NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge · DV15.176 Parkside Walk (Former Nursery Site) -Local Planning Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk (Design Guidelines) - Outcomes

MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 15 December 2015 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 10 December 2015 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments

to deliver improved cost effective services; To strive to meet the needs of our communities through strong community consultation, engagement

and collaboration; To embrace the principles of sustainability in our decision making to balance the needs of both current

and future generations through environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity; To continually improve our services through planning, adaptability and careful management of risks. VALUES In everything we do, we will seek to adhere to a set of values that guides our attitudes and behaviours: Friendly and Helpful Teamwork Creativity Integrity. ABOUT OUR LOGO The swan is representative of our state of Western Australia, and particularly of our very own Lake Monger. The graceful arc of the swan’s neck, integrated with the letter “C” is distinctive in its representation of the Town of Cambridge. The swan is centred in a diamond shape that symbolises prosperity. The upper green triangle denotes our beautiful parks with the peak representing Reabold Hill. The lower blue triangle represents our ocean and lakes. On a broader scale, the colours of blue and green represent strength and reliability. The logo is contemporary in design whilst maintaining a classical appeal.

BUSINESS 1. Opening 2. Attendance 3. Public Question Time 4. Petitions 5. Deputations 6. Applications for Leave of Absence 7. Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 November 2015 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion 9. Committee Reports

Development Committee 8 December 2015 Community and Resources Committee 7 December 2015

Audit Committee 8 December 2015 10. Council Reports

10.1 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - November 2015 10.2 Annual General Meeting of Electors 2014/2015 - Decisions

11. Urgent Business

12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given 12.1 Cr MacRae - Pether Lane 12.2 Mayor Shannon - Alternate Housing Options Proposal 12.3 Mayor Shannon - Enhancing Governance and Transparency in Elected Members

Contact with Developers 12.4 Mayor Shannon - Enhancing Governance and Transparency in Administrative

Officers Dealings with Developers 12.5 Mayor Shannon - Enhancing Governance and Transparency in Elected Members

Communications 12.6 Mayor Shannon - Registers Maintained by the Town to be Made Available on its

Website 12.7 Mayor Shannon - Gateway Signage 12.8 Mayor Shannon - Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths Policy 12.9 Mayor Shannon - Community Consultation and Engagement

13. Confidential Reports

13.1 Tender for the Sale of Lot 232 Finishline View and Lot 233 Stadium Drive in the Perry Lakes Estate

13.2 Dwelling Non-Compliance West Leederville - Appeal

14. Closure Disclaimer Visitors are reminded that mobile phones should be turned off during Council meetings

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

8 DECEMBER 2015

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

7. REPORTS

DV15.160 Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Proposed Fencing in the Street Setback Area - Referred Back 3

DV15.161 Lot 4 (No. 160) Railway Parade West Leederville - Change of Use to Dry Cleaning Premises 8

DV15.162 Lot 76 (No. 248-250) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use from Office to Educational Establishment (Music School) 12

DV15.163 Lot 75 (No. 3/252) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of Use from Office to Consulting Rooms (Group) 19

DV15.164 Lot 88 (No. 16) Lowanna Way, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 24 DV15.165 Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 31 DV15.167 Lot 412 (No. 37) Marlow Street, Wembley - Single Storey Dwelling 41 DV15.168 Lot 693 (No. 12) Lilika Road, City Beach - Proposed Additions and

Alterations, including a Third Storey Addition 46 DV15.169 Lot 725 (No. 158) Grantham Street, Floreat - Outbuilding (Garage/Shed) 50 DV15.170 Lot 11036 (No. 4) Keaney Place, City Beach - Rear Boundary Fence 54 DV15.171 Lot 227 (No. 40) Linden Gardens, cnr Grantham Street, Floreat - Shed 57 DV15.172 Lot 543 (No. 16) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Front Fence 61 DV15.173 Lot 544 (No. 14) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Front Fence 64 DV15.174 Application to Use Grantham Street - Selby Street Park and Construction

Management Plan for 271 Selby Street, Churchlands - Referred Back 67 DV15.175 Steps to Finalising the Wembley Activity Centre Plan 76 DV15.176 Parkside Walk (Former Nursery Site) - Local Planning Policy 3.12 Parkside

Walk (Design Guidelines) - Outcomes of Advertising 89 DV15.177 Lot 13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont - Local Planning

Policy 3.13 - St John's Wood, Mount Claremont 105 DV15.178 Lake Monger Community Garden Grant Report 110 DV15.179 Strata Lot 2 of Lot 51 (Unit 2, 110)) Cambridge Street, West Leederville -

Terrace Shutters - State Administrative Tribunal 113 DV15.180 Delegated Decisions and Notifications - November 2015 117 DV15.181 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - November 2015 119

8. CLOSURE 121

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 8 DECEMBER 2015 i

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.15 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.02 pm 8.15 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02pm 8.15 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02 pm 8.15 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.02 pm 8.15 pm Observers: Cr Jane Powell Cr Andres Timmermanis Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.15 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil


Item DV15.160 - Dayle Gherbaz, applicant Item DV15.168 - Sonia Krishana, owner Item DV15.169 - Tim Officer, applicant Item DV15.171 - Simon Doig, applicant Item DV15.174 - Justin Hatch, Psaros

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 8 DECEMBER 2015 1

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 17 November 2015 as contained in the November 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Item DV15.176 - Cr MacRae - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015

DV15.160 LOT 8 (NO. 7) HESPERIA AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED FENCING IN THE STREET SETBACK AREA - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for fencing in the front setback area of No. 7 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. The plans show a 1.8 metre high limestone wall along a portion of the front boundary to provide some screening to the outdoor living area and a proposed pool. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front walls and fences design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the fencing permits street surveillance and allows for unobstructed views of the dwelling

from the street and vice versa.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 389DA-2015 Owner: D Gherbaz Applicant: D Gherbaz Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 946 m² At its meeting held on 18 December 2012, Council granted planning approval for a two storey dwelling at the subject site. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the application required an assessment against the design principles for street and boundary setbacks. The dwelling is now complete and the owner would like a pool and some fencing for privacy. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is irregular in shape with three boundaries, and shares the corner of

Hesperia Avenue and Boronia Crescent with the adjoining property at No. 9 Boronia Crescent. The lot is not, however, a corner lot as it does not have vehicular access to Boronia Crescent.

• The front boundary is straight for 27.16 metres, then curves for 22 metres to Boronia Crescent. A 1.8 metre high limestone wall is proposed for the majority of the curve of the front boundary.

• On site is a recently completed two storey dwelling. The garage is located behind the dwelling on the south side and the main outdoor living areas are located in the north-western/western portion of the lot, where the front boundary curves.

• The plans show a rectangular pool adjacent to the front boundary. The location of the pool is restricted due to the septic tank system. It is noted that sewerage is planned for the site in 2016 as it is within the City Beach 2A Infill Sewerage Project area.

• The dwelling fronts the straight portion of the front boundary. Along this portion of the boundary, the plans show a 1.0 metre wide gate with 1.5 metre high limestone pillars on either side in front of the porch/entrance door and shrubs for the remainder of the length on either side of the gate.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed fencing:- • Landscaping at the front of the house on the northerly boundary will consist of sloping

lawn down to the verge and shrubbery at our property boundary. This will be a very open streetscape.

• Due to the unusual shape of our block, we effectively only have one rear boundary, one side boundary plus a very long front boundary, partly curved on the west side. This is the only “backyard” area we have and therefore require privacy. We seek to build a 1.8 metre high (standard height of side boundary fences) along the curved part of the boundary. This will give us some degree of privacy but only in the section of backyard closest to the wall where the swimming pool will be positioned. Due to the gentle slope of the land the upper section of our backyard and the alfresco area still remain in view of the street. The elevation of the house adds to this.

• The 1.8 metres will also provide one boundary fence to the pool. • Out property will still have an extremely “open” streetscape even with a high solid wall to

the side of the property. • We do not wish to build a double wall with garden in between as we have seen on some

corner properties as this will encroach on our yard space. It is already very difficult to fit a small pool in our yard due to the position of the septic tank and soakwells.

• We are fully aware of the impending availability of sewer connection however when this will eventuate is not known and we just wish to move on and landscape our new property as soon as possible.

Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Height of a solid wall

Max 0.75 metres 1.8 metres

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.

As previously stated, the dwelling fronts the straight portion of the front boundary which will have a gate and shrubs and no fencing. The dwelling will still, therefore, be clearly visible from the street. Furthermore the dwelling is elevated from street level, which further enhances street surveillance. The applicant has provided no details of the gate but is aware of the visual permeability requirements. A condition can be imposed requiring the gate to have an open to solid ratio of 4:1. No fencing along the majority of the front boundary and clear visibility of the dwelling from the street will permit surveillance and contribute to an open streetscape.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Due to the irregular lot shape and the garage at the rear, the outdoor living area has been positioned in the front setback area. From a streetscape perspective, having only a single width driveway and the garage behind the dwelling on the south side is a benefit and allows the dwelling to present well to the street. Furthermore, positioning outdoor living areas on the north side is advantageous for winter warmth. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the fencing permits street surveillance and allows for unobstructed views of the dwelling

from the street and vice versa.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for fencing in the street setback area submitted by D Gherbaz at Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 2 October 2015, subject to the following conditions: (i) the gate to be visually permeable and have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less

than 4:1; (ii) the extent of sold fencing to be limited to that area highlighted yellow on the approved

plan.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the limestone wall and requested that the Administration discuss with the applicant the possibility of reducing its bulk by installing some infill panels or alternative material, prior to the next meeting of Council. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 17 November 2015) The above item was referred to Council for determination. The Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant, the possibility of reducing the bulk of the limestone wall by installing some infill panels or alternative material. The Administration met with the owner on the site to discuss these options. The owner has now requested that the item be deferred to the December meeting so an amended proposal can be submitted. The Administration recommendation to defer the item is therefore put forward. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

That item DV15.146 regarding Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach for proposed fencing in the street setback area be referred back to the December 2015 Development Committee. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 24 November 2015) At the Development Committee meeting, the item was referred to Council for determination. The Council decided to defer the application, so an amended proposal can be submitted. The Development Committee requested the Administration to discuss with the applicant the possibility of reducing the bulk of the limestone wall by installing some infill panels or alternative material. The Administration met with the owner on site and amended plans were submitted on 27 November 2015. The amended plans show a 6.0 metre length of the proposed wall modified from a 1.8 metre high solid limestone wall to a 1.8 metre high wall with one pier, a 1.2 metre high solid limestone wall with 0.6 metre high infill panel with angled louvres above. The proposed 1.2 metre solid wall height is to comply with the relevant pool fencing requirements. The remainder of the proposed wall (15 metres) heading west will remain a 1.8 metre high solid limestone wall but will be screened by the Council's bush verge. It is considered that the amended plans address the Development Committee's concerns and the addition of the infill panels reduces the bulk of the limestone wall. The amended plans are therefore recommended for approval.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for fencing in the street setback area submitted by D Gherbaz at Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 27 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the gate to be visually permeable and have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less

than 4:1;

(ii) the extent of solid fencing to be limited to that area highlighted yellow on the approved plan.

Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members queried whether or not the louvre panels were fixed and at what angle. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the angled louvre panels being fixed at 45º open to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for fencing in the street setback area submitted by D Gherbaz at Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 27 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the gate to be visually permeable and have a surface with an open to solid ratio of

no less than 4:1;

(ii) the extent of solid fencing to be limited to that area highlighted yellow on the approved plan;

(iii) the angled louvre panels being fixed at 45º open to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 5/0



DV15.161 LOT 4 (NO. 160) RAILWAY PARADE WEST LEEDERVILLE - CHANGE OF USE TO DRY CLEANING PREMISES

SUMMARY: The Town has received an application for a change of use from warehouse to dry cleaners at No. 160 Railway Parade, West Leederville. The plans show a commercial dry cleaning premises with 6 parking bays (two at the front and four at the rear) and a loading bay at the rear. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the provisions of Policy 5.1: Parking as a car parking shortfall is proposed, which requires further assessment and discretion of Council. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies for the following reason:- • the proposed use will not generate a large amount of public clientele and will therefore

not impact on parking in the area. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0411DA-2015 Owner: Mrs MI Ottolini Applicant: Broadway Dry Cleaners Zoning: Commercial Use class: Dry Cleaning Premises - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants

approval) Land area: 387 m2 DETAILS: Development description • The applicant seeks approval to change the use of the existing building from a

warehouse to a dry cleaning premises. • The business will cater primarily for commercial dry cleaning, servicing hotel guest valet

and uniform cleaning services for major hotels and retail agencies. The main retail premises for the business is located in Oxford Street, Mount Hawthorn and therefore customer pick up and drop off to the subject premises will be minimal.

• The proposed hours of operation are: o Monday to Friday: 7.00am – 4.00pm; and o Saturday: 7.00am – 1.00pm.

• Vans will stop at the site four (4) times per day Monday to Friday, and three (3) times on Saturday, to unload and load laundry. These times have been scheduled so that there is only one van on site at any one time.

• Two (2) customer parking bays have been indicated at the front of the building, although at best one bay could only be accessed from the existing crossover. However, it is considered that walk-in traffic will be minimal. Four (4) staff parking bays have been provided to the rear of the building, along with a loading and unloading bay for the vans.

• The business will employ seven (7) staff members. • There will be no changes to the internal layout of the building.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the shortfall in parking bays. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission No advertising was required. Comment Land use The applicant is proposing a change of use to a dry cleaning premises, defined in the Town Planning Scheme as:-

any land or buildings used for the cleaning of garments and other fabrics by chemical processes.

The subject site is zoned ‘Commercial’ and a dry cleaning premises is classed as an ‘AA’ use under the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1), meaning that Council's approval is required. The site is located within the Southport Street Node in the West Leederville Precinct (Policy 6.5). The relevant statement of intent for this zone is as follows:-

The overall objective for these areas is to encourage and allow development which contributes to the improvement of the area through the replacement of older buildings with well-designed new buildings which improve the appearance and useability of streets and have ground floor commercial or retail uses. Improvements such as laneway connections, public space, enhanced pedestrian connections and shared parking facilities will be desirable outcomes in areas that currently lack these amenities and as determined by the Responsible Authority. The Southport Street Node will accommodate larger and taller buildings, taking advantage of the close proximity of the area to the city centre, West Perth and Leederville centres, as well as nearby train stations and freeway.

With regard to this statement of intent, the main issue is the level of traffic generated by the proposed change of use, and whether there will be a significant increase from the current use. Parking is further discussed below. The above statement of intent relates primarily to the construction of new buildings, and not the refurbishment of old buildings. It is considered that the proposed use will be consistent with other uses in the area, and may complement new businesses and buildings being constructed. Parking The proposed use falls under the classification of ‘dry cleaning premises/laundromat’ within the Town’s Policy 5.1: Parking. This use requires a parking provision of one bay per 20sqm net floor area. With a net floor area of 434.55sqm, the parking requirement for this proposal is 22 car bays. There are five (5) car bays on site, and one loading bay, leaving a shortfall of 17 car bays. With the previously approved use of a print shop, six (6) bays are required.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Although there is a significant shortfall in parking, it should be noted that the proposed use is not accurately defined in the parking calculation, as the parking for ‘dry cleaning premises/laundromat’ allows for a large volume of service to the public, which the applicant is not proposing. The proposal will entail collecting a large volume of laundry off site, and delivering it to site at specific times. The applicant has provided for ‘walk-in’ traffic, however this will be a minor part of the business. The delivery vehicles are scheduled so that there is only one vehicle on site at any one time. It is noted that as per Policy 5.1: Parking, Council could allow a parking reduction of up to 20% where the development meets certain conditions including being close to regular transport routes. The subject site is located within 600 metres of the West Leederville Train Station, and 400 metres of the Leederville Train Station. A 20% reduction results in an 18 bay parking requirement. This still however means that there is a 13 bay shortfall across the site. There is on-street parking in this location, however it is considered with the nature of the proposed business, this will not be impacted. The applicant should be requested to provide a Transport Management Plan that addresses such matters as to how the car bays will be allocated and managed as well as how staff should be encouraged use public transport. The subject lot has an existing right of carriageway over the portion of Lot 5 (to the north). This will provide access to the rear staff parking area and the loading bay for delivery vans. The applicant has stated that their will only be four deliveries per day, however, given that there is only one loading bay on site and the site is located in a commercial area, it is not considered necessary to limit deliveries to the site. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's submission


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use to a Dry Cleaning Premises submitted by Broadway Dry Cleaners Lot 4 (No. 160) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 23 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) no laundromat service to be provided;

(ii) no more than one (1) delivery vehicle to the site at any one time;

(iii) the parking bay at the front of the building are to be reserved for public parking bays only

and signed accordingly. No staff parking is permitted;

(iv) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from requiring planning approval;

(v) the preparation of a Transport Management Plan for staff and visitors to the building to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the occupation of the building. The Transport Management Plan is to include incentives for use of alternative modes of travel including cost subsidy for public transport fares, priority parking for car-pooling, and service and delivery vehicle parking;

(vi) the operation of, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan. Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the shortfall in parking and the manoeuvrability area at the rear of the building for delivery vans and staff. Further concern was also raised with regard to the proposed visitor parking at the front of the premises. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 2/3 For: Mayor Shannon and Cr Bradley Against: Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a change of use to a Dry Cleaning Premises submitted by Broadway Dry Cleaners, Lot 4 (No. 160) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 23 November 2015 for the following reasons:- (i) does not satisfy the parking provisions under the Town's Policy 5.1: Parking; (ii) the manoeuvring area for vehicles at the rear of the premises is inadequate for

delivery vans and staff parking; Carried 3/2 For: Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Bradley



DV15.162 LOT 76 (NO. 248-250) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT (MUSIC SCHOOL)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a change of use from office to educational establishment at No. 248-250, Cambridge Street, Wembley. The proposed use comprises a small music school which will entail no more than 4 students and 3 teachers at any one time. This music school is to be a 'silent' setup whereby students and teachers will utilise headphones for lessons, therefore noise emissions will be minimal. An ancillary office use is also proposed (less than 30sqm floor area). The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the Town's Parking Policy with a small shortfall in bays proposed. The subject site has no dedicated bays allocated to this tenancy; however there are existing shared bays which are accessed off the adjoining right-of-way (Kidson Lane) and Cambridge Street. Because of the small number of students and staff proposed, and taking into consideration the 'traditional strip centres' provisions of the Town's Parking Policy, the proposal is considered to be supportable without a cash-in-lieu contribution. The applicant is also proposing to provide 5 marked bays and dedicate 3 of these to the music school. To ensure minimal impact upon the existing and future businesses on the subject site and adjoining lots in terms of car parking, conditions are included with the recommendation in regard to the number of students, staff and operating hours of the business. Subject to compliance with these terms, the application is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0413DA-2015 Owner: Position Pty Ltd Applicant: Lanzon Consulting Pty Ltd Zoning: Commercial Use class: Educational Establishment - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants

approval) Land area: 685 m2 Whilst not specifically related to this report, it is noted that a change of use from office to consulting rooms (group) is proposed on the adjoining site to the west at No. 252 Cambridge Street (corner Daglish Street). That application is also the subject of a report on this agenda. DETAILS:

Development description • No. 248-250 Cambridge Street comprises a total of 4 lots - Lots 1, 2, 76 and 366. The

subject tenancy is located on lot 76, which is the western-most lot, abutting No. 252 Cambridge Street.

• The subject building is a well-established two storey office development. The subject tenancy is located on the upper floor, facing onto Cambridge Street and was previously used for an accounting service. At the rear of the site, adjacent to the right-of-way, (Kindson Lane) is a loading bay. Currently two shops are located on the ground floor of the building, both tenancies are currently occupied.



• The adjacent building on lots 1, 2 and 366 includes two larger 'shop' tenancies, the old Blockbuster Video store (currently vacant) and a BWS liquor store. Further to the east at No. 244-246 Cambridge Street is a music shop (Concept Music).

• There are no car bays on the subject lot (Lot 76), however, there are approximately 10 shared bays located on the adjacent lots 1, 2 and 366, and in addition 18 shared bays located on the adjoining property at No. 244 - 246 Cambridge Street. All of these properties are owned by the same proprietor (Position Pty Ltd). There are an additional 6 bays located at No. 244-246 Cambridge however these are dedicated to the Concept Music shop.

• The proposed music school is to entail one-on-one and small group lessons whereby no more than 3 teaching staff would operate from the premises at any one time. The applicant envisages that no more than 4 students would use the music school at any given time. A maximum of 3 classes would take place at any one time for a duration of between 30 and 60 minutes.

• Hours of operation will be predominantly after school (from 3.30pm) during the week and 9.00am - 2.00pm on weekends. The occasional lesson during business hours may occur. Those attending classes will be a mixture between children who will be dropped off at classes by parents and older students who would drive themselves.

• In addition to the above, a small office area is also proposed which will comprise less than 30sqm in floor area. The office is to be used in conjunction with the music school use.

• Given that no car bays exist on the site, and all bays on the adjoining lots are currently shared, a car parking shortfall is proposed. A total number of 5 car bays are required, based on 3 staff and 4 students (4 bays) and 30sqm of office space (1 bay).

• The applicant has agreed to provide 5 car bays at the rear of the site and allocate 3 of these bays to the music school (refer Attachment 2). This aspect is further discussed below.

• Environmental Health Services have reviewed the proposal and have recommended conditions regarding compliance with relevant noise regulations and operating hours. Conditions and advice notes are included with the recommendation where required.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided a written justification outlining the proposal and the operation of the music school. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Comment Land use The subject site is zoned 'Commercial' under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Under this zone, Educational Establishment is listed as an 'AA' use, meaning the use requires planning approval however is not required to be advertised. Whilst it is noted that the building is an established office development, it is acknowledged that current demand for office space is low within the Perth metropolitan area. As such, alternative uses and tenants are now more frequently being considered for developments that may have traditionally only been considered as office space. Music tuition services are not commonplace in minor commercial precincts such as this, however the location of this proposal is appropriate due to its location adjacent to two prominent streets (Cambridge Street and Harborne Street). The existence of a well-established music store (Concept Music) on the adjacent property (No. 244-246), is also noted. The applicant has stated that the music school has an established partnership with this music store. The silent setup of the music school will ensure minimal disruption for adjoining tenancies, however, Environmental Health conditions have been provided with the recommendation in respect to noise matters, as a precautionary measure.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Given these points, the proposed music school (i.e. educational establishment) is considered appropriate for this site and location. Car parking matters are further discussed below. Parking A base car parking requirement of 5 bays has been determined, taking into consideration the educational establishment (technical institution) use and ancillary office functions. As stated, there are no car bays on Lot 76, however some shared bays exist on immediately adjacent lots which could be utilised by the music school. The Town's Parking Policy, however, contains a special application of car parking ratios for areas deemed to be 'traditional strip centres'. The nature of this site, and the adjoining sites to the east and west at Nos. 244 - 250 Cambridge Street, could be classified as a traditional strip centre given that this is a well-established building located on a significant transport route, with no dedicated on site parking and 'shop fronts' addressing the street. This special provision for these centres is explained in the policy as follows:-

These centres generally have limited on-site parking available and little opportunity to provide parking bays. Where a change of use or additions are proposed, which result in an increased parking requirement (in accordance with Table 1), the Responsible Authority may determine the parking requirement solely based on the additional number of bays the new use generates compared to the most recently approved use The shortfall is to be paid by cash-in-lieu with no further parking concessions applicable. In this circumstance, a cash-in-lieu payment in excess of 25% of the parking requirement can apply.

In the table below, a summary is provided that illustrates how this strip centres provision can be applied in this scenario: Special Application of Parking Ratios (Policy 5.1) - 'Traditional Strip Centres' Use Number of Bays Comment Office - Current Use 4 bays required • Based on 105.45sqm NFA

• 1 bay per 30sqm ('Office') Educational Establishment (Technical Institution) - Proposed Use

4 bays required • Based on 3 staff (3 bays)

and not more than 10 students (1 bay)

Office - Proposed Ancillary Use 1 bay required • Based on 30sqm NFA

• 1 bay per 30sqm ('Office')

Combined 5 bays required (total) • Combined Office and

Educational Establishment uses.

Difference in number of bays required between current and proposed uses

1 bay • Additional bay required over previous 'office' use

• Cash-in-lieu amount per bay ('other commercial centres') Cash-in-lieu applicable $15,000

The applicant is proposing a small music school arrangement whereby no more than 3 staff and 4 students will utilise the facility at any one time. This is not an excessive proposal and will assist with reducing the likelihood of conflict between uses for existing car parking bays on the surrounding lots. It is noted that the Town's Parking Policy allows for up to 10 students per car bay for a 'technical institution', the proposed 4 students is significantly less than this, and has been factored into the assessment. As part of the recommendation, conditions of approval are


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 included restricting the number of staff and students at any one time to reflect what the applicant has indicated in their submission. A stated, there is no car parking available on Lot 76, therefore users of the music school will need to traverse lot boundaries and utilise bays on adjacent lots immediately to the east (all are owned by the same proprietor). This scenario is long-standing and is functioning well at present. There is currently good availability of car bays in the main car park at No. 244-246 Cambridge Street, as witnessed through two site visits of the property. However, this situation may change once a tenant has been secured for the old Blockbuster Video store at No. 248 Cambridge Street and another large vacant tenancy on the property to the west at No. 252 Cambridge Street. As such, the Town requested that the applicant consider additional parking provision to account for future changes of use in this centre. To assist with parking concerns, and to better future proof parking provision, the applicant is proposing to provide 5 line marked car parking bays on the adjacent lots 1, 2 and 366, accessed via the right of way. These bays are shown on the provided site plan, adjacent to the BWS liquor store. Currently, there are no line-marked bays in this location. Three of these bays are proposed to be signed for the use of the music school, this will ensure that there are some dedicated bays available to the music school at all times, which in turn should alleviate parking concerns on the adjoining lots to the east. The provision of 3 dedicated bays to the music school will reduce the car parking shortfall to 2 bays. Conditions of approval are included with the recommendation to reflect these matters. As of writing this report, the applicant has provided verbal confirmation that these works can be carried out and written endorsement from the property owner to this effect has also been obtained (refer to Attachment 2). Given the nature and location of the use proposed, being a small music school with a combined total of 7 teachers and staff, and the applicant's agreement to provide line marked and signed car bays which reduce the overall parking shortfall to only 2 bays, the proposal is considered to be supportable without a cash-in-lieu contribution.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.


There are no financial implications related to this report. The proposal has been assessed under the provisions of the Town's Parking Policy and it has been determined that a cash-in-lieu contribution would not be required in this instance, subject to other conditions of approval.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's submission. 2. Written consent from property manager on behalf of the property owner to provide 5 line

marked bays and have at least 3 of those bays allocated to the music school.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from office to educational establishment submitted by Lanzon Consulting Pty Ltd at Lot 76 (No. 248-250) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 6 November and 19 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a total of five (5) car bays are to be line marked on lots 1, 2 and 366 adjacent to Kidson

Lane, where indicated in red on the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) three (3) of the five (5) marked car bays on Lots 1, 2 and 366 are to be reserved for staff

of the music school and are to be signed accordingly to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) no more than four (4) students to utilise the music school at any one time;

(iv) no more than three (3) staff members or teachers to operate from the music school at any one time;

(v) the Premises to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protections (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(vi) the rooms that musical lessons are to be conducted in are to be adequately soundproofed to remove sound transmission to surrounding residential dwellings; and

(vii) the music lessons are to be conducted:- • between 7am and 7pm on Monday to Saturday inclusive; and • between 9am and 7pm on a Sunday or Public Holiday.

Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:- The premises shall comply with any health orders or directions imposed by the Town's Environmental Health Services in relation to noise issues that may arise as a result of noise from musical instruments and music emitted from the school. Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members queried the parking arrangements for the subject site and adjacent sites which are in the same ownership.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (viii) the owner of Lot 76 (No. 248-250) Cambridge Street, Wembley to provide a letter to the

Town and the music school business owner that parking in the adjacent lots 280 and 281 (Nos 244 and 246) Cambridge Street, Wembley can be used by the music school during opening hours;

(ix) the owner of the subject site is to mark out all legal parking bays on lots 280 and 281

(Nos 244 and 246) Cambridge Street, Wembley prior to the operation of the music school to the satisfaction of the Town.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from office to educational establishment submitted by Lanzon Consulting Pty Ltd at Lot 76 (No. 248-250) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 6 November and 19 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a total of five (5) car bays are to be line marked on lots 1, 2 and 366 adjacent to

Kidson Lane, where indicated in red on the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) three (3) of the five (5) marked car bays on Lots 1, 2 and 366 are to be reserved for

staff of the music school and are to be signed accordingly to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) no more than four (4) students to utilise the music school at any one time;

(iv) no more than three (3) staff members or teachers to operate from the music school at any one time;

(v) the Premises to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protections (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(vi) the rooms that musical lessons are to be conducted in are to be adequately soundproofed to remove sound transmission to surrounding residential dwellings; and

(vii) the music lessons are to be conducted:- • between 7am and 7pm on Monday to Saturday inclusive; and • between 9am and 7pm on a Sunday or Public Holiday.

(viii) the owner of Lot 76 (No. 248-250) Cambridge Street, Wembley to provide a letter to

the Town and the music school business owner that parking in the adjacent lots 280 and 281 (Nos 244 and 246) Cambridge Street, Wembley can be used by the music school during opening hours;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 (ix) the owner of the subject site is to mark out all legal parking bays on lots 280 and

281 (Nos 244 and 246) Cambridge Street, Wembley prior to the operation of the music school to the satisfaction of the Town.

Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:- The premises shall comply with any health orders or directions imposed by the Town's Environmental Health Services in relation to noise issues that may arise as a result of noise from musical instruments and music emitted from the school. Carried 5/0



DV15.163 LOT 75 (NO. 3/252) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TO CONSULTING ROOMS (GROUP)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a change of use from office to consulting rooms (group) at No. 3/252, Cambridge Street, Wembley. The proposal entails a shared occupational therapy and chiropractic practice within the subject tenancy whereby no more than 1 practitioner will operate from the premises at any one time. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the provisions of Policy 5.1: Parking as a car parking shortfall is proposed, which requires further assessment and discretion of Council. An assessment has been undertaken in respect to car parking, and the application is considered to satisfy the 'traditional strip centres' provision of the Town's Parking Policy, whereby the number of bays required between the current and proposed uses remains the same. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions, most significantly relating to the number of consultants operating from the premises at any one time, to ensure that parking issues do not arise and the ongoing operation of the business remains as envisaged by the applicant.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0412DA-2015 Owner: Mr A Conti Applicant: Peter Webb & Associates Zoning: Commercial Use class: Consulting Rooms (Group) - 'AA' (use not permitted unless Council grants

approval) Land area: 685m2 Although not specifically related to this application, it is noted that a change of use application from 'office' to 'health studio' (dance studio) in Unit 1 (i.e. not the subject tenancy) was submitted to the Town for consideration in March 2015 (0097DA-2015). Due to car parking concerns, this application was cancelled with the applicant seeking opportunities elsewhere. Further, in July 2014 Council refused an application for a change of use to 'health studio' (yoga studio), also in Unit 1. This refusal was also based on car parking concerns. It is noted that the Unit 1 tenancy is still vacant, along with the subject tenancy (Unit 3). These two previous applications on the subject site are important to note as they demonstrate that the Town recognises that both on-site and street car parking is in relatively short supply in this particular area. Therefore, the management of parking demand on local streets is an important consideration for change of use applications in the locality.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 DETAILS: Development description • The subject site contains an existing two storey commercial building that fronts onto

Cambridge Street (south) and Daglish Street (west), and abuts a right-of-way to the rear/north (Kidson Lane). The building includes 3 ground floor tenancies which are currently classed as 'office', and one existing consulting room tenancy on the upper floor (speech pathology and psychologist).

• The subject tenancy is approximately 123sqm in area and located on the ground floor of the building fronting onto Cambridge Street.

• This site includes 7 clearly marked car parking bays, which are accessed from Kidson Lane. Three (3) of these bays are currently allocated to the existing consulting rooms, and 1 bay is allocated to the existing corner office tenancy (currently trading as 'Pack Send'). The applicant has indicated that 1 of the remaining 3 bays will be allocated to the subject tenancy. There are also existing on-street car bays along Daglish Street (8 x 2 hour parallel bays).

• A site visit of the property did not identify any bicycle bays on site, however there is a bus stop along Cambridge Street in close proximity to the Cambridge Street entrance of this tenancy. A condition of approval is included in terms of providing one bicycle bay for the tenancy.

• It is noted that the proposed use has been determined as 'Consulting Rooms (Group)' based on the fact that existing consulting rooms already operate on the subject site, meaning the total number of consultants within the premises will equate to more than two. In any case, this classification does not impact the number or type of bays required under Policy 5.1 and is not required to be advertised.

• The proposal comprises a shared occupational therapy and chiropractic practice, whereby a husband and wife team (i.e. 2 practitioners) will operate an alternating consultation schedule between the two consulting services. Operating hours of the business are envisaged to be between 8am and 6pm (Monday to Friday) and 9am to 12pm on Saturdays. The two practitioners are not intending to employ reception staff and will each undertake reception duties while the other is conducting a consultation.

• It is intended for the chiropractor to see 13 patients per day, and for the occupational therapist to see 6 patients per day, with consultations lasting between 20 and 45 minutes. All consultations are one-on-one.

• Car parking provision has been assessed and a base requirement of 4 bays has been determined, this is on the basis of 1 practitioner operating from the tenancy at any one time (with the other operating reception). Given that a 3 bay shortfall is proposed, this matter requires further discussion against the provisions of Policy 5.1.

• Chiropractic and Occupational Therapy services are not captured in the skin penetration regulations. Therefore, Environmental Health Services have no specific requirements for this proposal. However, the premises should comply with the Health Act 1911 in relation to lighting, ventilation, etc. and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 in relation to noise levels. An advice note is included to cover this aspect.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the proposal and has outlined a number of points in respect to the nature of the proposed use and car parking provision on and off the site. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Comment Land use The subject site is zoned 'Commercial' under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Under this zone, Consulting Rooms (group) is listed as an 'AA' use, meaning the use requires planning approval however is not required to be advertised. Whilst it is noted that the building is an established office development, it is acknowledged that current demand for office space is low within the Perth metropolitan area. As such, alternative uses and tenants are now more frequently being considered for developments that may have traditionally only been considered as office space. Consulting rooms are a common occurrence in minor strip centres such as the subject site and its immediate surrounds. The existence of a well-established consulting practice within the subject building is also noted. Given these points the proposed use of consulting rooms (group) is considered appropriate for this site and location. Car parking matters are further discussed below. Car Parking In basic terms, a shortfall of 3 bays is proposed (4 bays required, 1 on-site bay allocated). The Town's Parking Policy, however, contains a special application of car parking ratios for areas deemed to be 'traditional strip centres'. The nature of this site, and the adjoining sites to the east at Nos. 244 - 250 Cambridge Street, could be classified as a traditional strip centre given that this is a well-established building located on a significant transport route, with car parking accessed off an adjoining right-of-way and 'shop fronts' addressing the street. This special provision for these centres is explained in the policy as follows:-

These centres generally have limited on-site parking available and little opportunity to provide parking bays. Where a change of use or additions are proposed, which result in an increased parking requirement (in accordance with Table 1), the Responsible Authority may determine the parking requirement solely based on the additional number of bays the new use generates compared to the most recently approved use The shortfall is to be paid by cash-in-lieu with no further parking concessions applicable. In this circumstance, a cash-in-lieu payment in excess of 25% of the parking requirement can apply.

In the table below, a summary is provided that illustrates how this strip centres provision can be applied in this scenario: Special Application of Parking Ratios (Policy 5.1) - 'Traditional Strip Centres' Use Number of Bays Comment Office - Current Use 4 bays required • Based on 123sqm NFA

• 1 bay per 30sqm ('Office')

Consulting Rooms (Group) - Proposed Use 4 bays required

• Based on 1 consultant operating from the premises at any one time (alternating basis).

Difference in number of bays required between current and proposed uses

Nil • Number of bays remains

unchanged (4 bays) • 1 bay on-site exceeds the

requirements of the policy (nil bays permissible) Cash-in-lieu applicable Nil


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 As detailed above, the difference in the number of bays required between the current and proposed uses is nil, hence no cash-in-lieu contribution or additional on-site car parking bays are required under the policy. A requirement of 4 bays is dependant, however, on the assumption that no more than one consultant is to operate/practice from the business at any one time, based on an alternating schedule between two consulting services. To ensure that the business operates as envisaged by the applicant, conditions of approval are required in respect to restricting the number of consultants operating at any one time, the nature and use of the on-site allocated car parking bay and the number of customers/clients seen at any stage (refer to the recommendation for a list of these conditions). The applicant has stated in their submission that the consultants are proposing to utilise car parking on Daglish Street, and dedicate the on-site car bay to patients. Given that on-street parking is time limited (2 hour), and the relatively short consultation lengths proposed (20 - 45 minutes), it is considered more appropriate for the on-site bay to be reserved for staff. Two site visits have been conducted by the Town, which have shown on-street parking availability along Daglish Street in the morning and afternoons. It is noted that medical consulting service(s) have been operating from the upper floor tenancy in the subject building for some time. It is therefore considered appropriate for the on-site bay to be allocated to staff, with customers/clients parking on the street. Given the one-on-one appointment schedule proposed, disruption of on-street parking availability for other uses in this instance will be minimal. The applicant has stated that staff may utilise public transport to commute to work, should this be the case once the business is operational there may be scope to consider allowing customers/clients to utilise the on-site car bay. The proposed consulting room business is considered a relatively low-impact use for this site and locality, when compared with other uses which could be considered for the premises, including a shop, restaurant/café, showroom or an office (existing use). Given the above discussion, the proposed change of use is supported subject to specific conditions of approval to support the continued operation the business. The applicant has demonstrated that the provisions of the Town's Parking Policy have been satisfied under 'strip centres' provisions and therefore no cash-in-lieu contribution is required (subject to other conditions of approval).








