TOWN OF CLAREMONT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING … › MediaLibrary › TownOf...Nov 04, 2014 · Town’s usual practices (as explained in the letter of 6 October 2014) were followed

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY 4 NOVEMBER, 2014

Stephen Goode CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Date:

DISCLAIMER Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to any particular decision.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 4 NOVEMBER, 2014

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO 1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ............ 1

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE .......... 1

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS .................................................................. 1

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE . 1

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .......................................................................... 2

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ....................................................................... 2

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................ 2

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS ........................................ 2

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ..................... 3

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ......................................... 3

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ............... 3

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ..................................................................... 3

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO ............................................................................. 4

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ......................................................... 4

13.1.1 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING ................ 4

13.2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 15

13.2.1 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW AND PROPOSED CONSULTATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE TOWN OF CLAREMONT SCHEDULE OF BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND PLACES ..................................................... 15

13.2.2 LOT 30 (204) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE FOR 'CAMERICH' ................................................................ 23

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... 27

13.3.1 PROPOSED LANE CLOSURE OF AVION WAY - SINGLE LANE (SOUTH TO NORTH) ................................................ 27


Page (ii)

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON ............................... 30

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............................................................................................. 31

15.1 NOTICE OF MOTION – CR GOETZE ............................................ 31

15.1.1 PICK UP AND DROP OFF ZONE FOR STUDENTS, OSBORNE PARADE - CLIFF WAY...................................... 31

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING ......................... 32

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ....................................................................... 33

17.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ....................................................... 34

17.1.1 CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF PORTION LOT 11578 SHENTON ROAD, CLAREMONT ........................................ 34

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ......................................................... 35

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................... 35


Page 1

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

4 NOVEMBER, 2014

MINUTES

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

His Worship the Mayor, Mr Jock Barker, welcomed members of the public, staff and Councillors and declared the meeting open at 7:02PM.

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

ATTENDANCE

Mayor Barker Cr Karen Wood West Ward Cr Peter Edwards West Ward Cr Peter Browne West Ward Cr Jill Goetze South Ward Cr Paul Kelly South Ward Cr Chris Mews South Ward Cr Alistair Tulloch East Ward Cr Bruce Haynes East Ward Cr Anita Lorenz East Ward

Mr Stephen Goode (Chief Executive Officer) Mr Les Crichton (Executive Manager Corporate and Governance) Mr Saba Kirupananther (Executive Manager Infrastructure) Mr David Vinicombe (Executive Manager Planning and Development) Ms Katie Bovell (Governance Officer)

4 Members of the public 1 Member of the press

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

NIL.

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Public Question Time, Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2014. Mr Kim Doepel, Doepel March Architects & Planners, PO Box 308, Subiaco.


Page 2

Re: Item 13.1.2, Lots 20 and 21 (1) Langsford Street, Claremont – Proposed Delisting (and Demolition) of Heritage Dwelling and Construction of Two Single Houses.

Question: How confidential information was released to the press which is contrary to Council policy? I have written to the administration on two occasions and haven’t received satisfactory answers so I am seeking a written explanation from the Council, and if that isn’t satisfactory the matter will be taken further. The Mayor took the question on notice because a response in writing was requested.

Answer:

You wrote to the Town on 26 September 2014 to raise your concerns about the article in the Post newspaper. The Executive Manager Planning and Development , Mr David Vinicombe replied on 6 October 2014 and explained the Town’s processes and that the Town does not have the right to provide copies of plans to a third party and that plans are provided only for viewing as part of the Town Planning Scheme consultation process. He did not state that the Town did not make copies of the image about which you have complained and I correct this omission now by stating that the Town’s usual practices (as explained in the letter of 6 October 2014) were followed for your application. No images were provided by the Town to any member of the public, including any member of the media.

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME NIL.

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

Mr Rob Bell, 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont. Re: Item 13.1.2, Draft Municipal Inventory Review and Proposed Consultation for Inclusion in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Buildings, Objects and Places.

Mr Bell spoke against the officer recommendation and requested that recommendation 3 of Item 13.1.2 be deferred until the Ordinary Council Meeting 18 November 2014.

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

NIL.

8 PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS

NIL.


Page 3

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Wood That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 21 October 2014 be confirmed.

CARRIED(176/14) (NO DISSENT)

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

17.1.1 Consideration of Sale of Portion Lot 11578 Shenton Road, Claremont.

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

NIL.

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

NIL.


Page 4

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

13.1.1 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESTRUCTURING

File Ref: GOR/00069 Responsible Officer: Stephen Goode

Chief Executive Officer Author: Stephen Goode

Chief Executive Officer Proposed Meeting Date: 04 November 2014

Purpose The situation with the State Government’s plans for local government restructuring continues to unfold without addressing the great uncertainty being experienced by local government stakeholders and communities, perhaps especially for the western suburbs.This report is intended as an update of the situation as it is known and also to present the outcome from the Department of Local Government and Communities $50,000 funding to assist with reform planning.

Background The current State Government restructuring process started in September 2009 with an announcement by the then Minister Castrilli to a WALGA State Council meeting. The process has reached a critical point after a very long and confused journey with the Premier and Minister Simpson calling all metropolitan Mayors and CEOs to an announcement on Wednesday 22 October 2014 where the ‘Minister’s response’ to the report of the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) was revealed. The Minister submitted proposals to the LGAB for 15 local governments in the Perth metropolitan area. The Minister’s plan included merging Town of Claremont into one western suburbs local government, being Cambridge, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove and Subiaco (for ease of reference, G7). It also included areas from City of Stirling and North Fremantle from City of Fremantle. The proposed local government had an estimated population in the order of 115,000. The Board presented its report to the Minister in September, apparently displaying a degree of independence that did not entirely suit the Government. The Minister stated at the presentation to Mayors and CEOs that only one of his proposals was supported by the Board and in particular the proposal for a convoluted City of Perth boundary which was to include ‘icons’ into the Capital City was not recommended. The Premier and Minister announced: • There will be a reduction from 30 to 16 local governments • This to be achieved by a combination of amalgamations, boundary adjustments

and legislation


Page 5

• Claremont to be included in a western suburbs council (G5: Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove less UWA and QE2) initially called City of Riversea.

