ocm minutes 27 sept 2011 - city of belmont · 27 september 2011 1 minutes present cr g godfrey, ......

i

City of Belmont

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

TABLE OF CONTENTS 27 September 2011 ITEM SUBJECT HEADING PAGE NOTICE OF MEETING

1. OFFICIAL OPENING ........................................................................................ 1 2. APOLOGIES & LEAVE OF ABSENCE ........................................................... 2 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST .................................................................... 2 3.1 FINANCIAL INTERESTS ......................................................................................... 2 3.2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST THAT MAY CAUSE A CONFLICT................................... 2

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) AND DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS ................................... 2

4.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS .............................................................................................. 2 4.2 DISCLAIMER ....................................................................................................... 3 4.3 DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION

TO ALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE BUSINESS PAPERS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE MEETING ....................................................................................... 3

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ............................................................................... 3 5.1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE ................................................... 3 5.2 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ...................................................... 3

5.2.1 Mr W Childs, 122 Sydenham Street, Kewdale ............................... 4 5.2.2 Mr S Haley, 8 Davis Street, Ascot .................................................. 5 5.2.3 Mr R Broinowski (on behalf of Rivervale Community

Association), 66 Armadale Road, Rivervale ................................... 6

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / RECEIPT OF INFORMATION MATRIX ............................................................................................................ 7

6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 23 AUGUST 2011 ........................................ 7 6.2 INFORMATION MATRIX FOR THE AGENDA BRIEFING FORUM HELD

20 SEPTEMBER 2011 .......................................................................................... 7

7. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS ON WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION) ................................................................... 7

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 September 2011

ITEM SUBJECT HEADING PAGE

ii

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE ........................................... 7 9. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE

PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION ....................................................... 8 10. BUSINESS ADJOURNED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ............................ 8 11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ......................................................................... 9 11.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 17 AUGUST 2011 ................................................. 9 11.2 STANDING COMMITTEE (ENVIRONMENTAL) HELD 29 AUGUST 2011 ...................... 9 11.3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 30 AUGUST 2011 ................................................. 9

12. REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATION ................................................................ 10 12.1 ARROW HEAD MINISTRIES EVENT APPLICATION ................................................. 11 12.2 DRAFT VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN – LOT 51 AND LOT 83 (83 AND 84) MERCURY

AND LOT 3, LOT 2, PT LOT 1, LOT 84 AND LOT 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 AND 325) ORRONG ROAD, KEWDALE ........................................................................ 19

12.3 DRAFT VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN – LOTS 10, 1 AND 2 (367, 369 AND 371) ORRONG ROAD, KEWDALE ................................................................................ 27

12.4 PT LOT 51 (14) CLEAVER TERRACE, RIVERVALE – CHANGE OF USE – ‘HOSTEL’ TO ‘EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT’ .................................................... 35

12.5 WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE – LOT 54 (51) ABERNETHY ROAD, BELMONT .............. 44 12.6 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND (CSRFF)

APPLICATION - FORSTER PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE ......................................... 55 12.7 GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY UPGRADE PROJECT – GRADE SEPARATED

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING NEAR ABERNETHY ROAD ............................................. 62 12.8 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT – AUGUST 2011 ....................................................... 68 12.9 MONTHLY ACTIVITY STATEMENT AS AT 31 AUGUST 2011 ................................... 71

13. REPORTS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ...................................... 76 13.1 REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................................. 76

14. MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED ........................ 77 14.1 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM - STAFF MATTER – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND REMUNERATION REVIEW 2010-2011 ................ 77

15. CLOSURE ...................................................................................................... 77 ATTACHMENTS INDEX CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS INDEX Attachment 1 – Item 12.1 refers Confidential Attachment 1 – Item 14.1 refers Attachment 2 – Item 12.2 refers Attachment 3 – Item 12.3 refers Attachment 4 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 5 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 6 – Item 12.4 refers Attachment 7 – Item 12.5 refers Attachment 8 – Item 12.5 refers Attachment 9 – Item 12.6 refers Attachment 10 – Item 12.8 refers Attachment 11 – Item 12.9 refers

Councillors are reminded to retain the OCM Attachments for discussion with the Minutes


1

MINUTES PRESENT Cr G Godfrey, Mayor East Ward Cr P Marks, Deputy Mayor East Ward Cr P Hitt West Ward Cr B Martin West Ward Cr S Wolff South Ward Cr J Powell South Ward Cr J Gee Central Ward Cr G Dornford Central Ward IN ATTENDANCE Mr S Cole Chief Executive Officer Mr R Garrett Director Corporate and Governance Mr R Lutey Director Technical Services Ms J Gillan Acting Director Community and Statutory Services Mr J Olynyk, JP Manager Governance Ms P Flanagan Senior Governance Officer Ms S Johnson Governance Officer MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY There were eight members of the public in the gallery and one representative from the press.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING

The Presiding Member opened the meeting at 7.02pm, welcomed those in attendance and invited Cr Wolff to read aloud the Affirmation of Civic Duty and Responsibility on behalf of Councillors and Officers. Cr Wolff read aloud the affirmation.

Affirmation of Civic Duty and Responsibility

I make this affirmation in good faith and declare that I will duly, faithfully,

honestly, and with integrity fulfil the duties of my office for all the people in

the City of Belmont according to the best of my judgement and ability. I will

observe the City’s Code of Conduct and Standing Orders to ensure the

efficient, effective and orderly decision making within this forum.


2

2. APOLOGIES & LEAVE OF ABSENCE Cr B Whiteley (Apology) South Ward Cr R Rossi (Apology) West Ward Cr C Hanlon (Apology) East Ward Mr N Deague (Apology) Director Community and Statutory Services Mr M Ridgwell (Apology) Principal Governance and Compliance Advisor

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3.1 FINANCIAL INTERESTS Name Item No. & Title Nature of Interest

(and extent, where appropriate) Mr S Cole, Chief Executive Officer

14.1 Confidential Item - Staff Matter – Chief Executive Officer Annual Performance Appraisal and Remuneration Review 2010-2011

Direct Financial Interest.

3.2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST THAT MAY CAUSE A CONFLICT Nil. 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (WITHOUT

DISCUSSION) AND DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS 4.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS The Presiding Member made the following announcement: “Winner of the 2011 Rates Incentive Scheme Competition It is with great pleasure I announce and congratulate the winner of the 2011 Rates Incentive Scheme Competition Susan Ormrod. The prize is $600 cash, proudly sponsored by Commonwealth Bank Belmont. We are pleased that Ms Ormrod is here this evening to accept her cash prize. Congratulations and once again thank you for your prompt payment of your rates account.” The Presiding Member presented Ms Ormrod with her prize. Official photographs were taken of the presentation.


3

4.2 DISCLAIMER 7.04pm The Presiding Member advised the following: “I wish to draw attention to the Disclaimer Notice contained within the agenda document and advise members of the public that any decisions made at the meeting tonight, can be revoked, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995. Therefore members of the public should not rely on any decisions until formal notification in writing by Council has been received.” 4.3 DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO

ALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE BUSINESS PAPERS PRESENTLY BEFORE THE MEETING

Nil.

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5.1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil.

5.2 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 7.05pm The Presiding Member drew the public gallery’s attention to the rules of Public

Question Time as written in the Agenda. In accordance with rule (l), the Presiding Member advised that she had registered three members of the public who had given prior notice to ask questions, these being Mr Childs, Mr Haley and Mr Broinowski.

The Presiding Member invited the public gallery members, who had yet to

register their interest to ask a question, to do so. No further members of the public gallery stated their intention to ask a question. 7.06pm The Manager Governance departed and returned to the meeting.


4

5.2.1 Mr W Childs, 122 Sydenham Street, Kewdale Before asking his questions Mr Childs stated briefly that any past comments he had made regarding staff who had been employed by the City of Belmont were not meant to have a negative impact against those staff. 1. What is the protocol in staff accessing the Employment Assistance Program

(EAP) and is the EAP expected to operate within ethical processes of their discipline?

Response The Presiding Member stated that the City of Belmont EAP Program is provided by PPC Worldwide and is a self referral confidential EAP completely independent of the City of Belmont. This means staff can simply call or e-mail our EAP Provider to arrange an appointment without the need to have management consent or permission. Our EAP Provider has signed agreements with the City to the effect that the service is confidential and no identifying information is provided back to any third party without the individual client’s (staff member’s) written consent. The EAP provider PPC psychologists must be registered with the peak psychologists registration body in Australia. They need to abide by the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct of the governing body that can impose penalties up to and including deregistration. A further set of protocols that governs and guides the City’s EAP program provider are those of the Employee Assistance Professionals Association of Australia. PPC is a founding and continuing member of this Association. Very clear requirements govern the conduct of staff (counsellors, administrative and any other person associated with the delivery of the EAP), in regard to confidentiality, ethical behaviour and ensuring the EAP industry does not fall into disrepute as a result of any of our people’s actions. It is important to note that there will be times where the confidentiality requirements are not applicable or at least dealt with administratively. I’m referring for example to the Workplace Support Services. These are targeted interventions supported by the employer and involving the employer, the individual employee or group of employees and a PPC Consultant. In these cases, a full and frank discussion on the key issues and needs of both the individual and the organisation are required to help all parties move towards a resolution.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 September 2011 Item 5.2.1 Continued

5

2. In the October 2010 Belmont Bulletin it was stated in the policy initiative that

Facebook and Twitter will be coming, we have Twitter which commenced in November 2010 and we still don’t have Facebook. Could you tell us why?

Response The Presiding Member stated that the October 2010 issue of the Belmont Bulletin stated that the City will be launching into the world of social media. No specific social media tools were mentioned, however, the logos of the two most used social media tools – Twitter and Facebook were featured as graphics. In November 2010, the Belmont Bulletin advised residents that the City had commenced the use of Twitter. The City has not established any ‘policy initiative’ to introduce both Twitter and Facebook. Should the City decide to introduce Facebook, it will be undertaken in a timeframe and manner which suits the City’s media requirements.

5.2.2 Mr S Haley, 8 Davis Street, Ascot 1. Davis Street, Ascot is a cul de sac. The Collins English Dictionary describes a

cul de sac as a street lane open only at one end – do you agree with this definition?

Response The Director Technical Services replied yes. 2. ‘No Through Road’ signs - does this mean no through traffic or does it mean

something else? Response The Director Technical Services stated that the ‘No Through Road’ signs indicated to traffic entering that street that there is no means of exiting at the other end. This does not mean that the residents living in the street cannot leave via this exit. 3. Would it be fair to say that the reason a Council would go to the expense of

installing bollards at the end of a street or cul de sac, is to prevent traffic passing through?

Response The Director Technical Services replied yes.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 September 2011 Item 5.2.2 Continued

6

4. I would like to read out a paragraph from a Council letter signed by the Director

Engineering, Mr R J Lutey, written on 20 March 2011, in answer to a petition from the adjoining businesses at 320-326 Great Eastern Highway and residents of Davis Street and Mathieson Road, Ascot. (Mr Haley then read out the paragraph).

So with what I have just read out -

A Davis Street being a cul de sac B The ‘No Through Road ‘signs C Council expense of installing bollards D Damage done by Courier trucks

I would like to know why the Council is allowing the businesses to send all their couriers and traffic through Davis Street, Mathieson Road, and Epsom Avenue when this completely contradicts the above four points?

Response The Director Technical Services stated that the cooperation from owners was required, however, Council will work to resolve the issue.