This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's submission.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from office to consulting rooms (group) submitted by Peter Webb & Associates at Lot 75 (No. 3/252) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 26 October and 16 November 2015, subject to the following conditions: (i) one (1) on-site car bay is to be reserved exclusively for the use of staff of the consulting

rooms, and to be signed accordingly to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) a minimum one (1) short-stay bicycle space to be provided in a suitable location for the use of staff and/or clients of the business to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) no more than one (1) practitioner to operate from the premises at any one time;

(iv) no more than one customer or client on the premises at any one time. Footnote: The premises shall comply with the Health Act 1911 in relation to lighting, ventilation, etc. and the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 in relation to noise levels. Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the shortage of car parking and the lack of car parking bays available for clients. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 2/3 For: Crs King and MacRae Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and O'Connor COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a change of use from office to consulting rooms (group) submitted by Peter Webb & Associates at Lot 75 (No. 3/252) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 26 October and 16 November 2015 for the following reason:- (i) the provision of one parking bay on site is insufficient for the nature of the

business. Carried 5/0



DV15.164 LOT 88 (NO. 16) LOWANNA WAY, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 16 Lowanna Way, City Beach. The proposal primarily comprises a new dwelling, swimming pool, fencing and landscaping features on a large site which is currently vacant (aside from the existing tennis court). The key matter pertaining to this report relates to the 'wall' height of proposed dormer windows, which are located within the roof space of the dwelling. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and neighbour concerns have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the terrace and dormer windows are located centrally within the roof planes, and because

of this, will integrate with the surrounding primary roof forms of the dwelling and ensure appropriate separation from adjoining side properties;

• the overall height of the three dormer windows is less than 9 metres and therefore satisfies the deemed-to-comply provision of the Town's Policy 3.3: Building Height for a hipped and/or gabled roof; and

• the inclusion of the street-facing terrace within the roof space will assist with street surveillance, and the stepped-back dormer roof provides additional visual relief as the 'bulk' of the roof is pushed back from the street.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0298DA-2015 Owner: Mr J Liu and Ms A Cui Applicant: Ottofirm Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 986m2 This application was originally submitted in July 2015, showing a three storey dwelling with an undercroft garage on the subject site. In response to concerns raised by the Town in respect to the overall height of the proposal, a significantly scaled-down version of the design was submitted for assessment in September 2015. These amended plans were then advertised to surrounding property owners, who raised concerns primarily in respect to the height and appearance of the dormer windows to the roof loft, and the privacy implications pertaining to the inclusion of a habitable room/space within the roof of the dwelling. In response to these neighbour concerns, further amended plans were lodged in November 2015 showing, most significantly, a reduction in the sizes of the dormer windows, reduced overall height, deletion of the rear/north facing terrace and provision of decorative screening to the 'sky bridge'. It is the latter set of plans which are the subject of the following report.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is currently vacant aside from the existence of a tennis court and

retaining walls with landscaping. The site is generally flat courtesy of an existing tennis court, however does rise considerably towards the rear/northern boundary. These existing levels and retaining walls are to generally remain as currently exists. Surrounding properties to the north and east are elevated above the subject site, according to the site feature survey.

• The ground floor finished floor level (FFL) of the proposed dwelling is the same level of the existing tennis court (15.43 A.H.D), which comprises a significant proportion of the site area.

• The proposal represents a comprehensive redevelopment of the site comprising of ground floor landscaping treatments, low retaining walls, street fencing, a two storey dwelling, swimming pool and rear outdoor entertaining areas. Existing high retaining walls and landscaping at the rear of the property are to be preserved, and a proposed 'sky bridge' from the first floor connects the dwelling with this existing raised landscaping area. A new single driveway and crossover is proposed, currently no crossover to the property exists. A loft is proposed within the roof space and three dormer windows have also been included.

• A lot boundary setback variation has been identified to the ground floor garage on the western side. This garage, with a setback of between nil and 2.2 metres from the boundary, requires a minimum setback of 1 metre. This matter is considered a minor issue given that the majority of the setbacks along that side of the dwelling exceed the required deemed-to-comply provisions. The angled northern boundary is also a factor that contributes towards the setback reduction. The adjoining northern side neighbour was consulted on this matter, with no comments received. As such, the setback of the garage is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.

• The applicant has provided advice to confirm that the driveway can be tapered to achieve a compliant clearance from the base of the tree. A condition and advice note is therefore included with the recommendation to this effect.

• The proposal meets deemed-to-comply provisions of the Streetscape Policy in respect to landscaping, street surveillance and fencing. Relevant conditions are included with the recommendation on these aspects, where required.

• A street-facing balcony is proposed on the first floor that projects into the 6 metre setback area. This balcony is shown on the plans as being unroofed and with clear glass balustrading, therefore complying with the Town's Streetscape Policy provisions for minor incursions in the street setback area. A condition is included with the recommendation to ensure that this design feature is provided.

• The proposal satisfies all deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes in respect to visual privacy. During consultation, however, concern was raised in respect to overlooking from the proposed sky bridge. In response to this the applicant has included a 1.8 metre high decorative screen and feature piers to discourage overlooking of adjoining properties from the bridge. A condition of the recommendation relates to the provision of this additional privacy measure.

• Three dormer windows within the roof space are proposed, which do not satisfy the Town's exemption provisions for such features. As such, variations to 'wall height' provisions of the Town's Building Height Policy are proposed. The overall roof height of the dwelling is compliant. These matters are discussed in the following section.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the height of the dormer windows. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties surrounding the subject site, being Nos. 11, 14 and 18 Lowanna Way to the south, west and east, and Nos. 10 and 11 Dodonia Gardens to the north. Three submissions were received in respect to the height and appearance of the dormer windows within the roof space and the privacy implications of the attic and terraces. One submission also raised privacy concerns in respect to the proposed 'sky bridge' connecting the first floor of the dwelling with the existing raised landscaping area at the rear of the property. A stated, plans submitted November 2015 detailed design amendments which aimed to address these concerns. Due to the timing of the amended plans submission neighbours have not viewed the revised plans, however, given that deemed-to-comply provisions have still not been satisfied (for wall height) the objections are still applicable. A summary of the original neighbour submissions is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Building height (Dormer Windows) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.5 metres 7.15 - 8.07 metres (measured to the base of the dormer windows)

Roof height

Max 9.0 metres 8.85 metres (i.e. compliant)

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The Town's Building Height Policy outlines exemptions to dormer windows from building height calculations if certain design-based criteria are met, these are:- • the width of the dormer does not exceed 1.5 metres; • the height of the dormer does not exceed half the height of the roof (measured from

eaves to ridge line); • the dormer does not project more than 1.0 metre from the roof; • the dormer is located a minimum of 0.5 metres below the ridge line of the roof and a

minimum of 0.5 metres from the outer wall of the dwelling; and • there is a maximum of one dormer in each elevation. The proposal satisfies the above provisions in respect to a maximum of one dormer in each elevation, however, variations are proposed in respect to the remaining points.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Three dormer windows within the roof space are proposed, on the northern, western and southern elevations. The purpose of these windows is to provide light and ventilation to an attic space concealed within the roof. All three of these dormer windows exceed the maximum size required to be exempt from building height calculations, as detailed above, hence the Town assessed these features as per a standard height assessment. The three dormer windows project between 2 and 3 metres from the primary upper ridge line. The overall height of these dormer windows is less than 9 metres, therefore compliant with the top of roof height provisions of the Town's Building Height Policy. A rear dormer window and terrace was proposed at the rear/northern side of the dwelling, however this was deleted in response to concerns from neighbouring property owners. The applicant has significantly reduced the size of the dormer windows on the northern and western elevations, to improve the design in response to neighbour concerns. To date, a total of 5 sets of amended plans have been submitted showing gradual revisions to the plans. The western and northern side dormer windows have been reduced in size to be minor projections with small openings that will act as skylights to the loft space. All three dormers sit below the highest ridge line of the dwelling, with a maximum roof height of 8.85 metres. The wall height calculations have been measured to the base of the window sill and range between 7.15 metres and 8.07 metres above natural ground level. The addition of three dormer windows does add some 'bulk' to the roof design. The northern and western side dormers, as shown on the most recent set of amended plans, are considered to be more minor concerns given their relatively small size. It is also worth noting that if these small windows were filled-in (i.e. if the glazing was deleted) the dormers would become gable walls and be exempt from wall height calculations, (gable walls above eaves height are exempted). The inclusion of minor openings in these roof projections does not contribute towards bulk and scale considerations, nor will the windows have an impact upon overlooking of adjoining properties due to their sill height of 1.8 metres above the floor level of the attic. It is noted that the dwelling does step down in height towards the western side boundary. Whilst the dormer windows exceed the maximum size permitted under the Building Height Policy, they are still relatively small when compared to the overall area of primary roof space. The street/southern facing dormer window is more significant in terms of size, due to the inclusion of a small terrace within the roof which is accessed from the loft. This upper floor terrace is set back 8.0 metres from the street and hence is stepped-back from the floors below. The attic itself is set back 10.4 metres from the street, with the roof set back 9.6 metres. The floor of the terrace is recessed within the primary dwelling roof, which reduces its visual significance. The inclusion of the terrace and the setting back of the dormer roof provides some visual relief in terms of the 'bulk' of the roof being further pushed back from the street, and will also assist with street surveillance. The terrace and dormer window are located centrally within the roof plane, and because of this, will integrate with the surrounding primary roof forms of the dwelling and ensure an appropriate separation from adjoining side properties. Despite neighbour concerns, the terrace meets deemed-to-comply provisions for visual privacy. The finished floor level of the dwelling matches the level of the existing tennis court, which is slightly elevated above the street. Because of this elevation, the terrace and dormer window would be partially obscured from view by the lower primary roof section. The subject site is located towards a topographic low point along Lowanna Way and hence most adjoining properties are either at the same level as the subject site or positioned significantly higher, particularly the rear properties in Dodonia Gardens. The overall roof height of the dwelling, including all dormers, meets deemed-to-comply provisions (i.e. maximum 9 metres or less). Access to views of significance is therefore not considered a major consideration in this instance. There will be some loss of views toward the west from the adjoining eastern side property, however, this would not be attributed to the inclusion of the dormer windows as views would be obscured by the main two storey building (which has a wall


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 height up to 1 metre less than the deemed-to-comply provision). Given the orientation of the subject site, being north-south, direct sun overshadowing considerations are not pertinent in this instance. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the terrace and dormer windows are located centrally within the roof planes, and because

of this, will integrate with the surrounding primary roof forms of the dwelling and ensure appropriate separation from adjoining side properties;

• the overall height of the three dormer windows is less than 9 metres and therefore satisfies the deemed-to-comply provision of the Town's Policy 3.3: Building Height for a hipped and/or gabled roof; and

• the inclusion of the street-facing terrace within the roof space will assist with street surveillance, and the stepped-back dormer roof provides additional visual relief as the 'bulk' of the roof is pushed back from the street.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Ottofirm Pty Ltd at Lot 88 (No. 16) Lowanna Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 27 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the street-facing balcony on the first floor to be unroofed and contain open-style

balustrading not higher than 1.2 metres above the finished floor level of the balcony, to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays) and is to have a

minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base of the street tree;

(iii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1;

(iv) all fencing within the primary street setback area, including side boundaries, to be visually permeable and meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(v) the trees located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;

(vi) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;

(vii) a septic tank application to be submitted to the Town prior to the issue of a Building Permit;

(viii) perforated metal screening to the 'sky bridge' is to be provided to the satisfaction of the Town. The screening is to be a minimum of 1.8 metres high above the finished floor level of the bridge, as indicated on the approved plans;

(ix) no retaining walls higher than 500 millimetres above natural ground level; and

(x) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Footnotes: 1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

2. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the size of the dormer windows and the impact of the building height on the streetscape and the amenity of the adjacent properties. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/4. For: Cr MacRae Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, King and O'Connor COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATON: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Ottofirm Pty Ltd at Lot 88 (No. 16) Lowanna Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 27 November 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) due to the size of the dormer windows, the dwelling does not meet the wall height

requirements of the Town's building height policy; (ii) the building height has an adverse impact on the streetscape and the amenity of

the adjoining properties. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, King and O'Connor Against: Cr MacRae



DV15.165 LOT 19 (NO. 4) BARRETT STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 4 Barrett Street, Wembley. The plans show a dwelling with a dwelling with a roofed front balcony and architectural feature within the front setback area. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the primary street setback and lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection was received during advertising. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the setback of the dwelling contributes to and does not detract from the established

character of the streetscape; • the reduced side setback does not impact on building bulk, overshadowing or loss of

privacy to the adjoining property.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0406DA-2015 Owner: Mr NG Menchetti Applicant: Carlo Menchetti Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 680 m2

The application was originally received in October 2015. To address some anomalies on the plans, amended drawings were received on 10 November 2015. It is these plans that are the subject of this report.

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey dwelling with undercroft garage. • Site slopes up from Barrett Street towards Mercy Village at the rear. • Two storey dwelling with pool and cabana/store to the rear. House has architectural

feature across the front of the dwelling and within the front setback area. • Landscaping is provided within the front setback area including three mature trees and

low retaining walls. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the proposed setback variations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos 2 and 6 Barrett Street. One submission was received from the owners of No. 6 Barrett Street objecting to the proximity of the alfresco to their boundary and concerned regarding overlooking. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front / primary street setback

Min 6.0 metres to upper storey

5.0 metres (to roofed balcony)

Minor incursions

30% of frontage of building for architectural features

57.6%

Design principles: Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; • accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and utilities; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. Buildings mass and form that: • uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building; • uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; • minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building services, vehicle

entries and parking supply, blank walls, servicing infrastructure access and meters and the like; and

• positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The proposed dwelling has a garage, entry and family room at ground level with a primary street setback of 5.0 metres. Immediately above the family room is the master bedroom and a balcony. The master bedroom is set back 7.0 metres but the balcony sits over the family room and has a setback of 5.0 metres. The roof extends out over this balcony so that it does not meet the definition of a minor incursion. On the basis of the dwelling providing articulation between solid walls at ground and upper levels, however, it is considered that the building is set back an appropriate distance from the street so that the character of the street is not compromised. In addition, a feature wall, similar to an unroofed verandah, is proposed to run across the front of the dwelling from the front entry across the front of the garage with a 3.0 metre setback from the front boundary. An architectural feature/porch/portico may project up to 1.0 metre into the front setback area for a maximum of 30% of the frontage of the building; a verandah may occupy the full width of the dwelling, providing support piers are no more than 0.5 metres in width. As mentioned, the architectural feature does look like a veranda but has one support column 1.0 metre in width and it runs for 57.6% of the frontage of the building. It is, however, open sided and does not interrupt views between the dwelling and the street.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the upper floor and the architectural feature within the street setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the setback of the dwelling contributes to and does not detract from the established

character of the streetscape.

Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Ground Floor Side setback Upper Floor Side Setback

Min 1.5 metres from scullery/alfresco wall to left/western side boundary Min 1.9 metres for upper floor ensuite/void wall from left/western side boundary

1.2 metres 1.2 metres

Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and

adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for

adjoining properties is not restricted; and positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The dwelling has a scullery/kitchen wall at ground level, and a ensuite wall at upper storey level, 1.2 metres from the western boundary. Beyond these solid walls is an alfresco area which has a void area above it up to the second storey roof line. A bulkhead runs from the scullery wall to the rear supporting pier of the alfresco. Based on this entire length of wall, a 1.5 metre setback is required at ground level and a 1.9 metre setback at the upper level. It is considered, however, that due to the open void area to the alfresco the bulk of the wall is reduced and a 1.2 metre setback is appropriate. There are no visual privacy issues associated with the proposed walls. The adjoining landowner has, however, expressed some concern over the proximity of the alfresco to their living areas and the possibility of noise from people using the alfresco as well as from the rangehood. The applicant has agreed to install a screen of louvres on the western elevation to assist in reducing noise associated with the alfresco. The other objections expressed by the adjoining landowner relate to overlooking. It is noted that the window facing their boundary are all to non habitable rooms and the front balcony only overlooks their open front garden and driveway.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the western boundary, subject to screening of the alfresco, satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the reduced side setback does not impact on building bulk, overshadowing or loss of

privacy to the adjoining property.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Carlo Menchetti at Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 10 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a louvered screen be fixed on the western side of the proposed alfresco area to assist in

reducing noise to the adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the size of the trees shown on the landscape plan within the front setback area shall be a

minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter to comply with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iii) a separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street setback area.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the size of the architectural feature at the front of the dwelling. Members agreed that the street tree is to be retained and the crossover is to be a maximum of 4.5 metres with no splays. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That a further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) the street tree to be retained; (v) the crossover to be a maximum of 4.5 metres with no splays; Amendment carried 5/0 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vi) the architectural feature in the front setback area being deleted. Details to be provided at

building permit stage. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Carlo Menchetti at Lot 19 (No. 4) Barrett Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 10 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a louvered screen be fixed on the western side of the proposed alfresco area to

assist in reducing noise to the adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the size of the trees shown on the landscape plan within the front setback area

shall be a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter to comply with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iii) a separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street setback area. (iv) the street tree to be retained; (v) the crossover to be a maximum of 4.5 metres with no splays; (vi) the architectural feature in the front setback area being deleted. Details to be

provided at building permit stage. Carried 5/0



DV15.166 LOT 335 (NO. 32) OBAN ROAD CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY: The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 32 Oban Road, City Beach. The rear of the dwelling is stepped down following the natural ground level and is set back 3.056 metres from the rear boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front and rear setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed balcony contributes to the desired streetscape and acts as an architectural

feature to the building and does not dominate the front façade; and • the reduced setback to the rear boundary reduces overlooking of adjoining properties

from the main ground level. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0367DA-2015 Owner: Mrs C Ferrari Applicant: Mrs C Ferrari Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 774sqm DETAILS: Development description • The property is level for the majority of the site and then drops off significantly 2.5 metres

to the rear northern boundary. • The applicant proposes a dwelling which is double storey at the front, then single storey

to the middle (kitchen, dining and alfresco), with a double storey building to the rear consisting of a workshop on the lower level, and a games room at the 'ground floor' level.

• The dwelling is set back 3.056 metres from the rear boundary, and 6.0 metres from the front boundary.

• An 11.2 metre parapet wall is proposed to the garage on the western boundary. The adjoining owner did not object to the wall on the boundary.

• The balcony to the first floor is located within the front setback area (5.093 metres from front boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres) and is under the main roof of the dwelling.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to street setback, lot boundary setback and visual privacy. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Neighbour submission The applicant has approached all adjoining property owners. They have no objections to any of the proposed variations. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback balcony from primary (Oban Road) boundary

Min 6.0 5.003 metres




The proposed balcony is under the main roof and therefore is considered part of the building, and requires a 6.0 metre setback from the front boundary. The applicant seeks a setback of 5.003 metres. The proposed balcony accounts for 19% of the frontage of the building, and is open on three sides (apart from where it is concealed by the building). There is open wrought iron balustrading and a turret which makes the porch and balcony an architectural feature of the dwelling, therefore contributing to the existing streetscape. If the balcony was unroofed, a 4.0 metre setback would be permissible as a minor projection which may have a greater impact on the streetscape. The proposed design is more consistent with the existing streetscape, and positively contributes to the façade of the dwelling. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the primary street boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed balcony contributes to the desired streetscape and acts as an architectural

feature to the building and does not dominate the front façade. Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback dwelling from Min 6.0 metres 3.035 metres to 12.7 metres


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 northern (rear) boundary Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and




The games room and workshop are located within the rear setback area; however there are no objections from any adjoining owners. The adjoining owners support the variation as the games room will provide screening to the adjoining properties and protect privacy between the owners due to the significant drop in the land at the rear of the property. The removal of this section of building would result in the loss of privacy between adjoining properties. The applicant has amended the plans showing a minimum 3.0 metre setback (in lieu of the original 2.0 metre setback proposed), which still provides adequate separation between the dwellings. The reduced setback is to the northern boundary, so there will be little impact on the adjoining property's access to the winter sunlight. The proposed building will be located directly behind a large outbuilding on the adjoining property to the north. The upper floor is set back 19.7 metres from the rear boundary to reduce the overall impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the rear boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setback to the rear boundary reduces overlooking of adjoining properties

from the main ground level. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's justification ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Mrs C Ferrari at 335 (No. 32) Oban Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 19 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the

Town. (iv) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); (v) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated; (vi) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an

open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1.

Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that the existing street tree be retained as detailed on the approved plan. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) the existing street tree being retained as detailed on the approved plan. Amendment carried 5/0


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Mrs C Ferrari at 335 (No. 32) Oban Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 19 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond; (iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town. (iv) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); (v) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated; (vi) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (vii) the existing street tree being retained as detailed on the approved plan. Carried 5/0



DV15.167 LOT 412 (NO. 37) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No. 37 Marlow Street, Wembley. The plans show a new dwelling on the subject site which encroaches into the applicable primary street setback area. The applicant has cited potential future subdivision of the subject site as the main reason for proposing a reduced front setback to the dwelling. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) for 'street setback'. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the proposal's use of materials, landscaping, minimal fencing and varied building

setbacks will reduce the significance of the street setback encroachment, and will ensure that the dwelling will not detract from the established streetscape.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0390DA-2015 Owner: Ms B Bienen and Mr TW Green Applicant: Arcologic Design Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1075m2

This application was originally submitted in October 2015 with plans showing variations to landscaping in the front setback area, the lot boundary setback to the garage, street setbacks to the dwelling and garage, as well as a crossover width issue. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in November 2015 showing minor adjustments to the plans. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is a large, generally flat single lot containing a single storey dwelling. The

size and zoning of the lot does allow for future subdivision into two lots. • The proposed single storey dwelling is positioned within the front half of the site, with a

5.1 metre setback from the northern boundary. This configuration is intended to allow for a future 'battle-axe' subdivision of the lot (refer to the site plan).

• Included as part of the application is a new driveway and crossover, which is to replace an existing bitumen crossover. The street tree on the verge is also to be retained. Conditions of approval are included with the recommendation on these aspects.



• The proposal includes a garage wall to the southern boundary, this wall is 6.5 metres in length and 3.354 metres high with a face brick finish. The adjoining neighbour to the south was consulted and expressed no objections to the parapet wall. This matter satisfies design principles as the garage is set back 6 metres from the primary street and will sit adjacent to a garage on the southern property, ensuring minimal impact in terms of building bulk or amenity. A condition is included with the recommendation in respect to the finish of the parapet wall.

• It is noted that the proposal meets deemed-to-comply provisions for landscaping in the front setback area, street surveillance, the garage front setback as well as vehicle access and crossovers.

• Requiring further assessment in this report is the street setback of the dwelling, specifically the setback of the bedrooms from the front boundary. A minimum setback of 4.2 metres is proposed to this section of the dwelling. This matter is analysed further under design principles in the following section.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the street setback of the dwelling and has stated the following: Shifting the home (or part of it) back even 525 mm has the following negative outcomes:- • The parapet wall of the garage (currently moved to 6 m setback in response to your

requests) will shade more of the North windows of the neighbouring property. • More of the north windows of our living area (designed for solar passive principles) will be

lost if we move the bedroom wing back to the West. • We severely compromise the future ability of the rear of the Lot to be subdivided for a

future home to be built under the existing rights of the zoning and the stated desire of Council and Government for sensitive Infill targets to be met.

• The Streetscape appeal will not change in the slightest due to moving the home back 525 mm's. Along with the verge there is already an area 10.5 metres deep for landscaping between the house and the street.

A full summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being No. 35A Marlow Street, Wembley. The owner of this property responded to the Town via email indicating no objections to the parapet wall.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Assessment against the design principles Street setback (Wembley Precinct - Residential R20) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Primary street setback (Dwelling)

Min 5 metres (no minor incursions permitted)

Min 4.2 metres (to bedroom window projections)

Primary street setback (Garage)

6 metres 6 metres (compliant)




The Town's Streetscape Policy allows for a 1 metre reduction to the setback of the dwelling (i.e. 5 metres) if there are no carports or minor incursions proposed. This proposal does not include a minor incursion or a carport, however the dwelling encroaches into the 5 metre setback area. The applicant's most recent set of amended plans show an increase to the street setback of the dwelling to a minimum of 4.2 metres (previously 3.75 metres). The minimum setback is measured to the bedroom window projections. It is noted that the remainder of the dwelling is set back between 4.4 metres and 6.7 metres. The setback of the garage also meets deemed-to-comply provisions. The building that projects into the setback area is approximately 7.2 metres in length (measured parallel to the street), against a front boundary that is 22.93 metres long. This represents 31 percent of the lot frontage where the building does not meet the deemed-to-comply setback provision. Even taking into account future subdivision, the proportion of the encroachment would only equate to around 40 percent of the lot frontage (assuming a green title subdivision). The design of the proposal is considered to be complementary to the streetscape and other similar single storey dwellings on Marlow Street. Minimal fencing is proposed, aside from a low brick wall along the southern boundary and a low planter box. This will ensure a more open presentation to the street, reducing the impact of the setback encroachment. The landscaping features proposed will also assist with softening the appearance of the building, in keeping with a 'traditional Wembley' streetscape. In order to ensure appropriate landscaping in the front setback area, a condition is included with the recommendation requiring the provision of one new mature tree within the front setback area, to the satisfaction of the Town.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Street surveillance has been assessed and meets deemed-to-comply provisions. The front door is clearly visible from the street, and at least one major opening has been provided to each habitable room facing the street. It was suggested to the applicant that additional or larger major openings to the front façade should be considered to further assist with surveillance and reduce the area of blank walls. Should Council see fit, an additional condition may be added to increase the size of the street-facing major openings to the bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the Town. The floor plans and 3-D perspectives provided show that the setbacks to the dwelling are varied, which reduces the prominence of the reduced setbacks to the bedroom walls. The minimal eave overhang into the setback area and lack of minor incursions is also noted, in that it further reduces the perceived building mass. Along with the landscaping, the materials and finishes proposed to the dwelling façade are high quality and sympathetic to surrounding dwellings, therefore will contribute to the street. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Town does not consider precedent in the assessment of streetscape matters, a site visit by planning staff has confirmed existing dwelling examples in the immediate vicinity of the subject site where street setbacks less than 6 metres are apparent (most notably the grouped dwelling immediately to the south). Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the primary street boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the proposal's use of materials, landscaping, minimal fencing and varied building

setbacks will reduce the significance of the street setback encroachment, and will ensure that the dwelling will not detract from the established streetscape.









1. Summary of applicant's justification.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Arcologic Design at Lot 412 (No. 37) Marlow Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 19 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;

(iii) one (1) mature tree, being a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in

height and diameter, to be provided within the front setback area in accordance with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. This tree is in addition to any existing trees within the front setback area that may be retained as part of this development;

(iv) the driveway crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays), and is to have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base of the street tree; and

(v) any additional fencing within the primary street setback area, aside from the low solid wall on the southern side boundary and the planter box, is to be the subject of separate planning application to the Town.

Carried 5/0



DV15.168 LOT 693 (NO. 12) LILIKA ROAD, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, INCLUDING A THIRD STOREY ADDITION

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the dwelling at No. 12 Lilika Road, City Beach. The plans show a new third level with a front balcony, and minor additions and alterations to the existing two levels. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against building height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the three storey height is not consistent with the desired height and scale of dwellings in

the locality and will therefore create an adverse impact on the streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0418DA-2015 Owner: Ms E Tobias and Ms S Krishana Applicant: Nexus Home Improvements Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 893m2 DETAILS:

Development description • The existing dwelling is two storey, with a partly enclosed carport and games room on the

ground floor and the remainder of the dwelling, including a front balcony, contained in the upper floor.

• There is a slope from Lilika Road (west corner) up to the rear boundary (east corner) of approximately 3.0 metres. The established levels have the carport and games room at a slightly higher level than the driveway and crossover. The backyard levels at the rear of the games room match the games room, and then there are steps up to the higher level of the upper floor. The rear pool area is at a lower level than the upper floor but a higher level than the ground floor.

• The main component of the proposal is a new third level which will sit above the existing footprint. The third level comprises a master bedroom, study, ensuite and studio kitchen and living dining which opens to a large roofed balcony facing the street.

• Minor alterations to the lower two floors are proposed to accommodate an internal staircase and create an open plan living area. No modifications are proposed to the front and rear yards.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed height:

Nexus requests a variation to the maximum roof height due to the sloping characteristics of the block and the undercroft carport and store room which results in an exaggerated height measurement from natural level to roof height along the northern side of the house. As there have been no neighbour objections to the proposed development, and no views will be interrupted from the proposed development and the height and scale of the proposed development will enhance the streetscape, Nexus believes the variation to the maximum height provision is practical and reasonable.

Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of twelve properties directly adjoining and in the vicinity of the subject site. No objections were received. It is noted that the plans show variations to the visual privacy setback requirements for the front balcony and two windows in the third storey. The windows are a master bedroom window facing the street and a studio kitchen window facing the rear. The front balcony and master bedroom window have views to the street and areas of the adjoining properties that are visible from the street and therefore satisfy the design principles. The 'cone of vision' from the rear kitchen studio window falls over a corner of the neighbour's property which contains a roofed area adjacent to the pool. In isolation, the visual privacy variations can therefore be supported. Assessment against the design principles Building height Deemed-to-comply

provision

Proposed

Overall (roof) height

Max 7.5 metres South-west (front): 6.45 to 9.35 metres North-west (left) side: 8.45 to 9.35 metres South-east (right) side: 6.4 to 9.35 metres North-east (rear): 6.3 to 8.45 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The ground floor of the existing dwelling is at street level and therefore is not an 'undercroft'. The first floor is accessed via steps up from the front yard. The levels of the neighbouring properties on both sides are lower than the subject site adjacent to the dwelling. With the addition of another level, the dwelling will present as three storeys from the front, left side and part of the rear elevation. In relation to the right side, apart from the rear corner, the natural ground levels on the adjoining property to the right and adjacent to the common


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 boundary are lower than the subject site, so any height and overshadowing impact of the additional level will be exacerbated. It is noted that no objections have been received from owners of surrounding properties. The third level is contained within the footprint of the existing house and is set back from the street over 10 metres, which is more than the current minimum requirements. Access to views of significance will not be impeded by the proposed development. The main issue with the additional storey is its impact on the streetscape and in particular whether the proposed height is consistent with the desired height and scale of dwellings in the locality. As the building will present as three storeys from street level, this is not consistent with the desired height and scale of dwellings in the locality. The desired height and scale is two storey, or two storey with an undercroft. Furthermore the third storey is not stepped back from the street than the levels below and the roof over the front balcony, its enclosure of one side with a high brick wall and part masonry balustrade exacerbates the bulk and height impact of the additional storey on the street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the three storey height is not consistent with the desired height and scale of dwellings in

the locality and will therefore create an adverse impact on the streetscape.









Nil


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for additions and alterations, including a third level, submitted by Nexus Home Improvements at Lot 693 (No. 12) Lilika Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 26 November 2015 for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.3 Building Height and the design principles of part 5.1.6 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the three storey height is not consistent with the desired height and scale of

dwellings in the locality and will therefore create an adverse impact on the streetscape.

Carried 5/0



DV15.169 LOT 725 (NO. 158) GRANTHAM STREET, FLOREAT - OUTBUILDING (GARAGE/SHED)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a garage/shed at No. 158 Grantham Street, Floreat. The plans show a 105 square metre Colorbond shed at the rear of the property. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the outbuilding design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed reduced rear setback has a building bulk impact on adjoining properties;

and • the size of the outbuilding and its proximity to the rear boundary detracts from the visual

amenity of neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0448DA-2015 Owner: Mr TD Officer and Mrs KS Officer Applicant: Timothy Douglas Officer Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 835 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey dwelling with two crossovers and solid front fence. • Existing outbuilding to rear of dwelling of approximately 20 square metres to be

demolished as part of proposal. • Colorbond shed to be constructed at rear of property with 1.0 metre setback from rear

boundary. Shed is 7 metres x 15 metres (105 square metres) with a wall height of 2.7 metres and an overall height of 3.5 metres.

• Shed will also provide covered car parking for vehicles. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the shed's wall height and size variations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 156 and 160 Grantham Street as well as the three properties to the rear of the site being No.3 63, 65 and 67 Peebles Road, Floreat. It is noted that advertising had not been completed at the time of writing this report but that one submission had been received from the owners to the rear of the property objecting to the proposal. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Rear setback

Min 1.5 metres 1.0 metre





As the proposal is for an outbuilding, the standard 6.0 metre rear setback for Floreat is not applicable and the R Codes require setbacks in accordance with Tables 2a and 2b. Therefore based on the 15 metre long wall proposed, a setback of 1.5 metres from the rear boundary is required. It is considered that the due to the size of the proposed shed, the proposal should at least meet minimum setback requirements and should the Council consider approving the application, a 1.5 metre setback from the rear boundary should be required. This additional setback space would also allow for screen planting to be provided which would assist in minimising the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property to the rear. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the rear boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the proposed reduced rear setback has a building bulk impact on adjoining properties.



Outbuildings Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Wall height 2.4 metres 2.7 metres Outbuilding size Maximum 60 square metres

or 10% of site area (whichever is the lesser)

105 square metres

Design principle:

Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

The shed is proposed in Colorbond and is located at the very rear of the site. The shed wall runs for 15 metres of the 18.29 metre long rear boundary so will be very visible from the adjoining properties, particularly the property to the immediate rear. The applicant is proposing using a colorbond colour such as cottage green or paperbark, both green colours which will assist in the shed 'blending in' with surrounding gardens. The applicant has advised that the shed will also act as a double garage for the property which currently does not have a carport or garage. Therefore there is some argument that the Council could consider allowing 36 square metres of the shed to be considered as double garage space. 36 square metres of garage parking plus the 60 square metres permissible for a shed would mean that a building of 96 square metres would be permissible as of right. The difference is that the 105 square metre building proposed is all under one roof and therefore presents as an extremely large and bulky construction. This combined with its close proximity to rear and side boundaries means that it cannot help but impact on the visual amenity of residents and neighbouring properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed outbuilding does not satisfy the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the size of the outbuilding and its proximity to the rear boundary detracts from the visual

amenity of neighbouring properties.








DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:


1. Summary of applicant's justification

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for an outbuilding as submitted by Tim Officer at Lot 725 (No.158) Grantham Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 17 November 2015, for the following reason:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of part 5.4.3 Outbuilding of the

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of Part 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setback of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(iii) the size of the outbuilding and its proximity to the rear boundary detracts from the visual amenity of neighbouring properties;

(iv) the proposed reduced rear setback has building bulk impact on adjoining properties.

Carried 5/0



DV15.170 LOT 11036 (NO. 4) KEANEY PLACE, CITY BEACH - REAR BOUNDARY FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a rear boundary fence at Lot 11036 (No. 4) Keaney Place, City Beach. The plans show a 1.8 metre high solid brick wall along the rear boundary abutting a reserve. The application requires a Council determination as the fence does not meet the fencing design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed fence does not permit surveillance of the reserve. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0450DA-2015 Owner: Mr DR Rota Applicant: Integrity Developments (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential - R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 817 m2

The lot was recently sold by the Town and is currently vacant. Planning approval for a two storey dwelling was granted by the Town in August 2015 and a Building Permit was approved in September 2015. The original plans for the fence proposed a colorbond fence across the boundary, however, the Town's Policy 3.1: Streetscape is unclear as to whether Council intended to prohibit colorbond fencing on a rear boundary abutting a reserve or whether the fencing standards for rear fences must only adhere to the open style provisions for front fences and not the material type. The applicant submitted amended plans replacing the colorbond fence with a brick wall which is the subject of the current report.

DETAILS:

Development description • The lot abuts a reserve to the north (Maloney Park) and a public access way to the west. • The proposal consists of a brick wall 1.8 metres in height against the entire rear boundary

abutting the reserve.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the solid wall stating that it will provide more security and privacy for the occupants. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Boundary fencing abutting a reserve

Up to 50% of the length of the fence may be solid, remainder must comply with primary street requirements

100% solid

Design principles: 5.2.4: Street Walls and Fences Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district


designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial. 5.2.3: Street Surveillance Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment. The Town's Policy 3.1: Streetscape states that for boundary fencing abutting a reserve:- • Any fence on the rear boundary or within the rear boundary setback abutting a

reserve must comply with fencing standards for the primary street setback. • Up to 50% of the length of a fence within the rear boundary setback and

where it abuts a reserve may be solid where it is providing screening for the main outdoor living area.

