june 2012 ocm minutes asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-t45w 56w46yw46t4tw4

Please Council June 20AdminisVictoria

ANTHOACTING 15 June

be advisedwas held a

012 in the stration Ce

Park.

ONY VULEG CHIEF E

e 2012

d that the Oat 6.30pmCouncil Cntre at 99

TA EXECUTIV

Ordinary M on Tuesd

Chambers,Shepperto

VE OFFICE

Meeting of day 12 , on Road,

ER

ITEM TI 1 O

2 A

3 A

3.

3.

4 D

5 P

6 P

7 C

8 P

8.

8.

8.

9 M

10 C

10

11 FU

11

11

11

11

11

12 R

12

12

12

ITLE

OPENING

ANNOUNCE

ATTENDAN

Apo.1

App.2

ECLARAT

UBLIC QU

UBLIC ST

ONFIRMA

RESENTA

Pet.1

Pre.2

Dep.3

METHOD O

HIEF EXE

2010.1

Ann

UTURE LI

78 (1.1

53 (1.2

30-31.3

Dwe

Am1.4

Rec

Stre

and

Rev1.5

RENEW LIF

Can2.1

Ten2.2

Serv

Acc2.3

EMENTS F

NCE

ologies

proved Le

TIONS OF

UESTION T

TATEMENT

ATION OF

ATIONS

itions

sentations

putations

OF DEALIN

ECUTIVE O

2 Wester

nual Gene

FE AND B

(Lot 304) P

(Lot 1) Ga

34 (Lot 33

ellings

endment

classificat

eet, Victo

d Recreatio

view of Co

FE PROGR

nning High

nder No.

rvices.

ceptance o

TABLE

FROM TH

ave of Ab

INTERES

TIME

T TIME

MINUTES

s (Awards

(Planning

NG WITH A

OFFICER R

rn Austra

eral Meetin

BUILT LIFE

Planet Stre

llipoli Stre

36) Cannin

No. 54

ion of 31

ria Park f

on” to “Of

ouncil’s Lo

RAM REPO

hway Road

12/04 To

of Perth B

2

E OF CON

E PRESID

bsence

ST

S

s to be giv

/ Externa

AGENDA B

REPORTS

alian Loc

ng Delegat

E PROGRA

eet, Carlis

eet, Lathla

ng Highwa

to Town

1 (Lots 6

from “Lo

ffice/Resid

ocal Plann

ORTS

d Reserva

oVP – Su

Bicycle Net

TENTS

DING MEM

ven to the

al Organisa

BUSINESS

S

cal Gove

tion

AM REPO

sle – Singl

ain – Singl

ay, Victor

Planning

62, 63, 64

cal Schem

dential” zo

ning Policy

ation Revi

upply and

twork Gra

BER

Town)

ations)

S

ernment A

ORTS

le House

le House

ria Park –

g Scheme

4 and 100

me Reser

one – Fina

y - Streets

ew

d laying

ant Funds

Associatio

15 Multip

e No. 1

0) Rushto

rve – Par

al Approv

scape

of Aspha

2012-2013

PAGE NO

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

9

on

9

12

12

30

ple

45

–

on

ks

al 66

78

86

86

alt

89

3 94

O

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

2

2

0

5

6

8

6

6

9

4

Ordinary M

12

12

12

12

13 C

13

13

13

13

13

13

14 B

14

14

14

14

14

15 A

15

Meeting of

Com2.4

Mod

Ten2.5

Pre

Mov2.6

Occ

Plan

Ten2.7

Eng

OMMUNIT

Rec3.1

Rec3.2

– A

Rec3.3

– E

Ann

Ten3.4

Rec3.5

Esta

Rec3.6

Esta

Wo

USINESS

Mul4.1

Fina4.2

Betw

Sch4.3

201

Fee4.4

Bus4.5

APPLICATI

Cou5.1

July

f Council M

mmunity

difications

nder TVP/

pare an In

vies by B

cupy Agre

net Street

nder No.

gineering

TY LIFE PR

commenda

commenda

ppointme

commenda

Establishm

nual Work

nder TVP/1

commenda

ablishmen

commenda

ablishmen

rk Plan

LIFE PRO

ltiple Dog

ancial Sta

ween 1Ap

hedule of

2

es and Cha

siness Life

IONS FOR

uncillor J

y 2012, inc

Minutes

Environm

s to Terms

/12/03 – P

ntegrated

urswood

eement – f

, Lathlain

TVP 12/05

Maintenan

ROGRAM

ations fro

ation from

nt of Com

ation from

ment of th

k Plan

12/02– Pro

ation fro

nt of the A

ation from

nt of the

OGRAM RE

Applicatio

atements

pril and 30

Accounts

arges – Ef

e Working

R LEAVE O

(John) Bi

clusive

3

mental W

s of Refere

Provision

Movemen

– Reques

former La

5 – Pane

nce Servic

REPORTS

m the Mem

m the Com

mmunity M

m the Com

he Comm

ovision of

om the

Arts Worki

m the He

Healthy

EPORTS

on – 44 Ca

and Budg

0 April 201

s for the P

ffective fro

g Group - M

OF ABSEN

issett Ban

Working G

ence

of Cons

nt Network

st for Exte

athlain Pre

el Contrac

ces

S

morial Ga

mmunity S

ember

mmunity S

munity Sa

Gymnasiu

Arts W

ing Group

ealthy Lif

Life Wor

arnarvon S

get Variat

2

Period 1 A

om 1 July

Membersh

NCE

nksia Ward

Group –

sultancy S

k Strategy

ension of

e-Primary

ct for the

rdens Pro

afety Wor

afety Wor

fety Work

um Equip

Working

p Annual W

fe Workin

rking Gro

Street

ions For

April 2012

2012

hip

d, 23 July

12 J

Propose

Services

(IMNS)

f Licence

School 6

e Supply

oject Team

rking Grou

rking Grou

king Grou

ment

Group

Work Plan

ng Group

oup Annu

The Perio

to 30 Ap

y 2012 to 2

June 2012

ed

98

to

103

to

6-8

110

of

115

123

m 123

up

130

up

up

133

136

-

142

-

ual

145

148

148

od

152

pril

159

162

165

168

27

168

2

8

3

0

5

3

3

0

3

6

2

5

8

8

2

9

2

5

8

8

Ordinary M

15

16 M

16

16

17 Q

18 N

19 P

20 P

21 M

21

21

22 C

Meeting of

Min5.2

Cou

MOTION OF

Cr H6.1

Not6.2

Ent

Plac

QUESTION

EW BUSIN

UBLIC QU

UBLIC ST

MEETING C

Mat1.1

Pub1.2

LOSURE

f Council M

ndarie Reg

uncillor Bi

F WHICH

Hayes will

tice of

ertainmen

ce Road R

S FROM M

NESS OF A

UESTION T

TATEMENT

CLOSED T

tters for W

blic Readin

Minutes

gional Co

issett’s Le

PREVIOUS

l be Movin

Motion

nt Comple

Reserve

MEMBERS

AN URGE

TIME

T TIME

TO PUBLIC

Which the M

ng of Res

4

ouncil – A

eave of Ab

S NOTICE

ng a Notic

- Reco

ex Car Par

S WITHOU

ENT NATU

C

Meeting M

olutions T

Appointme

bsence

E HAS BEE

e of Motio

nsideratio

rk and Req

UT NOTICE

RE

May be Clo

That May b

ent of Dep

EN GIVEN

on

on of

quest to C

E

osed

be Made P

12 J

puty durin

N

Burswoo

Close Glen

Public

June 2012

ng

168

169

169

od

nn

169

178

178

178

179

179

179

179

179

2

8

9

9

9

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

Ordinary Meeting of Council Minutes 12 June 2012

5

1 OPENING

Almighty God, under whose providence we hold responsibility for this Town, grant us wisdom to understand its present needs, foresight to anticipate its future growth and grace to serve our fellow citizens with integrity and selfless devotion.

And to Thee, be all blessing and glory forever. AMEN

Acknowledgement of Country (by Mayor) I acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land the Noongar people and pay my respects to the Elders both past, present and future for they hold the memories, the traditions, the culture and hopes of Indigenous Australians.

2 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE PRESIDING MEMBER

The Mayor asked Councillors to keep the Council Meeting as brief as possible due to the predicted approaching storm so staff are able to make it home safely.

The Mayor congratulated that the following people that were inducted into the Sporting Walk of Fame: o Bob Govan – Swimming; o Dennis Lillee – Cricket; o Graeme Wishart – Lawn Bowls; o Jack O’Dea – Football; o Sydney Corser – Yachting; and o Trevor Williams – Volleyball.

The Mayor Informed Council that a number of Tourist buses have visited the Town to view the new Artwork that have been raised.

3 ATTENDANCE

Mayor: Cr T (Trevor) Vaughan

Banksia Ward: Cr J (John) Bissett (Deputy Mayor) Cr K (Keith) Hayes Cr R (Rowena) Skinner

Jarrah Ward: Cr D (David) Ashton Cr D V (Vin) Nairn Cr V (Vicki) Potter

Acting Chief Executive Officer: Mr A (Anthony) Vuleta

Directors: Mr (N) Nathan Cain Ms R (Rochelle) Lavery

Acting Directors: Mr W (Warren) Bow Ms N (Nicole) Anson

Executive Manager Built Life: Mr R (Robert) Cruickshank

Secretary: Ms K (Kathleen) Highfield

Public: 12

Ordinary M

Ap3.1 Chief Exe Director C Banksia W

Ap3.2 Jarrah W 4 DE DeclaratioMeeting, Agenda). Declarati Nil Declarati Elected MConduct] required tThis decldecision-mthe nature

Name/Pos

Item No/S

Nature of

Extent of

Meeting of

pologies

ecutive Of

Communi

Ward:

pproved

Ward:

ECLARAT

ons of inte(a form to

on of Fina

on of Inte

Members (Regulationto declare aration domaking proe of the inte

sition

Subject

Interest

Interest

f Council M

fficer:

ty Life:

Leave of

TIONS O

erest are o assist E

ancial Inte

rest affec

in accordans 2007) aany intere

oes not reocess. Theerest.

Minutes

M

M

C

f Absenc

C

OF INTER

to be madElected Me

erests

ting impar

ance with Rand employest that maestrict any e Elected

Anthony

12.2 - As

Interest th

1. I amMr Mitem

2. I hav

my rtend

6

Mr A (Arthu

Ms T (Tina

Cr C (Clair

ce

Cr A (Adam

REST

de in writembers an

rtiality

Regulationyees (in acay affect t

right to pMember/e

y Vuleta –

phalt Tend

hat may af

m friends wMartyn Glo

m.

ve been exrole as Preder for this

ur) Kyron

) Ackerma

e) Anderso

m) Vilaca

ing prior tnd Staff is

n 11 of theccordance their imparparticipatemployee is

Director R

der

ffect impar

with the Genover, who h

xtended hoesident of Iitem

an

on

to the coms attached

e Local Gowith the C

rtiality in coin or be

s also enc

Renew Life

tiality

neral Manahas provide

ospitality byPWEA, wh

12 J

mmencemed at the e

overnmentCode of Coonsideringpresent d

couraged t

e Program

ager of Roed a tende

y Fulton Hhich has su

June 2012

ent of thend of this

t [Rules ofonduct) areg a matter.during theto disclose

m

ads 2000 er for this

Hogan, in ubmitted a

2

e s

f e .

e e

a


7

Name/Position Councillor Keith Hayes

Item No/Subject 16.1 - Burswood Entertainment Complex Car Park and Request to Close Glenn Place Road Reserve

Nature of Interest Interest that may affect impartiality

Extent of Interest Member of the Burswood Park Board

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Ms Debbie Allen, 34b Mars Street, Carlisle WA 6100 What is the recent progress with the roll-out of the National Broadband Network in Victoria Park? Answer Commencement of the roll-out is scheduled to start in July/August and will be a 12 month timeframe for installation, 1st & 2nd parts of the roll-out will take place in that timeframe from Miller Street across through to Burswood Road. Further information can be found on the Town’s website. 6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME Ms Tracy Pola, 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain WA 6100 Ms Pola asked Council if they could approve her submitted plans and grant that the requesting setback be changed from 3m to 2.2m. Ms Pola believes this will not affect residents but it will impact their living. Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter requested that consultation should be done prior to rubber speed bumps being placed within the Town. 7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 be confirmed. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

8 PR

Pe8.1 Mr Sam Z Submittedbetween B RESOLVE Moved: The PetitBurlingtoinvestiga The Motio In favour oCr Potter

Pre8.2 Nil

De8.3 Nil 9 ME

Meeting of

RESENTA

etitions

Zammit, 31

d a 21 signBurlington

ED:

Councill

tion dealion Street ation, in ac

on was Pu

of the Motio

esentatio

eputation

ETHOD O

f Council M

ATIONS

Alvah Stre

nature PetStreet and

or Ashton

ng with sand Berwccordance

ut and

on: Mayor V

ons (Awa

ns (Plann

OF DEAL

Minutes

eet, ST JA

ition opposd Berwick S

n

speed cuswick Streete with the

Vaughan; C

ards to b

ning / Ex

LING WIT

8

AMES WA

sing speedStreet.

shions bet be referAdministr

Cr Bissett; C

be given

xternal O

TH AGEN

6102

d cushions

Secon

eing placerred to theration Pro

Cr Ashton;

to the T

rganisat

NDA BUS

s being pla

ded: Co

ed on Alde Director

ocedure AD

Cr Hayes;

own)

ions)

SINESS

12 J

aced on Ald

ouncillor P

day Streetr of RenewDP09.

CARR

Cr Skinner

June 2012

day Street

Potter

t betweenw Life for

RIED: (7-0)

r; Cr Nairn;

2

t

n r

)

;

Ordinary M

10.1

10 CH

2010.1Ge

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommrepresent2012 Ann The

Conv Cou

WAL Cou

dele TABLED Nil BACKGRPursuant by two (2) Member voting delprovision Only regivoting enMembers DETAILSThe 2012held priorAugust 20following the Conve

Meeting of

HIEF EXE

12 Westeneral Me

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation t it on th

nual GeneWALGA 2

vention anncils are toLGA 2012 ncil are togates and

ITEMS:

ROUND: to the WA

) voting de

Councils slegates areneeds to b

stered dentitlements

or serving

: Annual G

r to the co012 at the by the Traention held

f Council M

ECUTIVE

tern Auseeting D

ADNil 15 Kat

er: Artnt: Abry: – The Cou

he Westerral Meetin2012 AGM

nd Exhibitioo appoint AGM.

o consider in relation

ALGA Conslegates.

seeking toe registerebe made fo

legates oron beha

g officers.

General Meommencem

Perth Conade Exhibitd over the f

Minutes

E OFFICE

stralian elegation

DM0049

May 2012thleen Higthur Kyronsolute Maj

uncil apporn Austrang (AGM).M will be hon Centre.two (2) vo

appointing to nomina

stitution, a

o exercise ed. In the or a proxy d

r proxy realf Membe

eeting for Wment of thenvention antion and Cfollowing tw

9

ER REPO

Local Gn

2 hfield

ority

oints two lian Loca

held on W

oting deleg

g Mayor Tating a prox

all Member

their votievent tha

delegate to

egistered der Councils

WA Local Ge Local Gond Exhibitionvention wo (2) day

ORTS

Governme

(2) delegaal Govern

Wednesday

ates and a

revor Vaugxy to nomi

r Councils

ng entitlemat a Votingo be regist

delegates s. Voting

Governmeovernment ion CentreWelcome

ys Thursda

ent Asso

ates and ament Ass

y 1 Augus

a proxy de

ghan and nate Cr Vi

are entitle

ments muDelegate

ered.

will be peg delegate

nt AssociaConventio

e, 21 MounReceptiony, 2 and Fr

12 J

ociation

a proxy desociation

st 2012 at

elegate to

Cr Bissettlaca.

ed to be re

st ensure is unable

ermitted toes may b

ation will thon on Wednts Bay Ron that evenriday 3 Au

June 2012

10.1

Annual

elegate to(WALGA)

the Perth

attend the

t as voting

epresented

that theirto attend,

o exercisebe Elected

his year bednesday 1oad, Perth,ning. Withgust.

2

l

o )

h

e

g

d

r

e d

e

, h


10.1 10 10.1

Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Given that the Councils delegate’s on the South East Metropolitan Zone (SEMZ) of WALGA are Cr Bissett and Cr Vilaca it would seem appropriate for Cr Bissett to be nominated as the second voting delegate and Cr Vilaca to be nominated as the proxy delegate to represent the Council at the 2012 AGM of WALGA. CONCLUSION: The Town should maintain its full voting entitlements at meetings of WALGA’s 2012 Annual General Meeting. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the Elected Members Briefing Session held on the 5 June 2012 a question was raised as to why there was a change in practice from recommending the Zone representatives to attend the Annual General meeting of WALGA.


10.1 11 10.1

In terms of protocol, it was deemed appropriate to enquire whether the Mayor as the political leader of the Council was interested in attending WALGA’s Annual General Meeting as a voting delegate to represent the Town. The Mayor advised that he was desirous of being one of the Council’s voting delegates and therefore it was recommended that he be appointed. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Hayes The Council appoints Mayor Trevor Vaughan and Cr John Bissett its voting delegates and Cr Vilaca as the proxy delegate on the Western Australian Local Government Association 2012 Annual General Meeting. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

11.1

11 FU

7811.1 File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl

dwe The

form The

Couapprthe s

The enviCou

TABLED Deve Ame Colo Supe Phot Ema Appl Cons Subm

Meeting of

UTURE L

(Lot 304

rence: ces: ner: t: on Date: r WAPC R

ning: ing: cinct: s:

missibility:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication folling constrsite is loc

m part of a Wdevelopm

ncil’s Locaropriate restreetscape

applicant ronmentallncil’s deve

ITEMS: elopment aended planour and maerseded pltographs oail correspolicant’s wrisultation lemission fro

f Council M

IFE AND

4) Planet

PLNoS.S.30

Ref: 12UrRePrSi

: ‘P 30D.

er: R.nt: Siry: – Refusal

or Single ructed in 1cated outsWeatherbo

ment doesal Planninplacemente;

argues tly sustaina

elopment s

applicationns and elevaterial schelans and eof existing dondence totten justific

etter to surom owner o

Minutes

D BUILT L

t Street, C

LAN78 o & D. Fels & D. Fels

0 May 20122/0196 rban esidential Rrecinct P8 ngle House’ use

0 May 2012 Rowley Cruickshample Majo

House in937;

side of theoard Streets not sating Policy t developm

hat the pable desigtandards.

n form datevations datedule datedlevations ddwelling ano applicantcation daterrounding oof 80 Plane

12

LIFE PRO

Carlisle –

2

R30 ‘Carlisle’ e

2

ank ority

volving de

e Residenttscape; isfy the A– Streetsc

ment havin

proposal hn principle

ed receivedted received receiveddated recend adjacent dated 18 ed receivedowners/occet St dated

OGRAM

– Single

emolition

tial Charac

Acceptablecape and g regard t

as been es and the

d 26 Marched 16 May 26 Marchived 26 Mant propertieApril 2012d 17 May 2cupiers datd 11 May 2

REPORT

House

of an ori

cter Study

e Developis not co

o the exist

designed erefore wa

h 2012; 2012; 2012;

arch 2012;es along P;

2012; ted 26 Apr2012.

12 J

TS

iginal wea

Area and

pment Staonsidered ting built fo

in accordarrants a v

; lanet Stree

ril 2012; an

June 2012

11.1

atherboard

d does not

ndards ofto be an

orm within

ance withvariation to

et;

nd

2

d

t

f n n

h o


11.1 13 11.1

BACKGROUND: As the application involves the demolition of a structurally sound dwelling constructed prior to 1945 its determination at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council is required. DETAILS: A development application has been received proposing demolition of the existing fibro and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street, Carlisle and its replacement with a new single-storey house. The subject property is located outside of the Residential Character Study Area and does not form part of a Weatherboard Streetscape, as defined in Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape. The site is zoned ‘Residential R30’ and has potential to accommodate up to three Grouped Dwellings based on its lot area of 1052m2. Existing Streetscape The subject site is located on the eastern end of the Planet Street street-block located between Archer and Lion Streets in Carlisle. The site adjoins a Town of Victoria Park sump at No. 76 Planet Street, with the majority of existing development along both sides of this portion of Planet Street consisting of single storey duplex and triplex developments. A number of dwellings constructed prior to 1945 are located within the immediate vicinity of the site in close proximity to the Lion Street intersection. These form an isolated pocket of original housing stock that is otherwise surrounded by newer development constructed largely from the 1980s to the present day. Dwellings are typically provided with hipped roofs of red/orange tiles, or Colorbond roof sheeting in a range of colours. Predominant wall materials within this portion of Planet Street include red, cream and brown facebrick, and white/cream render. Existing Dwelling The existing dwelling was constructed in 1937 and features an L-shaped design with timber veranda and large gable ends facing the street. There have been no significant modifications made to the original dwelling structure aside from a minor carport addition to the side and rear of the dwelling in 2003. The dwelling includes a number of traditional design features typical of its era of construction, including a metal roof with exposed rafter ends, three-piece timber framed windows, weatherboard cladding, high ceilings, red brick chimney and a visible wall height of approximately 3.5 metres high. The front elevation includes half-height weatherboard cladding with fibro (possibly asbestos) sheeting above, with a timber and metal awning over one set of the dwelling’s three-piece windows. The side elevations are wholly clad in weatherboards. Whilst the existing dwelling is clearly in need of repainting and the possible replacement of several weatherboards, it otherwise appears to be structurally sound and in a good state of repair, being currently lived in by the applicant. Proposed Development The replacement development comprises a single-storey Single House with four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a double garage open on two sides. The dwelling is proposed to have a zincalume metal roof and its external walls clad in ‘blue/grey’ ‘Weathertex Primelock’ artificial weatherboard cladding.


11.1 14 11.1

The proposed dwelling incorporates a mixture of roof elements, having a large gable element running parallel to and facing the street, with a connecting gable that splits to incorporate skylight window panels, an overlapping skillion veranda roof which forms a butterfly roof element with the main dwelling roof, and a rear off-centred gable roof element. These various roof elements arise from the applicant’s wish to maximise natural light and ventilation to the dwelling. The visible wall height of the front elevation of the dwelling is approximately 2.5 metres high due to the large unrelieved gable portion of roof at the front of the dwelling. The front elevation features windows of non-traditional design, comprising full-length glass louvres to the main bedroom and ensuite bathroom, and a french door with adjoining full-length side light panel to the front entry. Discussions were held with the applicant regarding the design of the proposed dwelling throughout the assessment process, in relation to roof form, window design and wall heights. These discussions resulted in the applicant’s submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, as well as a written justification received on 17 May 2012, in support of the proposed demolition and several variations to Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, most of which hinges on the purported sustainability benefits of the dwelling design. These include the following as advised in the applicant’s justification:

Stack ventilation in bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 (Windows that open at the top and bottom allow cooler air near the ground into the room on still nights and release hot air near the ceiling.) Sometimes known as thermosiphon.

Deciduous vines over glazing to the north to provide shade in summer and good solar access to the northern living area in winter.

Full length windows to the south and eastern sides to maximize natural light. These windows will be covered with pelmets and thick curtains to reduce loss of warmer air on winter nights and reduce heat gain during hot summer days.

Deciduous trees planted to the western side to shade the house from intense summer sun in the afternoon.

Thermal mass in the form of concrete floors throughout. Rugs laid in the southern rooms in winter to provide extra warmth.

Local native species planted in a water wise garden. Other – Solar hot water system, low use water devices, low VOC paint and

cabinetry to reduce harmful off gassing.

Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 ‘Determination of Application – General Provisions’ Clause 39 ‘Determination of Application for Demolition’ Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P8 ‘Carlisle Precinct’. Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS); and


11.1 15 11.1

The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements:

Item Relevant Provision

Requirement Proposed Compliance

Primary Street Setback

Clause 3.2.1 of LPPS

3.0m min. 4.55m min. Complies 6.0m avg. 6.47m avg.

Setback of Garage


4.5m min.

4.55m min.

Complies

Garage Design


Not project >1m forward of façade Max. width of 57% of frontage

0.5m projection 31.9% of frontage

Complies

Boundary Setbacks

Clause 6.3.1 of R Codes

Varies from 1.0m to 1.5m

All walls meet or exceed applicable requirement with exception of shower wall, which is setback 1.0m in lieu of a 1.2m requirement.

Non-compliant. Supported, as minor variation and no objection to setback has been raised by the affected neighbour.

Open Space


50% min.

73.5%

Complies

Access and Parking


2 bays

2 bays

Complies

Building Height


6.0m max. wall height to walls below pitched roof; 7.0m max. wall height to walls with a concealed/skillion roof; 9.0m max. ridge height to top of pitched roof

Max. wall height of 5.5m high to walls below pitched roof; Max. wall height of 7.0m to portions of dwelling with concealed/skillion roof; Max. ridge height of 7.0m

Complies


11.1 16 11.1

Visual Privacy


Major openings to bedrooms with a FFL of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback from the boundary a min. distance of 4.5m within cone of vision

Bedroom 4 windows/french doors setback 2.0m from No. 80 Planet Street, within cone of vision

Non-Compliant – Extent of variation considered unacceptable. Condition recommended to be applied to any forthcoming approval for the windows/french doors to be screened or the Bed 4 FFL reduced to less than 0.5m above NGL in order to comply.

Building Design


In keeping with scale and character of streetscape and designed in sympathy with existing built form particularly in terms of materials, colours, scale, form and roof pitch (hipped roof, red/cream facebrick, windows of traditional size and proportions, articulated front elevation)

Dwelling incorporates full length windows of modern/ contemporary design. Front elevation is dominated by a large gable roof element that runs parallel to Planet Street which lacks articulation and is inconsistent with surrounding development. Visible wall height is approximately 2.5m high and of lesser height than the roof structure above.

Non-compliant. Refer Comments section below.

Demolition of existing dwelling


Replacement development to contribute positively to streetscape and be an appropriate replacement for traditional character dwelling.

Refer above.

As above – Refer Comments section below for criteria used to determine acceptability of demolition.


11.1 17 11.1

Submissions: Community Consultation: Assessment of the original plans submitted as part of the application identified several non-compliant matters with regard to boundary setback and building height requirements, which required consultation to be undertaken with surrounding property owners for 14 days.

One submission was received during the consultation period from the owner/occupant of 80 Planet Street on 11 May 2012, stating no objection to the proposal with the exception of the non-compliant building height to the top of a concealed roof portion of the dwelling. Subsequent discussion held between the applicant and this owner and the Town’s Officers resulted in the submission of amended plans on 16 May 2012, amending the subject portion of the dwelling roof from a concealed (skillion) roof, to an off-centre gable element, effectively reducing the wall height of this portion of the dwelling to a compliant 5.0 metres.

It should be noted that the variation proposed to the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes identified above in relation to the Bedroom 4 windows/french doors closest to the boundary with 80 Planet Street was not raised with the owner/occupier of 80 Planet Street during the consultation process. In view of this oversight and given the extent of the proposed variation which may result in undue loss of privacy and overlooking into the rear yard on this adjoining property, the Council may only contemplate approval of the application (without further consultation) if a condition is included requiring the subject windows/french doors being modified to comply with visual privacy requirements or the finished floor level of the dwelling being reduced to less than 0.5m above the natural ground level immediately below the windows/french doors.

Policy Implications: No impact Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: The applicant contents that there will be sustainability benefits gained through the proposed design, internal finish, fittings, selection of building services and plants for the proposed dwelling.

COMMENT: The application proposes the demolition of the original metal and weatherboard dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a single-storey house. Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and Local Planning Policy – Streetscape has a presumption against the demolition of pre-1945 dwellings, unless there are compelling reasons to justify demolition. This and other relevant issues are considered further below.


11.1 18 11.1

Demolition of Existing Dwelling Assessment of the subject application by Council’s Urban Planning Unit has acknowledged the direction adopted by the Council as part of its current review of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS) which is not to require the retention of dwellings in Carlisle and Lathlain, except where they are located within an identified ‘Character Streetscape’. The subject dwelling does not comprise part of a ‘Character Streetscape’ identified as part of this review. Whilst the above is acknowledged, it does not diminish or reduce the requirements of the LPPS which seek to ensure that new development is in keeping with the scale and character of existing development and that it has been designed in a sympathetic matter having regard to its context within the streetscape. Replacement Development Council’s LPPS require new development to respect existing development with regard to roof shapes, heights, pitches, materials and window design. It also requires new development to be sufficiently articulated/provide interest and to not overly dominate or adversely affect the streetscape by way of undue bulk or scale. These and other matters are considered as follows: Roof Form – A mixture of roof forms is proposed inconsistent with the Acceptable

Development Standards of the LPPS. The proposal also incorporates a large gable roof running parallel to the street which overly dominates and contributes to the perceived bulk and scale of the building. The large visible raking side of this roof element is not provided with any relief or articulation that may otherwise be possible through the incorporation of dormer windows, gablets or filial treatments. The relative blandness of this design and the orientation of the gable roof portion of the dwelling is inconsistent with the scale and character of housing predominating within the streetscape, that consists of predominantly hipped roof dwellings and relatively minor gable roofs, which are for the most part oriented with their gable end facing the street.

Wall Height – The replacement dwelling is proposed to have a visible wall height of approximately 2.5m high, which is out of keeping with existing surrounding development which ranges from 2.8 to 3.5 metres high. This low wall height emphasises the dominance of the large gable roof above which measures 3.2m in height, and is considered to give the building a squat and top-heavy appearance.

Window Design – The majority of dwellings found within the streetscape are provided with windows on their front elevations of traditional size and shape, being vertically oriented, with most openings occurring at waist height and having visible wall/brickwork above the opening. The proposed dwelling features full length windows consisting of glass louvres and a french door with adjoining sidelight panel. These windows are inconsistent with the Acceptable Development Standard of the LPPS and do not reflect the character or scale of windows that are found on the majority of front elevations of dwellings found elsewhere within the streetscape.

Sustainability Benefits of Proposed Dwelling Design In response to discussions held with Council Officers during assessment of the application the applicant submitted a statement outlining the proposed environmental benefits and sustainability measures incorporated into the dwelling design.


11.1 19 11.1

Aside from the benefits gained through the rear split-gable and skillion portions of roof that maximise light penetration, the majority of measures identified in the applicant’s justification relate to non-design related matters or matters that could be reasonably incorporated into a conventionally designed home. These include measures such as concrete floors to improve thermal mass, windows that open at the top and bottom to allow the flow of hot and cool air, the planting of deciduous vines and trees, use of native vegetation and selection of renewable/ energy efficient air and water cooling/heating systems. Such measures have no bearing on the roof form, visible wall height or articulation provided to the front elevation of the dwelling. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed louvre windows, being full length and able to open to 90 degrees will maximise ventilation, it is considered questionable whether their inclusion in the ensuite bathroom will contribute significantly to cross-ventilation of the dwelling as a whole and the applicant has not responded favourably to requests to include traditionally proportioned windows in combination with the proposed louvre windows. The solid rear and side garage walls would also appear as prime locations for additional windows (including for cross-ventilation purposes given their alignment with the main living areas of the house) which would also relieve these blank walls and add further interest and articulation to the front elevation. CONCLUSION: The proposed design of the dwelling is considered to lack sufficient articulation and is not considered to have been designed in sympathy with surrounding development within the streetscape, particularly with regard to its front elevation which is considered to have an adverse effect upon the streetscape by virtue of its large and unrelieved dominant roof form, low visible wall height and lack of any traditionally proportioned windows that would provide the dwelling with a more conventional appearance that would sit more comfortably within the existing streetscape. Whilst the proposal may have been designed having regard to several sustainable design principles, the majority of claims made by the applicant regarding its environmental benefits relate to non-design related matters that bear little relationship to the provisions outlined in the LPPS, and could reasonably be incorporated into the design of a new dwelling designed in accordance with Policy requirements. It is also noted that a house incorporating traditional design elements may also be capable of performing to a high environmental standard and the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to the contrary. It should also be noted that one of the Objectives of the Town’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape is “sustainable designs and innovative designs are encouraged; however regard is still to be given to maintaining design compatibility with the existing and desired streetscape character.” Planning staff are of the view that the proposed development does not meet this Objective of the Policy, in which case the application cannot be supported. In view of the above the demolition of the existing dwelling at 78 Planet Street and its replacement with a new single storey Single House is recommended for refusal.


