupancy of the dwelling, the exclusion of open space and car parking requirements, exclusion of a minimum lot size requirement and when specific criteria are achieved the exemption for the need to obtain planning approval. In 2012 a review of the Ancillary Dwelling provisions within the R-Code removed the provision relating to the occupant of the dwelling, which therefore allowed non family members to occupy the dwelling. This significantly changed the feasibility to this form of housing type and now allowed a greater flexibility as a Design Principle assessment could be used to assess dwellings that did not meet the acceptable design criteria. This has meant that the advantage of applying for an ancillary dwelling increased during this time however the certainty of receiving a planning approval was only achievable when all the acceptable development criteria were met. This has meant that while there has been an increased popularity towards ancillary dwellings, the Small Secondary Dwellings have continued to provide alternative benefit options. Introduction of Deemed Provisions within the Regulations The 2012 revision to the R-Codes removed the ‘family member only’ occupancy requirements however the requirement to obtain planning approval remained in place until

the inclusion of the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations were introduced in late 2015. One of the major changes that were introduced as part of the Regulations have been the Deemed Provisions which now outlines development for which a development approval is not required. This now allows for Ancillary Dwellings to be exempt from requiring planning approval when they meet all of the acceptable development criteria of the R-Codes and are not located within a Heritage Area and are not listed on the Municipal Heritage Inventory or State Heritage List.


27 April 2016

Page 67

Small Secondary Dwellings already have a similar provision within the Scheme, which allows for the dwelling to be exempt when certain criteria are achieved. The criteria for achieving this exemption differs from the acceptable development provisions for ancillary dwellings and allows for an alternative options for landowners, should they wish to have the certainty of being able to build one of these housing types. In addition to the Small Secondary Dwellings having the ability of being exempt from requiring planning approval, there are also provisions, which relate to the advertising of applications that require approval. This also provides a level of certainty to the approval process for Small Secondary Dwellings and in which circumstances advertising is necessary. It is considered that the Small Secondary Dwellings continue to provide a diverse housing option unique to Fremantle Review Opportunities Diverse housing options have continually been a theme that the City has placed significant focus upon. It is considered that it is essential to retain the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions within the Scheme to ensure that a suite of diverse housing options are available for Fremantle residents and landowners. It has therefore been recommended that only the removal of the sunset Clauses is carried out in the immediate future to ensure that the entirety of the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions are not lost. This report primarily notes the importance of retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions however it is envisioned that the opportunity for review of specific provisions can be integrated with the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review process which is anticipated to begin in late 2016. In addition to the Local Planning Strategy and Scheme Review Council has recently resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group, which could contribute towards a broader directional focus on Fremantle’s diverse housing options and has the potential to incorporate Small Secondary Dwellings within this initiative. Basic Scheme amendment On 19 October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 came into effect, which replaced certain process provisions under the City’s LPS4. This includes provisions relating to scheme amendments. The Regulations apply a tiered approach to scheme amendments; basic, standard and complex amendments. These amendments have differing timeframes that are now prescribed within the Regulations which are dependent upon the complexity of the amendment. Based on the indicative timeframes outlined within the Regulations a Basic Scheme amendment could potentially be endorsed by the Minister for Planning and gazetted sometime in September 2016. It is considered that the basic Scheme amendment process outlined within the Regulations is appropriate for the removal of the sunset Clause. However any additional changes to the Scheme provisions would not be


27 April 2016

Page 68

considered basic and the standard Scheme amendment process would need to be followed. This process could not feasibly be achieved before the five year expiry date under the sunset clause (6 December 2016) and therefore is not recommended as it could prejudice retaining the Small Secondary Dwelling provisions as a whole. CONCLUSION The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to delete the sunset Clauses contained within the Scheme that relate to the Small Secondary Dwellings duration. The deleting of these Clauses has been recommended as this will follow the basic scheme amendment process which is envisioned by officers to be completed prior to 6 December 2016 when the Small Secondary Dwelling Clauses will otherwise no longer have effect in the Scheme. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt a basic amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The amendment is adopted as follows:

i. Delete the following Clause in its entirety:

Under Part 5 – General Development Requirements

5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.

Cr J Strachan MOVED a minor amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

The Council forms the opinion that this is a basic amendment because it is an amendment of a type referred to in regulation 34 which states that a basic amendment includes “an amendment to the scheme so that it is consistent with the model provisions in Schedule 1 or with another provision of the local planning scheme”.


27 April 2016

Page 69


For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

To provide clarification on the reason why the amendment is considered to be a basic amendment in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to adopt a basic amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The amendment is adopted as follows:

i. Delete the following Clause in its entirety:

Under Part 5 – General Development Requirements

5.3.5.7 Except for the definitions of ‘grouped dwelling’, ‘small secondary dwelling’ and ‘single house’ all provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings shall cease to have effect on the date of the fifth anniversary after publication in the Gazette of the amendment introducing those provisions into the scheme.

5.3.5.8 Any small secondary dwelling approved, constructed or substantially commenced before the date on which the provisions of the scheme referring to small secondary dwellings cease operation shall thereafter be subject to clauses 4.8 to 4.12.

The Council forms the opinion that this is a basic amendment because it is an amendment of a type referred to in regulation 34 which states that a basic amendment includes “an amendment to the scheme so that it is consistent with


27 April 2016

Page 70

the model provisions in Schedule 1 or with another provision of the local planning scheme”.


For Against



27 April 2016

Page 71

PC1604-15 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.3 MINOR AMENDMENT TO ALIGN LPP1.3 WITH THE NEW PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 117/024 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 6 April 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1511-9 Attachments: Local Planning Policy 1.3

Previous item PSC1511-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 25 November 2015 Council resolved to initiate a series of key actions required for the integration of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) with the City’s current planning framework. The Regulations were gazetted on 25 August 2015 and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. This report forms one of the immediate actions identified as a necessary modification to the City’s current planning framework in order to create consistency with the Regulations. The purpose of this report is to update Local Planning Policy 1.3 to reflect the changes made as part of the introduction of the Regulations, specifically in relation to advertising time frames. BACKGROUND

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect on 19 October 2015. The new regulations represent a significant change to procedural aspects of the statutory and strategic planning system in Western Australia. As a result of these changes to the Regulations some aspects of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (the Scheme) and Local Planning Policies will require modification in order to ensure conformity with the Regulations. At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 November 2015 Council resolved that a basic amendment was required for Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals. The primary modifications that are required relate to the changes in advertising timeframes that are now outlined within the Regulations. Additionally Local Planning Policy 1.3, also makes reference to Clauses within the Scheme that are no longer contained within the Scheme as these have also been superseded by the Regulations. These references require updating to reflect the correct reference that is now contained within the Regulations.


27 April 2016

Page 72

PLANNIG COMMENT Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 The Regulations, as touched on above, have introduced a number of changes to planning process within Western Australia. The extent of the changes to the Regulations affecting the City of Fremantle’s strategic and statutory planning systems has been detailed previously in PSC1511-9 (Attachment 2) and is therefore not discussed in detail within this report. Among the changes the processes for public consultation and advertising for planning applications, structure plans, local development plans, local planning policies and scheme amendments have now been explicitly outlined within the Regulations and are no longer governed by Local Planning Schemes. Along with the main changes to the Regulations, those changes that affect LPP1.3 are primarily the duration of advertising notices and points of reference made to the Scheme which are now governed under the Regulations. These changes form the basis behind this amendment to LPP1.3. Track-based Scheme Amendments The introduction of a track-based approach to scheme amendments has differentiated the varying levels of complexity between scheme amendments and specified different timeframes depending on an amendment’s classification. The inclusion of standard and complex scheme amendments and their separate timeframes will need to be included within the table in Part 5 of the policy. The duration of notice for a standard and complex scheme amendment differ and therefore have been included separately within the table. Basic scheme amendments have not been included within the policy as these amendments do not require public advertising. Changes to Duration of notice Changes to the duration of advertising periods are now prescribed within the Regulations specifically for Scheme amendments (now standard and complex), Structure Plans, Local Development Plans and Local Planning Policy. It is noted that the duration for public notice prescribed for development applications remains the same as currently outlined within LPP1.3 and therefore does not require amendment.

Current duration

Duration required as per the Regulations

Scheme Amendments (Standard)

42 days unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Not less than 42 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Scheme Amendments (Complex)

Not less than 60 days, unless agreed otherwise by the WAPC

Structure Plans 42 days Not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days

Local Development Plans (previously referred to as Detailed Area Plans)

28 days Not less than 14 days

Local Planning Policy 28 days Not less than 21 days


27 April 2016

Page 73

Reference to Local Planning Scheme no. 4 Provisions The report recently presented to Council on Basic Scheme Amendment 67 made several administrative changes to the Scheme as part of the necessary updates to ensure the City’s planning instruments are consistent with the new Regulations. These changes included the removal of any provisions that are now governed under the Regulations. To date, the City has approved and is awaiting determination from the Planning Minister for the Basic Scheme Amendment which will update these changes to the sections of the Scheme now governed under the Regulations. In light of these changes, LPP1.3 will also need to be amended to remove these same references to the Scheme provision which are currently going through the process of being removed from the Scheme. The relevant provisions previously referenced by LPP1.3 will need to be amended to reflect the appropriate provisions within the Regulations. Local Planning Policy 1.3 makes reference to several clauses contained within the Scheme that are now governed by the Regulations, including reference to:

Clause 6.2.6.1 – A proposed structure plan is to contain the following details

Clause 8.3 – Amending or revoking planning approval

Clause 9.4 – Advertising of applications

Clause 10.8 – Approval subject to later approval of details Local Planning Policy 1.3 will now reference the following provisions contained within the Regulations:

LPS4 provision to be replaced

Regulation provisions replacement

Clause 6.2.6.1 Clause 16 – Preparation of a structure plan

Clause 8.3 Clause 77 – Amending or cancelling development approval

Clause 9.4 Clause 64 – Advertising applications

Clause 10.8 Clause 74 – Approval subject to later approval of details

It is also noted that Detailed Area Plans are also currently referenced within LPP1.3 however Detailed Area Plans have been renamed since this time and are now referred to as Local Development Plans. Minor Amendment to Local Planning Policy The changes to the Regulations also modify how Local Planning Policies are amended and in what instance advertising is required. Under Cl. 5 (2) of the Deemed Provisions a local government may make an amendment to a local planning policy without advertising the amendment if, in the opinion of the local government, the amendment is a minor amendment. The amendment to LPP1.3 is considered to be a minor amendment due to the administrative nature of the changes proposed. Any other changes that are not administrative and classified as significant would require the Local Planning Policy to be advertised in accordance with the Regulations. Officers have not recommended any additional changes to the policy as the administrative


27 April 2016

Page 74

amendments were identified as an immediate action by Council on 25 November 2015 (Attachment 2). CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council resolves to make the necessary amendments to ensure that LPP1.3 is consistent with the new requirements for consultations as per the Regulations. It is proposed that an administrative amendment is carried out which is not considered to be a significant change to the existing local planning policy and therefore would not require the advertising of these changes. It is noted that any additional modifications would therefore not be considered to be a minor modification and would require further consultation to be carried out. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council adopts the amended local planning policy, LPP1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, without modification, as below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE


Public Notification of Planning Proposals

ADOPTION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 and 9 July 2013 AMENDED: 25 MAY 2011, 26 June 2013, 27 April 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4; RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

CODES (2010); PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

INTRODUCTION This policy provides guidance on the exercise of discretion under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in terms of when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The opinions of affected property owners and the general public can inform but cannot be a substitute for the exercise of professional advice by City officers. This policy does not replace or alter the Council’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, 1992. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES


27 April 2016

Page 75

1) To provide for a consistent approach on the circumstances when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, of planning proposals,

2) To recognise the balance between the need for the community to be informed of, and have reasonable opportunity for input into, planning proposals, and the administrative need to process planning proposals in an efficient manner, and within prescribed statutory timeframes.

SCOPE OF THE POLICY This policy is applicable to the entire municipal area of the City of Fremantle and will be applied by the City when making discretionary decisions relating to public notice of planning proposals. Planning proposals in the context of this policy include development applications; Structure Plans; Scheme Amendments and Local Development Plan. For the purposes of this policy, in circumstances where consultation is undertaken it will include both the owners and occupiers of properties that, in the opinion of the City, may be affected by the proposal and/or other stakeholders where these are identified. The Policy also applies to Planning Applications for which the Council is not the final decision making authority. STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Regulations include provisions relating to the giving of public notice of development applications, Structure Plans, Local Development Plan and Local Planning Polices. Some requirements relating to the public notice of development applications are mandatory, while others provide the Council with discretion as to whether a proposal is advertised and the method of that advertising. The Regulations 2015 prescribe the means of public notice of a Local Planning Scheme amendment, and provide the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister with discretion to determine additional means of notice. Part 4 of the Residential Design Codes requires that the Council notify potentially affected neighbours in certain circumstances. POLICY 1. Requirement to give public notice of certain planning applications under

clause 64 of the Regulations.

In addition to where notice is prescribed by the Regulations, public notice will also be given of the following Planning Applications prior to consideration for approval where the application: a) involves the complete demolition of a building where the building is

located on a site listed on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme or within a Heritage Area designated under clause 7.2 of the Scheme,

OR


27 April 2016

Page 76

(b) involves a subdivision or survey strata creating more than twenty (20) lots and the proposal has not previously been advertised as part of a Scheme Amendment or Structure Plan,

OR (c) Involves a significant exercise of discretion in terms of the Local Planning

Scheme, Residential Design Codes or Policy provisions

OR

(d) Has significant strategic planning impacts in terms of the implementation of a strategic planning objective, the scale of the development, or are significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use within the locality.

1.1 Notwithstanding the above, planning proposals that do not meet the above criteria are able to be advertised, at the discretion of the Manager/Coordinator Statutory Planning if it is considered in the public interest to do so.

2. Significant planning applications

Where a planning application meets any 2 of the criteria above, that application shall be considered to be a significant application in terms of this policy.

3. Evidence of non objection

Notwithstanding the above, the Council will waive the notification requirements in respect of residential planning applications involving the exercise of discretion under the Residential Design Codes or Council Policy in cases where: (a) The application involves the notification of one neighbour only (see note 4

at the end of this policy), OR (b) The applicant provides a copy of the plan including a certification by the

owners and occupiers of the adjoining property stating that they have no objections to the proposal. Signatures should include all persons shown as owners on the Certificate of Title and ownership details will be confirmed. The certification must include:

The full name of the owner/s or occupier/s certifying non objection clearly printed in capital letters and a signature;

A statement printed in capital letters indicating no objection to the proposal; and

A current contact address printed in capital letters and a contact telephone number.

4. Refusal of applications without giving of public notice

Any planning proposal may be refused by the Council without the giving of public notice.

5. Means and duration of notice of planning proposals


27 April 2016

Page 77

Standard

application Significant application

Scheme Amendments Structure Plan and Local Development Plan

Local Planning Policy Standard Complex

Time period (1)

14 days 28 days Not less than 42 days

unless agreed otherwise by WAPC

Not less than 60 days


SP – not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days. LDP – not less than 14 days.


Local newspaper notice (2)

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sign on site (3)

No Yes Yes, if rezoning is proposed for land

Yes Yes No

Notice to owners and occupiers

Yes, adjoining properties only (4)

Yes, 100m radius (5)




No

Web site No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Precinct groups (6)


Community Information session (7)

No Yes Yes (8) Yes (8) Yes No

Government Gazette

No No Yes Yes No No

Numbers in brackets ( ) refer to Explanatory Notes at the end of this policy.