5.2.3 Mr R Broinowski (on behalf of Rivervale Community Association), 66 Armadale Road, Rivervale

1. I would like to adopt a “Shape Up and Bin Up” Program which would involve the

City of Belmont (the City) delivering waste bins to untidy households, with a notice requesting that the bins be used to clean up residents’ properties. Failing this, could the City of Belmont request Homeswest to inspect the untidy properties and have them cleaned up? The properties could be inspected by Health Officer’s in regard to health requirements not being met.

Response The Presiding Member stated that Homeswest have property managers whose role is to deal with these issues and it is not appropriate for the City to make requests of this nature. If there were health and safety issues associated with these properties, then the City would refer the matter to its Health Department. 7.25pm As there were no further questions, the Presiding Member declared Public

Question Time closed.


7

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES / RECEIPT OF INFORMATION MATRIX

6.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD 23 AUGUST 2011 (Circulated under separate cover)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION GEE MOVED, WOLFF SECONDED, That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 August 2011 as printed and circulated to all Councillors, be confirmed as a true and accurate record.

CARRIED 8 VOTES TO 0

6.2 INFORMATION MATRIX FOR THE AGENDA BRIEFING FORUM HELD 20 SEPTEMBER 2011 (Circulated under separate cover)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION HITT MOVED, POWELL SECONDED, That the Information Matrix for the Agenda Briefing Forum held on 20 September 2011 as printed and circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted.


7. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS ON WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

Nil.

8. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS WITHOUT NOTICE Councillor Powell asked the following questions: 1. Further to my questions regarding the Fire and Emergency Services

Association (FESA) at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 August 2011, could you tell me if there has been any progress made?

Response The Chief Executive Officer replied that the Town of Victoria Park would be holding a briefing forum tonight on the matter and he would relay the outcome of the briefing to Councillors as soon as it was known.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 September 2011 Item 8 Continued

8

2. In reference to Mr Haley’s questions asked tonight, could the Engineering

Department investigate the matter? Response The Director Technical Services replied that bollards were originally installed, however subsequently one was removed and a gate was installed by the owners to enable them to control access. The Engineering Department will make further investigations to determine why this control is no longer being exercised and work to ensure that it again is.

9. NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION

Nil.

10. BUSINESS ADJOURNED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING Nil.


9

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

11.1 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 17 AUGUST 2011 (Circulated under separate cover)

HITT MOVED, POWELL SECONDED, That the Minutes for the Executive Committee meeting held on 17 August 2011 as previously circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted.


11.2 STANDING COMMITTEE (ENVIRONMENTAL) HELD 29 AUGUST 2011 (Circulated under separate cover)

HITT MOVED, WOLFF SECONDED, That the Minutes for the Standing Committee (Environmental) meeting held on 29 August 2011 as previously circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted.


11.3 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD 30 AUGUST 2011 (Circulated under separate cover)

POWELL MOVED, HITT SECONDED, That the Minutes for the Executive Committee meeting held on 30 August 2011 as previously circulated to all Councillors, be received and noted.



10

12. REPORTS OF ADMINISTRATION WITHDRAWN ITEMS Item 12.1 was withdrawn at the request of Cr Dornford. Item 12.7 was withdrawn at the request of Cr Gee. HITT MOVED, GEE SECONDED, That with the exception of Items 12.1 and 12.7 which are to be considered separately, that the Officer Recommendations specifically for Items 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.8 and 12.9 be adopted en - bloc by an Absolute Majority decision.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8 VOTES TO 0


11

12.1 ARROW HEAD MINISTRIES EVENT APPLICATION

SOCIAL BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Attachment 1 – Item 12.1 refers Event Concept Map Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 50/013 and 34/003 Location / Property Index : 215 Wright Street, Cloverdale Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : Arrow Head Ministries Perth Owner : City of Belmont Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE

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

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

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When Council reviews decisions made by Officers. Quasi-Judicial When Council determines an application / matter that

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

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for the use of Faulkner Park (215 Wright Street, Cloverdale) for the Arrow Head Ministries Perth to hold an outdoor concert for up to 4,000 people on the 19 November 2011.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 September 2011 Item 12.1 Continued

12

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The City has received a proposal by Arrow Head Ministries Perth, to hold a ticketed outdoor concert for up to 4,000 people in Faulkner Park on Saturday 19 November, 2011 from approximately 7.00pm to 10.00pm. The Event will be a smoke, alcohol and drug free event. Arrow Head Ministries Perth has selected Faulkner Park based on the following criteria:

• Central Location.

• Are aware the City has hosted large events at the site.

• Access to public transport.

• Access to parking at the Belmont Forum shopping centre and Belmont City College.

A concept map of the event layout can be seen on Attachment 1 and a draft timetable has been provided. As this type of request is unprecedented, Officers seek Council’s approval to the proposal prior to proceeding with the application which will later require a number of approvals by the City’s Health and Building Departments. The approvals required closer to the time of the event date are: 1. Approval for non-complying event to manage noise levels and issue community

notification under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 –regulation 18.

2. Approval for a public building event and public safety and risk management under the Health (Public Building) Regulations 1992.

3. Application for a permit to use a park and apply relevant management conditions under the Local Government Property Local Law.

LOCATION 215 Wright Street, Cloverdale. The portion of Faulkner Park within the blue boundary denotes the area being requested for use for the event.


13

CONSULTATION Consultation has been undertaken internally between:

• Community Development;

• Health and Ranger Services;

• Building Services;

• Parks and Environment; and

• Marketing and Communications.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Social Belmont. Objective: Ensure access to services and facilities for a changing

community. Strategy: Provide art and cultural opportunities as a means of

community engagement and inclusion. Corporate Key Action: Develop and implement a calendar of activities to engage the

wider community in Art and Culture.


14

POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The event is required to comply with relevant Western Australian and the City of Belmont legislation requirements as follows: 1. Local Government Property Local Law 2. Building Regulations 1989 3. Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 4. Food Act 2008 5. City of Belmont Health Local Law 2002 6. Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 7. Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 BACKGROUND About Arrow Head Ministries Arrow Head Ministries is an inter-denominational ministry with a strong focus on helping Aboriginal people and the first peoples. The aims of the ministry are: • Strengthening. • Healing. • Building up. • Restoration. • Identity and being a bridge in the area of reconciliation. • Connecting or networking with people from all walks of life. Arrow Head Ministries have held similar events in other local governments such as the City of Perth and the City of South Perth over the past 10 years. Past events include: • ‘A Highway of Holiness’ held at the City of Perth, Supreme Court Gardens in

September 2006. The event was approved for 1,000 attendees. Information reported by Arrow Head Ministries is that the event was successful with no significant issues.

• ‘Let the Rivers Flow, Let the Fires Burn’ open air conference held at Taylor Reserve on the South Perth Foreshore in 2009. The event catered for approximately 200 attendees and once again it was reported by Arrow Head Ministries that the event was successful with no significant issues.

Proposal Arrow Head Ministries Perth have forwarded a preliminary proposal to hold a ticketed outdoor concert for up to 4,000 people in Faulkner Park on Saturday 19 November, 2011 from approximately 7.00pm to 10.00pm. The Event will be a smoke, alcohol and drug free event.


15

Arrow Head Ministries Perth selected Faulkner Park as the venue due to: • Central Location. • Are aware the City has hosted large events at the site. • Access to public transport. • Access to parking at the Belmont Forum shopping centre. • Director of the organisation lives in Rivervale. The date proposed has been selected to tie in with another event held in the Shire of Kalamunda called, ‘The Kaal Corroboree 2011 - Fan the Flames (International Gathering)’ organised by Arrow Head Ministries International from the 21 to 27 November 2011. A draft timetable of the event is shown below:

9.00am Setup - contractors, Sound Equipment, Structures, Stage, Electrical Work, Film Crew, First Aid post, etc.

5.00pm Setup and practice for musicians and dancers.

INTERNATIONAL CONCERT COMMENCES

6.50pm Welcome to Country – Elders

7.00pm Nick Breakspear and English Band.

7.45pm Papua New Guinea – singing and dancing.

8.05pm Aboriginal Singers.

8.50pm Speakers from Wales.

9.30pm Papua New Guinea – singing and dancing.

10.00pm Close.

10.00pm-11.00pm Pack up with the exception of generators, stage and fencing which will be removed the following morning between 9.00am and 11.00am.

The applicant has committed in writing to address all necessary requirements. These include: • Public Liability: $20 million insurance cover. • First Aid Post: four St John’s First Aiders will be on-site. • Risk Management Plan: a standard plan has been developed for previous events

and will be adjusted to reflect the proposed event. • Police: will be informed and will be requested to provide Aboriginal Police Liaison

Officer presence. • Toilets: necessary temporary chemical toilets will be hired. • Electrical: Newick Electrical Services will be utilised to carry out electrical work

such as tagging electrical equipment and certifying works.


16

• Sound: Check 1-2 Studios – A qualified and experienced sound technician will be

managing the sound to meet Council requirements. A noise Regulation 18 approval and conditions will be issued by the Manager Health and Ranger Services with conditions that will require the adherence to specified maximum sound levels and the directing of loudspeakers away from residents.

• Temporary Structures: 10.8 metre x 7.2 metre stage, two projector screens and two 3 metre x3 metre marquees.

• Power: generators will be hired. • Lights: two to three lighting towers will be hired. • Vehicles on Reserves: only authorised vehicles needing to be on the reserve to

off load deliveries. These include sound team, stage contractors, marquee supplier and fencing.

• Traffic Management: volunteers will guide people to designated parking areas as required by Council. This may include the Belmont Forum, Belmont City College, Bunnings and The Good Guys.

• Security: The event is a private ticketed event where fencing will assist in security and numbers will be identified prior. The City will require that a Security Firm be hired to managed patrons and secure Council Property.

• Rubbish: extra bins will be arranged and located throughout the park by the applicant. Litter tidy up the day after would also be required.

• Food Vendors: Two to three mobile food vendors will provide tea, coffee, drinks and snacks.

• Public Consultation: Arrow Head Ministries have been advised that they will need to conduct a letter box drop to inform local residents of the event seven days prior to the event.

OFFICER COMMENT A number of Council Officers have met with the Arrow Head Ministries Director, Gloria Dyer regarding the event. As the request is unprecedented, Officers seek approval from Council before proceeding with legislative requirements that the applicant will need to comply with as part of the approval process. These requirements can incur costs for the applicant as certain private services and professionals may be required as part of the application process in order to obtain documents under the various legislative approvals. These include seeking an acoustic consultant’s advice to prepare a noise management report, preparing plans and hiring professional security services. Ms Dyer has agreed to adapt the proposed event to meet Council’s requirements. Upon consulting with internal departments, a number of factors require consideration by Council: • Proposed numbers of 4,000 patrons expected. It is a precedent for an external

organiser to hold this size of event in City. Concerts organised by Council in Faulkner Park have attracted up to 5,000 people.

• General disturbance and impact on surrounding residents from noise, traffic management, general security, Council buildings and management.

• City’s Twilight concert will be held on the same night at Garvey Park and may present resourcing issues particularly in relation to the demands placed on the Health and Ranger Services Section and Security staffing.


17

• Potential park damage affecting the Let’s Celebrate Festival finale on the following weekend (Saturday 26 November 2011). As this is the City’s biggest community event of the year, the park needs to be in pristine condition with all infrastructure in working order.

• Potential overuse of the park – excessive wear and tear of the turf surface as the Let’s Celebrate Festival finale will be held at Faulkner Park the following weekend. Two events of 4000+ patrons in successive weekends may not allow sufficient recovery for the turf i.e. there is a chance that the park may not look its best at Christmas time as would normally be the case. To reduce the impact, additional fertiliser would need to be applied to the turf prior to the first event at a cost of around $500.