11.1 20 11.1

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S. & D. Fels on behalf of S. & D. Fels (BA/DA Ref: 12/0196) for Single House at No. 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as indicated on the plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Refused for the following reasons:

1.1 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 36(5) –

‘Determination of Application – General Provisions’, with particular reference to the following subclauses: (a) the provisions of this Scheme and of any other written law applying within

the Scheme area including the Metropolitan Region Scheme; (b) any relevant planning policy; (c) any relevant precinct plan; (g) the orderly and proper planning of the locality; (h) the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and (i) the design, scale and relationship to existing buildings and surroundings of

any proposed building or structure;

1.2 Non-compliance with Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 39 ‘Determination of Application for Demolition’, having regard to the matters listed in Clause 36(5) of the Scheme;

1.3 The proposal is inconsistent with the Statement of Intent contained in Precinct

Plan P8 ‘Carlisle Precinct’ which encourages the retention and restoration of existing dwellings that contribute to the character of the precinct and promotes new development that complements the scale, materials and character of existing dwellings;

1.4 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A1 of the Local

Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling has not been designed in sympathy with the existing built form and streetscape, having regard to the prevailing scale, form and roof pitch of existing development within the streetscape;

1.5 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A2.1 of the Local

Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposal does not meet any of the identified circumstances where demolition of an existing dwelling may be considered acceptable;

1.6 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.9 ‘Retention of Dwelling’ A2.2 of the Local

Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the proposed dwelling is not considered to contribute positively to the streetscape in which the development is set and as it is not considered to be an appropriate replacement for the traditional character dwelling proposed for demolition;


11.1 21 11.1

1.7 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 “Building Design” P1 of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the design of the proposed dwelling achieves a high degree of sustainability through energy conscious design, building design or materials choices, compared to that of a dwelling designed in accordance with the Acceptable Development Criteria (Clause 3.2.11 A1.1) of the Local Planning Policy – Streetscape; and

1.8 Non-compliance with Clause 3.2.11 “Building Design” A1 of the Local Planning

Policy – Streetscape, with regard to the roof form and pitch, visible wall height, and design of windows facing the street of the proposed dwelling.

Advice to Applicant:

1.9 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist

under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.

2. Those persons who made a submission in respect to the application being advised of

the Council’s decision. NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:

1.1 The roof of that portion of the dwelling indicated in red on the approved

drawings, being modified to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.

1.2 The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to

a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. 1.3 The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or

modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. 1.4 Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials

to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained.


11.1 22 11.1

1.5 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).

1.6 Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be

constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary.

1.7 Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a

height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval.

1.8 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in

front of the building line is not permitted. 1.9 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and

all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.

1.10 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as

the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.11 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5

metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm,

and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets.

1.12 Removal, lopping or pruning of any verge tree affected by the

development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicant’s cost.


11.1 23 11.1

1.13 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)

1.14 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly

landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program.

1.15 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.

1.16 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving,

liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.

1.17 Existing crossovers that are not used as part of the development or

redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program.

1.18 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,

landscaping and other details and amendments as shown in red on the approved site plan.

1.19 External fixtures, including but not restricted to airconditioning units,

satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, secondary street or right-of-way.

1.20 External clothes drying facilities are to be screened from view from the

street or any other public place. 1.21 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated

to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.

1.22 All building works to be carried out under this planning approval are

required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.23 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health and Street Life

and Park Life requirements. Advice to applicant 1.24 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be

submitted for demolition.


11.1 24 11.1

1.25 In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is

issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.

1.26 With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements

of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.

1.27 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will

render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.

1.28 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this planning

approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.

1.29 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may

exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn That condition 1.1 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: Energy efficient design.


11.1 25 11.1

NEW MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by S and D Fels (DA Ref: 12/0196) for a Single House at 78 (Lot 304) Planet Street, Carlisle as shown on plans dated received 16 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:

1.1 The visible wall height of the front part of the dwelling being increased to

a minimum of 2.8 metres above ground level. 1.2 The north-east facing Bedroom 4 windows/doors being deleted or

modified to comply with Clause 6.8.1 A1 of the Residential Design Codes. 1.3 Complete details of the proposed external colours, finishes and materials

to be used in the construction of the buildings and fencing are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of an application for building permit. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be thereafter maintained.

1.4 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all

relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; Street Life; Park Life; Environmental Health; Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).

1.5 Not more than one brick pier (350mm X 350mm maximum size) is to be

constructed within any 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncation area adjacent to the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary.

1.6 Fencing on side boundaries forward of the building line is not to exceed a

height of 1.2 metres and may be constructed of either brick, limestone, pickets, wrought iron, colorbond or fibro cement sheeting. Such fencing shall be detailed on the working drawings to be submitted to the Council in accordance with Condition No. 5 of this approval.

1.7 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting, in

front of the building line is not permitted.


11.1 26 11.1

1.8 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.


the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.10 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5

metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the front property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets of a maximum width of 80mm, a maximum thickness of 20mm,

and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the pickets.


development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Manager Park Life Program at the applicant’s cost.

1.12 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be

landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)

1.13 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area of the front unit is to be softly

landscaped. Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling whichever occurs first and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Park Life Program.

1.14 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.

1.15 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving,

liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.



1.17 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,



11.1 27 11.1




street or any other public place. 1.20 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated

to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.


required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.22 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health and Street Life

and Park Life requirements. Advice to applicant 1.23 A separate application for planning approval will be required to be

submitted for demolition. 1.24 In regards to Condition No. 4, where a Council Building Surveyor is

issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.

1.25 With regards to Condition No. 15 the following are minimum requirements

of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.

1.26 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers will

render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.




11.1 28 11.1

1.28 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

11.1

Meeting off Council MMinutes

29

12 JJune 2012

11.1

2

Ordinary M

11.2

5311.2 File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl Non-

prop Cons

‘Com Reco TABLED Appl Plan Appl Cons Phot DETAILSThe appliStreet andoutside of The widthfrontage tin a traditStreet an(Cookham

Meeting of

(Lot 1) G



missibility:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication for -compliant

posed secosultation u

mmunity Coommended

ITEMS: lication for

ns date stalicants supsultation letographs o

: cation prod secondaf the Resid

h of the loto Cookhamtional mannd Outdoom Road) fro

f Council M

Gallipoli

GANoT De26

Ref: 12UrRePrSi

: ‘P 6 JC.

er: R.nt: Siry: – Approva

r a single st with provondary streundertakenonsultationd that varia

r Planning Amped rece

pporting wretters to adof subject s

poses a sary street fdential Cha

ot frontagem Road (inner with th

or Living Aontage of t

Minutes

Street, L

ALL53 o l Pola evrite Cons6 March 202/0197 rban esidential Rrecinct P7 ngle House’ use

June 2012 Buttle Cruickshample Majo

al torey Singisions of L

eet setbackn for 14 n’ with no sations to se

Approval Feived 25 Mritten statemdjoining ansite.

single storefrontage toaracter Stu

e to Gallipncluding trhe front enArea and the develop

30

Lathlain

structions 012

R20 ‘Lathlain’e

2

ank ority

le House oLocal Plannk. days in a

submissionecondary s

Form datedMay 2012.

ment datedd surround

ey Single o Cookhamdy Area.

poli Street runcation) ntrance and

Garage opment site

– Single

Pty Ltd

on a vacanning Policy

accordancens receivedstreet setb

d 26 March

d 22 Marchding prope

House witm Road. T

is 13.42 is 50.29 md an assocorientated .

House

nt corner loy – Streets

e with Cod. ack be sup

h 2012.

h 2012. rty owners

h primary The subjec

metres anmetres. Th

ciated veratoward th

12 J

ot. scape with

ouncil Pol

pported in

s dated 1 M

frontage tct property

nd the lene house isanda facinhe second

June 2012

11.2

respect to

icy GEN3

part.

May 2012.

to Gallipoliis located

gth of thes designedng Gallipolidary street

2

2

o

3

i d

e d i t


11.2 31 11.2

The proposed dwelling incorporates variations to the 3.0 metre minimum secondary street (Cookham Road) setback specified in Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape as identified below: (a) 15.37 metre long section of dwelling comprising veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe /

ensuite – 3.0m minimum setback prescribed – 2.32m setback proposed. (b) 6.2 metre long section of dwelling to alfresco – 3.0m minimum setback prescribed –

2.32m setback proposed. For each of the components of the building referred to above, the roof projects a further 500mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the veranda / retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite and a further 600mm towards the secondary street lot boundary in the case of the alfresco. Legal Compliance: Relevant General Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regards to the following general provisions of the Scheme: Clause 36 of the Scheme Text - Determination of Application – General Provisions; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P7 ‘Lathlain’; and Compliance with Development Requirements TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes (R Codes); and Local Planning Policy – Streetscape (LPPS). The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements:



Primary Street Setback (Gallipoli Street)


3.0m minimum 3.0m minimum Compliant

6.0m average 6.0m average

Secondary Street Setback (Cookham Road)


3.0m minimum 2.32m minimum Non-compliant (refer to Comment section below)

Boundary Setbacks (other than street)

Clause 6.3.1 of R-Codes

1.0 & 1.5 metres

1.0 & 1.5 metres Compliant


11.2 32 11.2



Boundary Walls Clause A1 iii. of LPPBW

9.0m max. length 3.0m max. height 2.7m avg. height

8.9m length 2.8m max height 2.8m avg. height

Satisfies Performance Criteria of Policy (no response received from neighbour to consultation and no adverse impact on adjoining property)

Open Space Clause 6.4.1 of R-Codes

50% minimum of site area. (334.5m2)

51% (339m2)

Compliant

Site Works Clause 6.6.1 of R-Codes

Excavation or filling between the street alignment and building or within 3.0m from the street boundary not to exceed 500mm above the natural ground level.

Filling behind

street setback line and within 1.0m of a common property boundary not to exceed 500mm above the corresponding natural ground level.

Filling of 220mm maximum within street alignment (Gallipoli Street)

Filling of

250mm maximum within 1.0m of the southern property boundary

Compliant Compliant

Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)

Clause 6.7.1 of R-Codes

6.0m maximum wall height (2 storeys) and 9.0m maximum for top of pitched roof

Single storey wall height of up to 4.0 metres and ridge height of up to 6.0 metres.

Compliant


11.2 33 11.2



Visual Privacy Clause 6.8.1 of R-Codes

Unscreened major openings & outdoor areas with floor level of 0.5m or more above NGL to be setback a minimum of: 4.5m for bedrooms; 6.0m for living areas; 7.5m for balconies.

No overlooking proposed as floor levels not raised more than 500mm above natural ground level.

Compliant

Street Fences (Primary Street – Gallipoli Street)


Fencing forward of the building line to be open style.

‘Open style’ fencing to Gallipoli Street. Width and length dimensions of piers on either side of pedestrian gate non-compliant with 460mm maximum specified in LPPS.

Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring width and length dimensions of piers to not exceed 460mm.

Street Fences (Secondary Street – Cookham Road)


Masonry fencing incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar.

Solid unarticulated masonry fencing of 1.8 metres in height.

Compliant subject to recommended conditions of approval requiring incorporation of articulation into design of fence.

Submissions: Community Consultation: In accordance with Council’s GEN3 ‘Community Consultation’ Policy, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period, with letters being sent to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. No responses were received in response to this consultation. Policy Implications: The proposed development has implications with respect to Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape, which are detailed further in the ‘Comment’ section of the report, below.


11.2 34 11.2

Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The design of the proposed dwelling satisfactorily addresses the majority of the requirements found within the R-Codes and Council Policy, with the exception of proposed setbacks to the secondary street frontage of the development site. Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape specifies the requirement for a 3.0 metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage where a property has frontage to more than one street. In this instance, significant portions of the dwelling have setbacks of less than 3.0 metres to Cookham Road, being: A setback of 2.32 metres to a 15.37 metre long section of wall comprising veranda /

retreat / bed 1 / robe / ensuite; and A setback of 2.32 metres to a 6.2 metre long section of wall comprising an alfresco

located under the main roof of the dwelling. A solid masonry wall of 1.8 metres in height is proposed to be constructed along the majority of the Cookham Road frontage of the development site. Notwithstanding the provision of this wall, the dwelling remains highly visible from Cookham Road, having regard to its raised floor to ceiling heights (2.914m) and finished floor level which is raised around 400 - 500mm above existing natural ground level. During the preparation of a design for this site, the designer made contact with the Town’s Urban Planning Unit to discuss design parameters for the site, including requirements related to the secondary street setback of the dwelling. During these discussions, Town staff explained the requirements contained within Local Planning Policy – Streetscape in relation to the provision of a 3.0 metre minimum secondary street setback. During these discussions, Town staff explained that minor variations to portions of the dwelling facing the secondary street may be favourably considered if it could be demonstrated that: the appearance of the dwelling would be improved through increased articulation

(variation to the alignment of the walls on this side of the dwelling) as opposed to a design which incorporated long lengths of building on the same 3.0 metre setback alignment; and

any proposed setback reductions proposed would not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining properties or the locality generally.


11.2 35 11.2

Following these discussions, draft concept plans were not provided to the Town for comment in advance of the submission of a formal application for planning approval. A subsequent assessment of the submitted formal application for planning approval showed that the preliminary advice provided had not been reflected in the design which had been prepared for the site. Rather than using a 3.0 metre setback as a ‘starting point’ with the possibility of small portions of the building projecting to a lesser setback to add to the visual interest of the building, the design incorporates a 2.32 metre setback with (small) portions of the building then being provided with an increased setback of 3.0 metres. Having regard to the requirements contained within Council Policy, preliminary advice provided during the preparation of the design for this site, and the characteristics of the Lathlain locality (low density development with houses situated on lots with generous setbacks and landscaped surrounds), it is considered appropriate that an increased setback of 3.0 metres minimum be provided to a greater proportion of the secondary street frontage of the dwelling than that which is currently proposed. This position has been conveyed to the applicant who has been reluctant to change the design, and accordingly the matter has now been referred to Council for determination. Possible design options that have been considered include: (a) Reducing the finished floor level (which is currently somewhat elevated above

natural ground level) to reduce the overall impact of the dwelling as viewed from Cookham Road; or

(b) Increasing the setbacks to portions of the wall which runs between the veranda and the ensuite. For example, the setback of the portion of wall comprising the ensuite and the robe could be increased or the setback of the section of wall comprising bed 1 and the robe could be increased.

The most preferable of these alternatives is for an increase in the setback of the section of wall from bed 1 to the robe from 2.32 metres to 3.0 metres as it provides the greatest benefit in terms of increasing the visual articulation and interest of the building as viewed from Cookham Road. Such a design change would result in the ‘stepping’ in and out of the building as follows: Veranda and retreat (5.9 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres; then Bed 1 and robe (6.3 metres in length) – setback of 3.0 metres; then Ensuite (3.0 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres; then Wine store and Dining Room (6.1 metres in length) – setback of 3.0 metres; then Alfresco (6.1 metres in length) – setback of 2.32 metres. The stepping would occur not only in the wall, but importantly also in the roof form. As shown above, significant portions of the dwelling would still maintain setbacks of less than the 3.0 metre minimum specified within Council Policy, even with the design change that has been advocated. Increasing the setback to bed 1 and the robe would not unduly comprise the functionality of the dwelling, as each of the affected spaces has been designed with very generous proportions.


11.2 36 11.2

CONCLUSION: Having regard to the advice contained within this report, and in particular: Provisions of Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape which specify a 3.0

metre minimum setback to a secondary street frontage; Advice which was provided by the Town’s Officers during the design development

phase of plans for a new dwelling at this site; Improved appearance which would result from a design which incorporated greater

articulation to the secondary street frontage; and Overall compatibility with the surrounding Lathlain locality which is characterised by

a low density of development with dwellings on larger lots situated within landscaped surrounds;

It has been demonstrated that benefit would be achieved by the design being modified. Accordingly, a condition of planning approval has been formulated which requires the setback of the section of the dwelling comprising bed 1 and ensuite to be increased to a 3.0 metre minimum, in accordance with the provisions contained within Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape. While this condition does require a modification to the proposed design, it is considered reasonable for the reasons described above and in view of the setback variations being supported by planning staff to other portions of the building fronting Cookham Road. FURTHER COMMENTS: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012, comments were made in respect to the lot width (13.42m) being a justification for the reduced setback to Cookham Road. This has been acknowledged by Urban Planning staff and forms the reasoning for support for the majority of the proposed setback variation to Cookham Road. However it is considered that the proposed 15.37m long wall containing veranda/retreat/bed 1/robe/ensuite is excessively long at the reduced setback, and the impact of the reduced setback would be minimised if a portion was to have an increased setback. Therefore notwithstanding condition 1.1, a significant setback variation to separate walls of a combined length of 21.1m, is still being supported by Urban Planning staff given the lot frontage. There was also discussion at the Elected Members Briefing Session in respect to the possibility of portions of the fence along Cookham Road being modified to open style fencing. While this would be preferable from a visual surveillance perspective and would provide greater visual interest than an entirely solid 1.8m high wall to the Cookham Road frontage, this would not resolve the impact of the proposed reduced setback. To the contrary, the modification of portions of the fence from a solid fence to open style fencing would result in the proposed walls at the reduced setback to Cookham Road being more visible and prominent. Even as currently proposed, the walls of the dwelling will project approximately 1.3m above the top of the proposed 1.8m high solid fence, plus the roof above. Therefore it is considered that the wall of the dwelling, even behind a solid 1.8m high fence, would be highly visible, and the impact would be further exacerbated at the reduced setback and excessive wall length proposed.


11.2 37 11.2

It is again drawn to the attention of Elected Members that Urban Planning staff has suggested three different alternatives to the applicant in return for the setback variations being supported to Cookham Road. The applicant has not been prepared to make any compromises to the design of the dwelling, yet seeks support for the full extent of the proposed setback variations. The imposition of condition 1.1, while requiring design modifications, is a reasonable compromise position, and would result in more visual interest in the elevation. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and

the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:

1.1 Modified drawings shall be submitted in conjunction with the application for

a Building Permit, with such drawings incorporating an increased setback to Cookham Road to the approximately 6.2 metre long section of the dwelling comprising Bed 1 and Ensuite from 2.32 metres as proposed to 3.0 metres minimum. The setback of the roof above this portion of the dwelling shall be set back correspondingly.

1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant

Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit:

Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).

1.3 The street verge between the kerb and the property boundary is to be landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)

1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped.

Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program.

1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and



11.2 38 11.2

1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the

required new fencing is to be erected.

1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements:

(i) Primary Street - (a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of

600mm above natural ground level; (b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of

460mm x 460mm; and (c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style.

(ii) Secondary Street - (a) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural

ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and

(b) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below.

Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit.

1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:

(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a

maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail.

1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent

damage or collapse of any adjacent streets, right-of-way or adjoining properties. It is the responsibility of the builder to liaise with adjoining owners and if necessary obtain consent prior to carrying out work.

1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid

limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.



1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the

building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans.


11.2 39 11.2



1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common

boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51

Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.


street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to

the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.


required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and

Park Life requirements.

Advice to Applicant

1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.



1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life

Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.

1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing

the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.


11.2 40 11.2

1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Potter The officer's recommendation of approval with condition 1.1 of the officer’s recommendation be deleted, and replaced with a new condition 1.1 to read, “The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part, along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning”. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: To encourage open style fencing and for safety factors along the Cookham Street frontage. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. In accordance with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and

the Metropolitan Region Scheme, the application submitted by Devrite Constructions Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0197) for a Single House at No. 53 Gallipoli Street, Lathlain as shown on the plans dated 25 May 2012 be Approved subject to the following conditions:

1.1 The open style front fence facing Gallipoli Street to be extended, in part,

along the Cookham Street frontage, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.

1.2 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all relevant

Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit: Urban Planning; and Street Life. Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).


landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Director Renew Life Program. (Refer related Advice Note)


11.2 41 11.2

1.4 A minimum of 50% of the front setback area is to be softly landscaped.

Landscaping is to be installed prior to occupation of the building and subsequently maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life Program.

1.5 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and


1.6 The existing boundary fencing shall not be removed, until such time as the

required new fencing is to be erected.

1.7 Drawings submitted for a Building Permit to demonstrate compliance with the following fencing requirements: (i) Primary Street -

(a) solid portion of wall or fence to be a maximum height of 600mm above natural ground level;

(b) piers to have maximum width and length dimensions of 460mm x 460mm; and

(c) upper portion of wall / fence to be of open style. (ii) Secondary Street -

(c) Solid fencing to a height of 1.8 metres above natural ground level incorporating articulation to include vertical elements such as piers or similar; and

(d) Fencing truncated adjacent to intersection of driveway and property boundary in accordance with condition 1.7, below. Full detail of infill panels and permeable fencing adjacent to the intersection of the driveway and the property boundary to be provided in conjunction with the application for a Building Permit.

1.8 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre

visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Cookham Road property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:

(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); (ii) wrought iron or similar metal tubing style infill fencing; and/or (iii) pickets or horizontal rails of a maximum width of 80mm, a

maximum thickness of 20mm, and being spaced a minimum gap of 40mm and a maximum gap of 80% of the width of the picket or rail.

1.9 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent



11.2 42 11.2

1.10 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.



1.12 External colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the

building are to be in accordance with the colour schedule date stamped approved 12 June 2012, attached with the approved plans.


satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the Primary Street, Secondary Street or right-of-way.

1.14 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary wall adjoining the common

boundary with No. 51 Gallipoli Street. 1.15 The surface of the boundary walls on the common boundary with No. 51

Gallipoli Street to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.


street or any other public place. 1.17 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number allocated to

the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.


required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot. 1.19 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life and

Park Life requirements.

Advice to Applicant

1.20 With regards to Condition No 1.9, the following are minimum requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.




11.2 43 11.2

1.22 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.

1.23 In regards to Condition No. 1.2, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing

the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit a separate application (Form TVP2) for the approval of Council Business Units. This form is available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.

1.24 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal may

exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.


Ordinary M

11.2


44

12 JJune 2012

11.2

2

2

Ordinary M

11.3

3011.3Dw

File ReferAppendicLandownApplicantApplicatiDA/BA orMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS PrecUse ClasUse Perm Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm Appl Non-

No. to pway

ConsCou2012were

Conscons“Rap

TABLED Deve Plan Cons Subm

and Corr Resp Minu

Janu Minu Aeria

Meeting of

-34 (Lotwellings



missibility:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –lication for -compliant1, Residenlot ratio, bsetback, vsultation wncil Policy2 and close received.sidered thsistent witphael Prec

ITEMS: elopment a

ns and elevsultation wmissions f20 April 2

respondenponse fromutes of theuary 2012 utes of the al photogra

f Council M

t 336) C

CANoSKCa8 M

Ref: 12UrRePrMu

: ‘P 25I. A

er: R.nt: Abry: – Approva

r 15 Multiplt with the pntial Desigbuilding hevisual privawith surrouy GEN3 ‘Cosed on 30 . at the formh the des

cinct” and w

applicationvations datwith adjoinifrom surro2012; ce to Main

m Main Roae Design and 13 FeFormal De

aph of the

Minutes

Canning

ANN30-34o KS Canninampion DeMarch 201

2/0158 rban esidential Rrecinct P5 ultiple Dwe’ use

5 May 2012Ahmad Cruicksha

bsolute Ma

al subject e Dwellingprovisions n Codes a

eight, bounacy and veunding proommunity April 2012

m, quality sired charwill make a

n form dateted receiveng ownersunding ow

n Roads Wads WesteReview Cbruary 201esign Revilocality.

45

Highwa

g Pty Ltdesign Grou2

R60 ‘Raphael Pellings

2

ank ajority

to conditgs;

of Town oand Local Pndary setbehicle acceoperty ownConsultati2. Over th

and apperacter of ta significan

ed 8 Marched 8 Marchs & occupiewners and

Western Ausern AustralCommittee 12; ew Comm

ay, Victo

p

Precinct’

ions

of Victoria Planning P

back, secoss. ners and ion’ for 14

he commen

arance of the area ont and high

h 2012; h 2012; ers dated 1occupiers

stralia dateia dated reMeeting

ittee Meet

oria Park

Park TowPolicy – Strndary stre

occupiers days com

nt period,

the propooutlined inquality str

13 April 20dated rec

ed 5 April 2eceived 18dated 7 D

ing dated 2

12 J

k – 15

wn Planninreetscape

eet setback

in accordmmenced o

three (3)

osed develn Precinctreetscape

12; ceived 19 A

2012; 8 April 2012December

24 April 20

June 2012

11.3

Multiple

g Schemein relation

k, right-of-

dance withon 13 Aprilobjections

lopment ist Plan P5outcome

April 2012

2; 2011; 18

012 and

2

3

e

e n -

h l s

s 5

2

8


11.3 46 11.3

BACKGROUND: On 12 December 2006, a development application for Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings on the subject property was approved at the Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting. This approval has since expired. It should be noted that the previous approved development of Seven (7) Multiple Dwellings is identical to the current proposal in terms of built form and site planning. The previously approved Seven Multiple Dwellings were based on the previous Residential Design Codes where a residential density control was applied. However, as part of the review of the Residential Design Codes 2010, the density control requirements were removed for Multiple Dwellings, where located in areas coded R30 or greater (the subject site is zoned as R60). As such, an additional eight (8) Multiple Dwellings have been proposed, resulting in a total of 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject site. The applicant submitted preliminary concept plans which were discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting held on 7 December 2011, 18 January 2012 and 13 February 2012 in order to obtain feedback from Council Officers and Council’s Design Review Committee (DRC). The following points were raised by the DRC members and Council’s officers: Overall, the proposal provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective

owners, occupiers and the surrounding properties. Notwithstanding that the plot ratio exceeds the 10% permitted variation, the plot ratio

variation can be supported given the design merit of the proposal and that the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form.

Notwithstanding that Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken from right-of-way; DRC and Council’s officers may consider access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac.

The Committee has no reservations on the proposed height of four (4) storeys and stepping down to three (3) storeys towards the adjoining properties at 36 Canning Highway as it provides a smooth transition of building height from the south-western to north-eastern adjoining properties.

The Design Review Committee has considered the application, and at a formal meeting held on 24 April 2012 resolved to recommend support of the application subject to conditions. DETAILS: Council has received a planning application for 15 Multiple Dwellings on the subject property. The subject site has a lot size of 1286m2 and is currently vacant. The subject lot is bounded by Canning Highway (north-west), Washington Street (north-east) and a 5.0m wide right-of-way at the rear of the property. In addition, the site is located at the northern end of Washington Street which is terminated by a cul-de-sac.


11.3 47 11.3

It is particularly worth noting that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building which is immediately abutting the subject property to the south-west (36 Canning Highway) and a site containing two (2), three (3) and five (5) storey buildings to the north-east (7-11 Heirisson Way), separated by Washington Street. The two storey building at 7-11 Heirisson Way (closest to Washington Street) has a semi-undercroft carpark which is substantially raised above the natural ground level to create the impression of a three storey height whilst the presence of a 5 storey building on this adjoining property creates a streetscape with varying building heights along this portion of Canning Highway. To the south-east of the subject property (adjacent to the right-of-way), there are two storey Grouped Dwellings at 7, 9 & 11 Washington Street. The proposed development is summarised as follows: The proposed building is to accommodate 15 Multiple Dwellings which comprise nine

(9) two bedroom units and six (6) Single Bedroom Dwellings; The proposed building is to have a maximum height of four (4) storeys which is

confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary;

In addition, a basement car park is proposed to accommodate 15 car bays for the residents with vehicular access to and from the basement car parking to be taken from Washington Street;

Four (4) visitor car bays are proposed at the rear of the building with vehicular access to be taken from the right-of-way;

Pedestrian access is provided via Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-of-way;

The development also features a lift and staircase secured at ground level for the access of residents to all levels of the building.

The proposed building is configured to maximise the street frontages (Canning Highway, Washington Street and right-of-way) through extensive use of balconies and glazing and orientation of living areas of individual units. In addition, double glazing has also been introduced to alleviate any impact of traffic noise from Canning Highway. The building façade is articulated by a series of projections and recesses and employing a range of different materials and finishes and varying building heights to create visual interest to the building form. The proposed building incorporates redeeming traditional architectural features to reflect the character of existing dwellings predominant within the Raphael Precinct such as Zincalume roof with steep roof pitch, open eaves with exposed rafter ends and red face brickwork. Legal Compliance: Relevant Provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 In assessing and determining this application, Council is to have regard to the following general provisions of the Scheme:

Clause 38 of the Scheme Text; Statement of Intent contained in Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct’; and Policy 4.12 ‘Design Guidelines for Developments with Buildings above 3 Storeys’ of

the Policy Manual.


11.3 48 11.3

Compliance with Development Requirements

TPS 1 Scheme Text, Policy Manual and Precinct Plan; Residential Design Codes; Local Planning Policy – Streetscape; and Local Planning Policy – Boundary Walls.

The following is a summary of compliance with key development requirements: Item Permitted Proposed Compliance

Plot ratio

0.7 maximum (900.20m2)

0.84 (1075.26 m2)

Non-compliant (refer to Comments

section below) Primary Street Setback (Canning Highway)

6.0m average 3.0m minimum

6.2m average 4.1m minimum

Compliant

Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street)

3.0m minimum 1.5m minimum Non-compliant

(refer to Comments section below)

Right-of-way 5.0m from the centreline of the right-of-way

3.6m from the centreline of the right-of-way


section below)

Boundary Setback (to south-western boundary)

Ground floor wall – 1.7m minimum setback First floor wall– 2.3m minimum setback Second floor wall – 4.3m minimum setback

Ground floor wall– 4.0m setback First floor wall – 4.0m setback Second floor wall – 4.0m setback

Compliant

Compliant

Non-Compliant (refer to Comments

section below)

Open Space A minimum of 45% of site area (578.70m2 )

47.3%

(608m2) Compliant

On-site car parking for Multiple Dwellings: Small (<75 m2 or 1 bedroom) Medium (75-110 m2)

Parking to be provided at the following rate for Category A: 0.75 per dwelling @ 6 units = 5 bays 1 per dwelling @ 9 units = 9 bays

15 car bays provided for residents

Compliant


11.3 49 11.3

Visitors Bays Total required = 14 bays required for residents 0.25 bays per unit @ 15 units = 4 bays

4 car bays provided for visitors

Compliant

Bicycle bays 1 bicycle space to each 3 dwellings for residents; and 1 bicycle space to each 10 dwellings for visitors. 5 bays for residents 2 bays for visitors

6 bays provided; shortfall of 1 bay

Non-compliant This can be resolved as a condition of planning approval requiring a minimum of 5 and 2 on-site bicycle bays to be provided for the exclusive use of the residents and visitors respectively.

Vehicle Access

Vehicle access to be taken solely from the right-of-way where the lot has legal access to the subject right-of-way

Vehicle access to the basement car park to be taken from Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building.

Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below)

Building Height (measured from the natural ground level)

Maximum building height of 3 storeys.

Maximum building height of 4 storeys

Non-compliant (refer to Comments section below)

Visual Privacy

Balconies – 7.5m minimum setback from boundaries within the cone of vision

Unit 5 balcony (1st storey) – 5.7m to south-western boundary Unit 9 balcony (2nd storey) – 5.7m to south-western boundary


section below)


11.3 50 11.3

Solar Access

On adjoining properties coded R60 – 50% of the site area. – 36 Canning Hwy. A maximum of

105m2 shadowing permitted.

Outdoor Living Area – A minimum of 8m2 to be unaffected.

On adjoining properties coded R30 – 35% of the site area. 7 Washington St

– a maximum of 103.60m2 of overshadowing permitted.

33C Armagh St – A maximum of 85.75m2 of overshadowing permitted.

Outdoor Living Area – A minimum of 12m2 to be unaffected.

36 Canning Hwy 96.5m2 of

shadowing on lot.

12m2 + 43m2 of outdoor living area unaffected

7 Washington St 38.5m2 of

shadowing on lot.

Outdoor living area not affected.

33C Armagh St 82.42m2 of

shadowing on lot

Outdoor living area not affected

Compliant

Compliant

Compliant

Community Consultation As there are several variations proposed to the requirements of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, the proposal was the subject of consultation for a 14 day period in accordance with Council Policy GEN3 “Community Consultation”. This included letters to the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties that may be affected by the development. The consultation period commenced on 13 April 2012 and closed on 30 April 2012. Over the comment period, three (3) objections were received as summarised and considered by Council’s Urban Planning Business Unit in the below table. They are also included in full as Tabled Items to this report.


11.3 51 11.3

Consultation Submissions Objection from owner of 44 Canning Highway, Victoria Park

Comments Received Officer’s Comments

Building Height The building height variation will cause significant amount of overshadowing onto the adjoining property.

Secondary Street Setback (Washington Street) The secondary street setback variation will pose a fire risk to the adjoining properties located along Washington Street given that there are existing power poles/lines on the street verge.

Right-of-way setback The variation to the right-of-way setback requirement will result in further reduction of the right-of-way width which in turn, may impinge on vehicular access along the subject right-of-way.

Residential Density 15 Multiple Dwellings are considered to be excessive and will result in traffic and parking issues.

The proposed building will not result in

any overshadowing of south-western adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. The proposal complies with the solar access provision of the Residential Design Codes.

Any development, buildings and structures are to be contained within the property boundaries and are not permitted to encroach into Council’s verge. In addition, the portion of the building that encroaches within the 3.0m setback area of Washington Street is located at least 4.0m away from the nearest power lines. This is consistent with existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (7-11 Washington Street) which have building elements of similar reduced setbacks to Washington Street.

The proposed development will not

reduce the width of the existing right-of-way. All development, building and structures are setback at least 0.5m from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-of-way to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way and to facilitate access. It should be noted that the primary access to the residential car parking at the basement level is taken from Washington Street instead of the right-of-way whilst limited access has been provided via the right-of-way for the visitor car bays.

The proposal complies with the car

parking provision of the Residential Design Codes.


11.3 52 11.3

Objection from owners of 7 Washington Street, Victoria Park Comments Received Officer’s Comments

Use of Building

There is a potential for the units of the building to be used for specialized forms of accommodation (such as short term accommodation and Serviced Apartments) instead of Multiple Dwellings occupied on a permanent basis. Such alternative forms of accommodation may result in potential conflict between the short term residents and long term residents of the locality due to the transient nature of the accommodation.

Vehicular access and parking The proposed development will result in traffic and car parking issues along the subject right-of-way. The proposed 15 residential car bays and four (4) visitor car bays are deemed to be inadequate.

Building height The overall height of the building is deemed to be excessive.

Noted – A condition of planning

approval will be imposed to restrict the use of the residential units as Multiple Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval.

The primary vehicular access for the residential car parking is taken from Washington Street instead of the right-of-way. Given that there are only four (4) visitor car bays located at the rear of the building with vehicular access from the right-of-way, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in any significant increase to the traffic utilising this portion of the right-of-way. In relation to the number of car parking bays provided, the proposed development complies with the car parking requirement of the Residential Design Codes.

The proposed four (4) storey high

building component which is stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary will provide an acceptable transition from the existing buildings located on the north-eastern adjoining property which contains a five (5) storey building and the south-western adjoining property which comprises three (3) storey buildings. In addition, the proposed variation will not result in any overshadowing or overlooking onto the adjoining properties.


11.3 53 11.3

Visual privacy Proposed balconies facing the right-of-way will result in overlooking onto the adjoining property.

Plot ratio and street and boundary setbacks Variations to the plot ratio and street and boundary setback requirements signify that the proposal exceeds the building footprint limit.

The balconies and other major openings facing the right-of-way will not overlook any portion of the south-eastern adjoining property (7 Washington Street).

The proposed development is to be of

a bulk and scale that would reflect the existing or desired built form of the locality and that the intensity of the use on the site would not give rise to conditions that would be detrimental to the surrounding residents.

Objection from owners of 101/ 1-11 Heirisson Way, Victoria Park Comments Received Officer’s Comments

All the proposed variations are deemed to be unacceptable as it will have adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties.

The proposed plot ratio, setback and building height variations are deemed to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes. The proposed variations will be discussed in greater detail in the Comment section of this Report.

In addition, the application was referred to Main Roads Western Australia for comment given that the development is on land that abuts Canning Highway, which is reserved as a “Primary Regional Road” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is classified as a Category 3 road on map SP693/3 “Development Applications – Roads in the MRS under Main Roads Control”. On 18 April 2012, Council received a response from Main Roads indicating no objection to the proposed development subject to relevant conditions of approval being imposed. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city. In addition, the proposed development will result in the completion of development along the majority of this portion of Canning Highway, removing the current void in the streetscape. As such, this will provide increased surveillance of the streets. Cultural Issues: No impact


11.3 54 11.3

Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The proposal is broadly consistent with the requirements of Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Residential Design Codes, and the Design Review Committee has indicated its general agreement regarding the design merit of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, the proposal seeks several variations to the Residential Design Codes and Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as outlined above. The proposed variations will be considered as follows: Plot Ratio Under the provisions of the Residential Design Codes, a maximum plot ratio of 0.7 (900.2m2) is permitted. The development proposes a plot ratio of 0.84 (1075.26m2), which equates to 175.26m2 of excess floor area. It is acknowledged that in recent years, Council’s Planning Services and the Design Review Committee have typically been supportive of a plot ratio variation up to 10% variation where an application demonstrates a high quality of design and provides an excellent level of amenity for both prospective occupants and surrounding properties. However, in this instance, a plot ratio variation of 19% is proposed. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is a significant concession and beyond the extent of variation that has been previously supported for other applications, it is considered that the plot ratio variation is acceptable for the following reasons: The excess plot ratio is partly due to energy efficiency compliance where 300mm wide

external walls have been provided, resulting in an additional 80m2 of plot ratio floor area.

Notwithstanding that this proposal has an additional eight (8) residential units compared to the previous approved development, the plot ratio increment will not result in any additional building bulk compared to the previous approved building form. The applicant has demonstrated via an overlay of the building footprint of the previous approved floor plans over the proposed floor plans that the building envelope is similar to each other.

Given that the site is at a prominent location (in terms of its proximity to the ‘gateway’ from north-east and being a corner lot), the proposed development achieves a high quality design which will raise the benchmark for future developments along Canning Highway. The proposed development incorporates several traditional design elements which are predominant within the Raphael Precinct, whilst still adopting a contemporary approach to the building design which would accord with the quality and form of development envisaged for the site, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct’.

Each residential unit within the development is of a sufficient size to cater the needs of the residents and have been designed to incorporate generous living areas and balcony space in order to provide an acceptable level of amenity for prospective residents. The development provides a mix of single and two bedroom units which are designed to cater for the increasing trend in smaller household sizes namely, for singles and couples who wish to live in close proximity to the city.


11.3 55 11.3

The proposed development encourages an increase in the residential population of the part of Canning Highway and will ‘add variety and vitality to the area’, consistent with the Statement of Intent for the Raphael Precinct.

Building Height The proposed building has a maximum height of four storeys above a basement car park in lieu of the maximum permitted height of three storeys. The proposed four (4) storey high building component is confined to the eastern portion of the site and stepped down to three (3) storeys towards the south-western property boundary. It should be noted that the subject site is located between a three (3) storey building (south-west) and a site containing a five (5) storey building (north-east). As a result, a four (4) storey high building provides a transition from the three (3) to five (5) storey height recommended under the Council’s Urban Design Study. Given that the existing buildings along this portion of Canning Highway have varying building heights, the proposed four (4) storey high building component is considered to be acceptable. Based upon urban design principles, taller building element at street corners is considered desirable, and therefore it would be appropriate to permit additional building height for sites leading towards a taller building element at the street corner. Furthermore, setting the taller building element away from the common boundaries provides a more appropriate scale, minimising the impact of the new development on the existing dwellings. In addition, a two-storey building element has been introduced adjacent to the right-of-way to provide a transition to the existing two storey properties at 7-11 Washington Street (south-east). In order to reduce the perceived impact of building bulk, building articulation devices such as indentation and projections, varying building heights and extensive use of balconies and glazing have been incorporated to the building façade. Blank walls are minimised on the elevations of the building so as to provide active street frontages. Furthermore, the increased building height will also reinforce the urban character of the locality by providing a defined edge to Canning Highway. It will also allow the development to take best advantage of the views that are available from the subject site, with views to the Perth Central Business District and Swan River to the north-west which will increase the level of amenity for prospective residents. In addition, the additional storey will not result in any additional overshadowing of adjoining properties or their appurtenant outdoor living areas. In its current form, the proposal complies with the solar access provisions of the Residential Design Codes. In view of the above, the proposed building height variation can be supported. Secondary Street Setback With the exception of the porch which is setback at 1.5 metres from Washington Street, the proposed development generally complies with the secondary street setback as the majority of the building achieves a setback of well in excess of 3.0 metres as required under the Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape.


11.3 56 11.3

The porch is proposed at a reduced setback to create a strong residential entry from Washington Street. Given that the porch is unenclosed on at least two sides and integrated into the design of the building in terms of detailing, it is considered that the entry porch will not be visually dominant at the reduced setback proposed. In addition, the existing two-storey dwellings located south-east of the subject property (7-11 Washington Street) have building elements of reduced setbacks to Washington Street and therefore, the proposed variation to the secondary street setback will not interrupt the rhythm of the street setback pattern of Washington Street. In light of this, the proposed secondary street setback variation can be supported. Right-of-Way Setback The building generally complies with the required setback from the centreline of the right-of-way of 5.0 metres minimum as specified under Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape for corner lots with the exception of the bin enclosure which has a setback of 4.0 metres from the centreline of the right-of-way. Given that the bin enclosure has a length of approximately 5.3 metres only (compared to the overall length of the building being in excess of 37 metres) and the main building achieves a setback of well in excess of 5.0 metres, it is considered that the reduced setback will not have any adverse impact on the creation of a new streetscape along the portion of right-of-way. The intent of the relevant Local Planning Policy – Streetscape provisions is to promote the creation of new streetscapes environments through the use of existing rights-of-way. In this instance, the right-of-way serves to provide limited vehicular access to the rear of the property with the building being orientated towards the right-of-way. Additionally, the upper floor units incorporate windows and balconies that front the right-of-way and hence providing excellent surveillance of the right-of-way which would accord with the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. On this basis, the proposed setbacks from the right-of-way are considered appropriate in the context of its surroundings. Boundary Setback The proposed development also seeks variation to the Residential Design Codes in relation to side setback. An assessment of the plans reveals that the reduced setback of the third storey south-western wall (Unit 9) will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property (36 Canning Highway) in terms of solar access, visual privacy and building bulk. Based on the submitted overshadowing plan, the non-compliance will not unduly restrict direct sun and ventilation into south-western adjoining property and still allow adequate daylight onto the outdoor living areas. In regards to visual privacy, given that the subject south-western wall features no major openings, the subject wall will not result in any direct overlooking into the south-western adjoining property.


11.3 57 11.3

In regards to building bulk, the subject wall has been articulated through detailing and glazing (minor openings) which can positively benefit the amenity of the adjoining property as it will reduce the perceived impact of building bulk. In addition, given that the subject wall is located opposite an existing three-storey dwelling on the adjoining south-western property, the subject wall poses no additional impact on the building bulk. In light of this, the boundary setback variation satisfies the relevant Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes and thus, can be supported. Visual Privacy The proposed development has been designed to alleviate any potential overlooking onto adjoining properties by providing highlight windows and minor openings, in particular, on those walls facing south-western adjoining properties (36 Canning Highway). However, the proposed Unit 5 and 9 balconies which are orientated towards the right-of-way constitute a variation to the visual privacy requirement. Notwithstanding that the proponent has incorporated screening on the south-western side of the subject balconies; the subject balconies still overlook a portion of the south-western adjoining property. However, based on Council’s records, it appears that the subject balconies will not overlook any habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of the south-western adjoining property. Instead, the subject balconies will only overlook a portion of the common property area of 36 Canning Highway located at the rear of the building. In this regard, the proposed visual privacy variation is considered to satisfy the relevant Performance Criteria and therefore, can be supported. Vehicle Access In relation to vehicle access, notwithstanding that Council’s Local Planning Policy – Streetscape requires vehicular access to be taken solely from right-of-way; the proposed development provides vehicle access to the basement car park for the residents via Washington Street whilst limited access is provided via right-of-way for the visitor car parking bays located at the rear of the building. However, DRC and Council’s officers have no reservations on the proposed access via Washington Street given that the subject lot is located at the end of Washington Street where the street is terminated by a cul-de-sac. It is envisaged that there will be few vehicles utilising this portion of Washington Street other than the residents of the subject property. As such, the proposed access via Washington Street is deemed to be acceptable. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 – Clause 38 As the proposed development is non-compliant with the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council must be satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements listed under Clause 38(3) of the Scheme if approval were to be granted.


11.3 58 11.3

Based on the form, quality and appearance of the development, the proposed development will make a significant and high quality streetscape outcome which would accord with the orderly and proper planning of the locality, as outlined in the Precinct Plan P5 ‘Raphael Precinct. The development is of a high standard which will serve as an example for the positive future redevelopment of sites elsewhere along Canning Highway and has been designed to take maximum advantage of the Central Business District and Swan River views whilst maintaining an appropriate and highly articulated frontage to Washington Street and right-of-way. While variations to the development standards are proposed, the variations are considered to be appropriate given its streetscape context and site planning. The items of non-compliance will not adversely effect on the occupants/users of the development, owners/occupiers of adjoining properties and the future development of the locality. CONCLUSION: In regards to the matters raised above, the proposed building is considered to be of a high quality that would accord with the form, quality and appearance of development envisaged for the subject site, as outlined in the Raphael Precinct. The proposed building has been designed in such a way that it will provide a high level of amenity for prospective residents whilst creating an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and streetscape. In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to conditions. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the application submitted by Campion Design Group on behalf of SKS Canning Pty Ltd (DA Ref: 12/0158) for 15 Multiple Dwellings at 30-34 (Lot 336) Canning Highway, Victoria Park as indicated on the plans dated received 8 March 2012 be Approved by Absolute Majority subject to the following conditions:

1.1 In order to confirm compliance with this planning approval and all

relevant Council requirements, approval is to be obtained from the following Council Business Units prior to the submission of a certified application for a building permit : • Urban Planning; • Street Life; • Park Life; • Environmental Health;

Failure to do so may result in refusal of the application for a building permit (refer related Advice Note).


11.3 59 11.3

1.2 All development is to be setback 0.5 metres from the right-of-way for the length of the common boundary with the right-of-way to allow for the future widening of the right-of-way.

1.3 A minimum of 5 bicycle spaces for residents and 2 bicycle spaces for visitors are to be provided on-site for the exclusive use of residents and visitors.

1.4 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, final

detail of external colours, finishes and materials to be used in the construction of the building are to be provided to the satisfaction of Manager Urban Planning prior to submission of a building licence.

1.5 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, full

details of an external drying area for each residential unit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning. The clothes drying facilities shall be fully installed and screened from view from surrounding streets in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the residential units hereby approved.

1.6 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit,

complete details of the fencing to Canning Highway, Washington Street and the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. This shall include the colour, materials and dimensions of the fencing, which are to be of a high standard and appropriately articulated so as to produce an acceptable streetscape outcome, to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first.

1.7 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, fencing

to the right-of-way to be open style fencing. Details of fencing to the right-of-way to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning, prior to submission of an application for building licence. The approved fencing is to be installed prior to occupation of the building(s) or strata titling, whichever occurs first.

1.8 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, details

being submitted of all proposed ventilation systems, including the location of plant equipment, vents and air conditioning units. All equipment must be adequately screened to the satisfaction of the Manager Urban Planning.

1.9 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, a

Drainage Management plan including details of the on-site stormwater disposal including soakwell sizes and locations to be submitted to the satisfaction of Executive Manager Street Life.


11.3 60 11.3

1.10 Prior to the submission of an application for a building permit, an acoustic report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant in accordance with the guidelines of the Western Australian Planning Commission – State Planning Policy 5.4 “Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning” and submitted to and approved in writing by the Manager Urban Planning and Manager Building in consultation with the Design Review Committee. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.

1.11 An acid sulphate soils self-assessment form and, if required as a result

of the self-assessment, an acid sulphate soils report and an acid sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Environment and Conservation before the development is commenced. Where an acid sulphate soils management plan is required to be submitted, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.

1.12 Prior to the submission of an application for building permit, a

landscaping plan detailing size, location and type of planting to be provided to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life.

1.13 Landscaping is to be completed prior to the occupation or strata titling

of the building(s), whichever occurs first, and thereafter maintained to satisfaction of Executive Manager Park Life.


development on the subject site is subject to the written approval of the Executive Manager Park Life at the applicant’s cost.


landscaped with waterwise planting and reticulated prior to occupation or strata titling of the building(s) whichever occurs first and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Park Life. (Refer related Advice Note)

1.16 This approval is for the use of the residential units as Multiple

Dwellings only and does not include approval for use as serviced apartments. Any other use will require the submission of a new application for planning approval.

1.17 The gym facility is approved as residential amenities for the subject

development only and cannot operate or be used as a separate commercial use(s) or be made available to the general public.

1.18 A separate planning application is required for any fence forward of the

building line. 1.19 The use of sheet fencing, such as colorbond or fibro cement sheeting,

in front of the building line is not permitted.


11.3 61 11.3


the required new fencing is to be erected. 1.21 All fencing to be provided in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act

and all boundary fencing behind the front building line to be a minimum of 1.8 metres and a maximum of 2.4 metres in height (or such other height agreed to in writing by the relevant adjoining land owners) at any point along the boundary, measured from the highest retained ground level.


redevelopment shall be removed and the verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life.

1.23 Before the subject development is first occupied, all car parking spaces

together with their access aisles to be clearly paved, sealed, marked and drained and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Executive Manager Street Life.

1.24 A minimum of 14 car parking bays to be provided on site for the

exclusive use for residents. These bays shall be marked accordingly. 1.25 A minimum of four (4) car parking bays to be provided on site for the

exclusive use of visitors. These bays shall be marked for the exclusive use of visitors prior to the first occupation or commencement of the development.

1.26 All car parking bays to be paved, drained and line-marked and designed

in accordance with AS2890.1. 1.27 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.5 metre x 1.5

metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the Washington Street property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of: (i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or

(ii) wrought iron infill fencing. 1.28 Any letterbox, structure, wall or fence located within a 1.0 metre x 1.0

metre visual truncation at the intersection of any driveway and the right-of-way property boundary, is not to exceed a height of 750mm with the exception of:

(i) one brick pier (maximum dimensions 350mm by 350mm); and/or (ii) wrought iron infill fencing. 1.29 During excavations, all necessary precautions to be taken to prevent



11.3 62 11.3

1.30 All driveways and car parking bays to be constructed of brick paving, liquid limestone, exposed aggregate or any alternative material approved by the Manager Urban Planning.

1.31 No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Canning Highway

reserve. 1.32 No vehicle access shall be permitted onto the Canning Highway

reserve. Vehicle access is permitted from Washington Street and the right-of-way only.

1.33 The ground levels on the Canning Highway boundary are to be

maintained as existing. 1.34 Proposed development complying with setbacks, fencing, driveways,



satellite dishes and non-standard television aerials, but excluding solar collectors, are to be located such that they are not visible from the primary street, secondary street, right-of-way and surrounding properties.

1.36 A zero lot gutter to be provided for the boundary walls adjoining the

common boundary with 36 Canning Highway, Victoria Park. 1.37 The surfaces of the boundary walls on the common boundary with 36

Canning Highway, Victoria Park to be the same finish as the approved external wall finish for the remainder of the dwelling, unless otherwise approved.

1.38 Lighting to illuminate that portion of the right-of-way adjacent the

subject land is to be provided at vehicle and pedestrian entry points. 1.39 The owner or occupier is required to display the street number

allocated to the property in a prominent location clearly visible from the street and/or right-of-way that the building faces.

1.40 This approval does not include the approval of any signage. Any

signage for the development to be the subject of a separate sign licence application.


required to be contained within the boundaries of the subject lot.


11.3 63 11.3

1.42 During building operations, the right-of-way to be maintained clear of

obstructions & building materials, and in a trafficable condition at all times. If the surface of the right-of-way is disturbed or damaged, it is the responsibility of the owner/builder to reinstate the right-of-way to its original condition.

1.43 Compliance with Council’s Building, Environmental Health, Street Life

and Park Life requirements. 1.44 This approval is valid for a period of twenty four months only. If

development is not commenced within this period, a fresh approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing the development.

Advice to Applicant:

1.45 In regards to Condition No. 1.1, where a Council Building Surveyor is issuing the Certificate of Design Compliance (Application Form TVP1 to be submitted) then the approval of Council Business Units will be obtained by the Council Building Surveyor. Where a private certifier is engaged to issue the Certificate of Design Compliance, then it is the responsibility of the owner/builder/certifier to submit separate applications (Form TVP2 and Form TVP3) for the approval of Council Business Units. These forms are available on the Town’s website and at the front counter of Council’s Offices.

1.46 With regards to Condition No. 1.30 the following are minimum

requirements of the Town of Victoria Park: Brick paving 60mm minimum thick clay or concrete pavers laid on 30mm bedding sand and Base of 100mm compacted limestone.

1.47 Failure to maintain the verge by current or future owners or occupiers

will render the offender liable to infringement under Section 2.9 of the Activities on Thoroughfares and Trading in Thoroughfares and Public Places Local Law – Modified penalty $100.

1.48 Landscaping of the verge requires approval from Council’s Renew Life

Program (except lawn planting only). The applicant/owner should obtain a copy of Council’s Sustainable Landscaping Guide 1 “Your Street Verge”.

1.49 Any modifications to the approved drawings forming part of this

planning approval may require the submission of an application for modification to planning approval and reassessment of the proposal.

1.50 Should the applicant be aggrieved by this decision a right of appeal

may exist under the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme or the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the applicant may apply for a review of the determination of Council by the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this decision.


11.3 64 11.3

2. Those persons who lodged the submission regarding the application be

advised of Council’s decision.

The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

11.3


65

12 JJune 2012

11.3

2

3

Ordinary M

11.4

Am11.4ReVicRe

File ReferAppendicLandownMRS ZonTPS ZoniTPS Prec Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommmodificat Ame

Reseinclu

Publpetit

Publ Reco

the p TABLED Amend Conce Letter

consul Submi Email Letter Consu Counc Letter Letter

Meeting of

mendmeneclassificctoria Pecreation

rence: ces: ner: ning: ing: cinct:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation tions and endment perve” to “O

ude the sitelicly advertion. lic Informaommendedproposed D

ITEMS: dment No.

eptual built inviting

ltation. issions (4 ifrom Mainfrom Wate

ultation lettcil Report dfrom EPA from WAP

f Council M

nt No. cation ofPark fron” to “Of

PLNoToUrPaPr 6 JH.

er: R.nt: Siry: – Councrequest th

proposed tOffice/Reside within thertised for a

ation Sessiod that CouDevelopme

54 Plan aform drawresidents

including 1 Roads da

er Corporater with pla

dated 20 Sdated 22 N

PC dated 1

Minutes

54 to f 31 (Loom “Loffice/Res

LA0003/54o own of Victrban & Primarks and Rrecinct Plan

June 2012 Gleeson Cruickshample Majo

cil resolvhe Hon. Mto reclassifdential” zoe Causewaa period of

on held onncil adopts

ent Standa

nd documewings base

to Inform

1 petition). ated 26 Mation dated n showingeptember November 0 Novemb

66

Town ots 62, 6ocal Schidential”

4

toria Parkmary Regio

Recreation n P6 ‘Victo

2

ank ority

ve to adoMinister for

fy the Vicone, realignay Precinctf 42 days w

n 31 May 2s Amendm

ards in resp

entation. d on Devemation Se

arch 2012.

14 March g extend of 2011.

r 2011. ber 2011.

Plannin63, 64 anheme R” zone –

onal Roads& Primary

oria Park P

opt Amenr Planning

ctoria Parknment of tht and Devewith 4 sub

012. ment No. 54ponse to th

elopment Session wi

2012. f consultati

ng Schnd 100) Reserve Final Ap

s Regional R

Precinct’

ndment Ng to grant k Croquet he precincelopment Sbmissions

4 subject the public co

Standards. ith plan

on.

12 J

eme NoRushton

– Parpproval

Roads

No. 54 wifinal apprClub from

ct plan bouStandards.received in

to modifyincomments r

showing

June 2012

11.4

o. 1 –n Street,rks and

ith minorroval.

m a “Localundaries to ncluding a

ng some ofreceived.

extent of

2

4

– ,

d

r

l o

a

f

f


11.4 67 11.4

BACKGROUND: The Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 20 September 2011 resolved to initiate Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as follows:

“1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone.

1.2 Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct.

1.3 Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14 ‘Development Standards for Causeway Precinct’…”

A letter dated 22 November 2011 was received from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) advising the Town that the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 54 “should not be assessed under Part IV Division 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and that is not necessary to provide any advice or recommendations.” Following this advice, Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012. DETAILS: The proposed Amendment involves reclassification of the land from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone, realigning the Precinct Plan boundaries to excise the site from the Victoria Park Precinct and include it within the Causeway Precinct and with specific development standards in order to respect the residential streetscape of Rushton Street and the neighbours amenities. Amendment No. 54 was advertised for a period of 42 days commencing on 30 January 2012 and ending on 13 March 2012 with letters being sent to surrounding owners and occupants, signs being installed on site and advertisements being place in the Southern Gazette newspaper. Three responses and one petition were received in addition to two responses from State Government agencies which are summarised and responded to as follows: Property Address/ Agency

Summary of Submission Officer’s Comment

Petition Proposal changes the character of the area;

Properties along Shepperton Road to the west of Harvey Street are commercial and a commercial use on the subject site adjacent to Shepperton Road would be appropriate. However after further consideration it is now proposed that Offices not be permitted to


11.4 68 11.4

Additional ‘towers’ inappropriate; 4

storeys to Shepperton Road and 6 storeys to Rushton Street inappropriate; Visual barrier; Similar to Monadelphous; Causeway Precinct Review states buildings adjacent to residential properties be no higher than 2 storeys;

Loss of privacy;

Lack of open space around building;

Residents wary of future rezoning proposal if this is approved;

Traffic increase; Increase risk of

accidents at corner; Already parking problems due to commuters, customers and residents;

Devalue property; and

Croquet Club is locally listed and

future rezoning should be recreational.

occur on Lots 64 and 100, and that these lots be permitted for residential use only.

Maximum 4 storey limit proposed to corner lots with three storey limit (within recession plane) on Rushton Street and a maximum of 2 storeys adjacent to No. 33; Staggered bulk would minimise visual impact; Development would not be of the scale of the Monadelphous building.

Standards include privacy provisions so development on Lot 100 would have to comply with R-Code standards.

Any future development of the site will be assessed for compliance with the relevant open space/landscaping requirements of the R-Codes or Scheme.

There are no other rezoning’s currently proposed for this locality.

Future development will have to

comply with the on-site parking provisions of the Scheme and incorporate adequate sightline truncations. Existing parking pressures in the street are to be considered as part of the Town’s Parking Hotspots Study.

Whilst not a material planning

consideration there are design provisions in place to protect the residential amenities of surrounding occupants.

The site is currently only used by

members of the Croquet Club which total approximately 25 in number and the site cannot be freely used by the general public.


11.4 69 11.4

There are other Regional and Local “Parks and Recreation” reserves in the locality which provide for the passive and active recreation needs of residents.

44B Rushton Street

Poor communication regarding proposal; and

Most residents unaware of

Development Standards.

Consultation was conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 including signs on site and mail notices.

Development Standards were included in the advertisements as also being part of the Amendment.

Address not given

Vehemently protest any moves by Council to make this change;

Object to 6 storeys; Long family history with Rushton

Street; Vibrant and mixed community; Street will be clouded by shadow of

a building; Will not fit local character; and

Do not replace Croquet Club with

something that will upset the community life on our street.

Objection noted.

Building height discussed above.

Family history noted.

This Amendment will allow for an increased variety of dwelling types on Rushton Street which may increase the diversity of the local community.

Building bulk discussed above;

there would be no adverse overshadowing impact to surrounding properties.

Character discussed above.

Objection noted.

39 Rushton Street

Traffic concerns; and

Recommend a public meeting to discuss with residents.

Traffic impact discussed above;

Consultation and Amendment process has been conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the residents were invited to attend an Information Session held on 31 May 2012;


11.4 70 11.4

Main Roads

Current MRS road reserve provides for 3m verge width;

WAPC-ICC recently endorsed a design requiring a 5.1m verge width to Shepperton Road; and

Support Amendment subject to

setback requirement of 2m from Shepperton Road.

Comments noted.

A modification to the Development Standards is proposed to provide for a 2m setback from Shepperton Road unless it can be demonstrated that all future public utilities and pedestrian infrastructure can be accommodated within the existing Road Reserve.

Water Corporation

Future development may require developer to upgrade infrastructure; and

Piped drain along Shepperton Rd frontage may require pile foundations.

These matters will be dealt with as part of any future Subdivision Application, Development Application or Building Permit Application for the site.

In addition to the consultation conducted in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Council’s Urban Planning Business Unit also held a Public Information Session inviting all those who were previously consulted or who submitted comments. Following consideration of public submissions received during both the statutory advertising period and at the Public Information Session, modifications are proposed to the development standards contained within this Amendment. Legal Compliance: Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 47 (1) of the Town Planning Scheme Text states that: “Council may only amend or revoke a Scheme Document with the exception of a Council Register in accordance with the procedures applying to a Town Planning Scheme Amendment set out in Section 7 of the Act.” Town Planning Regulations 1967 Under regulations 17(1) & (2) and 25(fb) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must consider all submissions received on the amendment and resolve whether the amendment will be adopted with or without modifications or whether it does not wish to proceed with the amendment within 42 days of the end of the advertising period or such longer period as the Minister may approve. Under regulation 18(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, the Council must forward the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for a decision on final approval within 28 days of passing a resolution under regulation 17(2).