New local governments are expected to be established from July 01, 2015 but there is much uncertainty about when and how it will be introduced for Riversea. In the meantime a ‘due diligence audit’ of the Town’s processes and systems has been completed utilising the Department’s $50,000 grant.

Discussion Amalgamation Status Despite the Minister’s announced intentions some uncertainty remains. Firstly there is a Supreme Court judicial review of the Government’s process scheduled for hearing in November 2014. It is entirely uncertain if the Court will find fault in the process, or what the consequences will be if it does find some element of error. In the event of the Court finding a legal flaw or flaws in the process it is likely that the Government will have to revisit all or some of the Minister’s determinations. The second issue is that the poll provisions of the Local Government Act will (unless the Act is amended) possibly apply for the amalgamation involving Town of Claremont. Whether or not there will be a community request for a poll, either within Claremont or within another of the affected local communities, is not known. If there is a poll requested the merger process will, at the least, be further delayed. It is entirely unknown how the Government intends to proceed with the City of Riversea proposal. The Minister has stated he has rejected the LGAB recommended G5 but supports the G5 with different boundaries. The Government cannot create that council within the current (LGAB) process (the Minister can only accept or reject an LGAB recommendation but not amend it). Therefore there has to be another process. There are two obvious options: specific legislation or a new process through the LGAB. With the latter the Minister faces a ‘rerun’ of the previous process which will be relatively lengthy and resource hungry, probably doing little more than throwing up all the same arguments, resistance, angst and potentially galvanising opposition– and – it will still leave uncertainty because of the poll risk (to the government). Legislation may be preferred (by the Government) considering: • The Premier said the changes will be achieved through a mix of

amalgamations, boundary changes and legislation. Neither of the first two apply because of the rejected amalgamation proposed by LGAB.

• The Government has to legislate to create the capital city. That legislation impacts the G5 in that it cuts out part of Nedlands. The western suburbs solution could be included as a subset of the Capital City Act. Alternatively it could be a separate Act.

• It seems unlikely that the government would risk the 5 western suburbs councils being the only ones not restructured through their reform process. Therefore they may prefer not to risk a poll by using the existing provisions. A specific Act could bypass the poll provisions.


Page 6

• Similarly if faced with ongoing strong opposition from the affected councils the Government may be inclined to act decisively to bring the reform process to a conclusion by legislating.

Messages in the media have (as seems usual for this long process) been mixed. For example Minister Simpson responding to a question on ABC radio about how the western suburbs issue would be resolved said that ‘we are working on that to refer back to LGAB’. The Premier speaking on commercial TV was less informative and may have indicated that it would be resolved through legislation. To add to the confusion the National’s leader stated in what at least seemed to be quite definite terms that his party would not be for any legislation to force any changes. At this time all that can be said with any certainty is that the Government has announced it supports a G5 council comprising Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Nedlands, Peppermint Grove less UWA and QE2) initially called City of Riversea (note the new Council is expected to determine the name of the new local government and that name may or may not be City of Riversea). This is a bigger local government than Town of Claremont supported but certainly appears to be a better outcome than the Ministers proposal of the G7 plus. The LGAB recommendation proposed: • A district with an area of about 35km2, a population of 56,000 and operating

revenue of nearly $80 million. • The assessment of the WA State Treasury gave the new local government a

very high Financial Sustainability Score. • Fourteen elected offices with no wards. It did not recommend the method for

election of the office of mayor. Grant Project The Department of Local Government and Communities proposes a four stage approach for local governments to prepare for the amalgamation of Metropolitan Councils: 1. Review - 30 June 2014 2. Plan - August 2014 to March 2015 3. Mobilise - April 2015 to June 2015 4. Implement - July 2015 to December 2015. The Review Stage refers to current state and identifying what takes place within the existing local governments. This is the stage undertaken by Claremont utilising the Departmental funds. The overall aims of the activities and tasks undertaken during Stage 1 have been to identify, review, audit and document all the current activities and information such as processes, frameworks, policies, databases and plans that exist within the Town of Claremont and to identify the common and distinct features of those activities and items. The inventory of information collated will assist the Town staff in understanding and determining the areas that require further analysis and planning, key risks, resources required to address gaps that have been identified. It will also assist with time frames


Page 7

necessary to complete the tasks effectively in readiness for Stage 2 (if or when required). This due diligence process has also enabled an organisational 'health check-up' to take place and identify business improvement opportunities. The project provided an excellent opportunity to check how the Town’s systems and processes measured up and provided good information on which to base further improvement. The key functions reviewed were: As s e t Ma na ge me nt Bus ine s s S ys te ms Communica tions Cons ulta tion Community De ve lopme nt Complia nce a nd Le ga l Cus tome r S e rvice Due Dilige nce Environme nta l Ma na ge me nt Fina ncia l Ma na ge me nt Gove rna nce Huma n Re source Ma na ge me nt Inte gra te d P la nning a nd Re porting Le a ding a nd Managing Change Exe cutive Ma na ge me nt Ma rke ting Ma na ge me nt Orga nis a tiona l S tructure P rocure me nt P roje ct Ma na ge me nt P rope rty Ma na ge me nt Re cords Ma na ge me nt Re giona l Entitie s Re gula tions a nd Enforce me nt Ris k Ma na ge me nt S e rvice De live ry Planning and Development. In total there were 120 recommendations ranging from low importance to medium or high (on an action required basis). Those ranked low were all identified as being done to a good standard but important to maintain. Some medium or high areas are gaps that need to be addressed (there are six of these) and most of the rest are opportunities for improvement. Eight are relevant only in the context of getting ready for and implementing an amalgamation. Four IT system improvements were recommended all of which would be considered valuable and desirable if Town of Claremont is a continuing organisation but not a good investment for just over six months. There are 51 recommendations identified for a continuous improvement action plan. Overall the project has been valuable as a review tool. If restructuring does proceed the Town will be in a better position to work with the other merging councils and hopefully reduce the disruption that will be involved. It seems prudent to begin some