6. Additional public notice of proposal previously advertised

(a) Where a planning proposal is subsequently modified prior to its final

determination and additional variations arise from the modifications; or

(b) Where an application to amend an existing planning approval is received

under clause 77 of the Regulations, and additional variations arise from the

proposed amendments;

Additional public notice shall be given in the same manner under the provisions of this policy as if the modified/amended proposal was received as a new development application.


27 April 2016

Page 78

7. Amendments to Structure Plans

Amendments considered to be minor amendments to a Structure Plan are not required to be advertised under Clause 29 (3) of the Regulations. Public notice will be given of any other application to vary a Structure Plan as if it were a new plan.

8. Approval subject to later approval of details

Where a planning application has been approved subject to later approval of details under Clause 74 of the Regulations the subject applications for further approval will not be notified for public comment unless specified in the original approval or required by the Scheme and/or policy.

9. Planning Proposals where the Council is not the final decision maker

Public notice will be given of planning proposals where the Council is not the decision maker in the same way as those where the final decision is made by the Council. A full copy of any submissions received will be forwarded to the decision maker. Council is not responsible for informing any submitter of the decision maker’s final decision.

10. Holiday periods

An additional 14 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this Policy where any part of the notification period falls within the following dates: (a) Between 15 December and 15 January (b) Between one week before and one week after Easter Sunday

11. Notification of interested parties that a matter is listed on a Council Standing

Committee Agenda

(a) Applications for approval to commence a use or to commence or carry out development – the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

(b) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have not previously been advertised – regardless of the recommendation of any report, notification that an item that affects the development potential of land will be considered by a Standing Committee will be undertaken in accordance with Explanatory Note (4) and will also include the landowner and the applicant.

(c) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have previously been advertised - the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

Should a Standing Committee refer the item to full Council for determination, the same parties referred to above shall also be notified of the date of the Council meeting. In all cases, staff will endeavor to ensure that the written notification is mailed on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting date.


27 April 2016

Page 79

12. Notification of the Council/Committee/City decision

The applicant, the owner and all authors of written submissions will be advised of the decision of the Council/Committee/City in the form of a written notification of the decision and any associated conditions, advisory notes or refusal reasons.

13. Availability of documents

All plans and written information forming part of the proposal shall be made available for public viewing and access during the public notice period of that proposal. The documentation may be viewed at the City’s Service and Information counter without an appointment and copies of the plans and related information will be provided on request. When a development application is submitted, the plans and written information forming part of the proposal will be copied and given to an interested party on request during the public notice period. On this basis making an application for development approval is taken as having given consent to the City providing to members of the public copies of plans and written information forming part of the proposal.

14. Requests for changes to public notice periods

Requests for extensions or reductions of public notice periods prescribed by this policy will not be approved by staff. Staff will make every reasonable effort to make the Council aware of any submissions received after closure of notice periods.

15. Opportunity for applicant to respond to submissions

Copies of written submissions will be given to the applicant to provide the applicant the opportunity to respond to issues raised in any submissions. Personal details such as names, telephone numbers and addresses however will not be given to the applicant.

16. Submissions reported to Council Officer reports to Council will include a summary of the issues raised in any of the submissions received as part of the advertising process. If the text of a submission is to be included in the report, the author’s personal details will not be identified. Full copies of submissions are available to Elected Members upon request but will not be made available to members of the public unless required by law. Where an interested party does not respond to an invitation to make a submission on a proposal, Council will not view this as signifying no objection to that proposal.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

(1) For development applications the time period shall be deemed to have commenced one day after the date shown on the letters that are sent to owners and occupiers by the City. For all other planning proposals the time


27 April 2016

Page 80

period for advertising shall commence on the date public notice is published in a local newspaper.

(2) A local newspaper notice is an in a local newspaper, run for two consecutive

weeks during the advertising period. Newspaper notices are arranged by the City with the costs payable by the applicant.

(3) A sign on the site shall be erected in a prominent position on the site to the

satisfaction of Council. Where land subject to a proposal has more than one street frontage or where a site is very large, the applicant shall locate one sign in a prominent location and shall provide sufficient additional signs on each street alignment. The sign/s should be erected on the property boundary or within 0.5m of the boundary and be clearly visible from outside of the property boundary. The sign/s should be maintained in a good condition for the duration of the advertising period. The City will provide the specific requirements of the sign (eg timing, lettering size and overall sign dimensions) to the applicant after the application is lodged a preliminary assessment is made as to whether a sign on site is required. Any signage will be in accordance with the City’s Style Guide. Responsibility for the costs, erection, maintenance and removal of sign/s lies with the applicant.

(4) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all abutting properties (those sharing any common boundary and including diagonally opposite or those separated by a right-of-way or access way less then 6.0m in width) as shown at examples a, b and c below excepting in the case of an application for discretionary approval relating to a side or rear setback variation behind the building line, or to the privacy requirements contained within Element 6.8 of the Residential Design Codes 2010, where only the owner/occupier of the property onto whose boundary the discretion is sought will be notified.

Example (a) Example (b)

Example (c)

Subject

Site

Subject

Site


27 April 2016

Page 81

(5) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all properties which fall wholly

or partly within a radius of 100 metres from the boundary of the subject land

on which the development is proposed.

(6) The Precinct groups will be requested to formally comment on all applications under this policy other than standard applications. Precinct groups will be given the standard consultation period.

(7) A community information session on the proposal will be held with invitation

extended to Elected Members, interested community members, and applicants. The information session will be held during the public consultation period, normally at least one week prior to completion to enable participants to make a formal written submission to Council after the session.

(8) Community information sessions are only required for significant scheme

amendments. A significant scheme amendment as determined by the Manager Planning Policy and Projects would include (but not limited to) large scale rezoning, an amendment that has significant strategic planning impacts or an amendment that is significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use in the area.

Cr J Strachan MOVED a minor amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: That Council adopts the amendment to Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, which is considered to be a minor amendment to the local planning policy in accordance with Cl.5(2) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as below:


For Against


27 April 2016

Page 82


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To provide clarification that the amendment to the Local Planning Policy is considered a minor amendment under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as per the procedure set out in Schedule 2 Deemed Provisions Part 2 Cl.5 (2).

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council adopts the amendment to Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals, which is considered to be a minor amendment to the local planning policy in accordance with Cl.5(2) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, as below:

CITY OF FREMANTLE


Public Notification of Planning Proposals

ADOPTION DATE: 28 MAY 2008 and 9 July 2013 AMENDED: 25 MAY 2011, 26 June 2013, 27 April 2016 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4; RESIDENTIAL DESIGN

CODES (2010); PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (LOCAL PLANNING SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2015

INTRODUCTION This policy provides guidance on the exercise of discretion under Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in terms of when public notice is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations). The opinions of affected


27 April 2016

Page 83

property owners and the general public can inform but cannot be a substitute for the exercise of professional advice by City officers. This policy does not replace or alter the Council’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, 1992. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1) To provide for a consistent approach on the circumstances when public notice

is given, and the means and duration of public notice periods, of planning proposals,

2) To recognise the balance between the need for the community to be informed of, and have reasonable opportunity for input into, planning proposals, and the administrative need to process planning proposals in an efficient manner, and within prescribed statutory timeframes.

SCOPE OF THE POLICY This policy is applicable to the entire municipal area of the City of Fremantle and will be applied by the City when making discretionary decisions relating to public notice of planning proposals. Planning proposals in the context of this policy include development applications; Structure Plans; Scheme Amendments and Local Development Plan. For the purposes of this policy, in circumstances where consultation is undertaken it will include both the owners and occupiers of properties that, in the opinion of the City, may be affected by the proposal and/or other stakeholders where these are identified. The Policy also applies to Planning Applications for which the Council is not the final decision making authority. STATUTORY BACKGROUND The Regulations include provisions relating to the giving of public notice of development applications, Structure Plans, Local Development Plan and Local Planning Polices. Some requirements relating to the public notice of development applications are mandatory, while others provide the Council with discretion as to whether a proposal is advertised and the method of that advertising. The Regulations 2015 prescribe the means of public notice of a Local Planning Scheme amendment, and provide the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister with discretion to determine additional means of notice. Part 4 of the Residential Design Codes requires that the Council notify potentially affected neighbours in certain circumstances. POLICY 1. Requirement to give public notice of certain planning applications under

clause 64 of the Regulations.

In addition to where notice is prescribed by the Regulations, public notice will also be given of the following Planning Applications prior to consideration for approval where the application: a) involves the complete demolition of a building where the building is

located on a site listed on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, on the Heritage List under clause


27 April 2016

Page 84

7.1 of the Scheme or within a Heritage Area designated under clause 7.2 of the Scheme,

OR (b) involves a subdivision or survey strata creating more than twenty (20) lots

and the proposal has not previously been advertised as part of a Scheme Amendment or Structure Plan,

OR (c) Involves a significant exercise of discretion in terms of the Local Planning

Scheme, Residential Design Codes or Policy provisions

OR

(d) Has significant strategic planning impacts in terms of the implementation of a strategic planning objective, the scale of the development, or are significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use within the locality.

1.1 Notwithstanding the above, planning proposals that do not meet the above criteria are able to be advertised, at the discretion of the Manager/Coordinator Statutory Planning if it is considered in the public interest to do so.

2. Significant planning applications

Where a planning application meets any 2 of the criteria above, that application shall be considered to be a significant application in terms of this policy.

3. Evidence of non objection

Notwithstanding the above, the Council will waive the notification requirements in respect of residential planning applications involving the exercise of discretion under the Residential Design Codes or Council Policy in cases where: (a) The application involves the notification of one neighbour only (see note 4

at the end of this policy), OR (b) The applicant provides a copy of the plan including a certification by the

owners and occupiers of the adjoining property stating that they have no objections to the proposal. Signatures should include all persons shown as owners on the Certificate of Title and ownership details will be confirmed. The certification must include:

The full name of the owner/s or occupier/s certifying non objection clearly printed in capital letters and a signature;

A statement printed in capital letters indicating no objection to the proposal; and

A current contact address printed in capital letters and a contact telephone number.

4. Refusal of applications without giving of public notice

Any planning proposal may be refused by the Council without the giving of public notice.


27 April 2016

Page 85

5. Means and duration of notice of planning proposals Standard

application Significant application

Scheme Amendments Structure Plan and Local Development Plan

Local Planning Policy Standard Complex

Time period (1)

14 days 28 days Not less than 42 days




SP – not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days. LDP – not less than 14 days.


Local newspaper notice (2)


Sign on site (3)

No Yes Yes, if rezoning is proposed for land

Yes Yes No

Notice to owners and occupiers

Yes, adjoining properties only (4)





No

Web site No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Precinct groups (6)


Community Information session (7)

No Yes Yes (8) Yes (8) Yes No

Government Gazette

No No Yes Yes No No

Numbers in brackets ( ) refer to Explanatory Notes at the end of this policy.

6. Additional public notice of proposal previously advertised

(a) Where a planning proposal is subsequently modified prior to its final

determination and additional variations arise from the modifications; or

(b) Where an application to amend an existing planning approval is received

under clause 77 of the Regulations, and additional variations arise from the

proposed amendments;


27 April 2016

Page 86

Additional public notice shall be given in the same manner under the provisions of this policy as if the modified/amended proposal was received as a new development application.

7. Amendments to Structure Plans

Amendments considered to be minor amendments to a Structure Plan are not required to be advertised under Clause 29 (3) of the Regulations. Public notice will be given of any other application to vary a Structure Plan as if it were a new plan.

8. Approval subject to later approval of details

Where a planning application has been approved subject to later approval of details under Clause 74 of the Regulations the subject applications for further approval will not be notified for public comment unless specified in the original approval or required by the Scheme and/or policy.

9. Planning Proposals where the Council is not the final decision maker

Public notice will be given of planning proposals where the Council is not the decision maker in the same way as those where the final decision is made by the Council. A full copy of any submissions received will be forwarded to the decision maker. Council is not responsible for informing any submitter of the decision maker’s final decision.

10. Holiday periods

An additional 14 days will be added to any notice period prescribed under this Policy where any part of the notification period falls within the following dates: (a) Between 15 December and 15 January (b) Between one week before and one week after Easter Sunday

11. Notification of interested parties that a matter is listed on a Council Standing

Committee Agenda

(a) Applications for approval to commence a use or to commence or carry out development – the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

(b) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have not previously been advertised – regardless of the recommendation of any report, notification that an item that affects the development potential of land will be considered by a Standing Committee will be undertaken in accordance with Explanatory Note (4) and will also include the landowner and the applicant.

(c) Planning proposals that alter the development potential of land which have previously been advertised - the landowner, applicant and all parties who have made a submission will be notified in writing of the date at which an item will be listed on a Standing Committee agenda.

Should a Standing Committee refer the item to full Council for determination, the same parties referred to above shall also be notified of the date of the Council meeting.


27 April 2016

Page 87

In all cases, staff will endeavor to ensure that the written notification is mailed on the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting date.

12. Notification of the Council/Committee/City decision

The applicant, the owner and all authors of written submissions will be advised of the decision of the Council/Committee/City in the form of a written notification of the decision and any associated conditions, advisory notes or refusal reasons.

13. Availability of documents

All plans and written information forming part of the proposal shall be made available for public viewing and access during the public notice period of that proposal. The documentation may be viewed at the City’s Service and Information counter without an appointment and copies of the plans and related information will be provided on request. When a development application is submitted, the plans and written information forming part of the proposal will be copied and given to an interested party on request during the public notice period. On this basis making an application for development approval is taken as having given consent to the City providing to members of the public copies of plans and written information forming part of the proposal.

14. Requests for changes to public notice periods

Requests for extensions or reductions of public notice periods prescribed by this policy will not be approved by staff. Staff will make every reasonable effort to make the Council aware of any submissions received after closure of notice periods.

15. Opportunity for applicant to respond to submissions

Copies of written submissions will be given to the applicant to provide the applicant the opportunity to respond to issues raised in any submissions. Personal details such as names, telephone numbers and addresses however will not be given to the applicant.

16. Submissions reported to Council Officer reports to Council will include a summary of the issues raised in any of the submissions received as part of the advertising process. If the text of a submission is to be included in the report, the author’s personal details will not be identified. Full copies of submissions are available to Elected Members upon request but will not be made available to members of the public unless required by law. Where an interested party does not respond to an invitation to make a submission on a proposal, Council will not view this as signifying no objection to that proposal.


27 April 2016

Page 88

EXPLANATORY NOTES

(1) For development applications the time period shall be deemed to have commenced one day after the date shown on the letters that are sent to owners and occupiers by the City. For all other planning proposals the time period for advertising shall commence on the date public notice is published in a local newspaper.

(2) A local newspaper notice is an in a local newspaper, run for two consecutive

weeks during the advertising period. Newspaper notices are arranged by the City with the costs payable by the applicant.

(3) A sign on the site shall be erected in a prominent position on the site to the

satisfaction of Council. Where land subject to a proposal has more than one street frontage or where a site is very large, the applicant shall locate one sign in a prominent location and shall provide sufficient additional signs on each street alignment. The sign/s should be erected on the property boundary or within 0.5m of the boundary and be clearly visible from outside of the property boundary. The sign/s should be maintained in a good condition for the duration of the advertising period. The City will provide the specific requirements of the sign (eg timing, lettering size and overall sign dimensions) to the applicant after the application is lodged a preliminary assessment is made as to whether a sign on site is required. Any signage will be in accordance with the City’s Style Guide. Responsibility for the costs, erection, maintenance and removal of sign/s lies with the applicant.