11.4 71 11.4

The Western Australian Planning Commission will consider the Amendment and any submissions received and make a recommendation to the Hon Minister for Planning concerning determination. Upon receipt of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s recommendation the Hon Minister will consider the matter then make a determination on the outcome of the Amendment, which may include finalisation of the Amendment, modifications to the Amendment that may or may not require readvertising or refusal to finalise the Amendment. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: The Amendment as advertised for public comments, proposes to rezone the site to Office/Residential. Whilst an Office/Residential zoning would permit the use of any of the lots forming part of the site for office or residential purposes, specific development standards were proposed to not permit retail uses (Shops, Restaurants etc) on any part of the site, and to only enable office uses on Lots 64 and 100 on the ground floor only, and only in conjunction with a residential use where the residential use is the predominant use. Public comments received express concern that the encroachment of commercial uses into Rushton Street may affect the character of this residential street. In view of the concerns received, it is now proposed to modify the proposed development standards to restrict the use of both Lots 64 and 100 to purposes only permitted under a Residential zoning. The as-advertised provisions for Lots 62 and 63 are not proposed to be altered in respect to the issue of land uses. The effect of these modifications is that Lots 62 and 63, being the lots closest to Shepperton Road could be used for offices and/or residential purposes; however offices would not be permitted on Lots 64 and 100. A number of objections received expressed concern regarding the proposed building height limit, on the misunderstanding that a 6 storey height limit was proposed. However this is not the case and the maximum proposed height limit as advertised was 4 storeys adjacent to Shepperton Road, 4 storeys within a recession plane facing Rushton Street on Lots 62, 63 and 64, and 2 storeys on Lot 100. These building height limits were proposed on the basis that the adjacent sites to the west could accommodate building heights between 4 to 6 storeys and in this future context it was considered that a maximum 4 storey limit on the subject site would not appear unduly obtrusive or overbearing.


11.4 72 11.4

However, following consideration of public submissions it is proposed to retain the as-advertised building height limits with the exception of reducing the maximum building height to Rushton Street on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. This would result in development of these lots being of a more compatible scale to better reflect the permissible building heights of the residential properties in Rushton Street (being 2 storeys). Therefore modifications are proposed to the Amendment documents to reflect this. In addition, the Amendment as-advertised proposes prescribed front setbacks from street boundaries as follows : a front setback of 6m is proposed along Rushton Street adjacent to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street (Lot 100) stepping down to 4m (Lot 64) and then 3m closer to Shepperton Road in order to respect the established building line of the streetscape. In view of the use of Lot 64 now being proposed to be restricted to purposes permitted under a Residential zoning, it is appropriate that a standard residential setback (being 6m) also apply to this lot rather than the 4m setback as-advertised. Previously a nil setback to the Shepperton Road Reserve was proposed, however, this has been modified to include a 2m setback at the request of Main Roads given that the current road design for Shepperton Road will require an additional 2m width of land to be reserved for widening. At the Public Information Session, a comment was raised by a resident regarding possible vehicle access to the site via the right-of-way that runs between the Teddington Road and Rushton Street properties. While the right-of-way frontage to Lot 100 is only 3.0m, there may be a possibility of vehicle access between the site and right-of-way, in which case the Amendment is to be modified to note that any development of the site may have an opportunity for vehicle access via the right-of-way. CONCLUSION: In view of the above it is recommended that Council resolve to adopt Amendment No. 54 to the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for Final Approval, with modifications from that advertised, being:

Prohibiting Offices on Lots 64 and 100; Reducing the applicable density coding on Lot 100 from R80 to R60. Reducing the maximum building height limit on Lot 64 from 4 storeys within a

recession plane to 3 storeys within a recession plane. Increasing the minimum setback to development on Lot 64 from a minimum of 4m

to minimum of 6m. Noting that alternative vehicle access may be available from the right-of-way to the

north; Increasing the setback to Shepperton Road from nil to a minimum of 2m.


11.4 73 11.4

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. Council resolve pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act

2005 to adopt Amendment No. 54 to amend the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for final approval with modifications as follows:

1.1 Reclassify 31 (Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100) Rushton Street, Victoria Park

from Local Scheme Reserve “Parks and Recreation” to “Office/Residential” zone.

1.2 Amend Precinct Plan P6 Victoria Park Precinct and Precinct Plan P3

Causeway Precinct to realign the boundary and include Lots 62, 63, 64 and 100 within Precinct Plan P3 Causeway Precinct.

1.3 Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual Policy 4.14

‘Development Standards for Causeway Precinct’ as follows:

At Clause 4.14.2 ‘Development Provisions for Designated Areas’ add the words “Area 6B. Croquet Club Site” after “Area 6. Low Rise Mixed Use’

At Figure A2.1 ‘Designated Areas’ modify the Figure to include the subject sites within the Precinct, to include the area “6B Croquet Club Site” in the legend, and to identify the subject sites as being part of Area 6B.

To insert the following provisions after ‘Figure A2.8:

Development Provisions for Area 6’ and before the provisions for ‘g) Area 7 Commercial Core’: “g) AREA 6B CROQUET CLUB SITE (i) Desired future character: The area is to act as an interface

between the Commercial Core and medium density residential area of the Victoria Precinct whilst providing an attractive entry statement to the Causeway Precinct.

(ii) Land use: Residential and/or commercial uses, but not

retail uses such as Shops, Restaurants etc. On Lots 64 and 100 only uses that would otherwise be permitted within a Residential zone.

(iii): Density: R80 for Lots 62, 63 and 64; R60 for Lot 100. (iv) Plot Ratio: Maximum 1.0 for Lots 62 and 63; As per R-

Codes for Lots 64 and 100.

Ordinary M

11.4

Meeting off Council M

(v) Buildi

Minutes

ng height

74

t and formm: For d63, (maxiSheppadjacemaximrequirmaxim15m) follow

For maximmaximsetbamaxim11.25mas fol

evelopmemaximu

mum 15perton Roent to Rumum of 2red front mum of 4 within a r

ws :

developmmum of mum) atck to Rus

mum 3 sm) within lows :

12 J

ent on Lotum 4 5m) adjaoad, with

ushton Str2 storeys t setbackstoreys (m

recession

ment on 2 storey

t requireshton Strestoreys (m

a recess

June 2012

11.4

ts 62 andstoreys

acent to building

reet to be(7.5m) at

k, with amaximum plane as

Lot 64,ys (7.5med fronteet, with amaximumion plane

2

4

d s o g e t a

m s

,

m t a

m e


11.4 75 11.4

For development on Lot 100, maximum 2 storeys (max 7.5m).

Development to incorporate vertical stepping. Building form to enable cross ventilation and natural light while maintaining appropriate street frontages.

(vi) Setbacks: Buildings to be setback in accordance with the side setback standards of the R-Codes from the northern boundary shared with Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street.

Development on Lots 64 and 100 to be setback a minimum of 6m from Rushton Street. Development on Lots 62 & 63 to be setback 3m from Rushton Street. Development to be setback minimum 2m from the Shepperton Road Reserve. Nil setback permitted to western boundary.

(vii) Access and parking: No vehicle access off Shepperton Road.

Vehicle access to retain existing street trees where possible. All car parking screened from street view. Possible vehicle access available from right-of-way to the north.

(viii) Other: Development on Lot 100 to comply with privacy standards of the R-Codes in relation to Nos. 33 & 33A Rushton Street.

Provide separate clearly identifiable entries for residential and commercial uses with adequate pedestrian weather protection at entries.


11.4 76 11.4

Development must present an articulated frontage to both the Shepperton Road and Rushton Street frontages and also provide a high standard of landscaping to both frontages, particularly the Rushton Street frontage.”

At ‘i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON ROAD STREETSCAPE OVERLAY’, (ii) Lot size and development controls’ insert the words “, Area 6B Croquet Club Site” after ‘either Area 2 Asquith St Mixed Use’ in the first sentence only.

Amend ‘g) AREA 7 COMMERCIAL CORE’ to “h) AREA 7 COMMERICAL CORE”

Amend ‘h) AREA 8 RETAIL HUB OVERLAY’ to “i) AREA 8 RETAIL

HUB OVERLAY”

Amend ‘i) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY’ to “j) AREA 9 SHEPPERTON STREETSCAPE OVERLAY”

Amend the contents page and page numbers of the following

pages as required. 2. The Chief Executive Officer and Mayor be authorised to execute the Town

Planning Scheme No. 1 Amendment No. 54 documents and to have the Common Seal affixed.

3 Amendment No. 54 be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning

Commission for final approval. 4. Those persons who lodged a submission regarding the proposal be advised of

Council’s decision. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

11.4

Meeting off Council M

Minutes

77

12 JJune 2012

11.4

2

4

Ordinary M

11.5

Re11.5 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommadvertise The

mod The

TowCode

In rland

The the areaLoca

The thenfinal

TABLED

Loc Fee Co

BACKGRThe Locaand was the Town LPPS is a In responsregarding commencfrom thossubmissio

Mo Bro Mo

Meeting of

eview of

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation

ed for pubLocal Pla

dification mLocal Plan

wn and repes. response owners in draft revisTown’s ch

as, the draal Planningdraft revis

n be preserevised Po

ITEMS: cal Planninedback rec

opy of Powe

ROUND: al Planninglast modifiand replac

a consolida

se to concsome of

ced by the se personsons were reore design oader rangore variety

f Council M

Council’

PLYe 6 JR.

er: R.nt: Siry: – The d

lic commeanning Pol

made in Junnning Policlaces the ‘

to concerelation to

sed Policy haracter aaft revised g Scheme sed Policy ented to Colicy.

ng Policy –ceived in 2erpoint Pre

g Policy – ied in Juneces the ‘St

ation of 12

cerns exprethe proviUrban Pla

s who lodeceived, wflexibility n

ge of colouin streetsc

Minutes

’s Local

LA0001 es

June 2012 Cruicksha Cruickshample Majo

draft revisents. icy – Stre

ne 2008. cy – Street‘Streetscap

rns raisedthe provis

proposes greas. In Policy is

No. 2. is recomm

ouncil for

– Streetsca2011 from aesentation

Streetscape 2008. TtreetscapeCouncil po

essed by ssions contanning Undged a pl

with generaneeded, pars and mat

capes is de

78

Planning

2 ank ank ority

sed Local

etscape w

tscape apppe’ provisi

d by somsions of thegreater derespect toto largely

mended toconsidera

ape 2008.applicants to Elected

pe (LPPS)The LPPS e’ provisionolicies that

some Electtained in

nit. Part oanning ap

al commentarticularly interials sho

esirable.

g Policy

l Plannin

was adopte

plies to all ons conta

me Electee Policy, a sign flexib

o developmreflect the

o be adveration of su

on Local Pd Members

) was adoapplies to

ns in the Rt existed pr

ted Membethe LPPSf this proc

pplication ts being: n non-charuld be ava

- Streets

g Policy

ed in May

residentiained in the

d Membereview hasility for devment in the proposal

tised for pbmissions

Planning Ps Workshop

pted by Call residen

esidential rior to May

ers, applica, a review

cess involvwith the T

racter areaailable.

12 J

scape

– Streets

2005, wit

l developme Resident

ers, applics been undvelopment he Town’s ls containe

public com prior to a

Policy – Strp.

ouncil in Mntial develDesign Co

y 2005.

ants and law of the Lved seeingTown in 2

as.

June 2012

11.5

scape be

th a minor

ment in thetial Design

cants anddertaken.outside ofcharacter

ed in draft

ment, andadopting a

reetscape.

May 2005,lopment inodes. The

andownersLPPS wasg feedback2010. 25

2

5

e

r

e n

d

f r t

d a

n e

s s k 5


11.5 79 11.5

Full details of the submissions received were forwarded to Elected Members in a memorandum dated 8 March 2011. The review has also involved:

Identifying recurring issues for applications that have been assessed by Council’s Urban Planning Unit.

“A good, the bad, and the ugly” tour of completed developments in the Town, City of Belmont and the City of South Perth.

Considering the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Staff meetings. An Elected Members Workshop.

DETAILS: The LPPS currently comprises:

Explanatory Section; General Provisions that apply throughout the Town; Standards for Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within Weatherboard Precincts and Weatherboard

Streetscapes; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area but not

within Weatherboard Precincts, Streetscapes or the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development in the Raphael Residential Precinct; Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions.

The draft revised LPPS is proposed to restructured as follows:

Explanatory Section; Standards for Development Outside Specified Areas; Standards for Development within the Residential Character Study Area,

Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and the Raphael Residential precinct;

Standards for Development Abutting Rights-of-Way; Definitions.

Some key principles have been identified as part of the review:

• Greater flexibility in design standards to apply to development outside character areas;

• Only development in the ‘streetscape zone’ affects the streetscape – the ‘streetscape zone’ to be 6m or more behind the front façade of the dwelling – development in the ‘streetscape zone’ is to match the existing dwelling.

• Remove St James from Character Study Area and add relevant houses on western side of Berwick Street and southern side of Oats Street;

• For development abutting right-of-way, exercise greater design flexibility as these dwellings are forming part of a new streetscape with a distinguishable character from the dwellings facing the primary street. Roof form is the most important element in ensuring compatibility between the dwellings facing the street and the dwellings facing the right-of-way and some greater flexibility can be exercised in relation to other design standards for the right-of-way facing dwellings i.e. window shapes, wall heights, eaves style etc.


11.5 80 11.5

• Sustainable design and streetscape are of equal importance – sustainable design should still respect the street – applicant’s to provide justification as to why variations to design standards are required to achieve sustainable design; demonstrate how the variations contribute to the sustainability outcome; also demonstrate how other alternatives wouldn’t achieve the same sustainability outcome;

The review has focussed primarily on the LPPS provisions that apply for development outside of the character areas (i.e. Outside of the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precincts, Weatherboard Streetscapes and Raphael Precinct). For development in the character areas, new provisions have previously been discussed and workshopped with Elected Members as part of the preparation of draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, and therefore it was determined that rather than further reviewing the provisions for these areas as part of the LPPS review, it would be more appropriate to largely (with some minor modifications) incorporate the provisions contained in draft LPS 2 into the draft revised LPPS. Legal Compliance: The following extract from the Residential Design Codes 2010, refers to local planning policies: “The Codes aim to obviate the need for the use of Local Planning Policies which generate generic provisions, such as those designed to protect privacy and to design for streetscape, by incorporating of these aspects within the Codes. However the Codes recognise that local differences of character must be accommodated. The Codes enable local councils to vary certain code provisions by the adoption of local planning policies properly advertised and adopted as set out in the Model Scheme Text or by similar provisions where local councils have not yet incorporated the provisions of the Model Scheme Text. Only policies made in accordance with these provisions will have effect as a local planning policy.” The requirements for advertising a Local Planning Policy under the Model Scheme Text are as follows: 1. Publish a notice of the proposed Policy once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in a

newspaper circulated in the Scheme area giving details of: (i) where the draft policy may be inspected; (ii) the subject and nature of the draft policy; and (iii) in what form and during what period (being not less than 21 days from the

day the notice is published) submission may be made. 2. May publish a Notice of the proposed Policy in such other manner and carry out

such other consultation as the local government considers appropriate. 3. After the expiry of the advertising period the local government is required to review

the policy in light of the submission made and resolve to adopt the Policy with or without modification, or not to proceed with the Policy.


11.5 81 11.5

4. If the local government resolves to adopt the Policy, the following must be undertaken: (i) publish notice of the policy once in a newspaper circulated in the Scheme

area; and (ii) if, in the opinion of the local government, the Policy affects the interests of

the Commission, forward a copy of the Policy to the Commission. The Policy has effect on publication of a notice under 3(i) above. Given the wording of the clause under the Model Scheme Text, it is considered that a revised LPPS will not affect the interest of the Commission and therefore would not need to be forwarded to the Commission. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: No impact Social Issues: No impact Cultural Issues: No impact Environmental Issues: No impact COMMENT: A copy of the draft revised LPPS is contained in the Appendices. The following table summarises some of the proposed changes for development outside the character areas (referred to as ‘Development Outside Specified Areas’):

Item Current provision Summary of proposed change

Front setback

Minimum 6m front setback average (includes verandas)

Exclude verandas from front setback average to encourage this traditional building feature

Secondary street setback

Minimum 3m setback Discretion to permit a reduced setback for a porch, architectural feature or limited portions of wall which provide some visual relief to the elevation.

Garage projection forward of dwelling

Garages not to project more than 1m forward of facade

Minor variations can sometimes be acceptable depending upon design and factors such as • lot and dwelling frontage; • location of upper floor; • location of adjoining dwellings; • variations in roof height and form; Variations to be considered based upon these


11.5 82 11.5


factors;

Width of garage

Garage width to not exceed 57% of lot frontage

Minor variations to the requirement will be considered based upon acceptable design solutions which minimise dominance of garages.

Front fences

Open style fencing generally; Solid front fence to 1.8m high permitted for higher order roads.

No solid fences permitted – contrary to CPTED, security principles. Front fencing on higher order roads to be at least 25% visually permeable above 1.2m height. Will still allow some of the fence to be solid.

Demolition of dwellings

Existing dwellings to be retained. Demolition of existing dwellings will be considered where : • Dwelling is

structurally unsound;

• Dwelling is wholly clad in fibro sheeting;

• Dwelling constructed after 1945 and is outside RCSA or WB Streetscape.

• Dwelling is in RCSA, but is not an ‘original dwelling’.

• Approval has been issued for the subsequent development of the site in the case of pre-1945 dwellings or an ‘original dwelling’ in the RCSA.

Non-character areas (Carlisle, Lathlain, St James, part of East Victoria Park) are ideally placed to accommodate new, more modern development. Draft LPS 2, which has been endorsed by Council, does not seek the retention of pre-1945 dwelling outside character areas, other than some character streetscapes. It is recommended that this position be reflected in the LPPS. Note – relevance of pre 1945 was that after 1945 the architectural style was “post-war austerity” due to lack of materials after WWII construction was more modest and of a lesser quality.

Standards for St James and part of East Victoria Park

• St James and part of East Victoria Park contain predominantly post-war modest homes – significant redevelopment likely. Accordingly, reasonable for much design flexibility including alternative roof forms i.e. skillion roofs, curved roofs; window shapes, colours and materials.


11.5 83 11.5


• Lathlain – contains more substantial homes, meaning some of the existing character will remain, therefore still a case for compatible design.

Roof form and mass

Roof shape matching housing in street; minimum 25 degree pitch, or match the existing dwelling.

St James and part of East Victoria Park – no restrictions on roof form and pitch. Lathlain and Carlisle • Alternative roof forms and pitches where

not visible from the street; • Roof forms visible from street, of same

dwelling, to be consistent pitch. • Roof forms visible from street, to be

consistent with roof pitches predominant in street, with minimum 25 degrees.

• Prescribe a maximum roof pitch – 35 degrees or more is inconsistent.

• Permit porches with non-pitched roof. • Permit minor feature elements without

pitched roof, where pitched roof is the dominant character of the dwelling.

Scale and bulk of 2 storey dwellings

Address building bulk through stepping of facade, balconies and variation of materials

Other design solutions will be considered which may provide visual relief such as cantilevered elements, canopies/awnings.

Blank walls

No blank walls facing the street

Sections of blank wall will be considered where they are minor relative to the dwelling frontage

Window shape and size

Windows facing the street to be of traditional size and shape (meaning having a vertical emphasis)

Emerging building trend incorporating modern design elements, including different window shapes. This can often add some greater visual interest to elevations, provided they are not too ‘busy’. Recommended provisions that : • Windows visible from street to have

primarily vertical emphasis. • Windows facing street not be obscure

glass. • Grouping of small or highlight windows OK

as minor element in total façade. • No floor-to-ceiling windows. • Overall elevation to read as one with

primarily vertical orientated windows.

Colours and materials (walls)

Walls – no restriction on colours; no restriction on materials other than colorbond

Considered that colorbond sheeting when combined with other materials, adds visual interest to elevations. Recommended that colorbond sheeting (not zincalume) be


11.5 84 11.5


sheeting or imitation weatherboard can only be used as a minor feature where visible from the street.

permitted that is different to the roof colour, and where visible from the street is no more than 50% of the façade. Also suggested to permit flat profile sheeting only where it is a minor feature or has a rendered finish.

Colour and materials (Roof)

Roof – in Lathlain and Carlisle, generally only brown, red, orange and grey colours, and zincalume, are permitted. No restrictions in St James and East Vic Park (outside RCSA).

Lathlain and Carlisle - This requirement has been restrictive and the subject of disputes from applicants desiring modern design. Recommended that the range of acceptable colours be expanded to again create some more interesting and varied streetscapes. Roof colours of light cream, green, black and dark grey not permitted. St James and part of East Victoria Park – no changes.

Design of garages and carports

Garages to be integrated into design of dwelling in terms of roof and materials.

Flat/parapet roof form will be considered where there is a portion of upper floor above (occupying at least 2/3 of the width of the garage), and the flat/parapet roof form does not read as a dominant structure.

In respect to development within the Residential Character Study Area, Weatherboard Precinct, Weatherboard Streetscapes, or Raphael Precinct, the provisions contained in the draft revised LPPS largely reflect the provisions contained in draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2, as these provisions have been previously supported by Elected Members. Only minor modifications have been made including:

The addition of Performance Criteria for consideration where variations are proposed;

Assessing some additional matters which were not covered; Including a Performance Criteria allowing for variations based upon sustainable

design. Providing scope for portions of dwellings not visible from a street to be of an

alternative form and design CONCLUSION: A review of the LPPS has now been completed, and it is recommended that the draft revised LPPS be advertised for public comments. Following the public consultation period, Council will be required to consider the submissions received prior to adopting a final revised LPPS.


11.5 85 11.5

Further Comments: At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 May 2012, a query was raised in regard to the possible use of colorbond roof sheeting in addition to the permitted use of zincalume roof sheeting within the Town’s character areas. It was suggested that this item could be the subject of a Workshop prior to the Policy being advertised. Should Elected Members believe that there is merit in modifying the draft Policy in this manner, it would be appropriate that this modification be incorporated into the revised Policy that is to be the subject of community consultation, and that the submissions received in relation to the entire Policy be the subject of a Workshop prior to any final adoption of the Policy. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter 1. The draft revised Local Planning Policy – Streetscape dated May 2012,

contained in Appendix 11.5, be advertised in accordance with the procedures set out in the Model Scheme Text including a 28 day advertising period.

2. The advertising and consultation process, for the draft revised Local Planning

Policy – Streetscape dated May 2012, be as follows: 2.1 A formal notice be published in newspaper circulated in the district for

two consecutive weeks at the commencement of the advertising period, and placed on Council’s Website at the commencement of the advertising period.

2.2 A full copy of the draft revised Policy being placed on the Council’s

website for the duration of the advertising period.


Ordinary M

12.1

12 RE

Ca12.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveHighway Depa

Revithe r

The mea

The to th

TABLED Can BACKGRThe Depcomprehestudy exaand Kwina Canning Has an “Otand was isouthern impact onhighway, encompas The studyintersectinHighway a

Meeting of

ENEW LI

anning H

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarreservatioartment ofiew – Finarelevant sta

study coasures wou

Canning Hhe Elected

ITEMS: ning Highw

ROUND: partment oensive planamined theana Freew

Highway wther Regioncorporateside of th

n adjoiningextending

ssed within

y area of thng streets and Canni

f Council M

FE PROG

ighway R

ADNo 27 M.

er: A. Vnt: Simry: Recomon requiref Transportal Planningakeholdersncluded th

uld generalHighway RMembers

way Road

of Transpn for road e section oway (South

was reservonal Highwed in the Me highway

g propertieg well beyn the reser

his project between Eng Highwa

Minutes

GRAM R

Road Re

DM0164

April 2012Chou Vuleta

mple Majormmendatioements prt (DoT) haReport no

s. hat four gly cater for

Road Reseron 17 Apri

Reserve R

port (DoT)requiremef Canning Perth).

ed in the Pway”. The eMRS in 198y with a ws. A signifyond the rvation. A

relevant tEllam Streeay is exclud

86

REPORTS

eservatio

2

rity on – Endoresented bs undertak

ow release

general trar the futurerve Reviewil 2012 by t

Review Fina

) commisents for a 5

Highway b

Perth Metrexisting MR80. The mawidth of abficant amoapproximasignificant

o the Towet and Albded within

S

on Review

rse in prinby the Depken the Caed seeking

affic lanese transportw study repthe DoT.

al Planning

sioned W5.5km secbetween A

ropolitan RRS reservajority of thbout 18 mount of private 20 met portion of

n of Victorany Highwthe scope

w

nciple the partment oanning High

endorsem

and pubdemand in

port and p

g Report –

WorleyParsotion of Ca

Albany Hig

Region Schation is ab

he reservatetres, whic

vate land oetre wide this is Cro

ria is Cannway. The in

of this stu

12 J

proposedof Transpohway Roa

ment in prin

lic transpon the studylans were

– 10 Janua

ons to panning Highhway (Vict

heme (MRSbout 40 metion is locach has a on either s

dedicatedown land.

ning Highwntersectionudy.

June 2012

12.1

d Canningort. d Reserve

nciple from

ort priorityy area. presented

ry 2012.

produce ahway. Thetoria Park)

S) in 1963etres wide

ated on thesignificant

side of thed road, is

way and its of Albany

2

g

e m

y

d

a e )

3 e e t e s

s y


12.1 87 12.1

DETAILS: The purpose of the study is to produce a single comprehensive plan for road requirements for Canning Highway. The study comprises several inter-related outcomes, namely;

Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that considers how adjacent land uses interact with the future Canning Highway and accommodates the requirements of an urban corridor;

Ensuring that the future needs of the transport users are adequately catered for in the widened road corridor, including pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Preparation of an access strategy which minimises frontage access onto Canning Highway and reviews connectivity of local roads to the highway; and

Preparation of a road design concept with accompanying land reservation plans that accommodate the requirements of an urban corridor.

The findings of the Canning Highway Planning Study indicate that future traffic volumes of Canning Highway are expected to increase over the next 20 years. However, sections of the highway will continue to experience safety problems, traffic congestion at some intersections during peak periods and reduced public transport efficiency. The findings of the study support the need to plan for the future provision for a central median, intersection improvements, improved pedestrian/cyclist facilities and public transport priority measures. A small increase in the reservation area is proposed as some enlarged truncations are considered necessary to improve vehicle turning movements. The study concluded that four general traffic lanes and public transport (bus) priority measures would generally cater for the future transport demand on this section of the highway. Cycling will be permitted within bus lanes. The findings and recommendations of the study have been accepted in principle by the study Project Working Group and are generally supported by the community. The proposed Canning Highway reservation plans contained in the Final Report are now submitted for formal consideration by Council and endorsement in principle. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Plan for the Future - Renew Life Program – Objective 3 – being to manage, maintain and renew the Town’s assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil


12.1 88 12.1

Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Noise from traffic will continue to be an issue on major roadways but the improvements proposed will include Public Transport, safety and aesthetics. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Canning Highway Road Reserve Review study report and plans were presented to the Elected Members on 17 April 2012. No objections were received from Elected Members and officers regarding the outcomes of this study. No further issues were raised after the presentation. CONCLUSION: Subject to endorsement in principle by the Town of Victoria Park, City of South Perth, Main Roads WA, Department of Planning and Public Transport Authority the reservation plans will be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval to initiate an amendment to the MRS to reflect the proposed minor reservation requirements along Canning Highway. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn That Council: 1. Endorses in principle the proposed Canning Highway reservation

requirements.

2. Advises the Department of Transport of its decision. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

12.2

Te12.2 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutivesubmitted Tend

Towwith

TABLED Nil BACKGRThe Townspecialiseeffectively The Town The TownAustralian Tenders wsupply an DETAILSFive (5) sServices, All submis Evaluationtender doCoordinat Attributes range of 0(W% or Etenderer. panel for engage ot

Meeting of

ender No

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summad by Asphder evalua

wn of Victoran option

ITEMS:

ROUND: n of Victoried operatioy undertake

n had a pan

n has adven on 28th A

were invited laying of

: submission

as per the

ssions are

n has beencuments btor and Exe

or Assess0-5. This sEvaluation The tendeeach of thther contra

f Council M

. 12/04 T

ToVNo 24 E S

er: A Vnt: Simary: Recohaltech foration for thria Park forof two (2)

ia Park coons for whe.

nel contrac

ertised for April 2012 a

d from prof Asphalt w

ns were rece Schedule

exclusive

n undertakby a panel ecutive Ma

sment Critscore was

Criteria) aerer having

he item of actors on th

Minutes

ToVP – S

VP12/04

May 2012Setzinger Vuleta mple Majorommendatr the items

he provisior a period ox 12 mont

ntracts outhich the T

ct 06/09 wh

tenders fand closed

ofessional owithin the T

ceived for es of Rates

of GST.

ken accordof three st

anager Ren

eria (P) wethen multipand divideg the higheservice ashe panel a

89

upply an

2

rity tion – Res specifien of Suppof two (2) h extensio

t the suppown does

hich is due

for the sup at 2pm on

organisatioTown of Vic

tender TVs provided

ding to the taff membenew Life.

ere determplied by th

ed by 100 est score w

ssessed. Has it so wish

nd laying

ecommend in the te

ply and layyears from

ons.

ly and layinot have

e to expire

pply and lan the 15th M

ons accredctoria Park

VP/12/04 –herewith.

tender evaers, Engine

mined and e previousto obtain would be tHowever, th.

g of Asph

d acceptender docing of Asp

m 2nd July 2

ng of asphthe appro

30th June

aying of AMay 2012.

dited to prok.

Supply an

aluation creering Sup

given a posly determithe Value

the preferrthe Town r

12 J

halt Serv

tance of cument TVphalt Servi2012 to 1st

halt works opriate res

2012.

Asphalt in

ovide servic

nd Laying

riteria inclupervisor, En

oint score ined weigh

e Score (Vred contracreserves t

June 2012

12.2

vices.

the offerVP/12/04.

ces in theJuly 2014

which aresources to

The West

ces for the

of Asphalt

uded in thengineering

within thehting factorV) for eachctor on thehe right to

2

2

r

e 4

e o

t

e

t

e g

e r h e o


12.2 90 12.2

Description of Selection Criteria Weighting UnitAsphalt

SurfacesAsphaltech Boral

Fulton Hogan

Roads 2000

Capability/competence ofTenderer to perform the workrequired Qualifications, skills andexperience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staffresources available 15 15 15 15 15 Percentage of operationalcapacity represented by this work Quality systems

Experience of Tenderer insupplying similar goods orcompleting similar projects Relevant industry experience(including public sector), includingdetails of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement inthese projects, including details ofoutcomes produced 15 15 15 15 15 Past record of performance andachievement References from past andpresent clients Occupational safety and healthtrack record

Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tenderdocuments Level of understanding of workrequired

Ability to meet delivery dates inregard to overall work commitments.