Page 8

cooperative work with the nominated partners in the new local government so that disruption for communities can be reduced to the extent possible. Should amalgamation not proceed the continuous improvement action plan will be a useful tool to continue the tune up of the Town’s administration.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 February 2014, Resolution18/14: That; 1.1 The Local Government Advisory Board be advised the council does not support

the Government’s proposed merger of seven western suburbs local governments plus portions of two others (G7);

1.2 Council prefers that the Town of Claremont remain an independent Council; 1.3. If Item 1.2 is not accepted, Council supports a local scale merger, being ‘G4

plus’ that is, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove plus areas of Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge;

2.0 The Mayor and CEO present Council’s position to Members of the Local Government Advisory Board; and

3.0 Council authorises the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan.

CARRIED (NO DISSENT)

Ordinary Council Meeting 3 September 2013, Resolution 260/13: The Council of Town of Claremont

1.1. Prefers that the Town of Claremont remains an independent Council; 1.2. Prefers that there be no forced or coerced mergers and Town of

Claremont not be forced to restructure; 1.3. Does not accept that there is any credible evidence that amalgamation of

all seven western suburbs councils plus portions of two others into one large local government will deliver better local government which will improve connection to and service for the communities they serve;

1.4. Does not support the Government’s proposed merger of seven western suburbs local governments plus portions of two others (G7);

1.5. Maintains its position that the poll provisions should not be removed from the Local Government Act or amended in such a manner that they become ineffective for the democratic purpose for which they were drafted;

1.6. Supports the Mayor in presenting Council’s position to Members of Parliament and promoting Council’s concerns to the Claremont community; and

1.7. Authorises the Mayor and CEO to continue discussions with the affected local governments to seek an alternative to the Government’s G7 plan.


Page 9

2. Following discussions with affected local governments the CEO submit a report on options, including an alternative model to the Government’s G7 plan, in time to allow Council to consider making a submission to the LGAB by 04 October 2013.

Reason: No evidence has been presented that there is any benefit to ratepayers of amalgamation.


Ordinary Council Meeting 04 June 2013, Resolution 108/13: That 1. Council formalise its preferred position for a local scale merger of the Towns of

Claremont, Cottesloe and Mosman Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove plus areas of Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge;

2. The attached map for three councils in the western suburbs region (including Town of Cambridge) be endorsed as the basis for a submission of a proposal for boundary changes to the Local Government Advisory Board;

3. A boundary proposal be made to the Local Government Advisory Board in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 based on the map detailed in (2) above;

4. The Town collaborate with the Town of Cambridge and/or City of Subiaco or any of the other affected local governments to support and put into effect the three council map for the western suburbs as detailed in (2) above or modified to meet the requirements of the boundaries between those two councils; and

5. The Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare and lodge a boundary proposal as detailed in (3) above including the authority to make minor amendments to the proposed new boundary.

CARRIED

Ordinary Council Meeting 04 December 2012, Resolution 229/12: That 1. Town of Claremont does not accept that the Metropolitan Local Government

Review Report has established the case for the reform of local government and in particular fails to provide creditable evidence that amalgamation into twelve large local governments will deliver better local government which will improve connection to and service for the communities they serve.

2. Council has reached the conclusion that mergers are likely to be required by the State Government and rather than accept the imposed outcome proposed by the Report will take a leadership role, adopt a position and promote it.

3. Council adopts as its preferred position a local scale merger, being ‘G4’ that is, Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Peppermint Grove or G4 plus areas like Mt Claremont and Swanbourne from Nedlands and Cambridge.

4. Council’s preferred position is that a joint proposal for a small scale merger be made together with the other affected local governments.


Page 10

5. Council agree to negotiate with neighbouring local governments to attempt to achieve an acceptable merger option, i.e. G4 or G4 plus as described above, and to develop a joint submission setting out a comprehensive transition plan.

6. Council support the Mayor taking a leadership role to promote the preferred outcome with the other local governments, with the Claremont community and the wider community.

7. Town of Claremont make a submission to the Metropolitan Local Government Review Report: a. Rejecting the proposition that existing local governments be replaced by

twelve new local governments for the metropolitan area. b. Advocating the preferred structure for a new local government based on

Claremont (i.e. G4 or G4 plus). c. Support the return of local government planning approval powers to local

government within metropolitan Perth. d. Support an examination of the case for the management of waste

treatment and disposal at a metropolitan-wide scale being either undertaken by a State authority or through a partnership with local government.

e. In respect to local government elections: i. Elections to be conducted by the State Electoral Commission or

other suitable agency to allow a level of competition and accountability

ii. Voluntary voting to be retained iii. Elections should be conducted biannually by postal ballot (i.e. retain

retirement of half of council at each election) iv. Should not allow party or group politics v. Retain choice for communities for Mayors and Presidents to be

directly elected by the community or from within Council vi. Limits on the terms a council member can serve not be considered

further vii. The principle of appropriate training for the role of a Mayor or

councillor is supported viii. The voting method for local government elections be exhaustive

preferential. 8. Council support a collaborative process between State and local government to

establish a new Partnership Agreement which will progress strategic issues and key result areas for both State Government and local government as well as improved co-ordination between State Government agencies in the metropolitan area, including between State Government agencies and local government.

9. Town of Claremont advise WALGA of its adopted positions and submit them for consideration in any WALGA industry submission.

CARRIED

Ordinary Council Meeting 17 July 2012, Resolution 128/12: That Council update the community on the structural reform and invite community feedback on reform as it relates Claremont including the proposed Robson model, and the alternate G4 model.



Page 11

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 February 2012, Resolution 22/12: That Council: 1. Advise the Premier of the State of Western Australia, the Minister for Local

Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Local Government, our local members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, the Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel, and the President of the Western Australian Local Government Association, that this Council calls upon the Parliament of Western Australia to forever uphold and not dilute our constituents’ right to self-determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

2. Request the recipient of each such letter to notify our Council by written reply as to whether they do support and will continue to support the preservation without dilution of our constituents’ right to self-determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).