(4) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all abutting properties (those sharing any common boundary and including diagonally opposite or those separated by a right-of-way or access way less then 6.0m in width) as shown at examples a, b and c below excepting in the case of an application for discretionary approval relating to a side or rear setback variation behind the building line, or to the privacy requirements contained within Element 6.8 of the Residential Design Codes 2010, where only the owner/occupier of the property onto whose boundary the discretion is sought will be notified.

Example (a) Example (b)

Subject

Site

Subject

Site


27 April 2016

Page 89

Example (c)

(5) Means a letter to all owners and occupiers of all properties which fall wholly

or partly within a radius of 100 metres from the boundary of the subject land

on which the development is proposed.

(6) The Precinct groups will be requested to formally comment on all applications under this policy other than standard applications. Precinct groups will be given the standard consultation period.

(7) A community information session on the proposal will be held with invitation

extended to Elected Members, interested community members, and applicants. The information session will be held during the public consultation period, normally at least one week prior to completion to enable participants to make a formal written submission to Council after the session.

(8) Community information sessions are only required for significant scheme

amendments. A significant scheme amendment as determined by the Manager Planning Policy and Projects would include (but not limited to) large scale rezoning, an amendment that has significant strategic planning impacts or an amendment that is significantly different from the predominant and expected pattern of land use in the area.


27 April 2016

Page 90


For Against



27 April 2016

Page 91

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 20 APRIL 2016

Cr B Jones left the meeting at 8.47pm prior to consideration of the following item and did not return. Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered FPOL1604-6, FPOL1604-7, FPOL1604-8, FPOL1604-9, FPOL1604-13, FPOL1604-14, and FPOL1604-15 SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

The following item number FPOL1604-6 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

FPOL1604-6 2017/18 METROPOLITAN REGIONAL ROAD GROUP SUBMISSION

ECM Reference: 106/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Phillip Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Opus International Consultants – Draft Summary

Investigation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year, the City is invited to submit for consideration projects qualifying for the Metropolitan Regional Road Group Rehabilitation Program. The closing date for submissions for the 2017/18 MRRG program is 29th of April and advice of the successful projects funded will be provided in May 2017. There is a limit of $750,000 that the City can apply in relation to grant funding for MRRG projects. The City will then be required to contribute a further $375,000 to take the total programme cost to$1,125,000. Infrastructure Projects is requesting


27 April 2016

Page 92

that additional projects be included above this figure to create a stock of reserve projects. Where possible, the proposed projects will also incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities. Any additional work (other than line markings) to accommodate these facilities will need to be sourced from other budgets.

BACKGROUND

The Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) Rehabilitation Program has been created to provide the basis of an unbiased approach to determining the condition and importance of potential grant funded rehabilitation projects. Each project is assessed using the approved accumulative points scoring system that considers road condition, surface age, volume of traffic and number of buses using the road. For the road condition, points are calculated whereby the total observed percentage of each defect is estimated and then multiplied by its level of severity by the factors of LOW – 3 points, MEDIUM – 5 points and HIGH – 7 points. The total points score of each defect are then given a weighting in relation to the severity of the defect or the disadvantages that the defect causes to the general motoring public i.e. ponding, roughness etc. The accumulated scores and points are submitted using the Project Assessment Form or similar. The following criteria apply to all MRRG rehabilitation submissions:

• All District Distributor A and B roads are applicable for funding with no required minimum number of vehicles per day (vpd).

• All Local Distributor roads carrying greater than 2,000 vpd are applicable for funding. Local Distributors that carry less than 2,000 vpd, but have a calculated Equivalent Standard Axles (ESA) design traffic volume for a 20 year life of greater than 1 x 106 are also applicable for funding. All Sections on Local Distributor roads should be supported with a copy of a full week classified traffic count contained within the grant submission. Where a Section on a Local Distributor has less than 2,000 vpd, evidence should also be given as to how the future ESA volume has been calculated, including reasons for the growth factor and percentage of commercial vehicles chosen.

• Access Roads are not applicable for funding. • All Sections must have a minimum score of 700 points for the condition

assessment. Projects below this threshold will not be considered for funding. • A pavement investigation and design is required for all submissions.

COMMENT

The City of Fremantle engaged Opus International Consultants to prepare a Road Rehabilitation Project Submission for a number of roads within the City for funding consideration by the Metropolitan Regional Road Group. A draft summary of their investigation is shown in Attachment 1.


27 April 2016

Page 93


Financial

It is intended to apply for projects over the $750,000 funding cap to ensure a stock of reserve projects should additional funding become available. The table above shows projects in excess of the cap to create a stock of projects. In anticipation of MRWA approving projects to the value of the grant funding cap, the City’s commitment will be $375,000. Should supplementary grant funding become available, the City’s contribution will be extended through the budget processes in mid-year review or separate item to Council. The funded cost to undertake the works relates only to the design and construction of the road resurfacing treatments. Ancillary works such as bike plan works, landscaping, artworks or decorative lighting to enhance the urban streetscape will need to be funded by the Local Authority. Strategic Projects and Urban Design The projects that have been put forward have been checked by the Strategic Urban Design officer for comment. The feedback was that they have no adverse effect on strategic projects or urban design aspects of the city. Site 6 & 7 – South Tce, South St to Douro Rd, is proposed as the pavement is reaching its end of life and starting to fail. This project, if approved will enhance the proposed streetscape improvements for South Tce. It would mean that the verge and traffic calming treatments would be complemented by a resurfacing of the whole road. Site 3 – Queen St, Cantonment St to Elder Place, is proposed as the pavement is reaching its end of life and starting to fail. This project, if approved could be incorporated with the future Queen Street streetscape improvements being development by Strategic Projects and Infrastructure Projects. If the timing does not align with the upgrade, this project could be put back to a later year and a reserve project brought forward. Legal

All designs will need final approval from Main Roads WA to be implemented. Operational

Capital works will need to be scheduled for the awarded projects in both 2017/18 and 2018/19. Organisational

Nil


Asset Management and Services Plan 2014 - 2015 Strategic Plan 2010 - 2015

• Transport • Community Safety


27 April 2016

Page 94


As these projects are subject to approval by external parties, if approved community engagement will take the form of information and project communication. Community consultation will be undertaken in the form of advising residents of construction timings at least 2 weeks prior to construction. More substantial and extended community consultation processes will be undertaken for the South Tce & Queen St projects.

CONCLUSION

The 12 projects nominated for consideration in the 2017/18 Metropolitan Regional Road Group Rehabilitation Program have been selected to address the pavement surface being near its end of life. The projects have been selected based on criteria set out in the Metropolitan Regional Road Group Guidelines for the submission of road rehabilitation projects. The projects, if successful, represent a significant investment into the renewal of road assets for the city with the current funding arrangement offering an excellent opportunity for the upgrading of existing assets. Further project development (pavement testing to ascertain treatment and limits of works) is required on these projects and is currently being conducted on all sites by Opus International Consultants as a requirement of the pavement design. Final treatment selection and cost is still to be finalised as each projects requirements become fully captured in final design & consultation.


Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council supports the 2017/18 Metropolitan Regional Road Group (MRRG) Rehabilitation Program submission for the projects as listed below;

1. Collick St – South St to Joslin St

2. Hampton Rd – Duoro Rd to Hampton Rd (Northbound)

3. Queen St – Elder Pl to Cantonment St

4. South St – Solomon St to Mardie St

5. Parry St – South St to William St

6. South Tce – South St to Duoro Rd (Southbound)


27 April 2016

Page 95

7. South Tce – South St to Duoro Rd (Northbound)

8. McCombe Ave – South St to Winterfold Ave

9. Hampton Rd – Lefroy Rd to Scott St (Southbound)

10. Hampton Rd – North of Wray Ave to North of Fothergill St

11. High St – Parry St to Stirling St

12. Lefroy Rd – Gibson St to Shepherd St SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 96


FPOL1604-7 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025

ECM Reference: 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1512-5 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to adopt the City of Fremantle Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025.

BACKGROUND

Following the conclusion of the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-15, the City is required to develop a strategic community plan in accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and subsequent changes made to the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. As a way of guiding the new strategic plan the City embarked on an extensive community visioning initiative (Fremantle 2029), aimed to get a better understanding of the community’s vision and values for the future of Fremantle. The workshops provided the participants with information about the long-term strategic issues facing council and an opportunity to have their say on key Fremantle issues as well as provide their vision for the future of Fremantle. Throughout 2013, four community workshops were held. Each workshop was centred on one of the four key visioning questions.

1. What do you value most about our community and place (Thursday 27th June 2013)

2. What do you think are the key issues we will face in the future (Thursday 25th July 2013)

3. What are our visions for Fremantle (Thursday 22nd August 2013)

4. What actions can be done at the local level to achieve our vision (Thursday 21st November 2013)

In addition, three stakeholder forums were held which included, a combined precinct group forum, a Fremantle Chamber of Commerce member’s forum and a forum at the Meeting Place. In total there were approximately 1,000 participants who came to one or more of these events.


27 April 2016

Page 97

The issues most frequently mentioned by participants during the workshops included:

slowing traffic and making the city better for pedestrians, cyclists and improving public transport

supporting independent small business and the creative sector

protecting and enhancing the natural environment, green spaces and heritage features of the city

improving the connectivity around Fremantle, especially to the waterfront. A community report forum was held on Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project. Since the community visioning project concluded in 2014, council has implemented or initiated a number of priority projects that were identified as important to participants. These include establishing the Future Freo collaboration, the Green Plan review, the new Integrated Transport Strategy, Freo 2029 Transformative Moves and the newly released Economic Development Strategy. Council considered this report in December 2015, but sought to defer to allow elected members more time to consider whether any areas require further review.

COMMENT

Throughout 2015, the City held three internal workshops with Elected Members to examine the information and feedback from the community visioning process and develop a strategic community plan that incorporates the community’s vision and values with council’s long-term strategic objectives and vision for the future. The key themes that emerged from the visioning process were considered when identifying the focus areas for the new strategic community plan. The following table outlines the key themes from the community visioning process and the link to the focus areas within the strategic community plan;

Community visioning - Key themes

Strategic community plan - Focus areas

People A welcoming place for all people.

Health and happiness Creating an environment where it is easy for people to lead safe, happy and healthy lives.

Prosper A diverse and unique local economy and a recognised centre of excellence.

Economic Development Diversify and strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity.

Plan A liveable city that serves its resident’s needs.

Transport and connectivity Enhance the connectivity throughout the City of Fremantle and other strategic economic hubs and population centres. Places for people Create great spaces for people through innovative urban and suburban design.

Green A city that values its environment and heritage.

Environmental responsibility Develop environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future


27 April 2016

Page 98

generations.

Create A dynamic, innovative city with a strong knowledge economy and arts sector.

Character, culture and heritage Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history.

Decide A collaborative and connected community with a shared vision and good governance.

Capability Provide strong leadership through good governance, effective communication and excellence in delivery.

In accordance with regulation 19C, the community strategic plan will be reviewed at least once every 4 years.


Financial

All costs associated with the strategic community plan will be allocated within the long term financial plan and annual budgets. Legal

The community strategic plan has been developed in accordance with section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995, regulation 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and Guidelines. Operational

The plan will be used to guide the corporate, business and financial planning for the City. Organisational

Council policy or procedures developed or reviewed after the strategic community plan has been adopted, will be aligned to the strategic outcomes and objective of the new strategic plan.

CONCLUSION

The proposed plan provides accountable targets and direction for the city to follow to achieve the common goals and aspirations of our community. It carries forward the good work undertaken from the previous plan and continues the journey towards revitalisation and collaboration.


As the community strategic plan will form the main strategic document for the City, any new strategy or policy developed after the plan has been adopted will be done so in accordance with the strategic outcomes and objective of the plan.


27 April 2016

Page 99


Throughout 2013, four community workshops and three stakeholder forums were held with approximately 1,000 participants came to one or more of these events. A community report forum was held on the Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project.


Absolute Majority Required


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council adopt the Community Strategic Plan 2015-2025 as attached to the Finance Policy, Operations and Legislation Agenda. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 100


FPOL1604-8 AMENDMENT TO SG-38 PURCHASING POLICY

ECM Reference: 035/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Actioning Officer: Kevin Porter, Senior Contracts & Procurement Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Proposed SG-38 Purchasing Policy

Current SG-38 Purchasing Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to review and ratify amendments to Council Policy SG-38 Purchasing Policy with a view to harmonising it with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 as amended on 1 October 2015.

BACKGROUND

The policies of the City, determined by Council, as required by Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), guide and inform management and the public about key Council principles. The purpose of Policy SG-38 is to maintain compliance with s.3.57 of the Act and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) in relation to the Councils purchasing strategy of tender practices. The policy seeks to ensure consistency, sustainability and value for money outcomes for all purchasing activities for the supply of goods or services. This policy was last reviewed by Council on 28 April 2007 (Ref: SG38 Purchasing Policy).

COMMENT

Amendments to the Regulations were published in the Government Gazette on 18 September 2015 and took effect on 1 October 2015. The amendments are a result of recommendations made by the Local Government Steering Committee and the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC), with the aim of improving the purchase and tendering practices of local government. In addition to increasing the tender threshold, the amendments provide for the following: Tender Threshold The tender threshold has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000. For the purchase of goods and services under this threshold, the amendments have introduced the requirement for the purchasing policy to include the minimum number of oral and written


27 April 2016

Page 101

quotes that must be received. If the contract for goods or services is expected to be more than $150,000 a public tender process is required. Amendments to r.11(2) of the Regulations relates to circumstances when tenders do not need to be publically invited. This includes when goods or services are obtained through:

The WA Local Government Association (WALGA) preferred supplier program; and

A person registered on the Aboriginal Business Directory WA for contracts worth $250,000 or less; or

An Australian Disability Enterprise.

Anti-avoidance provisions

Regulation 12 has been amended to reflect CCC recommendations that ensure contracts are not split for the purposes of avoiding the tender threshold. It is expected that if a local government reasonably believes that the purchase of a good or service from one supplier will exceed the tender threshold of $150,000 they should publically invite tenders. While no timeframe for the tender threshold has been included in the regulations, the guidance by the Department of Local Government and Communities (Circular No. 16-2015) is that local governments should consider the importance of testing the market through a public tender process for low value, repetitive contracts. A best practice suggestion is that if the tender threshold is reached within three years, then a public tender is invited for that good or service.

Varying a contract

Regulation 21A is a new regulation that provides that a contract with a successful tenderer cannot be varied once a local government has entered into a contract for the supply of goods or services unless:

The variation is necessary in order for the goods or services to be supplied and does not change the scope of the contract; or

The variation is a renewal or extension of the original term of the contract (in accordance with regulation 11(2)(j).

Panels of pre-qualified suppliers

Part 4 Division 3 has been inserted into the regulations to introduce the ability for local governments to create a panel of pre-qualified suppliers. There are some conditions on developing a panel including:

The need for a local government to develop a written policy outlining how the panel will operate;

How each supplier will be invited to quote;

Consistent communication with the panel; and

The recording and retention of quotes and purchases from suppliers.