Although the design principles of the R-Codes discuss street surveillance, the same concept applies for surveillance of parks and open spaces, namely, utilising passive surveillance methods that eliminate blind spots in a neighbourhood in order to reduce hidden and undesirable behaviour. Since anti-social behaviour is more likely to occur in places that feel secluded, the creation of open style fencing on streets and reserves leads to more 'eyes on the street', thus potentially reducing crime and anti-social behaviour. The proposal is for a solid fence 1.8 metres high the full width of the rear boundary, which would provide inadequate surveillance of the reserve. The applicant notes in their justification that lots in the nearby locality currently have solid fences facing the reserve. However, these solid fences pre-date current policy and, in fact, are what Council intended to remediate with the implementation of the policy requiring open style fencing.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Additionally, the applicant/owner was informed of this requirement during the planning approval process of the dwelling and the approval notice contained an advice note indicating fencing abutting the rear reserve would require a separate application and would need to be compliant with primary street fencing guidelines. Therefore, there was an opportunity for the dwelling to be designed with the fencing requirements in mind and thus no reason to vary the policy to such an extent on the current application. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the proposed fence does not permit surveillance of the reserve.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a rear fence submitted by Integrity Developments (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 11036 (No. 4) Keaney Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 20 November 2015, for the following reason:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.1: Streetscape - Boundary Fencing Abutting a Reserve or the design principles of part 5.2.4 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the proposed fence does not permit surveillance of the Reserve. Carried 5/0



DV15.171 LOT 227 (NO. 40) LINDEN GARDENS, CNR GRANTHAM STREET, FLOREAT - SHED

SUMMARY: The Town has received an application for a shed at Lot 227 (No. 40) Linden Gardens, Floreat. The plans show a small shed on the southern boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • building up to the boundary makes more effective use of space; and • the limited size of the shed ensures any impact on the adjoining lot will be minimal. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0444DA-2015 Owner: Mr SJ Doig and Mrs DCA Doig Applicant: Simon John Doig Debra Catherine Ann Doig Zoning: 'Residential - R12.5' Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 938 m2

History: The application was originally submitted on 11 November 2015 with no indication of height listed on the plans. Amended plans were submitted on 30 November 2015 indicating the height of the shed as 1.9 metres.

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing development consists of a single dwelling with carport situated near the southern

boundary of the lot. • The proposal seeks to add a small shed 3.45 m2 in floor area and 1.9 metres in height

behind the carport and against the southern boundary. The shed will be constructed in Colorbond and coloured shale grey to match the existing dwelling.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the lot boundary setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being No. 38 Linden Gardens. A submission was received objecting to the setback variation because it would negatively impact safety, noise, and aesthetics of the adjoining property. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Rear setback

Min 1.0 metre setback Nil setback





The proposed shed is only 2.3 metres long by 1.55 metres wide and 1.9 metres high with a flat roof, slightly higher than a standard height dividing fence (1.8 metres). The flat roof results in the shed being predominantly screened from view by the boundary fence, which is to remain. Therefore, the impact of bulk and direct sun to the adjoining lot would be minimal. Additionally, the shed abuts the neighbour's rubbish bin area and a two storey wall, the bottom level of which is blank. A nil boundary setback in lieu of 1.0 metre makes more effective use of space on the lot, especially considering the small size of the shed. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the rear boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • building up to the boundary makes more effective use of space; and • the limited size of the shed ensures any impact on the adjoining lot will be minimal.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a shed submitted by Simon John Doig and Debra Catherine Ann Doig at Lot 227 (No. 40) Linden Gardens, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 11 November 2015 and 30 November 2015. Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members queried how storm water was to be contained as the shed is on the boundary. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (i) all stormwater draining from the roof must be retained on site. Amendment carried 5/0


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a shed submitted by Simon John Doig and Debra Catherine Ann Doig at Lot 227 (No. 40) Linden Gardens, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 11 November 2015 and 30 November 2015, subject to the following condition:- (i) all stormwater draining from the roof must be retained on site. Carried 5/0



DV15.172 LOT 543 (NO. 16) OMAROO TERRACE, CITY BEACH - FRONT FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for front fence (western side) at Lot 543 (No. 16) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach. The plans show a fence consistent with the previous fence approval on the northern and eastern boundaries. The infill panels will be 50mm x 50mm with a spacing of 75mm. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front fencing design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Ocean Mia Design Guidelines. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed fencing will allow clear sightlines from the dwelling to the street and vice

versa, and will not have a negative impact on the existing streetscape; and • the proposed fencing will provide a modern façade consistent with the Ocean Mia Design

Guidelines. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0431DA-2015 Owner: Mr NJ Pagett and Mrs SE Quinn-Pagett Applicant: Mrs SE Quinn-Pagett Zoning: Residential R30/40 - Special Control Area Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 360sqm An application for a two storey dwelling was approved in November 2014 showing fencing along the northern (front) boundary and the eastern boundary. This application is to gain approval for fencing along the western boundary abutting Lot 542. The infill panels have now been amended to 50mm x 50mm steel blades with a spacing of 75mm. DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant seeks approval for a low brick wall with piers on the western boundary

abutting lot 542. • All infill panels will be amended to 50mm x 50mm steel pickets with a 75mm gap

between. • Due to the level difference between lots 542 and 543, a retaining wall may be required,

as lot 543 is approximately 450mm below the level of 542. Any proposed fencing will be constructed on top of this retaining wall.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to front fencing infill panels. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Materials of infill panels Yachting wire strands and plain metal railings

50mm x 50mm steel pickets

Visual Permeability Minimum 1:1 open to solid ratio (50% open) for 70% of the fence surface area

1.5:1 open to solid ratio (60% open) greater than 70%




The Ocean Mia Design Guidelines state that the new residences shall be characterised by their ‘modern; style rectilinear forms and express an emphasis on simple, cubiform shapes. The proposed fence is consistent with this ‘modern’ form, and provides clear views of the garden as seen from the Boulevard. The guidelines also say each residence should have an open garden setting. The Town has previously approved fencing infills with a 1:1 open to solid ratio (50%). The applicant proposes an open to solid ratio of 1.5:1 (60%). The proposed fence is consistent with other fences in the development, and will have a positive impact on the streetscape, and enhance the character of the development. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed fencing will allow clear sightlines from the dwelling to the street and vice


Guidelines.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:






Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for front fence submitted by Mrs SE Quinn-Pagett at Lot 543 (No. 16) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 3 November 2015 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the overall height of any fencing within the front setback area is not to exceed

1500mm above natural ground level;

(ii) the open style infill panels being a minimum 1.5:1 (60%) open as detailed on the approved plans.

Carried 5/0



DV15.173 LOT 544 (NO. 14) OMAROO TERRACE, CITY BEACH - FRONT FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a front fence at No. 14 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach. The plans show fencing along The Boulevard and Omaroo Terrace boundaries as well as the returns. The applicant seeks approval for narrow ‘blades’ that are 50mm in depth. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front fencing design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Ocean Mia Design Guidelines. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed fencing will allow clear sightlines from the dwelling to the street and vice


Guidelines. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0267DA-2014.01 Owner: Ms DM Zurita and Mr LA Gonzalez Applicant: Ms DM Zurita and Mr LA Gonzalez Zoning: Residential R30/40 - Special Control Area Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 360sqm An application was submitted for a two storey dwelling and approved on 23 July 2014. This application showed the proposed fencing, however the fencing complied with the Ocean Mia Design Guidelines. The applicant seeks to amend the infill panels only, and build a wall (consistent with the proposed walls) to the right hand side of the garage. DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant seeks to amend the infill panels from compliant metal railings to 50mm

deep ‘blades’ which are 8mm wide. • An open to solid ratio of 6:1 is proposed (86% visually permeable). • The ‘blades’ will be angled at 90o to the street. • Existing piers and low wall previously approved. • A new open style wall (consistent with the proposed walls) is proposed to the south

eastern boundary to the right hand side of the garage.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to front fencing infill panels. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply

provision

Proposed

Infill panels

Yachting wire strands and plain metal railings

8mm x 50mm steel blades

Visual Permeability Minimum 1:1 open to solid ratio (50% open) for 70% of the fence surface area

Approximately 6:1 open to solid ratio greater than 70%




The Ocean Mia Design Guidelines state that the new residences shall be characterised by their ‘modern; style rectilinear forms and express an emphasis on simple, cubiform shapes. The proposed fence is consistent with this ‘modern’ form, and provides clear views of the garden as seen from the Boulevard and Omaroo Terrace. The guidelines also say each residence should have an open garden setting. The proposed fence is well in excess of the 1:1 open to ratio above an existing low solid wall. The proposed fence is in keeping with the intent of the desired character of the residential development by providing an open garden setting. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed fencing will allow clear sightlines from the dwelling to the street and vice


Guidelines.












Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a front fence submitted by Ms DM Zurita and Mr LA Gonzalez at 544 (No. 14) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 27 October 2015.

Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 During discussion, Members were advised that the fence has been installed and therefore a retrospective approval is required. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council retrospectively APPROVES the application for a front fence submitted by Ms DM Zurita and Mr LA Gonzalez at 544 (No. 14) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 27 October 2015. Carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the retrospective application for a front fence submitted by Ms DM Zurita and Mr LA Gonzalez at 544 (No. 14) Omaroo Terrace, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 27 October 2015. Carried 5/0



DV15.174 APPLICATION TO USE GRANTHAM STREET - SELBY STREET PARK AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 271 SELBY STREET, CHURCHLANDS - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval to allow, via a Licence Agreement, the use of a small portion of the north-east corner of the Grantham - Selby Street Park by a private developer to assist in the construction of a major five storey mixed use development comprising of a café, three office tenancies, ninety-eight multiple dwellings and car-parking facilities at 271 Selby Street Churchlands.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2015, the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) granted final approval for a major five storey mixed use development comprising of a café, three office tenancies, ninety-eight multiple dwellings and car-parking facilities at 271 Selby Street Churchlands. The subject site is located in the City of Stirling on the northern boundary of the Town of Cambridge. The pedestrian pathway adjoining the immediate south of the subject site is the local government district boundary and is within the Town of Cambridge.

DETAILS:

The site is located on Selby Street, which is a very busy street, particularly at peak periods and is a high frequency bus route. Access to the site is limited to Selby Street. The Developer/Builder (Psaros) has recently written to the Town seeking the Town's co-operation to minimise the inconvenience and disruption to the area and the local residents and businesses, which are located in both local government districts of the City of Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. A number of meetings have been held with the Town's Infrastructure and Development Services officers and representatives of Psaros. The Town's Officers are of the view that the development will, due to the access constraints to the subject site, no doubt cause considerable disruption during construction to the local residents and businesses and also to traffic users on Selby Street, for a period of at least ten months to up to a year. To provide access and ensure pedestrian safety is maintained, the bus stop directly on Selby Street, adjacent to the park has been temporarily relocated to the south of the subject site. To ensure that pedestrian access from the Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street is maintained, Psaros has offered to construct a new concrete path to the Town's specifications. It is intended that this new pathway will enhance the use of the park and will remain in place after the completion of the project. Demolition of the existing buildings has commenced and should be completed by late December 2015. The builder will require access to the Gratham Street - Selby St Park from January 2016, for a period of at least 10-12 months. Following the meetings with the Town's officers, Psaros was requested to lodge a Construction Management Plan and make a written proposal to the Town. The proposal has been considered by the Town's Executive.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 The Proposal: Psaros will:- 1. Underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all power

poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or business. 2. Pay $75,000 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for up to one year. 3. Construct a new concrete path on the Grantham St-Selby Street Park to the Town's

specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street. 4. Reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use. 5. Consider public interaction with the development by way of a café on the corner of Selby

Street, closest to the park. (If agreed, this will necessitate a Licence Agreement to use the small portion of the north-east corner of the park).

6. Pay for all costs associated with the proposal, the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement.

COMMENT: The development at 271 Selby Street Churchlands is large and complex. Once completed it will provide benefits to the residents and business proprietors of both the City of Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. The temporary use of the Grantham Street-Selby Street Park will ameliorate the inconvenience caused to the local community and users of Selby Street, whilst at the same time providing a financial benefit to the Town. The proposal, if agreed will also assist in the management of complaints which may arise as part of the construction process. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to satisfactory negotiation of terms and conditions, acceptable to the Town. The proposal to provide an outdoor eating facility on the north-east corner of the Grantham Street-Selby Street park will activate this part of the park and will enhance the area. It will also provide a facility where persons can enjoy having a meal, whilst also enjoying the ambience of the park.


Town of Cambridge planning policy No: 5.7 - 'Construction Management Plans'.


All costs associated with the proposal will be borne by Psaros. The Town will receive $75,000 plus non-monetary other infrastructure improvements such as a new path in the park and undergrounding of the power from Selby Street to Pearson Close. The Town has an adopted fee of $308 per day for ad-hoc entry to a Town park. If applied this fee would be $112,420 for 12 months. This fee was not envisaged for this type of proposal and the Town's Executive considers the proposed $75,000 fee to be reasonable and more realistic.


Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - 'Create and maintain safe environments'.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

As part of the Construction Management Plan letter will be sent to all residents and business proprietors in the locality advising of the development.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Aerial view of Construction Management Plan A copy of the Construction Management Plan is available upon request. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in

Attachment No:1, be approved subject to the following:-

(a) a Legal Agreement being entered into between Psaros and the Town: (b) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all

power poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or businesses;

(c) pay $75,000 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $6,250 monthly or the part thereof paid in advance;

(d) construct a new concrete path to the Town's specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street;

(e) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use; (f) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (g) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town;

(ii) Psaros be advised that the Town is open to consider public interaction with the

development by way of a café on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to:-

(a) negotiate the terms and conditions of the Legal Agreement for the temporary use of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as a construction compound to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(b) negotiate the terms and conditions for the Licence Agreement for the use of the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as an outdoor eating area facility.

Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that the amount paid by Psaros for the temporary use of the car park should be increased, a bond of $5000 per tree be paid and the temporary footpath be removed once the works are complete and the footpath on the northern side to be reinstated. It was also agreed that the negotiated terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement be submitted to the Council for approval.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That clauses the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in

Attachment No:1, be approved subject to a Legal Agreement being entered into between the Psaros and the Town that Psaros will:-

(a) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all


(b) pay $112,400 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $308 per day or the part thereof paid in advance;

(c) construct a temporary concrete path to the Town's specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street, and to be removed once the works are complete and the footpath on the northern side to be reinstated;

(d) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use; (e) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (f) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town; (g) a bond of $5,000 be paid per tree;

(ii) Psaros be advised that the Town is open to consider public interaction with the development by way of an outdoor eating area on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and



(b) negotiate the terms and conditions for the Licence Agreement for the use of the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as an outdoor eating area facility and a report be submitted to Council for approval.

Amendment carried 5/0 FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 17 November 2015) Email correspondence has been received from Psaros seeking Council's consideration of application of a pro-rata daily rate for use of the reserve rather than the minimum twelve months payment in advance as recommended. This request is in response to the higher charge rate of $308/day adopted by the Development Committee and provides an incentive for Psaros to complete the works requiring use of the park in the shortest possible timeframe. The Administration considers this proposal has merit, however, believes that a minimum upfront payment and suggested term of nine months should apply (9 months @ $9367/mth = $84,303) for the agreement, after which monthly payments of $9367 or part thereof should be charged for additional periods thereafter. This arrangement would be suitable for the Town's accounting purposes and provide the incentive to complete the works as Psaros is seeking.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Accordingly, a revised clause (i)(b) is provided below. (i) (b) pay $84,303 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to nine

months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond nine months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $9,367 per month or part thereof paid in advance.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in

Attachment No:1, be approved subject to a Legal Agreement being entered into between Psaros and the Town that Psaros will :-



(b) pay $112,400 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $308 per day or the part thereof paid in advance;




development by way of an outdoor eating area on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and





DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Council Meeting 24 November 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (i)(b) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) (b) pay $84,303 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to nine

months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond nine months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $9,367 per month or part thereof paid in advance.

Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, O'Connor and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in




(b) pay $560,000 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $30,000 monthly or the part thereof paid in advance;


(d) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use. Such reinstatement to be secured by a bond of $300,000 being paid to the Town;

(e) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (f) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town including but not limited to:

1. Environmental Assessment of proposed siteworks including the impact of de-watering operations; and

2. An assessment by a suitably qualified aborialist to assess the impact of the development on the Park's mature trees.

During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that the item be deferred for further consideration.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park by a private developer be deferred for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 24 November 2015) The outcome of the Council decision was conveyed to Psaros on Thursday 26 November 2015 and a meeting was held on Monday 30 November 2015 to discuss. The meeting was attended by the Director Corporate and Strategy, Director Development and Sustainability and Manager Compliance, Psaros Director Design and Construction and TPG Planning Consultant. The information from the Council meeting was discussed in detail and it was agreed that Psaros would provide a further submission to the Town for consideration at the Development Committee and thereafter the Council. It was suggested that the submission address the following matters: • financial details • traffic management costs • construction timeframe • options available, • City of Stirling's position about temporary road closures • benefits to both Parties and the impact on the local area during construction The advice provided and submission (email dated 3 December 2015 - refer attachment) clarifies that Psaros intention in seeking the use of the park is to minimise disturbance to the surrounding community, as there would be less traffic management impact using the park than the alternate option of lane closures on Selby Street. However, Psaros' traffic management costs would be higher relying on lane closures than using the park. Further, there is no impact on the construction timeframe or cost with either option, as a specialist precast panels contractor is to be engaged for the construction (28 week program advised). Psaros is agreeable to the pro-rata annual rate of $112,400 as provided in the Revised Recommendation provided to Council in November. Given the advice and the benefits of the park use option as outlined in the Administration report, it is recommended Council adopt the Revised Administration Recommendation below:- ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in




(b) pay $84,303 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to nine months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond nine months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $9,367 per month or part thereof paid in advance;










Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That (i)(d) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) (d) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the installation

of the tilt up panels. Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as

shown in Attachment No:1, be approved subject to a Legal Agreement being entered into between Psaros and the Town that Psaros will :-

(a) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including

all power poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or businesses;

(b) pay $84,303 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to nine months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond nine months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $9,367 per month or part thereof paid in advance;




(d) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the installation of the tilt up panels;

(e) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (f) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town; (g) a bond of $5,000 be paid per tree;






Carried 3/2 For: Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Bradley



DV15.175 STEPS TO FINALISING THE WEMBLEY ACTIVITY CENTRE PLAN

SUMMARY:

The Town, in conjunction with planning consultants RPS Group, have prepared a draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan with the purpose of facilitating the centre to become an urban hub for the community and appropriately addressing future development needs. A three stage process has now been completed, which involved the finalising of a Background Analysis report (stage one), developing the Preferred Scenario document (stage two) and preparation of the draft Detailed Plan (stage three). The draft Detailed Plan was endorsed by Council in February 2015 for public advertising (Item DV15.15). During March and April 2015, the draft Detailed Plan was advertised and over 3000 residents within the vicinity of the centre were invited to comment. Furthermore, an information session was held at the Wembley Hotel which was attended by approximately 100 people. At the close of advertising, 16 submissions were received, mostly in support of the plan but subject to some minor modifications. The draft Detailed Plan has also been discussed with the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee and potential purchasers of the Wembley Hotel and Cambridge Forum site. The main issues identified through consultation of the draft Detailed Plan included:- • Built form and development standards of anchor sites (Wembley Hotel, IGA site and

Service Station) with some submissions in support of reducing building height and other submissions indicating that the incorporation of public benefit items within the proposed building envelopes and building heights would be too onerous;

• Built form, character of buildings and feasibility of development requirements for new development, with most comments relating to development along Cambridge Street;

• Concern that the Plan implies that the Simper Street cul-de-sac could be re-opened and the laneway proposed north of Cambridge Street between Alexander Street and Simper Street could result in local traffic issues impacting the residential area to the north; and

• The potential impact of development on traffic along Cambridge Street.

Having consideration for the comments received, minor modifications have been made or are proposed to the draft Detailed Plan. In summary, these include:- • Clarification that the Simper Street cul-de-sac is not proposed to be modified and that the

laneway connection through the Wembley Hotel/Cambridge Forum site would connect to Simper Street south of the cul-de-sac location;

• Recommendation for the preparation of Local Development Plans for anchor sites to allow for more detailed planning in these strategically important locations;

• Recommendation for the further exploration of the introduction of a curtilage area for a public open space plaza between 350 and 352 Cambridge Street and to ensure activation along the boundary of these properties to address the public space;

• Specification that the public parking station within the Wembley Hotel and Forum development site to have a minimum of 100 bays;

• Revisions of the street front heights along Salvado Road from four storeys to three storeys to match the future streetscape of the Parkside Walk development; and

• Revisions to the street front heights along Cambridge Street to present as three storeys to the street, consistent with other parts of Cambridge Street.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 In light of the above modifications and further internal review, it is seen as preferable to readvertise the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan before Council considers final adoption. This creates an ideal opportunity to bring all three stages of the plan together for final community consultation and promotion as the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the outcomes of consultation on the draft Detailed Plan (Stage Three) and to obtain Council's endorsement for further amendments to be made to assist finalising the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan and developing a consultation strategy to engage with the community.

BACKGROUND:

RPS was appointed by the Town to prepare the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. To date, work completed as part of the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan includes:- • Stage One - A background analysis report, which includes a statutory and urban design

analysis; • Stage Two - Preferred Scenario Document based on the outcomes of the community

engagement at the scenario workshops and endorsed by Council on 26 August 2014 (Item DV14.120); and

• Stage Three - Drafting and advertising of the draft Detailed Plan which builds upon the preferred scenario.

In regard to the draft Detailed Plan (Stage Three), Council at its meeting held on 24 February 2015 (Item DV15.15) decided:- That:- (i) the draft Wembley Town Centre Activity Centre Plan as attached to this Report be

endorsed by Council for public advertising; (ii) the draft Wembley Town Centre Activity Centre Plan be advertised as follows:-

• a community and stakeholder engagement programme be undertaken consisting of elements such as information sessions/open days, preparation of brochures, notices and information on the Town's website and a Cambridge News feature;

• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper and on the Cambridge noticeboard;

• written notification be provided to all those parties who have been involved in the project to date and/or requested to be informed on the progress of the project to be invited to information sessions;

• written notification be provided to all property owners in the centre and Wembley, north to Grantham Street;

• a letter drop be undertaken to target input from local businesses in the town centre; • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups.

Scheme Amendment 33 Coinciding with the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, the Town received an application to rezone a portion of Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge Street, Wembley (Cambridge Forum), from 'Public Purpose' (Car Park) and 'Residential' (R20) to 'Local Centre'. Subsequently, Scheme Amendment 33 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 was initiated by Council for the purposes of advertising on 25 August 2015 (Item DV15.114). The Scheme Amendment 33 Report is currently being finalised by the applicant, prior to referral to the Environmental Protection Authority. The Wembley Activity Centre Plan will act as a guiding document for the detailed planning and development of 350 Cambridge Street.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Development Assessment Panel Application - No. 352 Cambridge Street, Wembley On 2 November 2015, the Metro West Development Assessment Panel approved a development application on Lot 78 (No. 352) Cambridge Street (corner of Simper Street), Wembley for a five storey mixed use building comprising of 34 multiple dwellings and one commercial tenancy. This followed a State Administrative Tribunal Review of the Development Assessment Panel's earlier refusal of the property. This proposed development involves the demolition of existing pre-war buildings (as are identified on maps prepared as part of the draft Detailed Plan), which under the draft Detailed Plan are encouraged to be retained in exchange for a building height bonus above three storeys.

DETAILS:

As mentioned above, the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan has been undertaken in three stages and the steps in the process up to now are summarised in the below table.

Background

March 2014 Appointment of RPS to prepare Wembley Activity Centre Plan

May 2014 Preparation of Background and Analysis Report (Stage 1)

July 2014 Scenario Games held to inform 'Preferred Scenario'

August 2014 Council endorses 'Preferred Scenario' (Stage 2) to guide preparation of Detailed Plan

February 2015 Council endorses draft Detailed Plan (Stage 3) for community consultation

March/April 2015

Draft Detailed Plan advertised for community comment

The most recent stage, Stage Three - Detailed Plan was subject to public advertising and the outcomes of are reported on and discussed below under the heading Stage Three - draft Detailed Plan. A copy of the draft Detailed Plan is attached to this report (Attachment 1). An overview document has also been prepared to summarise the Detailed Plan (Attachment 2). However, both as a result of advertising and further internal review through the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meetings, a number of modifications have been made to the document, which in itself warrants readvertising. Further, now that the preparation of the draft Detailed Plan has been completed it is now timely to move towards finalising all three stages, bringing them together for final advertising and promotion as the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan. As such, under the heading of Next Steps, the process to finalise and readvertise the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan is discussed. Stage Three - draft Detailed Plan The map below outlines the general study area for the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. The subject area includes low density Residential R20 zoned land to the north, Residential R40 and R40/R60 development along Cambridge Street, the Local Centre zone centred along Cambridge Street, Special Control Area 2 (Parkside Walk - Former Nursery Site), Public Purpose (Car Park) Reserve and Parks and Recreation reserves (Matthews Netball Centre and Henderson Park).



Wembley Activity Centre Plan Study Area The key elements of the draft Detailed Plan, as advertised, which were informed through community and stakeholder input include:- • The creation of anchor points on the Wembley Hotel/Cambridge Forum site, the Shell

Service Station site and the Wembley IGA site with public spaces and squares in exchange for development up to six or seven storeys on these sites (Note: the Wembley Hotel building to remain and heritage protection to be examined for this site).


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 • The proposed extension of the commercial type zoning along Cambridge Street from

Marlow Street to Nanson Street, to accommodate mixed use development, ranging from two to five storeys in height.

• Establishment of higher density residential development on the northern side of Salvado

Road up to six storeys in height, to focus increased residential development away from the existing low density residential area to the north of the centre.

• The creation of pedestrian connections between Cambridge Street, Salvado Road and Henderson Park, Parkside Walk and the Wembley Sports Park.

• The establishment of a set of development regimes (or profiles) to guide future built form including height and setbacks over different parts of the centre. Development elements include retention of pre-war buildings, provision of public spaces and lot amalgamation in exchange for increased building height.

• Development angles are used to determine the potential maximum building height and setbacks, to account for overshadowing and the appearance of the building from the other side of the street or property boundaries.

Location of anchor sites and development precincts

Wembley Hotel/Cambridge Forum Anchor site (up to 7 storeys)

Cambridge Street West ( 3 to 5 storeys)

Salvado Road Residential (2 to 6 storeys)

Additional Anchor sites (up to 6 storeys)

Cambridge Street East (2 to 3 storeys)


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Advertising The draft Detailed Plan was advertised for a 42 day period between 17 March and 28 April 2015 and approximately 3000 community members were sent letters to seek comments. The advertising program consisted of the following components:- • An information session was facilitated by the Town's Planning Services held at the

Wembley Hotel on 31 March 2015; • Brochures were made available at the information session and from the Town's

Administration Centre outlining details of the proposal; • Notices and information published on the Town's website; • Information included in the Cambridge News Feature; • Advertisement in local newspaper and Cambridge noticeboard; • Written notification was provided to all those parties who have been involved in the

project to date and/or requested to be informed on the progress of the project; • Written notification was provided to all property owners in the subject study area; • A letter drop was undertaken to all local businesses in the town centre; and • A notice was sent to the WAPC and local ratepayers group. Advertising - Responses As a result of public advertising 16 submissions were received, which included three letters of support/no objection, 11 letters of support subject to various modifications to the plan and two letters of objection. Also, included with a submission was a petition with 42 signatures requesting the maximum building height for the Wembley Hotel/ Cambridge Forum anchor site be lowered to five storeys to reduce any adverse amenity impacts. The draft Detailed Plan was also well received at the information session, which was attended by approximately 100 residents, local business operators and commercial developers. The draft Detailed Plan has also been presented and discussed with the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee on multiple occasions and the Rowe Group on behalf of a potential purchaser of the Wembley Hotel and Forum Site. The main concerns raised included:- • Built form and development standards of anchor sites (Wembley Hotel, IGA site and

Service Station) with some comments that building height should be reduced and other submissions indicating that the incorporation of public benefit items within the proposed building envelopes would be too onerous;

• Built form, character of buildings and feasibility of development requirements for new development, particularly on Cambridge Street;

• Concerns over the potential for re-opening of the Simper Street cul-de-sac and regarding the impact on traffic of the continuous laneway proposed north of Cambridge Street between Alexander Street and Simper Street;

• The potential impact of development on traffic along Cambridge Street; and • The need for improved cyclist amenity.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMENT Wembley Hotel and Cambridge Forum - Built Form Development Standards In general, residents were supportive of the 'angle' principles behind the building height and setback controls, including two submissions which specifically indicated support of the draft Detailed Plan. However, some concerns were raised regarding preferred building heights and setbacks, particularly for the Wembley Hotel and Cambridge Forum development site. While attendees at the previous workshops and information session were generally accepting of a seven storey building height subject to setback controls, a submission was received by a nearby resident which included a petition with 42 signatures requesting the maximum building height be lowered to five storeys to reduce any adverse amenity impacts.

Wembley Hotel & Cambridge Forum Development Regime Setback Diagram On the other hand, submissions from property owners argued that the proposed building envelopes would not allow for an economically viable outcome and that building heights would need to be increased if the Town wishes to achieve optimum redevelopment of the subject site and incorporate public benefits such as plazas and public carparking. In this regard, RPS has analysed the maximum floor space and the impact of additional requirements on development potential and advised that the proposed development standards are capable of delivering a viable development outcome. It is considered that the application of the development setback angles, to limit overshadowing and minimise the perception of building bulk to adjoining residential properties, that impacts on adjoining residential properties can be addressed. Furthermore, the specific standards will be given further consideration in refining the plan. Given the strategic importance of this site and the many elements that need to be considered in its development, it is also recommended that a future local development plan is prepared to provide further guidance over proposed development on this site. This will similarly apply to the other anchor sites being the IGA supermarket and Shell Service Station. Through the local development plan the opportunity for a curtilage area between the Wembley Hotel site and No. 352 Cambridge Street (corner of Cambridge Street and Simper Street) could also be explored to ensure future developments present to each other with active frontages rather than multi-storey blank walls. A further matter was raised during development discussions of the Wembley Hotel and Forum Site with the Rowe Group acting on behalf of the owners of the site such that there is no clear guidance as to the number of public car bays required for a public parking station. In accordance with the Town's Access and Parking Strategy it has been specified that a minimum of 100 public car parking bays will be required for large scale development of the site, in addition to the standard car parking requirements.

Setback to existing residential zone


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Built form - suitability and viability of development standards There were various comments made questioning the viability of the incorporation of pre-war buildings and open space in order to achieve five storeys as opposed to three storeys on Cambridge Street (west) and the problems in developing lots which have limited or no opportunities to amalgamate with other lots. Specifically, the angled setbacks of upper levels are not considered sufficient to promote higher density. These matters will require further consideration in reviewing the proposed development controls. In the case of single lot development along Salvado Road, the proposed rules could reduce the development potential which is currently possible under Residential R40 with design principle assessment. Accordingly, a change has been made to still allow development at current R40 standards. Furthermore, edits have been made to require the first three floors of development along Salvado Road to be set back 5.0m from the street with the upper floors set back further, to be consistent with height and setback standards for the 'Parkside Walk' development which is located on the other side of Salvado Road. While the floor space of the upper levels will be increased, building heights have remained unchanged and the buildings are still contained within the development angles. A similar approach has been taken to the frontage of Cambridge Street, to be more consistent with development standards elsewhere along this street.

Modified Cambridge Street West Single Lot Development Standards


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Modified Salvado Road Development Standards With regard to comments about the design of new buildings, it is considered that the Plan gives adequate consideration to ensuring that new buildings will enhance the built character of Wembley Activity Centre with individualised shop frontages which correspond to each lot. This is a matter that can be further detailed through the preparation of the revised Wembley Precinct Policy. Simper Street cul-de-sac Objections were received in regard to concept plans which implied that the cul-de-sac on Simper Street near Cambridge Street could be reopened. The concerns were due to perceived safety concerns of increased traffic and the impact it may have on children crossing the road and walking to school. The Town has no plans for re-opening the cul-de-sac and the draft Detailed Plan maps have been edited to clearly indicate there is no proposal to remove the cul-de-sac and make Simper Street a through road. Furthermore, the indicative location of the vehicle connection through the Cambridge Forum/Wembley Hotel site has been shifted further to the south to clarify that that vehicle entry would be not be provided from the northern side of the cul-de-sac. Traffic Management along Cambridge Street Concerns were also raised that increased development opportunities would result in further traffic congestion, parking issues and generally impact adversely on the safety of the area. The draft Detailed Plan does recommend traffic calming measures to be implemented in the future, including reduced traffic speeds, widening of footpaths, rationalising on-street parking and providing public car parks to better manage the potential increased number of vehicles. However, as there are a number of development scenarios under the plan, further review into these matters would be more useful once the Town is more certain of the scale of development that will occur. In addition, the plan promotes the introduction of new laneway connections to the rear of properties along Cambridge Street to deter vehicles from having to enter and exit on to Cambridge Street. Cycling infrastructure Comments were received requesting additional infrastructure to be provided for cycle lanes along Cambridge Street. However, detailed and long-term planning has already been undertaken and it is deemed most appropriate to continue the cycle route along Salvado Road due to optimum safety and connectivity with other planned cycle routes within the wider area. However, it is scheduled to review the Town's Bike Plan 2009, which could further examine cycling infrastructure within the vicinity of the centre. Next Steps Below is an indicative timeline summarising the key steps to finalising the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan and moving towards implementation, namely updating the Wembley Precinct Policy and Town Planning Scheme through a Scheme Amendment for rezoning land. To assist Council in understanding the key elements outlined in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, a draft overview document has been prepared which summarises the three stages and is attached to this report.



Next Steps - Moving towards Implementation - Indicative Timetable

Month Steps

December 2015 - Council Report - Outcomes of Consultation (from March 2015) and next steps towards implementation - Draft Detailed Centre Plan document & Overview to be included in Council Item - Report will recommend additional changes to the Centre Plan prior to advertising

January 2016

- Updating of Draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan & Overview document

February 2016 - TPSRSC to provide feedback on final plan for advertising and proposed consultation approach - Council Report to endorse plan and outline proposed consultation process

March 2016 - Undertake consultation of Wembley Activity Centre Plan (between 14 and 28 days)

May 2016 - Collate outcomes of advertising - Make any edits to plan in response to outcomes of advertising

June 2016 - Council Report - Outcomes of advertising and adoption of plan - Send Plan to WAPC for adoption (no later than 60 days after close of submissions) - Prepare Draft Wembley Precinct Policy

July 2016 - TPSRSC feedback on Draft Wembley Precinct Policy (Note - this will only cover existing Commercial Zone as Policy cannot cover existing Residential Zone) - Council Report - to advertise Draft Wembley Precinct Policy

August 2016 - Advertise Draft Wembley Precinct Policy

October 2016 - Collate submissions - Council Report - outcomes of advertising of policy and adoption of Policy

November 2016 onwards

Commence work on Scheme Amendment

Following Council consideration of this report, it is proposed to review all documents prepared during the three stages to ensure consistency is maintained throughout. This is particularly important for the Stage three document - draft Detailed Plan as a number of changes have been made to the document since advertising and as such a number of inconsistencies have been noted during more recent reviews. Further, it is proposed to review the document both in response to the community consultation undertaken earlier in the year (as discussed above) and to add the intent and reasoning behind the various development standards proposed for each of the development precincts under the section 'Development Precincts' of the draft Detailed Plan. This will also assist with the translation of the centre plan into policy provisions and inform the statement of intent (used predominantly as a guide when discretion is sought). The draft Detailed Plan also advocates for the retention of pre-war buildings, as they are seen to show the historically layered character of the centre and as such, reflect the Wembley character. However, their retention may not always be viable and is likely to be onerous on landowners. Furthermore, there would need to be further examination into the state of such buildings. How this aspect is addressed in the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan requires further examination.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Further reviews will also involve the following:- • Key theme maps throughout the document, improving clarity and intent where needed. • Updating the cross section diagrams (under Development Precincts section) to ensure

consistency with text, improve clarity and intent. On completion of the review of the draft documents, a further report will be provided to Council in February 2016 to endorse all documents for community consultation. Consultation Documents To assist with community consultation, to be undertaken early 2016, it is proposed to prepare consultation documentation to help the community understand all the information prepared throughout the three stages and to understand the vision and development provisions proposed for the centre. It is considered that the draft overview document attached to this report would form the basis of a community brochure but with further refinements and amendments. Emphasis will be placed on producing clear diagrams, simplified text that explain the key elements of the plan, how the centre will interface with adjacent residential, land use changes and demonstrating the built form principles clearly. Consultation documentation will be presented to the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee for review prior to reporting to Council in February 2016. Review of Wembley Precinct Policy A key incentive for initiating the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan was to inform a review of development standards for the Local Centre zone under the Precinct Policy in response to development pressures occurring within the centre. However, as indicated in the timeline above, the review of the Wembley Precinct Policy will not commence until Council has adopted the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. The review of the Precinct Policy will be based on the final Wembley Activity Centre Plan and the principles which underpin the plan, particularly the consideration for overshadowing and the presentation of buildings to the street. However, there are some matters such as side setbacks that may require further review in preparing a more detailed policy. These matters would be subject to further community consultation as part of reviewing the Precinct Policy. Of note, in reviewing the diagrams used in the Centre Plan to illustrate the development regimes, concern has been raised with the clarity of the diagrams to show setbacks. Whilst the application of the development angles to determine setbacks are useful to account for factors such as overshadowing, at such time the Wembley Precinct Policy is prepared, all setbacks will be represented as measurements from boundaries rather than angles from the street, to be consistent with all of the Town's policies. Some modifications have already been made to diagrams in the draft Detailed Plan to reflect this. Future Scheme Amendment A Scheme Amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.1 will be required to implement the proposals under the Centre Plan. At the completion of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, further consideration will be given to appropriate Scheme amendments and the best tools to be used under the Scheme to implement the vision and development provisions for the centre.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 As mentioned above, the Town has discussed the future zoning of centre generally with the Department of Planning. Preliminary comment has been received indicating that it may be appropriate to rezone the entire area as 'District Centre'. However, the Town will need to further review the land use suitability of the 'District Centre' and the optimal method in applying the development standards contained within the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Effect of New Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 The updated Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations have now come into effect. The deemed provisions, which automatically affect all Town Planning Schemes now require all Activity Centre Plans to be approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Prior to the introduction of the new Regulations (and which was the case at the time the Town commenced preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan) for centres with less than 20,000m2 of retail floor space such approval by the WAPC was not necessary. To meet the requirements under the WAPC, additional commentary addressing infrastructure and servicing may be required.