• Increased impact on local residents noting that Council also hold similar size community events with similar time frames.

• The City is starting to build positive relationships with the Aboriginal community. The event supports this objective.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Arrow Head Ministries will be charged for the use of Faulkner Park in line with the City’s Passive Reserve Fees of $330 per day. As this type of event held by an external applicant is unprecedented, a bond amount must be determined by Council. The amount needs to consider the potential damage that may occur to the Park and to the Council Building. A summary of fees are below:

Bond: $10,000 (recommended bond)

Park reinstatement costs: $500

Hire Fee: $330 per day ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The issues of parking, excessive noise, disruption to local residents and the disposal of excess waste and rubbish have been addressed through Building and Health Departments as follows: • There is ample parking at the Belmont Forum which means that street parking will

be minimal. Permission will be obtained from Belmont Forum and Belmont City College to use car parks.

• Excess noise will be minimised by managing noise levels and directing loudspeakers away from residents.


18

• The applicant will be required to provide additional bins and cleanup at their

expense. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• Supporting the Aboriginal community.

• Enhance a sense of community and the image of Belmont.

• Encouraging outside providers in providing art and cultural opportunities in the City of Belmont.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION DORNFORD MOVED, POWELL SECONDED, That Council approve the proposed event subject to Arrow Head Ministries complying with the following conditions: 1. Not less than 40 days prior to the event, the submission of an application for

approval of a non-complying event under regulation 18 of the Environmental Protection (Regulations) 1997 to the Health and Ranger Services Section.

2. Not less than 30 days prior to the event, the submission of an application for

approval of a public building event under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 to the Health and Ranger Services Section with relevant risk management plans.

3. All sound amplification to cease as proposed at 10.00pm and all pack-up

activities to cease at 11.00pm. 4. Applicant to submit an additional bond of $10,000 to the City to cover the

costs of any property damage and clean up. 5. Applicant to meet all other relevant Council requirements including park hire

permit conditions. 6. Applicant to submit a traffic and parking management plan.



19

12.2 DRAFT VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN – LOT 51 AND LOT 83 (83 AND 84) MERCURY AND LOT 3, LOT 2, PT LOT 1, LOT 84 AND LOT 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 AND 325) ORRONG ROAD, KEWDALE

BUILT BELMONT

ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Attachment 2 – Item 12.2 refers Draft Vehicle Access Plan – 83 and 84

Mercury Street and 315, 317, 319, 323 and 325 Orrong Road, Kewdale

Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 117/016 Location / Property Index : Lot 51 and Lot 83 (83 and 84) Mercury and Lot 3, Lot

2, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 and 325) Orrong Road Kewdale

Application Index N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : Various Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE


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

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies

Review When Council reviews decisions made by Officers Quasi-Judicial When Council determines an application / matter that

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


20

PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider adoption of a draft vehicular access plan (VAP) following receipt of submissions (refer to Attachment 2). SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The City received a request to initiate the statutory adoption of a VAP in accordance with Clause 10.3.1.2 of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.14 (TPS14). A draft VAP was prepared for Lot 51 and Lot 83 (83 and 84) Mercury and Lot 3, Lot 2, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 and 325) Orrong Road Kewdale. The draft VAP was advertised for public comment from 21 April 2010 to 12 May 2010. Three supporting submissions were received. It is recommended that the proposed VAP be adopted by Council. LOCATION • Lot 51 and Lot 83 (83 and 84) Mercury Street, Kewdale contains a single dwelling.

• Lot 3, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 323 and 325) Orrong Road, Kewdale

contains a single dwelling.

• Lot 2 (317) is vacant.


21

CONSULTATION Category C applications are those that need external referrals from third parties such as the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), Swan River Trust (SRT), Heritage Council etc. Category C applications may also require statutory advertising, referral to neighbours or consideration by Council. The draft vehicular access plan was advertised for public comment from 29 June 2011 to 22 July 2011 to:

• The land owners and land occupiers of Lot 51, Lot 50, and Lot 83 (83, 83A and 84) Mercury Street, Kewdale, Lot 77 and Lot 20 (1 and 3) Rowlands Street, Kewdale, and Lot 3, Lot 2, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 and 325) Orrong Road, Kewdale.

• Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA).

• The Department of Planning. On closure of the referral period one submission was received. Two late submissions were received from the Department of Planning and MRWA.


22

No. Name

Description of Affected Property, Lot No., Street, etc.

Resume of Submission Officer Recommendation

1. Department of Planning – Network Planning and Design Transport Branch

N/A Support The proposed access plan is acceptable on the provision that no direct access is permitted to Orrong Road. The Department did not accept the 10m long easement on Lot 315 and Lot 325 Orrong Road. The Department argues that the area is not required to provide an acceptable level of access to the lots under consideration.

Noted Support of the VAP from Department of Planning is acknowledged. The rationale to extend the easement along Lot 3 and Lot 21 was decided by the City to restrict the constructing of any fencing along the boundary and to allow for adequate movement, which may include reversing onto Lot 3 and Lot 21.

2. Wayne Coughlan

325 (Lot 21) Orrong Road, Kewdale

Support Support noted

3. Main Roads Western Australia

N/A Support

Support noted

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont Objective: Achieve a planned City that is safe and meets the needs of the community.

Strategy: Encourage a wide choice and consistent implementation of development approaches.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS WAPC Development Control Policy Clause 10.3.1.2 of the Scheme is consistent with the WAPC’s Development Control Policy No. 5.1’ ‘Regional Roads (Vehicular Access)’, which outlines planning principles (such as safety and function) to be considered when determining proposals for access to regional roads.


23

Policy Measure 3.3 ‘Development Requirement’ 3.3.3 states:

“3.3.3 An arrangement whereby adjoining owners enter into cross-easements to provide reciprocal rights of access across adjacent lots may be required as a means of rationalising access to regional roads.”

Local Planning Policy The City of Belmont Local Planning Policy No. 1 (LPP1) contains development control requirements for development above the base R20 code. The City of Belmont Local Planning Policy No. 11 (LPP11) contains development control requirements for development along the Orrong Road precincts. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The subject properties affected by the draft VAP are zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of ‘R20/60’ under the City of Belmont TPS14. Orrong Road is classed as a ‘Primary Regional Road’ reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). This reservation is represented in the City of Belmont TPS14 and draft LPS15. Clause 10.3.1.2 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 14 states:

“10.3.1.2 Where residential land abuts a regional road reserve, vehicular access to that road shall not be permitted for residential development other than for a single house, unless a vehicular access plan has been approved by the responsible authority.”

Draft LPS15 Clause 5.7.1 contains the same development control provision. Draft LPS15 does not propose to change the density of the subject sites. Right of Appeal Is there a right of appeal? Yes No It should be noted that there is no right of appeal by land owners against the adoption of the proposed vehicle access plan. The owners/applicants have the ability to appeal the vehicle access plan easement requirement when imposed as a development condition or if a development is refused due to the lack of a vehicle access plan. BACKGROUND Site Description All lots affected by the VAP are within Precinct 7 of LPP11 (Orrong Road), are yet to be redeveloped and contain single dwellings or are vacant.


24

Proposal The City received a preliminary proposal for five grouped dwellings (one existing) at Lot 51 (83) Mercury Street and Lot 2 (317) Orrong Road, Kewdale. In order to progress any development proposal further it was advised that the Council must adopt a VAP as per the requirements of Clause 10.3.1.2 of the City’s TPS14 to facilitate access to the subject sites. The City’s Technical Services Department prepared a draft VAP having regard for the preliminary development proposal. The proposal was referred to affected landowners and land occupiers. The draft VAP includes one crossover directly from Mercury Street facilitating two six metre wide ‘easement in gross’ public access ways. One half of the ‘easement in gross’ moves parallel to Orrong Road and is located southwest of Mercury Street into the southwest portion of Lot 51 (83) Mercury Street and the middle portion of Lot 2 (317) Orrong Road. The other half of the ‘easement in gross’ runs directly through the middle of the property boundaries of Lot 83 (84) Mercury Street and Lot 84 (323) Orrong Road and through the middle portion of Lot 21 (325) Orrong Road. No direct vehicle access is proposed from Orrong Road to either lot.

Proposed Vehicle Access Plan – Lot 51 and Lot 83 (83 and 84) Mercury Street and Lot 3, Lot 2, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 and 325) Orrong Road, Kewdale


25

OFFICER COMMENT Positive support of the proposed VAP has been received from MRWA, the Department of Planning and the land owner at Lot 21 Orrong Road, Kewdale. However, the comment from the Department of Planning to exclude the easement from Lot 3 and Lot 21 is not supported for the following reasons: • The extension of the easement is necessary in order to facilitate adequate

movement of all vehicles; and

• The extension is necessary in order to restrict the land owners from constructing a fence on the boundary of Lot 3 and Lot 21.

The environmental implications have been taken into consideration in regards to the suitability of designing the VAP. The proposed VAP does require the removal of a Rose Gum Tree. In order to minimise the environmental impact of the public access way the removal of the Rose Gum Tree will be conditioned to ensure the developer replaces an adequate number of trees in the surrounding area to the satisfaction of the City’s Parks and Environment Department. Removal of the existing Rose Gum tree has been assessed and supported by the City’s Parks and Environment Department. It is considered that the redevelopment options available through the adoption of the proposed VAP will not result in the generation of traffic numbers large enough to have a negative impact on the surrounding developments and local streets. Should Council choose not to adopt the VAP, the subject lots would only be able to construct a single dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the current TPS14. In conclusion, the proposed VAP has taken into consideration all environmental concerns, comments from the City’s Engineering, Planning and Parks and Environment Departments, as well as public submissions, comments from the Department of Planning and MRWA. It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed VAP. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications evident at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The removal of a Rose Gum Tree located directly between Mercury Street and Lot 51 (83) Mercury Street is required for the construction of the crossover to connect the six metre wide ‘easement in gross’ at Mercury Street. The Rose Gum Tree is in good condition and has a height of 27 metres. The developer of Lot 51 (83) Mercury Street and Lot 2 (317) Orrong Road is to incur all costs associated with the removal and appropriate replacement of additional trees upon conditional development approval.


26

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS The VAP will facilitate safe and efficient vehicular movement along Orrong Road. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopt the Vehicular Access Plan for Lot 51 and Lot 83 (83 and 84) Mercury

Street, Kewdale and Lot 3, Lot 2, Pt Lot 1, Lot 84 and Lot 21 (315, 317, 319, 323 and 325) Orrong Road, Kewdale as in Attachment 2.

2. Forward a copy of the adopted Vehicular Access Plan to the Department of

Planning’s Network Planning and Design Transport Branch. 3. Advise all those who made a submission or are impacted by the adoption of

the Vehicle Access Plan of the outcome of the Council decision.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED EN BLOC – REFER TO RESOLUTION APPEARING AT ITEM 12


27

12.3 DRAFT VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN – LOTS 10, 1 AND 2 (367, 369 AND 371) ORRONG ROAD, KEWDALE

BUILT BELMONT

ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No DetailsAttachment 3 – Item 12.3 refers Draft Vehicle Access Plan – 367, 369 and

371 Orrong Road, Kewdale Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 117/016 Location / Property Index : Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road,

Kewdale Application Index N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : Various Responsible Division : Planning Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider adoption of a draft vehicular access plan (VAP) following receipt of submissions (refer to Attachment 3).