27 April 2016

Page 102

In establishing a panel, persons are to be publicly invited to apply. State-wide public notice is required and it must be open for at least 14 days following the first notice (not including the advertisement's publishing date). Once a panel has been established, local governments may enter into a contract (or contracts) with any of the pre-qualified suppliers. However, the contract(s) cannot exceed 12 months and cannot contain an option to renew or extend its term. If it is expected that a contract is to exceed 12 months the particular good or service should be put to tender. Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 has been amended to require local governments to carry out an audit of compliance for panels of tenders in accordance with s.7.13(1)(i) of the Act. As part of the review of this policy, the appropriate amendments to the Regulations have been reflected in the attached revised policy.


Financial

Financial risks include purchases by officers outside the banding suggested in the Policy, breach of the tender limits and potential breaches of the use of Panels of pre-qualified suppliers, outlined in the Regulations. Legal

The current Policy remains unaligned with the Regulations, as issued on 1 October 2015. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended Council adopt the revised Policy – SG-38 Purchasing to ensure compliance with the current Regulations.




27 April 2016

Page 103


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the amendment to Policy SG-38 Purchasing Policy as shown in attachment 1 of this report be adopted by Council SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 104


FPOL1604-9 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO EXCISE PORTION OF LAND FROM RESERVE 37088 - PERTH WATER TRANSPORT PTY LTD

ECM Reference: L015 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1501-6 Responsible Officer: Tom Griffiths, Manager Economic Development &

Marketing Actioning Officer: Nadine Hume, Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Overview of Land to be excised and current Leased area

Letter of Support for PWT’s proposal from The Kiosk Department of lands advice email (confidential attachment under separate cover) Rottnest Express presentation (confidential attachment under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reserve 37088 is vested to the City for management with the provision to lease or licence any portion of the Reserve for a term not exceeding 21 years, subject to approval by the Minister for Lands. This item is for Council to consider approval to excise the portion of land from Reserve 37088 requested by the Department of Lands to enable a lease to be entered into by the Department of Lands and Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd (PWT) for the purposes of a commercial development. The item also seeks Council approval to surrender the existing lease between the City of Fremantle and PWT to enable the Department of Lands and PWT to enter into a direct lease agreement required for the proposed commercial development.

BACKGROUND

The City entered into a lease with Tony Dilatte for East Street Jetty 124-126 Beach Street, Fremantle for a term of Five (5) years effective from 1 July 1997 with two further terms of five (5) years each effective from 1 July 2002 and 1 July 2007. The leased area includes a small ticketing office and car park (a total of 4 233m2) with a permitted use of “ticket and booking office and parking area relating to Rottnest Island Ferry and Swan River Cruise Services”. While the car park is within the leased area, the City manages the car park as “Car Park 18” and retains all the income generated. On 12 September 2007 Tony Dilatte assigned the lease to Insight Corrosion Consultants Pty Ltd via a Deed of Assignment, with the City’s approval. Insight Corrosion Consultants


27 April 2016

Page 105

Pty Ltd went into voluntary receivership in 2009 and assigned the lease to Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd (PWT) effective from 6 November 2009, with the City’s approval. At that time, the City granted two further terms of five (5) years each effective from 1 July 2012 expiring 30 June 2017 and 1 July 2017 expiring 30 June 2022. The current rental return for this lease is $19 560pa + GST with an annual rent review based on market valuation or consumer price index, whichever is greater. The market value of the premises is lowered by the fact the City retains all the income generated from the car park, which takes up a large majority of the reserve. Since the assignment of the lease to PWT, trading as Rottnest Express and Captain Cook Cruises, the ticket office on site has not been fully utilised. Captain Cook Cruises does dock on the jetty over the weekend and sometimes during the week; however there is limited use of the ticket office by PWT. It is believed that patrons of the kiosk opposite these premises utilise the car park. In late 2014 PWT requested a new lease based on a proposal to develop the site next to the ticket office. The proposal was for a hospitality venue to cater for local residents, visitors and ferry patrons. The proposal includes reinstating the ferry services to the site and development of a small bar café with alfresco area. The new proposed leased area was reduced to be only the portion of land required for the commercial development (360sqm) with a lease term of five (5) years with two further terms of five (5) years each. As the premises would not be managed under the company name of PWT, an ability to sublease to Governor Fitzgerald Holdings Pty Ltd was also requested for approval. Reserve 37088 is vested to the City for management with the allowance to lease or licence any portion for a term not exceeding 21 years, subject to Minister for Lands approval. The proposal from late 2014 was discussed with both the Swan River Trust and Department of Lands at the time; both organisations indicated their support for the concept. “In principle” support was requested from the Department for Lands for the lease but the City was advised that the new proposed lease for a “small bar, restaurant and ferry ticket and booking office” was outside of the parameters of the Management Order. Further advice from Department of Lands indicated that, as the proposed commercial operation did not align with the permitted use of the Management Order, that section of land should be excised from the Management Order and leased directly to the City by the State of WA under section 79 of the Land Administration Act, at a portion of market rate (commonly 25%). The market rate would be determined by a Landgate market valuation. Based on the above, Council resolved the following at January 2015 Ordinary Council meeting; Council approve


27 April 2016

Page 106

1. The City of Fremantle to enter into a Lease with the State of Western Australia for a portion of Reserve 37088 to be excised from Lot 1989 on Deposited Plan 184292 and being the whole of the land in Crown Land Certificate of Title Volume LR3140 Folio 593

2. Approve the Draft Lease as attached with the Strategic and General Services

Committee agenda attachments of 21 January 2015 between the City of Fremantle and Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd, Anthony Charles Baker, John Hayward Goodbody, Scott Anthony Bailey and Guy Franklin Bailey.

3. Approve the Draft Sub Lease as attached with the Strategic and General

Services Committee agenda attachments of 21 January 2015 between the City of Fremantle, Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd, Anthony Charles Baker, John Hayward Goodbody, Scott Anthony Bailey and Guy Franklin Bailey and Governor Fitzgerald Holdings Pty Ltd, Scott Anthony Bailey and Timothy Crosland.

COMMENT

Once the Council approval was obtained in January 2015, Officers worked with PWT to implement the recommendation. However, the City was subsequently provided contrary advice by the Department of Lands on 12 May 2015, superseding its earlier advice from 2014. The latest advice is that Department of Lands and PWT should enter into a lease agreement directly. To enable this to occur, the City must agree to excise that portion of land so that management of the land reverts back to Department of Lands. Full notification is provided under confidential attachment. Since the latest advice was received from Department of Lands, PWT and Department of Lands have continued negotiations to finalise a lease agreement. This process has been lengthy as both parties have negotiated the details of alterations to the scope of the proposal. The proposed concept remains the same as the one presented to Council at its January 2015 meeting. Additional information regarding the proposal has been provided by PWT and included as a confidential attachment to this report. However, in order for both parties to execute the lease legally, the City must do two things:

relinquish the Management Order over the portion of land required for the commercial development; and

surrender the lease it has with PWT.


Financial

Should the City approve the request to excise a portion of land from the Reserve and surrender the lease between the City and PWT, future annual rental income of $19 560pa will be forfeited.


27 April 2016

Page 107

Under the current lease, the City retains all the income from the car park that forms part of the current lease area. That arrangement will be unchanged if the City was to surrender the lease and excise the portion of land proposed for the commercial development. There is no consistent river service offered from the jetty on the Reserve and the use of the car park is sub-optimal. The City generated $39 757 in parking income from this car park in the 2014/15 financial year. The proposed reinstatement of the ferry terminal and the development of a hospitality venue are expected to increase utilisation of the car park. As a guide, an increase of car park utilisation by approximately 50% is required to offset the loss in rental income from the lease, if the City was to agree to the Department of Land’s request. Legal

If approved, the City will be required to provide formal approval of the portion of land to be excised from the Reserve to the Department of Lands. The City will retain Management Order over the remainder of the Reserve. A Surrender of Lease document will be drafted in line with the Commercial Tenancy (Retail) Act 1985, subject to the agreement being reached and finalised between PWT and the Department of Lands.

Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


PWT will be required to undertake community engagement if/when applying for a liquor license from the Department for Racing, Gaming and Liquor. The Kiosk located at 123 Beach Street (directly opposite the ferry terminal) previously indicated their support for PWT’s proposal which has been outlined in confidential attachment to this item. No other community engagement has been undertaken.

CONCLUSION

This site has been under activated for a number of years. The lack of activation has meant that the site has become a location often associated with illegal rubbish dumping. PWT’s proposal should contribute to the revitalisation of this area of Fremantle and support the future activation of the nearby Cantonment Hill precinct.


27 April 2016

Page 108

The addition of a commercial development should help to attract more people to the area. Despite the loss of future rental income (which may be partly or fully offset by increased parking revenue in the future), the proposal is considered favourable for the City as it contributes towards the goals of the Fremantle Economic Development Strategy and should supplement the revitalisation of the Cantonment Hill area.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan For Council to approve; 1. The portion of land shown in Attachment 1 equating to 360m2 be excised

from Reserve 37088 managed by the City of Fremantle under Management Order, and reverted to the Department of Lands.

2. A surrender of the lease between the City of Fremantle and Perth Water

Transport Pty Ltd, subject to a lease being finalised between Perth Water Transport Pty Ltd and the Department of Lands for the portion of land shown in Attachment 1 being excised from Reserve 37088 and reverting to the Department of Lands.

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 109


FPOL1604-13 ADVERTISING OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR DIFFERENTIAL RATES 2016-2017

ECM Reference: 152/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1504-2 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Objects and Reasons Statement for Proposed

Differential, Specified Area and Waiver/Concessions Rates for 2016/2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Legislation requires the objects and reasons for differential rates to be advertised before they can be adopted in the annual budget. However having followed the prescribed process Council does have the discretion to vary the rate in the dollar and minimum rate without further public advertising when it adopts its annual budget. No change in the number and type of differential rates is being proposed for 2016/2017 financial year.

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that all types of differential rate categories as per the 2015/2016 financial year continue for the 2016/2017 financial year.

COMMENT

The objects and reasons statement has been updated to now included information on differential rates, specified area and waiver/concession rates for the 2016/2017 financial period. For advertising purposes a 3.0% increase is proposed to be applied to the rate in the dollar and minimum payment for each of the differential rate categories in the upcoming budget. Using 3.0% for the purpose of public advertising does not bind Council to that increase in rates when Council adopts the 2016/2017 financial year budget, as Council still has the option to vary the rates in the dollar and minimum payment up or down to the advertised figures.


27 April 2016

Page 110

Electors or ratepayers will have 21 days from the date of public advertising to make submissions in respect of the proposed rate in the dollar or minimum payment and any related matter. The City is required to consider any submissions received before imposing the proposed rate in the dollar or minimum payment with or without modification. With the Nightclubs differential rate, Landgate Valuation Services will not provide separate gross rental valuations for the nightclub area of a rateable property where it does not cover the whole property. From the commencement of this differential rate in 2011/2012 concessions were provided in the annual rates where the nightclub did not occupy the whole property. It is proposed to provide these concessions under similar conditions for the 2016/2017 financial year with the concession amounts for each nightclub being reflected in the 2016/2017 budget document along with other properties where rate concessions are applicable. The City currently levies two specified area rates being a CBD security levy and Leighton precinct maintenance levy to fund a safety and security strategy for a specified area of the Fremantle CBD and the above normal costs associated with maintaining the higher standard of landscaping of the Leighton residential area. Within the City boundaries there are a number of right of ways (ROW) and public access ways (PAW) that due to historical subdivisions or other varying reasons are privately owned. Being privately owned, these ROW’s and PAW’s are rateable under the Local Government Act 1995 however it is proposed within this financial year to seek Council’s approval that effectively from the 1st July 2016 any rates levied on these ROW’s or PAW’s be either waived in full or be subject to a concession up to 50%. Provision of such waivers or concessions would be under section 6.47 of the LGA and are applicable owing to the inability to recover the rates due to the owner/s being unable to be located or the very minimal, if any, tangible benefits to the known owners.


Financial

Differential rates represent a strategic approach to rating which is Council's major revenue source. There will be a minimal or nil cost in applying rates waivers or concessions on ROW’s or PAW’s as at this time the majority are non-rated due to inability to locate the owners and those that are rated are very small in number and revenue return. Legal

Local Government Act 1995 sections 6.33 and 6.36 on differential rates and requirement to give notice of certain rates. Local Government Act 1995 sections 6.47 on rate waivers or concessions. Operational

If advertising is approved, it will mean public advertising can occur and it would be possible to adopt the 2016/2017 budget at the 22 June 2016 ordinary Council meeting.


27 April 2016

Page 111

Organisational

Not applicable.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended the proposed Objects and Reasons Statement for Differential, Specified Area and Waiver/Concession Rates for 2016/2017 be advertised for a minimum of 21 days in accordance with the statutory requirements so we remain within our time frame for the 2016/2017 budget process.




27 April 2016

Page 112


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan In accordance with section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 the City of Fremantle advertise for public comment the Objects and Reasons Statement for Differential, Specified Area and Waiver/Concession Rates for 2016/2017 as attached to the Finance Policy and Operations agenda 20 April 2016. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 113


FPOL1604-14 FINANCIAL COUNSELLING

ECM Reference: 023/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: C1506-2 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Beverley Bone, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle Financial Counselling Service (FCS) has been delivered with municipal funds since the cessation of the contract with the Department of Child Protection and Family Support. This covers the period from 1 October 2015 to 30 June 2016. Council is required to decide whether it will continue to provide the funds for the Financial Counselling Service at the Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC) in 2016/2017 and thereafter.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS) advised the City of Fremantle on 5 June 2015, that funding would cease as of 1 October 2015 for Financial Counselling Services provided at the Fremantle Community Legal Centre. At the Ordinary Council Meeting 24 June 2015, the Council resolved the following: “The City fund Financial Counselling Services for the 2015/2016 financial year for City of Fremantle residents only, at a cost of $125,395 with a review of the service in March 2016.” Since the cessation of funding from the Department of Child Protection and Family Support (DCPFS), the City has funded the Financial Counselling program to Fremantle residents at a cost of $70,317 to date and a projected end of year position of approximately $120,000. For the period 1 October 2015 to 29 February 2016, seventy cases were opened, compared to the same period year prior 1 October 2014 to 28 February 2015 where there were 113 cases opened. This reflects a decrease of approximately 40 per cent of new clients accessing financial counselling over the period. This is due to the City providing a service to City of Fremantle residents only as well as no longer processing utilities applications.


27 April 2016

Page 114

COMMENT

Financial counselling services in the Perth metropolitan area are now operating under a new community partnership model, establishing a range of supports for people experiencing financial hardship. In September 2015, the State Government approved the transfer of financial counselling to the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) from the Department for Child Protection and Family Support. DLGC now partners with the community services sector to provide financial counselling services, enabling individuals and families to become more financially capable and improve their ability to manage their financial situation. Services include direct support and community education. The new service model is to ensure flexibility and coverage of financial counselling across the Perth metropolitan area. Following a State Government tender process, a community sector partnership led by Anglicare WA and UnitingCare West was selected to cover the South West region that includes Fremantle. The ten organisations included in the partnership are UnitingCare West, Midlas, Blue Sky Community Group, The Spiers Centre, City of Wanneroo, Anglicare WA, Gosnells Community Legal Centre, Southcare, Mission Australia and the City of Cockburn. UnitingCare West are located at 10-12 Market Street, Fremantle, provide a full time financial counsellor that services the following areas: Fremantle, North Fremantle, East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Beaconsfield, Hamilton Hill, O’Connor, Samson, Spearwood, White Gum Valley, Mosman Park. The State Government has allocated $2 million dollars per year for contracted financial counselling services in the metropolitan area through to 30 June 2018.