To implement the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, once finalised and adopted, amendments to the Town's planning policies and Town Planning Scheme will be necessary. Further detail on these amendments will be outlined in subsequent reports to Council.


The preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan is being funded through the Town Planning Scheme Review budget.


Consideration of the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and the plan (once adopted and implemented) would contribute towards meeting the following goals and achieving their associated strategies:- Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategies:- • Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and abilities • Create and maintain safe environments

Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods thatare well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategies:- • Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs • Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a

sense of place • Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategies:- • Facilitate commercial development within the Town • Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the Town Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Our Council Goal: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy: • Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them


A range of stakeholders including local residents, landowners and business owners attended the Wembley Town Centre Plan Scenario Games Workshop and as a result have had input into the preparation of the preferred scenario. The wider community, property owners, business owners and other stakeholders have also had the opportunity to provide additional feedback during the advertising of the draft Detailed Plan. Further Community Consultation A consultation programme will be outlined and reported to Council in February 2016 at the time Council is requested to endorse the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan for community consultation. It terms of consultation timeframes it should be noted the new Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 now specify a timeframe of not less than 14 days and not more than 28 days for the advertising of Activity Centre Plans. It should also be noted that the revised Wembley Precinct Planning Policy and future Scheme Amendment will each required advertising as per statutory requirements.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Detailed Plan (Stage Three) 2. Draft Overview - Wembley Activity Centre Plan 3. Schedule of Submissions


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the Report informing Council on progress made with the Wembley Activity Centre

Plan to date and the outcomes of consultation of advertising the draft Detailed Plan be noted;

(ii) further amendments to be made to the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan as

detailed in the report and as needed to improve the clarity and intent of the documents be endorsed;

(iii) a further report to be presented to Council in February 2016 with the intention to

present the revised draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan for endorsement for community consultation;

(iv) those who made a submission on the draft Detailed Plan or who attended the

Wembley Activity Centre Scenario Workshops be notified of this decision. Carried 5/0



DV15.176 PARKSIDE WALK (FORMER NURSERY SITE) - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.12 PARKSIDE WALK (DESIGN GUIDELINES) - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING

SUMMARY:

Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk (Design Guidelines) have been prepared to guide future development of single and multiple dwellings on the Former Nursery Site, part Lot 520 (No.189) Salvado Road, Jolimont, which is now known as "Parkside Walk". The preparation of the Design Guidelines represents the final stage in establishing the planning framework for the site, following the adoption of Scheme Amendment 26 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 which set in place the residential use on the site in accordance with Directions 2031 and the preparation of an Outline Development Plan which has been adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Design Guidelines provide standards for development relating to matters such as street and lot boundary setbacks and minor incursions such as balconies, fencing, street surveillance, parking and vehicle access. In particular, building setbacks require multiple dwellings to taper to the ground, with larger setbacks for upper storeys. This is especially the case for development abutting Salvado Road, Henderson Park and Mabel Talbot Park, so as to provide a transition to these boundaries. Other matters including density, dwelling yield and open space, however, were considered as part of the preparation of the Outline Development Plan. The Design Guidelines were advertised for 21 days in accordance with requirements for Local Planning Policies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. 16 submissions were received, ten of which were from residents and landowners and six from service providers. Among those submissions from residents or landowners, most concerns related to the impact of the multiple dwelling development in the Mabel Talbot Precinct at the south-east corner of Parkside Walk on the adjoining reserves and to residential properties to the south. It is considered that the proposed building setbacks and measures to retain existing vegetation adequately address the interface with Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Park and that the park serves as an appropriate buffer to residential properties to the south. Comments also related to the effect of the development on vegetation both on-site and on adjoining sites and on the proposed landscaping, particularly on the periphery of the site. Reports prepared as part of the Outline Development Plan, however, indicate that there would be limited environmental impact from the development of the site. Furthermore, efforts have been taken to maximise the retention of mature trees and there is vegetation around the perimeter of the site. The Design Guidelines are recommended to be approved by Council with some minor modifications to give further clarification to fencing requirements and to modify setbacks to Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Oval.

BACKGROUND:

Site History The former City of Perth Plant Nursery, located on part Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road, as indicated on the map below, ceased operations prior to the establishment of the Town of Cambridge in 1994. Since then, the 3.9 hectare (39,000m²) site has been used by the Council's Works and Parks Department for general storage purposes from time to time.



Old Nursery Site/Parkside Walk Location Map

In 2002, the site was rezoned "Urban" from "Reserve" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. It remained unzoned under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 while land sale arrangements were being determined between the Town and the State Government. It was subsequently resolved that Landcorp would assume ownership of the majority of the site (3.7 hectares) for the purposes of developing the site, and the remaining 2,000 m² of the site would be used for an access road to Wembley Sports Park. More recently, a conditional freehold subdivision was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 14 September 2015 to create 32 individual and the development has been given the name "Parkside Walk". Scheme Amendment 26 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 At its meeting held on 15 October 2013 (DV13.127), Council adopted Scheme Amendment 26 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 which zoned the site from no zone to "Residential" with Special Control Area No.2 to allow for the preparation of an Outline Development Plan to allow for more detailed planning for the site. Development of the site for residential purposes was considered the most appropriate use, given surrounding residential uses and its close proximity to public transport. Furthermore, the site has been specifically identified as a development opportunity to meet the Town's housing targets identified in the Draft Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-regional Strategy and the Directions 2031 planning framework. Scheme Amendment 26 was subsequently approved by the Minister of Planning and gazetted on 2 August 2014.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 The objectives for development and planning decision making within Special Control Area (SCA) No. 2 are:- • to facilitate orderly development and subdivision of the land for residential purposes, in

accordance with the use permissibility designations applicable to the Residential Zone in the Zoning Table;

• to facilitate a vibrant inner city community with a minimum of 200 dwellings; • to encourage a high standard of built form design outcomes; • to encourage connectivity, permeability and enhanced pedestrian and cycle movements;

and • to ensure that development of the site produces a diverse range of residential built form

and lot types by requiring the preparation and approval of an Outline Development Plan and Design Guidelines prior to the Council considering recommending subdivision or approving development in the area.

SCA No. 2 also includes the following provisions for the Residential Zoned Area:- • The principles and provisions of the Commission’s “Liveable Neighbourhoods” guidelines

are to apply to the area, and particular consideration is to be given to matters of permeability and connectivity and lot orientation.

• The Outline Development Plan is to incorporate design guidelines to guide residential development in the area. The design guidelines are to indicate the extent to which variations from the Codes may be approved by the Council.

• Residential density will be as set out in the Outline Development Plan. • No vehicle access will be taken from Halesworth Road or Peel Street, which connect with

the southern boundary of the site. • Permissible use classes are to be as per the ‘Residential’ zone requirements outlined in

the Scheme unless varied within the Outline Development Plan. Outline Development Plan Following the zoning of the site for Residential use, an Outline Development Plan was prepared by Landcorp to put in place the parameters for the development of the site in terms of dwelling targets, residential type and density, fauna protection, open space, plot ratio and the local road and access network and to establish an appropriate interface with adjoining sites. The plan specified that the development would comprise of 25 single terrace-style dwellings in the southern portion of the site at a Residential R50 density and apartment buildings in the northern portion and the south-east corner of the site, ranging between three and six storeys in height at a Residential R80 density. (Refer to the Plan below and to http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/Council/Major_projects/Parkside_Walk_former_Nursery_Site_development/Outline_Development_Plan for the full set of documents. The preparation of the plan was informed through a community engagement strategy undertaken by Landcorp comprising six community open days and an online community forum which ran from August 2013 to June 2014. The Outline Development Plan was adopted by Council at its Meeting on 16 December 2014 (DV14.174) and endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 6 July 2015.


http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/Council/Major_projects/Parkside_Walk_former_Nursery_Site_development/Outline_Development_Plan

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/Council/Major_projects/Parkside_Walk_former_Nursery_Site_development/Outline_Development_Plan


Preparation of Design Guidelines In accordance with the requirements of the Special Control Area, Design Guidelines were to be prepared for the site. Landcorp engaged Rowe Group, who has worked in conjunction with the Town, to prepare Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) which provide the detailed built form standards for future development and add further detail to the framework provided by the Outline Development Plan. The preparation of the Design Guidelines represents the final stage in the planning required for the site prior to commencement of development, subject to clearance of conditions of subdivision approval. The Design Guidelines were presented to Council at its meeting held on 13 October 2015 to adopt for advertising (DV15.136). Council resolved that:- (i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 3.12 Parkside

Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) as attached to this agenda and modified in accordance with the following points, be adopted for the purpose of advertising;

(ii) the Design Guidelines be amended as follows prior to advertising:-

• Central and Northern Precinct - Setback to POS Area 1 to be amended to require a 2.0 metre setback for the first to third storeys and an additional 2.5 metre setback (4.5 metres in total) for the fourth to sixth storeys;

• Mabel Talbot Precinct - Setback for fourth to sixth storeys to be amended from an additional 2.5 metres to an additional 4.0m (total of 8.0 metres) from the Mabel Talbot Park (southern) boundary.

• Provisions for Minor incursions under 3.2.5 to apply to all setback areas.



(iii) the draft Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) be advertised as follows:- • an advertisement be placed in a newspaper circulating the area under the

Cambridge noticeboard; • a notice be included on the Town's website and Cambridge News; • letters to those who previously made a submission on Scheme Amendment 26

or the ODP; • written notification be provided to all properties previously advertised to on

Scheme Amendment 26 and the Outline Development Plan; and • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups. The purpose of this Report is to present Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) to Council for final adoption following public advertising.

DETAILS:

The Design Guidelines have been prepared as a Planning Policy under Town Planning Scheme No.1 and provide development standards for single and multiple residential developments in Parkside Walk. The table which follows provides an overview of the development standards for each specific precinct within Parkside Walk covering building height, setbacks, dwelling yield, plot ratio and open space. For further detailed information, a copy of the Design Guidelines is included within Attachment 1. Of note, the Design Guidelines have been prepared under the Outline Development Plan which was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission. The Design Guidelines can only directly modify elements which can be varied by way of a Local Planning Policy. That is, elements such as plot ratio, overall building height and open space, which were subject to determination through the Outline Development Plan, cannot be amended through changes to the Design Guidelines. Although, for ease of reference, some of the elements from the Outline Development Plan have also been included in the Design Guideline documentation. CODA, on behalf of Landcorp has also prepared Contract of Sale Guidelines, which will act as a contractual endorsement and contain additional design requirements, though, this will not form part of the Town's planning assessment for development in this area. The Contract of Sale Guidelines will contain requirements relating to matters such as climatic responsive design, environmental performance, building appearance and safety and surveillance.

Parkside Walk Precinct Plan



Design Element

Northern Precinct Plan (multiple dwellings)

Central Precinct Plan (multiple dwellings)

Mabel Talbot Precinct Plan (multiple dwellings)

Southern Precinct Plan (single houses)

Building heights

Maximum overall 21.6m (6 storeys)

3 storeys adjoining street or public open space





Access Streets frontage & POS Area 3 frontage - 2 storeys

Laneway frontage - 3 storeys (to accommodate loft)

Minimum Setbacks (taken from property boundary)

To Salvado Road o 2.0m landscape

strip with no fencing in this area

o 5.0m (1st-3rd floor inc. landscaping)

o 10.0m (4th floor) o 20.0m (5th - 6th

floor)

To Wembley Sports Park and Public Open Space Area 1 o 2.0m (1st - 3rd

floor) o 4.5m (4th - 6th

floor)

Setbacks to other lot boundaries as per R-Codes

To Access Road B Frontage and Public Open Space Area 1 o 2.0m (1st - 3rd floor) o 4.5m (4th - 6th floor)


To Henderson Park Frontage o 4.0m (1st - 3rd floor) o 8.0m (4th - 6th floor)

To Mabel Talbot Park Frontage o 8.5m (1st - 3rd floor) o 12.5m (4th - 6th floor) Note: set back may be reduced subject to Dept. Parks and Wildlife buffer

To Access Road Frontage o 2.0m (1st - 3rd floor) o 4.5m (4th - 6th floor)


Access Streets frontage & Public Open Space Area 3 frontage - 2m

Laneway frontage - 1.0m

Side Boundaries Northern boundaries 2.0m

All other boundaries - nil setback

Plot Ratio 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 Dwelling Yield* (as specified in ODP)

Minimum: 50 Dwellings Maximum: 137 Dwellings

Minimum Dwellings: 104 Maximum Dwellings: 143

Minimum: 22 Dwellings Maximum: 46 Dwellings

Maximum Dwellings: 24

Open Space/ Landscaping

Minimum 25% of the lot area.

2.0m landscaping strip required along Salvado Road




Outdoor Living Areas

Minimum 15m2 per dwelling



Minimum 25m2

Fencing Visually permeable fencing along street and generally against public open space

Fencing along Salvado Road to be behind the landscaping strip

Visually permeable fencing along street and generally against public open space

Visually permeable fencing along street and generally against public open space

Uniform estate fencing



* Note - minimum and maximum dwelling yields have also been allocated to individual multiple dwelling lots. Multiple Dwelling Sites There are three multiple dwelling precincts in the Parkside Walk development which include the Northern Precinct, Central Precinct and Mabel Talbot Precinct. Each of the multiple dwelling sites may be up to six storeys in height, although the buildings must tapered with upper floors set back greater than lower floors from the street or public open space as the case may be. At a minimum, lower floors (first to third storeys) are to be set back 2.0m from the street or public open space boundary, while the upper floors (fourth to sixth) are to be set back a further 2.5m (a total of 4.5m from the boundary). In the case of the multiple dwellings in the Northern Precinct facing Salvado Road, there are larger setbacks given the need to provide for a transition to the existing residential area to the north and given the importance of the public realm along this street. The first three floors are to be set back 5.0m from Salvado Road, while the fourth floor is to be set back a further 5.0m (10.0m from Salvado Road in total). The fifth and sixth floors are to be set back an additional 10.0m (20.0m from Salvado Road in total). This will result in only three storeys in direct view of the street. A 2.0m landscaping strip will also be required along Salvado Road, which will be subject to a landscaping plan and fencing must not be located in front of the landscaping strip. Direct pedestrian access must also be provided from Salvado Road and the public open space (POS Area 1) to ground floor dwellings in both the Northern and Central Precincts. Ground floor dwellings that abut Salvado Road and the public open space must also present directly to these frontages. The development in the Mabel Talbot Precinct takes advantage of its location directly abutting the parkland, with the multiple dwellings to be designed to provide passive surveillance over the park. A 50.0m wetland buffer is in place around Mabel Talbot Lake which impacts the development envelope which is possible on this site. Buildings are to be set back 8.5m from the

Passive surveillance

Blank walls/access points/services may not exceed 20% of total lot frontage at ground level

Communal/open space encouraged onto public open space





Minimum one major opening per habitable room fronting laneway

Balconies May project half way into corresponding setback area or 3.0m in the case of those along Salvado Road

May project half way into corresponding setback area

May project half way into corresponding setback area

Balconies to face street

Pedestrian Access

Clearly defined entry points. Pedestrian access to Salvado Road and public space.

Clearly defined entry points. Pedestrian access to public space.

Clearly defined entry points. Pedestrian access to public space.

Access to laneways to be provided

Vehicle Access/ Parking

Parking to be sleeved or screened from view from street.

Single vehicle access point per lot





One 6.0m vehicle access point per lot

Garages 6.0m width No carport


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 boundary Mabel Talbot Park for the first three storeys and 12.5m for the upper three storeys. At such time a development application is lodged, the Department of Parks and Wildlife may, however, approve a reduction of the setback 4.0m, provided it does not intrude into the buffer. The buildings are to be set back 4.0m and 8.0m from the boundary with Henderson Park, for the lower and upper levels, respectively. Please refer to the following set of diagrams for the setbacks and building heights which apply to each of the multiple dwelling sites.



Single Dwellings (Southern Precinct) The Southern Precinct consists of 24 lots for terrace style housing. The Southern Precinct provides for transition between the existing low scale residential development located to the south of the development site and the multiple dwelling sites. The dwellings will mostly be two storeys, though can present to the rear laneways as three storeys, through the incorporation of a loft. Passive surveillance to the southern public access way is encouraged through the provision of balconies to upper floors fronting primary streets and there must be at least one major opening per habitable room facing laneways. Solar orientation is a key consideration with a northern side setback applicable to east/west orientated lots, to ensure adequate solar access is provided. Ancillary dwellings are also permitted on the lots to encourage housing diversity.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Advertising Process The draft policy was advertised between 31 October and 23 November 2015 in accordance with the 21 days required under Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2 Part 2 Cl. 4. The formal advertising process included the following components:- • Advertisements placed in the Post Newspaper on 31 October and 7 November 2015; • A notice and copy of the draft was placed on the Town's website; • 749 letters sent to surrounding property owners as well as any other party who previously

made a submission on Scheme Amendment 26 or the ODP; and • Letters sent to the Wembley West Leederville Residents Association; service providers,

City of Nedlands, City of Subiaco and the Western Australian Planning Commission. Advertising - Responses 16 submissions were received during the advertising period, ten from nearby landowners and residents and six from service providers. Of those from landowners, eight submissions contained objections or raised concerns relating to the development of Parkside Walk and two submissions contained questions for clarification which were directly addressed via written correspondence. Full details of each submission and officer responses and comments are provided in Attachment 2. Submissions from residents and local landowners The matters raised in the ten submissions from landowners generally related to the impact of the multiple dwelling on the south-east corner of the site on adjoining reserves, the impact on the health of vegetation and proposed landscaping. While some of the comments pertained to building design which is covered in the Design Guidelines, a number of the comments related to matters outside the scope of the Design Guidelines, which were instead addressed in the preparation of the Outline Development Plan. Potential Impact on Mabel Talbot Park and residential properties to south Five submissions raised concerns in relation to the impact of the development in the Mabel Talbot Precinct on Mabel Talbot Park, Henderson Oval and surrounding properties. The comments in the submissions include that the development will dominate over, look onto and overshadow Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Oval, and adversely impact the users of the park and impact vegetation. Further, it was commented that the proposed building height of six storeys is incompatible with that of nearby residential properties in Jolimont. In preparing the Outline Development Plan, environmental reports indicated future development of the scale that is proposed will not adversely impact surrounding parks and reserves, including Mabel Talbot Lake. The proposed building envelopes will also be set back from the Mabel Talbot Lake buffer and the upper levels of development are set back a further 4.0m from the lower storeys from both Mabel Talbot Lake and Henderson Park. The buildings will also be required to be built to a high quality in accordance with the Contract of Sale Guidelines. Furthermore, efforts have also been taken to retain vegetation around the periphery of the development site so as to lessen the impact of the new buildings on adjoining sites. The building will have to be located at least 80 metres from any existing residential development with the park serving as a buffer to nearby residential properties. Of note, the building height of six storeys was also determined through the Outline Development Plan which was previously advertised and adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Two submissions raised specific concern with the 8.5 metre setback requirement to Mabel Talbot Park to be able to be varied at the discretion of the Department of Parks and Wildlife. There were concerns that this could impact the water table and water quality through construction, intrude on the wetland buffer zone and impact flora and fauna, allow direct overlooking over the park and increase the dominance of the development over the park. Any variation to the setback will be subject to further review by the Department of Parks and Wildlife into the environmental impact of a specific development proposal at such time a development application is lodged. Furthermore, a Fauna Management Plan has been prepared to manage the impact on fauna from construction and the assessment of Commonwealth Fauna matters indicated that the development of the site would present limited impact. On a related matter, two submissions questioned the impact of the development on the water table and the water levels of Mabel Talbot Lake. There is sufficient clearance to groundwater across the site and the proposed site level for the Mable Talbot precinct generally reduces the current site levels to the minimum clearance requirement (in the southern portion of the site). It is considered that partial basement parking (which would need to be screened) would be possible. Such matters have been considered in the preparation of the Urban Water Management Plan which is to be considered by the Town. Vegetation, Landscaping and Open space A common theme among submissions related to on-site vegetation, proposed landscaping and the provision of open space. Two submissions considered that there is insufficient open space as part of the development. The amount of open space was determined through the Outline Development Plan and the development includes 0.43 hectares or 11% of the total area of public open space, including two local parks and exceeds the required area under the State Government Policy "Liveable Neighbourhoods". Furthermore, in the immediate vicinity, additional public open space areas are provided including Wembley Sports Park (16.3ha), Henderson Park (4.1ha) and Mabel Talbot Park, which are linked to the subject site. Six submissions raised matters relating to landscaping such that there should be fewer trees removed and more vegetation on site. Comments were also made that further consideration should be given to the impact on existing vegetation on the site and/or the periphery of the site including the Moreton Bay fig trees to the eastern boundary of the site. It was also suggested that there should be more vegetation planted around the perimeter of Parkside Walk and that landscape strips should be included along the southern boundary and not only along Salvado Road as proposed. On a similar topic, it was also suggested that building setbacks should give greater consideration to tree canopies and root systems. Some submissions commented on specific elements of Landscape Plan which formed part of the Outline Development Plan, such as the provision of artwork and seating. The above matters were mostly considered in preparing the Outline Development Plan and specifically the Landscaping Plan (which has been included for reference as Attachment 3). Ultimately the Outline Development Plan aimed to maximise tree retention, however, the impact on the amount of developable land, disruption to required road alignments combined with the potential root zone impacts, have resulted in retention of peripheral trees and relocation of those in the centre of the development. The landscaping plan was also modified in accordance with Council's resolution in adopting the Outline Development Plan to further maximise the retention of mature vegetation. The majority of the significant trees located along the periphery of the subject area are to be retained including the Moreton Bay Figs along the eastern boundary of the site which will be protected. The arborcultural report indicated, however, that other flora was unable to be retained or are invasive species and that the site is predominantly cleared of remnant native understorey species and has no evidence of rare flora species. Overall, it is deemed that appropriate consideration has been provided to retaining as much of


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 the existing vegetation as possible in the most suitable areas to maximise the natural amenity of the subject area while enabling redevelopment of the site. With regard to landscaping strips in the Design Guidelines, it is considered that it was only necessary along Salvado Road, as there is greenery abutting the site along all other boundaries. Planting and landscaping upgrades are also proposed along the pedestrian access way located along the southern edge of the site. Trees along this boundary, although not classified as environmentally significant, will be retained where possible. Building Design Matters Various comments among the ten submissions received by the Town referred to specific elements of building design, though mostly with regard to the impact on Mabel Talbot Park as discussed above. Of note, the Sale of Contract Guidelines will address matters dealing with environmental performance and building materials which were raised in some submissions. Two comments were made in relation to balconies and the fact that they should not intrude into setback areas at upper levels and that further clarification over the style of balustrading is required. The design of balconies will be further detailed in the Contract of Sale Guidelines and these will be generally open style. Given the attempts to make balconies open style, it is considered acceptable that these will project into the setback area and utilise roof space. There were also comments made in relation to how building heights would be determined and concerns over the prospect of fill to achieve level development sites. Each multiple dwelling site will have a set building height to each boundary. This approach will allow a set height which responds to each frontage as well as encouraging builders to ‘hide’ car parking in a basement arrangement. While a few submissions also suggested the building heights of multiple dwelling sites should be lower, such as three storeys, it is noted that this matter was determined through the preparation of the Outline Development Plan and there has been a considerable amount of attention given to transition of multiple dwellings to their surrounds. Parking Requirements One submission questioned the basis of the requirement for one visitor bay to eight dwelling ratio for the multiple dwelling sites. The ODP illustrates the potential for on-street parking with capacity for approximately 50 to 55 on-street bays along internal access roads and the eastern side of Wembley Sports Park. Previous Consultation Three submissions raised matters relating to previous consultation processes undertaken in relation to this development including advertising for Scheme Amendment 26 in 2013 and the Outline Development Plan in 2014. Please refer to further comment under the 'Community Consultation' heading of this report in relation to the consultation processes which were followed and how matters were dealt with in preparing the Outline Development Plan. Comments from service providers and other agencies General advice notes were provided by Western Power, Telstra and ATCO Gas. Main Roads Western Australia, the Department of Education, indicated they had no comment. No submissions were received from the City of Nedlands or the City of Subiaco. The Water Corporation recommended incorporation of references to Water Corporation infrastructure in the Design Guidelines. The location of infrastructure, such as the sewer line which transverses the site, has been a key consideration in the overall planning of the development. The width of the POS (proposed to be 16.0m wide) has taken into account the 2100mm diameter sewer ‘Zone of Influence’ and the existing redundant 1525mm diameter sewer is currently being removed from site. The design


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 of the water distribution mains relocation into Salvado Road is currently being finalised and will be sent to Water Corporation shortly. As the Design Guidelines specifically relate to building standards rather than planning for the layout of the development overall, no changes to the Design Guidelines are proposed in response to comments from the Water Corporation. Proposed Modifications Fencing Upon review of the Design Guidelines, minor changes are to be made to the fencing requirements for multiple dwellings. The advertised Design Guidelines had allowed for up to 50% of fencing around a multiple dwelling site along a primary street or public open space to be solid to screen outdoor living areas. Instead, it is proposed that solid walls or fence may only be permitted to screen utilities, service infrastructure or similar, at the discretion of the Town. It is considered that screening of up to 50% of a frontage of a multiple dwelling site is excessive and will deliver an undesirable streetscape outcome. Fencing between multiple dwelling sites will also be required to be predominately open style as well, as again, large sections of solid wall are to be avoided. Further, the advertised policy did not stipulate a maximum fence height and it is considered that in accordance with the Town's Streetscape Policy that the maximum height of 1.8m be applied for an open style fence. Upper Level Setbacks to Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Park As part of the advertising of the Design Guidelines the Administration has further reviewed the Design Guidelines against the Outline Development Plan. The illustration of the apartment development on the lot adjacent to Mabel Talbot and Henderson Park seemed to depict a greater setback to the upper floors (4 -6 storeys) from both parks than that proposed in the Design Guidelines being 4 metres beyond the lower level. It is recommended that the upper floor setback requirement for this site be increased to 8 metres beyond the lower level on both the southern side facing Mabel Talbot Park and eastern side facing Henderson Park. This will also help to address matters raised in consultation, particular in regard to building bulk. It is proposed to edit the Design Guideline documentation once Council has made a decision on these matters and upon reformatting of the document into the Town's Policy Manual format.


Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 requires the preparation of Design Guidelines as part of the preparation of the Outline Development Plan (ODP) for Parkside Walk as per the requirements of Special Control Area No. 2. Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) has been prepared and advertised in accordance with the procedures for Local Planning Policies in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations. The Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by including Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines). Of note, the Design Guidelines will be reformatted, to be incorporated into the Town's Policy Manual.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report. Advertising of the local policy was covered as part of the annual budget.


Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods' and 'Our Council' Priority Area - 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods' Goal - Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs. Strategy - Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs and guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place. Priority Area - 'Our Council' Goal - Transparent, accountable governance. Strategy - Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them.


The planning process for the future development of Parkside Walk has involved a number of steps which have involved community consultation. The area over which landowners have been advertised to, which extends across the Town of Cambridge, as well as City of Subiaco and Nedlands, has remained consistent over the process to allow landowners to have an opportunity to input at each stage. Business Plan for Major Land Transaction Firstly, the Business Plan for Major Land Transaction was advertised from 31 August 2012, with submissions closing 15 October 2012. At the close of advertising, six submissions were received which mostly related to specific elements of the future planning and development of the site. Subsequent to this, State Cabinet approved the submission for the land sale agreement based on the site being developed for residential use. Scheme Amendment 26 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 Scheme Amendment 26 to zone the site to Residential with Special Control Area No.2 was publicly advertised from 9 August to 20 September 2013. In total, approximately 650 residential landowners were notified by mail. Landcorp also coordinated additional advertising activities consisting of an information session and sent letters to property owners closely abutting the site to offer the opportunity to discuss the project with Landcorp project planners. The Town received 74 submissions and while the Town received a number of objections at this time (55), most of which were via proforma (43), many of the concerns which were raised such as traffic, access, parking, building design and scale, tree protection and the integration of development on the site with the adjoining residential area, were subsequently addressed in the preparation of the ODP which followed. Some submissions at this time objected to the disposal of the land which has the potential to be public open space or simular, although historically the site was never used for public open space and there is considerable public open space in the vicinity.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Further, the site had been identified in the Directions 2031 planning framework as a development opportunity site to contribute to meeting the Town's housing targets. Outline Development Plan Following gazettal of Scheme Amendment 26 and the drafting of the Outline Development Plan, this document was advertised for comment from 10 November 2014 until 1 December 2014. Again, there was a mail out to approximately 650 local residents and those who had previously commented on the Scheme Amendment were also notified. On this occasion, 23 submissions were received. 15 submissions were received from residents (three in support, ten objections and two general comments) and eight submissions were received from service providers/government departments. The concerns from residents and landowners in the area mostly related to the impact of building bulk on the surrounding residential area and parkland, traffic concerns, loss of vegetation and potential for impact on local fauna. However, consideration of the interface with the area and the impact of the design formed key elements in preparing of the plan and it was subsequently approved by Council and the Western Australian Planning Commission. Further matters such as vehicle entry were subject to more detailed planning at the subdivision stage and a fauna management plan was prepared to address the possible impacts on fauna during the construction phase. Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk Design Guidelines Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk (Design Guidelines) was advertised from 31 October to 23 November 2015 in accordance with Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2 Part 2 Cl. 4(1) and (2). At the close of advertising 17 submissions were received. In accordance with Schedule 2 Part 2 Cl. 4 (3) and (4), after the expiry of the period within which submissions may be made, the local government must:-

(a) review the proposed policy in the light of any submissions made; and (b) resolve to (i) proceed with the policy without modification; or

(ii) proceed with the policy with modification; or (iii) not to proceed with the policy.

If the local government resolves to proceed with the policy, the local government must publish notice of the policy in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Local Planning Policy 3.12 Parkside Walk (Design Guidelines). 2. Schedule of Submissions 3. Landscaping Plan (part of Outline Development Plan) Committee Meeting 8 December 2015 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr MacRae disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Item DV15.176 - Parkside Walk (Former Nursery Site), I declare that I my daughter works for Cardno and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."




Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) pursuant to Schedule 2 Part 2 Cl. 4 Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Policy 3.12:

Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) as attached to this Agenda, be adopted, subject to the following modifications:-

• Upper storey setbacks (fourth to sixth storeys) to the Mabel Talbot Park

(south) boundary and Henderson Oval (east) boundary of development in the Mabel Talbot Precinct to be increased a further 4.0m from the lower storeys to be an extra 8.0m from the lower storeys, notwithstanding that the Mabel Talbot Park boundary may still be reduced by 4.0m at each level subject to determination by the Department of Parks and Wildlife;

• The inclusion of more detailed fencing standards for multiple dwelling sites such that:- o fencing is to be visually permeable to the street, public open space and

other lots with a visually permeable to solid ratio of no less than 4:1 and maximum height of 1.8m;

o solid fencing and/or walls may be permitted along boundaries to screen utilities and/or service infrastructure at the determination of the Town; and

o removal of the specific provision for up to 50% of a frontage of a multiple dwelling site to provide screening to outdoor living areas, as this will deliver an undesirable streetscape outcome.

(ii) the Western Australian Planning Commission and local ratepayer groups be

advised of Council's decision and provided with a copy of modified Policy 3.12: Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines);

(iii) an advertisement be placed in a newspaper circulating the area notifying of the

adoption of Policy 3.12: Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines) and a notice be included on the Town's website and noticeboard;

(vi) those who made a submission be advised of Council's decision in regard to Policy

3.12: Parkside Walk, Jolimont (Design Guidelines). Carried 5/0



DV15.177 LOT 13409 (NO. 2) ROCHDALE ROAD, MOUNT CLAREMONT - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.13 - ST JOHN'S WOOD, MOUNT CLAREMONT

SUMMARY

A local planning policy is required to cover specific issues relating to the residential development at St John's Wood for those matters not covered by the Town's residential policies or the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes). The local planning policy will guide future development within the subject area, which will be titled Policy 3.13 St John's Wood, Mount Claremont. The local planning policy will cover three main issues:- • Estate fencing around the perimeter of the estate and surrounding public open space; • Vehicular access (prohibited between the estate and Rochdale Road/Stephenson

Avenue); and • Bushfire Protection Zone. In all other aspects, developments within the St John's Wood estate will be required to be in accordance with the Town of Cambridge planning policies and the R-Codes. It is noted, however, that some of the existing policies for the City Beach planning precinct are possibly not relevant to the smaller lots and higher densities proposed for these lots and minor modifications to these policies may be required.