28

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The City received a request to initiate the statutory adoption of a VAP in accordance with Clause 10.3.1.2 of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.14 (TPS14). A draft VAP was prepared for Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road, Kewdale. The draft VAP was advertised for public comment from 21 April 2010 to 12 May 2010. Two supporting submissions were received. It is recommended that the proposed VAP be adopted by Council. LOCATION • Lot 10 (367) Orrong Road is currently vacant.

• Lot 1 (369) Orrong Road contains a single dwelling.

• Lot 2 (371) Orrong Road contains a single dwelling.


29

LSTRA

ELSTRA

ELSTRA

LSTRA

ELSTRA

LSTRA

ELSTRA

ELSTRA

ELSTRA

WCWCWCWCWCWCWCWCWC

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

CORSER ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

ROSINA ST

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

MONY WY

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

COHN ST

0 25 50

meters CONSULTATION Category C applications are those that need external referrals from third parties such as the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), Swan River Trust (SRT), Heritage Council etc. Category C applications may also require statutory advertising, referral to neighbours or consideration by Council. The draft VAP was advertised for public comment from 29 June 2011 to 22 July 2011 to:

• The land owners and land occupiers of Lots 44, 4 and 5 (74, 76 and 78) Cohn Street and Lots 45, 10, 1 and 2 (365, 367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road, Kewdale.

• Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA); and • The Department of Planning. On closure of the referral period no submissions were received. Two late submissions were received from the Department of Planning and MRWA.


30

No. Name

Description of Affected Property,

Lot No., Street, etc.

Resume of Submission Officer Recommendation

1. Department of Planning – Network Planning and Design Transport Branch

N/A Support The Department supports the VAP except for 15 metre long easement on Lot 10.

Noted The City’s Engineering and Planning Department recommends the 15 metre long easement in gross to be included in the VAP as it restricts the property owner at Lot 10 constructing a gate on the property boundary, which would restrict manoeuvrability for Lot 1.

2. MRWA N/A Support

Noted

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective: Achieve a planned City that is safe and meets the needs of the community.


POLICY IMPLICATIONS WAPC Development Control Policy Clause 10.3.1.2 of the Scheme is consistent with the WAPC’s Development Control Policy No. 5.1’ ‘Regional Roads (Vehicular Access)’, which outlines planning principles (such as safety and function) to be considered when determining proposals for access to regional roads. Policy Measure 3.3 ‘Development Requirement’ 3.3.3 states:

“3.3.3 An arrangement whereby adjoining owners enter into cross-easements to provide reciprocal rights of access across adjacent lots may be required as a means of rationalising access to regional roads.”


31

Local Planning Policy The City of Belmont Local Planning Policy No. 1 (LPP1) contains development control requirements for development above the base R20 code. The City of Belmont Local Planning Policy No. 11 (LPP11) contains development control requirements for development along the Orrong Road precincts. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT The subject properties affected by the draft VAP are zoned ‘Residential’ with a density code of ‘R20/60’ under the City of Belmont TPS14. Orrong Road is classed as a ‘Primary Regional Road’ reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). This reservation is represented in the City of Belmont TPS14 and draft Local Planning Scheme No. 15 (LPS15). Clause 10.3.1.2 of the TPS14 states:

“10.3.1.2 Where residential land abuts a regional road reserve, vehicular access to that road shall not be permitted for residential development other than for a single house, unless a vehicular access plan has been approved by the responsible authority.”

Draft LPS15 Clause 5.7.1 contains the same development control provision. Draft LPS15 does not propose to change the density of the subject lots. Right of Appeal Is there a right of appeal? Yes No It should be noted that there is no right of appeal by land owners against the adoption of the proposed VAP. The owners/applicants have the ability to appeal the VAP easement requirement when imposed as a development condition or if a development is refused due to the lack of a VAP. BACKGROUND Site Description Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road, Kewdale are located adjacent to Orrong Road. All lots affected by the VAP are within Precinct 7 of LPP11 (Orrong Road), are yet to be redeveloped and contain single dwellings or are vacant.


32

Proposal The City received various enquiries in regard to development scenarios for Lot 1 (369) Orrong Road, Kewdale. In order to progress any development proposal further it was advised that the Council must adopt a VAP as per the requirements of Clause 10.3.1.2 of the City’s TPS14 to facilitate access to the subject sites. The City’s Technical Services Department prepared a draft VAP having regard for the geography, existing development and potential development of the affected lots. The proposal was referred to affected landowners and land occupiers. The draft VAP includes one crossover directly from Corser Street facilitating a six metre wide ‘easement in gross’ public access way. The ‘easement in gross’ is proposed to be located parallel to Orrong Road and be developed on the southern portions of Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road. No direct vehicle access is proposed from Orrong Road to the subject lots.

Proposed VAP – Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371) Orrong Road


33

OFFICER COMMENT The VAP has been designed to:

• Maximise development potential as a result of the varying lot sizes.

• Restrict development from abutting Orrong Road and decrease the environmental concerns caused from dust emissions and noise measures.

• Account for the future road widening of Orrong Road.

• Provide adequate manoeuvrability of all potential development. The support from the Department of Planning and MRWA for the access plan is acknowledged. The comment from the Department of Planning to remove the portion of the easement in gross on Lot 10 is not supported as it would restrict access to Lot 1. It is also considered that the redevelopment options available via the proposed VAP will not result in the generation of traffic numbers with a negative impact on the surrounding developments and local streets. The proposed VAP has taken into consideration public submissions, environmental concerns and optimal grouped dwelling potential. It is considered that the proposed VAP represents a viable access solution for all subject lots and is recommended for approval by Council. Should Council choose not to adopt the VAP, the subject lots would only be able to construct a single dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the current TPS14. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications evident at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS The VAP will facilitate safe and efficient vehicular movement along Orrong Road.


34

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Adopt the Vehicular Access Plan for Lots 10, 1 and 2 (367, 369 and 371)

Orrong Road as shown in Attachment 3. 2. Forward a copy of the adopted Vehicular Access Plan to the Department of

Planning’s Network Planning and Design Transport Branch. 3. Advise all those who made a submission or are impacted by the adoption of

the Vehicle Access Plan of the Council’s decision.



35

12.4 PT LOT 51 (14) CLEAVER TERRACE, RIVERVALE – CHANGE OF USE – ‘HOSTEL’ TO ‘EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT’

BUILT BELMONT

ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Attachment 4 – Item 12.4 refers Original Building Plans Attachment 5 – Item 12.4 refers Parking Plan Attachment 6 – Item 12.4 refers Floor Plan Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 115/001 Location / Property Index : PT/Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace, Rivervale Application Index 188/2011/DA Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : N/A Applicant : Hall and Prior Aged Care Owner : City of Belmont Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To determine an application for a change of use from ‘Hostel’ to ‘Educational Establishment’ at Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace, Rivervale (refer to Attachments 4, 5 and 6).


36

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES • The City has received an application for a change of use for a new educational

establishment for Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace, Rivervale.

• The ‘educational establishment’ is an ‘S’ use under Table 1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 14 (TPS14). The use is not permitted unless Council exercises its discretion by granting planning approval after advertising for public submissions.

• The subject lot is owned by the City and has a lease agreement with Hall and Prior Aged Care.

• The proposed use is intended to operate as an educational establishment for training of a maximum of 26 Hall and Prior Aged Care staff and will operate once a week between the hours of 8.30am-3.30pm.

• Approval is recommended. LOCATION Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace, Rivervale.


37

WCWCWCWCWCWCWCWCWC

COBCOBCOBCOBCOBCOBCOBCOBCOB

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

CLEAVER TCE

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

KNUTSFORD AV

0 25 50

meters CONSULTATION Category B applications are those that need advertising, additional information, documentation or revisions, approvals from other bodies such as Committees or Council, or are building licences that required a development application. Category B applications may need statutory advertising, referral to neighbours or consideration by Council. The proposed development application was advertised to all owners and occupiers located within the referral area, between 2 August 2011 and 23 August 2011. The advertising involved a total of 220 owners and occupiers.


38

A public advertisement was also published in the local newspaper for a 21 day period. On closure of the referral period two submissions were received.

No. Name

Description of Affected Property,

Lot No., Street, etc.

Resume of Submission Council Recommendation

1. Steven Gee 10 Cleaver Terrace, Rivervale

Comment Concerns with the lack of parking provided. The property owner argues that there is a high level of off-street parking on Cleaver Terrace due to unit developments and ‘Right to Life’ protesters. The owner requests that no street parking be available in Cleaver Terrace.

Dismissed The application does not have a shortfall of on-site parking and off-site parking is not proposed on Cleaver Terrace.

2. Department of Housing

N/A Support Support Noted

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective: Achieve a planned City that is safe and meets the needs of the community.


39


POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Town Planning Scheme No. 14 The site is zoned ‘Residential’ under the TPS14. The statement of intent for this zone is:

“...to permit a mix of single housing and other housing types to encourage families to the district and increase the resident population.”

Table 2 of the Scheme provides standards for the provision of on-site car parking relative to specific land uses. Notwithstanding that car parking should generally be contained on-site, Clause 10.10.4.3 of the Scheme provides Council with the ability to consider parking provisions for developments in off-site locations. Specifically, clause 10.10.4.3 states:

“When making decisions relative to parking provision, the Council shall at all times have regard to any existing or proposed public parking facilities nearby.”

Clause 10.10.4.1 allows Council the opportunity to accept a variation to Table 2 of the Scheme, in certain circumstances that the known volume of traffic is to be less than the requirement. It states:

“The number of spaces to be provided in respect of any particular site shall be determined by the Council, having regard to the nature of the use and the known or likely volume of goods, material or people moving to and from the site. Subject to any provision of the Scheme to the contrary the number of car parking spaces shall be in accordance with the requirements of Table 2.”

An ‘Educational Establishment’ is considered an ‘S’ Use in the Residential Zone and is therefore required to comply with Part 5.7.3, which states the following:

“Where the Council is required or decides to give notice to an application for Planning Approval the Council shall cause one or more of the following to be carried out: (a) Notice of the proposed development to be served on the owners and

occupiers likely to be effected by the granting of Planning Approval stating that submissions may be made to the Council within twenty-one days of the service of such notice.

(b) Notice of the proposed development to be published in a newspaper

circulating in the Scheme Area stating that submissions may be made to the Council within twenty-one days from the publication thereof.

(c) A sign or signs displaying notice of the proposed development to be erected in a conspicuous position on the land for a period of twenty-one days from the date of publication of the notice referred to in paragraph (b) of this subclause.”


40

Local Planning Scheme No. 15 (LPS15) The City’s draft LPS15 was advertised from 21 May 2010 until 23 August 2010. Council at its Special Meeting of 14 February 2011 resolved to adopt LPS15 with modifications and forward to the Minister for Planning for final approval. The zoning of the land is not changed under draft LPS15 and there are no additional considerations relevant to this application or property. Deemed Refusal Clause 5.5.2 of the City of Belmont TPS14 applies where a land use is classified as a ‘D’ or ‘S’ use and is subject to advertising requirements detailed in Clause 5.7 of the Scheme. As such, the application is ‘deemed to be refused’ if it is not determined within a 90 day period. The only exception to these cases is where there is a written agreement for further time between the applicant and the City of Belmont. In this case, as the development application is to be advertised, and as the City requested additional information, the applicant agreed for the statutory time period to be extended with no ‘until’ date provided. Right of Appeal Is there a right of appeal? Yes No The applicant/owner may appeal a planning approval/planning refusal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) subject to Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Appeals must be lodged with SAT within 28 days. Further information can be obtained from the SAT website – www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au. BACKGROUND

Lodgement Date: 20 May 2011 Use Class: ‘Educational Establishment’ – ‘S’

Lot Area: 1788m² TPS Zoning: Residential

Estimated Value: $50,000 MRS: Urban Site History The subject site is owned by the City. There are no records of planning approvals or building licenses that relate to the existing hostel development on Pt Lot 51. However, the City’s Building Services Department completed the drawings for the two hostels in November 1989. It has been assumed that the completion date of the construction was in 1990. The City’s records indicate that the adjoining Lot 8 was developed in 1966 as a Nursing Home and acquired by the City in 1977. Both Pt Lot 51 and Lot 8 are currently leased to Hall and Prior Aged Care Organisation (previously known as Western Health Care Ltd). The lease arrangements for Pt Lot 51 and Lot 8 have been in place since 1990.