3. Provide to the Secretariat of the Council’s for Democracy a copy of each of our above letters and any responses that our Council receives, for use in demonstrating collective support for our constituents’ right to self-determination in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995.


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 March 2010, Resolution 62/10: That; 1. Council advise the Minister for Local Government that the Town of Claremont

is willing to enter into a Regional Transition Group

2. Council’s preference be to join with the Towns of Cottesloe and Mosman Park and Shire of Peppermint Grove to form a Regional Transition Group

3. In the event any one of the councils does not wish to participate then the RTG be with the remaining local governments

4. The Mayor be appointed as member of the RTG Board of the RTG and the Deputy Mayor as deputy member of the Board

5. The negotiated RTG Agreement be submitted to Council for endorsement before it is executed on behalf of the Town.

6. All costs associated with the Town of Claremont contributions to the work of the Regional Transition Group be drawn from the WESROC budget allocation within the Town of Claremont budget.



Page 12

Special Council Meeting 29 September 2009, Resolution 260/09: That Council: 1. Informs the Minister that the Town of Claremont is prepared to consider

structural reform subject to the interests of the Town of Claremont residents not being diminished and there being sound, demonstrated economic and social justification for any such reform.

2. Deletes the conclusions and recommendations on pages 25 and 26 of the Town of Claremont Structural Reform Submission and submit the amended report to the Minister;

3. Advises the Minister of Local Government of the intention to continue to work collaboratively within a regional grouping of local governments, whatever form they may take after the structural reform process is completed;

4. Resolves to advise the Minister of Local Government of its intention to leave the total number of elected members at 10.

5. Should any structural reform be considered by the Minister and /or the Local Government Advisory Board involving the Town of Claremont then a referendum of electors be held consistent with the Local Government Act 1995.


Financial and Staff Implications Financial implications remain uncertain. There will be significant costs to merge Town of Claremont with the other four councils. The complexity of bringing five entities together will add cost (compared to a situation of two merging). When beginning this process the Government promised to finance the cost; in fact on becoming Minister for Local Government Minister Simpson stated there would be ‘a bucket of money’. The Government however announced insignificant funding in the 2014 State Budget. It has not been possible to complete a review of the 750 page LGAB report. So far it is not possible to obtain any feel for the basis of the Premier’s confident statements that there will be significant financial savings. A member of the LGAB told the CEO that the Board recommended the G5 even though it would still be a very small local government because the financial predictions demonstrated it would be very sustainable. The Minister has said that a further meeting of Mayors and CEOs will occur to answer questions ‘about funding and other matters’. In the absence of an announcement of further funding from the State it must be assumed the cost is to be placed on rate payers. While there will be obvious savings (e.g. CEO salaries) in the long term no effort has been made to assess how much will be saved nor how much merging will cost. At least for the first few years the cost of merging will place strain on the new local government’s budget. It must be said that the process has been very poorly handled and the continuing uncertainty is entirely unreasonable for the employees impacted. It should not be unreasonable for the many impacted people who work within local government to expect a plan which so completely changes their working lives and perhaps financial


Page 13

wellbeing to be properly planned and implemented. Instead it has been a shambles and reflects extremely poorly on anybody who shares the responsibility. The protections with Schedule 2.1 of the Act will give a degree of comfort to most staff that there will be reasonable employment security, at least for the first two years.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995. Town of Claremont 2013 Enterprise Agreement.

Publicity A communication plan will be prepared to keep council members, staff and community fully informed.

Strategic Community Plan

Governance and Leadership We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed. Provide responsive and responsible leadership.

Urgency Not urgent.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Wood, seconded Cr Kelly That Council 1 Note the progress report regarding the Department of Local Government

and Communities $50,000 funding.

2 Convene a forum to consider the new information about proposals to amalgamate Town of Claremont into a new local government.

AMENDMENT

Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Lorenz That point 2 be deleted. Reason: There is no need for a forum and one could be called should the need arise.

LOST

For the Amendment: Crs Haynes, Lorenz and Mews. Against the Amendment: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Wood, Goetze, Browne, Tulloch and Kelly.


Page 14

THE PRIMARY MOTION WAS PUT That Council 1 Note the progress report regarding the Department of Local Government

and Communities $50,000 funding.

2 Convene a forum to consider the new information about proposals to amalgamate Town of Claremont into a new local government.

CARRIED(177/14)

For the Motion: Mayor Barker and Crs Edwards, Haynes, Wood, Goetze, Mews, Browne, Tulloch and Kelly. Against the Motion: Cr Lorenz.


Page 15

13.2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

13.2.1 DRAFT MUNICIPAL INVENTORY REVIEW AND PROPOSED CONSULTATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE TOWN OF CLAREMONT SCHEDULE OF BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND PLACES

File Ref: DAB/00043 Attachments - Restricted: Property Place Records

John Taylor Report April 2014 Submissions Received in Response to Deferral

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Author: Julia Kingsbury Manager Planning Odhran O’Brien Heritage Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 4 November 2014

Enabling Legislation: Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Town Planning Scheme No 3

Summary • At its meeting held on 5 August 2014 Council resolved to adopt the Draft

Municipal Inventory as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory).

• The Council’s resolution included the deferral of a decision on eight properties to allow the owners to make further submissions in regards to the officer’s recommendation to retain or include their property in the Inventory.

• Additional submissions were received by the owners of the deferred properties.

• A Peer Review Panel was established to review the submissions and the officer’s recommendation regarding the retention or inclusion of the eight deferred properties.

• A Peer Review Panel session was held on Friday 17 October 2014 to consider the properties at 13 Langsford Avenue, 16 Brown Street and 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont.

• The recommendations of the Peer Review Panel to include 13 Langsford Street and 3 Renown Avenue on the LGI and remove 16 Brown Street from the Inventory are recommended for Council approval.