Financial

Should Council resolve to cease the financial counselling serivce as at 30 June 2016, there are a number of program exit costs that would need to be considered as part of the 2016/2017 budget process. The program exit costs are likely to include staff redundancy costs and the increased administrative costs for Fremantle Community Legal Centre (FCLC) due to financial counselling no longer contributing to the operation of FCLC. It is anticipated that these once off costs will be approximately $75,000 and would be factored into the salary 2016/2017 budget allocation. Legal

Nil

Operational

If the City was to discontinue the service, ongoing clients at close of business 30 June 2016, will need to be transferred to UnitingCare West if they cannot be closed prior to this date. No new clients would be accepted as of end April 2016.


27 April 2016

Page 115

Organisational

The FCLC will be impacted by the cessation of FCS, however the funds required by FCLC to mitigate this loss is significantly less that the cost to continue to provide FCS. It is estimated that this amount would be approximately $20,000.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The City was not included as part of the Community Sector Partnerships to deliver financial counselling under the State Government’s new funding model. UnitingCare West in partnership with Anglicare WA are funded to provide services to the region. UnitingCare West is based in Fremantle and provide the financial counselling service to the Fremantle area. New clients call the UnitingCare West financial counselling main phone number and are then offered an appointment at either Aberdeen Street, Perth or Market Street, Fremantle. At present, there is approximately a one week wait list for an appointment. Clients are offered appointments at either UnitingCare West locations in Perth or Fremantle in order to keep the waiting list to a minimum of one week. If Council decided to continue to provide a financial counselling service as part of FCLC, the number of days of the service may need to be reduced given the reduction in client numbers.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. The City continues to provide the financial counselling service to residents of City of Fremantle delivered with municipal funds.

Or

2. The City cease providing financial counselling services as of 1 July 2016 and work with UnitingCare West to transfer any open cases to their Fremantle based service.


27 April 2016

Page 116

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

Cr D Thompson MOVED to defer the item to an appropriate Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee meeting that occurs after the 2016/17 budget is adopted. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 117


FPOL1604-15 INNOVATIVE HOUSING WORKING GROUP - APPROVAL OF PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT

ECM Reference: 097/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 (Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee) Previous Item: FPOL1602-2 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Coordinator Statutory Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Project Initiation Document

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its ordinary meeting in February 2016 Council resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group (Working Group) with the intent of this Group providing input and identifying innovative, sustainable and/or affordable propositions for the City of Fremantle housing market. Some of these propositions may be included for consideration into the forthcoming review of the City’s Local Planning Strategy which specifically focuses on innovation, sustainability and affordability. In order to progress work a Project Initiation Document (PID), which sets out the resource requirements, timings and anticipated outputs is to be brought to Council for approval. A PID has been drafted (see Attachment 1) and is based on the approach taken to deliver the Green Plan. It is proposed to have an officer from the Directorate provide professional services to the Working Group, estimated as about three months in total over the eight elapsed months the Group is scheduled to run. In addition a budget of $60,000 next financial year is sought to allow for the back-filling of the officer’s time and provide $25k for any external advice, graphic design and the like that may be required. A contingency of $10,000 is allowed for, subject to the monies being available.

BACKGROUND

At its ordinary meeting held 24 February 2016, Council adopted the following:

That Council: 1. Appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group to

a. Identify innovative, sustainable and/or affordable housing propositions that

may be included for consideration in the forthcoming City of Fremantle Local Planning Strategy review and in any subsequent Local Planning Scheme review.

b. Identify innovative and sustainable mechanisms for the provision of affordable housing in the City of Fremantle.


27 April 2016

Page 118

c. Identify a demonstration project that combines affordable housing with sustainability outcomes.

2. Endorse the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation attached to this item and dated RP - 10 February 2016.

3. Appoint Cr Rachel Pemberton and Cr Ingrid Waltham to the Innovative Housing Working Group.

Before the appointment of all Working Group members can occur, Council is required to adopt a Project Initiation Document (PID) for this project.

COMMENT

The draft PID provides a project description, objectives, benefits and outputs this Working Group is to achieve. The Project Approach section in the PID outlines the appointment process for the Innovative Housing Working Group: the Group is to consist of two Elected Members (already appointed at February 2016 Council meeting), five community members and the Project Manager/Executive Officer. The additional five community members have not been selected to date: the proposed process to appoint these people is similar to that adopted by Council for the establishment of the Green Plan Working Group (e.g. Expressions of Interest). In summary, once the calling of the Expression of Interest process has been finalised and reviewed by the current appointed Working Group members, a report will be presented before Council, post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget, identifying Working Group members for final endorsement. In resource terms it is proposed to have an officer from the Directorate provide professional services to the Working Group, estimated as about three months in total over the eight elapsed months the Group is scheduled to run. In addition a total budget of $60,000 next financial year is sought to allow for the back-filling of the officer’s time and provide $25k for any external advice, graphic design and the like that may be required. This $60k request is in the FY2016/17 budget process as a proposed project. A contingency of $10,000 on top is allowed for, subject to the monies being available.

CONCLUSION

Council resolved to appoint an Innovative Housing Working Group with the intent of this Group providing input and identifying innovative, sustainable and/or affordable propositions for the city’s housing market. Before the Working Group can be formally established a PID is required. The attached drafted PID is recommended to be adopted for this project.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Approve the Innovative Housing Working Group Project Initiation Document v3 and dated 8 April 2016.


27 April 2016

Page 119

2. Request the Working Group to commence recruitment of the five community members and bring back to Council the recommended names.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include an objective 4 into the key information section on page 2 of the Project Initiation Document as well as updating table 1 and into part 3.0 Objectives of the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation as follows:

4. To provide advice and expert opinion on any potential demonstration

projects that are brought to Council that facilitate the development of innovative housing during the term of the Working Group.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION There may be an opportunity coming to put these ideas into practice, and the resources and intellectual capital that will be available in this working group could be invaluable. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the following wording from page 4, part 3.2 of the Project Initiation Document as shown below: Remove the text 'post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget' CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The council has endorsed the formation of this working group in February. In April it is being asked to endorse the working group once more. It is understandable that the council endorse the membership of the working group; however the council should not


27 April 2016

Page 120

re-consider the formation of the working group in the budget considerations. In fact to reverse a decision of council is a serious matter that can only be done with good cause. Furthermore, this sets a terrible example for the formation of any other working groups. If a working group was established in August or September, would it need to wait until the next budget to get underway? The council requested that this working group be formed, it should now be allowed to get on with the work it has been asked to do. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows:


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council:

1. Approve the Innovative Housing Working Group Project Initiation Document

and dated 8 April 2016 with the following amendments:

a) Include an objective 4 into the key information section on page 2 of the

Project Initiation Document as well as updating table 1 and into part 3.0 Objectives of the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation as follows:

4. To provide advice and expert opinion on any potential demonstration

projects that are brought to Council that facilitate the development of innovative housing during the term of the Working Group.

b) Remove the text 'post adoption of the FY2016/17 budget' part 3.2 of the

Project Initiation Document (page 4).

2. Request the Working Group to commence recruitment of the five community members and bring back to Council the recommended names.

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson

CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 121

FPOL1604-5 WEED MANAGEMENT SERVICES

ECM Reference: 146/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: SGS1507-4 Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Joanne Smith, Parks Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: SDRCP 228 of 28 October 2000

SDRCP49 of 27 August 2001 SDRCP504-47 of 18 April 2005 SGS0606-14 of 28 June 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council requested a response to the 120% price difference between chemical and non-chemical weed treatment in the City. In the same period the City was made aware of an international agency assessment of glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. This report provides information relating to these two issues and a recommendation for continuing with the City’s current integrated weed management approach.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 29 July 2015 the Chemical Free Weed Management tender was considered and an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation was adopted: Council notes the 120% price difference between chemical and non-chemical treatment and request a further report in ways in which this price differential can be addressed. Council has considered this topic on a number of occasions since the introduction of the chemical free trials around 1997 and in addition to endorsing chemical free contracted services. The very first trails for this treatment provided comparable pricing between the application of chemical and the chemical free steam method. However, pricing abruptly rose immediately after the initial trial period because of:

Significantly higher levels of labour required for manual application and weeding methods; and

Sophistication of the steam applying equipment.


27 April 2016

Page 122

After a formal recognition of this as the preferred method, the difference in price was clearly established in subsequent contract years. Reference is made to the attached items to Council:

In 2000 (Attachment 1) the cost for two non-chemical treatments each year was recognised as around 120% higher than the cost of two/year equivalent applications using the herbicide glyphosate. The cost comparison was determined from the then current cost of chemical free control ($109,000) compared to an equivalent contract quantity for chemical treatments, based on tendered rates for the City of Canning (at $49,000), thereby arriving at the 120% ratio.

In 2001 findings continued in the same manner (Attachment 2). This report also noted that the contract performance for weed control was ensured through continuous monitoring to equal “the results that could reasonably be expected by the use of chemical spraying. It is noted that these results can only be achieved through diligent contractor effort, (consequently involving a much higher labour content than under chemical spraying), and follow up by council staff to ensure that requirements are met.”

In 2005 (Attachment 3) Council considered progress of the chemical free weed control methods with the addition of the central business district and priority roads to the new contract. It was resolved in a specific instruction from Council, to complete a 12 month trial of chemical methods in specified locations.

In June 2006 (Attachment 4) the results of the trial work over the 12 months was examined to consider the consultation process and the results of the chemical and non-chemical control methods. The trial results showed that there was still a reasonable proportion of residents opposed to the application of chemical to the trial areas (around 4% by street or 6% by the number of residents), which translated to an expected 400 – 630 objections within Fremantle (compared to around 0.15% for Melville). This would have to be managed by staff to ensure that various sites were not sprayed with chemical sprays where objections were raised and acknowledged. Council resolved to continue with the chemical free method of weed control in footpaths, kerb lines and paved median islands.

COMMENT

The annual contracted services call for 2 treatments to residential roads and paths, 6 treatments to 10 priority roads and 6 treatments to the central business district. The increasing annual costs for this contract are related to:

More stringent traffic management requirements,

Labour rate increases for applying steam and manually removing persistent weeds,

The addition of new roads and paths in Minum Cove, Leighton, Taylor South, South Beach and many other small scale developments


27 April 2016

Page 123

Return treatments to meet weed control service level criteria where growth is stimulated by unseasonal wet conditions, related to persistent perennial weed species or other specific conditions.

In terms of the price movement for the chemical free treatment, the costs have risen from $109,000 to $300,000 between 2000 and 2015, or an increase of 275%, significantly above inflation. A case for considering the use of chemicals Contract cost This may provide some impetus for tipping the balance against the use of chemical free treatment, providing that the cost of chemical application can be reliably confirmed for comparison and providing the costs for managing objections are properly considered. Additional dedicated officer time to process and manage objections and project manage such treatments may be added directly onto the cost of the weed treatments. Alternatively, some consideration may be given to the recommendations contained in the SGS0606-14 report of 28 June 2006 (Attachment 4), allowing for a combination of both treatments, depending on the areas treated. To summarise, the costs of chemical free weed control are recognised as being higher than chemical treatment, mainly as a result of the more intensive labour and number of treatments required annually. If the ratio of cost is to be verified again, this would require another comparison of the rate for chemical treatment for the municipality against the current tendered rate for chemical free treatment. The costs for administering the project, public consultation and managing the objections would need to be factored into the assessment. Concerns for use of the herbicide glyphosate The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) government agency is tasked with:

Registering agricultural and veterinary chemical products, permits and manufacturing licences.

Registering chemical products information, reviews, active constituents and uses.

Compliance enforcement.

Online services. Following an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessment of glyphosate in a group of chemicals that is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ in March 2015 (Attachment 5), emails and news articles proliferated around the world alerting authorities, including local governments, to the review. A number of interpretations of this assessment have been circulated to the City of Fremantle in the previous 7 months. The IARC is an arm of the World health Organisation (WHO) which has received recent


27 April 2016

Page 124

reviews of glyphosate health risk assessments from a number of agencies including a German agency for the European Union, BfR. As the chemical regulator in Australia, the APVMA’s role is to review all scientific material to consider a full range of risks (including risks of cancer to humans) and how they can be minimized:

The IARC assessment looks at the intrinsic toxicity potential or ‘hazard’ of the chemical glyphosate

as a cancer-causing agent only. Other components of the toxicity of glyphosate are not taken into account. As part of the regulatory process undertaken by the APMVA and pesticide regulators in

other countries, a hazard assessment is just one part of the overall risk assessment required to determine the risks for people using a formulated chemical product.

It is not the role of the IARC to consider how a formulated chemical product is used, or how human

exposure can be minimised by following safety directions on a product label. In this regard, the findings of IARC cannot be directly compared to assessments conducted by regulatory authorities

for the purposes of approval or registration of a pesticide product, in which are included appropriate risk mitigation measures to allow safe use.

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, 8 March 2016

Website: n

In collaboration with the Office of Chemical Safety in the Department of Health, the APVAMA are reviewing the IARC publication to determine any regulatory actions required and whether glyphosate should be formally reviewed. The agency is also participating in international assessments by the WHO, United Nations, European and US environmental and food safety agencies. A joint re-evaluation of the herbicide will consider all adverse human health effects, scheduled for release in May 2016. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as part of the European Union, have recently considered an extensive body of scientific evidence including the IARC and BfR assessments and have concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans. The APVMA advise that:

Based on current risk assessment the label instructions on all glyphosate products—when followed—provides adequate protection for users. People should follow the use and safety

instructions on all chemical product labels as these are designed to reduce human exposure to the

chemical product.

Staff and contractors of the City of Fremantle are bound to adherence to the proper use and safety instructions of all chemical products and are very aware of their duty of care to the public and themselves. The City also has a duty of care to its employees and to ensure that staff and contracted operators handle concentrate and spray applications strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Parks and Landscape staff are only certified to Australian Quality Training Framework level 3 for chemical handling and application. On occasion when the City requires application of level 4 chemicals, such as boom operated broadleaf weed control on sportsgrounds, contractors certified to level 4 are employed.