15 15 15 15 15

Warranties offered

Added value items offered

Special conditions included inTender

Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods orservices in accordance with theRequest 30.63 40.00 29.24 27.23 39.96

Rates or prices for variations

TOTAL 100% 75.63 85.00 74.24 72.23 84.96

20%

20%

20%

40%


12.2 91 12.2

TABLE 1 of 2 - Supply, Lay & Consolidate Hotmix Asphalt as Specified1 2 3 4 5

Description UnitAsphalt


Fulton Hogan

Roads 2000

14mm nominal size – granitea) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $190.00 $137.70 $189.25 $200.00 $137.08b) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA intersection mix)

tonne $190.00 $141.90 $195.35 $200.00 $136.86

10mm nominal size – granitea) 35 blow Marshall mix tonne $192.00 $140.50 $196.81 $203.00 $144.60b) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $191.00 $139.70 $193.63 $200.00 $138.42c) 75 blow Marshall mix (MRWA mix) tonne $191.00 $142.90 $198.22 $200.00 $137.74

7mm nominal size – granitea) 35 blow Marshall mix tonne $193.00 $144.00 $196.82 $204.00 $142.96b) 50 blow Marshall mix tonne $192.00 $143.00 $195.82 $202.00 $139.88

10mm nominal size – laterite hotmix asphalt

a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $196.00 $212.96 $244.00 $177.78b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $195.00 $212.96 $240.00 $174.70c) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) (MRWA mix)

tonne $221.00 $199.00 $217.39 $240.00 $174.02

10mm nominal size – laterite/granite asphalt

a) 75 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide)

tonne $223.00 $195.00 $201.71 $240.00 $174.02

7mm nominal size – laterite hotmix asphalt

a) 35 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $196.00 $215.89 $248.00 $177.78b) 50 blow Marshall mix (1% oxide) tonne $223.00 $195.00 $215.89 $244.00 $174.70

Stone Mastic Asphalta) 7 SMA tonne $231.00 $169.00 $230.00 $244.00 $173.30b) 10 SMA tonne $233.00 $167.00 $220.99 $240.00 $170.12

Penalties for weekend and after hours work

item $2,400.00 $8,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,250.00

Sat $1,590.00Sun $2,490.00

Pub Holiday $2,940.00Night $2,790.00

TABLE 2 of 2 – Traffic Control

Item Description UnitAsphalt


Fulton Hogan

Roads 2000

1Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (normal hours, Monday to Friday, 6am to 6pm)

hr $148.50 $126.50 $135.00 $220.00 $107.80

2Two traffic controllers, vehicle, signs and radios (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends and public holidays)

hr $181.50 $141.90 $175.00 $330.00 $147.95

3One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (normal hours, Monday to Friday, 6am to 6pm)

hr $80.30 $74.80 $75.00 $132.00 $67.65

4One traffic controller, vehicle, signs (after hours, 6pm to 6am, weekends and public holidays)

hr $121.00 $86.90 $105.00 $196.00 $87.45

5 Additional traffic controller hr $66.00 $58.30 $55.00 $77.00 $50.05

6 Additional vehicle (Ute) day $66.00 $93.50 $250.00 $275.00 $220.00

7 Trailer mounted Arrow Board day $112.00 $104.50 $150.00 $275.00 $80.85

8 Variable Message Board day $467.00 $429.00 $275.00 $275.00 $330.00

Item

Total Rate


12.2 92 12.2

Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Town’s purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender complies and addresses a programmed and systematic approach to maintain the Town’s assets. Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Town will most benefit from accepting the offer from Asphaltech, who have submitted the best value for money conforming tender. Asphaltech is the current Asphalt supplier for the Town of Victoria Park and have provided a very good service during the term of the 06/09 Tender. Asphaltech have submitted the lowest tender prices for the asphalt mixes predominantly used by the Town of Victoria Park. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tender, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by Asphaltech for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town.


12.2 93 12.2

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter Council to endorse the acceptance of the offer submitted by Asphaltech for the supply and laying of asphalt in accordance with the contract document TVP/12/04 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 subject to satisfactory performance be accepted by the Town. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

12.3

Ac12.3 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommNetwork Cons Cons Plea

(DoT TABLED Cons Cons BACKGRThe PertGovernmeprovides fAuthoritie Each locasubsequeworks pro Projects t

Oupat

On En Bik Sig

The TownThe Townprojects w

Meeting of

cceptanc

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation Local Govstruction ostruction o

ase note thT) in the ap

ITEMS: struction ostruction o

ROUND: th Bicyle ent prografunding ass (LGAs) f

al governent financiaogram that

hat the Doutstanding ths along r

n/off road bd of trip fac

ke plans; agnage

n submittedn has beenwere appro

f Council M

ce of Pert

ADYE 25 Fra

er: Antnt: Abry: – the To

vernment of Jarrah Rof Great Eae total am

ppendix sh

of Jarrah Rof Great Ea

Network am adminssistance, for approve

ment authal year ancould be e

oT identifiedprojects id

recreationabicycle lanecilities e.g.nd

d a grant an advised

oved for co

Minutes

th Bicyc

DM0170 ES

May 2012ank Squadthony Vulesolute Maj

wn accepGrants Fuoad Bicycl

astern Highount writte

hould read

oad Bicyclastern High

(PBN) Loistered thtypically o

ed cycling

hority wasnd determieligible for

d as potendentified inal routes, ues (particul. bike park

application that it hasnstruction

94

le Netwo

2 rito

eta ority

pts fundinunding Prole Lanes hway Sharen on the c$201,943.

le Lanes; lohway Shar

ocal Govhrough theon a dollaprojects.

s asked tone whethegrant assis

ntial grant rn PBN locupgrading olarly busie

king at publ

to DoT fors secured in the 201

ork Gran

ng provideogram 201

ed Path –cover letter

odged 9 Ded Path; lo

ernment Ge Departmr for dolla

o consideer there astance thro

recipients ical bicycle of existing r ones); lic places;

r 3 projectsgrant fund2/13 financ

t Funds

ed under 12/13

Craig Strer from Depa

ecember 2odged 9 De

Grants Prment of Tr

r basis, to

r its workre cycling ough the P

nclude theroutes (mpaths);

s to be conding totallincial year.

12 J

2012-201

the Pert

eet to Causartment of

2011. ecember 2

rogram isransport (o Local Go

ks programprojects w

PBN grant s

e following:missing sha

nstructed inng $201,94

June 2012

12.3

13

h Bicycle

seway f Transport

2011.

s a StateDoT) thatovernment

m for thewithin thatscheme.

: ared links,

n 2012/13.43. Only 2

2

3

e

t

e t t

e t

. 2


12.3 95 12.3

DETAILS: Construction of Bicycle Lanes along Jarrah Road, Bentley The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $217,940 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $108,970 (50%) of the total project cost through the PBN Program. This figure is shown in the attached appendix. The bicycle lanes along Jarrah Road will be constructed from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. The length of the bicycle lane will be 1,840m, 1.2m wide and will be constructed on both sides. The bicycle lane will be constructed with red asphalt as per the current standard. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Jarrah Road from Kent Street to Hill View Terrace. Construction of Shared Path on Great Eastern Highway, Victoria Park The construction of the project was estimated to cost approximately $281,000 (exc. GST). The Town stands to receive $92,973 of the total project cost from DoT as shown in the appendix. The Town initially requested $140,973 through the PBN program which includes path construction and lighting component. The DoT has only approved $92,973 which excludes the lighting component. The Town will fund the lighting works as the project is considered of high importance to link the causeway precinct. The dual use path will provide continuity from the existing dual path in Craig Street to Shepperton Road. The length of the dual use path is 509m and 2.5m wide. The dual use path will be constructed with red asphalt as per current standards. As part of the scope, a full feature survey will be commissioned that will encompass Charles Paterson Park. Legal Compliance: All works undertaken will comply with Austroads Guidelines and relevant Australian Standard relating to Bicycle infrastructure Policy Implications: Delegation 560 (Grants) of the Town’s Delegations Register states that the administration can; Make and accept submissions for grants from Lotteries Commission, State and Commonwealth Governments, with a condition that acceptance of successful submissions over $22,000 (incl. GST) to be subjected to Council approval. Strategic Plan Implications: The Strategic Plan includes many statements about sustainability. Improved cycling infrastructure in order to encourage greater uptake of cycling to compliment the Community Wellbeing and Quality Physical Environment are key result areas of the Strategic Plan as well as the sustainability aims of the Plan.


12.3 96 12.3

Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Town will need to fund at least 50% of the nominated project costs to receive the grant funding from DoT which have now been endorsed by DoT. The funding arrangement would be:

Project Funding source Total ToVP DoT

Jarrah Road Bicycle Lanes $108,970 $108,970 $217,940 excluding overheads

GEH – Shepperton Dual Path

$188,973 $92,973 $281,946 excluding overheads

$297,943 $201,943 $499,886 Total Asset Management: The works once completed will be maintained by the Town Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Improved cycling infrastructure is likely to yield results in terms of positive outcomes for cyclists and a corresponding increased use of bikes for transport. It is hoped this will have a positive effect on the businesses and services within the Town as more people view the Town of Victoria Park as a Local Government Authority committed to infrastructure supporting alternative modes of transport. Social Issues: An increase in cycling within the Town will improve the health and wellbeing of community members and assist in developing more people-friendly neighbourhoods. With fewer cars and more people on the streets, a greater sense of community is developed. People on bikes tend to engage with other cyclists and pedestrians in a different way to those in cars. Cycling also provides a cost efficient and sustainable form of transport. Cultural Issues: The close proximity of the Town to the Perth Central Business District and good connectivity to public transport mean that a mode shift is possible from single car occupants to cyclists for many trips. Improved cycling infrastructure is critical to this mode shift. Travel Behaviour change to increase cycling within the Town relies on good cycling infrastructure. Environmental Issues: Continuing to provide safe and efficient cycling facilities will encourage and facilitate more use of bicycles, rather than vehicles, for commuting, transport or recreational journeys. Reducing vehicle dependency will help reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle noise. COMMENT: The aforementioned projects are high use bike routes. Acceptance of the funding totalling $201,943 and return of the contract agreements to the DoT need to be finalised by close of business, Friday 8 June 2012. All works associated with the grants are to be completed by Friday, 10 May 2013. In the event that the project completion date exceeds the deadline, DoT shall be notified 30 days prior to that date.


12.3 97 12.3

CONCLUSION: The Town has been successful in securing external funding of $201,943 from DoT to assist the Town to install bike lanes on the two critical bike routes on Jarrah Road and Craig Street. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton The Council accepts grant funding totalling $201,943 from the Perth Bicycle Network Grant program though the Department of Transport and endorses the implementation of these projects which will be allocated in the 2012/2013 financial year budget. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

12.4

Co12.4Mo

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommWorking CEW CEW TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe ComCommuniMeeting oaims and At the Towmembers The inaug DETAILSAt the CEReference That the C

1. Aims

educa2. Meeti3. Mana

docum Legal CoNil

Meeting of

ommunitodificatio

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarended thGroup (CE

WG have mWG have re

ITEMS:

ROUND: wn’s Ordin

mmunity Ety Environ

on 13 Decobjectives

wn’s Ordinof the CEW

gural meeti

: EWG meee and reso

CEWG Ter

and Objecation withinngs – 3.1…

agement –ment”.

mpliance:

f Council M

y Envons to Te

ADNil 28 W.

er: A. Vnt: Simry:

hat the TEWG) be a

meet and reecommend

nary Councnvironmennmental Wcember 20s of the CE

nary CouncWG, with a

ing of the C

eting of 15olved the fo

rms of Refe

ctives – bun the comm… “At least– 6.2 …

:

Minutes

ironmenerms of R

DM0058

May 2012Bow

Vuleta mple Major

erm of Ramended.eviewed thded modific

cil Meetingntal AdvisWorking G11 CounciWG.

cil Meetingan expiry d

CEWG wa

5 March 2ollowing –

erence be

ullet point munity as itt 5 meeting“Members

98

ntal WoReferenc

2

rity

Reference

he Terms ocations to t

g on 8 Novsory CommGroup (CEW

il resolved

g on 14 Fedate of 19 O

s held on 1

2012, the

amended

3 … “Provt relates togs are helds be requ

orking ce

for the

of Referencthe Terms

ember 201mittee (CWG). At t to endors

ebruary 201October 20

15 March 2

Working

to read as

viding inpuo the Work d per year”uested to

Group

Commun

ce. of Referen

11, CounciEAC) andthe Town’se the term

12 Council013.

2012.

Group rev

s per the fo

ut to CouncPlan.” . sign the

12 J

– P

nity Envir

nce

il resolved d to esta’s Ordinarms of refe

l resolved

viewed its

ollowing he

cil on envi

Code of

June 2012

12.4

roposed

ronmental

to abolishablish thery Councilrence and

to appoint

Terms of

eadings:

ironmental

f Conduct

2

4

d

l

h e l

d

t

f

l

t


12.4 99 12.4

Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the CEWG is aligned to the Plan for the Future and was endorsed by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 13 December 2011. The purpose of the Community Environmental Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by: Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate

to the Work Plan. Provide input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies,

documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan.

Provide leadership in the role of environmental education within the community. Actively participate in actions resulting from the Work Plan.” Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The proposed amendments to the CEWG Terms of Reference are reflected below – 1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The strategic focus for the Community Environmental Working Group (CEWG) is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the CEWG is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:

Identifying and raising environmental issues of concern to the community as they relate to the Work Plan.

Providing input, from a community perspective, into key environmental policies, documents, plans, reports and programs developed by the Town as it relates to the Work Plan.


12.4 100 12.4

Providing input to Council on environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan

Actively participating in actions resulting from the Work Plan. 2. MEMBERSHIP

2.1 Community Members shall comprise five. 2.2 Places will be available for suitably qualified professionals who can provide expert

advice/information as necessary. 2.3 The term of membership will be for two years commencing on appointment made by

the Council and concluding in October in line with the ordinary Council election cycle.

2.4 Staff will attend meetings to present reports and provide technical advice and secretarial support where required and are not members.

3. MEETINGS

3.1 At least five meetings are held per year. 3.2 A quorum for a meeting shall be no less than three members one of whom shall be

an Elected Member of the Town of Victoria Park. 3.3 All members shall have one vote. The Presiding Member shall also have the right to

a casting vote; simple majority will prevail. 3.4 The Presiding Member will preside at all meetings and is responsible for the proper

conduct of the meetings. In his/her absence the role of Presiding Member will be assumed by any other Elected Member who has been appointed as a member by the Council.

4. AGENDAS

4.1 The Administration will determine the Agenda for each meeting in accordance with the Annual Work Plan endorsed by the Council.

4.2 All meetings shall be confined to the items listed on the Annual Work Plan unless the Council determines that additional matters be considered.

4.3 There will be no General Business – additional items are to be submitted to the Administration further consideration for (a) action administratively or (b) for consideration by the Town/Council in development of the next financial period’s Work Plan.

4.4 Reports outside of the Annual Work Plan or Terms of Reference cannot be called for.

4.5 Work Plans will be developed annually by the Administration and endorsed by the Council taking account of the Town’s Plan for the Future, strategic planning objectives, annual priorities or any other of the Town’s plans or initiatives.

5. NOTES

5.1 The Administration will maintain Action Notes of the items discussed at each meeting and the outcomes from discussions. The notes may be used as the basis for further action by the Town on an item. (Verbatim minutes of discussion will not be taken).


12.4 101 12.4

5.2 Matters requiring action by Council shall be moved and seconded as recommendations to the Council and shall be the subject of specific reports by the Administration to the Council as an agenda item.

6. MANAGEMENT

6.1 The CEWG has no delegated powers or authority to: 6.1.1 Represent the Town of Victoria Park; 6.1.2 Implement recommendations without approval of the Council; and 6.1.3 Commit Council to the expenditure of funds.

6.2 Members are requested to sign the Code of Conduct document Additional Comment At the Elected Members Briefing Session on 5 June 2012 Elected members suggested that clause 4.3 of the terms of reference be amended to allow general business, but it is felt that the Council’s at decision on 8 May 2012 relating to changes to the working groups agenda format which enables matters not included on working group agendas to be discussed has resolved this issue and therefore the recommendation does not require amendment. CONCLUSION: The CEWG chose to re-word the reference to environmental education contained in the Aims and Objectives. The CEWG members felt that the restriction to four meetings per year was not appropriate. The CEWG members felt that signing the Code of Conduct was preferable to the reference to compliance therewith. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives – bullet point 3 … “Providing input to Council on

environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan.” 2. Meetings – 3.1… “At least 5 meetings are held per year”. 3. Management – 6.2 … “Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct

document”.


12.4 102 12.4

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner That a recommendation 4 be added in relation to the Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 be deleted. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: To be in accordance with standard ‘Order of Business’ endorsed for all Working Group Agendas, resolved on the 8 May 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That the Community Environmental Working Group Terms of Reference be amended to read as per the following headings: 1. Aims and Objectives – bullet point 3 … “Providing input to Council on

environmental education within the community as it relates to the Work Plan.” 2. Meetings – 3.1… “At least 5 meetings are held per year”. 3. Management – 6.2 … “Members be requested to sign the Code of Conduct

document”. 4. Terms of Reference relating to Item 4 Agendas, clause 4.3 is deleted. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

12.5

Te12.5an

File ReferAppendicDate: ReportingResponsVoting ReRecommTo awardExecutive 8 te

Mov The

iden TABLED Req

Prep BACKGRThe Towprogram, Parking SStrategy. traffic anddeliver a min the Tow A project State GoMembers request fo The outco The key ofunding ofbased on be linked State Gov

Meeting of

ender TVn Integrat

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremenendation:

d Tender Te Summar

enders recvement Net

tender etified.

ITEMS: uest for Tepare an Int

ROUND: n’s Plan fStreet Lif

Strategy. TThe PfF s

d parking nmulti-modawn.

brief for thovernment

and Counor tender b

omes soug

outcome frf an integraan objectito the To

vernment’s

f Council M

VP/12/03 ted Move

TENo31 J.W

er: A.Vnt: Sim

TVP/12/03 ry: ceived in twork Strat

evaluation

ender – Teegrated M

for the Fufe being Chis projectstates. Wneeds for bal approac

e project wtransport

ncil’s Integreing adver

ght from the

from the IMated moveive assessmown’s Strats directions

Minutes

– Provisement Ne

S0549 . May 2012

Wong Vuleta mple Major

to Worley

response tegy for theprocess

ender No. ovement N

uture 201Complete t has since

We will be both the p

ch to shift f

was preparagencies.

rated Movertised.

e IMNS are

MNS will bment netwment of protegic Plan:s for Public

103

sion of Cetwork S

2

rity

yParsons S

to requese Town. has been

TVP/12/03Network St

1-2026 (Pthe Integr

e been rendeveloping

present andfrom motor

red which i. The proement Netw

e outlined

be an agrework infrastrojects usin: Plan for c Transpor

ConsultaStrategy

Services P

st for tend

complete

3 - Provisitrategy (IM

PfF) includrated Tranamed the g a comprd the futurr vehicle to

involved seoject brief work Work

in the Proj

eed plan fotructure ovng triple bothe Future

rt network i

ncy Serv(IMNS)

Pty Ltd

der to pre

ed and a

on of ConsNS).

des a projnsport ManIntegrated

rehensive re. The trao other mo

eeking comwas refer

king Group

ect Brief a

or the planver the nexottom line me 2011 – 2in Perth by

12 J

vices to

epare an

preferred

sultancy S

ject undernagement

d Movemenplan to ad

ansport plaodes of tran

mments frorred to th

p for review

s follows:

nning, proxt 20 yearsmethodolog2026 as w

y 2031.

June 2012

12.5

Prepare

Integrated

d tenderer

Services to

r the SubPlan and

nt Networkddress thean will alsonsport use

om the keyhe Electedw prior to a

vision and. It is to begy and will

well as the

2

5

e

d

r

o

b d k e o e

y d a

d e l

e


12.5 104 12.5

The IMNS needs to: Define the regional movement framework as it relates to the Town including

defining what are givens and what can and/or should be changed; Develop a local framework that responds to the regional framework and provides for

local needs and aspirations; Focus the Town and the community towards the key issues and strategies to be

addressed over the next 20 years; and Provide a basis for the Council and the community to prioritise and guide the

investment of Council resources and lobby/ partner with other agencies for delivery of other components identified in the Strategy.

The IMNS requires the preparation of an Implementation Action Plan which will identify the drivers and triggers for projects, programs, and works together with a series of short, medium and long-term infrastructure and projects with indicative costs, jurisdiction, partnership, and funding options and responsibilities. DETAILS: A request for tender for the IMNS project was advertised in the West Australian on 14 April 2012 with a closing date of 15 May 2012. The selection criteria and weighting of the criteria for the tender were as follows: Description of Selection Criteria Weighting Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems

25%

Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details

of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement in these projects, including details of

outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record

25%

Understanding of Requirement Level of understanding of Tender documents Level of understanding of work required Ability to meet delivery dates in regard to overall work commitments. Warranties offered Added value items offered Special conditions included in Tender

35%

Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the

Request Rates or prices for variations

15%

TOTAL 100%


12.5 105 12.5

8 tender submissions were received in response and each tender was assessed by a three person tender evaluation panel in accordance with the criteria set out in the tender. The tenders were first assessed against the compliance criteria to ensure that they satisfied the requirements of the request for tender. Some tenders did not provide all of the detailed information requested. It was considered that the non-conformances were non-material to the solution or price tendered and that the additional information could be requested from the short-listed tenderer/s after the evaluation process. In the case of one tender, additional copies of the tender document were requested and received after the tender closing, but this was also considered non-material to the solution or the price tendered. All submissions were processed through to the qualitative/price evaluation on this basis. In addition a number of the tenders sought variations to the standard Conditions of Contract which formed part of the request for tender document. Each of the 8 tenders was scored a value from 0-5 for each of the qualitative criteria:

Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Understanding of Requirement

A table of the total scores of the three evaluation panel members for the criteria for each tender is outlined below.

Tenderer Total Score Capability

/competence

Total Score Experience

Total Score Understanding

Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 9 9 6 Cardno WA 9 8 4 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd. 9 6 9 GHD Pty. Ltd. 9 9 6 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 9 7 6 Parsons Brinkerhoff 10 10 11 Sinclair Knight Merz 9 8 7 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. 10 11 12 The total scores for each qualitative criteria were then averaged and applied the relevant weighting to generate a weighted score for each criteria. The weighted score for each criteria were then added to provide a final weighted score for each tender, which is outlined in the table below.


12.5 106 12.5

Tenderer Qualitative Criteria

Total Weighted Score

Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 2.20 Cardno WA 1.88 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd. 2.30 GHD Pty. Ltd. 2.20 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 2.03 Parsons Brinkerhoff 2.94 Sinclair Knight Merz 2.47 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. 3.15 The tender price for each tender was weighted and then added to the weighted score for the qualitative criteria to provide a total score for each of the tenders, as shown in the table below.

Tenderer

Qualitative Criteria

Total Weighted Score

Weighted Price Score

Total Score

Aurecon Australia Pty. Ltd 2.20 0.30 2.50 Cardno WA 1.88 0.75 2.63 Donald Veal Consultants Pty. Ltd.

2.30 0.33 2.63

GHD Pty. Ltd. 2.20 0.36 2.56 Hyder Consulting Pty. Ltd 2.03 0.43 2.46 Parsons Brinkerhoff 2.94 0.26 3.20 Sinclair Knight Merz 2.47 0.46 2.93 WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd.

3.15 0.35 3.50

The tenderer with the highest total score is the preferred tenderer. The Evaluation Report for the tender has been signed off by the three evaluation panel members and the Chief Executive Officer. An email to the Mayor and Councillor’s dated 31 May 2012 advises that the Evaluation Report, copies of the 8 tender documents. Can be viewed by the Elected Members by contacting the Executive Manager Street Life. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57. Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4. Policy Implications: Council Policy FIN4 – Purchase of Goods and Services has been complied with as an open tender process was used for this project.


12.5 107 12.5

Strategic Plan Implications: The Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PfF) includes a project under the Sub program, Street Life being Complete the Integrated Transport Management Plan and Parking Strategy. This project is now known as the Integrated Movement Network Strategy. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The shortlisted tenderer submitted a lump sum tender price of $180,937.80 plus GST. There is sufficient funds in the current budget to fund this contract. Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: The following assessment is based on the report relating to the administrative process of awarding a tender rather that the sustainability assessment of the actual project, which will have economic, social and environmental implications. External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The evaluation process established that the highest qualitative scores for each of the three criteria were achieved by the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. The price evaluation determined that this tender was within the average price range of the tenders received. When the price was weighted and added to the total qualitative score, the tender submitted by WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. still achieved the highest overall total score of all tenders. As the tender from WorleyParsons Services Pty. Ltd. was the short-listed tender selected by the evaluation panel, some additional but not critical information was sought which was not included in the original tender submission and this is anticipated to be received in writing during the week of the June 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting. As this was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document, legal advice has been sought from Council’s Solicitors to consider these matters.


12.5 108 12.5

ADDITIONAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS The tender from Worley Parsons Pty Ltd was one of the tenders that proposed minor variations to the Conditions of Contract which form part of the request for tender document. Consequently, legal advice has been sought from Council’s Solicitors to consider these matters. The two main clauses that staff are seeking to retain in the General Conditions of Contract that form the basis of the agreement between the Town and the successful tenderer are: 11.1 The Contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Principal and the Principal’s

Personnel from and against all Loss and other liabilities of any kind arising directly or indirectly from:

(a) any breach of any warranty or any of the other terms and conditions of this

Contract by the Contractor or the Contractor’s Personnel; (b) any Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Contractor or the

Contractor’s Personnel; and (c) any claim made by a third party against the Principal or the Principal’s

Personnel, to the extent that the claim arose out of the act or omission of the Contractor or the Contractor’s Personnel, except to the extent of liability which is caused by the Wilful Misconduct or a negligent act or omission of the Principal or the Principal’s Personnel.

11.2 The Principal need not incur any cost or make any payment before enforcing any

right of indemnity under this Clause 10. Schedule 1 Contract Specifics, contained in Tender TVP/12/03 contains the following information regarding the level of indemnity and professional liability –

Minimum level of Public Liability Insurance Cover required: AUD$10,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$10,000,000 in the aggregate.

Minimum level of Professional Indemnity Cover Required: AUD$5,000,000 for one claim; and AUD$5,000,000 in the aggregate.

WorleyParsons Pty Ltd has sought to limit the extent of liability afforded by the above mentioned insurances. Legal advice has confirmed the Town’s position on this matter. However, officers will negotiate in good faith to secure a suitable outcome. CONCLUSION: The tender submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd is considered to provide the best value for money given that it achieved the highest qualitative weighted score of all eight tenders and is within the average price range of the tenders received.


12.5 109 12.5

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. That Tender TVP/12/03 for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an

Integrated Movement Network Strategy submitted by Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. dated 14 May 2012 at a cost of $199,031.58 (Including GST) be accepted, subject to Director of Renew Life approving the indemnification clauses in the General Conditions of Contract to the satisfaction of the Town.

2. Approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to negotiate with the tenderer

Worley Parsons Services Pty. Ltd. mentioned in clause 1. above, amendments proposed to modify the General Conditions of Contract in relation to clauses 11.1 and 11.2 dealing with Indemnity.

3. Subject to the negotiations to the clauses in the General Conditions of

Contract mentioned in clause 2. above not being to the satisfaction of the Town, approval be given to the Director of Renew Life to accept the tender submitted by the second preferred tenderer being Parsons Brinkerhoff Australia Pty. Ltd for the Provision of Consultancy Services to Prepare an Integrated Movement Network Strategy (TVP/12/03) at a cost of $271,818.94 (including GST) .


Ordinary M

12.6

Mo12.6OcPla

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveformer La Mov

the s Shor TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Orduse of torganisatiApril 2012 A requestto enable season of This freehreport onprovisionson 27 Jan DETAILSMovies byformer La Legal CoDiscussiostorage pPlanning S

Meeting of

ovies byccupy Aanet Stre

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarathlain Pre

vies by Bursite. rt term, inte

ITEMS:

ROUND: dinary Couhe formerion, via a 2 at $1.00

t from Movcontinued

f their cine

hold propen this mats of the Tonuary 2012

: y Burswoo

athlain Pre-

mpliance:on with Buiurposes isScheme, a

f Council M

y BurswAgreemeneet, Lath

PRNo 25 W.

er: A. nt: Simry: Recome-Primaryrswood has

erim appro

uncil meetr Lathlain licence to rental.

vies by Bur occupatioma activitie

erty is owntter, the laown Planni2, rezoning

od operate-Primary S

: lt Life staff

s afforded and as suc

Minutes

wood –nt – forlain

RO1054

May 2012Bow Vuleta

mple Majormmendati

y School ss requeste

oval is reco

ing of 20 SPre-Prim

occupy ag

rswood hason of the sites.

ed in fee sand was zing Schem it to “Resi

ed from 8 chool site

f indicate tnon-confo

ch can be a

110

Requestrmer La

2

rity on – Couite by Mov

ed an exten

ommended

Septembemary Schogreement,

s been recte, effectiv

simple by zoned “Ci

me, howeveidential R-3

Decembefor office,

that the prorming use

approved b

t for Exathlain P

ncil endorvies by Bunsion to its

d.

r 2011, Coool site b

for the pe

ceived seevely for stor

the Town.ivic Use –er a rezon30”.

er 2011 totraining an

oposed corights und

by Council.

xtensionPre-Prim

rse the courswood. s existing a

ouncil resoy the Mo

eriod 30 Se

king an exrage purpo

. As indic– Public Ping of the

14 April nd storage

ntinued usder the pro

12 J

n of Licmary Sch

ontinued u

agreement

olved to enovies by eptember 2

xtension ofoses prior t

cated in thePurpose” land was

2012 andpurposes.

se of the povisions of

June 2012

12.6

ence tohool 6-8

use of the

to occupy

ndorse theBurswood2011 – 30

f the termsto the next

e previousunder thecompleted

used the

roperty forf the Town

2

6

o 8

e

y

e d 0

s t

s e d

e

r n


12.6 111 12.6

Notwithstanding that the licence to occupy the site comprises a disposal of land under the Local Government Act 1995, such disposal is exempt under the provisions of clause 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 because the land is to be disposed to a body, whether incorporated or not, the objects of which are of a charitable nature. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Plan for the Future identifies the management, maintenance and renewal of the Town’s assets as a key objective of the Renew Life Program. Furthermore, the Plan for the Future identifies the development of asset management plans to ultimately maximise return on the Town’s assets. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Council’s resolution of September 2011 provided an “in kind” contribution and increased the Town’s sponsorship level with Movies by Burswood allowing for additional cross promotional opportunities, in lieu of applying a commercial or subsidised rental for the proposed seven month occupancy. Over the term of the occupancy September 2011 to April 2012, the Town has continued to allocate resources for both grounds and minor building maintenance and operations at the site. Total Asset Management: The completion of the rezoning of the property to “Residential R-30” has substantially increased the development and/or disposal value of the four separately titled properties which comprise the site. It is estimated that the undeveloped value of the four titles would be a minimum $3,000,000. The property has been identified as a possible interim accommodation facility for community and other purposes during the Town Centre development. A market appraisal of the site to determine potential commercial rental value of the building was undertaken which indicated that an annual rental of $16,000 could be obtained. This is based on the floor area of the building being 160m2, with such attracting a rate of $100/m2/year. The unit rate would likely be higher in the event of a long (20-30 year) term lease agreement, possibly in the vicinity of $30,000 per annum. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil


12.6 112 12.6

Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: With respect to the proposed Town Centre project, staff considers the retention of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as critical. The site affords the Town the ability to relocate and accommodate community groups and/or commercial organisations from the Town Centre area within the building. Further, the grounds may accommodate any necessary temporary accommodation buildings and the like. The feasibility of the Town Centre project is currently under review and yet to be finalised. Linked to the Town Centre project is the construction of the Multi-Purpose Sports Facility (MPSF) identified on the site of the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club, located across Planet Street immediately adjacent to the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School. It has been suggested that should neither the Town Centre project or the MPSF proceed, then a development incorporating both the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School and the former Carlisle Lathlain Bowling Club would potentially afford the best return to the Town. CONCLUSION: Staff have concluded that permitting the Movies by Burswood organisation to continue to occupy the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School site as a short term interim arrangement is appropriate as it provides the greatest flexibility to the Town whilst fulfilling a community purpose. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the Movies

by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, for an indefinite period, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park.