• The Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) adopted pursuant to cl.78 of TPS3 requires modification to reflect the above Inventory recommendations as follows:


Page 16

o 13 Langsford Street be nominated for inclusion in the Heritage Schedule and be subject to a formal 21 day consultation for a period in accordance with cl.78(6) of TPS3.

o 16 Brown Street be removed from the Heritage Schedule pursuant to cl.78(5) of TPS3. Note – the Heritage Schedule listing for 3 Renown Avenue is proposed to be retained with no modification.

Purpose For Council to consider the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel regarding the inclusion of three of the eight properties deferred from being listed in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (Inventory) on 5 August 2014.

Background Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 states that: (1) A local government shall compile and maintain an inventory of buildings within

its district which in its opinion are, or may become, of cultural heritage significance.

(2) The inventory required by subsection (1) shall be compiled no later than 4 years from the commencement of this Act and shall be – (a) updated annually; and (b) reviewed every 4 years after compilation.

The Town created its first Municipal inventory (MI) of locally significant heritage buildings and places in 1991 in accordance with (2) above. The MI has been updated regularly since 1991 and a comprehensive review commenced in 2011 which resulted in the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014. To afford the properties listed in the MI with protection under TPS3, and therefore enable development on these properties to be assessed under the provisions of TPS3 and Council Policy, the Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule) is required to be updated in accordance with cl.78 of TPS3. Cl.78 states that: 78. SCHEDULE OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS AND PLACES:

(1) The Council shall maintain a schedule of buildings, objects and places (“the Schedule”) which the Council considers to be an architectural, historical or townscape value.

(2) The Schedule shall be available for inspection by any member of the public on request.

(3) The Council shall include in the Schedule: (a) any building constructed prior to the year 1910 and which retains

substantially its original form and detail as seen from any public place;

(b) any building constructed during or after the year 1910 and which the Council considers to have high intrinsic architectural merit or


Page 17

to be an outstanding example of its kind or of historical significance;

(c) buildings, objects or places that the Council considers make a positive contribution to the townscape of the district.

(4) Every building, object or place which is included by the National Trust of Western Australia (WA) in either the Recorded or the Classified List or which is included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule.

(5) The Council may from time to time add to or delete from the Schedule any building, object or place.

(6) The Council shall, before including any building, object or place in the Schedule: (a) give to the owner of that building, object or place written notice

that the Council proposes to include that building, object or place in the Schedule and specifying a date being not less than three (3) weeks after the notice is given by which submissions may be made to the Council by the owner;

(b) advertise notice of the Council’s intention in a newspaper circulating in the district and specifying the date by which submissions may be made to the Council by any person interested.

(7) The Council shall not include a building, object or place in the Schedule without first considering any submissions made within the time limit specified by the notice referred to in sub-clause (6) of this Clause.

Cl.79 of TPS3 provides the protection status for properties contained in the heritage Schedule as follows: 79 PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC AND OTHER BUILDINGS, OBJECTS AND

PLACES: (1) Where any development involves an alteration to, or the destruction,

total or partial of a building, object or place which is: (a) entered in the Schedule;

(b) included by the Australian Heritage Commission in the Register of the National Estate;

(c) included in the National Heritage Register; The Council before determining that application may give notice thereof to the National Trust of Australia (WA) the Australian Heritage Commission and such other bodies or persons as the Council thinks fit.

(2) In determining an application referred to in sub Clause (1) of the Clause the Council shall have regard to any submission made to the Council with respect to the preservation of the building, object or place involved in that application.


Page 18

Past Resolutions At its meeting held on 5 August 2014 the Council resolved to: 1. Note the submissions received during the consultation period for the Draft

Municipal Inventory, adopt the recommendations as contained in the attached Submissions Schedule and adopt the Draft Municipal Inventory (minus the five places removed under delegated authority on 19 May 2014) as the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 inclusive of the following modifications: a) Remove 78 Bay View Terrace, Claremont subject to the submission of

an archival record of the place to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont;

b) Remove the 76-78 Bay View Terrace Heritage Area whilst maintaining 76 Bay View Terrace, Claremont as a standalone place;

c) Remove 11 (Lot.37) Rob Roy Street, Swanbourne subject to satisfaction of planning requirements;

d) Remove 9 Second Avenue, Claremont; e) Remove 11 Second Avenue, Claremont; f) Remove 13 Second Avenue, Claremont; g) Remove 114 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; h) Remove 116 Shenton Road, Swanbourne; i) Convert the proposed Bay View Terrace Heritage Area 1 to the Bay

View Terrace Commercial Heritage Precinct; j) Convert the proposed Claremont Crescent Shops Heritage Area to the

Swanbourne Station Commercial Heritage Precinct; and k) Convert the proposed Shenton Road Shops Heritage Area to the Shenton Road Commercial Heritage Precinct. l) Refer back 13 Langsford Street, 16 Brown Street, 13 Smith Street, 24

Barnfield Road, 3 Pennell Road, 3 Renown Avenue, 399 Stirling Highway and 378 Stirling Highway for further consideration.

2. Pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to remove all properties no longer listed in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, updates the current Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places to include all newly nominated properties contained in the adopted Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 for the purposes of advertising the proposed additions to the Schedule.

4. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owners of the newly nominated buildings, objects or places in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.


Page 19

5. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and on conclusion of the consultation period, receives a report to consider any submissions received prior to Council adopting the final Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places 2014.

6. Advise all respondents who made a submission on the Draft Municipal Inventory of 1 - 5 above.

This report has been prepared to address portion of part 1l) of the Council’s resolution above. It is noted that a report will be prepared for Council’s consideration following further Peer Review Panel sessions for the remaining deferred properties as the sessions occur.