41

Whilst on separate lots, the operations on both sites have operated in conjunction with each other since the completion of the hostels on Pt Lot 51. Proposal Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace currently contains two vacant buildings. The vacant Hostel 1 to the south (highlighted below) is the subject of the proposed change of use from ‘Hostel’ to ‘Educational Establishment’. Hostel 2 is to remain unchanged. No changes are proposed in the operation of the Nursing Home as a consequence of this application.

Original Hostel Site Plan – Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace The proposal to develop an educational establishment is to provide training for internal staff members of Hall and Prior Aged Care on relevant health and aged care standards. In brief: • The numbers of students attending training will range between six to 26 internal

staff members only. • Training will take place between the hours of 8.30am and 3.30pm and is to occur

one day a week. • No external changes are proposed to the building. • Internal changes are minimal with the major change being the addition of a larger

training room in the centre of the building and the upgrade of former bedrooms to allow for training.

Hostel 1

Hostel 2


42

Power Supply This subject site has above ground power with power poles located within the Cleaver Terrace verge area. OFFICER COMMENT Parking Given the lack of formal approvals for the site a number of assumptions have had to be made in regard to the original standards applied to the site and how that translates into current parking requirements. On the basis of the original development drawings, the number of bays required for a hostel has been assessed under the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 11 (TPS11) which was in place in 1990. Whilst ‘Hostel’ was undefined under TPS11, the most appropriate definition and associated car parking requirement is ‘Hospital’. A ‘hospital’ use required one car bay for every four beds. For the two hostels constructed (with a total of 18 beds) a total of five car bays would have been required. Eleven on-site car bays were provided. A training facility for 26 people would attract a car parking requirement of seven bays under TPS14 and the remaining Hostel 2 would require three bays (for the remaining nine beds). Therefore under current standards the development on Pt Lot 51 would require a total of 10 bays. Eleven bays are provided on-site. Therefore the change of use does not result in any additional parking requirements. Whilst a submission was received raising concerns about the provision of parking associated with the change of use, no additional parking is considered necessary based on the standards of development for the land use change and the lack of complaints in regard to the existing operations on both Pt Lot 51 and Lot 8. Land Use The proposed training facility is closely allied with the nursing home function on the adjoining site and as it is a low key training facility it is considered compatible with surrounding residential land uses. As such the change in function is supported. It is also noted that the proposed educational establishment in helping to provide necessary services for the Belmont Community Nursing Home will also contribute in providing a greater range of services associated with aged care in the City. With the growing aged population this is considered to be of benefit to the greater community as a whole. Support for the change of use from ‘Hostel’ to ‘Educational Establishment’ is recommended. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Currently, Hall and Prior pay $8,051 per annum for Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace. This level of lease payment was set at the time when the previous lessee, Danvero Pty Ltd, was intending to demolish all of the buildings at 14 Cleaver Terrace to provide some extra parking and a garden for residents. Whilst the intention to demolish the buildings was never acted on the buildings at 14 Cleaver Terrace have largely been unused.


43

The current proposal will see a return to active use of Pt Lot 51 (14) Cleaver Terrace. This will require the City to conduct a rent review, consistent with the provisions of the lease between the City and Hall and Prior, to determine how much the lease payment will be increased. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council approve planning application 188/2011/DA as detailed in plans submitted 20 May 2011 by Hall and Prior Aged Care for a ‘Change of Use’ from ‘Hostel’ to ‘Educational Establishment’ subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to occupation or use of the development, vehicle parking, manoeuvring

and circulation areas shall be designed, constructed, sealed, line marked and kerbed in accordance with:

(a) The approved plan (10 spaces measuring 2.5 metres x 5.5 metres); (b) Schedule Three of the City of Belmont Town Planning Scheme No. 14;

and (c) Council’s engineering requirements and design guidelines, with respect

to drainage requirements.

The areas must be paved in bitumen or concrete in accordance with the City of Belmont specifications, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Director Technical Services. All parking bays must be clearly line marked.

2. A maximum of 26 students are permitted on-site for the training facility.



44

12.5 WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE – LOT 54 (51) ABERNETHY ROAD, BELMONT

BUILT BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No DetailsAttachment 7 – Item 12.5 refers Development Plans Attachment 8 – Item 12.5 refers Preliminary Site Investigation Report Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 115/001 Location / Property Index : Lot 54 (51) Abernethy Road, Belmont Application Index 324/2011/DA Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : Nil Applicant : Burgess Design Group Owner : Green Valley Pty Ltd

Grandset Investments Pty Ltd Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider a development application for a Warehouse and Office on Lot 54 (51) Abernethy Road, Belmont (refer to Attachment 7).


45

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES • The City has received a planning application for a Warehouse and Office on the

subject property.

• The proposal intends to accommodate the operations and administration of ‘Compu-Stor’, a records storage and management business.

• The proposal complies with the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 14 (TPS14).

• The proposal has been referred to Council for determination as the estimated cost of development exceeds the delegation threshold.

• The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. LOCATION The subject property is Lot 54 (51) Abernethy Road, Belmont. The site has frontage to both Abernethy Road and Wheeler Street, as shown in the location plan below. The subject development proposes frontage to Wheeler Street and occurs in the area shaded yellow.

CONSULTATION Category C applications are those that need external referrals from third parties such as the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), Swan River Trust (SRT), Heritage Council etc. Category C applications may also require statutory advertising, referral to neighbours or consideration by Council.


46

There has been no specific consultation undertaken in respect to this matter. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Business Belmont Objective: Maximise Business Development Opportunities. Strategy: Attract and support high quality business development and the sustainable

use of land in Belmont, including Perth Airport by providing information and assistance to businesses seeking to establish operations in the City.

In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective: Achieve a planned City that is safe and meets the needs of the community. Strategy: Encourage a wide choice and consistent implementation of development

approaches. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) The land is zoned ‘Urban’ under the MRS. Town Planning Scheme No. 14 The land is zoned ‘Mixed Business’ under City of Belmont TPS14. The ‘Mixed Business’ zone is intended to provide for the development of a mix of varied but compatible business uses such as offices, showrooms etc that do not cause any nuisance or impact on the amenity of the locality. Under TPS14, a ‘Warehouse’ is defined as “a building wherein goods are stored and may be offered for sale by wholesale”. A ‘Warehouse’ is a ‘P’ use in the Mixed Business zone, meaning that it is permitted. An ‘Office’ is defined as “a building, or part of a building, used for the conduct of administration, the practice of a profession, the carrying on of an agency, a post office, bank, building society, insurance office, estate agency, typist or secretary service, or services of a similar nature, and where not conducted on the site thereof, the administration of or the accounting in connection with a commercial or industrial undertaking”. An ‘Office’ is a ‘P’ use in the Mixed Business zone, meaning that it is permitted. Part 10.6 of TPS14 identifies the relevant standards for land use and development within the Mixed Business zone. In addition to Part 10.6, Table II of TPS14 identifies the applicable car parking standards for the various land uses.


47

Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 15 (LPS15) The City’s draft LPS15 was advertised for public comment from 21 May 2010 until 23 August 2011. The Scheme was granted final adoption by Council on 14 February 2011 and is currently pending final endorsement by the WAPC and Minister for Planning. The subject property retains its zoning of ‘Mixed Business’ under draft LPS15, and there are no additional considerations that have any bearing on the subject application. Deemed Refusal Under Clause 5.5.1 of the City of Belmont TPS14 an application is ‘deemed to be refused’ if it is not determined within a 60 day period. The only exception to these cases is where there is a written agreement for further time between the applicant and the City of Belmont. In this case, there is no written agreement for the statutory time period to be extended. The deemed refusal date for this application is 1 October 2011. Should Council defer this item then the deemed refusal rights will arise before the matter is referred back to Council. Right of Appeal Is there a right of appeal? Yes No The applicant/owner may appeal a planning approval/planning refusal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) subject to Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Appeals must be lodged with SAT within 28 days. Further information can be obtained from the SAT website – www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au. BACKGROUND

Lodgement Date: 2 August 2011 TPS Zoning: TPS14 – Mixed Business LPS15 – Mixed Business

Lot Area: Parent Lot – 1.9562ha

Development Site – 1.7673ha

Use Class: Warehouse – P Office – P

Estimated Value: $6.99 million MRS: Urban Existing Site The existing site is an L-shaped lot that has frontage to both Abernethy Road and Wheeler Street. It is currently developed with a warehouse building and hardstand bitumen surrounding the remainder of the site. Existing crossover and access is taken primarily from Wheeler Street, however access is also currently available from Abernethy Road.


48

Below is an aerial photograph of the site:

Proposed Development The proposed development comprises a new Warehouse and Office on the subject property to accommodate the operations and administration of ‘Compu-Stor’. Compu-Stor is a records management business that offers a range of services, including the storage, retrieval, management and disposal of archive and corporate documents. The development comprises:

• Warehouse – 10,167m² primarily for the purpose of storage of digital, hard copy and miscellaneous documents, as well as loading and unloading of vehicles. Includes a ‘Secure Vault’ for confidential and sensitive documents.

• Office – 579m² primarily for the administration functions of the business and other activities relating to the storage of documents, such as image scanning.

The outdoor areas of the site are proposed to be used for vehicle movement and parking, landscaping and plant. Other aspects of the proposed development’s operation include: • Hours of operation – 6.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday (Closed Saturday,

Sunday and Public Holidays).

• Number of staff: - Office – 12 staff (FTE). - Warehouse – 18 staff (FTE). - Total – 30 staff (FTE).

The applicant has also advised that the site is likely to be subdivided into two, which would result in one 1990m2 lot fronting Abernethy Road and one 17660m2 lot fronting Wheeler Street (accommodating the proposed development).


49

Development Standards & Considerations The subject proposal has been assessed in accordance with TPS14 and is considered to comply with the majority of development standards. Matters of interest to Council and minor variations are as follows: Car Parking Under the provisions of TPS14, car parking for a Warehouse is required at a rate of one bay for every 100m2 of net leasable area and outdoor area used for warehousing. The warehouse component of the development comprises of 10,167m2 of net leasable area, equating to a requirement of 102 bays. The use of ‘Office’ requires one bay for every 30m2 of net leasable area, or one bay per staff member (whichever is the greater). The office component of the subject development has an area of 516m2 and will be occupied by 12 staff. This equates to a car parking requirement of 17 bays based on net leasable area, or 12 bays based on staff. Based on the above, the car parking requirement for the development is 119 bays. The site provides 123 car bays and therefore complies with TPS14. In addition to this, the applicant has advised that it is anticipated that the development will not generate a parking need of more than 49 car bays, and thus is not expected to generate any parking pressure on the site or the local area. End of Trip Facilities Although there are no specific provisions for end of trip facilities under TPS14, Table 3 of draft LPS15 identifies that each non-residential land use must incorporate such facilities. Under draft LPS15, the subject development requires six bicycle bays, calculated on the basis of: • Warehouse (one bay per 10 employees) = 1.8 bicycle bays.