BACKGROUND:

Lot 13409 and the adjoining Lot 87 immediately to the south are owned by the State and are collectively referred to as 'Area G'. In late 2010 the Town of Cambridge and the State Government agreed to progress the development of Area G. Pursuant to the agreement, Lot 13409 was to be developed for residential purposes by Landcorp, whilst Lot 87 was to be protected as native bush and is in the process of being transferred to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority. The same agreement required the Town to recode Lot 13409 from R12.5 to R30 under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. This was consistent with Council's previous agreement in principle in 1999 to support an R30 coding over the lot. The Council subsequently undertook Scheme Amendment No. 24 which rezoned Lot 13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from No Zone and Residential R12.5 to Residential R30 and rezoned the adjoining lot to the south Lot 87 (No. 2a) Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from Residential R12.5 to Local Scheme Reserve - Parks and Recreation. Amendment No. 24 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 was gazetted on 16 December 2014. A subdivision application for the subdivision of Lot 13409 into 49 residential lots was submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission in December 2014. The subdivision represents the final stage of the St John's Wood residential estate (the remainder of which sits within the City of Nedlands). The subdivision therefore links in with the St John's Wood estate to the east, being accessed via Biara Gardens, and the lots are accessed from internal loop roads with no direct access from Stephenson Avenue or Rochdale Road. There are 47 single dwelling lots proposed ranging in size from 263 square metres to 543 square metres. Two grouped housing sites of 2,363 m2 and 3,021 m2 are proposed (although it is noted that the


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 larger grouped housing site is affected by the bushfire protection zone so that the developable portion of land is 1.238 m2). The Western Australian Planning Commission approved the subdivision on 16 April 2015. As well as standard conditions relating to the construction of new lots, certain conditions specific to the site were included as follows:- 2. Uniform fencing being constructed along the boundaries of all the proposed lots abutting

Stephenson Avenue and/or Rochdale Road. 11. A fence or alternative restricting vehicle access to Stephenson Avenue, Rochdale Road

and Lot 87 being constructed. 13. A Fire Management Plan being prepared. 15. A covenant preventing vehicular access onto Stephenson Avenue and Rochdale Road

being lodged on relevant certificates of title. DETAILS:

The aim of the proposed local planning policy is to provide additional controls to the development of the land at St John's Wood, Mount Claremont. These are for matters not otherwise covered by the Town's residential policies or the R-Codes. Specifically the policy aims to:- • Prohibit vehicular access to the subdivision lots, where such access would be

undesirable; • Ensure the implementation of uniform fencing between private lots and public land as the

estate develops over time; • Ensure uniform, high quality fencing over time, which balances the need for privacy with

an effective interface to public open space, including with respect to passive surveillance; and

• Reflect, for information purposes, the Bushfire Protection Zone. A subdivision plan has been prepared by Urbis on behalf of Landcorp (Figure 1) which identifies those areas affected by the local planning policy and will be required to adopted as part of the policy. Vehicular access It was the intention when the land was subdivided that this final stage of St John's Wood would act as an addition to the adjoining St John's Wood estate to the east. Consequently the new stage is accessed via the existing Biara Gardens to the east which then connects through to the Montgomery Avenue. Vehicular access from the existing Kurren Court will not be permitted. Conditions of subdivision approval require that access to Rochdale Road and Stephenson Avenue is prohibited. Figure 1 highlights where access is prohibited to these roads as well as to Montgomery Avenue and around the proposed area of public open space. Estate fencing Conditions of subdivision approval require uniform fencing to be constructed along Rochdale Road and Stephenson Avenue and fencing to restrict vehicle access to these streets and Lot 87 to the south. This fencing is to be provided by Landcorp and Appendix One to the proposed policy shows details of the fencing to be provided.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 Fencing proposed along Stephenson Avenue and Rochdale Road is a solid brick wall. This is consistent with the fencing style provided for previous stages of the St John's Wood estate further north along Stephenson Avenue (and within the City of Nedlands). Fencing adjoining the proposed public open space within the estate and the adjoining Daran Park to east is predominantly open style, with some solid fencing components in order to reflect the need for some privacy to adjoining residential lots whilst still providing visual permeability to the parks for improved neighbourhood amenity and opportunities for passive surveillance. The fencing between the estate and the adjoining public open space to the south is proposed to be visually permeable railings between brick columns. The fencing will also incorporate a number of pedestrian gates in order to allow for access to this space. The Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority will be designing walk paths through the open space to connect with these gates. The local planning policy will cover eventualities for where new owners wish to add or modify fencing. The policy will allow minor variations to fencing to only be considered if an application is made to the Town and the proposal is to the Town's satisfaction. This will include fencing to the proposed grouped housing sites where uniform fencing will not be provided by Landcorp. Fire management The policy will include a requirement that all development and land use shall be compliant with the applicable Bushfire Management Plan. Lots 21, 22, 32-38 and the grouped housing site at Lot 49 are all affected by a bushfire protection zone buffer which reaches 20 metres in from the boundary with Lot 87 to the south. A condition of subdivision requires that a notification be placed on the certificates of title for these lots affected by a Bush Fire Attack Level. These lots will be subject to a fire management plan which will be prepared in accordance with the WAPC's Guideline Planning for Bushfire Protection edition 2, May 2010 to the specification of the Town and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority. Other issues Landcorp have noted that in all other aspects, development shall be as per the Town of Cambridge residential policies and the R-Codes. It is noted that within the Town's planning policies, Mount Claremont forms part of the City Beach Precinct. There are sections of the current Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape that cover development with an R30 density within the City Beach Precinct, particularly with regard to street setbacks. It is considered, however, that other policies that were written with the larger lots of City Beach and Mount Claremont in mind may not be as relevant to this new subdivision with smaller lot sizes and no views. Crossover widths The current Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape allows a crossover in the City Beach Precinct to be up to 6.0 metres in width (excluding splays) for single and grouped dwellings. In Wembley and West Leederville where lots are smaller or frontages are narrower, crossovers are restricted to a maximum width of 4.5 metres (including splays). The majority of lots within St John's Wood have frontages of between 10.5 to 13.0 metres, meaning approximately half the frontage of each lot will be taken up with crossovers and splays if the 6.0 metre crossover width is allowed. With the R30 density coding, a 4.0 metre setback to houses and garages will be permissible. This means that tandem parking on site and behind garages will be limited and on site parking by visitors to dwellings will be inevitable (although it is noted that visitor parking provision within the estate has been provided. In order to ensure there is adequate space between crossovers


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 to allow for some on-street parking, it is considered appropriate that the crossover requirements for these lots fall somewhere between the requirements for City Beach and the requirements for Wembley/West Leederville (where parking and access from rights of way is encouraged). It is therefore recommended that the maximum width of crossovers within the subdivision be limited to 4.5 metres but that this width does not include splays to the streets. Building height The Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Building Height was originally adopted to ensure that the height of buildings is consistent with the desired scale in a given locality. The policy was developed over the years to provide an additional half metre of height in the City Beach precinct (excluding the Windarra precinct which has its own specific AHD height limits set when this sub-precinct was developed) mainly due to the proximity of the ocean and the recognition of houses being larger to gain access to views. The lots within the new St John's Wood do not have views and therefore should have building heights consistent with the locality. The adjoining St John's Wood development within the City of Nedlands are predominantly two storey and the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 prescribes a building height for residential buildings of no more than two storeys and not exceeding 8.5 metres in overall height facing the primary street frontage, measured from the mean level of the lot boundary at the primary street frontage. The overall height of buildings (measured from the mean natural ground level at the base of the building) is limited to 10.0 metres. On this basis, applying the wall and roof height requirements for the City Beach Precinct in St John's Wood (maximum 6.5 metre wall height and 9.0 metre roof height for hipped and/or gabled roofs and 7.5 metres overall for flat, skillion and curved roofs) is appropriate and no further modifications for the estate is required. Comment The draft Policy 3.13 St John's Wood, Mount Claremont adds a further level of detail to development requirements in addition to the Town's residential policies and the R-Codes which will guide purchasers on all development requirements affecting their lot. Once the proposed local planning policy has been advertised and presented to the Council for final adoption, the policy will be reformatted to be consistent with the format for the Town's Local Planning Policies. It is considered that the current version as drafted by Urbis can be used for the purposes of advertising given it is more suitably presented for advertising purposes.


It is proposed that specific requirements relating to the development of St John's Wood, Mount Claremont be adopted as part of a new local planning policy. Clause 48 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 provides the head of power for Council to make planning policies. The clause sets out the procedure that Council is to follow in adopting a planning policy, which includes the requirement to advertise.


There are no financial implications related to this report. Advertising of the local policy is to be covered as part of the annual budget.





In accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2 Part 2 Cl. 4 (1)(20) the Council, having prepared a draft planning policy is required:- a) To advertise a summary of the revised Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being lot less than 21 days) submissions may be made; and

b) Where practical to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council may be directly affected by the revised Planning Policy for a period not less than 21 days.

In advertising the revised draft Policy 3.13 St John's Wood, Mount Claremont, the following advertising method is proposed:- • Advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; • A notice and copy of the draft policy be placed on the Town's website; • Letters sent to affected landowners in the immediate locality of the subdivision; and • A letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Local Planning Policy 3.13 - St John's Wood/Appendix 1: Uniform Fencing


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations

2015 Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 4(1)(20), draft Policy 3.13 - St John's Wood, Mount Claremont as attached to this agenda and modified in accordance with the following points be adopted for the purpose of advertising;

(ii) the local planning policy be modified prior to advertising to include provisions for crossover widths to lots being limited to a maximum of 4.5 metres (excluding splays);

(iii) the draft Policy 3.13 - St John's Wood, Mount Claremont be advertised as follows:-

• an advertisement be placed in a newspaper circulated in the area under the Cambridge noticeboard;

• a notice be included on the Town's website and Cambridge News; • letters be sent to nearby affected landowners; and • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Carried 5/0



DV15.178 LAKE MONGER COMMUNITY GARDEN GRANT REPORT

SUMMARY:

The Town received a proposal from the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc (formerly Herdsman Community Garden Association) in March 2014 to establish a community garden at North Lake Monger adjacent to Bold Park Community School. Council supported the site subject to Department of Environment and Department of Health approval given Lake Monger's history as a landfill site (CR 14.38, March 2014). Approval was granted in September 2014 and the group secured a Community Garden grant from the Department of Local Government and Communities to establish the garden. Additional assistance of $5000 is now sought from Lake Monger Community Garden Inc to assist in completing phase one of the garden and enable a functioning garden to be established. This will create a community presence which will potentially act as a deterrent for anti-social behaviour.

BACKGROUND:

Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Health approval for a garden at North Lake Monger was granted in September 2014 subject to Lake Monger Community Garden Inc establishing raised garden beds with non-porous bases, importing all materials for the garden beds, using scheme water and installing water wise irrigation. These measures aim to prevent contact with potentially contaminated soil or ground water and minimise possible leaching of soil contaminants into ground water. In accordance with The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens Policy (Policy 4.3.3, endorsed by Council in June 2014), financing garden establishment is the responsibility of a community garden group and all plans must be submitted to Council. The group has been informed from the outset that it is responsible for seeking funds to establish the garden through community grants, local business assistance or other means. It has been clearly communicated that the Town may assist with the provision of a site but cannot be relied upon to fund the project. In 2007/2008, however, the Town provided seed funding of $20,000 for the establishment of the West Leederville Community Garden. Lake Monger Community Garden Inc secured Department of Local Government and Communities Community Garden grant funding of $20,000 in May 2015 and has completed a stage one plan of the garden. The plan was submitted to the Town in October 2015. The stage one works include fencing the site, obtaining utilities, basic ground works and installation of garden beds. Additional funds of $5000 have been requested from the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc for irrigation, tools and plants in order to establish a fully functioning garden which enables community participation. A copy of the written correspondence is provided as an attachment.

DETAILS:

Lake Monger Community Garden Inc has obtained Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Health approvals to establish a garden at the North Lake Monger site and secured external funding of $20,000 but still needs financial support to get the project off the ground. The Town has previously provided $20,000 in seed funding towards the establishment of the West Leederville Community Garden and while there is no expectation that funding


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 should be extended to Lake Monger Community Garden Inc, some level of financial support for the Lake Monger Community Garden is supported. The group have requested $5000 in seed funding from the Town to add to the funding received from the State Government Community Grants Program. A copy of the letter is provided as an attachment. Funds are available in the Sustainability budget to support this initiative. The garden will provide a community hub and presence in the area which will improve local community safety particularly around the neighbouring schools. The project is supported by the three schools- Lake Monger Primary School, The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and Bold Park Community School, who are keen to see an increase in local community activity.


Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan (2008-2018) Policy 4.3.3 The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens


An amount of $5000 is available through the Town's sustainability budget 2015/2016.


The establishment of a community garden at North Lake Monger adjacent to Bold Park Community School supports the following goals and strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018. Priority One: Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1: Focus on activating our major public open spaces Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.2: Encourage activity that meets the needs of all ages, cultures and abilities


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. The three local schools Lake Monger Primary School, The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and Bold Park Community School have been consulted however and all schools are supportive of the initiative.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Request for funding letter from Lake Monger Community Garden Inc




Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a 'one off' payment of $5,000 (exc GST) be provided to Lake Monger Community Garden Inc to assist with establishment costs of a garden at North Lake Monger. Carried 5/0



DV15.179 STRATA LOT 2 OF LOT 51 (UNIT 2, 110)) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TERRACE SHUTTERS - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

SUMMARY:

At the Council meeting held on 26 May 2015, Council decided to defer an application for terrace shutters. The owner then proposed an alternative shutter which could have a fixed closure angle of 45 degrees which was considered at the Council meeting held on 28 July 2015. The Council deferred this proposal. The owner subsequently proposed Ziptrack blinds which were approved at the 25 August 2015 Council meeting. The owner has since decided that she would like shutters rather than the approved blinds and on 4 September 2015 submitted a fresh application for shutters. Given Council's previous concern over the shutters raised at the May and July 2015 meetings, the shutters were refused under delegated authority on 8 September 2015. This decision has been appealed. Following a directions hearing and mediation, Council is encouraged to reconsider its decision to refuse the application pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). It is considered that the shutters, which will be restricted to a maximum closure angle of 45 degrees, will provide sufficient surveillance of the street and allow for visible indoor activity and are therefore recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0356DA-2015 Owner: J Troncoso Applicant: J Troncoso Zoning: Commercial Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘SA’ – use not permitted unless Council grants approval after advertising Land area: 1905 m² On 10 April 2015, the Town received an application to install shutters on the terrace of a dwelling on the ground floor of the mixed-use development at No. 110 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. The subject dwelling and its terrace face Kimberley Street. The application was for bi-fold aluminum shutters to be installed on the terrace, adjacent to the glass balustrade. The shutters were proposed for security, and would cover the full width and height of the balcony. The Administration recommended refusal for the reason that the shutters did not promote surveillance of the street or allow for visible indoor activity as the shutters could be fully closed. Council considered the proposal at its meeting held on 26 May 2015 and decided to defer the application to explore alternatives to the shutters. The Administration subsequently met with the owner and discussed alternative designs which would allow the shutters to be fully open but not fully closed. This option was presented at the Council meeting held on 28 July 2015. The Administration recommended approval on the condition that the shutters are restricted to a maximum closure angle of 45 degrees. Council decided again to defer the application to explore other alternatives.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 The Administration then met with the owner and discussed alternatives to shutters that would still provide some security and privacy. In response the owner proposed Ziptrack blinds from ceiling to floor that would sit behind the glass balustrade. Ziptrack blinds are lightweight, relatively transparent (especially the lighter colours) and can also be locked down securely. This option was presented at the Council meeting held on 25 August 015 and was approved. On 28 August 2015, the owner became aware that there had been an attempted break in on both doors opening to the terrace. The owner then submitted a fresh application on 4 September 2015 for bi-fold plantation shutters as she believed they would provide more security than the approved blinds in addition the Strata Company did not support the approved blinds. Given the previous concern over the shutters raised by Council at the May and July 2015 meetings, the shutters were refused under delegated authority on 8 September 2015 for the following reason:- 1. The shutters do not promote surveillance of the street or allow for visible indoor activity. Following from this decision, the applicant submitted an application to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) to review the decision. A directions hearing was held and the matter was listed for an on-site mediation. At the mediation which was attended by four elected members and the Administration, it was suggested that a condition be considered requiring the shutters to remain open from 7am to 5pm daily however the owner stated that she frequently travels and would not be able to comply with that condition when she is not in residence. The following orders were made at the mediation:- 1. The applicant is to provide additional information to the respondent by 13 November

2015. 2. Pursuant to s 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is

invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting of 15 December 2015. 3. The matter is listed for directions hearing on 17 December 2015 at 12 pm. The owner has since provided additional information confirming that the proposed bi-fold plantation shutters would be fixed open at a 45 degree angle which is the maximum allowable for bi-fold action and that she did not want the shutters to remain fully open during the day.

DETAILS:

Development description • Units 1 and 2 which face Kimberley Street are the only dwellings on the ‘Lower Ground

Floor’ of the development. Both are single bedroom dwellings, with terraces that extend for the width of both the living area and the bedroom. The entrances to these dwellings are from the lobby accessed by a ramp or stairs from Kimberley Street.

• The terraces of both Units 1 and 2 of the development face Kimberley Street. The

terraces are open style, with a rendered masonry wall and glass balustrade above. The terrace frontage is broken up by a (floor to ceiling) masonry pier.

• Unit 2’s terrace has a higher rendered masonry wall on part of its balcony which provides

some privacy to the balcony and the bedroom beyond. In addition the glass balustrade is higher than the adjoining Unit 1.



• The application is to install bi-fold aluminium shutters across the frontage of the terrace (excluding the central pier). The shutters are proposed to be installed on the terrace side of the balustrade, directly adjacent to the balustrade. The shutters are proposed to extend from the bottom of the glass balustrade to the ceiling.

• The Strata Company has no issue with the proposal provided that the shutters are white. Comment West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy The intent of the West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy for the Commercial zone is to:-

“...encourage and allow development which contributes to the improvement of the area through the replacement of older buildings with well-designed new buildings which improve the appearance and usability of streets...”

The policy has specific guidelines for awnings, balconies, walls and surfaces, entrances, roof pitch and corner features. The walls and surfaces guidelines below have been used to assess the proposed shutters:-

• Exposed blank walls to the street or corner frontages are not permitted. Street elevations shall be articulated to enhance building identity and reduce apparent bulk through the use of, but not limited to: − projections and indentations in the floor plan; − window projections and openings; − related awning and roof elements; − unenclosed balconies; and − changes in materials and finishes.

• Use of reflective or obscure glazing to windows is not permitted along ground floor street frontages to promote surveillance of the street and allow for visible indoor activity.

In addition, general planning principles for crime prevention through environmental design include ensuring clear views exist between buildings and the street, to provide opportunity for incidental street surveillance. This also contributes to streetscape amenity. The building at No. 110 Cambridge Street has been recently constructed and has generally improved the appearance of that particular corner. Unit 1 and 2’s terraces facing Kimberley Street are open and provide good street surveillance and allow for visible indoor activity. Provided that the shutters are restricted to a maximum closure angle of 45 degrees, there will still be vision through the shutters to the street and vice versa in the 'closed' position. The open to solid ratio would be approximately 1:1. At times during the day the shutters will also be fully opened. This is considered an acceptable compromise between the applicant's security concerns and the West Leederville Precinct Policy objective to promote surveillance of the street and allow for visible indoor activity.




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:






Nil. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That Council, in response to the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal to review its decision under s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), vary its previous decision of 8 September 2015 under s 31(2)(b) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) as follows:-

That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for terrace shutters as submitted by J Troncoso at Strata Lot 2 of Lot 51 (Unit 2, No. 110) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 10 April 2015 subject to the following condition:- (i) the shutters to be restricted to a maximum closure angle of 45 degrees to

provide some surveillance of the street and allow for visible indoor activity to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the shutters to be a white colour.

Carried 5/0



DV15.180 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS - NOVEMBER 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.

DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of November 2015) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- • 9 Tarongo Way, City Beach - Covered barbeque area • 12 Elimatta Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 47 Kinkuna Way, City beach - Patio • 91 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Fence and retaining wall • 35 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 5 Sellenger Court, City Beach - Pool and guest room • 72 Newry Street, Floreat - Patio • 36 Kincardine Crescent, Floreat - Carport and shed • 346 Salvado Road, Floreat - Two oubuildings and front fence • 122 Brookdale Street, Floreat - Ancillary dwelling • 114 Brookdale Street, Floreat - Four shade sails • 50b Marlow Street, Wembley - Carport • 18 Barrett Street, Wembley - Conservation works to the Old Chapel at Catherine

McCauley Centre • 102 Holland Street, Wembley - Retaining wall • 49 Reserve Street, Wembley - Boundary fence • 1/131 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Commercial sign • 79 Marlow Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - carport, front

fence, rear addition (study, activity room, laundry, living/dining, garage) • 7 Drew Street, Wembley - Patio • 84 Holland Street, Wembley - Two shade sails • 61 Woolwich Street, West Leederville - Retrospective application - visually permeable

garage door. The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during November 2015.

Applications for Review (Appeals) - ongoing 94 Holland Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 A full hearing for the reconsideration of the refusal for the two storey dwelling was held on 10 November 2015. Due to a point of order this hearing was vacated and the proceeding was adjourned to a further directions hearing on the 11 December 2015.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 30 November 2015 be received. Carried 5/0



DV15.181 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - NOVEMBER 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in November 2015.

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of November 2015. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. November

2015 November

2014 Financial Year

to Date 2015/2016

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2014/2015

Building Permits (Certified)

34 32 150* 186

Building Permits (Uncertified)

18 12 120* 103*

Demolition Permits 11 8 31 48* Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

0 4 5 8

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 1 0

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

4 2 8 9

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 1 1

Total

67

58

316

355

Value of Construction $17,507,529 $52,834,272 $100,391,854 $145,284,825 Financial Year to Date 2015/2016 * (Certified) 148 plus Two (2) additional certified building permits (=150) which was not included in October 2015 report * (Uncertified) 117 plus Three (3) additional uncertified building permits (=120) which was not included in October 2015 report Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2014/2015 * (Uncertified) 98 plus Five (5) additional uncertified building permits (=103) * (Demolition) 46 plus Two (2) additional demolition permits (=48) Note: The total value of construction for November 2014 period was influenced by the approval for the Construction of a 1x Four Storey Building and 3x Three Storey Buildings comprising of 96 units plus Scoreboard Building situated at 1 Stadium Drive, Floreat.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of November 2015 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 5/0


COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

7 DECEMBER 2015

ORDER OF BUSINESS







7. REPORTS

CR15.152 City Beach BioLINC Project Stage 1 - Grant Application 3 CR15.153 Tender RFT19-15 - Provision of Traffic Management Services 13 CR15.154 Tender RFT 34-15 - City Beach Groyne Maintenance Stage 3 17 CR15.155 Keane Street Proposed Parking Restrictions: Grantham Street - Herdsman

Parade 20 CR15.156 Five Year Footpath Program (2016/17 to 2020/21) - Footpaths 23 CR15.157 Disability and Access Inclusion Plan 2015-2018 (December 2015 to

December 2018) 27 CR15.158 Underground Power Program - Update Report 31 CR15.159 Documents Sealed - December 2015 36 CR15.160 Local Government Boundary Proposal - South of Hay Street 38 CR15.161 Floreat Beach Kiosk Lease Extension 44 CR15.162 Payment of Accounts - November 2015 47 CR15.163 Investment Schedule - November 2015 49 CR15.164 The Boulevard (Gayton Road) Shopping Centre 55

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 7 DECEMBER 2015 I

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON MONDAY 07 DECEMBER 2015.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.00 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Louis Carr (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 7.00 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.00 pm 7.00 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.00 pm 7.00 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.00 pm 7.00 pm Cr Andres Timmermanis 6.00 pm 7.00 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.00 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 7 DECEMBER 2015 1

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 7 DECEMBER 2015


Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 16 November 2015 as contained in the November 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Nil

7. REPORTS



CR15.152 CITY BEACH BIOLINC PROJECT STAGE 1 - GRANT APPLICATION

SUMMARY:

Cambridge Coastcare has written to the Town requesting consideration to part funding of Stage 1 (Jubilee Park section) of the City Beach BioLINC project. A grant application has been submitted to LotteryWest by Cambridge Coastcare and LotteryWest have advised Cambridge Coastcare that they would expect a 50% minimum contribution from the Town as a condition of the grant. The Stage 1 works are estimated to cost $306,000 total.

BACKGROUND:

At the commencement of the Community and Resources meeting held on Monday, 16 July 2012, representatives of Cambridge Coastcare presented their concept of a BioLINC proposal for City Beach. Works proposed were rehabilitation of dunes which historically were removed or altered between 1940 and 1965. Subsequent to this presentation, the specific details were reviewed by the Administration and Council considered a report at its August 2012 meeting (item CR12.138) where the following decision was adopted:- "That:- (i) the proposal submitted by Cambridge Coastcare for the City Beach BioLINC project

detailed in the attachment be endorsed as a concept subject to various modifications and conditions as follows:-

(a) dune and coastal trail to the northern dune boardwalk being integrated with the

proposed shared path on the east side of Challenger Parade as detailed in the Town's City Beach Development Plan;

(b) all new coastal trails to give adequate consideration to passive surveillance; (c) clarification on which of these coastal trails incorporate a shared path for bicycle

use; (d) the extension of the dune system through the car park on the east side of

Challenger Parade be relocated to cross in the centre of the car park and there be no net loss of car parking bays, with the reconfigured car park and replacement car bays being consistent with the parking requirements of the beach precinct to be determined in the traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach;

(e) the sculpture in the roundabout at the corner of Oceanic Drive and Challenger

Parade not forming part of the BioLINC project;

(f) the options being considered to provide a biodiversity crossing across Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive to be provided to the community during the consultation phase;



(g) any proposal to close Challenger Parade to traffic not be supported and will be

subject to a traffic and parking study for the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach;

(h) the dune and landscape strategy for Jubilee Park through to Boscombe Avenue be subject to resident support and to ensure that any plantings and dune construction do not obstruct existing beach and ocean views for residents;

(i) consideration being given to the integration of the Jubilee Park dune and landscape

strategy with the Surf Club and commercial facilities development at City Beach as it relates to traffic and parking;

(j) Cambridge Coastcare undertake the public consultation detailed in this report under

the guidance of officers of the Town; (ii) it be noted that Cambridge Coastcare will apply in the November/December 2012 round

of the federal government's Biodiversity Fund for $2.5 million to undertake the City Beach BioLINC project over a three year period; and

(iii) prior to the funding submission outlined in (ii) being made, the City Beach BioLINC

project being modified to incorporate the items in (i) above". A public consultation process was conducted which commenced 17 November 2012 for a four week period for submissions to close 17 December 2012. During the public comment process, the following information and comments were received and reviewed including: 1. Letters from adjacent residents to Jubilee Park. 2. A petition was tabled to the Council meeting held 18 December 2012. It was signed by

owners representing 10 of the 13 properties who live directly adjacent Jubilee Park. 3. A total of 15 questions were asked during question time prior to the 18 December 2012

Council meeting. The replies are included in the December 2012 Council minutes. 4. As at 18 December 2012, 158 proforma replies had been received. Subsequently, a

further 13 were received making a total of 171. All 171 responses have been considered. Approximately 360 Information Packs were distributed to all properties in South City Beach. A further 155 were also posted to the property owner whose postal address was recorded in Council's property database as different to the actual property address.

5. All proforma replies and letters received were copied to Coastcare on 18 December 2012

and 18 January 2013 for inclusion in a report summarising the public opinions received relating to the BioLINC project.

6. Two community open days were conducted by Coastcare at The Boulevard Centre.

Unfortunately attendance was not extensive with 8 people attending the open day on Sunday, 2 December 2012 and 1 person attending on Monday, 3 December 2012.

Save Jubilee Park Website During January 2013, it was brought to the attention of the Administration that a website had been created by a group of community residents for the public to comment on the BioLINC proposal. It was referenced at SaveJubileePark.com and known as "Anti-BioLINC - Save Jubilee Park Petition. As at 12 March 2013, a total of 103 replies had been posted in response to the following questions:- "We the undersigned petition the Town of Cambridge to reject the BioLINC project as prepared by Cambridge Coastcare Inc and currently before the Town of Cambridge for consideration.



After reviewing the Cambridge Coastcare document entitled "BioLINC Connection People with Nature" released on 13 November 2012, in conjunction with the facts we find the following:- • The removal of the grassed area at Jubilee Park and construction of sand dunes is not in

the public interest;

• No risk assessment study has been conducted on the impact of the project on the safety of beach goers and surrounding residents. Thus, many pertinent safety issues raised by the community have not been addressed;

• No parking study has been completed, therefore the proposal can be misleading or misunderstood;

• No traffic study has been completed, therefore the proposal can be misleading or misunderstood."

General Comments When reviewing all completed proforma survey comments, various letters presented, the questions and petitions raised at the Council meeting on 18 December 2012, several issues have been identified as follows:- 1. Nearly half of the comments wish to retain Jubilee Park in its current state (no Ecozoning)

as it creates amenity, is well used and is iconic for City Beach. 2. There is a lack of detail in relation to how the new Surf Club and commercial facilities will

integrate with Jubilee Park. 3. There is no parking or traffic studies relating to the Surf Club and commercial facilities or

BioLINC plan. 4. There is no risk assessment presented into safety of pedestrians and cyclists. 5. The Jubilee Park plan creates increased danger from snakes and other feral animals. Surf Club and Commercial Facilities Project It is acknowledged in the August 2012 Council report, comment was made within the Council decision in relation to integration of this project with the BioLINC proposal and in relation to traffic and parking studies. Specific comment is provided on these issues as follows:- In so far as traffic and parking, the status is as follows:- • The traffic consultant has assessed the anticipated parking demand from the Surf Club

building and commercial development at City Beach and has a view that all parking demand can be satisfied within a five minute walk of the commercial buildings in all but extreme peak demand times;

• The Administration believes that it is appropriate that the quantum of car parking spaces that will be taken away by the Surf Club project works be replaced as close as possible to the replacement Surf Club and restaurant buildings. Council determined a preferred location for additional car parking as an extension to the north side of Fred Burton car park (CR15.7, Council meeting 24 February 2015 refers) subject to further community consultation. A copy of the proposed car park plan is included within the report attachment.



• The traffic consultant will need to propose a series of traffic calming measures on

Challenger (north) to address the speed of vehicles within the beach precinct;

• If BioLINC proceeds and the Fred Burton car park is carved into two parts separated by a dune, the lost car parking must be replaced (again within the five minute walking issue and possibly closer to the Surf Club and restaurant buildings by reconfiguring some of the dune area);

• The traffic consultant has formed a view that the additional traffic flow from the Surf project would have impacts on Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive as the two main desire lines for access and egress. Side streets may only be impacted by kerbside parking. Council may wish to impose residential parking or local traffic only signage if it desires.

Special Meeting of Electors - Tuesday 5 March 2013 A request from was received on 11 February 2013 and signed by in excess of 180 Electors. In accordance with section 5.28 of the Local Government Act, a meeting was be held on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 at The Boulevard Centre. The request specified the matters to be discussed will be:- "The BioLINC and our objections to the BioLINC. Express our concerns concerning the BioLINC proposal". All decisions made at Electors Meeting are to be considered at the next ordinary Council Meeting, or the first ordinary Council Meeting after that meeting or at a special meeting called for that purpose. If at a meeting of the Council, a local government makes a decision in response to a decision made at an electors meeting, the reasons for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting. The meeting was convened on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 commencing at 6.00pm and concluded at 8.30pm. Meeting attendees :- 138 persons registered attendance for the meeting. 125 persons were marked off the electoral roll and were entitled to vote at this meeting. Approximately 190 persons attended the meeting. The following motion was presented to the meeting. Motion: "That the BioLINC proposal not proceed." Moved: Mr Peter Dawson Seconded: Mr Eric Tucker For: 109 (88.6%) Against: 14 (11.4%) 123 votes

The minutes from the Special Meeting of Electors were included in the report attachment 5 of 5 in March 2013.



General Meeting Opinions Discussed in March 2013. • Save Jubilee Park supporters made up the majority of attendees.

• Coastcare through Newform (Mr Matt Huxtable) presented a revised plan from that used

in the November 2012 public consultation. Essentially this plan reduced from around 40% to 15-20%, the amount of Jubilee Park proposed to be ecozoned. The revised plan focussed on ecozones on the western and northern park edges. The plan presented to the meeting is included within the report attachment 4 of 5.

• The majority of speakers wished to maintain 100% of the existing Jubilee Park as a passive/active recreational area with no extra ecozones being established.

• Several speakers requested if any scientific reports had been prepared for community review to justify scientifically how the BioLINC would work and what successful outcomes could be expected. It was noted no written reports are currently available for review. Coastcare Deputy Chairperson, David Merritt gave a verbal response to this question several times.

• The attendees generally agreed that all works completed over many years by Cambridge Coastcare had significantly improved the City Beach Dune systems and specific reference was made to the Dune Boardwalk project.

• Cambridge Coastcare confirmed to the meeting:- - All existing Norfolk Island Pines trees are to be maintained. - All proposed ecozone works on Jubilee Park are aimed at producing a native garden

incorporating plants of height up to 300mm. No natural surface levels would be altered to create any new sand hill or dunes as it is a specific deliverable that no existing ocean views will be reduced when works are carried out.

Following Council review of public comments received during the public consultation process, Council considered a report at its March 2013 meeting (item CR13.16) where the following decision was adopted:- That:- (i) the Cambridge Coastcare BioLINC Project - Public Consultation Summary Report March

2013 and the details of the consultation response included in the above report be received;

(ii) the decision of Electors to not proceed with the BioLINC proposal from the Special

Meeting of Electors held Tuesday 5 March 2013 be noted; (iii) the BioLINC project be supported as detailed in the attached modified indicative plan (No.

CR 13.16 Plan 1) with up to 20% of Jubilee Park and surrounds, (excluding Challenger Parade car park) from kerb to kerb being vegetated, subject to detailed design of the final area including relevant modifications as outlined in Council Report of August 2012 and the outcomes of the traffic and parking study from the Surf Club and Commercial Development at City Beach Project; and



(iv) in response to the Public Consultation the following commitments be made:

• no closure of Challenger Parade • plantings in Jubilee Park will be no higher than 300mm and will not obstruct any

residential views • no Norfolk Island Pine trees will be removed.

DETAILS:

In accordance with the March 2013 Council decision, the BioLINC concept plan and project proposal, included in the report attachments, was revised to only include 20% of Jubilee Park, also included in the report attachments. The BioLINC concept Plan is comprised of three stages:

• Stage 1 - Jubilee Park western end, replacing 20% of total turf area with native plants and installation of path. To ecologically link the south City Beach dunes to the Fred Burton Park;

• Stage 2 - Fred Burton Park dunes, existing native vegetation to be supplemented with native plants and installation of path. To ecologically link Fred Burton Park to the north City Beach dunes (noting that the Stage 2 concept as shown by BioLINC is inconsistent with Council preference for retention and expansion of Fred Burton Carpark);

• Stage 3 - City Beach Oval, section along Oceanic Drive (both sides) to West Coast Highway replacing turf with native plants. To ecologically link stages 1 and 2 above with Bold Park.



In order to assess proposed works for all the stages in the BioLINC concept plan, Council, in a March 2013 report (CR13.17), endorsed a small ecozone trial to be implemented in the north section of Challenger Park between Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue. The trial was aimed at demonstrating to the community the value of Ecozones in the Town including the BioLINC project aims. This trial was completed in September 2013 and follow up planting has occurred. The trial has been successful in that there were only a few plant losses due to the existing irrigation on site and in fact the results were so good that some plants had to be removed due to over-crowding of plants. Irrigation has been gradually reduced in the trial area and will continue to be reduced to a point where it will only be used on hot days to prevent plant loss. The trial has identified that due to its success, fewer plants can be planted in future projects and that irrigation is very important in the first three to five years of new plantings. These results are expected to be replicated in the BioLINC stage 1 Jubilee Park section of the project due to existing irrigation in the area. Cambridge Coastcare have now advised that the original proposal to Council to fully fund this project through a grant is now not possible due to the Federal Government Enviro Fund no longer being available. The best option for a grant to fund the project was from LotteryWest. Cambridge Coastcare's understanding during preliminary discussions with LotteryWest was that the grant would fully fund the total cost of the project. A grant application, for stage 1 works, was submitted to LotteryWest, in the category Conserving Natural Heritage, by Cambridge Coastcare with the assistance of the Town's Administration in August 2015. The funding amount requested in the grant application was $305,675 which is the total project cost. The Administration prepared the budget estimate and the details are included in the report attachment. To expedite the process Cambridge Coastcare has funded and grown 9,000 plants for the project from locally sourced and collected seed stock. These plants will be ready for planting from February 2016 onwards. In November 2015, Cambridge Coastcare advised the Administration that LotteryWest has advised that they do not fund grants of this scale as a sole contributor. LotteryWest also advised that they would require a contribution from the Town to match the usual co-contribution model that operates with LotteryWest which is usually 50:50. This relates to a required contribution by the Town of $152,000. Cambridge Coastcare has recently written to the Town as follows: BioLINC has been a large community and Town undertaking in terms of over two years of planning, community and professional consultation totalling $50,000 in cash and in-kind to get the application to this stage of evaluation by Lotterywest. Therefore, based on the above, Cambridge Coastcare requests Council to contribute 50% of the total project cost and Lotterywest to provide a grant of 50% of the total project cost. Council contribution requested is $152,000 plus GST. A copy of this letter dated 11 November 2015 is included in the report attachment. On this basis, there are three options Council could consider for Stage 1 Jubilee Park section of the BioLINC project:



1. Approve $304,000 as unbudgeted expenditure, of which Lotterywest grant will fund 50%

($152,000), to expedite the grant application and undertake the works around March 2016. It is noted that the 9,000 plants grown by Coastcare will be ready for planting in February 2016. In addition, stage 1 of the project is directly opposite the redevelopment of the surf club and associated amenities and the BioLINC landscape works will complement and enhance the general area.

2. Include $304,000 in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget, of which Lotterywest grant will fund 50%

($152,000). This, however, would mean that the grant cannot be progressed until Council has approved the 2016/2017 Budget in July 2016 and planting could not be undertaken until around October 2016.

3. Confirm to Cambridge Coastcare a requirement for the project to be fully grant funded. It should be noted there is no guarantee that Lotterywest will approve the project. However, Cambridge Coastcare advises that the grant application is in an advanced assessment stage with Lotterywest and are looking at it very favourably, hence their request for Council to fund 50% of the total cost. It is noted when this project concept was supported by Council in March 2013, the major purpose was to assist Cambridge Coastcare with submission of grant applications as the Town of Cambridge is the land owner. Council has always reserved the opportunity to finally assess the proposed works and overall plan when the situation arose that a grant for onsite works was successful.

In reference to the design accommodating parking studies associated with the Surf Club and commercial developments at City Beach, the proposed works on Jubilee Park do not conflict. The master plan for works north of Oceanic Drive will require further consideration.

If this project proceeds Stages 2 and 3 will be subject to future council approval. In particular Stage 2 may be impacted by a potential establishment of a Western Suburbs High School.


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. The BioLINC project: • is in line with the Town's Ecozone Implementation Program and associated targets of

gradually reducing the Town's irrigated turf areas, reducing groundwater consumption and improving biodiversity; and

• addresses an action in the Town's Water Conservation Plan "Assess turf areas that are

suitable for replacement with mulched low water use gardens". This is a ground water license requirement by the Department of Water.


The Town does not have any funds allocated for this project in its 2015/2016 Budget. There are three options Council could consider: 1. Approve $304,000 as unbudgeted expenditure, of which Lotterywest grant will fund 50%

($152,000), to expedite the grant application and undertake the works around March 2016. It is noted that the 9,000 plants grown by Coastcare will be ready for planting in



February 2016. In addition stage 1 of the project is directly opposite the redevelopment of the surf club and associated amenities and the BioLINC landscape works will complement and enhance the general area.

2. Include $304,000 in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget, of which Lotterywest grant will fund 50%

($152,000). This however would mean that the grant cannot be progressed until Council has approved the 2016/2017 Budget, in July 2016 and planting could not be undertaken until around October 2016.

3. Confirm to Cambridge Coastcare a requirement for the project to be fully grant funded. It is considered the Jubillee Park maintenance costs , currently set at $ 30,000 per year , may increase by up to 15-20% for at least the first 3 years, recognising the requirement to control weeds and as the maintenance activities are more labour intensive. No funds are available in the 2015/2016 adopted Budget. If supported, it is preferred the expenditure be considered in the Budget for 2016/2017.