Discussion A Peer Review Panel was established for the purpose of reviewing the recommendation for the eight properties that were deferred from Council’s resolution to adopt the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014. A panel consisting of four members including Associate Professor Patric de Villiers (Chairperson), Mr Phillip Griffiths (Heritage Consultant), Dr John Taylor (as a consultant engaged by the Town to review the detailed submissions received by the Town during the advertising period prior to the adoption of the Inventory) and a consultant engaged by the owner of subject properties has been established to review each of the proposed listings in the Inventory. Consistent with the MI Review and the Town’s consultant’s review of the detailed submissions the Peer Review Panel is required to assess the property against the criteria set out in the State Heritage Office’s Criteria for the assessment of Local heritage Places and Areas: A Practical Guide to Identifying, Grading and Documenting Places and Areas in Local Government Inventories (see attached information). This is a working document for assessing the heritage of a place based on the heritage values provided in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, State Planning Policy 3.5 and Burra Charter. On 17 October 2014 the Peer Review Panel reviewed the draft place record for the place, the submissions and officer’s recommendation for the properties at 13 Langsford Avenue, 16 Brown Street and 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont. The process of review for each of the properties included:

• Viewing of the subject site and surrounding streetscape;

• Presentation of owner’s Heritage Consultant’s review of the property and recommendation;

• Presentation of the Town’s Heritage Consultant’s review of the property and recommendation;

• Presentation of any comments from the owner(s) of the property; and

• Request for clarification or questions from the Panel and owner(s). The Panel having considered the above voted on a recommendation to be put forward for Council to consider in regards to each individual property.


Page 20

The following recommendations were made by the Peer Review Panel: 13 Langford Street, Claremont It is recommended that this property should be included on the Inventory for the following reasons:

• The dwelling’s intrinsic heritage value, intactness and authenticity reflects an example of Inter-War development within the largely Federation style heritage precinct.

• The criteria for assessment recognise that the characteristics of a heritage area may be composite and varied. Number 8 reflects the same period of development as the subject property and further research may provide further evidence of post Federation development within the precinct.

• In any event the precinct is particularly cohesive and Number 13, which reflects many of the patterns of heritage development in the area (consistency of sitting, relationship with the street, form and fabric and variety of details), makes a contribution to the streetscape of the heritage area.

In the event that Council resolves to include 13 Langsford Street, Claremont in the Inventory, in accordance with cl.78(6) of TPS3, the Town is required to consult with the owner for a period of 21 days and consider any submission prior to considering including the property in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places (Heritage Schedule). 16 Brown Street, Claremont It is recommended that this property should be removed from the Inventory for the following reasons:

• Comparison with an early photograph indicates that the authenticity of the original dwelling has been compromised by the changes that have been made to the house.

• The ability to effectively recover the heritage values of the dwelling seem remote given the nature of the changes and the material used to achieve them.

• While the dwelling makes a positive contribution to the streetscape the streetscape of Brown Street is fairly compromised.

In the event that Council resolve to remove 16 Brown Street, Claremont from the Inventory, in accordance with cl.78(5) of TPS3, the Heritage Schedule can be automatically updated to remove this property. 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont It is recommended that this property should remain on the Inventory for the following reasons:

• While the dwelling has been subject to a range of changes the main distinguishing features are still intact (the overall form and much of the original fabric).


Page 21

• Changes made to the place are generally readily reversible and if so desired, the missing elements would be readily recoverable and would be capable of according with documentary evidence.

• The dwelling remains substantially an example of Inter-War Californian Bungalow style.

• The dwelling has a coherent relationship with those to the south (a typical and consistent setback at an angle to the street) and makes a strong contribution to the streetscape.

• The garden setting is consistent with other gardens in Renown Avenue. • The streetscape of Renown Avenue has a strong and generally consistent

character. In the event that Council resolve to retain 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont on the Inventory, no changes are required to be made to the heritage Schedule in regards to this property. It is noted that Council’s decision in relation to the adoption of the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 (including the addition of places on the Heritage Schedule) is not open to review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). However, any subsequent demolition, planning or subdivision application which references these documents will be open to review and consideration by the SAT.

Summary It is recommended that the Council support the recommendation from the Peer Review Panel established to review the Town’s recommendation for inclusion or retention of 13 Langsford Street, 16 Brown Street and 3 Renown Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014. Further the recommendations be reflected in the Heritage Schedule in accordance with the provisions of TPS3.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required.

Officer Recommendation THAT Council: 1. Include 13 Langsford Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local

Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owner(s) of the newly nominated place in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

2. Remove 16 Brown Street, Claremont from the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, remove the property from the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.

3. Retain 3 Renown Avenue, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory and the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.


Page 22

4. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 consider the final inclusion of 13 Langsford Street, Claremont on the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings following the consultation period referred to in 1 above.

Note: The Chief Executive Officer withdrew Item 3 from the officer recommendation in consideration of the request by Mr Bell, owner of 3 Renown Avenue, and to ensure Council had adequate time to read and consider the submission by Mr Bell dated 4 November 2014 and emailed to members.

Moved Cr Tulloch, seconded Cr Lorenz THAT Council: 1. Include 13 Langsford Street, Claremont in the Town of Claremont Local

Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, consult with the owner(s) of the newly nominated place in the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places for a period of 21 days.

2. Remove 16 Brown Street, Claremont from the Town of Claremont Local Government Inventory 2014 and pursuant to Clause 78(5) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3, remove the property from the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings and Places.

3. Pursuant to Clause 78(6) of Town Planning Scheme No. 3 consider the final inclusion of 13 Langsford Street, Claremont on the Town of Claremont Schedule of Historic and Other Buildings following the consultation period referred to in 1 above.



Page 23

Item 13.2.2 to 13.3.1 were carried en bloc.

13.2.2 LOT 30 (204) STIRLING HIGHWAY, CLAREMONT - PROPOSED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND SIGNAGE FOR 'CAMERICH'

File Ref: A- 3576 / 2014.00182 Attachments - Public: Location and Submission Plan

Photograph Attachments - Restricted: Plans Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe

Executive Manager Planning and Development Author: Julia Kingsbury

Manager Planning Proposed Meeting Date: 4 November 2014 60 Days Due Date: 23 November 2014 Property Owner: Valbonne Corporation Pty Ltd Submitted By: LH Squared Pty Ltd Site Area: 3,625m2 Zoning: Highway and MRS Reserve for Primary

Regional Road Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA)

Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Local Law Relating to Signage (LLRS)

Summary • Application for planning approval received for proposed external alterations to

the existing tenancy and associated signage for ‘Camerich’.