• Office (one bay per 200m² of gross floor area (GFA) plus one bay per 750m² of

GFA for visitors) = 3.35 bicycle bays. In addition to the above, draft LPS15 requires one locker per cycle space (six lockers) and one male and one female shower per 10 bicycle spaces. The applicant has advised that the following end of trip facilities have been incorporated into the development: • One unisex shower within the disabled toilet in the office.

• Eight bike racks.

• Four double lockers. The applicant considers that given the number of employees and the over-provision of car parking, the end of trip facilities provided will be more than adequate. This position is supported given the type and nature of the use.


50

Access and Traffic The applicant has advised that the traffic movements to and from the site will typically involve: • Light vehicles – approx 110 movements per day, comprising of:

- 60 staff vehicle movements (30 vehicles). - 20 visitor vehicle movements (max 10 visitors per day). - 30 delivery van movements (max 15 deliveries per day).

• Heavy vehicles – extremely rare. Expect two movements (one truck) every six

months. The City’s Engineering Department has advised that the number of vehicle movements can be accommodated within the capacity of the local road network and is not out of character with the Mixed Business zone. The proposed vehicle crossovers have been designed in accordance with the City’s Engineering Design Standards. Gates are proposed to be located on the front boundary at each access point to the site from Wheeler Street. The applicant has advised that these will remain open during business hours and will be closed only outside of business hours for security reasons. On this basis, it is not considered that there will be any impact on Wheeler Street from waiting vehicles stacking into the road carriageway. Site Coverage Based on the existing parent lot size, the site coverage of the development is 55%, which complies with the maximum site coverage requirements of TPS14 of 60% within the Mixed Business zone. However, based on the potential future lot sizes in the event that the land be subdivided, the site coverage for the relevant portion of the site would 60.8%, which would represent a minor variation to TPS14. There is no objection to this variation being sought. Front Setback The development complies with the required front setback to Wheeler Street of 15 metres. Landscaping and Fencing The site plan shows a 3 metre wide landscaping strip along the front boundary with open-style steel palisade fencing. This accords with the requirements of TPS14. Site Contamination It has been identified that an underground fuel bowser associated with a previous use on the site has recently been removed. The applicant has advised that this was undertaken by the previous owner, however has provided a copy of a Preliminary Site Investigation Report (refer to Attachment 8) prepared by an Environmental Consultancy that discusses the findings of preliminary contamination investigations.


51

The City’s Environment Department have reviewed the report and hold some reservations about the strength of the findings. Further investigation is required to confirm whether the site is required to be reported under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003. OFFICER COMMENT The subject development is consistent with the objectives and intent of the Mixed Business zone and is primarily in compliance with TPS14. Although the site coverage currently complies with TPS14 based on the parent lot size, the minor variation to the future site coverage is considered to be worthy of support on the basis that the site will have adequate open space for vehicle manoeuvring, car parking and landscaping without being of detriment to the local area. In relation to possible site contamination, the City’s Parks and Environment Department has expressed some concerns that obligate the owner to further investigate the matter prior to commencement of development to demonstrate that the site can be developed for the purpose intended by this application. On this basis, a condition is recommended consistent with the Council’s approved list of development conditions that will require further contamination investigations to be undertaken prior to the issue of a building licence. If it is found that the site is contaminated, then the City will not issue a building licence until the matter is investigated further and any remediation has sufficiently progressed to ensure that future use of the site is not impacted. The support for the proposal is subject to a number of conditions being implemented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications evident at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The applicant has advised that the development will comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Part J of the Building Code of Australia. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time.


52

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council approve planning application 324/2011/DA as detailed in plans received 2 August 2011 submitted by Burgess Design Group on behalf of the owner Green Valley Pty Ltd and Grandset Investments Pty Ltd for a ‘Warehouse and Office’ at Lot 54 (51) Abernethy Road, Belmont subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans received 7 September 2011, as amended by the City and together

with any requirements detailed thereon by the City, shall form part of the planning approval issued in respect of the application referred to in this approval.

2. All existing buildings and structures on the lots, including soakwells and

septic tanks, shall be removed and the land levelled. The work that is the subject of this condition must be approved by the City prior to an application being made for a building licence.

3. A landscaping and reticulation plan is to be prepared by a professional

horticulturist or a qualified landscape contractor for the subject development site and street verge and submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence, unless otherwise agreed to by the City in writing.

4. Landscaping, plants and reticulation are to be installed and thereafter

maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping and reticulation plan for the duration of the approved development to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager Parks and Environment.

5. No existing turf, reticulation or street trees located in the road verge

abutting, or adjacent to, the subject land, may be damaged or removed in the course of the development, unless separately approved in writing by the City.

6. Prior to occupation or use of the development, vehicle parking, manoeuvring

and circulation areas shall be designed, constructed, sealed, line marked and kerbed in accordance with:

(a) The approved plan (121 spaces measuring 2.5 metres x 5.5 metres and

two spaces measuring 3.2 metres x 5.5 metres for disabled parking); (b) Schedule 3 of the City of Belmont Town Planning Scheme No. 14; and (c) Council’s engineering requirements and design guidelines, with respect

to drainage requirements.

The areas must be paved in bitumen or concrete in accordance with the City of Belmont specifications, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Director Technical Services. All parking bays must be clearly line marked.

7. All access ways, parking areas and hard stand areas shall be maintained in

accordance with the City’s Engineering Requirements and Design Guidelines.

8. The maximum width of each vehicle crossovers shall be 9 metres.


53

9. Prior to occupation or use of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be approved by the City of Belmont Technical Services and be constructed in coloured concrete or brick paving or hot mix in accordance with the City of Belmont specifications for the construction of concrete, brick or hot mix paved crossovers for industrial and commercial properties.

10. Redundant crossover(s) to Lot 54 from Wheeler Street shall be removed and

the verge and kerb reinstated in accordance with the City’s Technical Specifications for Crossovers, to the satisfaction of the City’s Project/Development Engineer.

11. Provision is to be made so that all commercial vehicles and trucks can

ingress and egress the site in forward gear. No reversing of vehicles and trucks to or from the site via a public road is permitted.

12. No loading or unloading of vehicles is to occur that interferes with the

parking of vehicles in the car park by visitors and employees. All car parking bays in the car park are to be made available at all times for the parking of vehicles by visitors and employees.

13. Provision of end of trip facilities to the satisfaction of the City's Travel Smart

Officer. 14. Stormwater runoff from roofed and paved areas shall be disposed of off-site

to Council's street drainage system at Abernethy Road via an approved oil and silt separator device and pipe connection to the satisfaction of the Director Technical Services.

15. The development shall be connected to the reticulated sewerage system. 16. A geotechnical report prepared for the City by an appropriately qualified

consultant shall be lodged with the City, at the cost of the owner/applicant, prior to an application for a building licence to confirm that the site is capable of development.

17. Prior to the issue of a building licence and commencement of any site works,

the applicant/owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager Parks and Environment that the site is suitable for the proposed development and is not a contaminated site that requires reporting to the Department of Environment and Conservation under the Contaminated Sites Act 2003.

18. Prior to the commencement of any site works, the applicant/owner shall:

(a) Complete and submit an Acid Sulfate Soils Self-Assessment Form to the

Department of Environment and City of Belmont; and (b) If required as a result of the self-assessment, subsequently prepare and

submit an Acid Sulfate Soils Report and an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan to the Department of Environment and Conservation and the City of Belmont for approval.

(c) Where an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is required to be submitted, all site works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved management plan.


54

19. A detailed schedule of external materials and colours to be used in the construction of the development shall be submitted to the City for approval by the Director Community and Statutory Services, Manager Planning Services or Senior Planning Officer prior to the issue of a building licence. The schedule must:

(a) Demonstrate that the construction and finish of all external walls

(including boundary walls) that are visible from a street or public place are constructed of brick, concrete, glass or steel (or combinations of these or similar materials);

(b) Provide information about the proposed colours and demonstrate that they are in keeping with the character and expectations of the local area; and

(c) Provide information relating to the finish and treatment of the Sprinkler Tanks on the front facade of the building to the City’s satisfaction.

20. All storage is to occur within the building. The storage of equipment,

materials and stock outside the building is not permitted.

21. If any lighting is installed on the building, yard areas or car parking areas, all illumination shall be confined within the property boundaries to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager Health and Ranger Services.

22. Prior to issue of a building licence, a signage strategy for the

site/development shall be prepared and submitted to the City as a separate application for planning approval.

Non-Standard Footnote i. In the event of removal of the portion of land fronting Abernethy Road from

the parent lot, a drainage easement over the drainage pipe shall be registered in the Certificate of Title in favour of the City of Belmont.

ii. In relation to Condition 17, please liaise with the City’s Environmental Officer

(Light Industry) for further information.



55

12.6 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND (CSRFF) APPLICATION - FORSTER PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE

BUILT BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Attachment 9 – Item 12.6 refers Facility Upgrade Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 57/003 Location / Property Index : 130 Keane Street, Cloverdale Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : Item 12.7, 21 October 2008 Applicant : City of Belmont Owner : City of Belmont Responsible Division : Community and Statutory Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council support for the upgrade of the Forster Park Community Centre (FPCC) and approval to proceed with an application for funding to the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) in the 2011-12 financial year.


56

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES Forster Park Community Centre was identified by Council Officers as being a facility in need of a major upgrade in 2008. In October 2008, Council supported the proposed upgrade of the Forster Park Community Centre, which included the clubrooms, change rooms and hall and for Council Officers to submit a Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund (CSRFF) application to partially fund the redevelopment. The City was unsuccessful in their application. Officers from the City met with staff from the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) to discuss the application and it was confirmed the application was not successful because it included upgrades to the clubroom and hall for which funding was not considered suitable under this grant. The CSRFF Funding Grant is more for the sporting aspect of the facility such as the change rooms. Subsequently, this new application is to seek part funding for the upgrade to the change rooms at Forster Park. Officers have amended the CSRFF application accordingly. LOCATION Forster Park Reserve, corner of Abernethy Road and Keane Street. 130 Keane Street, Cloverdale.


57

CONSULTATION Consultation was undertaken in 2008 with sporting groups that will be affected by the developments. Another meeting has been scheduled for 8 November 2011 with the Clubs to discuss the improvements and to ensure the design still meets their needs. A meeting has been arranged to discuss the details of this project with the Department of Sport and Recreation. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the Strategic Plan Key Result Area: Built Belmont. Objective: Maintain public infrastructure in accordance with sound asset

management practices. Strategy: Manage the City’s infrastructure and other assets to ensure

that an appropriate level of service is provided to the community.

Corporate Key Action: Maintain Assets in accordance with Asset Management Strategy and associated Plans.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT There are no specific statutory requirements in respect to this matter.


58

BACKGROUND FPCC is approximately 38 years old and during this time has undergone minor augmentation and renewal as a result of change in level of service and fire damage. However, it has been established that the facility needs to be improved and extended to cater for the increased level of service to the community. The building structure is sound and with the proposed improvements will extend the life and functionality of this facility. Forster Park is the City’s most highly utilised reserve with three local clubs, the Belmont/Victoria Park Baseball Club, Belmont Raiders Tee Ball and Belmont Districts Football Club, both junior and senior sharing the ground and facilities. The main hall is the biggest of its kind in the City and also houses permanent sporting and community groups and is extensively utilised by casual hirers for large functions. In 2008 Officers consulted with the sporting clubs and sought their comments on the functionality of the facility. The comments received suggested the current clubroom layout did not allow the clubs full use of the rooms due to walls and unusable space. Also, there is a lack of toilets servicing the clubroom, which causes interference with hall users during functions resulting in all groups required to share the same set of toilets that service the hall. A meeting has been scheduled for November 2011 to ensure the proposed design will meet their current and future needs. All three clubs currently serve a total of approximately 340 members in total with minimal facilities and the proposed upgrade will enable the clubs to train on a high standard reserve, matched with high standard facilities that will enable them to fundraise and attract new members. In October 2008, Council supported the proposed upgrade of the Forster Park clubrooms and hall and supported a submission for the CSRFF to partially fund the redevelopment. The City was unsuccessful in their application with the following feedback received by the Department of Sport and Recreation: • No issue with the project itself.