Removal of pesticides in parks and schools in France

http://apvma.gov.au/


27 April 2016

Page 125

In January 2016 the City’s Parks Manager met with the parks manager from Narbonne, France, a popular tourist destination close to outer Paris, and four other Perth parks managers from Gosnells, Swan, Perth and Kings Park as arranged between international professional organisations Hortis and Parks and Leisure Australia. A topic of much discussion was the recent legislation to ban pesticide use on parks throughout France by 2020. This excludes railways, airports and roadways. It is understood that the objective for the ban is aimed largely at reducing exposure to more vulnerable sections of the community such as children, pregnant women and the elderly; and to protect their predominantly surface drinking water catchments. Consideration of how WA’s hydrogeological, environmental, urban, economic conditions and pesticide practices may compare to France’s would be required prior to making any comment on this initiative. The APVMA would be the most reliable source for advice on appropriate responses for Australian conditions. Effectiveness of chemicals The control of weeds is essential for protecting agriculture, horticulture and amenity horticulture industries from biological threats and loss of production. Weeds and pests can also negatively impact reliant industries such as recreation, sport, tourism and other aspects of healthy communities and economic prosperity. Many weed species require targeted chemical treatments to eradicate them effectively and do not respond to mechanical methods such as hot water and hand pulling. In the City of Fremantle community members have planted tube stock into reclaimed land along the lineal walkway known as Hollis Link between Hampton Road and South Terrace, South Fremantle. The site was largely infested with Victorian Tea Tree and rogue couch. Because of the prolific seeding habit of the tea tree and the extensive underground runners of the couch, chemical control is required to eradicate the weeds to allow native planted species to compete and occupy the same space. In sports fields, serious turf weeds are targeted with broadleaf specific treatments to keep playing surface of an even cover and texture to prevent injury to players. Broad acre chemical spraying is undertaken after advertising the event in the weeks prior and advisory signage is placed on site until the chemical has dried. With good handling and application practices, such as avoiding wind drift, every effort is made to limit public exposure to chemicals. The Poisons Standards (the SUSMP) , March 2016 This legislated standard is prepared by the Australian Department of Health-Therapeutic Goods Administration and sets out poisons in schedules numbered from 1 to 10, 1 being the lowest toxicity and 10 being the highest. Glyphosate is listed as a Schedule 5 poison as is Asprin, many herbal oils, orange oil, camphor, epoxy resins in furniture, hydrogen peroxide in health and beauty products, nit and flea treatments containing Malathion, methylated spirits, paint and many other household items. It is important to consider the likely human exposure to the poison, not only how poisonous a substance is. Does the average person expose themselves to a greater risk from petrol fumes than herbicides, filling their car each fortnight or so? A resident’s


27 April 2016

Page 126

exposure to the exhaust from a running vehicle and machinery operating the steam spray equipment may be exposed to a greater risk than the same person encountering glyphosate treatments. Throughout the City of Fremantle a number of different chemical treatments are required to control pests and diseases in public and private buildings and commercial sites. Health effects from poisons are typically accumulative and a whole range of possible sources would need to be considered before a health affecting cause could be isolated. Simply considering a choice between non-chemical or chemical weed control in roads, pathways and kerb lines based on resident objections to glyphosate spray omits consideration for broader consideration for sustainable living in the City of Fremantle. Water Use Steam applications utilise larger quantities of water in a higher application rate, than a lower application rate for glyphosate. If the water is returned to the environment to the same quality, is steam a responsible use of water? Integrated Weed Management An integrated pest and weed management approach to managing public landscapes in the City is aimed at minimising chemical use while maintaining parks, streets and bushland to an agreed level of service for the community. Treating pest species at the most effective time of the year and using the most appropriate methods will achieve the best control rates. Methods of control will be a combination of cultural, biological and chemical. The objective is to limit the use of chemicals, protect the environment and treat the target species only. A comprehensive weed management plan includes a comprehensive community and stakeholder communication strategy, and monitoring and review periods. It is recommended that Council consider the principles of an integrated approach and associated risk management.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


27 April 2016

Page 127


Nil


Community education and consultation is integral to any consideration for implementing a change to the City’s current practice of chemical free weed treatment to roads, footpaths and kerb lines.

CONCLUSION

The costs for non-chemical, weed control in the City of Fremantle is at a substantially greater cost than typical chemical methods due to greater labour intensity and equipment costs. The City’s current approach to using a mixture of weed control methods for an integrated management approach, achieves the most effective control under the current conditions. Should this approach be challenged with new information, a review of the City’s weed management methods against multiple economic, social and environmental criteria will be required.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council, 1. Continue with the City’s current integrated management approach to the control of

weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle 2. Consider the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s

assessment of glyphosate report when released and any implications for the City of Fremantle’s weed management approach.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording into point 1 as shown in italics below: 1. Accepts the cost of and continues with the City’s current integrated

management approach to the control of weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan


27 April 2016

Page 128

Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

REASON FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The committee acknowledges that the integrated management approach to controlling weeds is more expensive than other methods until further review of our options can be assessed. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows:


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council, 1. Accepts the cost of and continues with the City’s current integrated

management approach to the control of weeds in parkland, streets and bushland in the City of Fremantle

2. Consider the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority’s

assessment of glyphosate report when released and any implications for the City of Fremantle’s weed management approach.


For Against



27 April 2016

Page 129

Cr D Hume vacated the chamber at 8.56 pm during the following item and returned at 8.58 pm prior to determination.

FPOL1604-10 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT MARCH 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 31 March 2016

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 31 March 2016 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 March 2016 Statement of Financial Position – 31 March 2016 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 March 2016 Investment Report – 31 March 2016 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 March 2016 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) - March 2016 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for February 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of year to date financial performance and forecasts based on

Statement of Comprehensive Income;

Statement of Financial Activity; and

Statement of Financial Position An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) forecasts an end of year Operating Surplus of $337,272 a favourable variance of $601,522.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 March 2016 and forecast to 30 June 2016.

1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1)

Actual Financial Performance to 31 March 2016

Actual operating income of $65.38M is $264,174 more than the year-to-date budgeted income of $65.12M (refer explanation within the report).


27 April 2016

Page 130

Actual operating expenditure of $52.32M is $484,259 less than the year-to-date budgeted expenditure of $52.80M (refer explanation within the report).

Actual operating surplus of $13.07M is $748K more than the year-to-date budgeted operating surplus of $12.32M.

2. Capital Works

Actual capital works of $7.39M (excluding committed expenditure) is $2.54M less than the year-to-date budgeted capital works of $9.93M (refer explanation within report).

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.94M is $3.39M less than the total amended capital expenditure of $17.33M.

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how forecast income/expenditure is tracking to budget and the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding current year to date financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants, subsides and contributions, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $65.38M is $264,174 greater than the year-to

date budgeted income of $65.12M.

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 41.05m 44.12m 46.72m 49.58m 52.32m 55.30m 58.07m 60.87m 63.67m 66.42m 68.70m 71.77m

Currrent Budget 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.76m 60.21m 62.63m 65.12m 67.75m 69.91m 71.79m

Current Year Forecast 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.78m 59.99m 62.71m 65.38m 67.83m 69.95m 71.85m

40m

45m

50m

55m

60m

65m

70m

75m

Operating Income ($m)


27 April 2016

Page 131

Total forecast operating income of $71.85M is $63K more than the total budgeted income of $71.79M.

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $52.32M is $484K less than the year-to date

budgeted expenditure of $52.80M. Total forecast operating expenditure of $71.52M is $538K less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $72.06M.

Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure to date is significantly under budget.





0m

10m

20m

30m

40m

50m

60m

70m

80m

Operating Expenditure ($m)


27 April 2016

Page 132

Notes: August 2014 Purchase of New Depot land for $7.8M

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $7.39M is $2.54M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $9.93M.

Total forecast capital expenditure of $13.94M is $3.39M less than the total

budgeted expenditure of $17.33M. MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and $300 000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Employee Cost Employee costs are $644K under year to date budget mainly due to unfilled positions in a number of areas. Agency labour (included under Materials and Contracts) is $23K under year to date budget and increases year to date employment cost savings to $667K.

Favourable $644K Under budget 2.41%

Capital Grants and Subsidies Capital Grants and Subsidies are $504K greater than year to date budget mainly due to a timing difference in the receipt of grants funding for the

Favourable





0m

5m

10m

15m

20m

25m

Capital Expenditure ($m)


27 April 2016

Page 133

following projects: $175k joint contribution from Town of East Fremantle for the road works at East Street. $208K funding from Main Road WA for National Black Spot Program and Road Project Grant Program at Queen Victoria Street. $75K funding from Lotterywest for Fremantle Town Hall Renewal project, which has not been included in 2015/2016 budget.

$504K Over budget 57.35%

Capital Works Actual capital expenditure of $7.385M is $2.54M less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $9.926M. Actual capital expenditure of $762K on infrastructure assets - parks is $448K less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $1.21M mainly due to reclassification of year to date expenditure of $300K on soft landscaping from capital expenditure to operating expenditure. Actual capital expenditure of $792K on freehold land and buildings is $1.19M less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $1.987M mainly due to the major work for the following two capital projects are carried forward to the next financial year: $862K budgeted capital expenditure on external conservation works to Fremantle Town Hall building is carried forward to the next financial year and the total capital expenditure will be $2.282M. $740,600 budgeted capital expenditure on refurbishing Cantonment Hill Naval Store to heritage standards and public access requirements is carried forward to the next financial year with the total amount of budget unchanged. Actual capital expenditure of $1.869M on land and buildings on reserves is $555K (22.90%) less than the year-to date budgeted capital expenditure of $2.425M. The capital expenditure on the Old Fire Station Works and the Hilton Community Centre are $240K and $194K under budget respectively at this stage, which is to be completed in this financial year. The capital expenditure on Fremantle Mens Shed is $460K under budget at this stage and it is forecasted that $110K capital expenditure on this project will be carried forward to the next financial year.

Unfavourable $2.54M Under budget 25.60%

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 March 2016.


27 April 2016

Page 134

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 March 2016. There are $39.4M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 78% of the total investments.

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/). Purchase Card Expenditure Reports March 2015 purchase card transaction reports will be provided at the next meeting. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charing Station In December, 2015 the City approved the award of contract FCC457/15 to construct an electric vehicle charging station in Fremantle. At the time of awarding this contract it was assumed the funds would come from the budget allocation but in fact the budget allocation does not provide for the full value of the contract. The current budget is $20,000 and the contract value is $169,970, albeit that $40,000 will be provided by the RAC. The original funding provided in the budget comes from a transfer of the Renewable Energy Investment Reserve. The full cost of this project is $216,733 inclusive of charger, battery storage, solar infrastructure and installation. The RAC have provided a grant to the City of $40,000 to

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 120 days 180 days 240 days 360 days

Sum of Amount $6.6M $2.0M $13.7M $9.8M $13.5M $2.0M $.5M $3.0M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M

$14.0M

$16.0M

AMP, $5.2M, 10%

ANZ, $5.4M, 10% BOQ,

$9.0M, 18%

ME Bank, $3.0M, 6% NAB, $1.2M, 2%

Rural Bank, $7.0M, 14%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 3%

Suncorp,

$9.4M, 18%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $7.5M,

15%

Auswide, $2.0M, 4%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$39.4M, 78%

Counterparty Exposure

http://www.marketforces.org.au/


27 April 2016

Page 135

support the development of the off-grid charging station and will provide the charger itself ($46,763) free of charge to the City also, reducing the City’s contribution to $129,970. There are a potential $30,000 worth of carbon credits (small scale technology certificates) to be generated from this project, which the City will apply for, register and retire once the project is complete, reducing the total spend against this project to just under $100,000. RAC had initially agreed to provide the charger and installation free of charge, the City was to site the infrastructure. On investigation on various sites it was found that a Western Power grid connected system, in the space available to site the chargers, was likely to have additional connection costs associated as it would require a significant upgrade to fully power the system which RAC would not cover. An estimated connection fee of between $50,000 and $70,000 and significant connection time lag was likely. In light of these issues, and the opportunity to enable a more innovative approach, an off-grid solar charger was considered to be the more environmentally, socially, politically and economically appropriate option. 1 x DC fast charge (30 mins), and 2 x 3 hour charge can be supplied simultaneously - all EV models, including custom, can be serviced by the system (a significant upgrade on existing charging stations in Queensgate carpark).The system has been fully designed for its capacity to take the maximum charging load and will also provide carpark shading. It is recommended that the budget for this project be amended to cater for this contract by increasing the transfer from the Reserve.


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2015/16 adopted budget.


27 April 2016

Page 136

Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during March 2016, plus cash deposits at the end of March 2016. Also attached is the year to date statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial activity, statement of net current assets and statement of financial position for information.



COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION


1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 March is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for March 2016, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

3. Council approve the following budget amendment for the Electric Vehicle

Charging Station;

Budget Category/Sub

Category

Existing Budget

Expenditure /(Revenue)

Variation to Budget Expenditur

e /(Revenue)

Revised Budget


Account String (Budget amount refers to

this account))

Revenue

Operating Revenue 0 ($40,000) ($40,000) 55.53100.5961.00.00.00000

Transfer From Reserve

($407,282) ($129,970) ($537,252) 55.53100.3115.00.00.41301

Total Funding ($407,282) ($169,970) ($577,252)


27 April 2016

Page 137

Expenditure

Capital Expenditure (Contracted Services)

$0 $169,970 $169,970 53.53100.1566.03.61.00000

Total Expenditure $0 $169,970 $169,970

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

($0) ($407,282)

Cr A Sullivan moved Part 1 and 2 of the Committee Recommendation separately:

1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 March is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and

detailed in the list of invoices for March 2016, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr A Sullivan moved Part 3 of the Committee Recommendation separately:

3. Council approve the following budget amendment for the Electric Vehicle Charging Station;

Budget

Category/Sub Category

Existing Budget


Variation to Budget Expenditur

e /(Revenue)

Revised Budget


Account String (Budget amount refers to

this account))

Revenue

Operating Revenue 0 ($40,000) ($40,000) 55.53100.5961.00.00.00000

Transfer From Reserve

($407,282) ($129,970) ($537,252) 55.53100.3115.00.00.41301


27 April 2016

Page 138

Total Funding ($407,282) ($169,970) ($577,252)

Expenditure

Capital Expenditure (Contracted Services)

$0 $169,970 $169,970 53.53100.1566.03.61.00000

Total Expenditure $0 $169,970 $169,970

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

($0) ($407,282)


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 139

FPOL1604-11 PUBLIC TOILET WORKING GROUP

ECM Reference: 045/005 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Samuel Bryce, Manager City Assets Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Current Condition Matrix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Public Toilet working group was established to develop a plan to improve public toilet amenities in Fremantle, align the quality of public toilets with the public expectation and demand profile, identify priority areas for future development and identify design principles to reduce issues in new facilities. Council endorsement is sought for the recommendations listed in the Public Toilet Improvement Plan, together with consideration of the resulting impacts on future budgets.

BACKGROUND

The Public Toilet working group was formed in early 2015 and incorporated the following items as part of its scope of work:

Collecting data related to public toilets including locations, hours of operation and facilities.

Reviewing the cleaning program.

Reviewing public complaints relating to individual facilities.

Feedback from cleaning contractors about the delivery challenges.

Site visits to City of Fremantle toilets to identify and understand the issues and challenges related to each facility.

The working group met regularly to review the data and discuss draft ideas for input into a Public Toilets Improvement Plan. Public and contractor feedback data Information about the acceptability of the facilities usually comes to the city via public and contractor feedback. The following toilets receive the most feedback from customers and the cleaning contractor, in order of volume of complaints.

1. Kings Square public toilets:


27 April 2016

Page 140

The data reveals that the majority of all complaints about public toilets relate to the quality of the Kings Square toilets prior to their renovation in September 2015. These complaints usually relate to:

Very poor service level condition and not meeting public expectations

Lack of public baby changing facilities in this central city facility and

Indicated high level of vandalism and antisocial behaviour

2. William Street (Queensgate) public toilets:

Very poor condition and not meeting public expectations

Vandalism and graffiti

Wet floors and

Poor signage

3. South Beach public toilets:

Are regularly blocked by paper, underwear or other garments.

Appearance being unclean, because floors are constantly wet by people arriving from the beach.

Backpackers lock the disabled change room to dry their washing.

Backpackers use toilet sinks for washing dishes and

No soap dispensers, which users of the neighbouring café find unsanitary.

4. Parmelia Park toilets:

Smells due to very old pipes within the facility that emanate odour regardless of how clean the facility is and

Incidents of anti-social behaviour

5. Arthurs Head toilets:

Use of toilets by homeless people for shelter.