• The proposal complies with the relevant TPS3, Local Law and Council Policy requirements.

• 10 neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received.

• Application is recommended for approval, subject to relevant conditions.

Purpose The application requires the Council’s determination due to the commercial nature of the proposal.

Background The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome 24 September 2014 Planning Application received by Council. 1 October 2014 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment. 2 October 2014 Application referred to Main Roads WA.


Page 24

Date Item/Outcome 7 October 2014 Advertising commenced. 23 October 2014 Advertising closed. 24 October 2014 Response Received from Main Roads WA. 24 October 2014 Report prepared for Council.

Past Resolutions There are no past Council resolutions relevant to this application.

Heritage The property is not listed on the Town's Schedule of Heritage Places.

Consultation The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525. 10 neighbours were consulted and no submissions were received. Metropolitan Region Scheme Metropolitan Region Scheme (Main Roads Referral) The subject site is located partially within a Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserve for ‘Primary Regional Road’ (PRR). Under the Planning and Development Act (PDA) MRS Instrument of Delegation (Del 2011/02), the Council has delegated authority to approve development within or adjacent to the Stirling Highway MRS reservation subject to any decision being consistent with the comment and recommendation of Main Roads WA (MRWA). The subject application has been referred to MRWA for comment. MRWA advised that they have no objection to the proposed additions and alterations. Main Roads WA has requested that the Council advise the applicant that the property is affected by Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1210/41 Rationalising of Stirling Highway reservation. If Council supports this application, it is recommended that the above be included as an advice note to the applicant.

Discussion Description The application proposes external alterations to the existing facade and associated signage for a new furniture showroom ‘Camerich’. The application includes the following:

• Painting of the external facade of the tenancy in a dark grey colour.

• Installation of a new timber clad awning feature.

• A horizontal sign measuring 3.5m wide by 0.5m high located on the upper facade facing Stirling Highway displaying the word ‘Camerich’.

• A horizontal sign measuring 2.2m wide by 0.3m high located on the east facing fascia of the existing awning displaying the word ‘Camerich’.


Page 25

An internal fitout is also proposed however this is not subject to an application for planning approval. Compliance The development proposes variations to the provisions of the TPS3 and the Local Law Relating to Signs. The proposed use is consistent with the existing approved ‘Showroom’ use and no significant additions are proposed. It is considered that the proposed external alterations and signage is compatible with the surrounding sites and will not have a detrimental impact on the immediately locality.

Summary Based on the above, it is recommended that approval be granted subject to the conditions in the officer’s recommendation.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Kelly THAT Council grant planning approval for a proposed external alterations and signage for ‘Camerich’ at Lot 30 (204) Stirling Highway, Claremont, subject to the following conditions and advice notes: 1. All storm water is to be retained on the site with drainage details being

provided as part of the Building Permit application. 2. All development shall occur in accordance with the approved drawings

(Planning Application DA2014.182), as amended by these conditions. 3. This application is valid only if the development is commenced within 24

months of the date of approval. Advice Notes: (i) This is a Planning Approval only. A Building Permit must be obtained

from the Town’s Building Services unit prior to the commencement of any building works. Permits for non-residential development MUST be certified prior to submission;

(ii) A Sign Licence is to be obtained from the Town's Building Services Unit prior to the erection/installation of any signage.

(iii) The property is affected by Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment 1210/41 Rationalisation of Stirling Highway reservation. Enquiries on the amendment may be directed to Main Roads WA on 138 138.

(iv) The applicant/owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300. Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no construction work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out:


Page 26

a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive; or b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(v) If an applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au within 28 days of this determination.



Page 27

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.3.1 PROPOSED LANE CLOSURE OF AVION WAY - SINGLE LANE (SOUTH TO NORTH)

File Ref: RDS/00174 Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther

Executive Manager Infrastructure Author: Nick King

Manager Engineering Proposed Meeting Date: 4 November 2014

Purpose Report recommends the closing of one single lane carriageway of Avion Way –(south to north) to support the modification of Avion Way to become a single lane one-way carriageway (north to south).

Background At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 September 2014, Council authorised the works to modify Avion Way to become a single lane one-way carriageway (north to south) and upgrade of the pedestrian amenities.

Discussion The proposed lane closure will allow Avion Way to become a single lane one-way carriageway (north to south) and will facilitate the Council approved modification and activation of Avion Way as outlined in the Council’s adopted Street and Laneway Activation Plan (SLAP). The Avion Way project is one of the Town’s initiatives to activate streets to enhance precincts for attracting visitors, which in turn increases economic prosperity for traders and landowners around the Town Centre. Prior to considering to close a road pursuant to Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Local Government must give local public notice of the proposed order, within a reasonable time, giving details of the proposal, including the location of the thoroughfare and where, when, and why it would be closed, and inviting submissions. Administration suggests 21 days to be a reasonable time period. A report will be prepared for Council to consider any submissions received. A copy of the contents of the notice is to be sent to the Commissioner of Main Roads appointed under the Main Roads Act 1930. Written notice is to be given to Government Utility services providers, also Ambulance, Fire and WA Police Services. The owner of the property that abuts the road will also be notified and invited to make a submission on the proposed road closure.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/mra1930106/


Page 28

Past Resolutions Ordinary Council Meeting 16 July 2013, Resolution 232/13: That the item be deferred back to administration. Reason: To enable up to date traffic statistics to be obtained prior to consideration.

CARRIED

Ordinary Council Meeting 17 September 2013, Resolution 267/13: That Council 1. Approves the unbudgeted allocation of $45,000 from the Joint Venture

Reserve for the preparation of specifications, working drawings and tender documentation for Avion Way traffic modification/upgrade as per the officer report; and

2. At the conclusion of the Tender process a report is prepared for council to consider proceeding to the construction phase of the project.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

Ordinary Council Meeting 2 September 2014, Resolution 150/14: That Council, 1. Authorise works to modify Avion Way to become a single lane one-way

carriageway (north to south) and upgrade of the pedestrian amenities as detailed within the report at cost of $337,425 conditional on contribution by Topsfield Pty Ltd of $67,484 (20% of project cost);

2. Authorise transfer of $337,475 from the Claremont Joint Venture Reserve to fund the Avion Way modification and pedestrian upgrade works;

3. Authorise transfer the Topsfield contribution towards the works to the Claremont Joint Venture Reserve, and

4. Accept the $50,000 contribution towards Avion Way artwork by Topsfield Pty Ltd.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

Financial and Staff Implications Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications Local Government Act 1995, Section 3.50.