2. Delegate’s authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation.


12.6 113 12.6

NEW MOTION: Moved: Councillor Hayes Seconded: Councillor Skinner 1. That the application by Movies by Burswood to extend the lease of the former

Lathlain Pre Primary School not be approved. 2. Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale. 3. That the revenue from the land sale be used to support the Lathlain Park

redevelopment. The Motion was Put and LOST: (3-4) In favour of the Motion: Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Bissett Against the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Ashton; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter AMENDED ORIGINAL MOTION: Moved: Mayor Vaughan Seconded: Councillor Nairn That Council: 1. That in recommendation No. 1 the words “for an indefinite period” be removed

and replaced with the words “until the 31 October 2012”. 2. A new recommendation No. 3 be added to read “That Council Administration

be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council.

3. A new recommendation No. 4 be added to read “That Movies by Burswood and

administration be advised that there will be no extensions given”. Reason: Give Council a chance to progress with another use of the site. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council: 1. Endorses the continued use of the former Lathlain Pre-Primary School by the

Movies by Burswood organisation, via a licence to occupy agreement, until the 31 October 2012, at a $1.00 per annum with all outgoings to be covered by Movies by Burswood in accordance with the pre-existing licence agreement, but subject to the inclusion of a 30 day termination clause in favour of the Town of Victoria Park.

2. Delegate’s authority to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation.


12.6 114 12.6

3. That Council Administration be advised to give priority to preparing the site for sale by the 31 October 2012 and to have a business case prepared to present to Council.

4. That Movies by Burswood and administration be advised that there will be no

extensions given”. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

12.7

Te12.7En

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutivespecified

TenTowext

TABLED Nil BACKGRThe TowServices undertakeroad consthe TownTenders w2.00pm on Tenders wroad conswithin the DETAILS7 submisMaintenan All submis Evaluationtender doCoordinat Attributesrange of 0(W% or E

Meeting of

ender Nongineerin

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summa

d in the tennder evaluwn for a ptensions.

ITEMS:

ROUND: n of Victofor which

e these tasstruction, gn carries owere advern Monday

were invitestruction, Town of V

: ssions wence Servic

ssions are

n has beencuments btor and Exe

, or Asses0-5. This sEvaluation

f Council M

o. TVP ng Mainte

ToVNo 24 J W

er: A Vnt: Simry: – Reconder docuuation for eriod of tw

oria Park the Tow

sks. The prgeneral maout to comrtised in th2nd July 20

ed from prgeneral m

Victoria Pa

ere receivces, as per

exclusive

n undertakby a panel ecutive Ma

ssment Critscore was

Criteria) a

Minutes

12/05 –enance S

VP12/05

May 2012Wong / E SVuleta mple Majorommend ment to fothe provis

wo years fr

currently n does norovision ofaintenance

mplete annhe West Au012.

rofessionamaintenanc

rk.

ved for tthe Sched

of GST.

ken accordof three st

anager Ren

teria (P) wthen multipand divide

115

– PanelServices

2 Setzinger

rity acceptancorm a Pansion of Enrom 2 July

utilises coot have thf Engineerie and assoual mainteustralian o

al organisace and ass

tender TVdules of Ra

ding to the taff membenew Life.

were determplied by th

ed by 100

l Contras

ce of all onel of Contngineering

2012 to 3

ontractors he approping Mainteociated openance ann Saturday

ations accrsociated w

VP/12/05 ates detaile

tender evaers, Engine

mined and e previousto obtain

act for

offers recetractors. Maintenan

30 June 20

for Enginepriate resoenance Serperational wnd capital y 28th April

redited to works on

– Provisied.

aluation creering Sup

given a psly determithe Value

12 J

the Su

eived for

nce Servic014 plus 2x

eering Maources to rvices is reworks on works prol 2012 and

provide seroads and

on of En

riteria inclupervisor, En

point score ined weigh

e Score (V

June 2012

12.7

upply of

the items

ces in thex12 month

aintenanceeffectively

equired forroads that

ogrammes.d closed at

ervices ford reserves

ngineering

uded in thengineering

within thehting factorV) for each

2

7

f

s

e h

e y r t . t

r s

g

e g

e r h


12.7 116 12.7

tenderer. The tenderer having the highest score would be the preferred tenderer for each of the item of service assessed.

Tender Evaluation Outcome – ToVP 12/05 (non price criteria) Provision of Engineering Maintenance Services

Description of criteria: Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required

Organisation profile Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Insurance coverage

Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects

Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details of similar work undertaken

Ability to meet delivery dates References from past and present clients

Referee names and contact numbers Tendered Price/s

The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the Request

Wei

ghte

d FA

CTO

R

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Out

of 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

Capability/competence ofTenderer to perform the workrequired and quoted on

20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0

Experience of Tenderer insupplying similar goods orcompleting similar projects

20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0

References from past and present clients

20% 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0

Tender Bid Price 40% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Western Road

Systems

3.0

MMM (WA)

3.0

WA Profiling

3.0

Kerb-Fix

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

FrazzconDowner EDI Works

Jackson Paving

3.0 3.0 3.03.0Total Score


12.7 117 12.7

* The evaluation on Price was not applicable for this tender because all contractors are recommended to be appointed to form the panel contract. The Town will have the discretion to appoint a contractor from the panel for each job task required based on case by case analysis of each contractor’s overall job costs, service quality and associated benefits. For example, quality of road profiling works required, contractor’s response to urgent work requests, durability of work done, etc. Traffic Management Services to support the following services:

Concrete Path Services Contractor 1- MMM

Contractor 2 – Dowsing Concrete

$

Traffic Management complying with AS1742 and MRWA traffic Code of Practice when required by the Town:

UNIT MMM Downsing Con

1 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices Hr $67.00 $80.002 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $104.00 $128.003 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $150.00 $198.004 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices Hr $208.00 $256.005 Minimum charge for 1 accredited traffic controller with traffic mgt devices day $269.00 $320.006 Minimum charge for 2 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $416.00 $512.007 Minimum charge for 3 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $599.00 $594.008 Minimum charge for 4 accredited traffic controllers with traffic mgt devices day $833.00 $1,024.00

1.2m 1.5m 1.8m 2m 2.4m

wide wide wide wide wide

Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within a project:1 Pathways on verges m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.002 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.003 Public Access Ways between fences m $60.00 $62.00 $66.00 $70.00 $72.00

Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project :4 Pathways on verges m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.005 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.006 Public Access Ways between fences m $58.00 $60.00 $64.00 $68.00 $70.00

Item no

DESCRIPTION MMM UNIT

1.2m 1.5m 1.8m 2m 2.4m

wide wide wide wide wide

Pathways (25MPA) less than a total of 20m long within a project:1 Pathways on verges m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.002 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.003 Public Access Ways between fences m $85.00 $85.00 $80.00 $80.00 $75.00

Pathways (25MPA) of a total length greater than 20m within a project :4 Pathways on verges m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.005 Pathways in open areas e.g. reserves m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.006 Public Access Ways between fences m $55.00 $55.00 $45.00 $43.00 $43.00

Item no

DESCRIPTION Dowsing Concrete UNIT


12.7 118 12.7

Contractor 2 – MMM and Dowsing Concrete continued. MMM Dowsing Concrete

Brick Paving Services - one contractor only - MMM

UNIT $ $

7 Extra Over for 150mm thick concrete path m2 $11.00 $16.008 Extra over for 100mm thick concrete path (stencilled) m2 $15.00 $36.009 Extra over for one layer F62 mesh m2 $12.00 $8.50

10 Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) m2 $9.00 $25.00

11 Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete m2 $5.00 $1.80

12 Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA) m2 $8.00 $35.00

13 m $15.00 $8.00

14 m2 $4.00 $65.00

15 Supply and install lock joints (actual length laid) PVC Key Joint m $15.00 $10.0016 Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 900mm) each $250.00 $320.0017 Supply and install approved handrails/grab rails. (900mm x 1200mm) each $290.00 $350.00

UNIT $ $

18 each $998.00 $350.00

19 each $1,048.00 $380.00

20 each $1,098.00 $400.00

21 each $1,148.00 $420.00

22 each $1,198.00 $450.00

Removal works UNIT $ $

23 m2 $20.00 $15.50

24 m2 $20.00 $15.50

25 m2 $5.00 $12.00

26 m2 $12.00 $12.00

27 m2 $15.00 $15.00

CONCRETE VEHICLE CROSSOVER (25MPA): UNIT $ $

28 Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen crossover m2 $20.00 $17.5029 Cut, remove and dispose of existing insitu concrete crossover m2 $20.00 $20.0030 Construct Residential vehicle crossover 100mm thick m2 $60.00 $60.0031 Construct Commercial vehicle crossover 150mm thick m2 $70.00 $80.0032 Extra over for one layer F62 mesh m2 $12.00 $8.5033 Extra over for concrete colour (oxide) m2 $9.00 $18.00

34 Extra over Rapid Hardener per m2 of concrete m2 $5.00 $1.80

35 Extra over for Limecrete (25MPA) m2 $8.00 $35.00

1800mm wide+ wings+ transitions




Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs and stack on pallets- 7 pieces high

Remove 600 x 600 footpath slabs, stack on pallets and deliver to the Town’s depot- 7 pieces high

Remove and dispose of broken slabs

Cut, remove and dispose of existing concrete path

Cut, remove and dispose of existing bitumen path

Standard Ramps:

1500mm wide + wings + transitions

Supply and install PVC ducting pipes perpendicular to the alignment of and under the pathway before pouring of concrete. (actual length laid)Verge shaping and blending for areas at 500mm beyond the edge of pathway. This includes hand and machinery works. This operation shall be done before pouring of concrete.

CONCRETE RAMPS (25MPA) complying with AS 1428

Item Description Unit Rate $ per m 2

1Prepare site (box out), supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of spoil/surplus material

m² 8

2Supply bedding sand, prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of surplus material

m² 26

3Prepare bedding sand and lay brick pavers in accordance with the specification, dispose of surplus material

m² 35

4 Remove existing brick paving and stack on pallets supplied by the Principal m² 4

5 Minimum charge per order 500


12.7 119 12.7

Kerbing works – one contractor only- Kerb-Fix

Road Profiling - 2 Contractors- MMM and Westcoast Profilers

Kerb Type Unit Kerb laying0 - 50m 51 - 100m 101 - 200m Over 200m

Mountable-Type "A" Kerba) A-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face 60mm m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00c) A-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 125mm face with 2 R16 mild steem - - - -

Semi Mountable-Type "SM" Kerba) SM-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) SM-2x (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face 75mm m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00c) SM-5 (MRWA Profile) Nomimal 260mm face m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00Barrier-Type "BX" Kerba) BX-1 (MRWA Profile) m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00b) BX-3 (MRWA Profile) Nominal 175mm face m $37.40 $37.40 $37.40 $40.00Flush Kerbing300mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ 140 CRA full length of m $45.00 $45.00 $45.00 $45.00300mm x 150mm (with no reinforcing) m - - - -150mm x 150mm ( with reinforcing R12's @ full length of beam) m - - - -

Keying in 200mm x75mm key supply & lay - over and above for newm - - - -

Hand Make Ups/Transitions m $16.50

Depth of cut :20mmArea (m2) Min.

Contractor 0-100 Charge

Westcoast profiling 1.77 MIN 4 HOURS

MMM $4.15 $5,600.00




MMM $4.30 $5,600.00




MMM $4.50 $5,600.00




MMM $4.85 $5,600.00




MMM $5.20 $5,600.00




MMM $5.20 $5,600.00


12.7 120 12.7

Asphalt Pavement Reinstatements – one contractor only- MMM

Pavement Marking - 2 Contractors- Western Road Systems and MMM

Sign Installation/Removal including 300mm / dia x 600mm deep concrete footing - one contractor only - MMM

7mm Nominal Mix Granite at

Depths of Rate $ per m2

1 20mm $68.05

2 25mm $69.853 30mm $71.604 Minimum charge per order $1,500.00

10mm Nominal Mix Granite at

Depths of Rate $ per m2

5 20mm $70.056 25mm $71.857 30mm $73.608 Minimum charge per order $1,500.00

WESTERN RD SYS MMM

Road pavement marking Rate $ per m2

1 Longitudinal Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $3.50 $3.002 Transverse Lines (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $3.50 $3.003 Medians and chevrons (as per MRWA Drawing 9931-0198) $4.00 $3.004 Sprayed-on stencilling on concrete surface including preparation of the substrate $3.00 $30.005 Sprayed-on stencilling on asphalt surface including preparation of the substrate $3.00 $30.006 Other marking (please specify)7 Minimum charge per order $250.00 $250.00

Car park pavement marking Rate $ per bay1 Standard parking bays $12.00 $10.002 Acrod parking bays $65.00 $75.003 Other marking (please specify) eg - bus bays $4.00 $3.004 Minimum charge per order $250.00 $250.00

Type of Sign Price per item $1 Street name plate (installation on existing post) $40.002 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in brick paving) $95.003 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in concrete paving) $125.004 Street name / parking plate & post installation (in other) asphalt/soil $95.005 Reinstatement of post surrounds $60.006 ards (1.5m exposed above ground) with sleeves in soil (soil that can be dug by $125.007 Supply and install approved adhesive tactile ground indicators $80.008 Minimum charger per order $500.00


12.7 121 12.7

Concrete Grinding- one contractor only - MMM

Dry hiring of traffic management devices including Ute or truck and/or trailers- one contractor only- MMM

Legal Compliance: The Town has complied with section 3.57 of the Local Government Act. Policy Implications: The public tendering process undertaken for this contract complied with the Town’s purchasing policy FIN4 in the category of services over $100,000. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Services will be funded within the constraints of the operational and capital works approved budgets. Total Asset Management: This tender will facilitate the systematic approach to management of Council assets over their entire life from creation to disposal that results in the provision of an asset at a specified standard for the lowest possible cost.

Concrete Footpath Price per m2Grinding ($)

1 10mm to 15mm $8.202 15mm to 20mm $9.103 20mm to 25mm $9.854 25mm to 30mm $10.705 Over 30mm (please specify) $13.856 Minimum charge per order $300.00

Item Dry Hiring of traffic management devices with vehicle with or without trailer

$ per day

1 One ute with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 20m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice

$855.00

2 One vehicle with or without trailer with all traffic management devices sufficient to close one traffic lane for a work site of 50m long in accordance with AS1742 and the MRWA traffic Code of Practice

$890.00


$928.00


$995.00


12.7 122 12.7

Sustainability Assessment: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Town will benefit from accepting all offers submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers to form a panel contract to provide the required engineering services. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the tenders, comprising the required price schedule, as submitted by all of the above mentioned tenderers for the period 2nd July 2012 to 1st July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extensions be accepted by the Town. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Nairn Council to endorse the acceptance of all offers submitted by MMM, Westcoast Profilers, Dowsing Concrete, Kerb-Fix and Western Road Systems for the engineering construction and maintenance services as detailed in this report and the tender document TVP/12/05 for the period 2 July 2012 to 1 July 2014 with an option of 2x 12 month incremental extension, subject to satisfactory performance, be accepted by the Town. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

13.1

13 CO

Re13.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommincluded the AdmVictoria Pthat AustANZAC la Optio

by trepo

The 25 A

TABLED Extra

Team Mem Conc Conc Ursu BACKGRAt the 1recommencomprisinProject Te

To thabee To

Meeting of

OMMUNIT

ecommen

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –in the 20

ministrationPark Sub tralia has anding at ons for thehe Memor

ort. centenary

April 2015.

ITEMS: act from 1m

morial Gardcept Desigcept Desigula Frayne

ROUND: 9 July 20ndation tog Elected eam’s Term

consider at Australiaen killed, b

present op

f Council M

TY LIFE

ndations

RENo 29 T. A

er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Mem12/13 budn liaise wBranch ofserved in

Gallipoli oe potential rial Garde

y of the AN

19 July 20

dens Concgn A – Ecogn B – HistCatholic C

011 Ordin establish Members

ms of Refe

options foa has beebe commem

ptions, incl

Minutes

PROGRA

s from th

ES0024

May 2012AckermanAckerman

mple Major

morial Gadget for cawith the cf the RSL n, includinon 25 Apriredevelopns Project

NZAC land

011 Ordina

ept Designotect Archittoric VictorCollege – C

ary Counthe Memo

s, Communerence whic

or further den involvedmorated.

luding fina

123

AM REP

e Memo

2

rity

rdens Proapital worcommunitto progre

ng progreil 2015.

pment of Mt Team; tw

ing at Gall

ary Counc

n Brief tects ria Park IncConcept De

cil Meetinorial Gardnity Reprech were en

developingd in, and

ncial implic

ORTS

rial Gard

oject Teamrks withinty, local hess projecessing pla

Memorial Gwo of whi

lipoli be co

cil Meeting

corporatedesign Prep

ng, the Edens Projeesentativesndorsed at

g Memorialwhere loc

cations, to

dens Proj

m recommMemoria

high schocts commeans for th

Gardens hach are co

ommemora

– Memor

pared by St

lected Mect Team (

s and Stafthe same

l Gardens cal commu

Council fo

12 J

oject Tea

mends thatl Gardensools and emorating

he centena

ave been considered w

ated by the

rial Garde

tudents

embers en(‘the Projeff. Followinmeeting:

so that aunity mem

or consider

June 2012

13.1

m

t funds bes and that

the Eastg conflictsary of the

consideredwithin this

e Town on

ns Project

ndorsed act Team’),ng are the

all conflictsbers have

ration.

2

e t t s e

d s

n

t

a

e

s e


13.1 124 13.1

DETAILS: The Project Team first met in August 2011 and has since then taken the time to meet with local community members, the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL and the Principals at the two local high schools. The meetings and the consultation resulted in the development of a Concept Design Brief (tabled) which was distributed to architects, artists and landscapers. The Concept Design Brief asked interested parties to submit a rough concept for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens, as well as indicative construction costs. Five Concept Designs were received and were considered by the Project Team at a meeting on 22 March 2012. The Project Team selected two designs which were presented at an Elected Members’ Workshop on 17 April 2012. The presentation at the Elected Members’ Workshop included feedback from the Town’s Park Life team on the Concept Designs which included concerns regarding the placement of water features and a reduction of available parkland which would impact future ANZAC Day ceremonies. The team also advised that some capital works improvements are planned for the garden, pending approval of the 2012/13 Budget. These works are intended to improve the amenity of the garden and could incorporate some design features (e.g. plaques, public art) which would commemorate the conflicts that Australians have served in. Furthermore, it was noted that both designs included structures that listed the names of the local soldiers killed in all conflicts, rather than commemorating the conflicts that they served in, which was an element of the Terms of Reference. Information regarding the costs of the two designs was also presented at the Workshop:

Design A – Ecotect Architects (tabled) $9,900 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $300,000 - $700,000 – indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $309,900 - $709,900

Design B – Historic Victoria Park Incorporated (tabled)

$24,200 to further develop the Concept Design and prepare a budget; and $250,000 – indicative cost of the project. TOTAL - $274,200.

In addition to an overview of the two Concept Designs, the Workshop presentation included a brief outline of discussions with the Principals at the local high schools, where Kent Street High School expressed interest in exploring the opportunity to develop a program which would lead up to the centenary of the ANZACs landing at Gallipoli – 25 April 2015. Further details of the program are currently being considered by the school. At the time Ursula Frayne Catholic College was not sure how it might like to be involved in the project beyond its regular participation at the Town’s ANZAC Day ceremony. Subsequently (following the March meeting of the Project Team) the school has submitted a Concept Design to the Town (tabled; no costs included).


13.1 125 13.1

Information regarding the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, highlighting those who gave their life in service was also presented at the Workshop. While the design has yet to be finalised, research that will result in a complete list of servicemen and women with links to the Town is well underway. The Town’s Local History Coordinator is liaising with the RSL as the research progresses. In light of the RSL’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Town’s Park Life team’s concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden, it is the Project Team’s recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:

for the Town’s Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each

conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team; to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and

women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Town’s website;

to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and

to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.

Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Community Life – Objective 5 – We will celebrate the rich history and heritage of the Town. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: The Draft 2012/13 Budget includes $15,000 for capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. There are currently no funds allocated for: the creation of a plaque(s) commemorating each conflict; however grant funding has been

identified; for major capital works improvements in Memorial Gardens. The indicative costs for the two

Concept Designs submitted ranged from approximately $275,000 to $710,000. In light of the RSLs intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ less than 5km from Memorial Gardens it is the Officer’s recommendation that a major redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed.

Total Asset Management: There will be a minor increase in operating costs as a result of the planned capital works improvements. Additional works e.g. plaques would also result in a slight increase in operating costs.


13.1 126 13.1

Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Commemorating all conflicts that local residents have served in has the potential to increase the number of visitors to Memorial Gardens. Any development of the garden must be mindful of not reducing the available parkland in order that the Town’s annual ANZAC Day service can be accommodated. Approximately 700 people attended on 25 April 2012. Consideration is already being given to determine how more can be accommodated for the centenary of the ANZAC landing in 2015, as it is anticipated that the number of people attending the Town’s service will increase significantly. Cultural Issues: Conflicts where local community members have fallen while serving their country are not all commemorated in one location within the Town. By commemorating all conflicts in one location there would be the opportunity to acknowledge and reflect upon the sacrifices made by those local community members that served their country. Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Currently Memorial Gardens has a single plaque acknowledging those that have served their country. The plaque refers to those who served and gave their lives in World War I and World War II only. Commemorating all conflicts that local community members have served in is important in that it provides the opportunity for people today and in to the future to acknowledge and reflect upon the generous actions of those local community members that served their country. In addition, as the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli – ANZAC Day 25 April 2015 – is not far away the Project Team deems it appropriate to establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the Memorial Gardens Project Team to plan an appropriate service. CONCLUSION: In light of the RSL East Victoria Park Sub Branch’s intentions to develop a ‘memorial wall’ commemorating all servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town less than 5km away from Memorial Gardens, the Town’s Park Life team’s concerns regarding the suitability of the Concept Designs and their intentions to undertake some works in the garden in 2012/13, it is the Project Team’s recommendation that a significant redevelopment of Memorial Gardens not be progressed. Rather, there are opportunities:

for the Town’s Park Life team to undertake work to improve the amenity of the gardens; to apply for funding through applicable grants to have plaques made commemorating each

conflict. These would be included in the garden improvements planned by the Parks team;


13.1 127 13.1

to continue to liaise with the RSL to develop a comprehensive list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, noting those that were killed in action. The Town could then further develop the list to create an electronic honour roll which would be made available at the Town’s website;

to work with the Kent Street High School, staff, members of the Memorial Gardens Team and the community to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 program; and

to apply for funding through alternative sources to commemorate the centenary of the landing at Gallipoli on ANZAC Day 2015.

PROJECT TEAM’S RECOMMENDATION/S: 1. Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of

servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.

2. Liaise with the Principal at the Kent Street Senior High School to develop an

ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress. 3. Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment

of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.

4. $15,000 to be included in the 2012/13 Budget for capital works in Memorial

Gardens. 5. Funding to be sought for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that

Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 6. Funding to be sought for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service. 7. Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely

with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 8. A cross-functional team, including interested members of the existing Memorial

Gardens Project Team, to be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER’S COMMENT In addition to the recommendations from the Project Team (listed as 1-8 below) the Responsible Officer recommends that as the Project Team has fulfilled its obligations as set in the Terms of Reference the Team be disbanded and participants thanked for their valuable input (9-10 below).

ADDITIONAL COMMENT At the EMBS on Tuesday the 5 June 2012 questions were raised in relation to the recommendation to disband the Memorial Gardens Project Team. The rationale to disband the Project Team is due to the fact that it has fulfilled its obligations in accordance with the terms of reference.


13.1 128 13.1

The recommendation to establish a new Project Team closer to the date of the Towns 2015 Anzac Day Service will enable the development of a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015, well in advance of this event. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Potter 1. The Director of Community Life Program be requested to :

1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.

1.2 Liaise with the Principal’s at High Schools in the Town, to develop an

ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress.

1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.

1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that

Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens. 1.5 Seek funding for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service.

1.6 Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align

more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services. 1.7 Establish a cross-functional team, including interested members of the

existing Memorial Gardens Project Team; be established to develop a project scope and management plan for the centenary ANZAC Day service in 2015.

2. The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at

Memorial Gardens. 3. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. 4. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and

organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution.


13.1 129 13.1

AMENDMENT:

Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner

That clause 1.7 of the Motion be deleted and replaced with a new clause, “that the ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History Working Group”.

The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Reason: Sits within the Cultural History Working Group. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED:

1. The Director of Community Life Program be requested to :

1.1 Liaise with the East Victoria Park Sub Branch of the RSL to develop a list of servicemen and women that enlisted in the Town, indicating those who fell in service, which will be added to the Local History Collection at the Town’s Library.

1.2 Liaise with the Principal’s at High Schools in the Town, to develop an ANZAC Day 2015 ‘program’ for students to progress.

1.3 Write to everyone who submitted Concept Designs for the potential

redevelopment of Memorial Gardens thanking them for their interest and advising them of Council’s decision.

1.4 Seek funding for the creation of plaques commemorating all conflicts that

Australia has been involved in to be placed in Memorial Gardens.

1.5 Seek funding for the Town’s 2015 ANZAC Day Service.

1.6 Review the Town’s current set up of the ANZAC Day Service and align more closely with Government protocols for ANZAC Day Services.

1.7 The ANZAC Day 2015 Service be referred to the Culture & Local History

Working Group. 2. The Council consider allocating in the draft 2012/13 Budget for capital works at

Memorial Gardens. 3. The Memorial Gardens Project Team be disbanded. 4. Letters to be sent to Memorial Gardens Project Team community and

organisation representatives thanking them for their valuable contribution. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (5-2)

Ordinary M

13.2

Re13.2Ap

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommGroup as To ens

it wasComstunanim

TABLED 16 Ma

the Co

BACKGRAt the 13Reference

3.2At the 14 three (3) communit On 11 Ainterest in16 May 20Comstive DETAILSIn order foconcerns of commuendorsed represent With the a(5) comm

Meeting of

ecommenppointme

rence: ces:


s a ‘Commsure the co

s recommetive be apmously.

ITEMS ay 2012 Coommunity S

ROUND: 3 Decembe for the W

2 CommFebruary communit

ty member

April 2012 n joining th012 Commto the Wo

: or the Comof the resi

unity repreat the 13

ation comp

appointmeunity repre

f Council M

ndation ent of Co

CMNo 29 M.

er: T. Ant: Simry: - Appoint

munity’ Repommunity ended at tppointed to

ommunity Safety Wor

er 2011 OWorking Gro

munity Mem2011 Ord

ty member endorsed

the Townhe Commumunity Saferking Grou

mmunity Sdents of th

esentation 3 Decembprise of five

nt of Ms Cesentatives

Minutes

from thommunity

MS0195

May 2012Owens Ackerman

mple Major

t Ms Marypresentatiplays a larthe 16 Mao the Wor

Safety Working Grou

Ordinary Coups. The

mbers shallinary Counrs to the at the 10 A

n receivedunity Safetyety Workinup was end

Safety Worhe Town ofon the Woer 2011 Oe (5) mem

Comstive ths.

130

e Commy Membe

2

rity

y Comstivive. rge role inay 2012 mrking Grou

orking Grouup

Council MeTerms of R

l comprisencil MeetinCommunitApril 2012

d correspoy Working g Group m

dorsed una

rking Grouf Victoria Porking Gro

Ordinary Cbers.

he Commu

munity Ser

ve to the

communitmeeting ofup. The re

up Report:

eeting, CoReference

e five (5) incng, Councity Safety W Ordinary C

ondence frGroup as

meeting a ranimously.

p to accurPark there oup. The TCouncil me

unity Safety

Safety W

Commun

ty safety af the Workcommenda

: 9.1 Expre

ouncil endostate that:

clusive of eil endorsedWorking GCouncil Me

rom Ms Ca commu

recommend

ately portrshould be

Terms of Reeting inclu

y Working

12 J

Working G

ity Safety

and crime pking Grouation was

ession of I

orsed the :

experts. d the applGroup; witeeting.

Comstive eunity membdation to a

ray the intean approp

Reference ude that c

Group wil

June 2012

13.2

Group –

y Working

preventionp that Msendorsed

nterest for

Terms of

ications ofh a fourth

expressingber. At theappoint Ms

erests andpriate level

that werecommunity

l have five

2

2

–

g

n s d

r

f

f h

g e s

d l

e y

e


13.2 131 13.2

Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Community Safety Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Ms Mary Comstive has been a volunteer for many years and has served on many local Committees in various capacities. Ms Comstive’s background is in Business and Office Management, as well as Admissions Officer and ‘Emergency on Call’ at Bentley Park. Ms Comstive will represent the Seniors of the Town with her knowledge of the community and the issues of safety and wellbeing. This knowledge will serve the Community Safety Working Group well. The recommendation that she be appointed to the Working Group was endorsed unanimously. CONCLUSION: To ensure balanced community representation at the Community Safety Working Group, a maximum of five (5) community members are supported by the Terms of Reference. At present there are four (4) community members in the Working Group. Ms Comstive will make five (5).


13.2 132 13.2

RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Nairn Seconded: Councillor Potter Ms Mary Comstive be appointed as a Community Member on the Community Safety Working Group. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

13.3

Re13.3EsWo

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommendorsed In acc

Annua The C

Annua

TABLED Nil

BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsthe requir

DETAILSAt the 16 an Annua2026 (PFFobjectives

In reviewCommittebe in inclu

Reto e

Deand

Idebe

DeNe

Impcom

Aliginit

Meeting of

ecommenstablishmork Plan

rence: ces:


d. cordance wal Work PlaCommunity al Work Pla

ITEMS:

ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Refererement to d

: May 2012

al Work PlaF the Wors in the PF

wing the pee the Comuded in theview of theexpire at thvelopmentd Crime Prentify prioricarried ovvelopmentighbourhoplementatimmunity sagnment ofiatives and

f Council M

ndation ment of

CMNo 29 M.

er: T. Ant: Abry: – The Co

with the Can must be

Safety Woan.

ecember 2ence of thdevelop an

2 meeting oan was disking GroupF and ther

past activmmunity Se Annual We current Che end of 2t of a Saferevention Pty initiative

ver to the nt of a comod’s Plan; on of coafety issuef commund funding s

Minutes

from ththe Com

MS1059

May 2012Owens Ackermansolute Maj

ommunity

ommunity e presentedorking Gro

2011 Ordine Commun

n Annual W

of the Comscussed. Ip determinrefore shou

ities of thafety Work

Work Plan:Community2012); er NeighboPlan whiches aligningew Safer Nmmunity c

ommunity es to be adity safety

sources.

133

e Commmmunity

2

ority

Safety W

Safety Wd to Councoup has re

nary Councnity Safety

Work Plan.

mmunity San reviewin

ned that thuld be inclu

he now dking Grou

y Safety a

ourhoods’ h is due to e with the SNeighbourconsultatio

consultatddressed; a

initiatives

munity SSafety

Working G

Working Grocil for conscommende

cil Meetingy Working

afety Workng the Towe followinguded in the

disbanded p determin

nd Crime

Plan (to rexpire at thSouth Easthoods’ Plan and res

ion and/oand with Loc

Safety WWorking

Group Ann

oup’s Termideration. ed projects

g, Council Group (CS

king Groupwn’s Plan fg projects e Annual W

Communned that th

Prevention

replace thehe end of 2t Metropoli

an; search pro

or researc

cal, State

12 J

Working Gg Group

nual Work

ms of Ref

s for inclus

resolved tSWG) whi

p the develfor the Futlinked dire

Work Plan:

ity Safetyhe followin

n Plan (wh

e Commun2012); itan Police

ocess for

ch to ide

and Fede

June 2012

13.3

Group –Annual

k Plan be

erence an

sion in the

to endorsech include

lopment ofture 2011-

ectly to the

y Advisoryng projects

hich is due

nity Safety

District to

the Safer

entify key

eral safety

2

3

– l

e

n

e

e e

f -e

y s

e

y

o

r

y

y


13.3 134 13.3

As per the Terms of Reference for the Community Safety Working Group, Council is to endorse an annual work plan for the Working Group. The process of establishing this work plan will begin with the approval of the strategic framework. Legal Compliance: Nil Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Community Safety Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future. The purpose of the Community Safety Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:

2.1 Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Town’s Community Safety Plan.