Regular vandalism and

Regular items of drug paraphernalia dropped on the floors in multiple locations. General feedback about all public toilets from Elected Members, business and community includes:

Lack of clear signage and way-finding related to public toilets

Lack of public toilets on or near South Terrace

Toilets in general are not always clean and sanitary

Graffiti is very prominent leading to a further detraction of appearance

Inconsistent use of materials in maintenance after vandalism is repaired and

The requirement for a mothers and baby room to be provided in the inner city Site visits and audit


27 April 2016

Page 141

In May and June 2015, the Working Group undertook site visits to the following public toilets:

Kings Square Toilets

William Street Toilets (next to Queensgate)

Market Street Toilets (disused, opposite Train Station)

Train Station Toilets

Esplanade Pump Station Toilets (adjacent EYP)

Esplanade Toilets 2 (western end)

Arthurs Head Toilets

South Beach Toilets

Parmelia Park Toilets

Bruce Lee Oval Toilets

Hilton Park Toilets

Booyeembara Park Composting Toilets

North Fremantle John Street Toilets; and

Port Beach

Fremantle Railway Station With regards to all the sites that were visited, the Fremantle Railway Station public toilets were the best in Fremantle due to the large areas of light and spacious design, robust materials and presumed observation within the Railway station. The site visits confirmed the data from public and contractor feedback. Officers undertook a follow-up audit to capture details of note in each facility. The full details of issues identified in each facility were recorded by officers, and captured in Attachment 1. Design impact on public toilet performance In addition the site visits also highlighted that some of the city’s public toilets are severely constrained by poor designs, which can result in:

Poor access and functionality in the public realm

Poor layout leading to user concerns about safety and

Difficulty for cleaners to deliver a satisfactory job New facilities It was also noted that there is a current need for updated or new facilities at:

South Beach, which is clearly under capacity for the amount and intensity of use it receives. It is unlikely that any further superficial maintenance or increased cleaning will have a substantive impact on the current condition and performance of the facility.

Esplanade Reserve, with the existing pump station facility close to the Youth Plaza not able to cope with the current or likely growth in users

Cappuccino Strip, where there are no public toilets and visitors rely on private facilities of varying quality and support from businesses. The working group


27 April 2016

Page 142

identified that there may be an opportunity to integrate public toilets into any future development behind Dome on the corner of Collie and Market Streets, which would benefit from further analysis and consideration.

In addition depending on the pace of development in the city, it is likely that new facilities may be required and thus some initial discussion and analysis should be undertaken. Notable examples currently identified are:

Princess May Park and

The northern end of Market Street in the area of Pioneer Park.

COMMENT

Public Toilet Improvement Plan Based on the analysis of the issues identified through site visits, audit and customer feedback, the Working Group identified the following Strategies for Action by Council for public toilets:

1. Immediate facility improvements 2. Cleaning and service delivery 3. Maintenance 4. Design excellence 5. New facilities 6. Partnerships

Suggested prioritisation of actions and timelines within each area are outlined as follows;

1. Immediate Facility Improvements

Strategic Action Actions Implementation Timeline

Est Budget

a) Upgrade Kings Square facility.

Repair and repaint facility. Consistent paint. Replace damaged tiles. Replace hardware with consistent and matching hardware. Remove clutter and tree material around entrance to improve visual amenity and openness. Install baby change facility in disabled toilet.

September 2015 Completed under direction of working group in Sept 2015

b) Upgrade William Street Automated Toilet

Investigate options to replace current facility with appropriate facility to meet public expectations. With understanding that future development may remove requirement for the facility.

June 2016

Utilise 15/16 budget $80k


27 April 2016

Page 143

c) Immediate action and improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations. Immediate action and improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations.

Roll-out maintenance and minor improvements to all facilities in order to: Remediate maintenance issues identified in Attachment 1 Create consistency of materials and fixtures in all facilities Improve look and feel of facilities

November 2016 November 2017 November 2018

$150k $150k $150k

d) Implement clear and coherent signage and mapping policy.

Ensure Public Toilets are clearly labelled as part of the new Way Finding maps Ensure all public toilets have acceptable and visible signage on and adjacent to them that enables viewing from a distance (as identified in Attachment 1).

September 2016 $100k

2. Cleaning and Service Delivery


Est Budget

a) Improve Cleaning and Service Delivery

Change cleaning contractor. Deliver strong contract management to ensure delivery of improved cleaning services. Establish robust reporting framework for cleaners that ensures all damage and vandalism to toilets is immediately reported. Implement new, innovative cleaning approaches addressing problem facilities – such as drying floors following mopping to minimise wet-tracking of dirt through facilities.

Ongoing Current Staff

b) Undertake business review of in-house versus outsourced cleaning.

Undertake business review about comparative effectiveness of outsourced versus in-house facility cleaning and make recommendations for future service delivery.

Nov 2016 Current Staff

3. Maintenance – responsiveness and consistency


27 April 2016

Page 144


Est Budget

a) Develop a Maintenance Framework for Public Toilets

Develop a framework that prescribes maintenance standards and materials for all maintenance, such as: Paint colours (i.e. paint identifier) inside and out (so re-paints match) Light fittings Toilet fittings Basins Dryers Tile types and colours Implement Contract Audit system to ensure compliance with Maintenance Framework.

June 2016 Current Staff

b) Implement Maintenance Performance Criteria

Performance criteria for maintenance contractor to ensure performance against Maintenance Framework.

Actioned now as part of contract

Current Staff

c) Make building design changes that will improve safety, access, cleaning

Investigate other Local Authority approach through SWOT possible partner programme.

Aug 2016 Current Staff

4. Design excellence


Est Budget

a) Develop preferred design standards for public toilets.

Working Group to continue the development and engage a design consultant.

Aug 2016 $20k

5. New Facilities


Est Budget

a) New Facility at Kings Square to be staffed.

Investigate and implement best practice model for the planned facility at the new Kings Square development to be staffed and have a potential payment model.

TBC TBC

b) Develop concept designs for South Beach Public Toilets &

Manager City Asset to develop concept brief for South Beach redevelopment

Sep 2016 $100K


27 April 2016

Page 145

infrastructure

c) Develop a Business Plan for new facility Corner Collie Street and Market Street Fremantle.

Develop a Business Plan that evaluates options and models for developing a new Public Toilet Facility integrated within a new development on the corner of Collie Street and Market Streets.

Sep 2016 $20,000

d) Investigate options to upgrade the Esplanade Park pump station toilets.

Conduct an investigation to identify options to upgrade the Esplanade Park pump station toilets, including consistency with new Esplanade Master Plan.

Aug 2016 Current Staff

e) Develop a pathway for consideration of new facilities likely to arise in the next 10 years.

Consider new facilities that match strategic direction of Council and growth of Fremantle and include in 10 year budget.

Mar 2017 Current Staff

Budget summary and spend profile as outlined above.

Upgrade Kings Square facility.

Completed Dec 2015 Included within 2015/2016 CBD Public Toilet Upgrades

$55k

Upgrade William Street (Queensgate) facility.

Completed June 2016 Included within 2015/2016 CBD Public Toilet Upgrades

$80k

Minor Improvements

November 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $150k

Minor Improvements


Minor Improvements


Signage Improvements

September 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $100k

Develop design standards

August 2016 New Budget 2016/2017 $20k

South Beach New Development


New facility Cnr Collie Street & Market Street



27 April 2016

Page 146

Fremantle.


Financial

Should council approve the indicated new budget items for financial year 2016/17 the increase to municipal funds will be $390,000 with a further commitment to fund $150,000.00 for financial year 2017/18 plus $150,000 for financial year 2018/19. The current Long Term Financial Plan 2015-2025 has an allocation for 2016/17, no allocation for 2017/18, $180,000 for 2018/19, $500,000 for 2020/21, and $750,000 for 2022/23 to 2024/25. Legal

Current status may lead to a potential for increased incidents/accidents under current conditions resulting in minor/major claims. Operational

Current operations are being affected adversely by the high volume of graffiti and antisocial behaviour being experienced; resulting in a high investment of resources both financially and allocation of time. Organisational

If the public toilet improvement plan is not adopted it may diminish public confidence and reduce patronage to the city.


If the public toilet issues raised are not addressed it may diminish the city’s vision to be viewed as a great place to live, work and play through growth and renewal.


Continual community engagement will continue through the working group along with contractor and community feedback.

CONCLUSION

The Public Toilet working group is confident the Public Toilet Plan will deliver improved facilities in Fremantle that meet the needs of residents and visitors as well as respond to the future needs of the city.




27 April 2016

Page 147



1. Council endorses the Public Toilet Improvement Plan. 2. Council consider for inclusion in the draft 2016/2017 Budget the following

priority actions from the Public Toilet Improvement Plan:

a) $150,000.00 for improvements to all facilities to meet user expectations and address issues as they arise as per Attachment 1. Also an additional commitment to allocate $150,000.00 for the budget years of 2017/2018 along with $150,000.00 for year 2018/2019 to address this demand.

b) $100,000.00 to develop concept designs for South Beach Public Toilets

and associated infrastructure failures. c) $20,000.00 to develop a Business Plan for a new facility on the Corner of

Collie Street and Market Street Fremantle. d) $20,000.00 to develop preferred design standards for future public toilets

and e) $100,000.00 to implement clear and coherent signage (integrated with

current economic development way finding project currently underway). SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 148

FPOL1604-12 SOUTHERN METRO REGIONAL COUNCIL STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW

ECM Reference: Nil Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan - Southern

Metropolitan Regional Council (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to achieve Council endorsement “in principle” of the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council (SMRC) Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The plan identifies the strategic direction for the SMRC over the short to long term future which will have significant impact for the City’s waste management operations and future financial budgets. The plan indicates an optimum model will include the transition to a three bin system and possible take up of and energy from waste solution should this technology become viable for the Perth Metropolitan area. Whilst the proposed general strategic direction and key actions are supported by officers, the City will require a proactive and flexible strategy as the transition progresses a staged approach to improved waste management for the region. The attached Draft SMRC SWMP provides sufficient detail of the scope, methodology and analysis undertaken by the consultants in preparing the Plan. It would be considered essential background knowledge when one is setting the strategic waste management direction for the City of Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

The Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s (SMRC) on behalf of its member Councils have engaged MRA Consulting to review its Strategic Waste Management Plan. On the 7 September 2015 several elected members and the executive leadership attended a presentation of an overview of the Draft SWMP by the consultant at the City of Melville Civic Centre. The Consultant’s report notes that the City of Cockburn decided not to participate in the review of the plan which creates a degree of uncertainty for a collaborative


27 April 2016

Page 149

implementation of a staged transition to improved waste management systems by members; however members should retain a proactive flexible response to any developments by the City Of Cockburn. The report provides adequate detail of the scope, methodology and analysis undertaken by the SMRC’s consultant and, the Draft SWMP sets the program and policies for waste management in the region for member councils including; City of Cockburn, Town of East Fremantle, City of Fremantle, City of Kwinana and City of Melville. Gaining an understanding of the Draft SWMP, particularly the attached executive summary, would be considered essential background knowledge when one is setting the strategic direction for the City.

COMMENT

The SMRC owns and operates the Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) on behalf of its member councils. The RRRC encompasses a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), Green Waste Facility (GWF) and a Waste Composting Facility (WCF). The latter is a composting, drum-based, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) Advanced Waste Technology (AWT) facility and represented the cutting edge of waste management technology. .Since the project’s inception, the waste industry has changed in ways unforeseeable at the time. Landfill gate fees did not increase at the rate projected, while various Energy from Waste (EfW) technologies have developed, promising the same or higher diversion rates at lower gate fees. As a result, SMRC is considering the possibility of decommissioning the drum technology in the short (2018/2020) or long term (2020/2023), coinciding with loan repayment completion. Although the facility still achieves its diversion target at the promised cost, given newly available alternatives, SMRC can investigate transitioning to other system options to provide the same or better performance at lower cost. The Plan’s development and delivery methodology involved:

Characterising the existing waste management landscape for SMRC;

Forecasting future trends;

Establishing the Strategic Vision, Themes and Targets;

Forecasting future waste management needs;

Analysing two recycling collection options;

Analysing ten bin system collection and processing options (plus additional garden organic options);

Undertaking Multi-Criteria Analysis to prioritise options; and

Investigating alternative modes of governance for the region.


27 April 2016

Page 150

The draft Plan is recommending the introduction of a three bin Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) and the transition to residual waste processing at a future Energy from Waste (EfW) facility if economically sustainable. The introduction of the three bin system to separate the clean organics from residual waste should result in reduced contamination levels in the organics processed into the Waste Composting Facility at the SMRC’s Regional Resource Recovery Centre. It is also expected that there will a reduction in the City’s volumes that would go to the Waste Composting Facility. This issue will need to be addressed with the other members of the SMRC. The City has previously applied for grant funding from the Waste Authority for the implementation of a three bin system with a project roll out value in the order of $ 1.8 M. $ 1.2 M is the cost for providing a 120 L and kitchen counter bins. The balance will be the ongoing annual operating cost of $0.6 M or collection of the third bin. The Waste Authority confirmed in late 2014 that the City was eligible for funding of $ 0.37 M. The Waste Authority’s main deliverables for the introduction of a three bin system are to achieve; uniform industry practice and cost effectiveness, changes to behavioural patterns in waste segregation and disposal, a reduction in contamination levels in MSW organic stream and a reduction in volume of waste disposal to landfill. The draft Plan also recommends a trial of processing FOGO through the Waste Compositing Facility (WCF) at the Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) in Canning Vale to confirm economies of scale however the implications of carrying out a trial for some of the members due to their smaller service collection areas may be less practical. Officers propose Council considers giving “in principle” support for the Draft SWMP as it aims to rationalise costs, provide the foundation for improving the sustainability, performance of SMRC waste service practices and procedures, and assist in achieving the state’s waste diversion from landfill targets. The SMRC Draft SWMP also identifies 38 Key Actions starting on page (vii) of the executive summary that will be progressed, and it is accepted that further coordination and cooperation between individual members will be required when actioning. The actions regarding implementing fortnightly recycling collections do not apply to the City as it already offers the proposed service. The City’s draft strategic plan also identifies the transitioning to a three bin system as one of its key outcomes. The members implementing three bin systems across a region uniformly would be most beneficial towards achieving efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of the recycling message and service cost benefit for its communities.


Financial

The City submitted an expression of interest (EOI) for the Better Bins Kerbside Collection


27 April 2016

Page 151

Program in June 2014 and the Waste Authority has advised the City is eligible to receive funding up to $378,390 based on the kerbside services committed to in the EOI. The City’s estimated total cost (2014) to implement the three bin system of the Better Bins Program is $ 1,710 278. There are budget implications with the current amount allocated to the City and it is proposed that this is considered through the draft 2016/17 and following years budget processes. Legal

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act (WARR) Act is the primary Act governing resource recovery in Western Australia and outlines specific powers requiring Local Governments, to produce waste plans. The Waste Authority encourages the use of a three-bin system to provide increased source separation and higher recovery and diversion from landfill. Operational

The draft Plan is recommending the introduction of a three bin Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) and the transition to residual waste processing at a future Energy from Waste (EfW) facility. The plan highlights the fortnightly co-mingled collection as being most economical and the City currently provides a fortnightly service recycling service with the option available to residents to use a 360L co-mingled recycling bin. The roll-out of the third bin will entail a project value of $ 1.9 M and will require all aspects of delivering a major project within the City. Organisational

The City of Fremantle is committed to a collaborative staged transition to implementing a three bin system plus transition to energy from waste when commercially viable to do so.