Our Natural Environment Goal Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy Care for and conserve our flora and fauna. Strategy Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water consumption. Strategy Improve our energy efficiency. Strategy Prepare for the effects of climate change.


An extensive community consultation process was undertaken in November 2012 regarding this project. Council considered all submitted comments in March 2013 (item CR13.16). As a result further community consultation may not be necessary, at least until the success of the grant from LotteryWest is known and Council in the budget process approves the required funding of $152,000. If Council finding is approved and prior to any works commencing a community information advise will be distributed to inform of the proposed works.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Coastcare BioLINC Revised Concept Plan and Project Proposal. 2. Stage 1 - Jubilee Park BioLINC Area (20%). 3. Stage 1 - Jubilee Park BioLINC Budget Estimate 4. Cambridge Coastcare Letter dated 11 November 2015 5. Parking Plan proposal - Plan 14-1-2/18 CR 15.7 Feb 2015.




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) an amount of $152,000 be considered for funding in the 2016/2017 Council budget.

The project budget will also allow for a Lotterywest grant of $152,000, which will allow implementation of stage 1, Jubilee Park section, of the BioLINC project;

(ii) Cambridge Coastcare advise Lotterywest of the above decision; and (iii) Stages 2 and 3 are subject to Council design approval. Any future grant

applications to implement further stages (2 and 3) of the BioLINC project must be submitted to Council for consideration prior to submission of grants.

Carried 3/2 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



CR15.153 TENDER RFT19-15 - PROVISION OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY:

To select a preferred tenderer for the provision of Traffic Management on road-work projects for a period of one year, commencing 1 January 2016, with the option of extending two more one year periods.

BACKGROUND:

Temporary traffic control must be provided for maintenance and construction works carried out within a road reserve. This consists of:- • Preparing a traffic control diagram for simple works; • Preparing a traffic management plan for complex works; • Supplying, erecting and removing signs, barricades and other devices; • Providing traffic controllers on site; • Ensuring safety of road-users and road-workers; and • Keeping a record of erection, regular inspection and removal of the traffic control

devices. The requirements for traffic control on roads is described in the Road Traffic Code 2000, Main Roads Act (WA), Occupational Health and Safety Act (WA) 1984, various codes of practice published by Main Roads WA and various Australian Standards. A number of the Town’s employees are trained and certified to carry out traffic management for maintenance and construction projects. For large projects, it is preferable to hire dedicated traffic controllers to allow the Town’s employees and contractors to focus on the actual construction and maintenance tasks. If traffic controllers on site are not required for controlling traffic for short periods during the day, then they are utilised on the construction works. The previous contract C19-10 'Traffic Management Services' was awarded to Contraflow for a period of two years and expired 30 November 2012. Since then, the Town has utilised contractors listed on the WALGA Vendor Panel for its roadwork projects. This provided some choice of contractors and encouraged contractors to register on the WALGA service. It has become desirable again to have a contract for Traffic Management services for the following reasons: 1. A relationship can be built with a single contractor to send the same personnel to the

Town each day. Otherwise, the Town often gets different traffic management personnel each day.

2. The Town is likely to obtain a better rate for traffic control on resurfacing works than the asphalt contractor is currently invoicing the Town under Contract 2013-07 Asphalt Surfacing.

The value of the contract is estimated to be in the order of $160,000 each year. To provide adequate incentive to potential tenderers, the contract term has been extended to one, plus one plus one years.



Previous annual contracts have been awarded to Contraflow, Total Road Services, Australian Traffic Engineering and SmartArts.

DETAILS:

Tender Development / Advertising The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday, 19 September 2015. Tender Closure / Tenders Received The tender closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday 6 October 2015 with conforming tenders received from the following 12 organisations:- 1. Altus Traffic 2. ATM Advanced Traffic Management (WA) PTY LTD 3. Carrington’s Traffic Services 4. Contraflow 5. Evolution Traffic Control 6. Highways Traffic 7. LGC Group 8. Roadsafe Traffic Management 9. QTM Quality Traffic Management 10. Tarborda 11. Vigilant Traffic Management 12. Warp Group Tender Specifications The tender specifications required the tenderers to provide a rate for various items of traffic management. The potential conflict with the same contractor preparing its own traffic management plans is managed by the Town's staff ensuring that the plan is an efficient use of traffic controllers and provides an adequate level of protection for road users and road-workers. In case of conflict, the traffic control plan can be assessed by an independent Road Traffic Manager. Tender Evaluation Process All tenders were evaluated using the guidelines in the WALGA Procurement Handbook 2014 and is based on the information provided by each tenderer in their tender submission. The evaluation considers "Compliance Criteria" (not scored, assessed with a "yes" or "no") and "Qualitative Criteria" (which are scored and weighted to indicate the relative degree of importance). This evaluation identifies a preferred organisation to award the tender to. The Town has adopted a “best value for money” approach to this tender. The confidential evaluation matrix is included in the report attachment. The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, identified Evolution Traffic Control as the preferred organisation for the following reasons:- 1. The tender satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender;

2. The tender is the “best value for money” tender as determined by the Qualitative Criteria

because:-



• The tenderer achieved the highest Qualitative scoring • The tendered services meet the requirements of the Town. • The tenderer has the organisational capabilities to provide the services required. • The tenderer has good references and/or has been observed to provide good

service within the Town. • The price for the anticipated traffic management services required for the next 12

months is one of the lowest. (the third lowest). The prices for this long term arrangement are lower than those currently charged by the WALGA Vendor panel and the road construction contractors that offer traffic management services.

The confidential attachment to this report includes a copy of the Schedule B – Prices of the Preferred Tenderer. The prices were compared by evaluating the theoretical cost of hiring each contractor for the road projects funded in the 2015/16 Budget in order to assess financial competitiveness. Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the contract for Traffic Management Services be awarded to Evolution Traffic Control for their conforming tender.


There are no policy implications related to this report. The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the consideration value of the contract exceeds $150,000.


Funding for the tendered services, estimated as $160,000 per year, is included in the capital and operational programs in the current 2015/16 Budget that will use the services of this contract.


This recommendation conforms to the Council's Strategic Plan 2009–2020, namely:- Goal: Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors. Strategy: Develop partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery

and quality of services.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” consultation assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender is considered sufficient.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential). 2. Schedule B - Prices of the Preferred Tenderer (Confidential).




Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That the contract for Provision of Traffic Management, as detailed in Tender Specification RFT19-15, based on the attached Schedule of Rates, be awarded to Evolution Traffic Control for a period of one year commencing 1 January 2016 and with option of extension of one year plus one year. Carried 5/0



CR15.154 TENDER RFT 34-15 - CITY BEACH GROYNE MAINTENANCE STAGE 3

SUMMARY:

Public Tender submissions for RFT 34-15 were called for organisations to submit offers to undertake groyne maintenance works on the City Beach groyne. Tenders closed on 27 October 2015 with four (4) tenders received.

It is recommended that WA Limestone be appointed as the preferred Contractor to undertake groyne maintenance works at the City Beach groyne as part of the final stage 3.

BACKGROUND:

A budget amount of $335,000 is listed in the 2015/2016 Budget of which the Department of Transport grant will fund up to 50% ($167,627) to undertake groyne maintenance works as part of the final stage 3 on the north side of the City Beach groyne including: • Supply, delivery and placement of New Granite Armour and Core Material; and • Re-positioning and re-packing of Existing Granite Armour. Stage 1 and 2 works on the south and west (ocean) side of the groyne have previously been undertaken with similar grants received from the Department of Transport of $120,000 for stage 1 in 2013 and $120,000 for stage 2 in 2014. As with previous staged works, the Town engaged the services of coastal engineering consultants MP Rogers and Associates who are suitably qualified and produced the technical works specification assisted with Tender submission assessments and will provide project management services to execute this project. The report attachment includes a plan of the location and timing of the works in stage 3. The proposed construction period for the City Beach Groyne Maintenance Stage 3 hasl commencement in early February 2016 once school holidays have finished. The project is programmed to be completed over 7 weeks by mid-March 2016 which is prior to the Easter period.

DETAILS:

The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 3 October 2015 and tenders closed on Tuesday, 27 October 2015 with tenders received from the following organisations:- 1. Advanteering Civil Engineers; 2. Densford Civil; 3. Yarnell Civil and Mining; and 4. WA Limestone; All submitted tenders have been evaluated in accordance with the Request for Tender documentation - Evaluation and Selection Criteria. This document identified the basis on which Council will be assessing these tenders. The qualitative measures were:



• Demonstrated understanding of the required tasks - 30%; • Demonstrated Capacity - 30%; • Demonstrated experience in completing similar contracts - 40%.

The tender evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which identify a preferred organisation to award the tender to. The confidential attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders received. The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, identified WA Limestone as the preferred organisation for the following reasons: 1. The tender satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender. 2. The tender satisfies the technical criteria and consultants specification. 3. The tender is ranked first on the qualitative criteria. 4. The tender is rated first on the Price Ranking. 5. Represents the best value outcome for the Town. Based on this assessment, it is recommended that WA Limestone be awarded the tender at a tender price of $247,608.67 plus GST to undertake groyne maintenance works at the City Beach groyne.


There are no Policy or Statutory implications related to this report. The Administration and project managers MP Rogers and Associates in accordance with grant funding agreement will liaise with the Department of Transport regarding the execution of this project.


An amount of $335,000 is listed in the 2015/2016 Budget of which the Department of Transport grant will fund up to 50% ($167,627) to undertake the third and final stage of groyne maintenance works.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government. Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy: Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk. Strategy: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. Consultation with beach user organisations will be conducted. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender has provided public information in relation to the tender proposal. The construction period for the City Beach Groyne Maintenance Stage 3 will commence in early February 2016 once school holidays have finished. The project is programmed to be completed over 7 weeks by mid-March 2016 which is prior to the Easter period. The communications strategy for the construction period will be similar to that which was implemented for Stages 1 and 2. This will include liaising with the following stakeholders:- • City Beach Surf Riders Club • City of Perth Surf Club • Surf Life Saving WA The general public/residents will be informed of the project prior to it commencing via the following media. • Cambridge News/E News Letter • Town Website • Social Media • Posters/Public Notices placed on site Information relating to the project was conveyed to members of the Beach Users Advisory Group Meeting held in November 2015 and will be followed up in January 2016 when the next meeting is held

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Beach Groyne Layout Plans. 2. City Beach Groyne Project Timeline. 3. Tender Evaluation Matrix and Executive Summary (Confidential).


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That Tender No. RFT 34-15 be awarded to WA Limestone for $247,608.67 (plus GST) to undertake groyne maintenance works at the City Beach groyne as detailed in Tender No RFT 34-15 - City Beach Groyne Maintenance. Carried 5/0



CR15.155 KEANE STREET PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTIONS: GRANTHAM STREET - HERDSMAN PARADE

SUMMARY:

Following a survey of Keane Street residents between Herdsman Parade and Grantham Street, the responses support the introduction of a 2 Hour parking restriction along Keane Street between Grantham Street and Herdsman Parade, with a view to preserving access amenity. Residents will be exempt from these restrictions by displaying a Residential Parking Permit. This report only deals with the current parking issues in this section of Keane Street. Issues associated with Keane Street being used to dodge use of traffic signals at Selby Street and Grantham Street require a separate review.

BACKGROUND:

A number of parking amenity concerns have been raised by residents of Keane Street in the section between Grantham Street and Herdsman Parade. Site observations by the Town have noted a high number of cars parked in this section. Residents have indicated that parking overflow into Keane Street is originating from the new businesses along the north side of Herdsman Parade near Selby Street. It is noted that Keane Street is a local access road and that both traffic volumes and speeds are well within the range for a local access road.

DETAILS:

Following an observation period of two weeks by the Town's Rangers, a residential parking survey was distributed for comment in the period 2 November 2015 - 13 November 2015. Of the 15 properties surveyed, 12 responses were received. The breakdown of questions and responses is as follows: Q1. Do you believe there is a requirement for parking restrictions in Keane Street (Grantham

Street- Herdsman Parade)?

YES - 91.5% (11 responses) NO - 8.5% (1 response)

Q2. Do you support introducing 2 Hour Parking 8am-5:30pm Monday - Friday and 8am - 12

noon Saturday, with Residential Permit Parking Excepted?

YES - 6 respondents supported the suggested restriction as 2P. Of the 5 other respondents, 4 supported variations of this restriction, being:- • 1 hour parking, RPPE • Resident permit parking only x 2 • No restrictions on a Saturday One respondent said that while they did not support the introduction of restrictions, if Council were to do so, they would prefer to see a 90 minute restriction in place.

NO - 1 Respondent.



Q3. Any other Comments or Suggestions or an alternate parking management option?

A summary of comments and suggestions is as follows:- • Developments on Selby/Herdsman lack adequate parking, causing flow-on effects into

Keane Street. Currently a lot of construction workers parking in street, but this will be replaced by tenants and visitors following completion of building.

• Busiest between 8-9am as people try to dodge the lights at Herdsman/Selby and try to navigate the parked cars on Keane St.

• Due to heavy traffic during peak times, suggest making Keane/Herdsman exit only. • Could make Keane St a cul-de-sac like Reserve St and Herdsman Pde • Remove left turn from Herdsman into Keane St • Visibility reversing out of driveways is very limited due to so many parked cars. • Parking should only be permitted on one side of the street to avoid the street being

narrowed down to only one lane for cars to pass through. • On Thursdays there are problems with the rubbish trucks accessing bins due to parked

cars being in the way. • The parking congestion does work well as a traffic calming measure. If parking was

removed, we should look at infrastructure that will contain parking and control speed. • Renovations mean extra tradesmen need to park in the street. Keane Street is 7.35 metres wide between Grantham Street and Herdsman Parade and given the regular availability of crossovers over about 130 metres, it is proposed to designate 2P on the west and east side. Residents and their visitors will be able to use the verges for parking. Furthermore, residents will be exempt from these restrictions on the road pavement by displaying a Residential Parking Permit. Flexibility is required for motorists parking and driving along this section of Keane Street which does not exclusively promote two way traffic flow. The parking on each side provides a traffic calming measure with a minimum space of 3 metres for a shared single through lane. The Road Traffic Code 2000 does allow for motorists to provide this minimum space and negotiate with other motorists on local access roads.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. This report is guided by Council Parking Restrictions Policy 5.2.22 and the following clauses:- • Parking Restrictions shall be reviewed when -

(a) requested by the adjacent property owner in writing; (b) considered necessary by the Town; (c) requested by other persons in writing.

• As per the Council Parking Restrictions Policy, a community survey was carried out to

obtain feedback on the proposed restrictions. This survey closed 13 November 2015. The recommendations are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law.




There are no adverse financial implications related to this report. The proposed estimated cost for the erection of signage is $800. Signage required can be funded from the Road Name Signs and Parking Signs allocations.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Develop a public parking strategy.


This matter is proposed to be assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Parking Restriction Plan E 231 15 01 2. Letter to residents dated 2 November 2015 and Residential parking survey seeking

comment on proposed restrictions


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) parking restrictions be adopted on Keane Street between Grantham Street and

Herdsman Parade as per Plan E 231 15 01, being 2P both sides, 8 am - 5:30 pm Monday - Friday and 8 am - 12 noon Saturday, Residential Permit parking excepted; and

(ii) Keane Street owners and residents be notified regarding the Council decision prior

to the installation of parking restriction signs. Carried 5/0



CR15.156 FIVE YEAR FOOTPATH PROGRAM (2016/17 TO 2020/21) - FOOTPATHS

SUMMARY:

A Draft Five Year Program for upgrading slab footpaths to concrete and provision of new footpath and shared path links is reviewed annually in November/December as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft Budget. An annual budget similar to previous budgets is proposed as this can complete the upgrading of remaining slab paths to concrete over the next year (2016/17). Preparation of this report has been based on the current Town of Cambridge program from December 2014 and community requests. Council is to develop in 2015/16 a new Bike Plan incorporating a shared path program of works. When finalised, these works will be incorporated within this program.

BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2014 (Item CR14.184) Five Year Program (2015/16 To 2019/20) - Footpaths. The first year of that program was included in the 2015/16 Budget. The 2015/16 Budget funded the replacement of 5.2km slab paths and construction of 0.7km new paths or a total of 5.9 km of paths. By 30 June 2016, the state of construction of footpaths is expected to be:-

• Length of slab footpaths: 5.5 km (3% of total); • Length of brick paved footpaths (in commercial areas): 5.3 km (3% of total); • Length of concrete footpaths 131.7 km (79% of total); and • Length of asphalt surfaced shared paths 25.4 km (15% of total). • Total length of all footpaths and shared paths: 167.9 km.

DETAILS:

This report considers the upgrading of slab footpaths to insitu concrete in Year 1 and from Year 2 to 5, construction of new footpaths within road reserves only. The proposed Five Year Program for upgrading footpaths and constructing new footpaths is provided in the attachment to this report. The location of footpaths and shared paths in the Town and the remaining 5.5 km of slab footpaths are indicated on a map provided in the Attachment to this report. Levels of Service for Footpaths The objective of the footpath upgrading program is to provide a safe network of paths for people to travel by walking, running, riding bicycles or wheelchairs. The existing slab paths are now relatively expensive to maintain in a good condition and the best long term option is to upgrade them to an insitu poured concrete footpath. These are expected to last at least 40 years with minimal maintenance. The minimum standard for upgrading footpaths is set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 “Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths". This policy was reviewed in May 2015.



Specific construction parameters include:- • Slab footpath adjacent to residential properties are upgraded to cast-insitu concrete; and • Slab footpaths adjacent to commercial properties are upgraded to brick paving. In addition to this minimum standard, the following standards are generally adopted:- • The minimum width of footpaths is 1.5 metre; • If possible, the existing 1.2 metre, 1.5 metre and 1.8 metre wide slab footpaths are

replaced with 1.5 metre wide concrete paths; • If the existing slab path is adjacent to a property with no boundary fence, the path is

offset 0.3 metres and insitu concrete width of path is 1.5 metres; • If the existing slab paths are adjacent to a property boundary fence, the path is to be 1.8

metres wide; • If the path is located next to the road kerb, then the width is increased by 0.3 metres to

1.8 metres to allow for the unusable width next to the road kerb line; • Concrete paths have “lock-joints” installed on the contraction joints to provide a smooth

ride for cyclist and minimise tripping hazards in the future; • Concrete paths in reserves are coloured marigold or limestone; • Levels of footpaths are adjusted to match the existing levels of service covers, verges

and crossovers; and • The verge area adjacent to intersections with high traffic volumes are generally filled with

coloured stencilled concrete. The colour is usually red brick or terracotta. The location of footpaths and attributes has been entered into the Town's asset management system (Asset Finda) and the Geographical Information System. All slab and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards and control risk. The inspection for 2015 is in progress and tripping hazards will be progressively removed as maintenance work by relaying the defective slabs and grinding the displacement in concrete paths. Program for Replacement of Slab Paths The proposed program for upgrading slab footpaths to concrete footpaths is listed in Year 1 and was developed from the previous five year program and considered the following criteria:- • After completion of the current footpath program 2015/16 approximately 5.5 kilometres of

slab footpath will remain; • High pedestrian use or high traffic volume on adjacent road; • Paths adjacent to hospitals, schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus

stops; • Community requests; • Complete the missing links and footpaths on whole roads rather than isolated sections;

and • Condition of the existing slab path. Program for New Concrete Footpaths All existing slab paths are programmed to be upgraded in Year 1 - 2016/17. The proposed program of new path construction is listed in Year 2, 3, 4 and 5. This has not been altered from December 2014. This list will be refined after appropriate community consultation is carried out. To assist with the public consultation and planning the paths, all new proposed paths located in West Leederville, Wembley, Floreat, City Beach and



Mount Claremont are listed in suburbs. The new paths listed in Year 2,3,4 and 4 represent the identified missing links in the pedestrian routes to schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops. Program for Brick Paving adjacent to Commercial Centres In general, slab paths adjacent to commercial premises are upgraded to brick paving. However the following project has been identified:- • Northwood Street (Cambridge Street - Railway Parade) has existing concrete footpaths

on both sides and is listed as a future street-scaping project on the Five Year Road Works program.

Program for Resurfacing Asphalt Shared Paths The Town has 25 km of shared paths with an asphalt surface that requires replacing every 30 years or so. Therefore, approximately 830 m of path should be resurfaced each year at a cost of approximately $65,000. This work is listed in the asphalt surfacing program.


The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policies:- • No. 5.2.5 “Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths" and • No. 5.4.9 "Asset Management".


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2016/17 Budget. Not including carry-forward projects, the current 2015/16 Budget provides a total of:- • $668,000 for upgrading 5.2 kilometres of slab footpaths; • $50,000 for constructing 0.7km of new paths; • $0 for resurfacing asphalt shared path; and • Total funding, not including carry forward funds and grants is $718,000. It is proposed that a similar total level of funding continues to be adopted so that a program of new footpaths and shared paths can continue. The proposed program got 2016/17 requires $666,000 to be allocated.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.



Strategy: Create and maintain safe environments. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2016/17..

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2016/17 - 2020/21. 2. Location of Footpaths, Shared Paths and Remaining Slab Paths.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2016/17 - 2020/21) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in

the Draft 2016/17 Budget; and (iii) a review of new footpath and shared path links (Years 2 -5) be conducted as part of

the development of the new Bike Plan for the Town of Cambridge which is to be progressed during 2016/17.

Carried 5/0



CR15.157 DISABILITY AND ACCESS INCLUSION PLAN 2015-2018 (DECEMBER 2015 TO DECEMBER 2018)

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To endorse the Town’s Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2015–2018 (December 2015- December 2018).

BACKGROUND:

The introduction of the Disability Services Act (1993) placed a statutory obligation on Public Authorities to develop, implement and report on a Disability Services Plan. The Town complied with this requirement and implemented a range of strategies to improve access and inclusion for people with disability to the Town’s services and facilities. Amendments (in 2004) to the Disability Services Act (1993) required each Public Authority to develop and implement a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP). At the time of the amendments, Council had already endorsed the Town’s Disability Services Plan and it was agreed that when this plan was due for renewal, a DAIP would be developed in its place, in line with the new requirements of the Act. In 2007, a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan was developed for 2007-2009. The DAIP provides a means of ensuring that people with disability have the same opportunities as other people to access services, community events, buildings and facilities, information, consultation and complaint resolution processes. Subsequent triannual reviews were undertaken in 2009 and then again in 2012 by disability consultants E-QUAL. A review of the 2012-2015 DAIP is now due and has been completed by the Town's Community Development staff. As advised by the Disability Services Commission, to ensure there is no gap in the provision of strategies within the Town's DAIP, the new DAIP will be implemented from December 2015-December 2018. The new DAIP 2015-2018 will continue to focus on strategies to address physical access barriers to Town facilities and services, and improve opportunities for people with a disability to be included within the Town. DETAILS: Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) The most recent statistics available are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2011 Census, which estimated that approximately 3.4% of people living in the Town of Cambridge have a disability. A disability is any continuing condition that restricts everyday activities. The Disability Services Act (1993) defines disability as a condition that:- • Is attributable to an intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairment or

a combination of those impairments; and



• Is permanent; and may or may not be episodic in nature.

A range of barriers may prevent people with a disability from accessing community services, events, public buildings and facilities, and from gaining access to information, public consultation and decision making processes. The Town is committed to ensuring these barriers are overcome and a mechanism for achieving this is the DAIP. The Town’s DAIP is required under the Disability Services Act (1993) and provides a planned approach to progressively improving access and inclusion in the Town. The DAIP builds upon the work already achieved in improving physical access to buildings and facilities, raising awareness through training and events, encouraging inclusive programs and increased opportunities for communication with people with disability within the Town.

Daip Outcomes The DAIP Outcomes (as stipulated by the Disability Services Commission) are: Outcome 1: Services and events People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to access the services of, and any events organised by, the Town of Cambridge. Outcome 2: Building and facilities People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to access the buildings and other facilities of the Town of Cambridge. Outcome 3: Information People with disability receive information from the Town of Cambridge in a format that will enable them to access the information as readily as other people are able to access it. Outcome 4: Service from staff People with disability receive the same level and quality of service from the staff of the Town of Cambridge. Outcome 5: Complaints People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to make requests or complaints to the Town of Cambridge. Outcome 6: Public consultation People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to participate in any public consultation by the Town of Cambridge. Outcome 7: Employment People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to be employed by the Town of Cambridge. The strategies in the DAIP and Implementation Plan outline how the Town of Cambridge plans to meet these outcomes. The Town's Draft 2015-2018 DAIP has been forwarded to the Disability Services Commission who has endorsed the document. The next stage in the process is for endorsement by Council. The Draft DAIP 2015-2018 and Implementation Plan has been provided as an attachment.




Policy No. 2.1.2 – Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their families and Carers. The Town is required by the Disability Services Act 1993 (amended 2004) to develop and implement a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) and to report annually on the DAIP to the Disability Services Commission.


The implementation of the DAIP 2015 -2018 may require financial resources for the following:- • Upgrade of physical access to Town facilities. • Improve opportunities for inclusion by Town community services and events. • Provide staff with disability awareness training. • Provide information in accessible formats, on request. • Facilitate inclusion of people with disability in complaints and consultation processes. The Town will include amounts for DAIP strategies for consideration on the Draft Budget, in the relevant financial year.


The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Community Life Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done


A number of consultative activities were undertaken as part of the development of the 2015-2018 DAIP. These included: • A Community Survey – available to be completed from 8 - 31 August 2015 online, in hard

copy or by telephone. It was advertised in the Cambridge News on 8 August 2015, on the TOC website, through posters placed at various TOC outlets and venues. A total of 15 completed surveys were returned.



• An on-line survey for Town of Cambridge staff - available to be completed from 7 - 17

September 2015. A total of 20 completed surveys were returned. • A community focus group was advertised to be held on the 28 August 2015. Only one

RSVP was received therefore the focus group was cancelled and a consultation meeting was held with the respondent.

• Consultation meetings were also held with organisations in the Town who's core business is working with people with disability or people with access and inclusion barriers including:

o Disability Services Commission - Local Area Co-ordinators; o Ocean Gardens General Manager, who promoted the consultation and requested

feedback through the Ocean Gardens internal television station; o ACTIV Foundation; and o Telethon Speech and Hearing Institute.

• Several Focus Group Meetings with Town of Cambridge staff: o Disability Access and Inclusion Working Group; and o Key staff members including Managers.

• The Draft DAIP was available for public comment from 21 November 2015 - 28 November 2015. It was advertised on the Town's website and key stakeholders were notified and invited to comment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) 2015 – 2018. 2. Draft DAIP Implementation Plan 2015-2018.


Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the proposed Draft Disability Access and Inclusion Plan December 2015–

December 2018 be endorsed; and (ii) key priority areas identified with financial implications in the Draft DAIP

Implementation Plan 2015 - 2018 be considered during the Town's annual budget process.

Carried 5/0



CR15.158 UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM - UPDATE REPORT

SUMMARY:

A high order cost of $62m (+/- 50%) has been provided by Western Power to undertake underground power for the remaining ~3,200 properties in the Town of Cambridge. A series of guiding principles have been developed for consideration by Council in undertaking any decisions to commit to future underground power programs. A recommendation is that the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee undertakes strategic planning for underground power and makes recommendations to Council in this regard. Finally, it is recommended that Western Power be engaged to complete the design and firm cost estimate for underground power for the remaining areas of the Town at a fee of $601,000.

BACKGROUND:

At the 26 May 2015 Council Meeting, a report (10.1) was received detailing the proposed settlement with the State for the Perry Lakes Development and how the $50m owed to the Town was to be made up a mix of land transfer and cash settlement. In deciding this report's recommendations, Council determined also:

"that a Major Project and Underground Power Steering Committee be established by an absolute majority comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Cr Walker in accordance with section 5.8 and 5.10 of the local government act 1995 which will: a) consider the most appropriate use of the town's income from major land

sales; b) review the timing and funding of the town's major projects; c) consider how the town can implement an underground power program for the

properties without underground power in Floreat, Wembley and West Leederville; and

d) report to council at appropriate times and submit recommendations for approval."

This Committee has met to progress deliberations. It is noted that approximately 3,200 properties within the Town of Cambridge are still to be converted to underground power. At the 22 September 2015 Council Meeting, a report (CR15.120) was received regarding a proposal to engage Western Power to undertake full design and costings to provide underground power for the remaining areas of the Town. The decision of Council at that meeting was:

"That:- (i) this report into the progress of provision of underground power for the

remaining areas of the Town of Cambridge be noted; (ii) in accordance with Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 an

amount of $46,000 from the Area Improvement Reserve be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure for undertaking Package 1 preliminary works as described in this report for underground power in the remaining areas of the Town of Cambridge;

(iii) the Area Improvement Reserve is repaid the cost of these works from the proceeds of land sales at Perry Lakes;



(iv) a decision to commit the Town to funding Package 2 works as described in

this report will be subject to a future Council Report in this regard; (v) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute a contract with Western

Power for these services (including approval to commit to Package 2 works subject to Council approval); and

(vi) it be noted that the final design and project cost report would be reported back to Council during the 2016/2017 Financial Year."

The Town undertook the contract with Western Power for the works and has received its report on Package 1 works. On 12 November 2015, the Minister for Energy, the Hon Dr Mike Nahan MLA announced preliminary arrangements for Round 6 of the State Underground Power Program which is pertinent to this issue. At the 24 November 2015 Council Meeting, a report (CR15.151) regarding the review of Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 was received and it was determined to rename the Major Project and Underground Power Steering Committee to the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee

DETAILS:

Round 6 of the State Underground Power Program (SUPP) At this time, the State Government has not announced the full detail of the timing, scale or manner in which proposals/bids for Round 6 funding will be received, assessed and approved. The Town is not required to do anything at this stage except register to receive the information package (this registration has been done). The Minister's media release regarding Round 6 gave detail of two key issues: 1. In Round Six, local governments will be able to nominate the proportion of project funding

they are willing to pay. Project proposals that offer a greater contribution share will receive a higher score as part of the selection process. The minimum contribution from local governments will still be 50 per cent.

2. Under the new arrangements, the selection process will also take community support into consideration. Property owners will be surveyed to determine their level of support for a proposal. For a proposal to be considered for the program, the community survey will need to show that at least 50 per cent of survey respondents support the project. It is unclear if this community survey needs to be the whole of Town or just affected properties. This would be clarified when the guidelines for Round 6 are announced.

These matters would be dealt with as part of the Town's strategy for underground power. Western Power Package 1 works Western Power has provided their initial planning report for this project. They have determined that: • There are no technical impediments to the project • A series of planned upgrade works have been scheduled at nearby Zone substations

which will facilitate requirements for underground power • There are no significant environmental risks to undertaking the project • Design would take approximately 12 months • Construction could be undertaken over a 4 year period in 4 distinct stages • The average cost per property for underground power is $20,000.



The high order cost to undertake the project is $65m ± 50%. This is on the basis that the works are conducted by Western Power outside of the SUPP and thus under full cost recovery. As outlined in the Council Report of 22 September 2015, this cost estimate would be refined to a more certain value if the package 2 works proceeded to detail design and costing. Framework of Proceeding with Underground Power It is proposed that the following guiding principles/actions be used regarding underground power for the remaining areas of the Town: 1. That where practical from a desired timing of works, schemes such as State Underground

Power Programs which provide some level of State/Western Power funding support, should be pursued.

2. If SUPP was not available to the Town, then a 'go it alone' scheme would be developed with funding predominantly from property owners and the Town.1

3. Ideally, any roll out of underground power for the remaining areas of the Town should be as a commitment to complete all works as one continuous package of works. However from a practical standpoint, it is acknowledged that some properties will be done first and some properties will be done last and that the Elected Members participate in any decisions that allow the Town to nominate the size and location of each phase of roll out of the works.

4. That completion of the Western Power design and cost works will provide the Town with both a much clearer understanding of costs (which is relevant in developing pricing models) but also a clear strategic advantage in any competitive funding scheme as this would reduce the proportion of state funding needed in a SUPP scenario

5. That the outcomes of Package 1 of the Western Power report be used to develop a high order costing of provision of underground power for each property.

6. That a pricing model be developed (or small set of options) which proposes the split of costs between property owners, Town and State/Western Power (under a SUPP model) or property owners and Town (under a 'go it alone' model)

7. That affected property owners (ie those without underground power) be engaged to determine their views on the proposed pricing models

8. All ratepayers in the Town are consulted to determine their views regarding any potential use of Town funds in this regard.

9. Proposals would proceed to SUPP application (or 'go it alone' funding) if Council determined that the community support met their thresholds.

Decisions to be made by Council Within the framework described above, there are several important and strategic decisions to be made by Council including: 1. Pricing models that are clearly understood and equitable between different types of

properties and property owners. 2. Funding models, especially where Town funds are proposed to be used, that are

acceptable. 3. Depending on the program being pursued (SUPP or 'go it alone'), the order in which

ratepayers are surveyed (affected residents or whole of Town) may need to be determined.

4. Community engagement strategies including the style and content of surveys to gauge support.

1 Any 'go it alone' model would also take into account the benefit to Western Power of underground power for their assets and costs discounted accordingly



5. Setting thresholds for positive support responses such that any decision to proceed has

to meet these positive response thresholds. It is noted that it is unlikely that 100% of property owners will be 100% supportive of any proposal that involves them contributing their own or Town funds to works.

6. Discussion surrounding the order in which works are completed, noting that some properties will always be last.

Assistance to Council Decision Making The Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee is the successor to the Major Projects and Underground Power Advisory Committee which has as its membership the Mayor, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, Powell and Timmermanis. It is recommended that the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee would make recommendations regarding the key decisions Council needs to make, working with Town officers to develop high order analysis of the issues and options for each matter. Further considerations Guidelines for the most recent rounds of SUPP have limited affiliation to 800 properties per round. Whilst the guidelines for Round 6 have not been announced, there is all likelihood that the Town if successful for Round 6, is unlikely to achieve all 3,200 properties in this round. It may take 4 rounds of SUPP to complete the project for the Town. The Town's Strategic Community Plan also considers underground power in terms of pursuing arrangements in partnership with the state government which is consistent with a SUPP approach.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

There are no known policy / statutory implications in consideration of this report.


The early estimate for construction is $62m (+/- 50%). Completion of package 2 of the Western Power works to detail design and construction cost estimate will require funding of $601,000 to be paid prior to works commencing. Subject to the timing of the sale of Lots 232 and 233 at Perry Lakes, sufficient funds are available within the Area Improvement Reserve to fund the Western Power works and manage the cashflow. Ultimately these works will be funded from the Wembley/West Leederville section of the Area Improvement Reserve.


The provision of underground power to the remaining areas of the Town supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs



Strategy 4.3 Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant Project: Pursue underground power in the remaining areas of the Town in partnership

with the state government.


The community consultation issues are discussed in the body of this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) this report into the progress of provision of underground power for the remaining

areas of the Town of Cambridge be noted; (ii) in accordance with Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 BY

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, unbudgeted funding of $601,000 be approved for undertaking Package 2 planning works as described in this report for underground power in the remaining areas of the Town of Cambridge;

(iii) the Area Improvement Reserve be repaid the cost of these works from the

proceeds of land sales at Perry Lakes; (iv) the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee develop a series of

recommendations regarding pricing, funding, community engagement, approvals processes and other relevant matters regarding provision of underground power to the remaining parts of the Town for consideration by Council; and

(v) it be noted that the final design and project cost report would be reported back to

Council during the 2016/2017 Financial Year. Carried 5/0



CR15.159 DOCUMENTS SEALED - DECEMBER 2015

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge.

DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below:

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

12 November 2015 Transfer of Land – Lots 101 & 102 Salvado Road, Jolimont.

Transfer of Titles to LandCorp - Former Nursery Site

1

19 November 2015

Withdrawal of Caveat and Transferees Assumption Deeds 2009 – Floreat Forum Shopping Centre.

The Town’s Caveats on the Title be temporarily lifted then reinstated – Floreat Forum Shopping Centre – Library and Community Facility.

1

1 December 2015 Variation of Agreement for Lease – Wembley Sports Park Pavilion.

To reflect the contribution from the Wembley Athletic Club as a GST exclusive transaction.

1

1 December 2015

Mortgagee’s Deed of Covenant and Withdrawal of Caveat – 24 Alkoomie Terrace, Ocean Mia, City Beach.

The Town’s Caveat to be withdrawn to allow a Mortgage to be registered, once registered, the Caveat will be placed back onto the Title – 24 Alkoomie Terrace, Ocean Mia.

2

3 December 2015 Commonwealth Bank Loan Guarantee Agreement.

To Guarantee the loan for the Wembley Athletic Club.

1


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.




Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Shannon That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 5/0



CR15.160 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY PROPOSAL - SOUTH OF HAY STREET

SUMMARY:

The Town of Cambridge considered the boundary proposal made by the City of Subiaco (Proposal No.23) at its meeting held on 25 August 2015. The proposal affected 19 properties on the east side of Jersey Street (south of Salvado Road) and 30 properties south of Hay Street. Following consultation with the affected property owners the Council decided not to support the properties on the east side of Jersey Street being transferred to the City of Subiaco as there was not strong support from the property owners and there was no compelling reason to do so amongst other reasons. However, the response from the property owners in the second area, south of Hay Street, showed that about two thirds of those that responded preferred to be in the City of Subiaco. Therefore, the Town of Cambridge decided to support this area being transferred to the City of Subiaco due to the preference of the residents and other reasons including community of interest, efficient delivery of services and proximity to Subiaco. The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) considered the proposal and recommended to the Minister for Local Government that the entire boundary proposal be rejected. The LGAB supported the Town's rationale for rejecting the transfer of the Jersey Street properties but were unable to approve the boundary change south of Hay Street due to legislative requirements preventing the LGAB to split the proposal in two. A discussion has been held between the Mayors and CEOs of Cambridge and Subiaco and as the position by each of the councils had not changed it was considered that there is merit in continuing with the boundary change south of Hay Street. It was proposed that the two councils would prepare a joint proposal to transfer this area from the Town of Cambridge to City of Subiaco.

BACKGROUND:

In considering the City of Subiaco Boundary Proposal No. 23 the Council decided as follows at its meeting held on 25 August 2015: That in response to the City of Subiaco Boundary Proposal 23 the Local Government Advisory Board be advised that:- (i) the Town of Cambridge does not support the area including the 19 properties on the east

side of Jersey Street being transferred to the City of Subiaco as proposed for the following reasons:-

(a) from the survey responses, there is a small majority in favour of remaining in Town

of Cambridge; (b) there are no compelling reasons to shift the boundary; and (c) the proximity of these houses to Henderson Park and the Wembley Town Centre

represents a community of interest with other Cambridge residents.



(ii) the Town of Cambridge supports the area including the 30 properties south of Hay Street

being transferred to the City of Subiaco as proposed or the following reasons:-

(a) from the survey responses, residents are two-to-one in favour for their properties to be transferred to the City of Subiaco; and

(b) there are compelling reasons for transferring those properties to the City of Subiaco, including community of interest, efficient delivery of services and proximity to Subiaco.

The Minister for Local Government advised in a letter dated 15 October 2015 that he had accepted the recommendation of the LGAB to reject the proposal. An extract from the letter follows:

The Local Government Advisory Board has assessed the proposal for a minor boundary amendment between the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge. After resolving to deal with the proposal as a minor matter, in accordance with clause 3(3) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Board recommended that the proposal be rejected. I have therefore accepted the Board’s recommendation and the proposed boundary amendment will not proceed. In doing so, I note that it was not possible for the Board to apply the suggested Town of Cambridge’s modification to the proposal, in rejecting the transfer of the 19 properties on the east side of Jersey Street to the City of Subiaco. When the Board recommends that such an order be made on a minor matter, it must be ’made in accordance with the proposal’, as per clause 3(3) of the Act. The Board can only make changes to a proposal in situations where a formal inquiry has been conducted. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of your Council in considering the boundary amendment proposal. I trust that the experiences gained from the process will place both local governments in a more favourable position to potentially pursue changes in the future.

DETAILS:

This boundary proposal affects 30 properties south of Hay Street with most of the properties in Jolimont (24), four properties in Daglish and two properties in Shenton Park. The area was part of the former City of Perth and could be considered a historical anomaly given that it is separated from other residential areas of the Town of Cambridge by Hay Street, a district distributor road with two lanes in each direction separated by a median island. Matters to consider in relation to the boundary proposal are: • The area includes parts of three suburbs as follows:

Jolimont 24 properties Daglish 4 properties Shenton Park 2 properties

• the properties are in close proximity to the Wembley Sports Park that has recently been redeveloped which is in Cambridge;



• when underground power was installed by Subiaco a number of years ago Cambridge

participated by including these properties and installed the same street lighting system that Subiaco adopted as standard.

An aerial photo of the proposed boundary change for the south of Hay Street area is provided below:


The following provisions detailed in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 outline the process for making a proposal to amend local government boundaries. 2. Making a proposal (1) A proposal may be made to the Advisory Board by -

(a) the Minister; or (b) an affected local government; or (c) 2 or more affected local governments, jointly; or (d) affected electors who —

(i) are at least 250 in number; or (ii) are at least 10% of the total number of affected electors.

(2) A proposal is to -

(a) set out clearly the nature of the proposal, the reasons for making the proposal and the effects of the proposal on local governments; and

(b) be accompanied by a plan illustrating any proposed changes to the boundaries of a district; and

(c) comply with any regulations about proposals.



Under the Local Government Act (Schedule 2.1; clause 3) the Board is to consider any proposal it receives. However, the Board has the following options when considering a proposal: (a) Conduct an inquiry unless any of the following apply. (b) Recommend to the Minister to reject the proposal if in the opinion of the Board:

i. it has a similar effect to a proposal the Board has already made a recommendation

on, or ii. where a proposal made by electors is no longer supported by a majority of those

affected electors, or iii is frivolous or not in the interest of good government.

(c) Recommend to the Minister to reject or accept the proposal if in the opinion of the

Board it is of a minor nature and one which public submissions do not need to be invited. It is believed that the LGAB would give favourable consideration to the proposal as they seemed to indicate that the initial proposal was only rejected due to the inclusion of the Jersey Street properties. Therefore, the LGAB may simply make a recommendation to the Minister for Local Government to accept the joint proposal as a minor matter under clause 3.1(c) of Schedule 2.1 without further investigations as the opinions of both local governments and residents were recently considered.


A comparison of rates has been prepared for each property and is attached. A summary of the rating information is provided in the table below.

Cambridge Subiaco Difference Rate in $ 5.8607 5.25045 (10.4%) Minimum Rate $937 $780 Rubbish Charge $100 $337 237.0% Green Waste $70 $0 Revenue

Rates $47,283 $42,360 ($4,923) Rubbish $4,330 $10,110 $5,780 Total $51,613 $52,470 $857 Note: Waste fees based on a 120 litre service.

It is interesting to note that the overall difference in rates and waste fees is remarkably close with Cambridge charges being slightly lower by $857. Cambridge charges have a higher variable component (i.e. rate in the dollar) but a lower fixed component (i.e. waste fee). The variance will be marginally different for each property in the area depending on their gross rental value as determined by the Valuer General. The small difference in charges raised from the area should not be a major determining factor in deciding which local government the properties should be part of.




The Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, adopted in June 2013, considered the possibility of mergers and under the Goal of "A strong performing local government" included a strategy to "Actively pursue local government reform in the best interest of our community". There is no specific strategy related to minor boundary changes.


Correspondence was sent to each of the property owners in the affected areas advising them of the proposal and seeking their views to assist the Council in determining its position and response to the LGAB in relation to the City of Subiaco's initial boundary proposal (No.23). The letter included matters for the property owners to consider, a comparison of the waste services as well as a comparison of their individual property rates and waste charges if they were in either Cambridge or Subiaco. The comment period closed on 14 August 2015 at which time, 22 responses were received from the 30 affected properties (a response rate of 73%). The property owners were asked to respond to the following question: Do you support the proposal to amend the local government boundary to transfer your property from the Town of Cambridge to City of Subiaco? The responses are listed in the attached response table including comments made by some of the property owners and summarised as follows: No. of

Properties Responses Yes No

South of Hay Street 30 22 14 8 Percentage 64% 36%

The response was two thirds in favour of transferring to the City of Subiaco. Whilst one third did not respond, it is considered that those property owners would more likely to be ambivalent to either option. Some comments reflected difficulties with services from Cambridge due to the location of the properties which are separated from other residential areas of Cambridge. Concerns were raised about the lack of access to Cambridge services if the properties changed councils such as the library, however, these services could continue to be accessed by those residents regardless of which council their property was located. It appears that the separation of this area from the rest of Cambridge with coverage by three suburbs indicates a stronger alignment of this area with the neighbouring residential properties in Subiaco.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Rate comparison; and 2. Response table.



COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Town of Cambridge being an affected local government within the meaning of

Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), resolves to submit, jointly with the City of Subiaco, a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board, pursuant to clause 2(1)(c) of Schedule 2.1 of the LGA, that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would vary the boundary of the district of the Town of Cambridge so as to transfer the area south of Hay Street incorporating 30 affected properties to the district of the City of Subiaco in accordance with the plan included in this report illustrating the proposed change;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare and submit a joint proposal

with the City of Subiaco to the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed above.

Carried 5/0



CR15.161 FLOREAT BEACH KIOSK LEASE EXTENSION

SUMMARY:

In August 2015, Council gave approval to seek quotes for the detailed design of the upgrade to the Floreat Beach Kiosk. This report recommends the extension of the lease, by means of the holdover clause, for a further six months, to the current tenants, on the existing terms of the lease.

BACKGROUND:

Previous reports refer: CR15.112 Floreat Beach Kiosk - Proposed Building Modifications and Lease Renewal At its August 2015 meeting, Council decided that:

"(i) the Chief Executive Officer negotiate the terms of a new short term lease with the existing tenant. The essential terms are to be submitted to Council for approval;

(ii) it be noted that a final decision on a short term lease is subject to the provisions of

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, requiring Local Public Notice and inviting public submissions;

(iii) the Town now proceeds to detailed design for the upgrade of the Floreat Beach

Kiosk. The final design to be submitted to Council for inclusion in the 2016/17 draft budget."

The report noted that a budget of $40,000 had been allocated, with $20,000 spent to date on the concept development. On this basis, the Town has sought quotes from suitable qualified architects and has appointed Hoffman's to complete the detailed design works for the upgrade at the Floreat beach Kiosk.

DETAILS:

Lease The existing lease on the building is due to expire on the 31 January 2016. The Council decision of August 2015 permitted the Chief Executive Officer to enter into negotiations for a new short term lease with the tenant (up to five years). It has now become apparent as a result of the design submissions that the concurrent program of detailed design, market valuation of rent, business case development and securing a tenant for a new lease will require an extension of the current lease by six months, using the hold over provisions. This is different to what was contemplated in the August 2015 decision, which envisaged a new lease for a period of between two to five years. This different approach allows the Town to complete the detailed design and seek a valuation of the lease based on the new design of the building, before negotiating or tendering for a new lease, consistent with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.



Initial discussions have been held and the tenant is willing to accept an extended lease on a month by month basis, for a six month period, on the same terms. This is consistent with the hold over provisions. It is considered that the rent has fallen below market. The process outlined in the next section will allow the Town to reset the rent and invest in the facility to secure returns for the next ten to fifteen years and also meet the needs of the tenant and his customers. Increasing the rent for the six month period was considered, however, this was problematic insomuch as: • It would not be strictly in accordance with the holdover terms of the lease; • It would not be in accordance with the Local Government Act (unless the Town sought a

valuation and advertised for public submissions) and this is unlikely to be completed by the expiry of the lease;

• The tenant may not agree to The Town's propose rent increase for the six month period, which could protract the negotiations resulting in the possible closure of the kiosk.

• Any increase in rent received for the six month period could be offset by the cost of the valuation and could also be heavily discounted due to the short term of the extension and fact that the extension is largely over the non-peak season.

Indicative program The indicative program for the upgrade of the kiosk is as follows: • March 2016 - Detailed design endorsed by Council and complete for costings • April 2016 - Market valuation and business case considered by Council • June 2016- Tenant of the new lease appointed • July 2016 - Budget for construction approved • July 2016- Old lease holdover terminates • August 2016 - New lease commences • September 2016 - Detailed designed finalised, with Tenants input • February 2017 - Tender for building works • May 2017 - Commence Building Works • September 2017 - Complete Building Works The intent of the program is therefore to:- a. allow the Town to conclude the business case; b. lease (dispose) of the property under the terms of a new lease c. Determine the tenant of the new lease; and d. comply with the Local Government Act; It provides the option for Council to enter into direct negotiations with the existing tenant on a new lease once the design of the building improvements are finalised, or alternatively call for tenders. A subsequent report to Council will provide the opportunity to consider the options. It is noted that this program is indicative and will be extended if delays are experienced in any of the individual phases.




Current Lease Implications Clause 2.3 of the lease permits the lease to be held over on a monthly basis. The Town will enact this provision of the lease in order to extend it for the additional six months. Specifically, the lease stipulates:

2.3 Overholding If the Tenant continues to occupy the Premises after the term ends without objection from the Landlord, the Tenant is a tenant of the Landlord from month to month at a monthly Rent equal to one-twelfth of the sum of the amount payable for Rent and otherwise, on the terms of this Lease to the extent to which they can be applied to a monthly tenancy. Either party may determine the tenancy by giving one month's notice in writing to the other and the notice may expire at any time.




Goal 2 Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Focus on activating our major public open spaces Strategy 2.3 Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves


This matter has been assessed under Policy 1.2.11 and it has been determined that consultation is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enact clause "2.3 Overholding" of the Lease for a period of six months on the current term and conditions of the lease. It is noted that the extension is to: a. allow the Town to conclude the business case; b. lease (dispose) of the property under the terms of a new lease c. Determine the tenant of the new lease; and d. comply with the Local Government Act; Carried 5/0



CR15.162 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2015

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing




Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 5/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 02-November-2015 05-November-2015 052011 - 052037 $20,046.88Municipal Fund 12-November-2015 12-November-2015 052038 - 052059 $102,661.45Municipal Fund 19-November-2015 19-November-2015 052060 - 052089 $47,378.15Municipal Fund 24-November-2015 26-November-2015 052090 - 052116 $81,918.86

Total Cheque Payments $252,005.34

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-November-2015 30-November-2015 INV00817 - INV00825 $6,305,670.64Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2015 30-November-2015 Sup 265 - Sup 266 $19,256.62Accounts Payable 03-November-2015 05-November-2015 E20316- E20399 $648,453.78Accounts Payable 06-November-2015 11-November-2015 E20400 - E20495 $531,442.23Accounts Payable 18-November-2015 19-November-2015 E20496 - E20602 $647,593.64Accounts Payable 20-November-2015 23-November-2015 E20603 - E20703 $841,596.26Accounts Payable 25-November-2015 30-November-2015 E20704 - E20716 $610,548.73Payroll 01-November-2015 30-November-2015 Pay 788- Pay 792 $1,331,708.24Golf Course 17-November-2015 17-November-2015 000107 - 000107 $49,934.90Golf Course 18-November-2015 18-November-2015 000108 - 000108 $49,993.91Golf Course 20-November-2015 20-November-2015 000109 - 000109 $50,000.00

Total EFT Payments $11,086,198.95

TOTAL PAYMENTS $11,338,204.29



CR15.163 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 2015

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget.

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its December 2015 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.00% in line with market expectations. Economic conditions remain much the same, with the global economy continuing to expand at a moderate pace. Economic conditions in Asia remain soft, whilst the US economy continues to grow and Europe's economy recovers. Key commodity prices remain weak and are impacting terms of trade, including Australia. In Australia, the economy continues to grow moderately with non-mining sectors gradually improving in the wake of significantly declining capital investment expenditure within the mining sector. This growth has been accompanied by stronger employment growth and unemployment numbers remaining steady. Inflation remains low suggesting that there is still a degree of spare capacity within the economy. Given these economic circumstances, low interest rates continue to support borrowing and spending with evidence that business credit is growing. The Reserve Bank noted that the economy had improved over recent months and that leaving the cash rate unchanged was appropriate at this time, although low inflation gives an opportunity to cut rates in future should economic circumstances change. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same with rates for one to three month terms on average 2.57% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range on average around 2.87%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.05% for November 2015. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.27% at 30 November 2015. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 2.00% for November 2015 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.84%. The weighted average investment period of 165 days (approximately five months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.87%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2015 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period November 2014 to November 2015.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since November 2012.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For November 2014 to November 2015

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Nov-12 Feb-13 May-13 Aug-13 Nov-13 Feb-14 May-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15 Nov-15

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For November 2012 to November 2015

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of November 2015 is $36.6 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $19.1 million, Reserve Funds of $5.5 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $10.1 million and Trust Funds of $1.9 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from November 2014 to November 2015.

02468

10121416182022242628303234363840424446485052

Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of Nov 2015 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateNov 2015 Income

Total Amount Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.59% $1,529 $698,106 1.91% 0.05%

Sub-total $1,529 $698,106 1.91% 0.05%Term Deposits and Bank BillsCBA - Term Deposit 124 "A1+" 2.86% $2,351 $1,006,425 2.75% 0.08%CBA - Term Deposit 208 "A1+" 2.80% $1,151 $503,145 1.37% 0.04%CBA - Term Deposit 222 "A1+" 2.80% $1,151 $503,145 1.37% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.70% $1,147 $554,689 1.52% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 133 "A1+" 2.76% $1,326 $586,391 1.60% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.85% $1,660 $1,013,834 2.77% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.90% $564 $1,013,796 2.77% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.75% $2,260 $1,013,712 2.77% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.75% $3,390 $1,520,568 4.15% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.90% $732 $1,316,199 3.60% 0.10%ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.81% $3,233 $1,416,598 3.87% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 2.78% $2,285 $1,006,779 2.75% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 158 "A1+" 2.78% $2,285 $1,006,702 2.75% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 2.76% $2,268 $1,006,654 2.75% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 274 "A1+" 2.70% $211 $95,593 0.26% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.80% $1,232 $537,270 1.47% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 274 "A1+" 2.70% $176 $80,015 0.22% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $99 $42,580 0.12% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.85% $2,786 $1,201,840 3.28% 0.09%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $2,449 $1,051,107 2.87% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $1,171 $503,006 1.37% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 2.85% $1,171 $503,006 1.37% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.85% $1,209 $519,213 1.42% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 2.60% $1,068 $501,995 1.37% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 70 "A1+" 2.65% $1,596 $735,817 2.01% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.85% $2,415 $1,035,052 2.83% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 3.00% $1,233 $506,329 1.38% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.00% $1,233 $506,329 1.38% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.85% $883 $404,957 1.11% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.00% $740 $303,797 0.83% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.00% $1,479 $607,595 1.66% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 75 "A1+" 2.75% $1,130 $502,298 1.37% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 92 "A1+" 2.80% $1,112 $501,112 1.37% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 127 "A1+" 2.85% $1,132 $501,132 1.37% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 217 "A1+" 2.86% $2,570 $1,101,543 3.01% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 2.85% $2,252 $968,782 2.65% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 245 "A1+" 2.90% $1,788 $763,348 2.09% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.13% $1,286 $511,705 1.40% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.88% $721 $307,038 0.84% 0.02%NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.90% $1,192 $501,947 1.37% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.85% $1,224 $524,373 1.43% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.95% $1,226 $511,986 1.40% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 2.92% $1,235 $519,713 1.42% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.90% $1,225 $519,079 1.42% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $63 $27,055 0.07% 0.00%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $547 $500,547 1.37% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 196 "A1+" 2.85% $554 $507,735 1.39% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 160 "A1+" 2.88% $1,184 $504,142 1.38% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.90% $2,384 $1,008,342 2.75% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 197 "A1+" 2.88% $2,367 $1,007,022 2.75% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 110 "A1+" 2.93% $2,408 $1,004,897 2.75% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 96 "A1+" 2.93% $2,408 $1,004,897 2.75% 0.08%Term Deposit Matured in Nov $6,256Sub-total $83,220 $35,902,831 98.09% 2.79%

2.75%Total Investments $84,749 $36,600,937 100.00% 2.84%

Weighted Average 165 2.84%



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at

30 June 2015 Budget

2015/2016

Budget as at November

2015

Actual as at November

2015 % General * $504,485 $394,500 $164,300 $195,232 49.5% Reserves $137,894 $48,000 $20,000 $64,777 135.0% Endowment Lands $899,751 $466,500 $262,800 $165,796 35.6% External Investments $1,542,130 $909,000 $447,100 $425,805 46.9% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $30,980 $275,500 $46,200 $46,500 16.9% Total Investments $1,573,110 $1,184,500 $493,300 $472,305 39.9%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $20,534 Note: Reserve Interest is more than budget due to a greater amount of funds to invest to date - a function of the Major Projects cash flows.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - November 2015




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2015, as attached, be received. Carried 5/0



CR15.164 THE BOULEVARD (GAYTON ROAD) SHOPPING CENTRE

SUMMARY:

Earlier this year, the Town entered into a Sale and Development Agreement (the "Agreement") for the sale of part of its land in City Beach to the owners of The Boulevard Shopping Centre (GPA Pty Ltd), to facilitate a redevelopment of the centre. GPA has commenced the redevelopment and has approached the Town seeking permission to locate a Western Power transformer on the residual land of lot 12 not subject to the sale and which is owned by the Town. GPA is also seeking permission to locate temporary accommodation on the western side of the centre to continue businesses currently operating from within the centre, during the construction phase of the western portion of the building. This report supports both proposals.

BACKGROUND:

The following recent reports to Council refer: • DV15.1 (February 2015) • 13.1 (March 2015) • CR15.86 (June 2015) The Town owns Lots 10 and 12 Gayton Road, City Beach which provide in part, car park bays servicing the two adjacent shopping centres – The Boulevard Shopping (Gayton Road) Centre and the City Beach Shopping Centre.

Fig. 1 - Lots 10 and 12 Gayton Road



At the June 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council, it was decided to dispose of a portion of the land comprising 1,663m² (967m² from lot 10 and 696m² from lot 12) to the adjoining shopping centre owner, GPA Pty Ltd to facilitate a redevelopment of the centre. The remaining bitumen car park on the north western side is to be removed and landscaped.

Fig. 2 - Hatched area subject to sale In addition, the Agreement for the sale and redevelopment also includes a licence for parking and access for the northern portion in the road reserve.

Fig 3. - Road Modifications As part of the Agreement, GPA has incorporated the above road modifications conceived by the Town, and has committed to undertaking the works. A final aspect of the Agreement is that it incorporates a temporary licence agreement for the use of the Town's bitumised parking area. The licence permits parking, access and any works associated with the redevelopment works, including locating services and storing materials. The licence is temporary and in force until such time as the sale is completed.



Fig 4. -Temporary licence area As a result of the sale of land and the issuing of the temporary licence agreement, the Town will receive $919,000 (excluding GST). More recently, GPA has applied to the Town for permission to locate a western power transformer on the Town's land to the east of the Centre and adjacent to an existing transformer and secondly, to locate two temporary facilities on the western side to provide continuity of business services.

DETAILS:

Western Power Transformer A Western Power transformer is located on the residual land of lot 12 not subject to the sale and owned by the Town of Cambridge. The transformer services the two shopping centres and a number of nearby residences. Western Power have advised that as a result of The Boulevard Shopping Centre redevelopment, they require a new transformer which will service The Boulevard Shopping Centre. GPA have approached the Town seeking permission to locate the transformer adjacent to an existing transformer, and within the proximity permitted by Western Power.



Fig. 5 Existing Transformer The indicative design (subject to Western Power final approval) is attached along with a site plan. The transformer will require a compound of 5.3 by 5.9 metres. Any approval granted by the Town would include a requirement for suitable screening and an undertaking to protect the trees and surrounding vegetation. The residual land itself is zoned local centre, but is effectively used for landscaping. It was not incorporated in the sale of land to GPA as it contains two significant fig trees and the Western Power infrastructure. The alternative to locating the transformer on lot 12 is to locate it within the eastern car park, removing two car bays. This is viewed as undesirable due to that fact, and also because it will detract from the amenity of the area, as it will be more difficult to screen. This report supports the location of the transformer adjacent to the existing transformer on Lot 12. Temporary Restaurant and Office GPA have applied for permission to locate temporary accommodation on the western side of the centre in the bitumised car park area. A site plan of the offices is shown in the attachments. The proposed location is included in the construction licence agreement with GPA which permits them to specifically:

" enter onto the Temporary Licence Area at all reasonable times with all necessary materials and appliances to erect, make, excavate, lay or install in, on, over, through or under the Temporary Licence Area any posts, drains, pipes, conduits, ducts, cables, wires or other things required for any existing or future Services to the Seller’s Land or the Land generally; and to enter the Temporary Licence Area for the purpose of inspecting, removing, maintaining, altering or adding to any such things relating to an existing or future Service to the Seller’s Land or the Land generally.



The licence agreement does not necessarily extend to the location of temporary accommodation for tenants, therefore permission must be sought. It is envisaged by GPA that the accommodation would be on site for around six months until works on the western portion of the building are complete. Again the proposal is supported because in the first instance, GPA have access rights to the area for works associated with the development but more importantly, the proposal will provide continuity of service for both the businesses and their customers. It will assist with a smoother transition into the new development and this can only be of benefit to surrounding residents. Internal reconfiguration and changes of use Whilst not strictly related to this report, it was thought prudent to take the opportunity to brief Council on minor changes to the development, which are currently the subject of an amended planning application, and to be approved under delegated authority. The revised configuration is shown on the attached site plan. GPA have sought planning approval to reconfigure and amalgamate tenancies 1 & 2, and to change the use of this combined tenancy from a 'shop' and 'take-away food outlet' to a 'restaurant'. The applicant has indicated that a separate planning application is to be lodged at a later date for a 'small bar' in this tenancy, which will need to be advertised given the use is not currently listed under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The proponent intends to operate the premises as a restaurant until such time that planning approval and liquor licensing is granted for the establishment of a small bar. A change of use is also sought for tenancy 4 from a 'shop' to a combined 'shop' and 'office', to accommodate a potential real estate agent. Tenancy 10 is to be reduced in size and flexible approval is being sought for 'restaurant', 'shop', 'office' and 'take-away food outlet', given that a tenant has not been secured for this tenancy. In addition to the changes of use, a small modification to the floor area of tenancy 9 is proposed and a fire pump room has been included to the south-eastern wing of the development. The Net Floor Area (NFA) of the proposal is unchanged at 1,916sqm. The Town's Parking Policy allows for a special application of car parking ratios, whereby car parking requirements for shopping centres with a minimum floor space of 1,500sqm are determined based on the requirement for a 'shop' - i.e. 1 bay per 20sqm NFA. The various changes of use proposed do not impact car parking requirements, therefore the parking requirement for this shopping centre remains at 96 bays. It is noted that 101 bays are provided on site, the previous development application approved by Council (0160DA-2015) showed 103 bays. The reduction in bays is due to a modified speed hump design within the car parking area. A 2 bay reduction in overall car parking is not considered a significant issue in this instance, given that a surplus in bays is still being proposed. The proposed changes are considered minor and supportable from a planning standpoint, as they do not significantly change the appearance, use and function of the development.

POLICY/STATUTORY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Sale and Development Agreement provides for a temporary licence to undertake works over part lot 10 and 12, however it also stipulates that works are not to be carried out without the prior consent of the Town.


The Town will receive a total of $919,000 from the transaction.




Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1 Promote economic development opportunities in the Town


Community Consultation on the redevelopment has previously been undertaken. Thirty four (34) submissions were received, mostly supporting the proposal. No further consultation is proposed.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Site Plans and Drawings


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the proposal from GPA Pty Ltd to locate a Western Power transformer on Lot 12

Gayton Road as shown on the attached plan be APPROVED; subject to:-

(a) a final design being submitted to the Chief Executive Officer for his approval;

(b) the final design to incorporate screening and landscaping to the satisfaction of the Town;

(c) an agreement be entered into, incorporating recompense for any legal and

associated costs and an obligation to take all reasonable steps to not damage tree roots and surrounding vegetation.

(ii) the location of the temporary accommodation as shown on the attached plan be

APPROVED under the terms of the Sale and Development Agreement between the Town and GPA Pty Ltd.

Carried 5/0


AUDIT COMMITTEE MONDAY 7 DECEMBER 2015

AUDIT COMMITTEE

7 DECEMBER 2015

ORDER OF BUSINESS







7. REPORTS

AU15.13 Appointment of External Community Representatives to the Audit Committee AU15.9 Internal Audit - (1) Management of Building Applications; (2) Infrastructure

Asset Register Management; (3) Cash Verification AU15.10 Provision of External Audit Services - Extension of Contract AU15.11 Risk Management Activities to December 2015 AU15.12 New Policy 1.1.10 - Elected Member Communications - Record Keeping

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES - AUDIT COMMITTEE - 7 DECEMBER 2015

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON MONDAY 7 DECEMBER 2015

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

The Director Corporate and Strategic called for nominations for Presiding Member of the Audit Committee. Nominations were received for Mayor Shannon and Cr O'Connor. The Director Corporate and Strategic advised that as two nominations had been received, it would be necessary to conduct a secret ballot. Following the secret ballot, Cr O'Connor was elected Presiding Member of the Audit Committee for a two year period from December 2015 to October 2017.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.05 pm


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Pauline O'Connor JP (Presiding Member) 4.05 pm 4.45 pm Mayor Kerry Shannon 4.05 pm 4.45 pm Cr Rod Bradley 4.05 pm 4.45 pm Cr Louis Carr 4.05 pm 4.45 pm Cr Jane Powell 4.05 pm 4.45 pm Conley Manifis (Community Representative 4.10 pm 4.45 pm Jon Petelczyc (Community Representative) 4.10 pm 4.45 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Ian Bignell, Director Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Develelopment Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Also in attendance: Santo Casilli, Internal Auditor

MINUTES - AUDIT COMMITTEE - 7 DECEMBER 2015 1

AUDIT COMMITTEE FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER 2015

Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 4.45 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr That the Minutes of the Ordinary meetings of the Audit Committee held on 11 August 2015 and 25 September 2015 be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Nil

6. REPORTS



AU15.13 APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

SUMMARY:

To re-appoint external community representatives to the Audit Committee.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 25 March 2008, Council adopted the Audit Committee Charter and Terms of Reference, which included the membership of one external member from the Community. At its meeting held on 25 June 2013, Council reviewed the Audit Charter and decided to increase the external membership from one to two community representatives with their term expiring in October 2015 to coincide with the Local Government Elections.

DETAILS:

The participation of an external member to the Audit Committee has proven to be of significant value. The selection of the community representative was undertaken by way of local advertisement seeking persons with appropriate qualifications and experience and whom had an interest in the Town either through them being a resident or through employment. Currently, the Audit Committee has two community representatives and their term expires concurrently with the October 2015 elections. The qualifications and experience of the two serving members are attached. This report recommends entering into a further term of up to 2 years with the current community representatives so that in conjunction with Cr Bradley, who is the only continuing member, there is some continuity on the Audit Committee. We have sought the interest of the current community representatives and they have indicated their willingness to continue. The Community Representatives are paid and amount of $500 for providing consulting advisory services to the Audit Committee at each meeting. The next Audit Committee is planned for Monday 7 December 2015. It generally aims to meet four times per year.




Local Government Financial Management Regulation 5 (2)

CEO to undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews.

Local Government Audit Regulation 16 An Audit Committee is to review a report given to it by the CEO under regulation 17(3) (the CEO’s report) and report to the council the results of that review; and give a copy of the CEO’s report to the council.

Local Government Act s5.11 Committee membership, tenure of

(1) Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee under section 5.10(4) or (5), the person’s membership of the committee continues until —

(b) the person resigns from membership of the committee; or

(d) the next ordinary elections day,




The Town’s Strategic Plan sets the goals of accountable and transparent process, rigorous statutory compliance and diligent regulatory management.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Profile of recommended External Members (Confidential) Committee Meeting 7 December 2015 Mr Conley Manifis and Mr Jon Petelcyzc were not present during consideration of this item. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr That consideration of the following item be brought forward to the start of the meeting to enable the community representatives, once re-appointed, to take part in the remainder of the meeting. Carried 5/0




Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr That the external community members Jon Petelcyzc and Conley Manifis, referred to in the confidential attachment, be re-appointed to the Audit Committee with the term expiring in October 2017 to coincide with the Local Government Elections. Carried 5/0



AU15.9 INTERNAL AUDIT:- (1) MANAGEMENT OF BUILDING APPLICATIONS;

(2) INFRASTRUCTURE ASSET REGISTER MANAGEMENT; (3) CASH VERIFICATION

SUMMARY:

A number of internal audits were performed in accordance with the Town's Strategic Audit Plan which covered the following operational areas:- • a review of the Town’s process in the administration and management of building

applications, issuing of building permits, administration of building completion applications and final building inspections in accordance with legislation;

• a review of the Town’s infrastructure asset register management process to determine that the Town’s infrastructure assets are being satisfactorily identified and recorded within the Town’s asset register and that satisfactory management controls are in place to ensure such assets are being properly accounted for and safeguarded against loss;

• the identification of all areas where cash is being received on behalf of the Town by

external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording of transactions;

BACKGROUND:

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5 (2)(c) requires the CEO to: "undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews." In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established to cover all areas of the Town's financial, business and risk management systems within this time frame. The following audits are presented for consideration:- 1. Review of the building application management process 2. Review of the Town’s infrastructure asset register management; 3. Cash Verification Audit for the period ended November 2015; The Town engaged the services of auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services to undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to this report.



DETAILS:

A summary of the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:- 1. Building Applications Management Process As part of the Internal Audit Strategic Plan, a review of the Town's building applications process was undertaken. The Town is required to administer and issue building permits in accordance with the new Building Act 2011 and the Building Regulations 2012. Building permits are to be issued prior to any building work being carried out and are issued for a maximum period of two years. Building works are to be completed during this two year permit period and if not completed during this time, the permit applicant is required to re-apply for an extension to the building permit period. The act and regulations also require that constructions requiring certification are certified by a registered building surveyor, engaged by the permit applicant, to certify compliance to the building standards by issuing a certificate of design compliance (CDC). The certificate of design compliance needs to be submitted to the Town before a building permit can be issued. Once building works are completed, the permit applicant is required to advise the Town of the completion by submitting a “Notice of Completion” form within seven days of the works being completed. The audit focussed on: • Building permit application fees being levied in accordance with the Town’s schedule of

fees and charges and building regulations 2012; • Compliance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012; • Building permit approvals being in line with the Town’s Delegation of Authority; • Monitoring of building application progress and expiration of building permits; • Adequacy of record keeping; • Existence of appropriate Town policy and procedures over building application

administration and management process; • Regulatory building inspection compliance. It was found that the development service operational area of the Town has proper processes in place to ensure building permit applications and Notice of Completion forms are being administered in accordance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012 requirements. Furthermore, all fees charged in respect to building permit applications and other applications were in accordance with Building Regulations 2012. The audit concluded that there were no major risk matters requiring management attention. During the audit, only one medium risk matter was identified with respect to the Town outsourcing its building surveying duties to supplier “Fast Track Approvals”. It was found that the supplier has been used for more than one year and services have exceeded forty thousand dollars in value and accordingly should be procured via a formal quotation in accordance with the Town’s procurement manual. It is recommended that the Town seek formal quotations for building surveyor services. Management Comment The new Building Act introduced private certification. This resulted in a reduced workload for the Town's in house building surveyor. Subsequently, the incumbent retired and it was decided to outsource the building surveyor services, pending a new service delivery model as a result of



local government reform. The outsourcing of this service has proven to deliver cost savings compared to providing the service internally. The Town initially engaged Fast Track Approvals as they were familiar with the Town's requirements, having provided services in the past, have extensive experience in local government building surveying and are represented on the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors. It is timely now to seek quotes to ensure competitive pricing and also to establish a panel of surveyors (minimum of two), to ensure the continuity of the service, in the event one contractor is not available. The Town will shortly be seeking quotes. 2. Review of the Infrastructure Asset Register Management Process As part of the Internal Audit Strategic Plan, a review of the Town's infrastructure asset register management process was undertaken. Over the past few years the Town has been implementing a new infrastructure management system called “AssetFinda”. Prior to this, infrastructure assets were maintained in spreadsheets. The “AssetFinda” system provides an integrated solution for capturing and valuing infrastructure assets. The system’s hierarchical structure also facilitates the appropriate valuation and interrogation of individual infrastructure asset components. Data collation carried out included physical asset inspections, reviewing data already held by various staff and existing paper based records. The data collated was verified by a Chartered Engineer and used to determine the infrastructure asset valuation taken up in the 2014/2015 statutory financial report. It was noted that all data collected was supported by documentation evidencing the: • methodology applied; • reference for determining base life of asset components; • source of determining costs; • disclosure pro forma statements for each asset category documenting constraints and

assumptions. Given the above, the audit subsequently focused on: • Satisfactory control and safeguarding of assets by way of regular inspections; • Proper capturing of assets within the AssetFinda system; • Proper asset identification and recording processes are in place and will be included in

the AssetFinda system; • Accounting for work in progress and replacement of assets; Overall, the audit did not highlight any major risk control and non-compliance issues and concluded that satisfactory controls are in place to safeguard infrastructure assets and satisfactory processes exist to identify and record infrastructure assets including the transfer of assets from work in progress. The only two low-medium risks to be addressed were as follows: • Competing priorities imposed on the manager infrastructure (asset and design) could

impact the maintenance of the AssetFinda system in a timely and consistent manner. Consideration should be given to additional resources for ongoing management and maintenance of the system.

• The manager infrastructure (asset and design) has been primarily responsible for the implementation of the AssetFinda system and a succession planning strategy should be



developed for this position to ensure existing knowledge and experience with the system is maintained in the event the manager leaves the Town.

Management Comments

The Town is currently reviewing resource requirements with respect to the ongoing maintenance of the AssetFinda system to address the issues raised.

3. Quarterly Cash Verification (i) The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and

proper procedures are being followed to safeguard cash. (ii) The cash verification process included auditing the Administration Centre, Wembley Golf

Course professional shop operations, Wembley Golf Course temporary café operations, The Boulevard Centre, Wembley Community Centre and Quarry Amphitheatre.

(iii) Only minor discrepancies were noted where daily bank receipts reported by the cash

register (point of sale systems) did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable tolerance for variations and are not of a material amount.