• Lower priority than some of the other change room projects we supported.

• Reluctance to fund ‘social space’ (clubroom/hall) that are not directly related to

physical activity.

The CSRFF application has been revised to consider the feedback received which financially impacts the City’s contribution. The following is a brief outline of the scope of works intended to upgrade the facilities at Forster Park (refer to Attachment 9);


59

Clubrooms • New male/female and disabled toilet. • Upgrade kitchen. • New storeroom facilities and bin store. • Upgrade clubroom area. • Upgrade the front façade and verandah. Change room • Upgrade change rooms. • Upgrade umpire change rooms. • Increased storage of change rooms. Hall • Upgrade male/female and disabled toilets. • Upgrade front façade and foyer (open up entry to hall). • Upgrade kitchen. • New verandah. Exterior • Rendering of facility. • New entrance to clubrooms and hall. • Replace the rear verandah with new. The City engaged the services of a construction cost consultant to compile an indicative budget to substantially refurbish this building. To undertake the above mentioned scope of works and improve the exterior appeal of the facility amounts to a current day construction cost of $1,233,000 exclusive of GST.

Description Cost

(GST Exclusive)

Construction Cost $1,233,000

Construction contingencies (5%) $61,650

Temporary toilet/change room and catering accommodation for clubs during construction

$30,000

Professional fees and disbursements (10%) $123,300

Loose furniture and equipment (including white goods) $25,000

Upgrade to power $40,000

Making good surrounds and landscaping after construction $15,000

Total Project Cost $1,527,950


60

Under the Department of Sport and Recreation guideline for CSRFF, the Department will fund one-third of the construction cost and contingency for the upgrade to the change rooms. The total cost to upgrade the change rooms including a 5% contingency and professional fees is estimated at $453,000 (GST exclusive). Therefore, the City will be applying for a CSRFF contribution of $149,490 plus GST. If successful, the City will be responsible for meeting the remaining project cost of $1,378,460 (GST exclusive). OFFICER COMMENT The facilities at Forster Park are in serious need of an upgrade. It is the most highly utilised facility within the City. For many years now the Belmont/Victoria Park Baseball Club, Belmont Raiders Tee Ball and Belmont Districts Football Club have had to house their 340 plus members in a substandard clubroom/hall. There are limited toilet facilities in the Clubroom that do not meet current standards, therefore toilet access has been provided by sharing the hall toilets causing conflict of use at times by hall users. It is anticipated that the club will continue to grow, and providing a clubroom to facilitate growth is essential. The improved hall facility will attract new community groups to the facility, particularly groups that require larger spaces. The facility will also provide a much more attractive space for functions, relieving much pressure for the Rivervale and Redcliffe Community Centre. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The City has allocated an amount of $250,000 in the 2011-12 budget for design services for the facility upgrade and scoping of the complete project. Initial thoughts were that the project could be staged; however this is not the preferred method, as staged construction generally results in: • Higher costs. • Longer duration of construction works. • Increased inconvenience to stakeholders. • Complicated procurement processes (i.e. dealing with different building

companies, multiple tenders, etc). Historically the City has committed funds to successful CSRFF applications that will receive one-third of the budget costs towards the project. Council policy encourages community/sporting groups to contribute to projects on a one-third basis resulting in Council committing the remaining one-third to the project. However, if a project is of significant size/value and involves the development/upgrade of a Council facility, Council has contributed greater sums due to local clubs being unable to fund all of the remaining one-third contributions from the CSRFF program. The project values mentioned above are indicative costs and will require detailed confirmation at the time of developing the budgets for the applicable financial year.


61

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed upgrade will:

• Ensure that the community has access to the services and facilities it needs. • Assist in developing community capacity by providing a more attractive venue for

current and new users that may impact on membership and participation. • Support community groups. • Enhance a sense of community and the image of Belmont. • Contribute to an environment where residents are safe and feel safe by activating

a community facility. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That Council support the following: 1. Preparation and submission of a Community Sport and Recreation Facility

Fund application for the redevelopment of Forster Park Community Centre change rooms.

2. Consider the allocation of $1,378,460 in the 2012-13 Council budget process

for the upgrade of Forster Park facilities and budget for income of $149,490 GST exclusive from the successful CSRFF application.



62

12.7 GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY UPGRADE PROJECT – GRADE SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING NEAR ABERNETHY ROAD

BUILT BELMONT

ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Nil Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 102/015 Location / Property Index : Great Eastern Highway/Abernethy Road Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : Nil Previous Items : Information Forum 12 July 2011 – Item 6.1 Applicant : Main Roads WA Owner : Crown Responsible Division : Technical Services COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider a request by Main Roads WA for the City to confirm agreement that the grade separated crossing of Great Eastern Highway, near Abernethy Road should be deleted from the project scope.


63

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES • Main Roads WA has considered a number of issues when assessing the

provision of a grade separated pedestrian crossing. These include:

− Grade separated crossings are rarely provided in WA because of the high capital cost and general poor patronage.

− The need to accommodate people with disabilities will result in a total

crossing distance using the grade separated structure of approximately 250 metres as opposed to some 30 metres to cross the highway directly. Evidence from other locations across the metro area shows pedestrians and cyclists use the most direct route across the road unless there is a significant physical obstruction – freeway/railway/fence/etc.

− Additional land will be required outside the road reservation. − An overpass can be intrusive or an underpass can reduce perceived

personal security and be prone to vandalism. − Stakeholder views have been considered and an overpass is not supported

by the Community Representative Group, adjacent businesses, local indigenous community and the Swan River Trust.

The City has historically supported some grade separated pedestrian crossing at this location; however the final decision on this matter will be made by the State Government. LOCATION


64

CONSULTATION There has been consultation in respect of this matter with the Councillors when a presentation was made to the Information Forum on 12 July 2011 and also with the Community Representative Group, adjacent businesses, local indigenous community (through Section 18 application) and the Swan River Trust. All of these bodies, except the City, are not in favour of the pedestrian overpass. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS There are no Strategic Plan implications evident at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT There are no specific statutory requirements in respect to this matter. BACKGROUND The City has long held the view that a pedestrian underpass of Great Eastern Highway, near Abernethy Road, would be a desirable means of getting the City’s residents to the river foreshore safely. The underpass was proposed in the vicinity of Severin Walk, adjacent to Abernethy Road. During the detailed design process it was found that a pedestrian underpass could not be accommodated at this location unless it had a long below grade approach channel running parallel to the road leading to a right angle bend before crossing the road. This layout was not considered to be perceived as safe by pedestrians because of the opportunity for ‘undesirables’ to hide unseen either in the underpass or in the approach channel and was not pursued further. A pedestrian overpass concept has been designed, however because of the need to raise Great Eastern Highway at this location the total length of ramps in the structure is the order of 250 metres. This is compared to a direct road crossing of approximately 30 metres in two approximately 12 metre steps using the median of the highway as a refuge. The cost of this overpass will be in the order of $3 million. When considering the provision of a grade separated road crossing Main Roads has considered a number of factors. • The first of these is that grade separated crossings are rarely provided in WA –

the main reason for their limited installation is due to the high capital cost and general poor patronage due to the additional crossing length and level difference.


65

• Australian Design Standards stipulate that the needs of people with disabilities must be considered and therefore the total crossing distance of a grade separated crossing is significantly longer than crossing at grade. An overpass at Abernethy Road would require a total crossing distance of 250 metres.

• Evidence from other locations across the metropolitan area shows that

pedestrians and cyclists will take the direct route to cross a road and not use an overpass/underpass unless there is an obvious obstacle such as a freeway/railway or they are forced to do so by deliberate placement of additional barriers or fencing. These later treatments generally have a negative impact on the visual amenity and can create further hazards for the travelling public.

• A grade separated crossing would require additional land outside the road

reservation which at the Abernethy Road location would negatively affect commercial properties and/or increase the ground disturbance to the river foreshore adjacent to Adachi Park.

• An overpass can be visually intrusive while an underpass can reduce personal

safety and be prone to vandalism.

During the stakeholder consultation process the Community Representative Group and adjacent businesses challenged the warrant for a crossing citing that the facility would not attract high usage, become a visual obstruction and was a waste of tax payers funding. The Community Representative Group was of the view that the facility would be better located to serve the significant population in high rise buildings to the west of Belmont Avenue. During discussions with the local indigenous community, which were held as part of the Section 18 application, aboriginal elders indicated that while they were more comfortable with an overpass facility than an underpass as originally proposed, they were still concerned about the impact the structure would have on aboriginal heritage (the Swan River Exclusion zone) and highlighted the need for careful onsite management. The Swan River Trust raised concerns about the impact the overpass would have on the amenity of the Swan River Foreshore, particularly the landscape and the views of the City, and were not in favour of an overpass at this location. The City East Alliance recognise the importance of balancing the needs of the stakeholders and the community with the responsibility of ensuring infrastructure delivered on behalf of the government represents value for money. Onsite observations indicate the number of pedestrians/cyclists movements at this location is currently very low. They argue that this would infer that patronage of the overpass would be very limited in the future. Under the current proposal pedestrians and cyclists will have the opportunity to cross one three lane carriageway of the highway, take refuge on the central median then complete their crossing when it is safe to do so. Pedestrian crossings will also be incorporated at the Belmont Avenue and Belgravia Street intersections as part of the traffic signal phasing at these locations.


66

In summary, Main Roads and the City East Alliance are of the view that a pedestrian and cyclist overpass does not represent value for money and therefore do not support its construction as part of the Great Eastern Highway upgrade project. OFFICER COMMENT Since the development of Severin Walk in the late 1980’s the City has had aspirations of a pedestrian crossing of Great Eastern Highway in the vicinity of Abernethy Road. The most desirable was thought to be a pedestrian underpass which would have clear visibility between one end and the other and provide a direct route across the highway. Unfortunately because of the final road level and ground water levels in the area a pedestrian underpass is not able to be installed adjacent to Severin Walk and would need to be located approximately 200 metres west of Abernethy Road resulting in a long trenched approach parallel with Great Eastern Highway before a right angle bend took the underpass under Great Eastern Highway to the river. This style of underpass was considered inappropriate because of safety/security concerns that potential users would perceive because they were unable to have a direct sightline through the underpass. This would very likely greatly reduce the use of such an underpass. An overpass at this location is feasible, however Main Roads is concerned that their experience at other overpass locations in the metropolitan area, which are largely unused if there is an alternative direct route across the road, are well founded. The particular issue at this location is the approximately 250 metres in ramp lengths across the road via the overpass compared with some 30 metres to cross the road at grade. Of possibly greater relevance than whether pedestrians will use the underpass or cross the road at grade, is the question of how many people would want to cross Great Eastern Highway at this location. Historically, the area has been zoned mixed use which envisaged a significant residential population within the area. However, the most recent planning policy limits the residential use of this area to adjacent to the highway and leaves the remainder of the land to the south as mixed business. As this area develops into the future, there will be an increase in the number of employees in the area and no doubt an increase in the number using public transport; however it is most unlikely that these numbers would generate demand to warrant a pedestrian overpass. On the Belmont side of the road, the nearest residents are about 400m in the east in Brennan Way, while to the southwest it is over 600m to residents in Cleaver Terrace and to the southeast it is around 1,500m to the nearest housing. There may be some demand from these residents for a means to cross the highway but it could reasonably be met with no inconvenience of extra distance to be travelled by using the pedestrian phases at the traffic control signals at either Belmont Avenue or Belgravia Street. The City’s best estimate of the impact of a fully developed mixed business area is that the workforce population in the area could grow from some 12,400 now to 35,400 if every lot is developed to its full potential. Bus routes serving the area are in Belmont Avenue, Belgravia Street/Fairbrother Street/Abernethy Road and Alexander Road, as well as Great Eastern Highway.