2.2 Assisting the Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being.

2.3 Assisting the Council in developing and implementing a Community Safety Annual Work Plan.

Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The establishment of the Community Safety Working Group Annual Work Plan will have an impact on the social issues relating to community safety of the Town. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Community Safety Work Plan will align to the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 project:


13.3 135 13.3

“Continue to implement and review the Community Safety Plan Initiatives” The Community Safety Working Group will be instrumental to support the research and community consultation processes to develop a new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan that progresses priority initiatives that align to suitable funding sources to be identified which may include and not be limited to:

Graffiti and Vandalism; Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; Reduction in residential anti-social and criminal behaviour; and Community education and engagement.

Potential funding options to progress initiatives in a timely manner will be aligned to opportunities such as the:

Office of Crime Prevention: State Graffiti Fund; Office of Crime Prevention: Community Crime Prevention Fund; Department of the Attorney General: Safer Suburbs; Department of the Attorney General: Criminal Property Confiscation Grant; and Australian Institute of Criminology - Criminology Research Grant.

CONCLUSION: The framework will allow for the development of the Work Plan to go ahead with the approval of both the Working Group and Council. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton The Community Safety Working Group commence the process for the establishment of the annual work plan by: 1 Reviewing the current Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan; 2 Identifying priority initiatives aligning with the Kensington Police district to be

carried over to the new Safer Neighbourhoods Plan; 3 Developing a community consultation and research process for the Safer

Neighbourhood’s Plan; 4 Implementing a community consultation and/or research to identify key

community safety issues to be addressed; 5 Developing the new Safer Neighbourhoods’ Plan; and 6 Aligning the community safety initiatives with Local, State and Federal funding sources. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

13.4

Te13.4 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommsupply of Ten

Aqu Eva TABLED Tend Tend

TechBody

Asse BACKGRThe Aquavaluable hmanagemspecificatidate, in liquality se The new equipmenexperienchealth clu The TownAqualife C11 March

Meeting of

ender TV

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation f gym equders has alife Centrluation of T

ITEMS: der Numbeders submhnogym, ytastic. essment P

ROUND: alife Centrehealth and

ment schedions. Replne with otrvices.

gymnasiunt which ced by memb it will rem

n has invitCentre. Te2012, with

f Council M

P/12/02–

TVNil 29 K. W

er: T. Ant: Simry: - Fleet C

uipment atbeen requ

re. Tender sub

er TVP/12/mitted by Nordic F

Panel’s Indi

e is a six awellness s

dule, gym acement o

ther servic

um equipmhas beenmbers durimain a very

ted tendernders wereh a closing

Minutes

– Provisio

P/12/02

May 2012WinterbouAckerman

mple Major

ommerciat the Aquauested for

bmissions

/02 - RequeOrbit Fitnitness, F

vidual Sele

nd a half yservice to equipmenof the equ

ce provider

ment will r requesteng peak pey attractive

rs for a coe advertise date of Tu

136

on of Gy

2 rn

rity

al Gymnasalife Centrr the prov

against pr

est for Tenness, Avaleet Com

ection Crite

year old hethe local ct is due to

uipment wirs, and tha

replace soed will reeriods. We and mod

ontractor toed in The Wuesday 27

ymnasium

sium be are. vision of G

rescribed c

nder (RFT)nti Fitnes

mmercial G

eria Score

ealth and fcommunityo be replaill ensure tat it contin

me of theduce the

With the newern gymna

o provide West AustMarch 201

m Equipm

awarded t

Gymnasium

criteria has

) for Gymns, Gym CGymnasium

Sheets

fitness faci. In accordced in linethat the faues to pro

e aging eqwaiting t

w gymnasiuasium for th

gymnasiumtralian new12.

12 J

ment

the Tende

m Equipme

s been com

nasium EquCare, Bluems, Tiger

lity which dance withe with manacility remaovide a hig

quipment. time for eum equipmhe commu

m equipmwspaper on

June 2012

13.4

er for the

ent to the

mpleted.

uipment e Fitness,r Fitness,

provides ah the assetnufacturesains up togh level of

Additionalequipment

ment in thenity.

ent at then Saturday

2

4

e

e

,

a t s o f

l t

e

e y


13.4 137 13.4

DETAILS: The following table provides a list of new gymnasium equipment considered necessary to accommodate members’ needs at the Aqualife Centre:

Gymnasium Equipment Quantity Treadmills 10 Elliptical 2 Spin Cycles 2 Tenderers were asked to complete and submit a schedule of rates for components of the equipment specification. All Tenders were assessed against the selection criteria detailed below, which were included within the ender documentation. Description of Selection Criteria Weighting Capability/competence of Tenderer to perform the work required Qualifications, skills and experience of key personnel Plant, equipment and staff resources available Percentage of operational capacity represented by this work Quality systems

5%

Experience of Tenderer in supplying similar goods or completing similar projects Relevant industry experience (including public sector), including details

of similar work undertaken The Tenderer’s involvement in these projects, including details of

outcomes produced Past record of performance and achievement References from past and present clients Occupational safety and health track record

20%

Servicing / Maintenance Terms of warranty Cost of servicing Frequency of maintenance Response time to servicing / maintenance requests Added value items offered

40%

Tendered Price/s The price to supply the goods or services in accordance with the

Request Rates or prices for variations

35%

TOTAL 100% Nine submissions were received in response to the Request for Tender (RFT) TVP/12/02 -Gymnasium Equipment. The submissions came from Orbit Fitness, Avanti Fitness, Gym Care, Blue Fitness, Technogym, Nordic Fitness, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, Tiger Fitness, Bodytastic. Three of the suppliers submitted multiple Tenders, providing different types of equipment. As a result, the assessment panel reviewed twelve Tenders.


13.4 138 13.4

Following is a table indicating the cost of each Tender submitted: Supplier Cost $ (inc GST) Supplier Cost $ (inc GST)

Orbit Fitness 74,668 Nordic Fitness 1 103,530 Avanti Fitness 119,020 Nordic Fitness 2 70,024

Gym Care 1 132,044 Fleet Commercial

Gymnasiums 122,837

Gym Care 2 103,224 Tiger Fitness 1 118,283 Blue Fitness 101,519 Tiger Fitness 2 103,758 Technogym 135,428 Bodytastic 95,942

Assessment of each Tender was undertaken using the selection criteria included in the Tender documentation. Members of the assessment panel included two Senior Health and Fitness Officers and the Manager Aqualife. The following two tables show the scores (out of a total value of 10) for each Tender submitted.

Orbit

Fitness Avanti Fitness

Gym Care 1

Gym Care 2

Blue Fitness

Technogym

Capability of Supplier

3.5 7 10 10 8 10

Experience of Supplier in Supplying

Similar

4.5 6.5 10 10 7 10

Servicing / Maintenance

7 7 10 10 5.5 9.5

Tendered Price

9 9 9 9 9 7.5

Nordic

Fitness 1 Nordic

Fitness 2

Fleet Commercial Gymnasium

Tiger Fitness 1

Tiger Fitness 2

Bodytastic


3.5 3.5 10 9.5 9.5 2.5

Experience of Supplier in Supplying

Similar

4.5 4.5 10 9.5 9.5 5


7.5 7.5 10 9.5 9.5 6.5

Tendered Price

9 8.5 9.9 9.5 9.5 9

The average weighted value of each Tender assessed against the Selection Criteria is indicated in the following tables (the individual score sheets of each member of the assessment panel are tabled):


13.4 139 13.4

Orbit

Fitness Avanti Fitness

Gym Care 1

Gym Care 2

Blue Fitness

Technogym

Weight

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score


0.05 .18 .23 .50 .50 .39 .50

Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar

0.20 .86 .86 1.99 2.0 1.43 1.99


0.40 2.79 1.85 3.99 4.0 2.12 3.72

Tendered Price 0.30 3.14 3.14 3.08 3.14 3.14 2.56 Total Score Value 6.97 6.08 9.56 9.62 7.08 8.76

Nordic

Fitness 1 Nordic

Fitness 2

Fleet CommercialGymnasium

Tiger Fitness

1

Tiger Fitness 2

Bodytastic

Weight

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score

Value Score


0.05 .18 .18 .50 .47 .47 .12

Experience of Supplier in Supplying Similar

0.20 .86 .86 1.99 1.89 1.89 .96


0.40 2.92 2.92 3.99 3.84 3.84 2.51

Tendered Price

0.30 3.09 3.02 3.45 3.31 3.31 3.14

Total Score Value 7.05 6.98 9.93 9.52 9.52 6.73 The Tenderer with the highest total score value is the preferred supplier; in this case Fleet Commercial Gymnasium. Legal Compliance: Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.57 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 Division 2 Part 4 Policy Implications: Tender document complies with Council Policy FIN4 Purchase of Goods and Services. Strategic Plan Implications: The delivery of a quality health and fitness service links directly to the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026, Community Life Program Objective 1:

We will connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social wellbeing.

Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funding of $130,000 has been allocated in the 2011/12 Budget for the purchase of gymnasium equipment for the Aqualife Centre. The Tenderer with the highest overall weighted score, Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums, costs came in under budget at $122,837 (incl GST).


13.4 140 13.4

Total Asset Management: The health and fitness equipment will be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and all associated costs budgeted for each financial year. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Opportunities to increase participation and enhancing health and wellness of the community. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: As a result of the Assessment Panel’s scoring against Selection Criteria it is recommended that the Tender be awarded to Fleet Commercial Gymnasiums. Following is a table summarising the average weighted score for each of the Tenders submitted:

Tenderer Average Weighted

Score Fleet Commercial Gymnasium 9.93 Gym Care 2 9.62 Gym Care 1 9.56 Tiger Fitness 1 9.52 Tiger Fitness 2 9.52 Technogym 8.76 Blue Fitness 7.08 Nordic Fitness 1 7.05 Nordic Fitness 2 6.98 Orbit Fitness 6.97 Bodytastic 6.73 Avanti 6.08

Fleet Commercial Gymnasium has submitted relevant and more than satisfactory industry references verifying their suitability as a contractor to Local Government, which is complimented by past experience in dealing with this company at the Aqualife Centre. CONCLUSION: The Tender submitted by Fleet Commercial Gymnasium presents the best value for money and achieves an average weighted point score of 9.93 out of ten (99%) when assessed against the qualitative criteria contained in Tender TVP/12/02.


13.4 141 13.4

Fleet Commercial Gymnasium is the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner Fleet Commercial Gymnasium be accepted as the preferred contractor to undertake the supply of Gymnasium Equipment at a cost of $122,837 (inc GST) to the Aqualife Centre the subject of Tender TVP/12/02. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

13.5

Re13.5the

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm In ac

Plan The

Plan TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsto develop DETAILSAt the 14Work Planthe Workithe PFF a

Re De De De

In reviewithe Arts WWork Plan

An Bie

Vis Co

Legal CoNil

Meeting of

ecommene Arts W

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –ccordance

n must be pArts Work

n.

ITEMS:

ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Referep an Annua

: 4 May 201n was discng Group d

and therefoeview and revelopmentevelopmentevelopment

ng the pasWorking Gn: nual Selec

ennial Revsual Art Acontribute to

mpliance:

f Council M

ndation fWorking G

CMNil 29 A.

er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Arts

e with the Apresented king Group

ecember 2ence of theal Work Pl

2 meetingcussed. In determined

ore should relaunch tht of a Maint of a Comt of a Publi

st activitiesroup deter

ction of Art view of thecquisitions the Delive

:

Minutes

from theGroup An

MS0153

May 2012Longford

Ackermanmple Major

s WorkingArts Workto Council has recom

2011 Ordine Arts Woran.

of the Arreviewing

d that the fbe include

he Public Antenance Smunity Artic Art Map

s of the nowrmined tha

Acquisitioe ‘Coffee

ery of the A

142

e Arts Wonnual Wo

2

rity

g Group Aking Group

for considmmended

nary Councrking Grou

rts Working the Townfollowing p

ed in the AnArt Master Schedule fots Plan

w disbandat the follo

ons Table Boo

Annual Vict

orking Gork Plan

nnual Wo’s Terms o

deration. projects fo

cil Meetingup (AWG)

g Group thn’s Plan forprojects linknnual WorPlan

or Public A

ed Arts anowing proje

ok’ Publica

toria Park

Group - E

rk Plan beof Referen

or inclusion

g, Council which inclu

he developr the Futurked directlyk Plan:

Art

nd Culture ects be inc

ation Show

Art Awards

12 J

Establish

e endorsence an An

n in the An

resolved tude the re

pment of are 2011-20y to the ob

Advisory Ccluded in t

wcasing th

s

June 2012

13.5

hment of

d. nual Work

nual Work

to endorseequirement

an Annual026 (PFF),bjectives in

Committeehe Annual

he Town’s

2

5

f

k

k

e t

l ,

n

e l

s


13.5 143 13.5

Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Arts Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 2011-2026. The purpose of the Arts Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:

Providing advice to the Council on matters relating to the review, development and implementation of the Public Art Master Plan.

Providing advice to the Council regarding the creation of a vibrant Town that is a place of social interaction, creativity and vitality.

Assisting the Council to develop the Town of Victoria Park as a ‘Living Canvas’ through the creation of opportunities for a diverse range of creative endeavours and expressions (including fine arts, music, visual arts, literary arts, performing art) and forms of creative expression.

Assisting the Council in developing and implementing an Arts Annual Work Plan. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Funds have been allocated in the draft 2012/13 Budget for the annual purchase or art works, as well as contributing to the annual Victoria Park Art Awards. No funds have been set aside from the Community Arts Reserve in the 2012/13 Budget; however should the Arts Working Group recommend a public artwork/s be commissioned there is approximately $350,000 available in the Reserve. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the Arts Working Group Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Town’s total asset management processes in the immediate future, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Work Plan will impact on the Town’s total asset management e.g. the development of a maintenance schedule for public artworks. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of art in the public realm include, but are not limited to:

developing a sense of self worth stimulating social interaction encouraging healthier life styles reducing vandalism and cost nurturing grass roots cultures expanding learning and awareness healing the social fabric


13.5 144 13.5

Cultural Issues: The Annual Work Plan will result in enhanced creativity and provide opportunities to showcase the cultural diversity of the Town.

Environmental Issues: Nil

COMMENT: At the 14 May 2012 meeting of the Arts Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. The Working Group determined that the following be included in the Annual Work Plan:

Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art Development of a Community Arts Plan Development of a Public Art Map Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions Biennial Review of the ‘Coffee Table Book’ Publication Showcasing the Town’s

Visual Art Acquisitions Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards

CONCLUSION: The Arts Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Arts and Culture Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED:

Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton

The Arts Working Group’s Annual Work Plan comprise the: 1. Review and relaunch the Public Art Master Plan in line with the Town’s

Strategic Plan; 2. Development of a Maintenance Schedule for Public Art; 3. Development of a Community Arts Plan; 4. Development of a Public Art Map; 5. Annual Selection of Art Acquisitions; 6. Biennial Review of the ‘Coffee Table Book’ Publication Showcasing the

Town’s Visual Art Acquisitions; and 7. Contribute to the Delivery of the Annual Victoria Park Art Awards.


Ordinary M

13.6

Re13.6EsPla

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm In ac

Wor The

Annu TABLED Nil BACKGRAt the Towthe Termsrequireme DETAILSAt the 23Annual W(PFF) andthe Workithe PFF a

De

Imp

Supro

Rethro

Legal CoNil

Meeting of

ecommenstablishman

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –ccordance k Plan musHealthy L

ual Work P

ITEMS:

ROUND: wn’s 13 Ds of Referent to deve

: 3 May 201

Work Plan wd past projng Group d

and therefoevelop stron Promo Suppo

prove acce Facilita

plan to Identif

approppport the p

ograms runecognise anough the b

mpliance:

f Council M

ndation ment of

CMNil 29 N.

er: T. Ant: Simry: – The Heawith the H

st be preseLife WorkiPlan.

ecember 2rence of thelop an Ann

2 meetingwas discusjects of thedetermined

ore should nger & cohote Club Deort and actiess and levate the reco develop nfy and fapriate publpromotion n in or servnd promotebiennial ‘Sp

:

Minutes

from the Hea

MS0144

May 2012Annson Ackerman

mple Major

althy Life WHealthy Lifeented to Cong Group

2011 Ordinhe Healthynual Work

of the Hessed. In ree now disbd that the fbe include

hesive comevelopmenively promovels of partcreational new activitacilitate oic events. of sport a

vicing the Te the contrporting Wa

145

the Healthy Life

2

rity

Working Gfe Workingouncil for c has reco

nary Councy Life WoPlan.

ealthy Life eviewing thbanded Spfollowing p

ed in the Anmmunities bnt initiativeote the Kidticipation bneeds of mties; and opportunitie

and recreatTown. ributions ofalk of Fame

althy Le Workin

Group Ann Group’s Tconsideratommended

cil Meetingrking Grou

Working he Town’s port and Rprojects linknnual Worby: s; and

dSport progby: minority gro

es for sp

tional orga

f elite athlee.’

Life Worng Grou

nual WorkTerms of Rion.

d projects

g, Council up (HLWG

Group thePlan for thecreation Aked directlyk Plan:

gram.

oups and

porting clu

anisations a

etes and/r s

12 J

rking Gup Annu

k Plan be eReference

for inclus

resolved tG) which in

e developmhe Future 2Advisory Cy to the ob

implement

ub partici

and physic

sporting co

June 2012

13.6

Group -al Work

endorsed.an Annual

ion in the

to endorsenclude the

ment of an2011-2026Committeebjectives in

t an action

ipation at

cal activity

ontributors

2

6

- k

l

e

e e

n 6 e n

n

t

y

s


13.6 146 13.6

Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The strategic focus for the Healthy Life Working Group is aligned to the Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF). The purpose of the Healthy Life Working Group is to contribute to the vibrant lifestyle of the Town by:

Support Council to connect people to services, resources, information, facilities and experiences that enhance their physical and social well-being.

Provide advice to the Council on matters relating to the development and implementation of the Healthy Life Plan.

Assist the Council to increase and improve opportunities for physical activity through the provision of programs and activities, including active transport initiatives.

Assist the Council in developing and implementing a Healthy Life Annual Work Plan.

Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG annual work plan will not require the allocation of Council budgetary funds in 2012/2013, it is anticipated that the long-term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan will require consideration by Council for allocation in future budgets. Total Asset Management: Whilst the establishment of the HLWG Annual Work Plan will have no direct impact on the Town’s total asset management processes, it is anticipated that the long term implementation of strategies, plans and outcomes from the Annual Work Plan may impact on the Town’s total asset management processes. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: The social benefits of a healthy lifestyle are many and varied including, but not limited to promoting stronger and more cohesive communities, as well as better health outcomes and reducing antisocial behaviour as a result of improving levels of physical activity. Cultural Issues: Enhanced opportunities for different cultures to participate in physical activity results in a strong and cohesive community. Environmental Issues: Nil


13.6 147 13.6

COMMENT: At the 23 May 2012 meeting of the Healthy Life Working Group the development of an Annual Work Plan was discussed. In reviewing the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 (PFF) and past projects of the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee the Working Group determined that the following projects linked directly to the objectives in the PFF and therefore should be included in the Annual Work Plan:

Develop stronger & cohesive communities by: Promote Club Development initiatives; and Support and actively promote the KidSport program.

Improve access and levels of participation by: Facilitate the recreational needs of minority groups and implement an action

plan to develop new activities; and Identify and facilitate opportunities for sporting club participation at

appropriate public events. Support the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity

programs run in or servicing the Town. Recognise and promote the contributions of elite athletes and/r sporting contributors

through the biennial ‘Sporting Walk of Fame.’

CONCLUSION: The Healthy Life Working Group has supported the inclusion of projects in the Annual Work Plan that are consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future 2011-2026 and commitments to existing projects that had been commenced by the now disbanded Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee.

RESOLVED:

Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner

The Healthy Life Working Group’s Annual Work Plan comprises:

1 Developing stronger and cohesive communities by: 1.1 Promoting Club Development initiatives. 1.2 Supporting and actively promote the KidSport program.

2 Improving access and levels of participation by: 2.1 Facilitating the recreational needs of minority groups and

implementing an action plan to develop new activities. 2.2 Identifying and facilitating opportunities for sporting club

participation at appropriate public events.

3 Supporting the promotion of sport and recreational organisations and physical activity programs run in or servicing the Town.

4 Recognising and promoting contributions of elite athletes and/or

sporting contributors through the biennial ‘Sporting Walk of Fame.’


Ordinary M

14.1

14 BU

Mu14.1 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm44 Carna In S

dogs In a

beca No o The TABLED Nil BACKGRAn applicSusan La Ms Lake These dooffences o One of MLake wouexemptionCouncil. The Townexemptionyears and DETAILSIn investigStreet, iss

Meeting of

USINESS

ultiple Do

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –rvon Stree

September s. accordanceause one oobjections Town has

ITEMS:

ROUND: ation to keke of 44 C

was previogs were or complai

Ms Lake’s duld like to rn for Ms La

n has just ns to keepd none of th

: gating this sued consu

f Council M

S LIFE PR

og Appli

ADNo 22 A.

er: N. nt: Simry: – The appet, East V2010 the

e with theof the previto this appreceived n

eep more Carnarvon S

ously grantwo Chihunts relating

dogs, whicreplace himake to get

over 2,00 more thanhe exempt

applicationultation lett

Minutes

ROGRAM

cation –

DM0058

May 2012Lantzke

Cain mple Major

plication foictoria Parsame ap

e previousious dogs

plication hano previou

than the pStreet, Eas

nted an exuahua’s ang to Ms La

ch was subm with anoa replacem

00 existingn 2 dogs. etions appro

n, the Towters to neig

148

M REPOR

44 Carn

2

rity

or an exemrk be apprplicant wa

s exemptiohas died a

ave been res complain

prescribed st Victoria

xemption tnd a Pomke or her d

bject to thother Pomement dog s

dog regiseight exemoved have

wn Rangersghbours an

RTS

arvon St

mption to roved subas granted

on a new and the appeceived fronts about d

number oPark.

to keep thmeranian. dogs.

is exemptieranian. Inshe must r

strations amptions hav

been revo

s inspectednd conduct

treet

keep morbject to co an exem

applicatioplicant wouom neighbodogs at this

of dogs wa

ree dogs The Town

ion, has re accordanreapply for

nd currentve been apked.

d the propeted a deskt

12 J

re than twonditions. mption to k

on has beuld like to rours. s property.

as received

in Septemn has no

ecently diece with ther an exemp

tly has 11pproved in

erty at 44 Cktop audit.

June 2012

14.1

wo dogs at

keep three

een madereplace it.

d from Ms

mber 2010.history of

ed and Mse previousption, from

approvedn the last 5

Carnarvon

2

t

e

e

s

. f

s s

m

d 5

n


14.1 149 14.1

The investigation found that the property at 44 Carnarvon Street was well maintained and of a suitable size to keep three dogs. No objections to this application from neighbours were received and no history of offences or complaints are recorded with the Town. Legal Compliance: The following clauses outline the legal framework pertaining to this report. In summary the Town limits the number of dogs that can be kept to two unless an exemption is granted. If an application for an exemption is refused, or if the applicant disagrees with any conditions imposed under an exemption the applicant can ask for the decision to be reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal. Dog Act 1976 states inter alia: “Part V — The keeping of dogs 26. Limitation as to numbers (1) The provisions of this Part shall not operate to prevent the keeping on any premises of

2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age. (2) Subject to subsection (1), a local government, pursuant to local laws, may limit the

number of dogs over the age of 3 months, or the number of such dogs of any specified breed or kind, that may be kept on any premises situate in a specified area to which those local laws apply unless those premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or are exempt.

(3) Where by a local law under this Act a local government has placed a limit on the

keeping of dogs in any specified area but the local government is satisfied in relation to any particular premises that the provisions of this Act relating to approved kennel establishments need not be applied in the circumstances, the local government may grant an exemption in respect of those premises but any such exemption —

(a) may be made subject to conditions, including a condition that it applies only to the dogs specified therein;

(b) shall not operate to authorise the keeping of more than 6 dogs on those premises; and

(c) may be revoked or varied at any time.

(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3), a person who keeps on any premises, not being premises licensed as an approved kennel establishment, dogs over the age of 3 months in numbers exceeding any limit imposed in relation to those dogs by a local law made under subsection (2) commits an offence.

Penalty: $1 000 and a daily penalty of $100.

(5) Any person who is aggrieved —

(a) by the conditions imposed in relation to any exemption from the provisions of a local law placing a limitation on the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises; or

(b) by the refusal of a local government to grant such an exemption, or by the revocation of an exemption, may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision.


14.1 150 14.1

(6) An application under subsection (5) cannot be made later than the expiry of a period of 28 days after the day on which a notice of the decision is served on the person affected by that decision.”

Dog Local Law 2000 states inter alia: “3.2 Limitation on the number of dogs (1) This clause does not apply to premises which have been—

(a) licensed under Part 4 as an approved kennel establishment; or (b) granted an exemption under section 26(3) of the Act.

(2) The limit on the number of dogs which may be kept on any premises is, for the purpose of section 26(4) of the Act, 2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age.”

Policy Implications: This recommendation is consistent with the Town’s Plan for the Future. Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: The Dog Act 1976 and the Town’s Dog Local Law 2000 clearly limit the number of dogs that can be kept on any property to two unless an exemption is granted. The requirement of getting an exemption ensures that any negative impact or undesirable outcomes that may come about as a result of keeping multiple dogs is able to be avoided.


14.1 151 14.1

Ms Lake’s previous history of keeping dogs, and in particular of keeping three dogs, demonstrates a capacity to do so without impacting on other members of the community.

The same conditions that the Town applies to all applications of this type were part of the previous exemption and should be included in this exemption also.

CONCLUSION: Ms Lake is a suitable candidate for an exemption to keep three dogs.

RESOLVED:

Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Nairn

That Council, Pursuant to the Dog Act 1976 and the Town of Victoria Parks Dog Local Law 2000, approves the application for an exemption to the limitation to keep more than two dogs on the property at 44 Carnarvon Street be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Only dogs which are the subject of this exemption are to be kept at this property;

2. All dogs are to be registered in accordance with the Dog Act 1976 and all registrations shall be renewed and maintained as required;

3. Fences are to be maintained in order to effectively confine the dogs within the property;

4. The yard area of the property where the dogs are kept is to be maintained in a clean and tidy condition;

5. Dog faeces are to be disposed of in the weekly refuse service or by other approved means;

6. Dogs kept at the property are not permitted to bark or behave otherwise in a way so as to create a nuisance;

7. If the property is developed so as to reduce the area used to keep the dogs, the exemption provided by Council will no longer be valid. The applicant may seek a further exemption based on the modified condition of the property;

8. The exemption relates to the individual dogs subject to this application only. Those dogs being: Animal number 21866, named Saffie, a female Pomeranian, Animal number 20932, named Tilly, a female Chihuahua, and A currently unregistered female Pomeranian named Pips.

These dogs cannot be replaced without first seeking a further exemption from Council;

9. On receipt of a justifiable complaint, Council may revoke or vary the exemption at any time.


Ordinary M

14.2

Fin14.2Be

File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecomm2012 be r This

Aprilvaria

TABLED Nil BACKGRThe Townto preparefollowing on signific DETAILSA detailedsignificant The Offic 2011-201

OperatingOperatingCapital Ex There are

Meeting of

nancial etween 1

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation received. report prol 2012 idenances over

ITEMS:

ROUND: n is requiree, and prereport concant operat

: d review t variances

ce of the C

2 Budget a

g Income g Expendituxpenditure

e no varian

f Council M

StatemeApril and

FINYe 22 G.

er: N. nt: Simry: – That th

ovides an ntifying negr $1,000.

ed by the Lsent to Cotains theseting and ca

of the mos are detai

Chief Exec

and Year to

BudgAnnu

ure 1

ces to repo

Minutes

ents andd 30 Apr

N0015 s

March 201Pattrick Cain

mple Major

he Financ

analysis ofgative ope

Local Goveouncil mone monthly apital expe

onthly finaled below.

cutive

o Date Res

get ual

0,950,982

Nil

ort on this

152

d Budgril 2012

12

rity

cial Statem

f the finanerating vari

ernment (Fnthly financ

financial senditure va

ancial state

sults

Budget Y

1,782

month for

et Varia

ments for

cial statemances ove

Financial Mcial statemstatementsariances.

ements ha

YTD Act

02,369 1

Nil

the Office

ations F

the perio

ments for tr $10,000

Managemenents of a p, and also

as been u

tual YTD

(15,637) 1,307,637

Nil

of the Chi

12 J

For The

od ending

the period and negat

nt) Regulaprescribed provides

undertaken

$VariancYTD

15,429,

ef Executiv

June 2012

14.2

Period

g 30 April

ending 30tive capital

tions 1996 kind. Thecomments

n and the

ce

,637,365

Nil

ve.

2

2

d

l

0 l

6 e s

e


14.2 153 14.2

Business Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget

Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD Operating Income 29,174,039 28,752.249 28,172,744 579,505Operating Expenditure 2,802,200 2,401,647 2890,096 488,449Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget


YTD 406000: General Purpose Funding

1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555

The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better matches when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget


YTD 411000: Animal Control

46,000 39,970 28,577 11,393

Variance has occurred due to a once off write off of aged debts

Variance Type Budget Annual

Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD

412000: Ranger Services

31,877 26,560 9,280 17,280

Variance is due to a lower that predicted number of identified offences and a once off write off of aged debts Variance Type Budget


YTD 406000: General Purpose Funding

1,679,900 1,000,592 783,037 217,555

The timing of grant funding needs to be reviewed so it better match when it is receipted. Variance Type Budget


YTD 474500: Parking 679,972 566,962 294,016 272,946Due to delays in implementing hotspots parking changes expected revenue has not been met. A withdrawal has been made of bulk aging infringements totalling $97,375. Variance Type Budget


YTD 490600: Business Development

120,000 60,000 0 60,000

This is grant funding that has not yet been received. It is expected to be received prior to the end of the financial year.


14.2 154 14.2



591000: Information Technology

0 2,934 48,705 45,771

Accumulated Depreciation is a ‘non-cash’ transaction and does not influence the year-end position Community Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget


YTD Operating Income 5,487,842 3,765,637 3,648,295 117,342Operating Expenditure 11,468,356 7,752,452 6,406,702 1,345,750Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget


YTD 433300: Recreational Swimming

763,785 700,366 653,063 47,303

This account is offset by a positive variance to single entry attendance. Variance Type Budget


YTD 433600: Memberships

1,503,160 1,210,700 943,030 267,670

Variance due to over estimation of proposed revenue



437100: Sporting Life 264,586 223,988 212,209 11,779Variation has occurred due to a mistiming of CPI increases in comparison to the budget estimates. Variance Type Budget


YTD 439000: Bingo Op Rev

907,705 744,500 717,298 27,202

Variance due to a power outage, variance is also offset, in part, by a positive variance in expenditure.



535500: Aqualife Café

197,656 168,524 207,669 39,145

Variance comprises of standing order with café suppliers and over estimation of staff requirements during the summer months. A review of casual staff expenditure has been undertaken and rostered hours have been adjusted to ensure minimum spending for the remaining few months.