Management Comment

Staff are being informed of any variances so they can be followed up. Cash handling procedures with staff are also being regularly enforced to minimise any errors from occurring.


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government the results of those reviews". Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Building Application Management Audit Report. 2. Infrastructure Asset Register Management Audit Report. 3. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits November 2015.




Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Powell That the Internal Audit Reports relating to:- • Building Application Management Audit • Infrastructure Asset Register Management Audit • Quarterly Cash Verification Audit be noted and endorsed. Carried 7/0



AU15.10 PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES - EXTENSION OF CONTRACT

SUMMARY: The contract for provision of external audit services was awarded to Grant Thornton in March 2013 and was initially for a term of three years with an option to renew for a further two years at the discretion of the Town. The three year contract term expires in April 2016 and the Town's preference is to extend the contract for a further two years to maintain the current standard of quality and consistency of services being provided as opposed to approaching the market for a new audit contract. Grant Thornton has subsequently been invited to quote for providing external audit services for a further two year period on the same contractual terms and conditions as per the existing contract. A quote from Grant Thornton has been received for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years with no increase in the annual audit fee.

BACKGROUND:

Section 7.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires Councils to appoint a person or persons to be the auditors of the municipality. Under Section 7.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government Audit Regulations, only natural persons (not firms) can be registered as Local Government Auditors. Accordingly, only partners of the successful tendering firm can be appointed as auditors. Section 7.6 of the Local Government Act 1995 also requires that the appointment be made for a period not exceeding 5 years. The Town’s current auditors', Grant Thornton were firstly appointed as the Town's external auditors at the March 2013 Council meeting, following a "Request for Tender". A three year contract, with an option to extend for a further two years at the discretion of the Town, was entered into for the provision of external audit services for the 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 financial years. The initial three year term contract is due to expire in April 2016 and the Town now has the option available to it to renew the contract for a further two years as an alternative to approaching the market for a new contract.

DETAILS:

In 2013, the Town issued a "Request for Tender" to all audit firms on the WALGA preferred supplier panel. A three year contract, with an option for a two year contract extension at the discretion of the Town, was offered to the successful proponent, Grant Thornton, as follows:

• $24,000 (ex GST) for 2012/13 • $25,000 (ex GST) for 2013/14 • $26,000 (ex GST) for 2014/15

The contract with Grant Thornton is due to expire in April 2016. The Town has its interim audit conducted in April/May each year with the final yearend audit conducted in September. The interim audit forms a precursor to the final audit and therefore both audits are normally conducted by the same audit firm. To ensure the same audit firm can conduct both audits, the audit contract option now needs to be exercised.



Under the Local Government Act, section 7.6, the maximum allowable contract period for the provision of external audit services is five years and therefore the option to extend the contract for a further two years complies. Based on the quality and standard of audit services provided, and to maintaining ongoing consistency of services, the Town has invited Grant Thornton to submit a quote for the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 financial years. The following quotes were obtained:

• $25,000 (ex GST) for 2015/16 • $25,800 (ex GST) for 2016/17

These quotes are consistent with the annual fees that have been charged under the current contract and it recommended that the quotes for the two year contract extension be accepted. It should be noted that under Section 7.3 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government Audit Regulations, only natural persons (not firms) can be registered as Local Government Auditors. Accordingly, Michael Hillgrove, audit partner of Grant Thornton can only be appointed as an auditor.


The provision of audit services is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995. Section 7.3 of the Act states:- “A local government is to, from time to time whenever such an appointment is necessary or expedient, appoint a person, on the recommendation of the audit committee, to be its auditor.” The local government’s auditor is to be a person who is — (a) a registered company auditor; or (b) an approved auditor.


The audit fees charged per annum for conducting the external audit review for the Town have been budgeted for in the 2015/2016 budget.


This report is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan’s goals of transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil




Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Conley Manifis That the quote for the provision of external audit services for a further two year period submitted by Grant Thornton for:

• $25,000 (ex GST) for 2015/16 • $25,800 (ex GST) for 2016/17

be accepted, and Michael Hillgrove be appointed as Auditor for the Town of Cambridge for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years; Carried 7/0



AU15.11 RISK MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO DECEMBER 2015

SUMMARY:

The Town is required to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of its systems and processes in relation to Risk Management. The Audit Committee is advised on the progress made towards the development, implementation and review of the Town's Risk Management systems.

BACKGROUND:

The Local Government Finance Regulations 1996 requires the Chief Executive Officer to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to:

(a) risk management; (b) internal control; (c) legislative compliance.

The Town is required to complete a review on any or all of the matters referred to above, and each matter is to be the subject of a review at least once every two calendar years. The results of the review are to be reported to the audit committee for consideration. The Audit Committee itself has scope in the Audit Charter to:

• Review the appropriateness of internal audit assignments;

• Review the level of resources allocated to internal audit and the scope of its authority;

• Review reports of internal audits, monitor the implementation of recommendations made by the audit, and review the extent to which Council and management reacts to matters raised.

• Review the effectiveness of the local government's systems in regard to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance.

DETAILS:

Internal Risk Committee The Town recently adopted a revised Risk Management Framework. This included a new direction for the Internal Risk Committee, which was transformed from being corporately driven to whole-of-organisation driven structure, with high level oversight and a strategic focus. A meeting of the restructured Risk Committee was held on the 18 November 2015. The role of the Risk Committee, identified through the Risk Framework, includes critically analysing incidents that occur within the Town and developing future mitigation strategies for high-extreme level risks.



Matters discussed at the meeting included:

• Current incidents and claims relating to trees, vehicles on the beach and roadworks; • The development of Business Continuity Plans for the Town's major service areas; • A review of the Emergency Response Procedures at the Quarry. • Discussions around the appointment of a Risk Management Facilitator to educate,

mentor and facilitate risk activities in the Town; and. • The review of the Local Recovery Plan with respect to the Local Emergency

Management Committee. The next Risk Committee Meeting is to be held February 2016. Risk Workshop The Town held a Workshop in September to discuss the Towns top operational risk for the upcoming 12 months. The workshop identified six risks as "High" or "Extreme" that were required to be progressed to the Executive for further discussion. There were some common themes developed, however it was felt that the risk items were not adequately described or considered and were at a lower operational level. When examining the Town's approach to identifying its risks, the Executive concluded that the Town needed to implement a "top down" approach to risk management and that a specialist Risk Consultant was required to be engaged to assist the Town in identifying its risk shortfalls. This exercise is to be revisited following the appointment of a risk management consultant. Risk Management Consultant After receiving direction from the Executive the Risk Committee has commenced the process of engaging a Risk Management Consultant to assist with identification of capability gaps and implementation of focused risk management practices. The Town's aim is to have the right amount of risk management in the right places to efficiently, reliably and sustainably support its objectives and growth. Specifically the consultant will:

• Facilitate workshops with the Audit Committee (providing guidance on governance oversight of risk), the Risk Management Committee; and the Management Group;

• Provide guidance and documentation for risk management systems and processes; • Specifically produce a risk management gap analysis and action plan. • Articulated strategies for embedding a risk management culture in the organisation.

It is expected an appointment of a consultant will be made before the end of the calendar year and commence in the new year. Business Continuity Plans Draft Business Continuity Plans have been prepared for the Administration Centre and Library in the first instance. The draft documents will now be reviewed by the risk consultant before they are rolled out within the organisation.


Nil






Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge Provide professional development opportunities for elected members and develop a knowledge base to support their roles and responsibilities.


The report has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on Risk Management for December 2015 be noted. Carried 7/0



AU15.12 NEW POLICY - 1.1.10 ELECTED MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS - RECORD KEEPING

SUMMARY:

This report seeks approval for the creation of a Records Management Policy to facilitate the capture and management of Elected Members emails. The new policy will require that all emails received and sent by Elected Members for Council business be sent via a Council email address and are captured by the Town for retention. The policy will ensure adherence with best practice records management principles.

BACKGROUND:

The Town's Record Management function is governed by the Local Government Act 1995, the State Records Act 2000, State Records Commission (SRC) Standards, and the Towns Records Keeping Plan 2013. The SRC policy for recordkeeping requirements for local government Elected Members is as follows:

In relation to the recordkeeping requirements of local government elected members, records must be created and kept which properly and adequately record the performance of member functions arising from their participation in the decision making processes of Council and Committees of Council. This requirement should be met through the creation and retention of records of meetings of Council and Committees of Council of local government and other communications and transactions of elected members which constitute evidence affecting the accountability of the Council and the discharge of its business. Local governments must ensure that appropriate practices are established to facilitate the ease of capture and management of elected members’ records up to and including the decision making processes of Council.

DETAILS:

Elected Members currently have two email accounts that are managed differently with respect to capture and retention. "@cambridge" Accounts Emails sent to an Elected Members "@cambridge" account pass through the Town's Exchange and into the Elected Members "@cambridge" Inbox. These are then forwarded to the Elected Members personal email accounts. The Town captures and retains these records. Personal Email Accounts The Elected Members manage their own personal email accounts. Any emails received via the "@cambridge" account are forwarded to the personal email accounts. The Town does not have a record of the email sent and received from the EM's personal email accounts. Elected Members are responsible for keeping a record of these emails.



Currently the Town is relying on Elected Members to keep a copy of email communications from their personal email accounts that concern the function of the Town. This results in the Towns administration not being able to effectively manage the retention of these records in the event they are required. The SRC has released best practice information sheets that recommend Elected Members create and keep records of communications relating to local government business or functions and that these records be forwarded to the administration for capture in the record keeping system. In order to achieve compliance with the best practice principles and create a more efficient and effective system the following process has been developed. Policy The proposed Policy recommends that all Elected Members are provided with a [email protected] email and all email communications concerned with the business of the Town completed on this account. The Town will capture and retain a copy of each email record sent and received using the "@cambridge" account. Only "records" as defined by State Records will be retained by the Town. Advertising, invitations, newsletters, circulars, copies of information already held by the Town and personal emails will not be retained by the Town. Access to copies of the Elected Member Email will be restricted to:

• The Elected Member • The Chief Executive Officer • The Records Officers • The Freedom of Information Officer and Freedom of Information Reviewing Officer.


The State Records Act 2000, (Sec 19 - Government organisations to have plans) mandates the requirements for government organisations, including Local Governments, to prepare and maintain a Record Keeping Plan (RKP). The content of the plans as required by the Act is detailed below. 16. Content of plans (1) A record keeping plan in respect of a government organization is a record setting out — (a) the matters about which records are to be created by the organization; and (b) how the organization is to keep its government records. (2) A government organization’s record keeping plan must — (a) comply with principles and standards established by the Commission under section

61; and (b) ensure that the government records kept by the organization properly and

adequately record the performance of the organization’s functions; and (c) be consistent with any written law to which the organization is subject when

performing its functions.


mailto:[email protected]


The Town's RKP was approved by the SRC in 2013 for a period of five years. The Plan complies with the requirements of the Act and reflects the SRC policy in respect to Elected Members record keeping requirements. :

Town of Cambridge - Record Keeping Plan 2013 Roles and Responsibilities

Elected Members: Elected Members' recordkeeping responsibilities shall be met through the creation and retention of records of meetings of Council and Committees of Council by Local Government and other communications and transactions of elected members which constitute evidence affecting the accountability of the Council and the discharge of its business.

The Town of Cambridge must ensure that appropriate practices are established to facilitate the ease of capture and management of elected members’ records up to and including the decision making processes of Council.

The implementation of the attached policy will ensure all Elected Members email communications that affect the Town and its business are captured and retained by the Town. The policy will ensure Town and the Elected members are meeting their statutory obligations with respect to the State Records Act and the SRC Standards, Guidelines and Policies.




Goal 9 Transparent, Accountable Governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy 1.1.10 Elected Member Email - Recording Keeping 2 State Records Office - Local Government Elected Member Records - Information Sheet




Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That: (i) Council Policy 1.1.10 Elected Member Communications - Recording Keeping as

shown in Attachment 1 be adopted. (ii) the Town of Cambridge - Record Keeping Plan 2013 be amended to reflect the

adoption of Policy 1.1.10 Elected Member Communications - Recording Keeping. Carried 7/0 Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the item be recommitted. Lost 2/5 For: Mayor Shannon Against: Crs Carr, O'Connor and Powell, Conley Manifis, Jon Petelcyzc.


COUNCIL TUESDAY 15 DECEMBER 2015

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - NOVEMBER 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 30 November 2015 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $50,593 $33,607 $35,840Expenditure $43,627 $18,584 $17,222Operating Profit/(Loss) $6,966 $15,023 $18,618

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget $24,600Amended Budget (excl

Major Projects) $13,988

YTD Budget $13,710YTD Actual $12,584

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$'000

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves -$2,090 -$118 $356

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands -$18,249 -$9,594 -$7,035

-$10,000

-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets, $44,895

Current Liabilities,

$9,984

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds, $19,141

Reserves, $5,518

Endowment Lands, $10,021

Trust, $1,920

Investments ($'000)

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\15 Agenda\December 2015\15 December 2015.docx 1


The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $34.7 million compared to budget of $32.5 million, giving a favourable variance of $2.2 million. Significant variances are as follow: 1. Fees and Charges Actual Fees and Charges for November YTD are $7 million compared to budget of $7.3 million, which is $305k below budget. The following combination of favourable and unfavourable timing variations contributes towards this variance: (a) Parking ticket machine revenue $100k over budget due to an increase in parking fees; (b) Waste management revenue $33k over budget; (c) Bold Park Aquatic Centre revenue of $181k less than budget with the opening of the

facility delayed to late November. This will be offset through contractual delay claims and contra reductions in operating expenditure;

(d) Commercial tenancies revenue of $176k less than budget. As rent proceeds were budgeted from October and will now not commence until January/February next year. This is offset to a large degree by a deferral of operating expenses and payment of internal financing costs.

(e) Planning and Building Fees $47k and $72k under YTD budget, with a down turn in applications being experienced.

2. Gain on Disposal of Assets Settlement with respect to the sale of two Dampier Avenue lots budgeted in 2014/2015 did not occur until September 2015, which accounts for this budget item being $2.4 million over budget. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $17.2 million compared to budget of $18.6 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.4 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for November YTD is $5.6 million against year to date budget of $6.5 million, giving a favourable variance of $929k.

The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Waste management operations and programs $150k under YTD budget; Ocean beaches building maintenance $77k under YTD budget; Road reserves non capital works $74k under YTD budget; Parks non-capital works $118k under YTD budget; Sustainability Management Programs $73k under YTD budget; Bold Park Aquatic Centre Swim Shop Purchases $51k under YTD budget; Bold Park Aquatic Centre Infrastructure Maintenance $45k under YTD budget; Sports grounds Non Capital Works $52k under YTD budget; Other Property Commercial Property Expenditure $62k under YTD budget;



Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $17.8 million is above year to date budget of $16.8 million giving a favourable variance of $927k.

Non-Operating Revenue Non-operating revenue to date is $3.7 million against budget of $1.3 million giving a favourable variance of $2.4 million. The variance is the result of land proceeds from the Dampier Avenue lot sales of $2.5 million received, discussed previously. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 November 2015 is $12.6 million against year to date budget of $13.7 million, a timing variance of $1.1 million. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $10.2 million against year to date budget of $10.5 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $246k against year to date budget of $681k; • Plant and Equipment - $189k against year to date budget of $320k; • Parks and Reserves expenditure is $657k against year to date budget of $700k; • Roads and Lanes - $812k against year to date budget of $913k; • Drainage - $197k against year to date budget of $173k; • Footpaths - $248k against year to date budget of $361k; The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Buildings - Timing difference with respect to major projects Wembley Golf Course

Hospitality project ($78k) and City Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial Precinct ($128k).

• Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to various information technology budget items being programmed for the latter half of the year.

• Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle and heavy plant purchases.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

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

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus takes into account planned transfers to and from reserves and the Endowment Lands Account including proceeds from land sales. The cash surplus as at 30 November 2015 is $18.9 million which is above the year to date budget of $17.5 million, a $1.4 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.

Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon.

Carbon Tax Contribution Refund from Mindarie Regional Council $97k unbudgeted. This

has been transferred to the Waste Management Reserve; Proceeds from the land sale of two Dampier Avenue lots, City beach for $2.5 million

unbudgeted. This has been transferred to the Endowment Lands Account; Capital road works project - Durston Road/Empire Avenue intersection $36k carry over

from last year to complete the job.


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.


02468

1012141618202224

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual



The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan’s goals of transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Monthly Financial Statements - November 2015


That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2015 be received.



10.2 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF ELECTORS 2014/15 - DECISIONS

SUMMARY:

This report recommends that the Council receive the minutes of the Annual General Meeting of Electors, held on Monday 7 December 2015.

BACKGROUND:

This report is submitted to Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.33 of the Local Government Act 1995 which states that: (1) All decisions made at an electors’ meeting are to be considered at the next ordinary council

meeting or, if that is not practicable —

(a) at the first ordinary council meeting after that meeting; or

(b) at a special meeting called for that purpose,

whichever happens first. (2) If at a meeting of the council a local government makes a decision in response to a decision

made at an electors’ meeting, the reasons for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the council meeting.

DETAILS:

The Annual General Meeting of Electors of the Town of Cambridge was held at 5.00pm on Monday, 7 December 2015. There were 11 ratepayers and residents present. The minutes of the Annual General Meeting are attached to this report. The business of the meeting was considered, with the contents of the Annual Report for 2014/2015 being approved by the meeting. No decisions requiring the consideration of the Council were made at the meeting. Questions A number of questions were submitted in writing, the questions were responded to in writing and the questions, answers and relevant attachments were available to the public at the meeting. No other questions were raised at the meeting.


Section 5.33 outlines the process of Council considering any decisions made at the Annual General Meeting as detailed above.






One of the Town's goals in the Strategic Plan is for open and transparent governance. The production of the Annual Report and conducting an Annual General Meeting supports this in addition to meeting statutory obligations.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required as the Annual General Meeting minutes are available on the Towns Website.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Annual General Meeting of Electors - 7 December 2015 - Minutes ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the 2014/2015 Annual General Meeting of Electors held on Tuesday 7 December 2015 be received.



H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\15 Agenda\December 2015\Notices of Motion (incorporating administration comments).docx 1

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 PETHER LANE

Submission by Cr MacRae That a report be prepared for consideration at the February 2016 Council meeting:- (i) identifying traffic and access issues in Pether Lane associated with any future

developments on the west side of Northwood Street abutting Pether Lane;

(ii) outlining the scope of a traffic, access and design study with a view to preparing a plan for developing Pether Lane into a safe environment for cars and pedestrians;

(iii) detailing the consultation process with relevant stakeholders as well as any statutory requirements.

BACKGROUND: Pether Lane in West Leederville is a north-south Right-of-Way (ROW) that connects Cambridge Street with Railway Parade and lies between Blencowe and Northwood Streets. Currently, the ROW is not exceptionally busy. In the last 12 months, 3 significant developments have been approved on Northwood Street, all with access off Pether Lane. The Fiore development (approved 12 November 2014) is underway; the Vita development was approved on 6 Jan 2015 and the units are currently being pre-sold and 141-143 Cambridge Street which is on the north-west corner of Northwood Street was approved on 26 May 2015. The total number of number of car-bays approved for these 3 developments is 182 with the Fiore development having 43 bays, Vita 102 bays and 37 bays for 141-143 Cambridge Street. As part of the report to the 6 January 2015 DAP meeting on the Vita application, engineering consultants Cardno prepared a report for the Town which highlighted the need to give further consideration as to how Pether Lane could function efficiently and safely in the future once Vita and Fiore were completed. The residents of Blencowe Street between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade whose properties abut Pether Lane have expressed concern about the future volume of traffic in the ROW as well as the safety of access and egress given that Cambridge Street and Railway Parade are both District Distributor Roads that carry large volumes of traffic. It is timely that Council give consideration to preparing a report as outlined in the Notice of Motion.



ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: There is no current policy direction relating to this request for a traffic study BUDGET: There is no current budget allocation for the engagement of a consultant to progress the previous study works completed by Cardno in December 2014. Based on preliminary discussions with consultants it is expected an allocation of up to $ 10,000 will be required for the study review, including presentations and preparation of options plans LAW: All traffic flow in public streets and laneways is controlled by the Road Traffic Act 1974 and Road Traffic Code 2000. All regulatory traffic signage and pavement markings are required to be approved by Main Roads WA.



12.2 ALTERNATE HOUSING OPTIONS PROPOSAL

Submission of Mayor Shannon

That:-

(i) the Town write to the Minister for Planning and Mr Lumsden of the WAPC outlining an alternative proposal for Housing Options in City Beach and Floreat to replace the proposal incorporated in Scheme Amendment 31;

(ii) the alternative proposal be finalised at an Elected Members forum however broadly

it will suggest:

(a) introducing a new ‘special ancillary dwelling’ right which may apply to all lots greater than 1000m2 (1100m2 in Central City Beach), wherein the minimum floorspace for an ancillary dwelling may be increased from 70m2 to 120 m2, but subject to compliance with a range of new performance based development control standards;

(b) providing a performance based density bonus in the form of a spit coding opportunity applicable to all corner blocks over 900m2 in Floreat and City Beach to allow for two grouped dwellings but subject to a range of strict development control standards;

(c) retaining a 6 metres setback on all blocks in City Beach and 7.5 metres in Floreat;

(d) developing built form controls and design guidelines to be imposed on all blocks developed under the alternative proposal ;

BACKGROUND:

Given the level of community opposition to the proposal contained in Scheme Amendment 31, the Town has received a further briefing regarding alternative ways in which the housing options identified by the Town can be achieved. The topography, subdivision pattern and lack of rear laneways in City Beach and Floreat means that increasing density in the garden suburbs has unique challenges and requires careful planning measures. By allowing a combination of ancillary dwellings and splitting of blocks where the topography of the land allows for incremental infill which will be invisible, hidden or gentle, the intention of providing housing options can be achieved while preserving the amenity of existing residents. The preservation of the front setbacks on the sites developed under the alternative proposal uniform with other homes in the street will ensure the infill is invisible and retains the current streetscape. Given the lack of appropriate high frequency transport in the suburbs of City Beach and Floreat, any multiple dwelling developments should be limited and where appropriate located on main transport corridors.



ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The Administration has commenced work on Design Guidelines for the dwellings proposed under Amendment 31. This work would need to be modified as required to address the alternate proposals. BUDGET: While the alternate proposal may be able to be detailed up and progressed by the Administration, there is no current budget allocation for further work associated with Amendment 31. LAW: Amendment 31 has been prepared and progressed in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 and (former) Town Planning Regulations 1967. There is no formal process for Council to submit an alternate proposal to a scheme amendment, having been adopted by Council. Legal advice may be appropriate on this matter and also the alternate proposal if it is to be progressed. The extent to which the proposed motion modifies or changes the intent of the adopted position on Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 will dictate whether a revocation motion is required. However, and changes to the Scheme Amendment submitted by the Town to the West Australian Planning Commission will be at the discretion of the Minister for Planning. Therefore the issue of whether or not a revocation motion is required becomes irrelevant. If the changes are consider by the Minister to be significant, he may decide to readvertise the scheme amendment, and direct the Town accordingly.



12.3 ENHANCING GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTED MEMBERS CONTACT WITH DEVELOPERS

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer to present a report to a Council Forum to consider introducing a public register of all Elected Member meetings and telephone conversations with developers and applicants regarding planning and development proposals within the Town of Cambridge;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer to consider the preparation of a draft policy to

supplement and guide Elected Members’ compliance with the Code of Conduct as it relates to contact with Developers and applicants and transparency.

BACKGROUND:

From time to time all Council Members may need to engage in meetings and phone conversations with developers for the purpose of carrying out their duties on Council. Sometimes these engagements are planned and anticipated and sometimes they are spontaneous; sometimes they involve several Council Members and staff and sometimes they do not. Meetings and phone conversations with developers, objectors, submitters and applicants are a normal and legitimate part of a Council Member's role in assisting each Member to develop a comprehensive view of a particular issue or proposal. However, these meetings and conversations, if not recorded, have the potential to unduly compromise the integrity of the Council Member(s) and expose them to allegations of bias. To guard against these risks and to enhance the transparency and accountability surrounding these types of interactions, it is recommended that a report be submitted to an upcoming Council Forum for Council to consider introducing a public register (and any other related 'rules') relating to Council Member contact with developers and applicants. This proposed Motion does not infer or imply any current issue with Town of Cambridge Council Members contact with developers and applicants. But, if a report is presented to a Council Forum to consider the merits of introducing a public register of those interactions and if Council ultimately decides to do so, then the Town of Cambridge will lead by example by introducing new, higher standards of accountability and transparency than what typically or currently exist in local government.




Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The Department of Local Government and Communities Operational Guidelines 12 document provides guidance for Elected Members Dealings with Developers. Refer:

https://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Pages/LG-Operational-Guidelines-12.aspx Whilst the guideline does not specifically suggest a register of Elected Member's dealings with developers, it does advocate for openness and transparency and perceived probity of Council’s decision-making. If Council wishes to progress the motion, it will need to define what is meant by a developer. BUDGET: There is no budget impact. LAW: The Local Government Act 1995 governs the roles and responsibilities of Elected Members. However it should be noted that there is no statutory provision requiring the establishment of a register of Elected Member contact with development applicants.



12.4 ENHANCING GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS DEALINGS WITH DEVELOPERS


That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer to present a report to a Council Forum to consider introducing a public register of all senior administration officer’s direct dealings including meetings and telephone conversations with developers and applicants regarding planning and development proposals for significant commercial, multipurpose or multiple residential developments within the Town of Cambridge;

(ii) a prohibition on contact be adopted between junior administrative officers directly

dealing with Developers and applicants (other than ratepayers) regarding planning and development proposals for significant commercial, multipurpose or multiple residential developments within the Town of Cambridge.

BACKGROUND:

From time to time administration officers may need to engage in meetings and phone conversations with developers for the purpose of carrying out their duties on behalf of the Town. Again these engagements may be planned and anticipated and sometimes they are spontaneous. Sometimes they involve several Council Members and staff and sometimes they do not. Meetings and phone conversations with developers, objectors, submitters and applicants are a normal and legitimate part of the administration officer’s role in assisting the development and planning process. However, these meetings and conversations, if not managed carefully and recorded, have the potential to unduly compromise the integrity of the administration’s officers and expose them to allegations of bias. It is prudent to ensure that only the Director and senior members of the administration are attending these meetings. To guard against these risks and to enhance the transparency and accountability surrounding these types of interactions, it is recommended that a report be submitted to an upcoming Council Forum for Council to consider introducing a public register (and any other related 'rules') relating to senior administration officer’s contact with developers and applicants. This proposed Motion does not infer or imply any current issue with the Town’s administrative officer’s contact with developers and applicants. But, if a report is presented to a Council Forum to consider the merits of introducing a public register of those interactions and if Council ultimately decides to do so, then the Town of Cambridge will lead by example by introducing new, higher standards of accountability and transparency than what typically or currently exist in local government.




Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. LAW: Section 5.41 stipulates that the Chief Executive officer is responsible for the employment, management supervision, direction and dismissal of employees (subject to section 5.37(2) in relation to senior employees). The notice of motion in its current form would be considered ultra vires, as it seeks to direct staff through the Chief Executive Officer. Further, the term "junior administrative officer" is not a defined term in the organisation. Primarily it is professionally qualified planning officers who liaise with development applicants. POLICY: There is no policy guidance for administration contact with applicants. It should be noted however that relevant management and planning officers have regular contact with applicants in the course of assessing and processing planning-related applications. Depending on the complexity of applications, a judgement call is made by management as to which officers should attend meetings. The role of the professional staff is to brief applicants on matters of detail, to discuss with them the particular application of council’s adopted policies and procedures and planning instruments to their particular desired project, to assess development applications, and to consider all the various complex issues to be taken into account in strategic planning matters. The council is the decision-maker with the role of the professional staff to report on all those issues, and to provide recommendations. From a practical perspective, the proposed motion would be difficult to implement as it would effectively bottleneck applications and overload the work of the Director and Manager of Development Services. The Chief Executive Officer needs to be satisfied that staff resources are deployed in the most efficient and effective manner possible to meet the Town's service delivery objectives. BUDGET: There may be resource implications depending on the extent of service advice and liaison to be provided by the Director and Manager.



12.5 ENHANCING GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTED MEMBERS COMMUNICATIONS


That the Town comply its obligations under the State Records Act, Freedom of Information Act, Limitation Act, Criminal Code and Local Government Act by requesting that all Elected Members who have served on the Council at the Town provide a complete copy of all email communication from their private email accounts which relate to the discharge of their duties as elected members.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to s2.10 Local Government Act Elected members are to facilitate communication between the community and the council. The records created or received by the elected members relating to council business are government records and must form part of the corporate memory, and may form part of the State archive. At present the Town has set up an automatic forward on all emails to elected members using the “@cambridge” email address to their private email addresses. The Town has failed to capture these emails or any subsequent communications resulting from those emails which relate to the Town’s business. We must obtain a complete copy of all email communications in order to comply with the Town’s statutory obligations. At present no elected member past or present has forwarded relevant emails from their private account to the Town for archival.




Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. LAW: The State Records Act provides that Council shall prepare a Record Keeping Plan (RKP). That is basically the extent of the Town's obligations under the SRA. However, the RKP must be approved by the State Records Commission (SRC). The SRC has issued a number of standards, principles and policies and amongst other things, their role is to ensure that such standards, principles and policy objectives are ultimately achieved within a reasonable timeframe. To do this, they have evaluated the RKP's of all government agencies, including Local Governments. The Town of Cambridge last reviewed its RKP in 2013. The 2013 RKP submitted to the SRC includes a self-assessment checklist based on a SRO pro forma. The checklist notes that:

" policies and procedures relating to Elected Members records capture and control are to be developed."

This was in response to a SRC policy information sheet issued in 2013, which is attached to item AU15.12 of this month's Audit Committee Meeting. The 2013 RKP was subsequently approved by the SRO. The 2013 RKP itself must be reviewed within five years (i.e. by 2018) and a report of the review must be submitted to the SRO. The SRC noted the commitment by the Town to address certain matters (including the development of policies and procedures for Elected Member record capture) and that the subsequent review of the Town's RKP by 2018 will reflect significant improvement in certain areas identified. It is noted that the proposed motion requires past Elected Members to provide a complete copy of their relevant email communication. It is uncertain as to what extent the Town can legally impose this requirement retrospectively. POLICY: The minutes of the 8 December 2015 Audit Committee meeting recommend the adoption of a policy on Elected Member Communications - Record Keeping, to ensure capture of sent and received email correspondence. Note that the Town already captures incoming email correspondence to Elected Members and any emails replied to, which the Town is copied into. BUDGET: The registration of emails into the Town's document management system may require an increase in resources depending on the volume of emails and the standard of record capture required (ie the precis, indexing etc). This will be determined in the future. At this point, no increase in resources has been provisioned.



12.6 REGISTERS MAINTAINED BY THE TOWN TO BE MADE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE

Submission by Mayor Shannon That by 1 February 2016, the Chief Executive Officer review other statutory and non-statutory registers maintained by the Town and submit a report to Council to consider making those registers available for public inspection on the Town's website. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.

LAW: There are over 500 separate pieces of legislation (Acts, Regulations, Local Laws etc) which affect Local Government. However, the majority of the Town's main functions are performed under the Local Government Act, the Planning & Development Act, the Lands Administration Act, the Main Roads Act and the Health Act. If the scope of the request is limited to these Acts, a desktop review of registers maintained by the Town is feasible. Any non-statutory registers kept are generally for operational purposes and should not necessarily be in the public domain if it contains personal information or information of a commercial nature. A review of non-statutory registers could be extensive and would take a considerable amount of staff time, as every procedure across the Town's services would need to be reviewed. To progress this, Council will need to consider what is meant by the term "Register" and further, the "register" should only contain information which is already publically available. POLICY: The Minister for Local Government addressed the West Australian Local Government Conference earlier this year and foreshadowed moves towards providing greater transparency and accountability measures for Local Government. This was followed up with the passing of the City of Perth Bill in the Legislative Assembly in November, which will require gift and travel disclosures to be declared within ten days of receiving them and to be available for inspection on the website of local governments. Earlier this month the Town published it's gift register on the Town's website in advance of the legislative requirement. The Minister has not flagged any further measures. BUDGET: Nil impact if the scope is limited to the main Statutes governing Local Government. However it is unlikely this task will be completed by 1st February 2016, due to staff leave and commitments to other projects. There could be some resourcing implications resulting from modifications of processes to ensure the registers link seamlessly and remain current on the website.



12.7 GATEWAY SIGNAGE


That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer present a report to a Council Forum in February 2016 regarding the cost of replacing the gateway signage on major roads leading to the Town with new signs.

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to authorise the

construction of the new gateway signage. BACKGROUND:

The Town has wonderful recreational assets and buildings and we should promote them. By clearly delineating the entrance to the Town we can foster community pride and ensure that visitors to our Town are aware that they are enjoying the amenities and services of our Town. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. BUDGET: The current 2015/16 budget does not have any allocation to complete any design or works. The financial implication for gateway signage can be formulated when the style and design of the signage is developed and the number of sign locations is established. There are at least 13 locations on roads which bring traffic into the Town of Cambridge. Depending on the adopted gateway sign design each sign could require a budget for design and installation of up to $25,000 each. This requirement is based on the most recent signage approval budget for Lake Monger Reserve which was approved in September 2015. LAW: It is a requirement for approvals to be received from Main Roads WA for installation of any signage on public roads, and in particular to West Coast Highway.



12.8 CONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATHS AND SHARED PATHS POLICY


That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer present a report to a Council Forum to consider whether the Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths policy (‘’the Policy”) introduced in May 2015 is achieving good aesthetic outcomes and summarising any public comments received;

(ii) That the policy be amended to state where a footpath is being removed the primary consideration should be to ensure that the new footpath installed as a replacement is of consistent width. Therefore where there is a combination of no solid fence and footpaths abutting the property boundary the new footpath should be consistently the lesser width provided in the Policy.

BACKGROUND:

The application of the new Construction of Footpaths and Share Paths policy has achieved an inconsistent path width in McKenzie Street in Wembley. Given the Town has budgeted over $800,000 to the replacement of footpaths next year, we should consider whether the application of the policy is achieving good aesthetic outcomes prior to the construction of any further footpaths. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: Council policy 5.2.5 relates to standards for Footpath Construction. This policy was developed after a report in March 2015 ( reference report CR 15.19 ) when council reviewed options for inclusion within the policy. Policy 5.2.5, as amended, was adopted by council in May 2019 (reference report CR15.52). BUDGET: There are no budget implications unless the policy is amended. The current 2015/16 budget has an allocation of $668,000 for slab path replacement, $50,000 for construction of a new path link and carry forward funding for uncompleted projects from the 2014/15 budget of $186,000. Report CR 15.156 December 2015 proposes a Draft footpath slab replacement program for the 2016/17 budget of $666,000 which will allow for no slab paths to remain if all works are completed. LAW: There are no implications for reviewing this council policy.



12.9 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report regarding the current methods of undertaking community consultation and engagement which should include the alternate methods used by other local governments. In particular regard be given to the use of online feedback on current projects, and issues in the Town. BACKGROUND:

Community feedback and engagement is vital to ensure that the Town is achieving its goals in the Strategic Plan. Technological advancements mean that the community is continually changing the way in which it receives information and gives feedback. Consideration should be given to whether the Town should develop a Facebook page to engage with its community and promote events happening in the Town. With the increasing cost of the mail service, the Town should consider engaging with the online communication services in addition to print media. Obviously there will always be a part of our community who do not access online communication, however, there are a sector of the community who prefer to receive electronic communication. Prior to finalising the advertising of important initiatives in the Town we should consider what levels of engagement are satisfying our obligation to have adequately consulted with the community and which methods of advertising should be used to effectively undertake such consultation and engagement. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: Council Policy 1.2.11 provides guidance of community consultation, based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)'s Public Participation Spectrum. The Town does not have an overarching community engagement strategy and has generally taken a decentralised and project-based approach to consultation. If Council wishes to review its engagement activities, it is recommended it does so holistically through an engagement strategy (to be developed if Council so decides), and considers the resource implications of the various options. BUDGET: There is no dedicated budget for community engagement. In the lead up to the 2013 Strategic Community Plan, the Town engaged a Community Engagement Officer to undertake a range of engagement activities, including postcard surveys and community network host meetings. Next year the Town will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the Strategic Community Plan and the Town will need to determine the effort it wishes to put into the engagement activities informing the plan.



There are a number of on line tools available to engage with the community and receive feedback - such as Engagement HQ (Bang the table). Such on line tools will require a specific budget allocation and a resource to facilitate the dialogue with the community. LAW: Local Governments are obligated to consult with the community on a number of issues under the various governing statutes. For example, property disposals, planning scheme amendments, major business undertakings, borrowings etc. Further, the Department of Local Government through its integrated planning advisory standard prescribes a minimum level of community engagement preceding a four-yearly review of the Strategic Community Plan.


13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

13.1 TENDER FOR THE SALE OF LOT 232 FINISHLINE VIEW AND LOT 233 STADIUM DRIVE IN THE PERRY LAKES ESTATE

13.2 DWELLING NON-COMPLIANCE WEST LEEDERVILLE - APPEAL

14. CLOSURE