The City is currently finalising its Draft strategic Plan however the implementation of a three bin within the next 5 years is a key initiative going forward.


As part of the roll-out of the program the City will be required to address measures to ensure the community understands the benefits of the system including a communication plan, the roll-out of better practice services and use of Australian Standard bin colours.

CONCLUSION

The SMRC are currently in the process of finalising the Strategic Waste Management Plan for its members and the draft plan provides a sound basis for setting direction for future years. It is considered that individual members support and align with a staged


27 April 2016

Page 152

process as the SMRC transitions to improved systems and technologies of processing Municipal Solid Waste. The adoption of a transition plan by all the participants would be the first step in a process, which aims to rationalise costs, provide the foundation for improving the sustainability and performance of SMRC waste service practices and assists in achieving the State’s waste diversion from landfill targets. Whilst the Draft SWMP analyses in detail the combination of several bin combination the SWMP highlights the implementation of a three bin system is most preferred. The two largest member councils are indicating their intentions to move towards this option in the medium term and hence it would be financially prudent for the City to start the necessary budget planning for the implementation of a three bin system.





1. Council gives “in principle” support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider making provision in future budgets for the implementation of a three bin

system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M.

3. The City collaborates with member Councils in transitioning to a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the wording in points 1 and 2, as shown in strikethrough and include the wording shown in italics in part 3 as follows:

1. Council gives “in principle” support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider making a provision in future budgets for the implementation of a

three bin system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M.

3. The City collaborates with participating member Councils in transitioning to a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.


27 April 2016

Page 153

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against


REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Committee felt that it could support the Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan. The removed and additional wording provides clearer indication of support. Cr A Sullivan put the amended Recommendation as follows: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. Council gives support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils.

2. Consider a provision in future budgets for the implementation of a three bin

system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M. 3. The City collaborates with participating member Councils in transitioning to

a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: That council:

a) subject to 1 (b) below b) Notes that no position on the use of Energy from Waste (EfW) has been

formed or confirmed by the City of Fremantle. As such, a report on the findings of further investigation into the environmental impact, financial viability and legislative framework of EfW is to be brought to council for consideration prior to any commitment to using the technology.

SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0


27 April 2016

Page 154

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The SMRC report repeatedly refers to outstanding questions and issues be resolved regarding EfW. As such, it is inappropriate to endorse an in-principle support for EfW at this stage.

COUNCIL DECISION


1. Council gives support for the Southern Metro Regional Council Draft Strategic Waste Management Plan and its Key Actions be progressed in coordination with its member Councils:

a) subject to 1 (b) below b) Notes that no position on the use of Energy from Waste (EfW)

has been formed or confirmed by the City of Fremantle. As such, a report on the findings of further investigation into the environmental impact, financial viability and legislative framework of EfW is to be brought to council for consideration prior to any commitment to using the technology.

2. Consider a provision in future budgets for the implementation of a three bin system projected estimated to be a value of $1.9 M.

3. The City collaborates with participating member Councils in transitioning to a three bin system across the region uniformly that would achieve efficient use of resources, changes in community behaviour, consistency of service provision at cost benefit for their communities.


27 April 2016

Page 155

SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 156

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

Nil.

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered C1604-1 and C1604-2. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


The following item number C1604-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1604-1 INFORMATION REPORT APRIL 2016

TITLE 160427 - OCM - AGENDA MASTER

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC463/16 REAR FAÇADE MAINTENANCE TO THE EVAN DAVIES BUILDING

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Rear Façade Maintenance to the Evan Davies Building to be awarded to Colgan Industries Pty Ltd for the fixed sum of $107659.00 excluding GST plus 10% (10765.90) Contingency.


27 April 2016

Page 157

The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC464/16 FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE STAGED CONCEPT DESIGN RELATED TO MARKET STREET ACTIVATION

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Architectural Services for the Staged Concept Design related to Market Street Activation to be awarded to Coda Studio Pty Ltd for the fixed sum of $68490.00 ex Gst plus 10% ($6849.00) Contingency. The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The information report for April 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 158

The following item number C1604-2 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1604-2 OVERDUE DEBTS REPORT-FEBRUARY 2016

ECM Reference: 085/002; 085/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 March 2016 Previous Item: SGS1509-3 of 16 September 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Summary of Overdue Debts above Threshold

(Confidential Report)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council resolved that bi-annually (March and September) a report with a confidential attachment be provided to the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee (Previous Strategic and General Services Committee) with details of overdue debts that exceed a threshold value of $10,000.

BACKGROUND

The report is part of a framework for the write off of bad debts that was endorsed by the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 16 December 2014 and referred to Council who endorsed the framework on 28 January 2015.

COMMENT

Compared to the report presented in September 2015 the total value of outstanding debtors shows a slight reduction from $126K to $115K. With two debtors no longer appearing on the list, the number of debtors being reported has reduced from seven to five. The confidential attachment contains comment and background in relation to the debtors listed in the report. A further report will be provided to Committee in two months’ time for approval to write off those debts that are considered bad or doubtful.


Financial

The budget implications can be addressed in two parts:- 1. Cost of Credit Management. If an organisation does not have good credit

management then it will have negative budgetary impacts as cash will not be collected for the sales of goods and services made. It should be noted that even with good credit management, bad debts can still be incurred, but they normally


27 April 2016

Page 159

arise within an environment where the risk and reward factors have been balanced to try and achieve the best outcome for the organisation. It is a requirement for completing annual financial statements that any potential bad debts are provisioned for and that is a cost to the budget in the year in which the provision is made.

2. Cost to Budget of Writing off Bad Debts. Generally this is budget neutral as the city

provisions for potential bad and unrecoverable debts and the city has been doing so for many years in accordance with accounting standards. As a consequence, approvals to write off bad debts will generally result in the cost being written back against the provision with no net impact to the current budget.

Legal

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational

The report is likely to highlight matters that have been or currently are the focus of operational activity. Organisational

It is possible that some of the matters highlighted are linked to current and evolving organisational plans.

CONCLUSION

That the information be received.


Nil


Nil




27 April 2016

Page 160

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Overdue Debt report for outstanding debtors exceeding 90 days and $10,000 in value as at 29 February 2016 be received. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 161

C1604-3 REPORT ON PROPOSED SALE/LONG TERM OF FREMANTLE PORT BY STATE GOVERNMENT

ECM Reference: 103/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 27 April 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: MacroPlan Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following an announcement by the state government in 2015 that it was intending to privatise the Fremantle Port operations through the sale or long term lease of the Fremantle Inner Harbour, a Discussion Paper was prepare by the CEO that identified a range of strategic issues for the Council to consider in response to this proposal. Thereafter, the leadership of the City has been looking in more detail at some of the opportunities that arise as a result. One of the long held ambitions of the Fremantle community is better connections to the harbour waterfront, partly addressed through the Victoria Quay Mater Plan, but not addressed in relation to the eastern end of Victoria Quay, referred to as South Quay in this report. Being aware that the key driver for the state government is maximising the financial return for the state government, the CEO commissioned a report from MacroPlan to test whether the exclusion of South Quay from the proposed sale, and its redevelopment for commercial and public uses could be financially beneficial to government. In summary, the report shows that a significant financial return to government is possible through this process if South Quay is allowed to be freed of port operational requirements and redeveloped. It is acknowledged that the report does not assess the costs of relocating motor vehicle trade and bulk goods to Kwinana Port, but given the significant opportunities and returns to government identified in the report, it is recommended that government undertake investigations prior to finalising its documentation for sale or lease. The report is attached for information and receiving by council.

BACKGROUND

As per the executive summary


27 April 2016

Page 162


In all of the council’s strategic documents and plans, and all of the community feedback in relation to those plans, it has been clear that the people of Fremantle support a working port in Fremantle. Along with that has been a strong desire for better connections for people to the waterfront, including the harbour currently cut off by rail and port operational requirements. These two desires are not always congruent, but there are potential solutions that could be implemented that would significantly improve the current situation, including relocating some of the port trade either within the inner harbour or relocated completely to a second port at Kwinana. The state government’s announcement that it would privatise the port operations by the sale or long term lease of Fremantle port presents an opportunity to have a genuine dialogue about the future of port operations in the metropolitan area. It also presents a threat to the long held desire to create better waterfront connections if certain areas are “locked away” with that sale/lease for port operations for 50+ years. Recognising this threat and the potential opportunities, the City has commissioned a study to test the feasibility of releasing South Quay from port operational areas to allow redevelopment and connection to the city, without a cost to government. It was essential that study presented as a no cost to government potential given the government has made it clear that the purpose of the sale is to reduce government debt. The report attached demonstrates clearly there is a significant return to the state government, and a significant amenity and economic benefit to Fremantle with the proposal. On that basis this report should be looked at in more detail and expanded upon by the state government prior to entering into any port sale or lease. At the very least, it is essential that any sale or lease not restrict the opportunity to release South Quay in the short to medium term and not lock it away within an agreement to sell or lease purely for port operational purposes.

COMMENT

The Mayor and CEO have commenced a series of meetings with relevant government and opposition members of parliament to discuss the MacroPlan report. Early indications are that there is a level of support for this, albeit guarded given the process the government in undertaking in preparing documentation for the sale or lease.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational


27 April 2016

Page 163

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil at this time

CONCLUSION

The MacroPlan report clearly demonstrates feasibility for a “win-win” outcome for the state government and the city and community of Fremantle by allowing redevelopment of South Quay for non-port purposes and as such, at the very least, it is suggested that government should ensure South Quay is able to be released from port operational requirements within the term of any lease of the port. Ideally, it should be excluded but recognising the lead time for appropriate master planning for the area and development of more detailed proposals for development after that, such an outcome would establish a strong direction for the future.




1. That Council

a) receive the report prepared by MacroPlan entitled “Fremantle Port South Quay: Redevelopment Economic Benefit;

b) support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the state government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes; and

c) authorise the Mayor to continue lobbying for this outcome with appropriate members of government and the opposition.

Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to Part b) of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording:

b) support the principle of redeveloping South Quay for non-port operational purposes. As such, Council requests the state government as our preference, excludes the South Quay from the privatisation of the port, or to or as our second preference include a clause in any sale or lease with a private operator that will allow redevelopment for non-port purposes to occur


27 April 2016

Page 164

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 8/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The sale of the port is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the redevelopment of the South Quay. In fact, the redevelopment opportunity cold mean a higher price for state government and therefore be an attractive option for purchasers and the state government. Thus making the redevelopment more likely. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to include an additional part d) to the Officer's Recommendation as shown below: d) Request that the State government engage with the Council as a

collaborative partner in any redevelopment plans for South Quay

SECONDED: Cr J McDonald CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The city of Fremantle is a key stakeholder in the port and is keen to work collaboratively on further plans.


27 April 2016

Page 165

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to include additional points including Cr R Pemberton’s amendments to be incorporated into the Officer's Recommendation as shown below in bold and italics: 1. That Council a) receive the report prepared by MacroPlan entitled “Fremantle Port

South Quay: Redevelopment Economic Benefit

b) support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the state government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes

(i) support the principle of redeveloping South Quay for non-

port operational purposes. As such, Council requests the state government as our preference, excludes the South Quay from the privatisation of the port, or to or as our second preference include a clause in any sale or lease with a private operator that will allow redevelopment for non-port purposes to occur

(ii) seek to have the Passenger terminal and berths C, D, E,

and F quarantined from any sale or lease, and/or the state’s interest in further developing the cruise ship industry and terminus be protected as part of any sale/lease;

(iii) seek to have the Victoria Quay Master Plan area modestly

expanded to the north-east to ensure the City’s aspirations for the rail station and waterfront connectivity can be realised; and

2. Request that the State government engage with the Council as a collaborative partner in any redevelopment plans for South Quay

3. Authorise the Mayor to continue lobbying for these outcomes with appropriate members of government and the opposition


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin


27 April 2016

Page 166

Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To include provision to have passenger terminal and C, D, E, and F Berths removed from

sale at the Port and review the Victoria Master Plan.

Cr S Wainwright MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to consideration of this item until after the March 2017 WA state election. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin LOST: 1/10

For Against

Cr Sam Wainwright

Cr Jeff McDonald Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. That Council a) receive the report prepared by MacroPlan entitled “Fremantle Port

South Quay: Redevelopment Economic Benefit

b) support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the state government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes

(i) support the principle of redeveloping South Quay for non-port operational purposes. As such, Council requests the state government as our preference, excludes the South Quay from the privatisation of the port, or to or as our second preference include a clause


27 April 2016

Page 167

in any sale or lease with a private operator that will allow redevelopment for non-port purposes to occur

(ii) seek to have the Passenger terminal and berths C, D, E, and F quarantined from any sale or lease, and/or the state’s interest in further developing the cruise ship industry and terminus be protected as part of any sale/lease;

(iii) seek to have the Victoria Quay Master Plan area modestly expanded to the north-east to ensure the City’s aspirations for the rail station and waterfront connectivity can be realised; and

2. Request that the State government engage with the Council as a collaborative partner in any redevelopment plans for South Quay

3. Authorise the Mayor to continue lobbying for these outcomes with appropriate members of government and the opposition


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr Sam Wainwright


27 April 2016

Page 168

AUDIT COMMITTEE 13 APRIL 2016

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

At 9.31pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED that item number AC1604-1, AC1604-2, AC1604-3 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (e) of the Local Government Act. RESOLUTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY MOVED: Cr D Thompson That item AC1604-1, AC1604-2, AC1604-3 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1995. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against


At 9.31pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt requested the public to vacate the chamber to allow discussion on item AC1604-1, AC1604-2, AC1604-3, which was deemed to be confidential.

AC1604-1 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE (2 JONES STREET)

ECM Reference: 068/030 Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Detail Cost Implications for Redevelopment Options


27 April 2016

Page 169

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) 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 - (i) a trade secret; (ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or (iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of

a person

COMMITTEE DECISION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt To further explore options 1A, 2, and 3 for the redevelopment of 2 Jones Street O’Connor and hold a workshop with Audit and Risk Committee Members, Mayor, representative from the Christou Architect and quality surveyors. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 11/0

For Against



27 April 2016

Page 170

At 9.32 pm Cr D Coggin declared a financial interest in item number AC1604-2 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

AC1604-2 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT - FREMANTLE OVAL LEASE

ECM Reference: L066 & Fremantle Football Club Disclosure of Interest: NIL Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: Legal Advice on lease between FFC and City




a person


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt City of Fremantle will discuss the termination of the lease at no cost to the City. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 171

Cr D Coggin returned to the meeting at 9.33 pm. At 9.33 pm Cr D Thompson declared a financial interest in item number AC1604-3 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

AC1604-3 INSURANCE RENEWAL REPORT

ECM Reference: 042/018 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Audit & Risk Committee 13 April, 2016 Previous Item: Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil




a person


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council consider reviewing insurance needs and appointment of an independent broker to undertake a competitive process for insurance cover within the next twelve months. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 10/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


27 April 2016

Page 172

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.34 PM.


27 April 2016

Page 173

Summary Guide to Citizen Participation and Consultation

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with


27 April 2016

Page 174


any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


27 April 2016

Page 175


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


27 April 2016

Page 176

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


27 April 2016

Page 177


27 April 2016

Page 178

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 April 2016, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

27 April 2016

Page 2