Publicity The Local Government Act 1995 requires that before Council consider to close the subject road, the local government is to give local public notice of the proposed order and invite submissions. A copy of this notice is to be sent to the Commissioner of Main Roads.


Page 29

Strategic Community Plan Liveability

We are an accessible community, with well maintained and managed assets, and our heritage preserved for the enjoyment of the community.

• Clean, usable, attractive, accessible streetscapes and public open spaces.

• Develop the public realm as gathering spaces for participation and enjoyment.

• Maintain and upgrade infrastructure for seamless day to day usage.

Prosperity

Our businesses are thriving and integrated into the life of the Claremont community, and the town centre is known as a premier retail destination.

• Further develop and implement the principles of the Business Improvement District Policy to support local and new business.

• Reduce unnecessary barriers to new business and support the success of existing local businesses.

• Assist in creating local employment opportunities through a strong local economy.

Urgency It is anticipated construction work along Avion Way will commence early January 2015. To ensure the proposed work schedule can be maintained, the road closure process is required to be completed as a matter of priority.

Voting Requirements Simple majority decision of Council required. Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Kelly That Council 1. Pursuant to Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, give notice of

the proposal to permanently close one lane of Avion (south to north), 2. Publish a notice of Council’s intention in local newspapers inviting

submissions and forward a copy of the notice to the Commissioner of Main Roads Western Australia,

3. Provide written notification to Government Utility Services, Emergency Services and the owner of Times Square, and

4. Revise a report following closure of the 21 day notice period to consider any submissions.



Page 30

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON

Cr Goetze congratulated staff on the success of the Notes in November event. Cr Haynes reported the positive comments he received about the conservation works at Lake Claremont at a recent bird watching tour in the area.


Page 31

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

15.1 NOTICE OF MOTION – CR GOETZE

15.1.1 PICK UP AND DROP OFF ZONE FOR STUDENTS, OSBORNE PARADE - CLIFF WAY

File Ref: TAT00041 Author: Cr Goetze

Elected Member Proposed Meeting Date: 4 November 2014

Moved Cr Goetze, seconded Cr Wood That Council request an officer report for Council to consider on creating a pick up and drop off zone for students at the end of Osborne Parade, or any other suitable location in walking distance to Cliff Way. Reasons: 1. The Cliff Way footpath has been completed. 2. The purpose of the footpath is to make it easy for and to encourage students to

walk safely to school while reducing traffic in Cliff Way. 3. A student drop off point close to Cliff Way will improve the success of the

initiative. 4. An officer report will allow an assessment of location, construction options,

costs and funding. CARRIED(180/14)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 32

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING

NIL.


Page 33

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

MOTION TO CLOSE DOORS

Moved Cr Browne, seconded Cr Mews That in accordance with Sections 5.23(2)(c) and 5.23(2)(e)(iii) of the Local Government Act 1995, the meeting is closed to members of the public with the following aspects of the Act being applicable to this matter: Section 5.23(2)(c) A contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting, and Section 5.23(2)(e)(iii) A matter that if disclosed, would reveal information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.


Mayor Barker adjourned the meeting at 7:40PM.

Mayor Barker reconvened the meeting at 7:41PM.

ATTENDANCE

Mayor Barker Cr Karen Wood West Ward Cr Peter Edwards West Ward Cr Peter Browne West Ward Cr Jill Goetze South Ward Cr Paul Kelly South Ward Cr Chris Mews South Ward Cr Alistair Tulloch East Ward Cr Bruce Haynes East Ward Cr Anita Lorenz East Ward

Mr Stephen Goode (Chief Executive Officer) Mr Les Crichton (Executive Manager Corporate and Governance) Mr Saba Kirupananther (Executive Manager Infrastructure) Mr David Vinicombe (Executive Manager Planning and Development) Ms Katie Bovell (Governance Officer)


Page 34

17.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

17.1.1 CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF PORTION LOT 11578 SHENTON ROAD, CLAREMONT

File: 5366

Confidential Attachment Letter from WA Police

Author: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer

Responsible Officer: Stephen Goode Chief Executive Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 4 November 2014

Purpose Item 17.1.1 was considered in closed session. The matter is confidential pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995, Section 5.23(2)(c) and 5.23(2)(e)(iii).

ALTERNATIVE MOTION

Moved Cr Browne, seconded Cr Kelly That 1. The officer report remain confidential in accordance with the Local

Government Act 1995, Sections 5.23(2)(c) and 5.23(2)(e)(iii), and

2. Council endorse the preparation of a report on alternate uses of portion of Lot 11578 including possible sale of the land and/or paid parking.



Page 35

MOTION TO PROCEED WITH OPEN DOORS

Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Goetze That the meeting proceed with open doors.


The meeting proceeded with doors open at 7:52PM.

THE MAYOR READ ALOUD THE RESOLUTION MADE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL

Ordinary Council Meeting, 18 November 2014 commencing at 7:00PM, held at Town of Claremont Council Chambers, Number One Claremont, 308 Stirling Highway, Claremont.

MOTION Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Goetze That staff be congratulated on their performance under adversity during the period between the fire and Number One Claremont.

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

There being no further business, the presiding member declared the meeting closed at 8:01PM. Confirmed this ... .... ... ........ .... ... .... .... day of ... .... ....... .... . .... ...... 2014. PRESIDING MEMBER

Documents

TOWN OF CLAREMONT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING … › MediaLibrary › TownOf...Nov 04, 2014 · Town’s usual practices (as explained in the letter of 6 October 2014) were followed