67

There is one bus stop on either side of Great Eastern Highway near Abernethy Road to generate pedestrian traffic across the road, however, even on a generous estimate this will only generate a small number of crossings per day, possibly 30 in the morning and evening peaks based on tripling the observed, but unofficial, current crossing numbers of around 10 each peak. To put this in perspective, the number of people crossing Great Eastern Highway within a couple of blocks either side of Acton Avenue is 186 per day. Further, at a recent Community Representative Group meeting, the City East Alliance quoted a figure of 600+ pedestrians per day being required by Main Roads WA to warrant an over/under pass. In summary, considering the relatively low potential pedestrian numbers, the demonstrated reluctance to use grade separated pedestrian facilities, the opposition to the overpass by the local community, local indigenous community and Swan River Trust, and the significant cost of the overpass, it is difficult for the City to justify and continue to press for its installation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications evident at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no significant environmental implications evident at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION GEE MOVED, POWELL SECONDED, That Main Roads WA be advised that the City reluctantly acknowledges the removal of the pedestrian and cyclist overpass on Great Eastern Highway near Abernethy Road from the current Great Eastern Highway Project.


For: Godfrey, Martin, Marks, Gee Against: Hitt, Wolff, Dornford, Powell

Note There being an equal number of votes, the Presiding Member used her casting vote to carry the Officer Recommendation.


68

12.8 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT – AUGUST 2011

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No Details Attachment 10 – Item 12.8 refers Accounts for Payment – August 2011 Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 54/007 Creditors Payment Authorisations Location / Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/APrevious Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Corporate and Governance Division COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT Confirmation of accounts paid and authority to pay unpaid accounts. SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES A list of payments is presented to the Council each month for confirmation and endorsement in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


69

LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION There has been no specific consultation undertaken in respect to this matter. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS There are no Strategic Plan implications evident at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 states:

“If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared: (a) the payee's name; (b) the amount of the payment; (c) the date of the payment; and (d) sufficient information to identify the transaction.”

BACKGROUND Checking and certification of Accounts for Payment required in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Clause 12. OFFICER COMMENT The following payments as detailed in the Authorised Payment Listing are recommended for confirmation and endorsement. Municipal Fund Cheques 783401-783501 $215,212.66 Municipal Fund EFTs EF018868-EF019238 $3,061,709.05 Municipal Fund Payroll August 2011 $651,587.56 Trust Fund Cheques 905341-905342 $46,627.65 Trust Fund EFT EF018935 $2,015.00 Total Payments for August 2011 $3,977,151.92


70

A copy of the Authorised Payment Listing is included as Attachment 10 to this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Provides for the effective and timely payment of Council’s contractors and other creditors. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Authorised Payment Listing for August 2011 as provided under Attachment 10 be received.



71

12.9 MONTHLY ACTIVITY STATEMENT AS AT 31 AUGUST 2011

BUSINESS EXCELLENCE BELMONT ATTACHMENT DETAILS Attachment No DetailsAttachment 11– Item 12.9 refers Monthly Financial Activity Statement as at

31 August 2011 Voting Requirement : Simple Majority Subject Index : 32/009 – Financial Operating Statements Location / Property Index : N/A Application Index : N/A Disclosure of any Interest : N/A Previous Items : N/A Applicant : N/A Owner : N/A Responsible Division : Corporate and Governance COUNCIL ROLE






PURPOSE OF REPORT To provide Council with information relating to accounting reports and statements.


72

SUMMARY AND KEY ISSUES The following report includes a concise list of material variances and a Reconciliation of Net Current Assets at the end of the reporting period. LOCATION N/A. CONSULTATION There has been no specific consultation undertaken in respect to this matter. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS There are no Strategic Plan implications evident at this time. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no significant policy implications evident at this time. STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 in conjunction with Regulation 34(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires monthly financial reports to be presented to Council. Regulation 34 requires a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on the revenue and expenditure for that month. Regulation 34(5) determines the mechanism required to ascertain the definition of material variances which are require to be reported to Council as a part of the monthly report. It also requires Council to adopt a “percentage or value” for what it will consider to be material variances on an annual basis. Further clarification is provided in the Officer Comment section.


73

BACKGROUND The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require that financial statements are presented on a monthly basis to Council. In previous years, Council adopted ten percent of the budgeted closing balance as the materiality threshold. OFFICER COMMENT The Statutory Monthly Financial Report is to consist of a Statement of Financial Activity reporting on sources and applications of funds as set out in the Annual Budget. It is required to include: • Annual budget estimates. • Budget estimates to the end of the reporting month. • Actual amounts to the end of the reporting month. • Material variances between comparable amounts. • Net current assets as at the end of the reporting month. The amendment to the Regulations has fundamentally changed the reporting structure which has been used to 30 June 2005, as it now requires reporting of information consistent with the “cash” component of Council’s budget rather than being “accrual” based. The monthly financial report is to be accompanied by: • An explanation of the composition of the net current assets, less committed*

and restricted** assets. • An explanation of material variances***. • Such other information as is considered relevant by the local government. *Revenue unspent but set aside under the annual budget for a specific purpose. **Assets which are restricted by way of externally imposed conditions of use eg tied grants. ***Based on a materiality threshold of ten percent of the budgeted closing balance as previously adopted by Council. In order to provide more details regarding significant variations as included in Attachment 11 the following summary is provided.


74

Report Section YTD Budget YTD Actual Comment Expenditure – Capital Belmont Trust 13,389 1,716,881 Sale proceeds from the Belmont Trust

Land were received and subsequently transferred to the Belmont Trust Reserve. This was anticipated to occur late 2010-11 and will be amended during the budget review.

Property and Economic Development

400,000 0 Purchase of land budgeted likely to occur later in the year.

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

63,000 10,000 Purchase of equipment budgeted not yet occurred.

Ground Operations 167,528 35,190 Contractor invoices for capital projects are generally received one month in arrears.

Road Works 856,340 526,871 Contractor invoices for capital projects are generally received one month in arrears.

Drainage Works 123,847 174,305 Above budget predominately due to carry over projects.

Operations Centre 213,255 45,149 Fleet and Plant capital purchases outstanding.

Building Operations 449,167 316,717 Contractor invoices for capital projects are generally received one month in arrears.

Expenditure – Operating Computing 258,525 358,593 Software licensing and maintenance

agreements have been prepaid for the year.

Insurance 343,226 451,142 Motor Vehicle and Other Insurance paid for earlier than anticipated.

Belmont Community Watch

107,488 49,570 Invoice for security services outstanding.

Belmont HACC Services 328,834 421,172 Salaries and employee related costs higher than budget due to budget spread.

Community and Recreation Service

124,263 70,067 Healthy Communities project has been budgeted for and will be amended during the budget review.

Grounds Operations 552,394 658,741 Parks Maintenance costs ahead of budget although the annual budget is expected to be sufficient.

Revenue – Capital Belmont Trust (14,879) (1,682,167) Income received from the sale of land

along Great Eastern Highway had been expected late 2010-11. This will be amended during the budget review.

Property and Economic Development

(700,000) (0) Sale of land not yet occurred.

Technical Services (0) (61,744) Grant income received earlier than anticipated.

Road Works (213,187) (138,333) Timing issue with the receipt of grant income.

Operations Centre (126,016) (0) Fleet/Plant purchases and sales outstanding.


75

Report Section YTD Budget YTD Actual Comment Building Operations (220,833) (17,545) Relates to loan income which is not

yet received. Revenue – Operating Computing (261,391) (358,593) ABC Allocation Recovery higher than

anticipated. Rates (31,455,525) (35,066,468) The growth in the airport GRV was

greater than expected leading to rates income being $1.5m more than budget. This also includes interims for the 2010-11 year. The remainder of the variance relates to budget spread.

General Purpose Income (0) (132,483) Grant income received earlier than anticipated.

Financing Activities (133,333) (200,072) Interest has been received on investments earlier than expected.

Community and Recreations Services

(289,343) (9,950) Relates to grant income for the healthy communities initiative, a grant we are still hopeful of receiving.

In accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 34 (2)(a) the following table explains the composition of the net current assets amount which appears at the end of the attached report. Reconciliation of Nett Current Assets to Statement of Financial Activity Current Assets as at 31 August 2011 $ Comment Cash and investments 30,016,877 Includes municipal, reserves and

deposits - less non rate setting cash -23,925,922 Reserves and deposits held

Receivables 39,683,674 Rates levied yet to be received and Sundry Debtors

- less non rate setting receivables -4,00,736 ESL levied and GST payable

Stock on hand 214,859 Total Current Assets $41,188,752

Current Liabilities Creditors and provisions -10,818,844 Includes deposits

- less non rate setting creditors & provisions

7,375,940 ESL, GST and deposits held

Total Current Liabilities -$3,442,904

Net Current Assets 31 August 2011 $37,745,848

Net Current Assets as Per Financial Activity Report

$37,745,848

Less Restricted Assets -357,825 Unspent grants held for specific purposes

Less Committed Assets -$36,888,023 All other budgeted expenditure Estimated Closing Balance 500,000


76

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The presentation of these reports to Council ensures compliance with the Local Government Act 1995 and associated Regulations, and also ensures that Council is regularly informed as to the status of its financial position. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS There are no environmental implications at this time. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no social implications at this time. OFFICER RECOMMENDATION That the Monthly Financial Reports as at 31 August 2011 as included in Attachment 11 be received.


13. REPORTS BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

13.1 REQUESTS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil. Note The Presiding Member invited Cr Marks and Cr Wolff to speak on both their successful and up and coming re-election onto Council. Both Councillors spoke briefly.


77

14. MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED 7.53pm The Presiding Member stated that in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local

Government Act 1995 – if there were any questions or debate on the Confidential Item, the meeting would need to go behind closed doors.

There were no questions.

Note The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Stuart Cole had previously submitted a Declaration of Financial Interest and was not requested to leave the Chambers.

14.1 CONFIDENTIAL ITEM - STAFF MATTER – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND REMUNERATION REVIEW 2010-2011 (Circulated Under Separate Cover)

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION POWELL MOVED, MARTIN SECONDED, 1. That the Executive Committee’s assessment of the Chief Executive

Officer’s performance for the period 29 September 2010 to 30 June 2011, be accepted.

2. That the Chief Executive Officer’s performance Goals and Targets as

determined for the next review period ending 30 June 2012, be accepted. 3. That the remuneration package for the Chief Executive Officer be increased

to the Fifth Step with effect from 1 July 2011.


15. CLOSURE There being no further business the Presiding Member closed the meeting at 7.54pm.

This page

has purposely been left

blank

ocm minutes 27 sept 2011 - city of belmont · 27 september 2011 1 minutes present cr g godfrey, ......

Documents