14.2 155 14.2

Built Life/Future Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget


YTD Operating Income 868,550 579,032 470,156 108,876Operating Expenditure 3,250,984 2,239,248 1,538,389 700,859Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil



457500 : Edward Millen Reserve

73,536 61,280 0 61,280

Variance due to Lottery West Grant not yet received. Variance Type Budget


YTD 464500: Events Op Rev

75,000 62,510 7,112 55,398

Variance due to a shortfall of estimated revenue of events, variance will be partially of set by Lotterywest in May 2012 Variance Type Budget


YTD 664506: Music by Moonlight

102,000 85,000 106,010 21,010

Variance is a timing issue. This project is now complete.



428000: Urban Planning Op Rev

462,050 3385,040 287,691 97,349

Revenue from planning applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market



47800: Building Op Rev

406,500 723,790 589,988 133.802

Revenue from building applications is less than anticipated, which is a direct reflection of the conditions in the property development market


14.2 156 14.2

Renew Life 2011-2012 Budget and Year to Date Results Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD Operating Income 5,623,621 1,242,325 677,036 565,289Operating Expenditure 23,146,589 13,149,276 11,568,774 1,580,502Capital Expenditure Nil Nil Nil Nil Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 442500: Brownes Stadium

46,000 41,000 25,943 15,057

Variance due to timing issues, revenue is expected to equalise before the end of the financial year Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 479000: Underground Power

4,839,609 1,1176,877 342,028 834,849

Not all 7 cells will be processed this financial year and therefore a corresponding change in timing of receipts will occur. Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 487500: Parks Plant 13,636 13,636 807 12,829Variance due to plant disposal funds not yet receipted Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 547500: Macmillan Park

51,167 43,668 57,710 14,042

Variance due to over expenditure on building cleaning and grounds maintenance. Funds to be reallocated from Operating Master Account 555000.670 Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 552000: Patterson Park

38,895 32,660 51,457 18,797

Variance due to the requirement of additional maintenance resources on bollard installation and irrigation upgrade Funding to be reallocated from other areas


14.2 157 14.2

580000: Private Works 23,536 19,912 186,894 166,982City of South Perth has decided to continue with the street sweeping services provided by the Town. Revenue to Private Works Operating Revenue will therefore increase by $60,000.

Legal Compliance: This report satisfies the requirements of Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, pursuant to section 6.4 of Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Amendment Regulations 2005. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil

Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD

556500: Higgins Park 122,179 103,106 129,539 26,433Variance is due to additional maintenance works. Funding to be reallocated from other areas Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance

YTD 566500: Footpaths 740,293 620,932 725,759 104,827Variance is due to costs related to tree root damage. Funding to be reallocated from other areas

Variance Type Budget Annual Budget YTD Actual YTD $Variance YTD

671001: Contaminated Site Investigate

65,000 32,500 59,000 26,500

Variance is due to timing. This project is complete.


14.2 158 14.2

Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: It is recommended that the financial statements for the month ended 30 April 2012 be received. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Potter That Council, pursuant to Regulation 34 of The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1966 (as amended), accepts the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ended 30 April 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

14.3

Sc14.3 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommGovernm The Direc Depo

Loca This

April TABLED Nil BACKGRCouncil hthe muniGovernme Under Re1996, wheof its powfrom the mshowing:

a) b) c) d)

That list sthe prepapresented DETAILSThe list oGovernme

Meeting of

chedule o

rence: ces:


ment (FinanList of Accct lodgemeosits and al Governm report prol 2012.

ITEMS:

ROUND: as delegaticipal andent (Financ

egulation 1ere a local

wer to makmunicipal f

The paThe amThe daSuffici

should thearation of d.

: of accountsent (Financ

f Council M

of Accou

FINYe 8 MG.

er: N. nt: Simry:

– That ncial Manacounts Paident of payrwithdrawa

ment. ovides an o

ted to the trust funcial Manag

13(1) of th governme

ke paymenfund or the

ayee’s nammount of thate of the pent inform

n be presethe list, a

s paid by cial Manag

Minutes

unts for t

N0015 s

May 2012Pattrick Cain

mple Major

Council, agement) d for the peroll paymenal, of inves

overview o

Chief Execnds in acgement) Re

he Local Gent has dents from the trust fund

me; he paymenpayment; aation to ide

ented at thand record

the CEO gement) Re

159

the Perio

rity

pursuanRegulatioeriod 1 Apnts to the pstments to

of payment

cutive Officccordance egulations

Governmenelegated tohe municipd is to be

nt and entify the t

he next Oded in the

in accordaegulations

od 1 Apri

nt to Reons 1996 (pril 2012 to personal b

and from

s made by

cer the autwith Re

1996.

nt (Financ the Chief

pal fund or noted on a

ransaction

rdinary Meminutes

ance with 1996 be c

l 2012 to

gulation as amend30 April 20ank accouaccounts

y the Town

thority to mgulation 1

cial ManagExecutivethe trust f

a list comp

eeting of thof the me

Regulationconfirmed.

12 J

o 30 Apri

13 of tded), confi012.

unts of empin the na

n during the

make paym12(1) of

gement) Re Officer thfund, eachpiled for ea

he Councieeting at w

n 13(1) of

June 2012

14.3

il 2012

he Localirm;

ployees; ame of the

e month of

ments fromthe Local

Regulationse exerciseh paymentach month

l followingwhich it is

f the Local

2

3

l

e

f

m l

s e t h

g s

l


14.3 160 14.3

FUND CHEQUE NUMBERS /

PAY PERIODS AMOUNTS

$ Municipal Account Recoup Advance Account 18.12Automatic Cheques Drawn 602730 - 602865 502,716.28Creditors 2,223,045.69Payroll 772,984.60Bank Fees 6,406.12Corporate Mastercard 6,576.51 3,511,747.32 Advance Account Bank Fees 18.12 18.12 Trust Account Cheques Drawn 2757 – 2771 15,088.50 15,088.50 Legal Compliance: This report and the attached list are submitted in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil


14.3 161 14.3

Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: It is recommended that the payments made for the month of April 2012 be confirmed. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Potter Seconded: Councillor Skinner That Council, pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (as amended), confirm; 1. The List of Accounts Paid for the period 1 April 2012 to 30 April 2012. 2. Direct lodgement of payroll payments to the personal bank accounts of

employees; 3. Deposits and withdrawal, of investments to and from accounts in the name of

the Local Government. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

14.4

Fe14.4 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommAct 1995 and Char Cou

Cha As th

item TABLED Nil BACKGRCouncillorCharges Year. At2012-201Annual BCharges. and Charproposed and repla2012-201 DETAILSA detailedOfficers, i

a) Theb) Thec) The

pro The propo

Meeting of

ees and C

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation –(as amen

rges, as atncillors recrges to havhe 2012-20 (this item)

ITEMS:

ROUND: rs, at a r(as prepart the same3 Annual Budget is n A period

rges wouldFees and

ace the cur3 Financia

: d analysisn reviewine cost to pe importane price atovider.

osed Sche

f Council M

Charges

ADYe 30 N C

er: N Cnt: Abry: – That Co

nded), amettached incently indive effect fr013 Annua) is require

recent Cored by Offe workshoBudget wonormally th

of one mod not be d Charges rrent Fees

al Year.

s has beeng the appli

provide the nce of the st which th

dule of Fe

Minutes

– Effecti

DM0058 s

May 2012Cain Cain solute Maj

ouncil, purend the c

n the appecated a drom 1 July al Budget wed to exped

uncil Worficers) propop Councilould not ocche mechanonth wouldin effect. for the 20 and Char

n conducteicable Feeservice or

service or ghe service

es and Ch

162

ive from

2

ority

rsuant to Scurrent Feendices, efesire to h2012.

will not be dite this req

rkshop, acposed to bllors also cur until th

nism by whd therefore This Item

012-2013 Frges with t

ed on thees and Char good; goods to th

e or goods

harges are

1 July 2

Section 6es and Chffective froave the pr

adopted uquest.

cknowledgebe in effecacknowled

he end of Jhich Counoccur whe

m allows fFinancial Ythe propos

e Fees andarges, have

he commus could b

included in

012

.16 of the harges anom 1 July roposed 2

until 31 Jul

ed a Schct for the 2dged that July 2012. cil sets anere the neor the tim

Year and wsed Fees a

d Chargese taken into

nity; and e provided

n the appe

12 J

Local Gond impose

2012. 2012-2013

ly 2012, a

edule of 2012-2013the adopt The adop

nd adopts ew Schedumely adoptwill, in effeand Charg

s levied byo consider

d by an

endices.

June 2012

14.4

overnmente the Fees

Fees and

subsidiary

Fees and3 Financialtion of theption of the

Fees andle of Feesion of the

ect, amendges for the

y Council.ration –

alternative

2

4

t s

d

y

d l

e e d s e d e

.

e


14.4 163 14.4

Legal Compliance: Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended) (Imposition of Fees and Charges) states –

(1) A local government may impose* and recover a fee or charge for any goods or service it provides or proposes to provide, other than a service for which a service charge is imposed. * Absolute majority required. (2) A fee or charge may be imposed for the following —

(a) providing the use of, or allowing admission to, any property or facility wholly or partly owned, controlled, managed or maintained by the local government; (b) supplying a service or carrying out work at the request of a person; (c) subject to section 5.94, providing information from local government records; (d) receiving an application for approval, granting an approval, making an inspection and issuing a licence, permit, authorisation or certificate; (e) supplying goods; (f) such other service as may be prescribed.

(3) Fees and charges are to be imposed when adopting the annual budget but may be —

(a) imposed* during a financial year; and (b) amended* from time to time during a financial year.

* Absolute majority required. Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The Town of Victoria Park - Strategic Plan 2004-2013 has, as a strategy under the Good Governance Key Result Area, the need to provide and manage organisational resources and assets. This Item is seen to support this strategy by implementing Fees and Charges designed to ensure sound financial management over Council’s resources. Financial Implications: Fees and Charges encompass approximately 19% of the Operating Funds required to operate Council activities. Due to the fact that the Fees and Charges are, in effect, being set outside the normal process (of adoption via the Annual Budget (which will also need to occur), a period of local public notice is required. This will have a minor cost and two week timeframe associated with it. At the end of that period the amended / new Fees and Charges will apply.


14.4 164 14.4

Sustainability Assessment: The Fees and Charges have been amended so as to consider the cost impact of providing those goods and services. This extends across the economic, social, cultural and environment assessment areas. COMMENT AND CONCLUSION Councillor’s request for a timely adoption of Fees and Charges can be met through the application of Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended). The Schedule of Fees and Charges (as proposed) have taken into consideration all requirements as set forth by legislation, are considered fair and reasonable, and will assist in the continued delivery and operation of Council services and activities. RESOLVED: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Ashton That Council, pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 (as amended), amend the current Fees and Charges and impose the Fees and Charges, as attached in the appendices, effective from 1 July 2012. The Motion was Put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

14.5

Bu14.5 File ReferAppendic Date: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommcommuniJune 201

Theas

Thethe

TABLED Nil BACKGR The CounLife Workhas been Ms DanieGroup MeWorking G DETAILSIn order fthe residerepresentCouncil al With the awill includ Legal CoNil Policy ImNil

Meeting of

usiness L

rence: ces:

g Officer: ible Officeequiremene Summarendation:ity repres2 until thee current mthere are ce recomme

e Working G

ITEMS

ROUND:

ncil at its 1king Groupfilled.

elle Norrisheeting by Group.

: for the Busents of the ation on tllow the ap

appointmee three (3)

mpliance:

mplications

f Council M

Life Wor

ADNo 29 K.

er: N. nt: Simry: That Couentatives e 19 Octobmembershcurrently 4ended appGroup.

3 Decembp to include

h and Ms invitation

siness LifeTown of Vhe Workin

ppointment

ent of Ms N) communi

:

s:

Minutes

king Gro

DM083

May 2012Bel-BachirCain

mple Major

uncil appoon the Bu

ber 2013.ip of the B

4 positions plicants will

ber Ordinae 5 comm

Pat Luptoand have

e Working Victoria Parng Group. t of five (5)

Norrish anty represe

165

oup - Mem

2 r

rity

oints Ms Dusiness Li

Business Livacant. l offer a we

ry Councilmunity repre

on attendee both sinc

Group to rk there muThe Term

) communi

nd Ms Luptntatives, tw

mbershi

Danielle Noife Workin

ife Working

ealth of bu

Meeting hesentative

ed the 13 ce express

represent ust be an a

ms of Refety member

ton to the wo position

p

orrish andng Group f

g Group is

siness skil

have estabs. To dat

March Bused an int

the intereappropriate

erence thatrs as repre

Business ns currently

12 J

d Ms Pat Lfor the pe

s not fully s

lls and exp

blished thete, only on

siness Lifeterest in j

ests and coe level of ct were en

esentatives

Life Worky remain v

June 2012

14.5

Lupton aseriod of 13

subscribed

perience to

e Businessne position

e Workingoining the

oncerns ofcommunitydorsed by

s.

king Groupvacant.

2

5

s 3

d

o

s n

g e

f y y

p


14.5 166 14.5

Strategic Plan Implications: Nil Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Nil Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Representation from the community will increase the diversity of representation on the Business Life Working Group. Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: Nil COMMENT: Ms Danielle Norrish is a local resident currently employed by the Communications Council of Australia. Her background and experience in Marketing and Communications as well as her passion for the community will be an asset to the Business Life Working Group. Ms Pat Lupton is co-owner of Booksabilia, a local business located in Carlisle. Ms Lupton has an in depth knowledge of the local area as well excellent business skills, her insights as a small business owner will be invaluable to the Business Life Working Group. CONCLUSION: Both Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton will be welcome additions to the Business Life Working Group as community representatives due to their professional skills and business experience. WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION/S: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish and Ms Pat Lupton as community representatives on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013.


14.5 167 14.5

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Ashton Seconded: Councillor Potter To delete Ms Pat Lupton as a representative on the Business Life Working Group. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: she no longer can be a Community Representative. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: That Council appoints Ms Danielle Norrish as a community representative on the Business Life Working Group for the period of 13 June 2012 until the 19 October 2013. The Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

15 AP

Co15.120

Moved: That Cr J2012 incl The Motio In favour oCr Potter

Mi15.2Co

The Counrepresent

“ApOctappapp

Cr Bissett27 July 2period, happointingapproved RESOLVE Moved: The CouRegional absence The Motio In favour oCr Potter

Meeting of

PPLICAT

ouncillor12, inclu

Councill

J (John) Busive.

on was Pu

of the Motio

ndarie ouncillor

ncil at itsative on th

ppoints Cr tober 2013 pointment opointed (prim

t has appl2012 inclusowever, ig Cr Hayeby the Co

ED:

Councill

uncil appoCouncil f

subject to

on was Pu

of the Motio

f Council M

IONS FO

r J (Johnusive

or Nairn

Bissett be

ut and

on: Mayor V

Regionar Bissett’

Special he Mindarie

Bissett to and Cr Ha

of the Deputmary) mem

ied for appsive. Thern case a

es as the uncil.

or Bissett

oints Cr from 23 Jo it being a

ut and

on: Mayor V

Minutes

OR LEAV

n) Bisset

granted

Vaughan; C

al Councs Leave

Meeting he Regional

represent tyes as the ty needs to

mber is not a

proved Leare are no Special Deputy M

t

Hayes asuly 2012 tapproved

Vaughan; C

168

VE OF AB

tt Banksi

leave of a

Cr Bissett; C

cil – Aof Abse

held on 1l Council (M

the Town Deputy Mebe by Cou

available;”

ave of AbsscheduledMeeting iember for

s it Deputo the 27 Jby the Co

Cr Bissett; C

BSENCE

ia Ward,

Secon

absence f

Cr Ashton;

Appointmnce

7 OctobeMRC) reso

on the Minember until ncil resoluti

sence for td meetingsis called r the term

Secon

uty RepreJuly 2012ouncil at It

Cr Ashton;

23 July

ded: Co

rom 23 Ju

Cr Hayes;

ment of

r 2011 wolved as fol

ndarie Regi19 Octoberion for the s

the period s of the Mthe Counthat Cr B

ded: Co

esentativeduring C

tem 15.1 a

Cr Hayes;

12 J

y 2012 to

ouncillor S

uly 2012 t

CARR

Cr Skinner

Deputy

when consllows:

ional Counr 2013, notispecific per

23 July 2MRC during

cil shouldBissett is o

ouncillor S

e on the r Bissett’s

above.

CARR

Cr Skinner

June 2012

o 27 July

Skinner

to 27 July

RIED: (7-0)

r; Cr Nairn;

during

idering its

ncil until 19ing that theriod that the

012 to theg this timed consideron leave if

Skinner

Mindaries leave of

RIED: (7-0)

r; Cr Nairn;

2

y

y

)

;

g

s

9 e e

e e r f

e f

)

;

Ordinary M

16 MO

Cr16.1 “That thetable so t2012, and RESOLVE Moved: That itemTown of V The Motio

In favour oCr Potter

No16.2CoRe

File ReferAppendicDate: ReportingResponsVoting ReExecutiveRecommadvertise1997. Sect

propgove

Couprop

AdmapprBurs

TABLED Letter Letter Drawin

Compl

Meeting of

OTION O

r Hayes w

e matter othat it cand at the su

ED:

Councill

m 16.2 be “Victoria P

on was Pu

of the Motio

otice of omplex eserve

rence: ces:


ed in acco

tion 58 ofposal be adernment. ncil to con

posed roadministration roved by Cswood Pen

ITEMS: dated 6 Odated 30 A

ng A1.04Alex.

f Council M

OF WHICH

will be M

of Burswon be reconubsequent

or Hayes

“lifted fromark Local

ut and

on: Mayor V

Motion-Car Par

TENo24 T. M

er: A. Vnt: Simry: – That t

ordance w

f the Landdvertised a

nsider, at d closure m

has conceCabinet pr

ninsula Pre

ctober 201April 2012

A of reques

Minutes

H PREVI

oving a

ood Entertnsidered at Ordinary

m the tableLaw relat

Vaughan; C

- Reconrk and

S0273 . May 2012McCarthy /Vuleta / R mple Major

the propowith the

d Adminisand 35 day

a future Omade duringerns that thrior to fina

ecinct.

11 from Bufrom the H

sted road c

169

OUS NO

Notice o

tainment at the Elecy Meeting

e” in accoting to Sta

Cr Bissett; C

sideratioRequest

2 / R CruicksLavery rity

osal to crequireme

tration Acys allowed

Ordinary Mg the 35 dahe construalisation o

urswood EnHon Ministeclosure are

OTICE HA

of Motion

Complex cted Membof Counci

Secon

ordance wanding Ord

Cr Ashton;

on of Bt to Clo

shank

close Gleents of th

ct 1997 re for submi

Meeting, anay submissction of thef the Mas

ntertainmeer for Raciea provide

AS BEEN

car park bers Briefiil 12 June

ded: Co

with Sectioders.

Cr Hayes;

urswoodose Gle

nn Placehe Land A

quires thassions to b

ny submisssion periode multi-levesterplan/Str

nt Compleng and Ga

ed by Burs

12 J

N GIVEN

be raiseding Sessio2012”.

ouncillor S

on 12.7 (3)

CARR

Cr Skinner

d Entertnn Plac

e road reAdministr

at any roabe made to

sions relatd. el car parkructure Pla

ex. aming. swood Ente

June 2012

from theon 5 June

Skinner

of the

RIED: (7-0)

r; Cr Nairn;

tainmentce Road

eserve beration Act

ad closureo the local

ting to the

k has beenan for the

ertainment

2

e e

)

;

t d

e t

e l

e

n e

t


16.2 170 16.2

BACKGROUND: At the Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, Council resolved that the motion relating to a request for closure of Glenn Place road reserve lay on the Table, with the stated reason for leaving the motion on the Table being that Council was awaiting the results of discussion between the Burswood Entertainment Complex (BEC) and the State Government. Written advice, dated 30 April 2012, has been received from the Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming that State Cabinet has approved:

the excision of 12,472m² of land from the Burswood Park Reserve 39361 and for that land to be granted to Burswood Nominees Ltd;

a multi- level car park to be constructed in such land; and new roads to be created and existing roads realigned (including related

infrastructure). The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming has indicated that he has advised the Town of Cabinet’s approval of the proposal in order that the Town can progress with the various applications (such as road closures, building licences etc) necessary to commence the project. BEC submitted to the Town, on 7 September 2011, a building licence application to commence forward works for a proposed multi-storey car park to be located on the southern side of the complex, straddling the Glenn Place road reserve. The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially within the area defined as the “Resort Lands” in the Casino (Burswood Island) Agreement Act 1985. Developments within the “Resort Lands” do not require normal Planning Approval, as they are exempt under the aforementioned Act. The road reserve known as Glenn Place is not within the area defined as “Resort Lands”, and as the proposed structure is to be located over the Glenn Place road reserve which is reserved “Parks and Recreation” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, Planning Approval will be required from the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). BEC was advised by the Town that as the proposed multi-storey car park is located over the road reserve, a formal application to Council to consider closure of the road reserve is required to enable Council to determine whether it is appropriate to request the Minister for Lands to close the road. BEC lodged, by letter dated 6 October 2011, a formal request for Council to consider closure of the Glenn Place road reserve. That request was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting held 8 November 2011, and the matter was left to lay on the Table. DETAILS: The proposed multi-storey car park is to be located partially on Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board (part of Kagoshima Park) and partially on Glenn Place road reserve. The structure is proposed to accommodate 1004 car bays. The height of the structure has not been specified, but drawings supplied appear to indicate that it will be 3 storeys high and additionally have a basement level. Artistic impressions previously provided by representatives of BEC to Council Officers indicate that the façade of the car park will incorporate design treatments and articulation to provide some visual interest,


16.2 171 16.2

however the façade will not be activated. Associated modifications will also be made to the existing at grade car park adjacent to Glenn Place. BEC proposes to purchase land from the Crown, close Glenn Place and create a new road reserve on the southern side of the proposed car park to replace the Glenn Place road reserve. The Town was not involved in any of the negotiation between BEC and the Minister for Sport and Recreation; Racing and Gaming in respect to the proposal. Legal Compliance: Council can, if it chooses to do so, request the Minister for Lands to close a road reserve under Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Section 58 of the Act states: 58. Closure of roads

(1) When a local government wishes a road in its district to be closed permanently, the local government may, subject to subsection (3), request the Minister to close the road.

(2) When a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), the local government must in accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister.

(3) A local government must not resolve to make a request under subsection (1) until a period of 35 days has elapsed from the publication in a newspaper circulating in its district of notice of motion for that resolution, and the local government has considered any objections made to it within that period concerning the proposals set out in that notice.

(4) On receiving a request delivered to him or her under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he or she is satisfied that the relevant local government has complied with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) — (a) by order grant the request; (b) direct the relevant local government to reconsider the request,

having regard to such matters as he or she thinks fit to mention in that direction; or

(c) refuse the request. (5) If the Minister grants a request under subsection (4) —

(a) the road concerned is closed on and from the day on which the relevant order is registered; and

(b) any rights suspended under section 55(3)(a) cease to be so suspended.

Policy Implications: Nil Strategic Plan Implications: The proposal to relocate the road and construct the car park at the location proposed is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework which contained the following relevant statement -


16.2 172 16.2

“A new local road link on the southern side of Burswood Entertainment Complex extending from the Swan River in the west to the Burswood station east area via a proposed subway, provides the opportunity to replace the existing casino ‘back of house’ activities with an active public frontage to Great Eastern Highway. The new buildings adjacent to the casino would be multi storey carparks sleeved with commercial frontage.” It should be noted that the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework was advertised and supported by the WAPC, and although not having been approved by Cabinet owing to the intervening announcement of a new sports stadium at Burswood, is a seriously entertained planning proposal in the absence of any other strategic document. Additionally, it is not yet known whether the proposal will be in accordance with the Burswood Station West Masterplan, which has not yet been prepared by the Department of Planning. Financial Implications: Internal Budget: Nil Total Asset Management: Closure of a road reserve and creation of a new road reserve will impact on the Town’s ongoing operational responsibility for roads under the Town’s care, control and management. Sustainability Assessment: External Economic Implications: Nil Social Issues: Nil Cultural Issues: Nil Environmental Issues: The proposed car park structure would cause a reduction in parkland area available for general public use. The reduced area of available parkland is currently Crown land under the management of the Burswood Park Board. COMMENT: BEC has applied for a building licence for approval to commence forward works for the proposed car park within the road reserve. It is not appropriate for such approval to be issued prior to Council consideration of a request for closure of the road reserve, and no approval has therefore been issued. In addition, as part of the works are contained on land for which the planning approval of the WAPC is required, it would be appropriate that a decision on the road closure request first be made, and if approved, then be followed by an application for planning approval.


16.2 173 16.2

The process for closure of road reserves is detailed in Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The Land Administration Act 1997 does not set out any alternate procedure whereby road reserves can be closed. It may be possible, however, that if Council does not agree to consider the proposed closure, the Minister for Lands could, as the controller of Crown land, close the subject road reserve without reference to Council. The Director Future Life and Built Life Programs has been in contact with the Department of Planning in regard to the proposed road closure and car park. The Department of Planning considers that the proposal to relocate Glenn Place road reserve and construct the proposed car park is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework and should not be supported until such time as the future direction for the area is determined through the Masterplan/Structure Plan process. This is in keeping with the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed. The following provisions contained in the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which apply to the BEC are also of relevance -

“Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported.”

“Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”

As Cabinet has approved the proposal to build the multi-level car park and the Minister has advised the Town of that approval in order that the road closure may be progressed, it is recommended that Council agree to advertise the proposed road closure in accordance with Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 and consider any submissions received within the specified 35 days after advertisement of the proposal. It is also recommended that Council advise the Minister of its concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being: The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location is

inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the

Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the

Burswood Station West Masterplan, which is being prepared by the Department of Planning, being completed.

The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”

Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of


16.2 174 16.2

Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.

BEC has not provided a traffic impact assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.

CONCLUSION: In acknowledgement of State Cabinet’s approval of the proposed multi-storey car park located partially over Glenn Place road reserve, the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve be advertised in accordance with the requirements of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997. RESPONSIBLE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Moved: Councillor Skinner Seconded: Councillor Bissett 1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A

provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicant’s cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections.

2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be

advised of Council’s resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Council’s concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being:

2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location

is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the

Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the



16.2 175 16.2

2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”

2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the

Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.

2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact

assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.

AMENDMENT: Moved: Councillor Bissett Seconded: Councillor Skinner That a recommendation No 3 be added to read that, “the report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament”. The Amendment was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter Reason: for their information. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED: 1. The proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, as depicted on drawing A1.04A

provided by Burswood Entertainment Centre, be advertised at the applicant’s cost, in accordance with the requirements of Section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997 and a further report be presented to Council for consideration after the expiry of the period specified for the lodgement of objections.


16.2 176 16.2

2. The Hon Minister for Racing and Gaming and the Hon Minister for Planning be

advised of Council’s resolution in respect to the advertising of the proposal to close Glenn Place road reserve, and they also be advised of Council’s concerns in relation to the proposed multi-level car park, those concerns being:

2.1 The proposal to construct a multi-storey car park at the nominated location

is inconsistent with the Burswood Peninsula Draft District Framework. 2.2 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the

Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed. 2.3 It is not considered appropriate for the development to proceed prior to the


2.4 The proposal is inconsistent with the Town of Victoria Park Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 Precinct Plan P1 ‘Burswood Peninsula Precinct’ which states “Any further expansion of the Complex into existing parkland will not be supported” and “Use of parkland for Burswood Resort parking on a permanent basis will not be supported. Any additional parking or access to the Resort should be accommodated on-site and not encroach into existing parkland.”

2.5 Approval of the proposed multi-level car park prior to the

Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula being completed is contrary to the view expressed by the Minister for Planning to the Town in respect to an application by EG Custodians for review of Council’s refusal of a variation to the Burswood Lakes Structure Plan pertaining to Lots 9 and 9525 Victoria Park Drive, Burswood, which was also affected by the future Masterplan/Structure Plan for the Burswood Peninsula, where the Minister indicated that the development under review should not proceed prior to the Masterplan/Structure Plan being completed.

2.6 Burswood Entertainment Complex has not provided a traffic impact

assessment for the design and operation of the proposed road layout. The proposed new alignment of Glenn Place appears to have been selected on no basis other than skirting around the new multi-level car park. Little consideration appears to have been given to the efficient movement of traffic in the proposed road layout, and there are several points of potential traffic conflict contained in the layout provided.

3. The report be forwarded to the local Victoria Park Members of Parliament. The Amended Motion was Put and CARRIED: (7-0) In favour of the Motion: Mayor Vaughan; Cr Bissett; Cr Ashton; Cr Hayes; Cr Skinner; Cr Nairn; Cr Potter

Ordinary M

16.2


177

12 JJune 2012

16.2

2

2

178

17 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE Question 1 Cr Nairn asked if Renew Life Program Staff can deal with the asphalt quality issue on some recently maintained roads? Answer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that nothing can be done at the moment untill the next financial year’s budget and that currently all roads are undergoing a condition audit. Question 2 Cr Nairn asked that local member Mr Ben Wyatt MLA would like Albany Highway to be closed once a month, can Council advise as to the status of this request? Answer Ms Nicole Annson advised that no consultation has taken place with Community Life at this stage. Question 3 Cr Ashton asked who is going to fund and organise the event Mr Ben Wyatt MLA is proposing? Answer Mayor Vaughan advised that it will be on the decision from Council as to whether or not this should occur, and will need to clarify if there is enough funds in the budget. 18 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE Nil 19 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Mr David Crann, 443 Albany Highway, Victoria Park WA 6100 Has the 2015 ANZAC Day Ceremony Project Team actually been disbanded? Answer The Mayor advised that appropriate representation will be needed to attend the Cultural and History Working Group. Mr Peter Lessiter, 40 Oats Street, East Victoria Park WA 6100 Mr Lessiter asked what is the definition now of Light Rail? Answer The Acting Chief Executive Officer Mr Anthony Vuleta advised that the current definition of Light Rail is light rail transit (LRT) is a form of urban rail public transportation that generally has a lower capacity and lower speed than heavy rail and metro systems, it can be from 20-30m long, smaller than a train but bigger than a tram, higher capacity and higher speed than traditional or older style tram systems.

Ordinary M

20 PU Mr Sonja Wanted tresearch a 21 ME

Ma21.1 Nil

Pu21.2 Nil 22 CL There bei I confirm Council. Signed: … Dated this

Meeting of

UBLIC ST

Fels, 78 Pto acknowand listen

EETING C

atters for

ublic Rea

LOSURE

ng no furth

these Mi

……………

s …………

f Council M

TATEMEN

Planet Streewledge and

to complai

CLOSED

r Which t

ading of

her busines

nutes to b

………………

……………

Minutes

NT TIME

et, Carlisled commenints and th

D TO PUB

the Meet

Resoluti

ss the May

be a true

……………

……………

179

e WA 610nd Councieir hard wo

BLIC

ting May

ons Tha

yor declare

and accu

………………

…. Day of

0 llors on thork.

y be Clos

at May be

ed the mee

urate recor

……………

……………

heir time

sed

e Made P

eting closed

rd of the

………………

……………

12 J

and effort

Public

d at 7.55p

proceedin

……………

……………

June 2012

t spent to

m.

gs of this

….. Mayor

…… 2012

2

o

s

r

2

june 2012 ocm minutes asfw4er3qtr53t5w43t5-t45w 56w46yw46t4tw4

Documents

esta rec3

engommunit rec3

o2 a3 a3

mod ten2

occplan ten2

ria park fon

house ria park g scheme4

pre mov2